Sometimes, I wonder why I bother with film ! [Archive]

srtiwari

10-29-2011, 08:41

With pictures like these, where most of the work is done at the desktop, and which gives me the Black and white 'look' I like, I wonder, sometimes, if it is (still) worth all the effort to use film.

M9 + Rollei 40mm/F2.8 LTM

http://kerichokid.smugmug.com/photos/i-3F38Cc9/0/X3/i-3F38Cc9-X3.jpg

http://kerichokid.smugmug.com/photos/i-PQJCqMw/0/X3/i-PQJCqMw-X3.jpg

Mcary

10-29-2011, 08:48

I've started to think about either switching to C41 color for 35mm and just shooting MF for B&W that way I don't deal the dust issue as much or taking the radical step of selling my M6 body and Coolscan V and picking up an X100 to use for small format for the next few years while I save up for an M9

FrankS

10-29-2011, 09:01

It's a personal decision that one can only make for oneself.

Sparrow

10-29-2011, 09:10

f16sunshine

10-29-2011, 09:13

Moriturii

10-29-2011, 09:14

film nut

10-29-2011, 09:38

Well, I think that digital always looks different than film, and in the end it all depends on what you like. If you like digital then stick with it, if you like film then stick with it. As for being a "bother", I don't know of anything that I like to do and feel that it's a bother. I guess if you have misgivings about one of the two media then its time to pick the one you like. I say; keep thing enjoyable.

Mike

rogerzilla

10-29-2011, 09:48

I don't think they look like film. Maybe a bit of fake grain and unsharp masking would give that Rodinal effect!

markloch

10-29-2011, 10:33

Well, you need to chose your workflow. Would you rather work infront of the computer? Then digital. Do you prefer to be in the darkroom? Film. You can't stick and SD card into a enlarger and get picture out of 'em. Inherently film and digital doesn't have the same 'look', that's all. Although with software such as Silver EFEX Pro, it does make you wonder if the latter fact is true at all anymore.

Then there's the workflow I followed in 2002 when I was laid off, had two months severance and had my first summer off since 1976 and decided to mess around with:

iiif/tri-x -> scan -> PS -> inkjet print "largeformat" negative image to pictorico transparency film -> van dyke/cyanotype

I'd like to try this again sometime, or at least from digital -> transparency film > "sun print", given I don't really use film anymore.

emraphoto

10-29-2011, 10:39

... so true ... well, for photos of my pets anyway

arr, arr, arr:)

NickTrop

10-29-2011, 10:43

You delusions about the superiority of film are beginning to melt away... APS-C and full frame sensored digitals have recently caught up to/surpassed small format (35mm) film, overall, in IQ, as much as it pains me to say, and as much as I love film. This wasn't true - in my opinion, until recently when each generation of camera has improved IQ and manufacturers have been producing good quality primes at reasonable prices like the 35mm 1/8 Nikon. Taking into consideration inflation, the modern compact DSLRs cost no more than a good SLR "back in the day" and you don't have to feed them and pay for processing. Battery life has improved such that you can now pert much pick up the camera at will and shoot like a manual SLR. Just get a second battery.

Film's place is now:

1. "Full frame in your pocket". The film camera I mostly shoot now is the Olympus XA (which I adore...)
2. Good lighting low speed film (Still edges out digital by a hair.)
3. Medium format and large format (digital will never touch this...)
4. For fun. Let's face it, the old rangefinders are simply fun to shoot, they are charming, and bring a tactile joy to the table no digital can match
5. You enjoy developing negs and making wet prints (nobody sane enjoys scanning negatives...)

perudo

10-29-2011, 11:01

Film's place is now:

1. "Full frame in your pocket". The film camera I mostly shoot now is the Olympus XA (which I adore...)
2. Good lighting low speed film (Still edges out digital by a hair.)
3. Medium format and large format (digital will never touch this...)
4. For fun. Let's face it, the old rangefinders are simply fun to shoot, they are charming, and bring a tactile joy to the table no digital can match
5. You enjoy developing negs and making wet prints (nobody sane enjoys scanning negatives...)

