Film requires processing. The image on the left did not spring fully formed from the Canon EOS 3. It was processed in a darkroom. There are dozens of film simulation presets that can reproduce that image from the digital RAW form the Canon 6D.
I started shooting professionally in when digital was just becoming a viable alternative to film. By the time I stopped assisting and began shooting in , clients generally expected digital for a few reasons.
Digital backs produced beautiful, large images in real time. Art directors could place a mockup of each photo into their layouts and get client approval before we wrapped up for the day. And budgets no longer included film, processing, clip tests, contact sheets, prints, scans, etc.
One immediate, and unexpected, benefit was — because they saw the images in real time, clients were comfortable once we locked in the planned shots and were much more willing to try a few different things while on set.
And those last few shots of the day often became the ones they used. In a commercial environment, digital just made sense once the image quality got to a certain point. I did miss the manual process of preparing the film each morning and working with my favorite labs and printers, but it made sense.
I still sketch every shot before shooting. I still take detailed notes. Not the end of the world, just not my favorite part of the job. When talking about film vs digital, I feel that my favorite part of photography is often overlooked — the experience of meeting new people, traveling to new places, capturing unique images, and creating deep relationships with the talent, clients, and crew.
Those things will never change. Photographer for many, many years starting with a Canon A1, I now have hundreds of thousands of full frame Sony shutter actuations and recently shot an old camera with TMAX bw film. You use what speaks to you at the time. Digital does not create film images.
I have been photographing for many years. I have a Nikon F6 as well as a Nikon D I love the results from my film camera. I give the DSLR the same opportunities. I Sometimes shoot them side by side, film and digital. This is of course after processing both in photoshop. The DSLR images seem to have much less body to them, the film images seem to be more robust in nature.?? Hard to explain.
The DSLR is great for family stuff,weddings, birthdays etc. I keep trying but I always get the same results. The only file I could get my hands on was Kodachrome 25, or Kodachrome I took beautiful photos of archaeological sites such as Hatra, Nippur and Babylon. My first camera was a Canon A1 purchased in I still have it. It still works. I will stick with film. Best wishes! I promise you…. I shoot digital now Nikon D with all Nikon lenses ranging from fisheye thru mm and macro prime Nikon mm.
I post process in PS for many years and the digital bribgs beautiful images. I still hold on to my Nikon F90x tho. I can explain. I pick my shots carefully. I execute with care.
I put the film in fridge and store them for the rest of the year there. I develop them in dark room at Xmas time. I love the surprises , the forgotten moments, the throwback in time. The surprises, the mood of developing, the ritual of taking photos with a thought and preparation, not taking thousands of shots and scrapping them after.
The click with film counts, there is no other click and you only find out if you did it right or not in the red light. Simple argument, if your in business and have many clients shoot digital. If your doing it for personal work shoot film and enjoy the good ol days of analog! I am not happy coz I will never get the detail back!
I shoot all digital.. I think that people should stop comparing resolution, the popular Joker Movie was filmed on 35mm and then mastered in 4k.
Film gives you a more artistic look, and less worry about settings like white balance, auto focus, raw or jpeg. Film looks good if you know what you are doing right out of the camera. I like not worrying about anything but composition, and not needing batteries, or having to edit photos. Plus the cost of digital to get quality photos cost thousands or at the least hundreds of dollars if you are thrifty.
For the year with the cameras and development, I will spend under , and can always go to medium format, or large format. Try buying a cheap digital medium format camera, is about 60mm so ten under IMAX standards. Digital may look technically correct, or sharper edge definition, or colour rendition. But it is not as artistic, and post editing takes the art out of creation, editing numbers, and values, not air brushes, or toners, or even the film type.
Film is coming back in a big way, I would say higher than Vinyl records. Timothy Leary. Film is more artistic? Resolution is highly dependant on grain of film stock used. The recurring costs of film photography add up. Gear acquisition syndrome driving camera upgrades every 2 years only effects those who fall for it.
The D produces excellent quality images. To be clear, my point re the d is it can be acquired for very little these days. Even better example would be a used D or D or even an old Canon 20D. I started my photogrphy journey with film and sold my SLR, lenses and tripods after a relatively short period of time. It was pre-photoshop, scanning and digital manipulation. The cost of film, cost of processing and zero control over how film was processed just made the hobby inaccessible to me.
