[ridinhome]

There's been some good discussion about DSLRs on this forum but I was wondering whether people on here are still using film. My brother recently gave me his EOS 350D, which I've been using with a Canon 50mm F1.8. Maybe I just don't get digital SLR photography but I haven't been too happy with the results. A little too soft for my liking (see an example below). Could be the lens - I heard that the 50mm Canon is a bit hit or miss (what do you expect for $100?)

Anyways, I dusted off an old Canon A1 kit which I've had in my cupboard but never really used. I have the standard Canon 50mm F1.8 FD lens, a 70-210 f4 and a 35mm f2.8. Also using the Motordrive MA and have a Canon 199A Speedlite, but haven't taken any indoor shots yet. I love the feel of the camera. My dad has one and as a kid I used to sneak it out of his cupboard when he was out of the house so I could play with it. Thank god I didn't break it! I took the A1 out yesterday and took some shots in a local park, without the Motordrive and with just the 50mm + a Hoya Skylight 1B. Gotta, say - great camera for photojournalism. Unobtrusive, lets you blend into the background.

Since I have a decent set of FD lenses, I'm tempted to pick up a used T90 body. B&H has one for about $180, in 8+ condition. Still have a long way to go towards refamiliarizing myself with film, but I'm thinking about using the A1 for black and white (am currently using some Ilford Delta 100) and using the T90 for color. Thoughts? I don't really care about the 1/4000 shutter speed, though having something faster than the 1/1000 on the A1 would be nice. Am taken with the idea of the 1/250 flash sync, though, and I've heard good things about the multi-spot metering, but would love to hear how anyone else found it.

Also, any comments on film choices would be great. I've always used Kodak Gold 100 / 200 in the past, with mixed results.

 

[scatterbrained]

I'm in the film is dead camp.
I use a Canon eos 5d mark II and have been more than delighted with the versatility and image quality.
As far as digital image quality vs film, I think it has as much to do with the camera as the lens. We went budget on one of our lenses and you can tell a huge difference in image quality.

 

[bumblebee]

I have a T 60 canon I bought 20 years ago That takes fabulous pictures. I still use it regularly.

 

[mbodell]

I use a nikon F3 HP with a 20 f2.8, 28 f2 50 f1.2, 105 f2.5. I think the camera is as old as me. I have had many high end cameras and this is the only camera that I have kept through them all and all I have left, aside from some old collectibles.

The last digital I had was the D100 and it sucked. I always lost details in the whites no matter how careful I was with the lights and exposure.

Once you learn to print color by hand and develop your own film you realize how little reward there is from the instant gratification. Digital took away my enjoyment of it and I slowly gave up photography.

 

[ridinhome]

What kind of film are you guys using?

 

[mbodell]

FUJICOLOR PRO 160C | Fujifilm Global

Fuji pro C and their 400/800 film is awesome. It gives great color/contrast results and converts to digital well if you have to.

 

[enos]

I'm with you that there is more enjoyment in the whole process with film, but I just can't do it myself. The chemicals are nasty, the equipment requirements are big, and if you're going to get it developed at a lab it gets expensive very quick. Still nice, and I'd like to eventually get one of those old time large format view cameras. With matching photog clothes and magnesium flash

Until then I'll stick to my D50, 3 TTL flashes that go manual if I want, lenses that autofocus if I want, the ability to shoot HDR, stitch seamless panoramas, instant exposure and focus confirm so I know I didn't miss a shot I can't retake later, spray-and-pray for fast action, ability to adjust ISO for every shot, and not having to worry about getting film in remote locations.

If you didn't get a sharp shot with the Rebel it sounds like either the lens is poor or the AF is off. Did you check on a print or on the screen? You'll never zoom in on film as close as you will on digital, and expecting total sharpness when pixel peeping isn't fair to a Bayer sensor cam. You should be able to get sharp shots with a nifty fifty, though, Canon's quality control can't be that much worse than Nikons. There are FD to EOS adapters, too.