This is so true to me!
I enjoy my t3 and t4 for their compactness
Love my m6 even if m9 would have better results
I like printing , even doing contact sheets is a joy

zauhar

10-29-2011, 11:04

Interesting points Nick.

I would ask the OP how much time was needed to get the "look" you are after?

And would you miss working with film? If the answer to that is 'no' and if the postprocessing you are doing is not excessive, then I guess you answered your question.

Randy

not_in_good_order

10-29-2011, 11:19

I like my DSLR, but it doesn't give me the dynamic range that I want for many subjects. It produces beautiful high ISO images and is wonderful to use in artificial light. It is all about picking the best tool for the job at hand. If digital works for you and your type of photography, go for it.

FrankS

10-29-2011, 11:22

It's a hobby (for most of us) so do what you enjoy doing.
If your hobby becomes a bother, switch hobbies.

mfogiel

10-29-2011, 11:23

Resolution isn't everything. In my eyes it is more a matter of how the tonality looks, particularly in the highlights. When I look at technically imperfect film B&W print, it looks in my eyes more acceptable than a technically inmperfect digital B&W print, and BTW, unless you shoot a very well tamed scene in terms of the DR, most digital B&W prints are technically imperfect. It just disturbs me more. Even in case of these shots, which look good at the first glance, in the second one, the husky's medallion is plainly blown out. BTW, wonderful dogs !

Nikon Bob

10-29-2011, 11:26

It's a personal decision that one can only make for oneself.

That is so true and for me personally it is not worth the effort. If you are satisfied with your output from either workflow far be it for me to say you are wrong.

Bob

bwcolor

10-29-2011, 11:27

So, stop shooting film.

My Fujifilm X100 has me warming up to digital, but still not happy with my B&W conversions with Silver Efex Pro. Just isn't the same.. but I'm learning.

TXForester

10-29-2011, 11:38

I don't think they look like film.

Srtiwari didn't say the photos looked like film. It was the black and white look that the OP liked.

I'm with the others who say stick with the look you like and the workflow that you like.

srtiwari

10-29-2011, 11:44

Subhash these are wonderful captures. They do however look like digital. That said, I would be very happy to have made them with digital or film. For some subjects or that "look" ...film can not be replaced IMO.

Andy, the pictures were fun to take and process quickly as LR3 does a great job. They were taken this morning when my girl friend 's dog (the Husky) met my new pet Poodle for the first time . I loved the images but was not necessarily trying to make them look like film, since I'm not sure what the 'Digital vs Film look' is. As someone said, (tongue-in-cheek) maybe the differences boil down to adding grain and USM !

I think it would be useful for someone to try and describe the 'look' of digital (or film) in away that can others can see and identify. (I recently compared some old and new lenses hoping to differentiate their signatures, and was surprised at how little the differences in 'look' were).
Maybe its time to do a little test to try and distinguish digital from film images ! :D

back alley

10-29-2011, 11:46

sometimes a part of the decision is more practical...like there is no way i can stand for hours in a darkroom any more...but sitting in from of my mac is easier on my hip.

the last few years of shooting film was with xp2, develope and scan done by the lab and process in front of my camputer...digital looks as good if not better.

DNG

10-29-2011, 11:51

If using film: "Is not worth effort".

Then you need to shoot digital, that affords a faster turn around for viewing your photos..

Film has it place in the photographic genre, as does digital...
Many shoot both, and use film to add that "Film Grain" and "Tonality" that may not be available with a Sensors limited DR range, and HOW it records high ISO noise as far as a "Grainy" look, or "Smeared" look in the darkest of shades...

BUT, Many great looking B&W photos are just fine with Digital.... it boils down to: The added time involved from "Soup to File/Print" may be too limiting, plus the unknown of having to "Wait" during development to see if your photos where exposed properly for your workflow... Digital affords "instant" previews... so you can it again if needed..... expect, Street, where the "Moment" is not repeatable.