Not to mention my little M10 weighs nothing compared to my OM10 which always felt like a brick around my neck and a pain to carry. Very good comparison of a digital and film photo showing what can be achieved straight from the camera. I have owned full frame digital nikon and now an xt2 but have always missed what I got from film back in the day so have just gone back to an F5 mainly for black and white.
Does anyone really believes that this comparison I legit the person clearly shoot with a flat picture profile and used a canon 6d which does not have the IQ that other Digital camera have like the d S on this comparison. I am good, very, very good at computers technologies and been in digital for over 10 solid years now. Still so much of the world is in digital, how can we really avoid it. Converting film, much less prints, to digital so that I have a digital version of what I did, is slow and costly as its not common today.
With film I cannot go shoot and within minutes or less give somebody a jpg copy to check out. That ease of use has value. The digital is not as good, but the effect of getting a draft into 20 peoples hands editors, etc 20 minutes after shooting it gets a some respect, not to mention high demand. Their values are a dichotomy to me, that neither can be brushed away or solved by the other.
No offense but what you describe is not digital vs film but a completely different matter. This is an endless debate, and one which will, by definition, divide us into different camps. Pretty low I would guess. Happy shooting to you all. For me, 35mm film connects me to my past. Also, I wanted my young daughter to have a physical photo album.
Shooting with a film camera is also very satisfying. I love to hear the clockwork mechanism on slow speeds. Also, yes the images just simply look nicer. I have been suggesting to Google that they include a mechanical shutter sound for their phone camera.
Hey Jeffrey this is Stormie. Glad to see you are back. Very fun article to watch. The sword was my favorite. Hope you keep them coming. Happy New Year. Only in the hands of those with the patience, skill and dedication, will a film camera likely yield superior results to a digital one.
I was 10 when I got my first camera for Christmas in It was an Ansco Panda. I took a hiatus from film beginning in and am just getting back to it. A few years ago I jumped in fully with serious digital equipment. What really amazed me when I purchased and started using Vintage TLRs and folding 6x6s was how much photography — and me — had changed. It took me awhile to remember to set the speed and aperture, focus, cock the shutter, shoot and advance the film.
In all cases now my end product is digital — either direct from the camera or from scanned film. This gives me the chance to enhance, crop, manipulate any image. I love it. Keep in mind that film photography is more expensive, but the photos often look better. See if […]. Great article. Not a professional by any means, but nothing beats film. That is, when in the hands of the right developer. I can use a digital to scout areas I want to shoot, and record comments. With a digital I can shoot, record comments about when I think will be the right time for that special composition.
For the most part, digital is the more common method of taking pictures, but there are benefits to […]. Whichever gives you the happiest experience. When it comes to commercial shooting the client needs will determine what platforms you are able to bring to the table, but when doing it for your own reward — try out all kinds and see what suits you.
I shoot both. I only use film when I want a slow day, ie. Heck trying to focus on them running around is enough to drive one to some bad habits. Point is, both has there place. Film photographers have to learn aperture, shutter speed etc. I want to see what my eye through the lens saw, not a manipulated Light room version of. She knew the beauty and soul of film. For me, this was a request I could keep. In a day of photographing, two rolls of film would be considered a lot. I am a quiet photographer, and wait for the moment of connection with my subject, or when I let my own defenses down.
I have nothing to compare film to digital aside from my iPhone, but will forever be an analog photographer. A few years ago I purchased a used Leica M 8. Long story short, I spent lots of time learning how to process digital files, post-process, etc. Today, I use the digital M8. Some of these images find their way into work that I use … most do not. Having a relatively inexpensive and quick sketchpad has proven valuable to me.
For the bulk of what I do deliver, show, etc. I rely on films. Pure and simple. Of the two workflows, film is slower and more expensive but therein lies its hidden strength. I bought my first 35mm SLR while in high school.
Got a mm telephoto lens for it as well. But could you enlarge the resulting photos to a huge size even after cropping and get super sharp and beautiful prints on glossy paper. Once married the wife wanted color so I mostly shot speed Kodak film. Prints seemed to fade so did a lot of slides for many years. Most ended up stored for years in boxes I am just starting to go through now.
Here is what I am finding out now. Using an analog camera, you can only take as many pictures as there are exposures on a roll. Plus, you have to keep paying for new rolls of film, and that can end up costing you a fair amount.
