Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-21-2009, 05:27 PM   #46
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 207
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
I've been shooting exclusively film since June, and I'm getting tired of it - the cost, the problems, the screw ups, the grain, the poor color, the limiations. I wish someone would invent a digital camera soon.
So, none of these problems apply to digital, then?

DSLRs are cheap, monitors give excellent rendition/colour, DSLR inmages are perfect out of the camera, memory is free?

10-21-2009, 07:33 PM   #47
Veteran Member
KJon's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Connecticut, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 542
QuoteOriginally posted by Banjo Quote
Of course, I'm only an "amateur's amateur", however I have been amazed by the results possible using plain old Kodak Ultramax 400 or Fujicolor Superia 400, but what would I know?
I'll second that Kodak Ultramax 400...not sold on the stuff I shot with Fuji Superia, though. Won't be shooting it again any time soon. Reala, OTOH, rocks in a big way. I've also been really impressed with Fuji's slide films.

Best to all,
Kevin
10-22-2009, 05:36 AM   #48
Forum Member
Nando's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sault Ste. Marie, Canada & Coimbra, Portugal
Posts: 82
To be honest, I've had good results with most of today's colour films.

Fuji Superia 400:


Kodak Ektar 100:


But where film really shines over digital is with black and white.

Tri-X @ 200 ISO in D-76


Tri-X @ 200 ISO in Rodinal


Tri-X @ 1600 ISO in Rodinal


As you can see, I like Tri-X.
10-22-2009, 05:59 AM   #49
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,047
QuoteOriginally posted by Banjo Quote
So, none of these problems apply to digital, then?

DSLRs are cheap, monitors give excellent rendition/colour, DSLR inmages are perfect out of the camera, memory is free?

of course! Digital = perfect pictures forever. Oh wait, that was audio CDs

10-22-2009, 10:12 AM   #50
Inactive Account




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 652
QuoteOriginally posted by lurchlarson Quote
I like my ME Super a lot but I just can't relax and enjoy shooting like I can with my digital. For some reason every time I take a picture I keep thinking "there goes 25 cents, this had better turn out".
I can understand that feeling, but I find it makes me concentrate more. You also have to think that a DSLR loses value with every release of the shutter too. Not so much the cost of taking the photo, but depreciation. Either way the shots cost money, just with a DSLR you pay the majority up front.

Last edited by Vertex Ninja; 06-12-2010 at 08:36 PM.
12-10-2009, 10:33 PM   #51
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,845
QuoteOriginally posted by Vertex Ninja Quote
I'd also like to say that my post was in no way trying to state the superiority of film vs digital, just that the results are comparable, and that's really all that matters. Both film and digital are good enough to meet most everyone's needs, and there is no point nitpicking over which has greater resolution or which one has less noise/grain. The only important thing is which one you like using. At this point, digital is fantastic! Film is fantastic! Everything else is just personal preference IMHO.
And this is why I like this film forum. Not a lot of nonsense discussions about miniscule differences. Just a love of photography.





Really like this one :
QuoteOriginally posted by Nando Quote
To be honest, I've had good results with most of today's colour films.

Fuji Superia 400:
About B&W, when I shot my first roll of Tri-X, I finally understood what you were all raving about.




QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
of course! Digital = perfect pictures forever. Oh wait, that was audio CDs

Last edited by Jonson PL; 12-10-2009 at 10:53 PM.
12-11-2009, 07:10 PM - 1 Like   #52
Forum Member
Nando's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sault Ste. Marie, Canada & Coimbra, Portugal
Posts: 82
QuoteOriginally posted by lurchlarson Quote
I like my ME Super a lot but I just can't relax and enjoy shooting like I can with my digital. For some reason every time I take a picture I keep thinking "there goes 25 cents, this had better turn out".
I have a very difficult time understanding why people generally find using film-cameras and film to be much more expensive than digital. I find that the opposite is true!

Let's consider:
  • the extremely high rate of depreciation of digital equipment,
  • the very short life-span of digital equipment (not just cameras/lenses but memory cards, computers, printers, storage media, etc.),
  • the high cost of repairs (when they are possible)
  • the high costs quality ink,
  • the high cost of software,
  • the environmental costs, which is a burden for everybody (any digital equipment will be in a landfill site long before my 40 year-old Spotmatic)
  • the extremely high costs of maintaining a secure archive of digital photographs over time.

The last one is something that few people consider. I'm no luddite. I've studied/worked/taught in the field of computer science for the last 15 years. In general, information in a digital format is superior when it comes to duplication and transmission but it is relatively unreliable for long-term storage. Secure storage of any type of digital archive involves a lot of maintenance and a lot of money. It has been that way since the 1940's and, IMHO, it will continue to be that way in the foreseeable future. Please read the following article on a study conducted by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences on the costs of storing and maintenance digital movies vs movies shot on using film.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/business/media/23steal.html

Most of my film equipment is over 40 years old. Everything still works perfectly with only regular CLA's once every 20 years or so. All my "analog" equipment has retained its value and most of it is worth significantly more than what I initially paid, including my Leica MP and Leica 24f2.8, 35f2 and 50f1.4 lenses that I bought new just three years ago. (But it is certainly the opposite for the Mac Pro, the Nikon and Artixscan scanners, the Epson printers and all the software that I bought for my "digital darkroom".) Tri-X costs me a bit over $2 per 36-exp roll. I can develop at least 50 rolls and it is possible to develop almost 100 rolls with a single 500mL bottle of Rodinal that costs around $15. I put the negs in sleeved sheets and store them in binders on a shelf. I end up with a good, high resolution image, in a readable format that can reliably last 100+ (perhaps 200+) years without requiring much in further maintenance.
12-11-2009, 07:29 PM   #53
Forum Member
Nando's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sault Ste. Marie, Canada & Coimbra, Portugal
Posts: 82
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonson PL Quote
Really like this one :
Thanks.