I shoot both, and enjoy each process differently.

srtiwari

10-29-2011, 11:53

So, stop shooting film..

If you read the initial post, you'll see that I was not really asking for advice on whether or not I should use film. I think I know how to make that decision. ;)

MCTuomey

10-29-2011, 11:54

i'm lucky enough to have a dRF and a dSLR, yet this morning i was out first-time with a Mamiya 7 burning some practice rolls. i'm not ready for 100% digital, not yet.

of course it depends on what and how much one shoots, and for whom.

f16sunshine

10-29-2011, 12:05

Andy, the pictures were fun to take and process quickly as LR3 does a great job. They were taken this morning when my girl friend 's dog (the Husky) met my new pet Poodle for the first time . I loved the images but was not necessarily trying to make them look like film, since I'm not sure what the 'Digital vs Film look' is. As someone said, (tongue-in-cheek) maybe the differences boil down to adding grain and USM !

I think it would be useful for someone to try and describe the 'look' of digital (or film) in away that can others can see and identify. (I recently compared some old and new lenses hoping to differentiate their signatures, and was surprised at how little the differences in 'look' were).
Maybe its time to do a little test to try and distinguish digital from film images ! :D

Hope I did not sound snotty with my comment. Was actually trying not to. I don't actually get into the "Holy war" of Fim v. Digital. To me, and I think this is what you are saying... getting the shot comes first.
If I was to use a few words to describe the "look" thing that I personally go for in film. It would be.. "lo-fi" .

Sometimes I want a lo-fidelity look. I'm not able to get it with Digital. Probably from lack of effort but, I don't see it from others digital work either.
Again, I would be happy to have your shot with either. Actually being there in a similar situation I would be happy with an iPhone shot.

Not to hijack and I hope you don't mind.
This one is of my Lab Liza meeting her new buddy and housemate Hugo for the first time (and hike). :D
Liza has passed on after a grand life. Hugo is still my constant companion.

I'm happy to have it even if it's not great in IQ.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4097/4761091555_bb43da391a_z.jpg

Brian Sweeney

10-29-2011, 12:17

I use film because we like to sit down and pass a set of prints around, and I like using many of my film cameras. Some of the lenses that I like to use can only be used with film cameras. I use the M9, M8, and EP2 quite a bit.

But for the convenience of some outings, getting back a set of prints to enjoy with family and friends is more fun than looking at a Monitor. Printing out all of the pictures from Digital would take more time and money than just dropping a roll of film off to Sam's.

This thread is more of a Film vs Digital debate than it is about the M9. I have yet to convert any of my M8 or M9 images to monochrome. If I want monochrome, I either shoot film or use a monochrome camera.

Last set of prints back were from a Minolta Hi-Matic 7s-II at a Fall festival. Now that is a sharp 40/1.7 lens, and a fun to use camera. Used the Ep2 to make video's, the HM-7s-II for prints.

Snowbuzz

10-29-2011, 12:30

dct

10-29-2011, 12:38

You delusions about the superiority of film are beginning to melt away... APS-C and full frame sensored digitals have recently caught up to/surpassed small format (35mm) film, overall, in IQ...

Film's place is now:

1. "Full frame in your pocket". The film camera I mostly shoot now is the Olympus XA (which I adore...)
2. Good lighting low speed film (Still edges out digital by a hair.)
3. Medium format and large format (digital will never touch this...)
4. For fun. Let's face it, the old rangefinders are simply fun to shoot, they are charming, and bring a tactile joy to the table no digital can match
5. You enjoy developing negs and making wet prints (nobody sane enjoys scanning negatives...)