With so many more convenient and easier options, why would anyone continue to use analog cameras? Well, as it turns out, there are plenty of reasons why someone might choose to take pictures with an analog camera over a digital camera. You might even need to bring some extra batteries with you, in case one of them dies on you. Film cameras are also probably the better option when it comes to black and white photography. For photographers who love shooting in black and white, a film camera will be able to provide a much higher dynamic range.
It's a simple and reliable design that shoots 12 frames on medium format roll film, with shallow depth of field effects we pay a fortune to achieve with modern cameras.
Where the Yashica Mat G was an affordable twin lens reflect camera with a fixed lens, the Mamiya C was a professional version with interchangeable lens pairs, which was introduced and became popular in the s as a less expensive and less complex alternative to the Hasselblad , THE professional medium format camera of the time.
The C was a true system camera, with interchangeable lenses from mm , interchangeable focusing screens and a choice of viewfinders. It's a big old lump to carry around but it's still possible to see analog camera fans and photography students still using them today. Its utilitarian box-shaped design looks as if it could have been designed yesterday, and modern high-end medium format cameras still use its flexible, modular design.
The camera is the central box, to which you can fit a wide variety of lenses, a number of different viewfinder attachments and different film backs.
The interchangeable backs deserve a special mention — you could swap backs in moments, with your assistant loading new films into a spare back as you shoot, swap between the square 6 x 6cm or 6 x 4. A tactile analogue experience meets digital perfection, it adds another point in favour of this fantastic film camera.
An evolution of the RB67, introduced in , the RZ67 keeps the revolving back that gave the earlier system its name, and the just-off-square 6 x 7cm image area. Just to put this in context, this is far larger than the 6 x 4. It's a bit big and heavy for extended handheld use, though, and it's best used on a tripod. High-quality medium format film cameras are holding their prices pretty well at the moment, and you might have to shop around to get a good working, affordable example.
The great thing about film, and especially medium format roll film, is that it's so flexible — both literally and metaphorically. The film rolls are mm wide, but it's up to the camera maker how much width they want to use. You got fewer exposures on a roll, but extra-large negatives and transparencies.
The GW is a no-frills fixed-lens manual exposure camera that offers huge images in a comparatively portable package. Modern film cameras are pretty specialised. They're aimed either at analog auteurs who just love the look of film and the feel of film cameras, or technicial specialists for whom large film formats, extensive perspective-correcting camera movements and the ability to mix and match a wide range of lens, film types and even digital backs is more important than than the quick-fire simplicity of regular digital cameras.
Many of its specs will seem quite familiar to modern digital users, including its full program AE, aperture-priority, shutter-priority and manual modes, powered film advance at up to 5.
Styled by Giugiaro, the aluminum alloy body looks a dream, but the 5. Nevertheless, the F6 offers a chance to get a beautifully designed and made film camera is as-new working order with modern controls and technology.
The Nikon F6 is available new in some places, but has been discontinued in many countries. Leica M rangefinders will always be controversial. To some they're overpriced, overhyped throwbacks to an era that's long gone. To others they're beautifully made classics of engineering that have reached a plateau of perfection. The M rangefinders take a bit of getting used to. Rangefinder focusing is fast and precise in the right hands but takes some learning, while the pain of paying for an M-A body is only the start, because Leica lenses are equally expensive.
But if you like your film photography to be stripped back to its basics, the M-A will oblige. You'll need to work out the exposure yourself, you'll need to apply the settings yourself and you'll need to focus yourself, but for Leica M fans that's what it means to be a photographer. The Cambo Ultima is a modular monorail camera. The Ultima 45 is not a complete camera in itself because you'll also need a lens plate and lenses and either a film or digital back.
It's a very interesting crossover product that handles very high quality large format film photography but also modern digital backs with much smaller sensor areas. The point about a monorail system is partly its supremely modular and flexible and, uh, expensive design, and the way the back and front plates can be shifted and angled independently for unprecedented control over perspective, depth of field and planes of focus.
It's well suited to studio and architectural photography for those reasons, and harks back to the days when top quality commercial photography was made using 5 x 4" sheet film. Some may remember Hasselblad's much-loved XPan panoramic camera and a few more may know of the Linhof Technorama.
Unlike the XPan, however, the Technorama is still going. The Technorama s III is sold body-only but a number of different lenses are available. It's a camera for experts, not just because of its manual exposure but because of the need for precise manual focus it doesn't have a through-the-lens camera and the need to keep the camera absolutely level for those ultra-wide ratio images. The Technorama is designed for high-quality technical photography and shows the flexibility still offered by the analog film format.
