 Dwight Dolby |
How to stay encouraged as a film user I've used 35mm film cameras for years. I am not a pro, but want to take good shots. Recently my brother entered the world of digital cameras and soon sent me in the mail (free of charge) his handy Pentax PZ-70. He had no further use for film based photography. His digital shots inserted in e-mails are so much superior to my own film based pictures that I am in photographic free-fall. If I can't compete with him in resolution, can you give me any hope that I could yet impress him with something on film? I know this is a much discussed topic, but I wanted to frame the question myself. What advantages does film based photograpy retain? I need some hope here!
|
|
|
|
||
|
John Wright |
Film has it's day... Black & White and medium/large format still blow away digital in my opinion (maybe not much longer). Of course, there are fairly inexpensive negative scanners that will allow you to bring your film shots into the digital world. I recently saw a 4x5 negative scanned (at I believe at over 45 megapixel) which was absolutely stunning...
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Dwight, First: Second: Browse this site and others. Go to the library and find books on basic photography. Learn about *making* photographs . . . the technical and artistic. Become skilled at creating photographs and regardless of what you're using to make them with, you're very likely to exceed what your brother is creating. -- John Lind
|
|
|
|
||
|
Dwight Dolby |
Thank you John. You write as an artist committed to your craft. I do aspire to "make" photographs. There is no substitute for patience and hard work. Thus far, my "despair" is based upon how his (my brother's) digital images look on the computer monitor compared with how my scanned 1 hour photo lab 4X6 prints look on the computer monitor. In addition, I've been having my 200 speed 1 hr.processed film placed on local photolab cds. I then upload them into Microsoft Picture Manager or some other such program to save them for greeting card use or e-mail inserts. My brother's digital sharpness and colors just blow me away. As you can see, I barely have my toes in the water so to speak. I'm not using great film. I don't know that I am using a great photo lab, and I don't know that I am all that fluid in aperture and shutter combinations. I very much appreciate your concept of recording light. I want to work on it Mr. Lind. Thanks for your thoughtful and professional response. I will not give up...
|
|
|
|
||
|
Dwight Dolby |
Thank you Mr. John W. as well. If you don't mind me seeking some more mileage here, what is a "negative scanner"? Several weeks ago, I purchased an inexpensive Epson Stylus printer which scans and copies as well. Whenever I hear of a negative scanner, I have this vision of me taking the negatives included in my print package from the local photo lab and scanning those on my Epson. I don't think my vision is accurate. Forgive my ignorance. Just what does a negative scanner scan? What is a 4X5 negative? Again, the only negatives I know anything about are the dark brown 35 mm celluloid negatives which always fall out of my photo lab package, and they are not 4X5. Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Dwight, Scanning the prints is a hard way to get from film to internet or "web based" imagery. Been there; done that; occasionally still do it. I haven't found a flatbed yet that creates a scan of a print that can be used for computer display without considerable work to clean up dust, perhaps some fingerprints if it's been handled, etc. Not exactly painless. The "4x5" negative referred to is a piece of sheet film shot using a 4x5 inch "view" or "technical" camera . . . think smaller version of what Matthew Brady (really his field photographers) used to document the Civil War . . . except it uses sheet film instead of glass plates. A film scanner will take your negatives and scan them (they can also scan slides). Much cleaner process and the current ones for 35mm film can go as high as 4000 dpi from the film . . . roughly a 24 megapixel image (and it's still not into the grain of the finest grain films)! There is a learning curve to setting up the scanning for general color balancing and there is still some manipulation required afterward to adjust contrast, tweak color balance and "sharpen" the image . . . I've found using the "unsharp mask" method working the best . . . sharpening being required because of how the scanning process fuzzes edge definition at the edges of things slightly. For web use I don't need a scan of that size . . . about 2000 x 3000 pixels total . . . about 6 megapixel and then I resize it down to a 1024 x 768 . . . about a third of its original pixel dimensions. -- John Lind
|
|
|
|
||
|
William Koplitz |
At screen resolution, 72 or 96 dpi there is little or no significant difference between film and digital camera (2mp+) picture quality but there is a world of difference in the process and the work flow as you can see from this discussion. Some consumer film scanners are ok, most are not. Some consumer film is scanned very well, most is not. A professional scan is a drum scan which ususally start at around $25/scan. There is just too many variables if you use film and there is always a weakest link. You can use that film camera as desk art. If you are lucky you will be able to buy a digital slr body that will accept your lenses.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John Wright |
Dwight, I think Mr. Lind answered your questions much clearer than my original reply (and followup). It is true that there is a learning curve to using negative scanners (click here for an example of a negative scanner), view cameras, color balancing, etc. In the end, a print created from film is still preferred over digital much of the time. In John L's original reply, I agree 100%, it's really all about recording light - be it on film or on a CCD/CMOS. A good exposure is a good exposure - film or digital... :-)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Steve McCroskey |
Hi Dwight! I started using a film camera(minolta maxxum 5) about 2 years ago! I am cosidering integrating into digital photography,but will not totally switch formats! Why you might ask? Ask your brother how long his storage media will last? See what he says! I like to add another perspective to the issue! Someone else might have another!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Diane Dupuis |
