Good reason to use film rather than dslr?

**Aristophanes** · 06-24-2010, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by ytterbium

1.)Shooting film is a direct archival - with DSLR i have to write DVD's think of backup prints etc.
2.)You can get fully featured (nice 55/1.8, all functions) film gear very cheap - i use it for unsafe areas/street shooting.
3.)Fully mechanical camera, loaded with iso400 - a true ever-ready - newer runs out of batteries, bullet proof etc.
4.)For most decent film SLR's viewfinders ar better and brighter - desirable for night shooting.

And someone else is paid a small fee to do your post-processing.

The time I have spent in front of the computer screen as opposed to behind the viewfinder...

Pablom · 06-24-2010, 11:36 AM

with film you don't have to mess with damn white balance

SpecialK · 06-24-2010, 11:47 AM

Quote:

1.)Shooting film is a direct archival...

Eh, not really.

You have to use archival storage media in a controlled environment. And, using a sharpie marker on your transparency/negative pages defeats the entire process.

Plus, you have to create some kind of catalog system...

stevebrot · 06-24-2010, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by Pablom

with film you don't have to mess with damn white balance

Substitute...cannot mess with damn white balance

(with big tears)

Selectable white balance is one of the huge strong points of shooting RAW digital.

Steve

tuco · 06-24-2010, 12:43 PM

Speaking of WB with film, I have a color enlarger. At one time I was doing color prints. Getting the WB correct was a pain of trial and error without a color analyzer. So I broke down and purchased one. It had to be calibrated. With this one you basically made a print until you said, yes, that is "correct color" and dialed the analyzer into that.

It did cut down the number of attempts to get a good color print. If you've ever done BW prints before, you know you have to get the time right or it will be too dark or too light. Now add in another variable of setting the color filters into that mix. Well, anyway, after spending days making prints to calibrating the analyzer I was doing okay for awhile. Then one day the light bulb burnt out in my enlarger. I put in a new one and, surprise, I had to recalibrate it all over again!

I don't do color prints anymore. The chemical shelf life is short and you have to do it in volume to make it half-way economical. So, yeah, you do get to mess with the WB on film prints if you roll your own and of course you use filters on the camera to correct the WB on the film under different light temperatures.

stevebrot · 06-24-2010, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by tuco

Speaking of WB with film...I don't do color prints anymore...

Ditto...Give me the figital or pure digital workflow any day of the week over the pain of optical color prints.

Steve

GeneV · 06-25-2010, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

Ditto...Give me the figital or pure digital workflow any day of the week over the pain of optical color prints.

Steve

Therefore, I do end up messing with the white balance--in fact, with many films, far more than I do for pure digital.

Vertex Ninja · 06-25-2010, 07:30 PM

Gotta agree with the last 4 or so posts. Even if you're scanning, color balance is a b@&*h. However, when I scan B&W the colors always seem to come out perfect!

Simian Summit · 06-26-2010, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Pablom

with film you don't have to mess with damn white balance

I think that with film WB is called filters...or live with it.

tendim · 06-26-2010, 04:45 PM

There isn't one set of compelling reasons to use a film camera over a digital camera. I'll reiterate what I tell all of my friends: you pick the best tool for the job. If I am in the city where I can drive around, and I need fast turnaround, and I have ready access to electricity, digital is where it's at. If I want something small, light, and mechanically reliable, I use film.

Personally I have three main (small format) camera outfits: Canon film SLR for action/sports where I need fast-fast-fast AF and can afford to wait to process film, Canon dSLR for convenience (dSLR AF is much slower than the AF in my EOS-3), and my Pentax gear for travel/general walkaround gear. A day's worth of Pentax gear (LX body, 3 prime lenses) weighs LESS than my Canon EOS-3 with a single zoom lens. Weight is a big factor!!

Vertex Ninja · 06-26-2010, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by tendim

There isn't one set of compelling reasons to use a film camera over a digital camera...

Yes... there are many! However, there are probably just as many reasons to use digital over film too.

For me,

Serious reasons:

Potentially more exposure latitude and dynamic range.

Ability to make large prints from a single shot that continue to provide real detail on very close inspection (Med format digital can do this too, but at a price).

Nice viewfinders.

Great prices on larger format gear.

Potentially smaller and lighter gear.