Because of #4 I'm still shooting more film than digital. Add the slow process from pushing the button until you see the first time the image: Perfect thrill, exactly what I want, if I don't have any commitment delivering images in a short time frame.

cosmonaut

10-29-2011, 12:41

Follow your heart. I shoot 80% digital but still love film. Some subjects just work better in classic black and white. Plus shooting film is good practice it keeps you on your game and you don't fall into the digital lazy workflow.

jippiejee

10-29-2011, 12:43

srtiwari

10-29-2011, 12:46

Well now I am a little confused. Have you ever used film before?

Not sure if your question is a serious one, but yes, of course. Are you confused that I am confused about the F vs D differences ? ;)

TXForester

10-29-2011, 12:47

They were taken this morning when my girl friend 's dog (the Husky) met my new pet Poodle for the first time .
You got to admire a man who admits his girlfriend's dog is bigger than his dog. :D

Both are fine looking animals.

dave lackey

10-29-2011, 12:49

Not sure if your question is a serious one, but yes, of course. Are you confused that I am confused about the F vs D differences ? ;)

My life is a whole circle of confusion...:p

Tell ya what, since you missed the Atlanta 2011 RFF Meet last April, come on up in 2012 with both a film and digital camera and we guarantee you a great time either way. Nothing wrong with being a hybrid amongst friends!:)

srtiwari

10-29-2011, 12:53

Subhash, Love your husky -- here is mine.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5230/5596129607_ae631a9d9d_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomasw_/5596129607/)
Off-frame Glance (http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomasw_/5596129607/) by thomasw_ (http://www.flickr.com/people/thomasw_/), on Flickr

BTW, so to contribute to the topics raised in the thread, the main reason I shoot BW film is because I prefer the look of the wet print to the digital print. I do enjoy developing film and wet printing, but not so much the scanning or using PS. Using the computer to deal with images takes away some of the joy of the process for me.

I am firm about my preferences, and firm in the conviction that one should follow their own preferences with regard to creative processes. Thus I agree with Subhash that he is quite able to make his own decisions on these matters ;)

Thats a great looking dog, Thomas !

I am not knocking either method- Digital vs Film. How can ? I own 2 M2s, an M3, an M6, M7, and an M9, to say nothing of a G1(Panny) and some MF gear. I'm just not quite sure how to see and define the differences. I am hoping someone is going to come up and list some soon.

back alley

10-29-2011, 12:57

I went out today with my digital digilux-2 and came home with one picture I liked out of 50. If I would have used film, my success rate for sure would have been higher. More thought, more patience, more results. That's film.

no...that's YOU with film.

i shoot digital the same as i did film...slow and thoughtfully.

srtiwari

10-29-2011, 12:57

My life is a whole circle of confusion...:p

Tell ya what, since you missed the Atlanta 2011 RFF Meet last April, come on up in 2012 with both a film and digital camera and we guarantee you a great time either way. Nothing wrong with being a hybrid amongst friends!:)

I did regret missing it last year, but will definitely be there for the next one. Thank you. And yes, I'll bring both- one for the instant gratification, and the other for the "Look" :D

dave lackey

10-29-2011, 12:57

Thats a great looking dog, Thomas !

I am not knocking either method- Digital vs Film. How can ? I own 2 M2s, an M3, an M6, M7, and an M9, to say nothing of a G1(Panny) and some MF gear. I'm just not quite sure how to see and define the differences. I am hoping someone is going to come up and list some soon.

Need a list? How about a show and tell? Again, if you happen through Atlanta, give me a shout and we can go over a list of the reasons why I chose film images for my documentary work over digital. :angel:

In the meantime, if you tire of the M9, let me know and I can take it out for daily exercise to keep it in tune for you over the winter.;)

Ducky

10-29-2011, 13:04

no...that's YOU with film.

i shoot digital the same as i did film...slow and thoughtfully.

And it shows, love your blog, Joe.

Nikon Bob

10-29-2011, 13:05

I went out today with my digital digilux-2 and came home with one picture I liked out of 50. If I would have used film, my success rate for sure would have been higher. More thought, more patience, more results. That's film.

