Members Goofball Jones Posted January 14, 2008 Members Share Posted January 14, 2008 Another thing about film is that you didn't need to keep updating the equipment year after year. Sure, a Canon 10D will work today, but it's image isn't as good as a 20D or as a 40D or even as the big full frame sensor models. With film, the camera itself isn't that important. It's just the thing that held the film in a light-tight box. It was the LENS that was the critical point in capturing the image. You could see night-and-day between a cheap lens and a very fine lens. And you could change the image basically by just changing the film you used. Not to mention that you can pick up a Leica that was made 50 years ago and STILL run film through it and take amazing photos. 50 years from now no one will even know what to do with a 20D or any of the other digitals out now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RIC N BACKER Posted January 14, 2008 Members Share Posted January 14, 2008 dude why in the world would you use film on a trip like that when Digital is so much more practical in this day and age. dont get me wrong, I was still using my Pentax K1000 till last year when I bought my K100D. there is no way I would go back to film now..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bikehorn Posted January 14, 2008 Author Members Share Posted January 14, 2008 dude why in the world would you use film on a trip like that when Digital is so much more practical in this day and age.dont get me wrong, I was still using my Pentax K1000 till last year when I bought my K100D. there is no way I would go back to film now..... 1) I think it's boring and requires little thought when the camera does everything for you. Anyone can hold an auto-everything camera towards something and press a button. I don't want to buy an instrument that plays itself. 2) It interests me what results you can get doing things with so called "obsolete" and "inferior" technology. Probably the same part of my brain that likes vinyl records and turntables but finds CDs lame. 3) It was free to use this camera as opposed to spend hundreds on a digital SLR which I might not have used much....just to match the results of a film SLR that can be had for $70. 4) My experience indicated that if anything a digital SLR would have been less practical. Instead of keeping a pile of batteries and a dual voltage charger(requiring an assortment of plug adapters), I bought a few rolls of film and changed them when I needed to. The battery never once needed a change and the camera was ready any time I felt like taking it somewhere.. Try that with a digital camera. My biggest irritation with digital cameras is batteries. I {censored}ing hate having to charge them all the damn time and having them drain themselves if i don't use them in about 48 hours. Then when I need a battery they're all dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goofball Jones Posted January 14, 2008 Members Share Posted January 14, 2008 1) I think it's boring and requires little thought when the camera does everything for you. Anyone can hold an auto-everything camera towards something and press a button. I don't want to buy an instrument that plays itself.2) It interests me what results you can get doing things with so called "obsolete" and "inferior" technology. Probably the same part of my brain that likes vinyl records and turntables but finds CDs lame. 3) It was free to use this camera as opposed to spend hundreds on a digital SLR which I might not have used much.4) My experience indicated that if anything a digital SLR would have been less practical. Instead of keeping a pile of batteries and a dual voltage charger(requiring an assortment of plug adapters), I bought a few rolls of film and changed them when I needed to. The battery never once needed a change and the camera was ready any time I felt like taking it somewhere.. Try that with a digital camera. My biggest irritation with digital cameras is batteries. I {censored}ing hate having to charge them all the damn time and having them drain themselves if i don't use them in about 48 hours. Then when I need a battery they're all dead. 1. Auto-everything cameras have been around WAY longer than just their digital brethren. 2. That's good....though don't get too attached to using that old technology forever. Though you could always get a view camera and start mixing your own chemicals and applying them to glass-plates like they did in the old old days. People still do this, and can continue to do-it-yourself as long as the motivation is there. 