Personal, but reasons that probably sound silly to everyone else:

Tangible things. Opening the foil wrapper on a new roll, the slight smell, the sound of the film winding or winding myself, manual controls; aperture ring, cocking the shutter on a large format lens, etc., seeing chromes on a light table, the smell of wood and bellows on a large format camera... All those little things that add up to make it an experience and not just a means to an end.

The ability to physically develop the film at home.(not the same as developing a RAW file.) Cont...

Pulling a freshly developed roll from the tank.

Prolonged anticipation.

Potentially very slow process.(sometimes a '+', sometimes a '-')

A ton of variations by just switching film, developing differently, or both.

#1 reason for me... I just like it!

Blue · 06-26-2010, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by Simian Summit

I think that with film WB is called filters...or live with it.

Actually, as others have pointed out, you still may end up dealing with during the scan or in the wet darkroom.

**ChrisPlatt** · 06-27-2010, 08:30 AM

Welcome. Glad you weren't deterred by those posting here who prefer digital.

Chris

Jetsam1 · 06-28-2010, 12:54 AM

I've spent the last couple of weekends shooting film only and I must admit to having enjoyed it as a process more than with my digital. Something about the old cameras and only having a finite number of shots.

A big thing for me is that I'm more comfortable in the city with the film cameras, people seem not to mind them as much as a big dslr getting pointed at them! Was in York and felt quite nice with my nice old Pentaxi surrounded by flash Canon's and Nikons's and the rather amusing look I got from a Canon Dslr owner when he saw my film camera!

DOn't think he understood.......

Film does have operating costs involved, but then I've just had to put the K200 in for a senser clean........

kytra · 06-28-2010, 01:09 AM

I have a film camera I use in daylight or with flash indoors.

Advantages: FOV for landscape shots, DOF control, feeling of film

Disadvantages: time to see results, cost of prints and scan, imposibility to tweak WB (and no intent to mess with filters)

06-26-2010, 05:51 PM	#71
Vertex Ninja Inactive Account Join Date: May 2007 Location: Indianapolis, Indiana Posts: 652	Originally posted by tendim There isn't one set of compelling reasons to use a film camera over a digital camera... Yes... there are many! However, there are probably just as many reasons to use digital over film too. For me, Serious reasons: Potentially more exposure latitude and dynamic range. Ability to make large prints from a single shot that continue to provide real detail on very close inspection (Med format digital can do this too, but at a price). Nice viewfinders. Great prices on larger format gear. Potentially smaller and lighter gear. Personal, but reasons that probably sound silly to everyone else: Tangible things. Opening the foil wrapper on a new roll, the slight smell, the sound of the film winding or winding myself, manual controls; aperture ring, cocking the shutter on a large format lens, etc., seeing chromes on a light table, the smell of wood and bellows on a large format camera... All those little things that add up to make it an experience and not just a means to an end. The ability to physically develop the film at home.(not the same as developing a RAW file.) Cont... Pulling a freshly developed roll from the tank. Prolonged anticipation. Potentially very slow process.(sometimes a '+', sometimes a '-') A ton of variations by just switching film, developing differently, or both. #1 reason for me... I just like it!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K100D; Good first DSLR?	ckusnierek	Pentax DSLR Discussion	36	04-11-2010 05:10 AM
Is the K-7 a good choice for my first dslr?	Mike829	Pentax DSLR Discussion	20	08-03-2009 07:58 PM
Good reason NOT to use photo sites like FLICKR	MRRiley	General Talk	37	07-07-2009 06:00 PM
Dynamic Range - Film or DSLR ?	knumbnutz	Photographic Technique	3	03-24-2009 08:42 PM
Pillow fights are a GOOD reason for weather sealed cameras	inferno10	Post Your Photos!	10	02-19-2009 12:39 PM

06-24-2010, 11:25 AM	#61
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by ytterbium 1.)Shooting film is a direct archival - with DSLR i have to write DVD's think of backup prints etc. 2.)You can get fully featured (nice 55/1.8, all functions) film gear very cheap - i use it for unsafe areas/street shooting. 3.)Fully mechanical camera, loaded with iso400 - a true ever-ready - newer runs out of batteries, bullet proof etc. 4.)For most decent film SLR's viewfinders ar better and brighter - desirable for night shooting. And someone else is paid a small fee to do your post-processing. The time I have spent in front of the computer screen as opposed to behind the viewfinder...

06-24-2010, 11:36 AM	#62
Pablom Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Usa Posts: 1,940	with film you don't have to mess with damn white balance

06-24-2010, 11:47 AM	#63
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	Quote: 1.)Shooting film is a direct archival... Eh, not really. You have to use archival storage media in a controlled environment. And, using a sharpie marker on your transparency/negative pages defeats the entire process. Plus, you have to create some kind of catalog system...

