UKC

I've got an old 35mm Olympus. Used to be a good camera, but made me wonder if anyone is still using film, since digital is so prevalent?

I use digital myself and have done for years.

In reply to Rock Kid:

Yes, mainly due to a collection of excellent prime lenses.

In reply to Rock Kid: Loads of people, have a look at the Photography forum, personally I have 2 Nikon films SLR's and a Pentax Digi Compact.

This thread was started in the DOWN THE PUB forum and has now been moved.
Please could you try and post in the correct forum, it makes life easier for both users and moderators.

Photography - This is the place for all discussions relating to cameras and outdoor photography. Discuss the latest digital camera or have long discussions over the merits of one of the many thousands of photographs in the UKC Photo Galleries.

More Forum descriptions - http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/info/forums.html

In reply to Rock Kid: yes and no,, been clicking the digital some of the time mainly due to lighting but the film has been making a comeback with me,,

In reply to Rock Kid: Yes 35 mm and 120. I then scan the images at high resolution. I doubt the 6 x 7 cm slides can be beaten yet, with a digital camera in a price range I would want to meet.

Andy

In reply to Andy Manthorpe:

Yes of course.

You can't really beat the richness of slide film.

Was chatting to Photographer Simon Carter about it last year and he was quite scathing of digital .... but that is high end.

film? whats that?

*joke*

I currently own 11 digital cameras and 4 film cameras(3x 35mm 1x110format), however id say i easily take more shots (for my own uses) on film than I do on digital. My work however is 100% digital as its a million times more convienient :-p

The last camera I got was a film point and shoot camera and it rocks! it has a 40mm f2.4 which is superb. Also its made of titanium!!!! *jibber*

In reply to nz Cragrat:

Yes you can. A 10ish MP camera is capable of outputting lush and vibrant photos to A3 with decent PP. As for MF digital, well, sky's the limit.

35mm's nice. But obsolete sadly. Carter is more pro-digital and photoshop than he cares to admit anyway.

In reply to Rock Kid: You can get your 35mm Film back on disc these days if you prefer.

In reply to Rock Kid: yes..still using my Nikons 35mm...but for lenses compatibility and some occasions i bought nikon D70 as well
but..developing and all these things are still closer to me than just printing

In reply to Rock Kid:

yes

all the time; especially with my lens collection. dont beleive that DSLR's are quite there yet ? although i think i may want to take a closer look at the nikon d80 sometime;

vast majority of my work is black and white (published and in a galley ))

In reply to Anonymous:

Having judged (with two professional outdoor photographers) the NZ Alpine Club National competition and viewed many many entries we all agreed that Digital still doesn't quite cut the mustard.

What makes you say that about Simon?

BTW his latest "World climbing" calendar is quite disappointing - pretty poor production we thought

In reply to Rock Kid:

I think part of where digital may fall down is notthe digital itself but the means of presentation.

You may be able to print it up but if i want to do a slide show to a bunch of people I don't think that the general digital projector can do it justice compared to a slide one. I think the technology/quality in this area needs a rev up

In reply to nz Cragrat:

intriguing - have read in the trade press that a number of pro photographers are returning to 35mm

the pro lab i use say about 95pc of photographers are still using 35mm

having said that - i do wonder how long 35mm will be about ? hopefully for a while yet - it's so much easier going to a decent pro lab with a neg and sorting out what you want done and getting a pro printer to get it sorted out for you .....

In reply to diablo: I found in Japan last year that there seemed to be a big move back towards film, which I found very intresting. I still like to work in film and most of what i do is film, but I can see digital coming into my work flow more and more. But at the moment this is mainly scanning in trannys and then touching up in photoshop.
I'll be intrested to see how the new digital enlargers take of and change things (allows you to print digital files old school style).

In reply to Snax:

thats intriguing . . .

I'll be intrested to see how the new digital enlargers take of and change things (allows you to print digital files old school style).

well; u lost me there . . .

In reply to nz Cragrat:

Are you sure you were comparing like with like? Of course, there's no way that a few-meg point and shoot will beat an SLR with a prime lens and velvia.

