[Alex645]

f

[/COLOR]So do you think then that by looking at a photo you could tell if it came from film or if it were digital ? Is it that distinctive ?

Most of my students, when looking at 18 inkjet prints and 2 gelatin silver prints can easily identify the difference even when both papers are a luster/pearl finish.

It is sort of the difference between listening to an analog vs. digitally recorded and played back music. One definitely has more noise, but also a fuller richer warmer sound, while the other is cleaner, but missing depth. Ultimately, our digital files end up with some compression, because for practical reasons, it's truly "good enough". But listening to a symphony on the world's best stereo is still not the same as being in the concert hall and hearing the instruments directly.

Digital is improving every year, and I believe it will reach a point where even purists can't perceive a difference. But again, this isn't the only reason why I still shoot film sometimes.

You know George Lucas shot Star Wars Episode One digitally and it was released in 1999. Why did Disney shoot Star Wars Rogue One on film? It wasn't nostalgia.

[Xmas]

I've not got a dcamera yet apart from smart phone only use mono only develope myself sometimes enlarge and wetprint.

You camera might not survive loft.

Film camera prices seem to be hardening here!

[monochrome]

A developed negative and print or (less so) a developed positive are unlikely to be the equivalent of a VHS tape in 25 years. All those videos of the kids . . . . . just snow now.

[Pablo Villegas]

Well, I still shoot film because of the quality of the images, not only resolution, but tonal separation, dynamic range of some films, and the color, it's hard to replicate on digital, plus with film I can "overexpose" and it looks good, with digital you can't, not in that range.

I'm a cinematographer, so I don't make a dime from stills, I couldn't afford to buy even a FF camera, so I had a Mamiya 645 Pro TL and Mamiya RZ67 Pro II, those two cameras gave me more resolution and better quality than my APS-C cameras(Canon 500D-FujiX100). The color and quality is great on the Fuji X100, can't complaint there, but the resolution and capability to overexpose is not.
Now that I own a Pentax 645D, I thought it will change my need to shoot film, but it hasn't, yeah the quality and resolution is there, but the DR, specially in overexposure is not, and the color is not there also.
So, I'm going to take a trip in a few weeks, my daughter(11 months) first trip to the beach, and guess what, I'm taking the 645D and taking my Mamiya 645 as well! I was bidding on a Pentax 645n, but got robbed in the last second and lost by $5 dollars! That way I could use the same lenses with both. But now I'm taking my Mamiya so I can take film pictures of my daughter on the beach, with Portra 400 and Acros 100. I was thinking on taking my Pentax ZX-5 instead, but I always want more resolution and less grain with film.

Maybe when I'm able to buy a newer MF digital camera, with a FF sensor and 100MP, maybe I won't have the need to shoot film, but I doubt it. I even want to buy a 4x5 to shoot landscapes in 6x17 format. And portraits in 4x5.

[stevebrot]

So do you think then that by looking at a photo you could tell if it came from film or if it were digital ? Is it that distinctive ?

Man, that is a hard one. If one pixel-peeps, the difference is obvious. At normal magnifications and viewing distances, much less so. I have a few large prints from digital exposures that are difficult to distinguish from well-done black and white darkroom prints. The difference is seen in the density of the blacks and smoothness of tonal transitions on both extremes of the value scale. The difference is even harder to detect if both photos are reduced to 8-bit JPEG in a narrow gamut color space (e.g. sRGB) for publication to the Web. Paradoxically, it is also fair to say that unless scans are very high quality, small format (35mm and APS) film negatives tend to suffer in comparison to FF and APS-C digital.


Steve

[stevebrot]

Why did Disney shoot Star Wars Rogue One on film? It wasn't nostalgia.

I make a point of waiting to the end of movies to see if they are shot on film and it has been gratifying as of late to see that the more artfully made examples still are.


Steve

[gofour3]

I never switched to or do I own a digital camera and have basically continued shooting the same way as I have for decades. The only difference is the film I'm using, compared to the film I shot in the 1970's.

I still mostly shoot 35mm slide film and don't get it scanned. I view the slides the same way as I did years ago, with a projector or light table. No PC needed, unless I scan a slide to post here on the forum.