 

[mbodell]

I actually have a large format view camera with a Polaroid attachment. Too expensive to shoot now though.

 

[Gimpdiggity]

I have a really nice old Canon camera that uses film. But, I don't think I've used it in 5 years.

I just find digital to be much easier to use all around. Besides, I don't print any photos anyways, I only take them to put on the computer anyways, so with film there's a whole bunch more that needs to be done to get that finished result. Shoot, develop, scan, upload. As opposed to just shoot, upload, done.

 

[Airhead]

I still use my film cameras on a semi-regular basis. I shoot black and white though, so I don't have to worry about the extra chemicals for color processing. Currently I've got 3 Olympus OM-1's and an OM-2 for film. Also a canon 10D and 450D for digital. The digital is great because of the versatility of the editing software but I still love to work with the film...its just got that certain quality about it that I love.

 

[ridinhome]

I still use my film cameras on a semi-regular basis. I shoot black and white though, so I don't have to worry about the extra chemicals for color processing. Currently I've got 3 Olympus OM-1's and an OM-2 for film. Also a canon 10D and 450D for digital. The digital is great because of the versatility of the editing software but I still love to work with the film...its just got that certain quality about it that I love.

Nice. What film do you use for B&W? Filters?

Am using some Ilford Delta 100. Never used it before. Just bought a Hoya K2 Yellow filter.

How do you like those OM?

 

[Airhead]

Nice. What film do you use for B&W? Filters?

Am using some Ilford Delta 100. Never used it before. Just bought a Hoya K2 Yellow filter.

How do you like those OM?

I've had good luck with Agfa apx 100, pretty small grain and has been very predictable from roll to roll. I'm trying out some Ilford panf plus 50 so I'll see how that goes. As I type this I'm realizing I need to try more films...and not get stuck using only one.

I usually don't shoot with a filter on. I get the best sharpness out of my primary lens when it doesn't have anything over it.

I really like the OM cameras, at least the OM-1. They are very simple and very rugged. Only one battery to run the light meter...and needs replacement about once every 2-3 years. There are also some very good lenses for the OM system.

Here's a sample of whats typical of apx 100

 

[mbodell]

Not sure if you can get it anymore, but Agfa Rodinal with ilford Hp5 is a great combo that I love. Rodinal is/was the best, especially if you ever needed to push the film. Rodinal however doesn't look so hot with some kodak films.

 

[ridinhome]

Thanks all.

I'm jealous of you guys who have the time / money / space to do your own developing. I did some when I was in high school (our school had a darkroom to do B&W) so I'm familiar with how the quality of a photograph can be impacted hugely by the production process. Unfortunately I live in NYC now. I don't even have personal garage to park my bike, sigh.

Ah they joys of suburbia.

Airhead - nice pic. Love the slight grainy texture.

 

[User Name]

Maybe I just don't get digital SLR photography but I haven't been too happy with the results. A little too soft for my liking (see an example below).

I think digital's criticism of being too soft is more a result of how easy it is to scrutinize a digital photo - you open the file and are instantly viewing it at 1:1 resolution, which is probably far closer than people typically view film prints. A fair comparison would be to have a digital print made and compare print to print, or to have a negative scanned and compare pixel to pixel.

Digital's biggest failing is low light, and I still have an Olympus OM-1 for long exposure stuff through my telescope, but I'm all-digital otherwise.

Here's a few of my digital photos, and sharpness isn't an issue.

 

[jconly]

Hmm, I shoot medium format and large format film for my personal work.
I shoot medium format/large format digital and digi-slr almost every day when on set for clients.

I think your comment about digital being soft is just the very simple need for capture sharpening. It's just a necessity with digital files.

It's also a necessity with film when scanning...


Although it's inevitable that digital is taking over film (simply for the convenience and quick turn around time) in the commercial photo world, it's not to say that I feel film is dead by any means.