But I'd challenge you to really tell the difference between a double page mag spread on a good digital SLR vs film. In fact, the digital will usually look better since there's no grain.

And if you want to go bigger than that, then surely you should be using medium format anyway?

In reply to diablo:

"the pro lab i use say about 95pc of photographers are still using 35mm"

Are you sure of that? Sounds out of step with the rest of the country!

In reply to Anonymous:

yep; completely

use two pro labs; both of which say that there's been a significant return to film based photography especially amongst pro photographers

DE VERE 504DS Enlarger
From the British Journal of Photography

"The De Vere 504DS is designed to use the same chassis as their conventional 504 enlarger. The image is projected from a 17 million pixel head through three separate red, green and blue channels. Black-and-white images are exposed through the green and blue channels, and fine adjustments to the contrast can be made on screen by balancing the length of these two exposures." This will basically allow you to do conventional paper prints and so you won't be reliant on your epson etc and can combine conventional teqhniques with photoshop etc.

Also, to quote BJP again, "traditional B&W film based photography still retains a sizeable and dedicated following .... if anything, it appears to have a resurgence..."

In reply to Rock Kid: "the pro lab i use say about 95pc of photographers are still using 35mm"
Well they would woudn't they. About 99 percent of photographers I know, don't own a film camera that works.

In reply to Mike Simmonds: more fool them! Even die hard digital users that I know will still carry a film based camera, theres nothing worse than getting to a shoot and finding you don't have a working unit. And i know that this can still happen with a film camera, but there is less to go wrong.

In reply to Snax:

What are you talking about? You'd have at least one backup digital body.

I think you're all pontificating.

In reply to Anonymous: Don't disagree with you there. Most people I know will carry a backup digital body and a backup film camera. I'm not saying that the film camera's ever get used now.

In reply to Anonymous:

least we dont suffer from an identity crises lol

In reply to Rock Kid:

I know in a lot of shoots the Digital will be used to take some "lets see hat it looks like sample shots" then the film comes out for the real business end.

In reply to diablo:

If i were you i would look at the Nikon D2X especially if you are going freelance, do you have a web site so i can take a look at your work

In reply to photog:



no site yet

next thing to do once i've sent my portfolio's off to the magersines that might be interested in what i get upto ?

its very scarey and very daunting

In reply to Rock Kid:
I use a prosumer digital compact (Nikon 8400) and a 35mm SLR. It's taken me a couple of years to really get images from digital that match film on the monitor or printed out, but pretty well there now. The one thing that's stopping me making a complete move and getting a digital SLR is, as nz cragrat said, that if you want to project, digital projectors have a max resolution of around 1400 x 1000 pixels - slide projectors with decent slide film will blow them into the weeds. So at present I generally lug both around!

In reply to diablo:
dont beleive that DSLR's are quite there yet ?
when comaring to 35mm, in most(Not all!!) Situations, I believe the top end cameras are on a par with 35mm.

I was a die hard fan of film for many years, but the day 35mm died for me was when I got the 2x.
In the last 6 years I've only once used a film camera for a job, this was shot on 6x7 for a magazine spread.Other than that all my newspaper, magazine, commercial, pr, or advertising work has been shot on digi.Including images shot for use on large banners and billboards.

I still love velvia for a landscape though.

In reply to Rock Kid:

a friend of mine does, but he develops his own and uses a slide scanner. A pretty good idea as it saves him a lot of cost, equipment and hassle. I think he has an olympus trip or a kodak from the same time.
p

In reply to Barry Chocolate: Bazza did you see the display prints at the Edinburgh Botanics last summer of "Earth from the Air" absoloutly brilliant, nearly all shot on Canon from aircraft on 35mm film.

In reply to dek: Hi Dek, yeah, Yann Arthus-Bertrand(?). had to shoot a portrait of him with some of his work for the preview, Superb stuff! I couldnt believe it was all 35mm, the quality was outstanding, I asked if he shot them on medium format and he looked at me funny.Im sure he mumbled something about 6x7 then said it was all 35mm fujifilm..
Its an amazing body of work eh? beautifully put together with some fascinating images.No a bad life tho, flying about in helicopters over deserts, snapping camels with a 300mm lens...
Spawny B*stard!