Film cameras fall into different size categories, just as digital cameras to today. These use sheet film, usually measuring 5 x 4", to offer supreme image quality.
Well, almost supreme, because there is also a 10 x 8" size with four times the negative area. You'll need to source your own lens plates and lenses, track down 10 x 8" film and work out how to carry a camera weighing 15lb on its own, but with sublime image quality and a wide range of lens and camera back movements, it's a chance to follow in Ansel Adams' footsteps. Lomography's shops and online store provide an Aladdin's cave of photographic curiosities, from relaunched budget snappers from Russia to new widescreen wide-angle panoramic cameras to a 35mm kit camera you can make yourself.
We haven't tried the Lomography version but we hope it will keep going a little longer — especially at this price. But the Lubitel isn't about engineering finesse, it's about rediscovering the imperfections and naivety of old snapshot photography. It's a celebration of brightly-colored plastic and bargain-basement features, and a reminder of what cameras used to be like — and how the conditions had to be right for taking a picture. This camera is probably a lot more fun to make than it is to use.
It comes as a surprisingly inexpensive kit, but there are lots of plastic panels, parts, screws and springs to put together so it's going to take some patience and dexterity. You'll need patience to use it, plus some very exposure tolerant film — we'd suggest colour negative for its latitude. It does have a very interesting waist-level viewfinder though, with through-the-lens viewing provided by spring-loaded mirror lever.
Yes, it's a lot to pay for a plastic camera, and you've got to be a fan of the heavily-vignetted, super-saturated, none-too-sharp Lomo look, but the Lomo LC-Wide certainly lives up to its name. Its 17mm lens is way wider than the kit lens can go on any regular camera and well into ultra-wideangle territory. It does need three yes, three LR44 batteries, though. Panoramic medium format cameras are typically very expensive, but the Belair X is not.
It can shoot medium format images at three different aspect ratios, including square , and an extra wide ratio. That's the great thing about roll film, that it has a fixed 6cm height but allows camera makers to choose all manner of different frame widths.
The Belair looks very cool, and the Belair trim is only one of several options. There's a lot of plastic, though, so don't expect too much from the finish and feel. This has to be just about the cheapest way to get into medium format panoramic photography, though, and it even comes with two plastic lenses. It's film photography at its most basic — low cost, low risk and, er, perhaps low expectations.
Single-use or disposable cameras come pre-loaded with 35mm film, pack a basic basic lens on the front and have no photographic controls. If it's bright outdoor light, you're fine; if you're indoors, use the flash. Anything in between — well, you're on your own. The results are variable, but they're great for kids, parties, holidays and cheap gifts. Yes, it does cost a few pounds more than your usual disposable camera, but you're getting a waterproof camera, for heaven's sake! Fujifilm says its plastic case is water-resistant to a depth of 10m, so it's likely you're going to be in trouble long before the camera is.
The Fujifilm Quicksnap Marine comes loaded with 24 exposures of Fujifilm ISO Superia colour negative film which you should be able to get developed at any regular high street chemist or online photo lab. Control is limited, obviously, in that there isn't any. Here you get two new adventures for the price of one. You can return to the lo-fi land that time forgot with this super-basic disposable camera and try out the tonality of one of Lomography's own black and white films.
You might have to hunt around a little to find a lab to do the processing, but Lomography does in fact run its own lab so you can always send the camera back for processing when you're done. The camera is cheap, but analog processing, sadly, is not, but that's the difference between analog and digital — you're capturing the world on a physical medium, not just as a bunch of binary bits. The Fujifilm Quicksnap Flash is pretty ubiquitous and typical for 35mm disposable cameras.
We've not been able to find out anything about the lens but it's pretty clear it's going to be a semi-wide plastic lens with a small fixed aperture and a single, fixed shutter speed. This camera also comes with a flash, so it's a bit of a mystery how they make them for this money. The quality will depend on how well you choose the lighting conditions — it's going to work best outdoors in good light, though the flash has a range of 10ft so indoor party shots are possible too, but expect eighties-style red-eye effects and rabbit-in-the-headlights facial expressions.
Ilford's single-use camera looks no more sophisticated than any of its rivals, but it's what's inside that's interesting. It's loaded with Ilford's XP2 black and white film, which is pretty unique in that it can be developed with regular C41 chemicals which are used for developing colour print films around the globe other black and white films need chemicals formulated by people wearing thick glasses and lab coats.
0コメント