Commercially speaking, maybe traditional printing is about done with though (and despite it's beauty, why shouldn't it be... with C prints that shift color within 5 years unless stored in a fridge.. requiring the need to reprint by hand) why not embrace the ability to actually SAVE and image and just reprint it down the road.

The biggest thing about photography when it first hit the world way back when was this is was the first medium to actually provide the ability to actually reproduce a scene. But of course, every print would be slightly difference since done by hand. Now, reproduction is finally an easily consistent process.

Granted, film production has been cut back drastically, but what remains on the market is the commercially viable stuff, designed for the digital word.

Somebody mentioned Fuji 160C. A redesigned emulsion from the previous generation, the whole Fujicolor line has been recreated for optimal scanning (although, personally I shoot the 160S instead, since I can always add that extra contrast in photoshop later, but can't really take the contrast away)

But although 160S has been my film of choice for a number of years now... I've begun to turn more towards the brand new Kodak Ektar 100. Little more saturated, little less grain. Very nice.

I'd give that a shot if I were you... if they make it in 35mm that is.


Anyway.... I know I just rambled out a bunch of shit.

Don't know how helpful any of it is. I know you're looking for a lot of info on what camera to use...etc, and honestly I don't care much to get into that kinda discussion, I'm just tired of that personally.

But if you got specific questions... I'm more than glad to get involved in the discussion with something thats hopefully comprehensible.

 

[jconly]

I think digital's criticism of being too soft is more a result of how easy it is to scrutinize a digital photo - you open the file and are instantly viewing it at 1:1 resolution, which is probably far closer than people typically view film prints. A fair comparison would be to have a digital print made and compare print to print, or to have a negative scanned and compare pixel to pixel.

Digital's biggest failing is low light, and I still have an Olympus OM-1 for long exposure stuff through my telescope, but I'm all-digital otherwise.

Here's a few of my digital photos, and sharpness isn't an issue.

I would agree with this. Considering viewing an image in Photoshop at 66% is the equivalent of looking at the print through a 2X loupe, it's great for retouching skin or other fine details... but to actually judge a potential print... it's senseless.

And that's the other thing, when judging sharpness, it's all about the final destination.

Sharpening for screen is completely different than sharpening for a print. When printing, what you see on screen is never what actually translates on paper. Generally, a properly sharpened print will look way to sharp on screen. When sharpening for screen, it gets significantly more easy to judge, but then again.... even screen to screen it varies since the ppi of each screen is different as well.

 

[ridinhome]

This is all good stuff, and exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping would get going. Please keep it coming - learning some good stuff here.

So I used to do film work about 7-8 years ago and then pretty much stopped due to work / grad school / general apathy. Did a bit of digital stuff with a P&S Canon A610 (not a bad little camera). It took some surprisingly good pictures, sharp with good detail. However it was in switching over to a DSLR that I found the lack of sharpness, which makes me think that its partially equipment (though the lens I've got has great reviews for sharpness) but more likely I've forgotten most of what I knew from film. Plus I think I underestimated the learning curve for digital, assuming that if I knew film a little I'd be able to pick up digital SLR work.

Re the film v/s digital debate - while I accept that the move to digital is inevitable, a part of me hopes film never goes away. I find I'm a more focused photographer when doing film work.

User Name - great pics.

 

[User Name]

However it was in switching over to a DSLR that I found the lack of sharpness

It may be that the little point and shoot cameras are just running an internal sharpening filter on the photos automatically, as they tend to be aimed at the general public who just wants a good pic with little to no effort. But the Canon DSLRs have always been known for being slightly soft, and I usually bump the sharpness setting in the camera up a notch or two. But again, the proof is in the print. I've blown up some photos pretty large, and have been pleasantly surprised at how they hold up.