In reply to Barry Chocolate: Aye, Spawny Frog Barsteward right enough

In reply to Rock Kid:

I WOULD if I COULD! Kodak's discontinuing manufacture of black and white celuloid was a crime. A Crime. Digital cameras neccesitate purchace of other even more expensive products/technology and as this Great Robbery hoisted upon the world continues unabated....why isn't everyone up in arms? Upgrade every 6 months? Pull the other one.

In reply to Rock Kid:
My only camera is a Nikon FG-20 that I use randomly and not very often.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips: I'm on record at dpreview, that I expect 10 years out of both E-1 bodies.
I get Canon users laughing because I haven't upgraded in 2 1/2 years.
But why SHOULD I?
I'm perfectly happy with what I've got.

which is currently...
3x OM1, OM4 Plus various lenses.
Bronica 645. Only a 75mm just now, I keep getting outbid on the 40mm I want on fleabay!
Pentax 110 and lenses.
Oly MJUII P&S film body.
2x E1 DSLR, plus lenses.
Vlad's assorted Canon stuff (500n/1000F/300D + lenses).
Nikon 3.2MP P&S.

Plus various assorted flashguns, leads, battery packs, tripods, monopods, full working darkroom, etc, etc, etc!

In reply to Rock Kid:

Yes, I still use film. Slides, that is. There are a few reasons, but the main and completely overriding one is that I like to see my photos projected. Slides give such a good, crisp, vibrant image from a projector which digital projectors don't even come close to at the moment. 20 years ago, before digital was anywhere, if you had a projector which gave the quality of a good, expensive, digital projector of today, it just would not be acceptable.

In reply to Anonymous:

So you are saying that a good DSLR for what £1000+? is just about as good as a second-hand film SLR body which you could get for £100 or so.


Not until digital projectors are seriously improved. And there needs to be a vast improvement to compete with slide.

In reply to El Greyo:

I can see that argument as Data projectors are nowhere near the quality of projected film, unless you've got mega-dosh.

I heard somwhere that they shot the stop-frame animated Corpse Bride using some unreal giga-pixel camera, so I guess for the right money, you can get fantastic quality.

The down side to digital though is that the more pixels, the more memory, although with my paltry 5meg Sony camera I've found a 2gig memory card difficult to fill.

BTW, as you can probably tell, I'm not much of a camera buff!

In reply to Rock Kid:

Part of me would quite like to go digital as I think that with being instantly able to view the photo, I'd improve my photography greatly. I'd also like the versatility of changing ISO easily.

But I sit in front of a PC from 9-5.30 every day and I wouldn't want to spend any time at home on a pooter (I don't even own a PC/laptop.) And also, if I bought DSLR, then I'd need new lenses and... argh, I've just had a really nasty pain in my wallet.

But primarily, it's the projection issue that keeps me with 35mm. And none of you digi fanatics can persuade me otherwise.

Yet.

I use a canon eos 600 film camera with 28-105 lens and a 50mm lens 1.8

I have has eos d30 10d and 350d, all nice cameras. but without using photoshop and playing aorund. I cant match the results I get from my eos film camera.

The one and only grace the digital slr hads for me, is the convenience and speed of getting something on paper.

In reply to NZ john: Maybe your technique was wrong?, digital is different, needs a different approach. Most of my shots are printable from the camera and the same quality as my film shots (not saying much I know), I choose to process in photoshop for effects, they same way hard core wet shooters use the dark room, is fiim nice? of course it is, have some lovely 7x5's from the alps taken on reala, sensia etc, but for me digital every time, I can get lab quality 12x8's properly colour matched from the desktop, no wasted paper or ink.

In reply to Rock Kid:

i still use film but then, as is widely documented, I'm a luddite.

In reply to CJD: However, I have just bought a eos 35mm film camera to mount my 50mm 1.8 onto and to keep loaded with ilford 400asa, just need a decent film scanner to transfer them onto the pc with.

In reply to sutty: The cameras are good enough. Whether I may be, is a whole other question!
DSLRs are instantaneous. (Yes, there IS some lag, but no more really than a film SLR)

TTG

In reply to Rock Kid: Yes I still use slide film for all my pics.