3. Good deal! 4. Digital SLR's can go a very very long time before you have to recharge them. We're talking about the film equivalent of 100's of rolls of film. Also, you can capture images much quicker than most film-transport cameras can. That is if you subscribe to the "spray and pray" technique of photography. Me personally, I like thinking and framing a picture before taking the picture. I guess it's from my days of trudging a field camera with only 6 double film-holders up in the mountains while I played Ansel Adams. But anyway, back to digital....the batteries last a long time. At least they did on my Canons. Like I said, I shot film professionally for over 30 years and had to be dragged into Digital. No way could I go back. But having said all that, if you become a fine-art photographer, using film may be a selling point. You know, doing it the old way, using traditional means etc etc. I can see that happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bassment zombie Posted January 14, 2008 Members Share Posted January 14, 2008 Wonderful photos, bikehorn! I particularly enjoy the photo of the little guy wearing the mirrored shades and the guest compound shot...thanks for sharing them! Also, after I finish my graduate work (this May finally - woo hoo!) I'll actually have time to pursue hobbies, and photography has always been one I wanted to pursue. Maybe I'll sign up for an evening course through the local library, community college, something like that....anyhow, the discussion in this thread has piqued my interest and given me some interesting perspectives...thanks again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bendafender Posted January 14, 2008 Members Share Posted January 14, 2008 IIRCC, one of the differences between E-6 and Kodachrome is storage, i.e. E6 deteriorates faster in dark storage than Kodachrome, but the reverse is true of light storage. Kodachrome adds a certain "warmth" to images that E-6 does not. Kind of like tubes vs. solid state amps in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bikehorn Posted January 14, 2008 Author Members Share Posted January 14, 2008 1. Auto-everything cameras have been around WAY longer than just their digital brethren.2. That's good....though don't get too attached to using that old technology forever. Though you could always get a view camera and start mixing your own chemicals and applying them to glass-plates like they did in the old old days. People still do this, and can continue to do-it-yourself as long as the motivation is there. 3. Good deal!4. Digital SLR's can go a very very long time before you have to recharge them. We're talking about the film equivalent of 100's of rolls of film. Also, you can capture images much quicker than most film-transport cameras can. That is if you subscribe to the "spray and pray" technique of photography. Me personally, I like thinking and framing a picture before taking the picture. I guess it's from my days of trudging a field camera with only 6 double film-holders up in the mountains while I played Ansel Adams. But anyway, back to digital....the batteries last a long time. At least they did on my Canons. Like I said, I shot film professionally for over 30 years and had to be dragged into Digital. No way could I go back. But having said all that, if you become a fine-art photographer, using film may be a selling point. You know, doing it the old way, using traditional means etc etc. I can see that happening. 1) Yep, and I want to avoid those too. 2) That might be fun. I wonder how much a ghetto darkroom might cost to setup. 3) Yep. I thought so too. 4) I guess, but it's just a side hobby for me so I like messing around with old stuff. The variables are a little more tangible to me than a choice on a menu. I think the "fine art" bit is a little more appealing to me than shooting weddings and corporate dinners - but that could be enjoyable too. Probably more the province of DSLRs now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cozmo Posted January 14, 2008 Members Share Posted January 14, 2008 Bikehorn, those are some excellent pics. The kid with the shades is my favourite. You may want to check out www.betterphoto.com and set up a gallery there. They have contests all the time and you can win camera gear and stuff like that. I've gotta say, though, auto-everything isn't the only thing you can do with digitals. My wife and I have a Canon Digital Rebel XT (SLR), and we've got a few lenses for it. I use Photoshop CS3, and with their support for Camera RAW files, I don't think there's much of anything I can do in a traditional darkroom that I can't do on Photoshop. I think (or at least I hope) perhaps your disdain of digital photography is directed more at the bad/mediocre photographers than at the technology, because the technology, at least on the really nice cameras, is able to do the same thing as your film camera, except that it holds loads more pictures. And the ability to see your shot after you take it is a HUGE help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goofball Jones Posted January 14, 2008 Members Share Posted January 14, 2008 Actually, looking at my photos I posted, every one of them is digital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bassment zombie Posted January 14, 2008 Members Share Posted January 14, 2008 Actually, looking at my photos I posted, every one of them is digital. I see your post back on page 1, but I don't see a single photo in it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bikehorn