06-24-2010, 11:54 AM	#64
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Pablom with film you don't have to mess with damn white balance Substitute...cannot mess with damn white balance (with big tears) Selectable white balance is one of the huge strong points of shooting RAW digital. Steve

06-24-2010, 12:43 PM	#65
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,026	Speaking of WB with film, I have a color enlarger. At one time I was doing color prints. Getting the WB correct was a pain of trial and error without a color analyzer. So I broke down and purchased one. It had to be calibrated. With this one you basically made a print until you said, yes, that is "correct color" and dialed the analyzer into that. It did cut down the number of attempts to get a good color print. If you've ever done BW prints before, you know you have to get the time right or it will be too dark or too light. Now add in another variable of setting the color filters into that mix. Well, anyway, after spending days making prints to calibrating the analyzer I was doing okay for awhile. Then one day the light bulb burnt out in my enlarger. I put in a new one and, surprise, I had to recalibrate it all over again! I don't do color prints anymore. The chemical shelf life is short and you have to do it in volume to make it half-way economical. So, yeah, you do get to mess with the WB on film prints if you roll your own and of course you use filters on the camera to correct the WB on the film under different light temperatures.

06-24-2010, 12:55 PM	#66
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by tuco Speaking of WB with film...I don't do color prints anymore... Ditto...Give me the figital or pure digital workflow any day of the week over the pain of optical color prints. Steve

06-25-2010, 02:58 PM	#67
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by stevebrot Ditto...Give me the figital or pure digital workflow any day of the week over the pain of optical color prints. Steve Therefore, I do end up messing with the white balance--in fact, with many films, far more than I do for pure digital.

06-25-2010, 07:30 PM	#68
Vertex Ninja Inactive Account Join Date: May 2007 Location: Indianapolis, Indiana Posts: 652	Gotta agree with the last 4 or so posts. Even if you're scanning, color balance is a b@&*h. However, when I scan B&W the colors always seem to come out perfect!

06-26-2010, 01:29 PM	#69
Simian Summit Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Hamilton Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 146	Originally posted by Pablom with film you don't have to mess with damn white balance I think that with film WB is called filters...or live with it.

06-26-2010, 04:45 PM	#70
tendim Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Toronto, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 62	There isn't one set of compelling reasons to use a film camera over a digital camera. I'll reiterate what I tell all of my friends: you pick the best tool for the job. If I am in the city where I can drive around, and I need fast turnaround, and I have ready access to electricity, digital is where it's at. If I want something small, light, and mechanically reliable, I use film. Personally I have three main (small format) camera outfits: Canon film SLR for action/sports where I need fast-fast-fast AF and can afford to wait to process film, Canon dSLR for convenience (dSLR AF is much slower than the AF in my EOS-3), and my Pentax gear for travel/general walkaround gear. A day's worth of Pentax gear (LX body, 3 prime lenses) weighs LESS than my Canon EOS-3 with a single zoom lens. Weight is a big factor!!

06-26-2010, 08:10 PM	#72
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Simian Summit I think that with film WB is called filters...or live with it. Actually, as others have pointed out, you still may end up dealing with during the scan or in the wet darkroom.

06-27-2010, 08:30 AM	#73
ChrisPlatt Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rockaway Beach NYC Posts: 7,692	Welcome. Glad you weren't deterred by those posting here who prefer digital. Chris

06-28-2010, 12:54 AM	#74
Jetsam1 Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 67	I've spent the last couple of weekends shooting film only and I must admit to having enjoyed it as a process more than with my digital. Something about the old cameras and only having a finite number of shots. A big thing for me is that I'm more comfortable in the city with the film cameras, people seem not to mind them as much as a big dslr getting pointed at them! Was in York and felt quite nice with my nice old Pentaxi surrounded by flash Canon's and Nikons's and the rather amusing look I got from a Canon Dslr owner when he saw my film camera! DOn't think he understood....... Film does have operating costs involved, but then I've just had to put the K200 in for a senser clean........

06-28-2010, 01:09 AM	#75
kytra Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Bucharest Posts: 482	I have a film camera I use in daylight or with flash indoors. Advantages: FOV for landscape shots, DOF control, feeling of film Disadvantages: time to see results, cost of prints and scan, imposibility to tweak WB (and no intent to mess with filters)