In reply to sutty: Is he actually SMILING?

In reply to O Mighty Tim:

So I have to carry a clunky DSLR round to get instant pictures?

I still use an old Voightlander with leaf shutter for certain things, even if it is about the same age as me. Selenium meter not coupled so when I need that certain type of shot it comes out to play.

Unfortunately the little Rollei needs its lens cleaning, it seems to have some gubbins between the two glasses so it is out of action ATM. I luurve my SLR 135mm lens though for portraits, even if it is a big sod. sharp as a pin and nice contrast on it. I think I should lend it to CJD to see how she likes it. Old Pentax thread of course.

In reply to Rock Kid:

Whereis in previous years I would have shot 35mm I mainly shoot digital now. (I still shoot 6x7 and occasionall 5x4 sheet on film).

However I still sometimes shoot 35mm using a cheap 10mm 170 degree fisheye - its wide enough to get just about everything in without the need for accurate framing - ie an arms length shot of both belayer and climber on a ledge at the end of a pitch etc.

I either get it put onto CD at dev time, or use my ancient but excellent nikon coolpix neg/slide scanner to get the images into photoshop.

If anyone else fancies a stab at super wide pix by the way -http://shop.lomography.com/shop/main.php?cat=Lomographic%20Cameras&pro=...

and look out for them on ebay for about £30

In reply to ICE: Get it done when you process them, it is only an extra couple of quid to get them put on a CD.

In reply to Nick B: Had that in the back of my mind, not sure if they still offered services like that, thanks for the suggestion. Just bought a epson v100 scanner, and for scanning photo's pretty good, although scanning negs is pretty poor

In reply to sutty: I think that some of the newer compacts have a quicker 'reaction' time. However, it's a fundamental design 'fault' with the AF (I think!) system that it takes a wee while to get up. By which time, it's happened!
So, I don't THINK you could get that shot with a digi compact. One reason I keep my MJUII film P&S.

TTG

In reply to O Mighty Tim: Took this pic this PM, should show that the digi knockers are way off base, these little critters were moving at a rate of knots round the tree, truly awesome to watch, if digi's are slow to react and focus; I would not have got the shot, these pics are also untreated, except pulled in photoshop to convert from raw and reduce the image size by 50%, no sharpening applied (says more about the lens than the photographer or the camera).
http://www.brek.smugmug.com/gallery/2419098#126867825-L-LB

In reply to ICE: As I said, SOME are catching up...
I'm not going to ask which, and the spec, CJD has a BIG stick with my name on...
8^)

In reply to ICE:

RUBBISH, I said compact digital, we KNOW some digi SLRs can do it amost instantaneously. Now stick your SLR in your back jeans pocket as I can with my Rollei.

In reply to Rock Kid:

Yes, but then I'm older than dirt. Use Nikon's with one prime lens. Sold the others kept the 50 1.4 ai. shoot both B&W and color. I'm also a ways out of your area in the U.S.
Simplify, simplify, simplify. My Fe and lens fit in my jacket pockets nicely. Nice forum here.
BTW I tried digi and prefer film.

In reply to Rock Kid:

Just got a Lomo Holga that takes medium format film. 35mm can also be used to create interesting effects. There's something a bit more exciting about film as opposed to digital. Digital is a lot more practical and cheapre though!

In reply to Anonymous:

oh you're so so wrong

In reply to diablo:
This is largely subjective rather than anything to do with better or worse.

If you want something to look like film, then you'll never get better than film and there's no point in a digi fan like me saying otherwise. There are issues with dynamic range (see http://www.rangefindermag.com/magazine/Jan07/showpage.taf?page=50) and these are some of the reasons why the two methods will never produce identical results. It's all just an illusion in any case.

We had an old 1920's bellows camera in the garage which my daughter took a shine to, so she got some 120 B&W film and had a play around. Guess what - the few shots which worked have a 1920's feel to them. http://www.flickr.com/photos/tigerweet/91441123/in/set-1572738/
That camera, for the record, is obsolete

I've got this thing about dynamic range at the moment, for those who care these sites are interesting:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange/
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dynamic-range.htm