Just fell in love all over again

[Speedfreak]

Originally Posted by mani

Film isn't my preferred process, at all - but the result is better.

Could you post an example of a picture that is "better" because it was shot on film?

[wblynch]

Shouldn't it be expected that a $200 scanner would not be as good as a $2000 scanner? Just the same as a $200 digicam is not as good as a $2000 digicam?

Digital capture and reproduction will take away some of the quality of film/paper but scanners capture the image of film much differently than a digicam does.

You can see the difference. (Well, I can... I can't fairly say what you can see)

[mani]

Originally Posted by Speedfreak

Could you post an example of a picture that is "better" because it was shot on film?

If you're happy with your digital images, that's great - I'm not sure what you're doing in this thread though, where someone was expressing their excitement about returning to film after using digital.

I work with digital media - both still and motion. The motion team I work with capture on three RED cameras, and we use P45+ backs for stills. The technical quality is astounding. When I shoot film, I get an image that has a totally different emotional quality - so I recognized what the OP was talking about. If you don't, then it's entirely up to you - absolutely nothing I say or show would convince you of anything different.

[Speedfreak]

Originally Posted by mani

If you're happy with your digital images, that's great - I'm not sure what you're doing in this thread though, where someone was expressing their excitement about returning to film after using digital.

I am here to learn. You say "film gives better results" so I am asking for an example were film gave "a better result".

Originally Posted by mani

When I shoot film, I get an image that has a totally different emotional quality

If shooting film makes you happy then go ahead. We werent talking about "emotions" in the first place though. You claimed film gave "better results".

Originally Posted by mani

absolutely nothing I say or show would convince you of anything different.

You are chickening out.

[wblynch]

Speedfreak it is up to you to convince yourself. We can not do that.

Perhaps like the OP, PointOmega, you can get some film gear and make your own experience.

Be prepared though...

[Teuthida]

Originally Posted by Speedfreak

I am here to learn. You say "film gives better results" so I am asking for an example were film gave "a better result".




If shooting film makes you happy then go ahead. We werent talking about "emotions" in the first place though. You claimed film gave "better results".



You are chickening out.

You're tone deaf.

[Teuthida]

Originally Posted by mani

If you're happy with your digital images, that's great - I'm not sure what you're doing in this thread though, where someone was expressing their excitement about returning to film after using digital.

I work with digital media - both still and motion. The motion team I work with capture on three RED cameras, and we use P45+ backs for stills. The technical quality is astounding. When I shoot film, I get an image that has a totally different emotional quality - so I recognized what the OP was talking about. If you don't, then it's entirely up to you - absolutely nothing I say or show would convince you of anything different.

well said.

[loquax ludens]

Originally Posted by clayne

V-750M is negligibly better than the V-700; it's all marketing.

I am by no means denigrating the V-700. It is almost the same scanner as the V-750M Pro. My point was that if the budget is $1000 for a new scanner, the V-750M Pro is a better choice than a V-700. Two reasons, better glass coatings, and option to wet mount. Say what you like, but the latter is definitely not just marketing. You could argue that the former is because the coatings probably make little to no difference for most scans. Another reason I didn't mention before is that the V-750 comes with the full AI version of Silverfast, the V-700 doesn't.

The V750 is available for MUCH less than $1000. It is under $800, in fact. I paid $736 for mine.

Now, if the budget was for under $600 scanners (new), the V-700 would clearly be the best choice.

[clayne]

Originally Posted by Speedfreak

I am here to learn. You say "film gives better results" so I am asking for an example were film gave "a better result".

Why not use the medium yourself and throw in your own opinions? Otherwise you're just trolling.

The people who shoot film know why they prefer film.

For the record: F digital.

[heartattackandvine]

Originally Posted by Speedfreak

Could you post an example of a picture that is "better" because it was shot on film?

I don't know what's "better" according to your standards, but as some sort of answer to your question, I can suggest browsing through the appropriate flickr groups (say, "Film is not dead it just smells funny" vs something like Nikon D90 - or pick any other digi camera of your preference. Btw. I'm a member of both groups and use both media - and don't see why I'd have to pick only one - but in terms of emotional/artistic satisfaction, I have no doubt which side has a stronger tendency to satisfy me. Exactly why that is so I wouldn't know (though I like the "3D theory" I've seen on this thread). I agree with you though that there is a "it's better because it's film" trap, and I suppose many hipsters have fallen into it. But then again that's why they're referred to as "hipsters".

[tycho]

I use both. As a new film user and trying to learn as well I find that film/digital are two different aesthetic mediums, that's where I'm coming from. That's just me of course, and I'm sure it's very much to your eye and what you want to achieve - artistic or otherwise.

[shadowfox]

Originally Posted by Speedfreak

And when a negative gets scanned and put up on the web then the magic is gone or not?

Scanned negative is a half-potential alternative to darkroom printing.
I'm not saying it's bad, it's convenient, and allows for digital post-processing which could turn an image into pretty much anything nowadays.

Darkroom prints, or other alternative printing is closer to the full potential of what film photography can offer for the photographer (not necessarily the viewers). And yes, I'm talking about the process, which is just as important ( to me) as the results.

Originally Posted by Speedfreak

I have seen bw wet-prints and inkjet prints from good to bad. Never did the medium matter.

May I ask: Have you ever *made* one yourself (a darkroom print)?

You may still not see the point even when you had experienced it, but at least your views will hold more weight because you can tell us why *for you* the medium doesn't matter because the process does nothing for you either.