12-11-2009, 07:48 PM   #54
Inactive Account




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 652
QuoteOriginally posted by Nando Quote
... I put the negs in sleeved sheets and store them in binders on a shelf. I end up with a good, high resolution image, in a readable format that can reliably last 100+ (perhaps 200+) years without requiring much in further maintenance.
Put those things in a fire proof safe!

I agree with nearly everything you said except that I print almost entirely digitally or hybrid and find that my ink and paper cost are much lower* than I can pay for a comparable print somewhere else at the sizes I typically print(8x10-17x22).

*I print with an Epson 3800. Last I checked it was roughly $1.00 per sq ft. on premium luster photo, more on exhibition fiber.
12-11-2009, 09:28 PM   #55
Forum Member
Nando's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sault Ste. Marie, Canada & Coimbra, Portugal
Posts: 82
QuoteOriginally posted by Vertex Ninja Quote
Put those things in a fire proof safe!
I may put them in a suitcase and send them to Mexico.

Digital files have just as much chance of being destroyed by fire, flooding, etc. unless they are backed up to an offsite location, perhaps using a service like Digital Railroad. Many professional photographers backed up their photos offsite with Digital Railroad. Then Digital Railroad went bust and the photographers lost their backed-up files. For many of these photographers, the files on Digital Railroad were the only copies they had.

Will you lose pictures stored online if your photo site goes bust? | Digital Cameras & Camcorders | ZDNet.com

QuoteQuote:
I agree with nearly everything you said except that I print almost entirely digitally or hybrid and find that my ink and paper cost are much lower* than I can pay for a comparable print somewhere else at the sizes I typically print(8x10-17x22).

*I print with an Epson 3800. Last I checked it was roughly $1.00 per sq ft. on premium luster photo, more on exhibition fiber.
I have an Epson 3800 too. Yes, printing with the Epson 3800 is less expensive than having prints done in a lab. I have saved a good amount of money with colour prints. Printing B&W with the Epson 3800 is more expensive than printing using a traditional enlarger. For me, the ease of making multiple copies on the Epson is the primary advantage that offsets the additional costs (some would consider it a disadvantage though). The Epson won't last forever though - like anything else, repairs, depreciation and replacement costs must be considered. A traditional enlarger has a much longer life-span. And I still prefer the look of prints on fiber-base silver paper to inkjet prints.

Last edited by Nando; 12-11-2009 at 09:47 PM.
12-11-2009, 10:05 PM   #56
Inactive Account




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 652
Whether shooting film or digital, that old saying about the eggs and a basket comes to mind.

The 3800 is a great printer. I love mine to death! Have you tried Epson's Exhibition Fiber paper? If I could only ever have one paper to print on for the rest of my life, that would be it!

If I ever get the motivation to build a UV box and contact frame, I'm gonna try my hand at digital negatives and carbon transfer. Then 4x5 contact prints on Lodima or AZO. I don't think I'll ever go the enlarger route, but I never thought I would decide to switch from digital to film either.
12-11-2009, 10:41 PM   #57
Forum Member
Nando's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sault Ste. Marie, Canada & Coimbra, Portugal
Posts: 82
I haven't used Epson's Exhibition Fiber paper yet. I do most of my printing on Epson Premium Lustre. I normally do 8x12 prints on A3 for 35mm and 15x15 on A2 for 120. I can easily go larger with 35mm negatives but I like 8x12 prints on a 16x20 frame - it gives a nice mat with a 4 inch border all around. A friend of mine who also has a 3800 turned me onto Harman Baryta FB. Its very nice.
12-11-2009, 10:48 PM   #58
Inactive Account




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 652
I want to try the Harman myself, it's supposed to be very similar to the Exhibition Fiber(might go by a different name in your neck of the woods). The reason I like it so much is that it gives great depth to the image and has fantastic sharpness, I just wish it wasn't so pricey and available in 17x25.
12-11-2009, 10:49 PM   #59
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,415
QuoteOriginally posted by Vertex Ninja Quote

...If I ever get the motivation to build a UV box and contact frame, I'm gonna try my hand at digital negatives and carbon transfer. Then 4x5 contact prints on Lodima or AZO. I don't think I'll ever go the enlarger route, but I never thought I would decide to switch from digital to film either.
I read about this just recently. Fascinating. Digital print to photographic contact print. Cool!

Steve
12-11-2009, 10:57 PM   #60
Inactive Account




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 652
Sandy King, the creator of Pyrocat, is a master carbon printer. I would love to take one of his workshops if I ever get the chance. Not only is he incredibly knowledgeable, but best of all, he's willing to share that knowledge via email, forum postings, and articles.

Carbon Printing
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
computer, couple, day, film, photographs, results, roll, sigma, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why is film still better than digital? krypticide Photographic Technique 116 11-06-2010 07:56 AM
Nature My first bug shots since film days charliezap Post Your Photos! 3 06-14-2010 02:04 PM
Film to digital octavmandru Pentax Film SLR Discussion 9 04-13-2010 02:00 PM
Film vs Digital dylansalt Photographic Technique 23 06-30-2008 08:42 AM
sunrise (3 pix, from my film days) khardur Post Your Photos! 2 05-13-2007 02:43 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:37 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top