I never understood this reasoning, it is like blaming the process for personal lack of control. Yea my car is too powerful that is why I got a speeding ticket. I would hate to try that answer out on my better half.

Bob

dave lackey

10-29-2011, 13:07

I never understood this reasoning, it is like blaming the process for personal lack of control. Yea my car is too powerful that is why I got a speeding ticket. I would hate to try that answer out on my better half.

Bob

Never drove a monster Corvette, huh?:p

jippiejee

10-29-2011, 13:10

I never understood this reasoning...
Actually I never understood it myself either. But it just seems to work like that for me unfortunately.

srtiwari

10-29-2011, 13:11

Need a list? How about a show and tell? Again, if you happen through Atlanta, give me a shout and we can go over a list of the reasons why I chose film images for my documentary work over digital. :angel:

In the meantime, if you tire of the M9, let me know and I can take it out for daily exercise to keep it in tune for you over the winter.;)

I am looking forward to that, Dave, but I'd like a list too. Seems to me that since the 'look' is so well known and accepted, it should be easy to describe, even in relative terms. Am I asking for too much ?

I'd hate to lend you my M9 only to find that all your documentary work then becomes Digital. ;) Seriously, though. I must say that using an M9 did alter many of my preconceived notions about the limitations of Digital. How else would I have ended up with all this film related c**p just in the last few years ? :eek:

JonR

10-29-2011, 13:14

back alley

10-29-2011, 13:15

And it shows, love your blog, Joe.

thanks ducky!
i love a compliment out of the blue...

Steve M.

10-29-2011, 13:16

If you aren't going to print anything, digital B&W is fine. If you DO want to print, and DO want a B&W wet print, than you have no choice but to shoot film. Why settle for less?

To me, the difference between an inkjet printed digital B&W shot, and a good darkroom print (or a good inkjet print of a quality scan of film), is like night and day, but if you don't see it, you don't see it. No problem.

Brian Sweeney

10-29-2011, 13:17

One thing for sure, it is easier to test rebuilt lenses on a Digital camera than it is on film. Immediate feedback, if something is off- just take it apart and fix it. Check until it is right. With film, the turnaround was slower.

The M8 and M9 are great for testing Sonnars.

all kidding aside- the Digital RF's are as close to using a film camera as anything that I have used. I'll not give up film, and certainly know why I bother with it. It is fun.

dave lackey

10-29-2011, 13:24

I am looking forward to that, Dave, but I'd like a list too. Seems to me that since the 'look' is so well known and accepted, it should be easy to describe, even in relative terms. Am I asking for too much ?

I'd hate to lend you my M9 only to find that all your documentary work then becomes Digital. ;) Seriously, though. I must say that using an M9 did alter many of my preconceived notions about the limitations of Digital. How else would I have ended up with all this film related c**p just in the last few years ? :eek:

Well, since we are so far apart physically, let me just say that the images I made with my Nikon DSLR for this project were not comparable enough in character to even mix in with this book, let alone do a book entirely with my digital cameras. So, I stuck with film, shooting with the M3 and R4 and my clients and colleagues are very happy that the character of the film images match the character of the town very well.

http://www.adoramapix.com/davegt/book/meanwhile-in-grantville-georgia-1

Now, having gone through that agonizing for that project, there are many others where I have stuck with digital images (using Nikons again) and then there are photo shoots that I have used both a D2X and the M3 for totally different looks.

Here is a digital image from one shoot:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=89160&stc=1&d=1319923251

And an image from the M3:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=82970&stc=1&d=1291072981

So, it is really all about what YOU are looking for in an image. And the process if you like one or the other, or both, then go with it. I do!:)

Nikon Bob

10-29-2011, 13:50

Never drove a monster Corvette, huh?:p

No, 66 Olds 442 was enough of a lesson at the time.

Bob

Nikon Bob

10-29-2011, 13:53

Actually I never understood it myself either. But it just seems to work like that for me unfortunately.

Oh well, what can I say other than at least it is not costing you much in the way of wasted film.