Posted January 14, 2008 Author Members Share Posted January 14, 2008 I think (or at least I hope) perhaps your disdain of digital photography is directed more at the bad/mediocre photographers than at the technology, because the technology, at least on the really nice cameras, is able to do the same thing as your film camera, except that it holds loads more pictures. And the ability to see your shot after you take it is a HUGE help. I don't really have an intense disdain for digital photography....I still own a digital auto-everything camera which I would use in 90% of situations where I wouldn't even think of bringing the SLR, but for that last 10%, where I'm taking pictures for the enjoyment of actually taking pictures, I know which I'd rather take. I do hold a disdain for the proliferation of emo self pictures that digital cameras with large memory cards seems to have made easier... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RIC N BACKER Posted January 14, 2008 Members Share Posted January 14, 2008 1) I think it's boring and requires little thought when the camera does everything for you. Anyone can hold an auto-everything camera towards something and press a button. I don't want to buy an instrument that plays itself.2) It interests me what results you can get doing things with so called "obsolete" and "inferior" technology. Probably the same part of my brain that likes vinyl records and turntables but finds CDs lame. 3) It was free to use this camera as opposed to spend hundreds on a digital SLR which I might not have used much....just to match the results of a film SLR that can be had for $70.4) My experience indicated that if anything a digital SLR would have been less practical. Instead of keeping a pile of batteries and a dual voltage charger(requiring an assortment of plug adapters), I bought a few rolls of film and changed them when I needed to. The battery never once needed a change and the camera was ready any time I felt like taking it somewhere.. Try that with a digital camera. My biggest irritation with digital cameras is batteries. I {censored}ing hate having to charge them all the damn time and having them drain themselves if i don't use them in about 48 hours. Then when I need a battery they're all dead. 1-I have a digital SLR with manual features as well as full auto. I can set apature and shutter speeds. what I like best about the digital over film SLR is the ISO (ASA) features. in the old days I would need two types of film for different lighting conditions. now I just change it in the menu. 2- I hear ya about the old stuff. I still have a turntable and vinyl as well 3- nothing better than Free stuff. there are a lot of old perfectly good SLR being given away by people who have made the jump. 4-Batteries for High drain devices have come a long way. you have to buy high MH nicads to avoid the things you indicated.the batteries I have in my Pentax and smaller P&S Kodak last through well over 300 shots.my irritations with Manual SLRs was the opposite of yours. I hated dealing with rolls of file and the developing process. differnt ASA's and what not....not knowing till after developing is the shot was good or not and never being able to get that once in a lifetime shot again. I was hard pressed to jump from the K1000 to digital. it took me a while to give in. if you are more comfortable with the old processes more power to ya... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zamfir Posted January 14, 2008 Members Share Posted January 14, 2008 I can't touch some of the stuff upstream, never mind that I'm 113 mi away from my (badly stored) negs and aging scanner...but FWIW, I was a fan of Fuji Velvia. This is probably the shot I'm proudest of...Denali from a propeller airplane with a Canon Elan IIE and zoom... However, it's resized to fit HCBF attachment limits, so apologies for the resolution. (No, I don't feel like uploading the original hi-res scan to some photo website... ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bikehorn Posted January 14, 2008 Author Members Share Posted January 14, 2008 This is probably the shot I'm proudest of...Denali from a propeller airplane with a Canon Elan IIE and zoom... However, it's resized to fit HCBF attachment limits, so apologies for the resolution. (No, I don't feel like uploading the original hi-res scan to some photo website... ) Wow! slicing right through a layer of clouds. Awesome shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zamfir Posted January 14, 2008 Members Share Posted January 14, 2008 Wow! slicing right through a layer of clouds. Awesome shot. Thanks. I got very lucky. I just shot fast and hoped something came out. You should see how many times I got a propeller, or a window frame strut, or flare, or a wing, or all of the above, or Denali at a crazy angle... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members walkerci Posted January 14, 2008 Members Share Posted January 14, 2008 What means film? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.