I had this printed at 24 x 36, and it looks incredible:

Re the film v/s digital debate - while I accept that the move to digital is inevitable, a part of me hopes film never goes away. I find I'm a more focused photographer when doing film work.

I'll admit to being a little on the lazy side when it comes to shooting. I got into photography initially just to compliment my 3D/computer graphics work, where I already knew Photoshop. So I have the unfortunate habit of knowing what I can fix in Photoshop and not worrying about getting the best shot from the start. The computer can definitely be a double edge sword.

But I wouldn't give up digital for ANYTHING, especially underwater. Talk about trial and error... with all the restraints posed by being underwater - the limited depth of field, low-light, all the movement PLUS having the camera in a bulky housing AND only getting 3 or 4 opportunities (at best) to really practice each year... The instant feedback with digital is invaluable.

I do find it funny how people (myself included) have come to appreciate the grain inherent in film photography, since it's really a limitation of the medium. In the CG and photography I do for work, we often add in layers of grain in Photoshop to emulate film grain. It's just funny that we add in a defect to "improve" an image. I've wondered if photography progressed the other way around - from digital to film, if we'd have added in jpeg artifacting to make film look more like "traditional digital photography"!

User Name - great pics.

Thanks!

 

[jconly]

It may be that the little point and shoot cameras are just running an internal sharpening filter on the photos automatically, as they tend to be aimed at the general public who just wants a good pic with little to no effort.

Well, yes, the majority of P&S's out there only shoot JPEG, with only a few shooting RAW.

Whenever you shoot a JPEG, be it a P&S or DSLR, the camera is then processing the file internally, using the sharpening (among other) settings that you set, in camera. These settings are then made a part of the file, and cannot be undone.

With DSLR's comes the ability to shoot RAW (and of course P&S's like the Canon G series, the Panasonic LX3, and a few others). When you shoot a RAW file, none of those in-camera settings are applied to the RAW image. There is no in-camera processing done. So, if you were to compare a JPEG vs. a RAW straight out of camera, the JPEG is always going to be sharper (and generally be more contrasty and saturated as well).

It isn't until you open the RAW file in it's processing software that you are then given the option to work with ALL of the data captured from the sensor, to tweak it to your liking. When you shoot that JPEG, the settings are applied in camera, and all that extra data is then thrown away.

So, if you're shootin RAW with your DSLR, and things are looking a little soft right from the start compared to a JPEG, chances are it's because you're not applying your capture sharpening.


Additionally, DSLR's (and perhaps P&S's, I'm not positive) all have a piece of glass that sits direcly over the sensor. This piece of glass is the IR filter, which prevents a particular spectrum of light (not visible to the human eye), from having an effect on the sensor (which is sensitive to that portion of the spectrum).

The addition of this glass filter also softens the data at capture, and when shooting a JPEG (processing done in-camera), the cameras software is written to account for this adjust accordingly. With RAW capture, this is not automatically accounted for.


Now, I'm not sure what file types you're creating at capture, or why you've chosen that particular type... but to compare the two to film, you might use this analogy:

Shooting a JPEG is like shooting E6 (Positive, slide film). When you're making your film selection, you're choosing what level of contrast and color saturation (and even sharpness, to some extent) before you even make the photograph. What you're left after the processing is that final image, a positive RGB image, ready to go.

Shooting RAW is like shooting C41 (color negative film).... sorta. The color saturation (well, the color palette really.. some films are warmer, some are cooler, some are balanced for tungsten light, etc), and tonal curve (read, how contrast in the scene is translated onto the emulsion) is chosen at time of film purchase, but the majority of the image (your vision) is translated to paper during the printing stage, where you have many controls over the appearance of the image. The thing is, with RAW, you don't really have the "choice of film" ahead of time. In other words, the contrast curve, color balance, and color palette are all something you tweak after capture.



Anyway... I hope that made sense.
Being a photographer, I have a way of expecting people to know what I'm talking about.... so again, if I can help explain anything.. just ask.