The only scans I get from the lab are my 6x7 work and the odd 35mm negative film I shoot for testing new to me film gear. This is the only real difference form what I would have done decades ago, I just substituted prints for scans. (My scanner is 35mm only, but I'm too lazy do scan a whole roll of 35mm negatives)

I have nothing against digital cameras, there is just no reason for me to ever own one. (I do have access to an old digital p&s at work that I can use for Pentax gear or eBay product shots, otherwise I would still do them with film like I did 10 years ago)

Phil.

---------- Post added 02-08-17 at 04:22 PM ----------

Once in a lifetime trip to Easter Island.
Take your DSLR and three-lens kit, filters, charger, extra cards, flashgun, tripod. . .
Almost as an afterthought, you slip an Agfa Isolette and a couple rolls of Tri-X in your pockets.
After the trip, end up posting the Isolette photos on your blog.

Excellent shots of Easter Island. I going there this September, loaded with colour and b&w slide film.

Phil.

[monochrome]

I just like using cameras. Don't really care what kind.*



* But I do enjoy using late 60's - late 70's cameras and lenses especially, because there was more hand work assembling them.

[clickclick]

It's visceral.

Just something about the whole process from taking the shot through the darkoom work to final slide or print. Pure creativity to meditative. As others have pointed out, slow down and think it through.

Also, just something fun about building to the excitement of the final product. The immediate gratification of digital is addictive, but the buildup of excitement and anticipation from what you think you captured in your mind's eye to the final result many hours or days later, when it is what you were striving for, is very satisfying.

Hooked on both.

[Frosty66]

I've not got a dcamera yet apart from smart phone only use mono only develope myself sometimes enlarge and wetprint.

You camera might not survive loft.

Film camera prices seem to be hardening here!

Yes it's true I can't guarentee my SLR has survived the loft but will give it a go and will be on eBay if not as I do think I'd like to have a go at film again. But what are the considerations in choosing from the film now available? Which should I choose to start off with ?

Theres a slide projector in the loft too, not sure what state that will be in or if you can get the bulbs ! :-)

[skierd]

I personally love Kodak Ektar 100 for color and Ilford XP2 for B&W (I don't develop and scan at home, and c41 is much cheaper to have developed than traditional B&W). Slides, Velvia 50 and Provia 100F are still great and Kodak will be releasing Ektachrome 100 again.

Faster films I don't use them much personally, but I like what I've seen from Portra 800 online and what I've gotten from Cinestill 800.

[Frosty66]

I personally love Kodak Ektar 100 for color and Ilford XP2 for B&W (I don't develop and scan at home, and c41 is much cheaper to have developed than traditional B&W). Slides, Velvia 50 and Provia 100F are still great and Kodak will be releasing Ektachrome 100 again.

Faster films I don't use them much personally, but I like what I've seen from Portra 800 online and what I've gotten from Cinestill 800.

A quick web search seems to suggest 400 is the default choice whereas I remember it being 100.

[Swift1]

what are the considerations in choosing from the film now available? Which should I choose to start off with ?

Fujicolor 200 and Fuji Superia 400 are quite good films that should be fairly easy to find most places.
Walmart still sells them IIRC.

[Robin CB]

Yes it's true I can't guarentee my SLR has survived the loft but will give it a go and will be on eBay if not as I do think I'd like to have a go at film again. But what are the considerations in choosing from the film now available? Which should I choose to start off with ?

Theres a slide projector in the loft too, not sure what state that will be in or if you can get the bulbs ! :-)

Film-wise I use Ilford XP2 B&W and get them developed at my local Boots. ISO 400 seems to be the norm now.

If your camera is a dud, try the local charity shops. I picked up a nice MZ-50 for my son in law in our local Oxfam for £25. Ran a roll of film through it just to check before I gave it to him and I nearly didn't give it :-)

Plenty of traditional manual focus models out there - film is still seen as a dying art by most of the public, so charity shops don't charge much.

[Alex645]

A quick web search seems to suggest 400 is the default choice whereas I remember it being 100.

In general street and casual photography, 400 ISO makes sense giving you more flexibility with shutter speeds and depth of field without too much sacrifice with grain, and other artifacts that come with higher ISO.

But if you're working with a tripod, or want intentional blur and/or shallow depth-of-field, or intend to make big enlargements, then yes, ISO 100 is a better choice.

But if given circumstances of either having to underexpose 100 ISO or overexposing 400 ISO negs, I'd opt for the latter.