Bob

shadowfox

10-29-2011, 14:08

I think it would be useful for someone to try and describe the 'look' of digital (or film) in away that can others can see and identify. (I recently compared some old and new lenses hoping to differentiate their signatures, and was surprised at how little the differences in 'look' were).
Maybe its time to do a little test to try and distinguish digital from film images ! :D

Subash, I think this is the point that some already trying to convey: You can't distinguish an image taken with film from digital that is processed to look like film. No one in their right mind would dispute the power and flexibility of digital processes to manipulate images *digitally*. Hence such "test" that you suggested above will be meaningless.

So today it comes down to the combination of process and the result. Not just the result. I love the hand-craft process of printing in the darkroom. For me, that cannot be obtained through digital processes.

Scanning and Lightrooming around is cool but not as satisfying as emerging from the darkroom with a print that looks just ... stunning.

But if getting your hands wet is not what you'd rather spend time doing, and all you care about is getting B&W images digitally, then digital is *THE* best way to go. Trying to get it via film is kinda... futile. :)

shadowfox

10-29-2011, 14:17

Seriously, though. I must say that using an M9 did alter many of my preconceived notions about the limitations of Digital. How else would I have ended up with all this film related c**p just in the last few years ? :eek:

You have to love film for what it is, you also have to love digital for what it is.

Right now, because of M9 you seem to love digital. Not a problem, at least you find what you're looking for.

srtiwari

10-29-2011, 14:25

So today it comes down to the combination of process and the result. Not just the result. I love the hand-craft process of printing in the darkroom. For me, that cannot be obtained through digital processes.

Hi Will.
I agree completely. The point I was trying to make had nothing to do with a print - only the image that I saw on a monitor. The impression I get is that many feel an image made originally from film is inherently better/different- a 'look' (there it goes again) that cannot be achieved from a digital camera sensor. Again, nothing to do with a print. And that may be true, but I just don't know what the difference is.

Of course the wet print from a well exposed and developed film, printed on a good enlarger cannot be compared to what most people achieve on an Inkjet. No one would argue with you about that.

dave lackey

10-29-2011, 14:37

No, 66 Olds 442 was enough of a lesson at the time.

Bob

Ha, ha! Same thing! Weapon of choice and irresistable. Did you ever get a ticket/or in trouble with that Olds?:)

dave lackey

10-29-2011, 14:45

Hi Will.
I agree completely. The point I was trying to make had nothing to do with a print - only the image that I saw on a monitor. The impression I get is that many feel an image made originally from film is inherently better/different- a 'look' (there it goes again) that cannot be achieved from a digital camera sensor. Again, nothing to do with a print. And that may be true, but I just don't know what the difference is.

Of course the wet print from a well exposed and developed film, printed on a good enlarger cannot be compared to what most people achieve on an Inkjet. No one would argue with you about that.

Well, a picture is worth a thousand words. I have done my best in a previous post to give you an idea of what MY experience has been and that it has everything to do with the character of the image that I am looking for in a particular situation...and no I am not going to go into a thousand word list to describe what was just posted as I have to be somewhere in a few minutes.:angel:

Besides, your first post shows that you have the image YOU want. I see no problem. Run with it.:cool:

Nikon Bob

10-29-2011, 14:51

Ha, ha! Same thing! Weapon of choice and irresistable. Did you ever get a ticket/or in trouble with that Olds?:)

You had to ask, careless driving, 6 points and $102 fine. Slow learner, skipped speeding tickets altogether and went for the gusto.

Bob

Snowbuzz

10-29-2011, 15:22

Not sure if your question is a serious one, but yes, of course. Are you confused that I am confused about the F vs D differences ? ;)

Whoa, this thread moved seriously fast. Ha! Yes, you are right! I'm confused that you're confused! I think what can help rather than just a list of film attributes vs digital attributes is to pick a film group on Flickr (like the medium format group, or 'I shoot film' group) and click through the pictures. After a couple hundred(!) images the overall pattern will emerge. I call it a "roundness" to film images. :)

It's just an aesthetics-call.

NickTrop

10-29-2011, 16:14

I don't want to start a stupid film/digital debate, but that just isn't true. Perhaps at an amateur level. The problem with comparing the two on the internet is that the film has to be put in a digital state and the people who do these comparison usually have an agenda. Luminous Landscape for example. They recently had a comparison of 8x10 to a mf digital back and concluded the back was better; the problem was the film was scanned for crap at low resolution. Everyone quotes this though as being the bible. If I gave Tiger Woods a six inch golf club, I guarantee I can beat him. Does that make me a better golfer? Don't think so. It just means that he was crippled on purpose.

I'm not starting another boring digital/film debate. I said, I love film and cited valid reasons why I shoot still shoot it and why it's still relevant. That said, I don't buy your argument. Take the print challenge. Make a normal-sized print, throw them on a table, and see who likes what. Most will not know/care what medium said print was shot on. That's something only the shooter knows, and most will gravitate toward pics they like based on the subject matter, colors, and composition. There is no discernible IQ difference between small format film and APS-C and up sensor-sized digital at this point in time. None. This includes small format black and white. It has nothing to do with how something was scanned, or anything published by any website. Only exception is if you're using a nice slow speed good color film in optimal lighting conditions - film wins by a little bit. Digital trumps color big time in low light color, technically. Again, small format. Medium, large format - film wins by a mile.

bfjr

10-29-2011, 20:33

If you want to shoot a RF camera and can't or don't have $$$$ for M-8,9, or a couple of other models come to mind well you have to shoot Film.

literiter

10-29-2011, 20:56

If I was to use a few words to describe the "look" thing that I personally go for in film. It would be.. "lo-fi" .

I'm happy to have it even if it's not great in IQ.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4097/4761091555_bb43da391a_z.jpg

This is a great shot.

ndnik

10-30-2011, 08:25

There is no discernible IQ difference between small format film and APS-C and up sensor-sized digital at this point in time. None.

Digital trumps color big time in low light color, technically.

Why do you assume everyone chooses the medium he uses based on technical image quality alone? I think technically digital has surpassed small-format film years ago. I agree with you here. The only exception may be dynamic range and highlight separation. But I don't care about technical image quality. Good enough is good enough. The rest is aesthetics, and that is where the heart of photography is.

-N.

rogerzilla

10-30-2011, 08:31

I believe digital (full frame) has surpassed colour film for IQ, because colour film grain is unattractive. Not black-and-white, although it *could* easily trump slow b/w films, were someone to reintroduce a digital camera with a monochrome sensor and no Bayer filter. On the other hand, you couldn't get the gritty effect of Tri-X or Neopan 1600.

But yes, the M9 is too expensive and (although the M8 IQ may be fine) the crop factor and 6-bit coding things are a major turn-off if you don't want to go and buy extra lenses. The M9 is more tolerant of older lenses and of course there's no crop factor so you don't need to buy a 28mm to get a 35mm FOV (or worse, if you wanted a 21mm FOV).

Thomas Bertilsson

10-30-2011, 16:35

Shoot what you think is fun and gives you the enjoyment you want. The rest really doesn't matter.

Back into the darkroom. Found two boxes of 11x14 G2 and G3 Brovira that prints without fog... I can pretend I'm Ralph Gibson for a day.

Teuthida

10-31-2011, 10:04

beautiful pups. dogs rock.

your photos, while nice, are clearly digital. they have tat plasticy look of all digital capture.

thats why i still love film.

bwcolor

10-31-2011, 11:05

beautiful pups. dogs rock.

your photos, while nice, are clearly digital. they have tat plasticy look of all digital capture.

thats why i still love film.

and why I prefer B&W silver based film vs. B&W C-41.

Of course, others prefer digital conversions and chromogenic B&W. It is just a preference and nothing absolute...either way.

Keith

11-01-2011, 16:33