Hi Dwight! I'm just a hobbyist, but I have to say that once I took the step towards digital, there was no going back. The cost of buying and developing film (even at the local cheap place) very much restricted how many photos I would take. But for me the greatest advantage to digital is seeing right away if I captured the shot the way I wanted - and if I didn't I can retake it. Shooting film you have no idea if you "got it" until your film comes back from the lab - and you are back from your trip! I guess it all depends on what you want to do with your photos. If the main purpose is to be able to share them with your friends who live far away through e-mail, then I would suggest you go digital. I've tried the printed then scanned at the photolab way and it just doesn't compare! I don't know about the negative scanner, but it sounds like a good one is very expensive. Bottom line is, for me, that I can now take 300 pictures on an outing, deleting as I go, come home and sort through them, easily post them for friends and family to see, and I order 8 x 10 prints of my favorites (at under $3 Canadian per print) - which I hang in my house. The cost saving is what is keeping me digital!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Cammarata |
Dwight, To backtrack to your original post: You CAN compete with your brother in clarity and resolution. Just load a roll of fine-grain slide film into your Pentax with a sharp lens, and make sure your exposure and focus is right on. Then, match your original slide against any digital image downloaded directly from his camera,...(before editing). NOW, you are comparing apples to apples.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Wing Wong |
Hi Dwight, I think some of the earlier posts got the idea right: Stop comparing based on "resolution", but on creativity. Photography is a creative process, not an arms race. Having said that, unless you are shooting with high end glass, using very very fine grain film, developing at a quality developer lab, AND scanning the resulting negatives with a high end scanner 2400dpi or higher, a good 6MP or a good 8MP digital SLR camera has the edge over 35mm film. If you are shooting with medium or large format film, then film still holds the edge by a good margin in terms of sharpness and details. To be quite honest, why are you comparing your artistic tools to that of another artist? The comparison is much like saying one painter is better because of the use of camel hair instead of plastic bristles. The art is the art... the tools are the tools. I see many great pictures both here and abroad shot with nothing more than a $200 film slr camera. I've also seen really bad pictures shot with a $1500 digital camera. The photographer, not the camera , is the important aspect in photography.
Comparing the slide to the unprocessed digital picture is not comparing Apples with Apples. The slide has been processed. A RAW file has not. So there will always be some processing on both sides. Dwight, shoot with what speaks to you. Comparing yourself to someone else's method or style isn't photography. Whether you shoot with film or with silicon, you are still taking photos. Both have their pros and cons. Arguing or trying to puzzle out which one is clearer, sharper, or brighter won't improve your photography. Shooting, however, will. Wing Wong
|
|
|
|
||
|
doug Nelson |
Dwight, Ever shot slide film and saw the beautiful vbrant colors you get? Many of us are turned off by shooting color prints, because, I think, the industry sometimes gives us junk processing for all but the shots done in ideal light. How often have you made exposure allowances for a subject in the shadows, only to have the printing machine base the exposure on the sky, anyway? Often, you will have good detail in the highlights (skies) and/or shadows, but you'd never know it with the prints you get. I have scanned many a color neg and have gotten great prints by tweaking in Photoshop ($79 Elements 2 can do the same), and printing it out on a $150 printer.
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
if something attached in an email is better than something you're holding in your hand, you just need to get better at taking pictures, regardless of what kind of camera you use.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Dwight Dolby |
After all the helpful input I've received, my regard for this website/community has only grown from my initial delight.There are a whole lot of mentoring types around here and its a privilege to be among you.I'd like to make a few summary comments regarding my present state of mind on these matters discussed here. 1. Diane DK (another digital advocate)reasons like my brother regarding film costs and immediate results. I checked out her web-site/gallery and her photos do the same thing for me that my brother's do-they stun me with their power in clarity and color. I might add Diane, my brother is younger and smarter than me, so that is why I am a little bit defensive. I hate it when he is right. But all brotherly competition aside, who will argue that Diane is not saving money by avoiding all film processing costs? 2. Wing's gallery impresses me in the same manner as Diane's. The boldness of his "marbles" images reaches out and hits the viewer in the face. As for Wing's question as to why I compare at all with my brother, - maybe it is simply a "western thing". Brothers compete - at least that's been my experience. But Wing, I take your words seriously, and I'm going to let go of the "better than thou" thing and work on the craft. I get the message from you all on this and I am content, or will learn to be, with my Pentax. I need to work harder. Therefore, I'm going to stay with film, however, 3. I am going to head down Doug Nelson's path. It's not simply that I like the Appalachian trail (see his gallery), I like his creations. And practically, as a novice, I like his advice. I am tired of trying to make good friends with the tech at the drug store photo lab, hoping he or she will actually personally attend to my film as it is being processed. I live in a community where the good techs are the retired people, but they get tired of the "rush" of the business and eventually leave it to the young techs who don't seem to care about quality as much any more. So here is what I aim to do as funds become available, I AM GOING TO START BUYING SLIDE FILM. I AM GOING TO BUY A MODERATELY PRICED NEGATIVE SCANNER (THANKS TO ALL WHO HELPED ME UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS IS)AND I AM GOING TO START PRINTING OUT MY OWN PRINTS. FROM ALL THAT YOU FOLKS HAVE SAID, THIS IS WHAT I AM GOING TO DO. I looked again at Greg LaGrange's great photos, I looked carefully at Bob Cammarata's gallery, and these men are composing images on film which do move my soul. I admit, it is a quieter, softer, dare I say "richer" feel, not the power of digital, but moving or stirring just the same. Thanks again to all. I'll be looking, reading, thinking and hopefully improving my own "eye" thanks to you all... As for John Lind, if it weren't for the fact that I like the smell of all the new books at "Books A Million", I'd could learn more about the mechanics of light and photography on his web-site than I could in any bookstore! Like I said, you all are a great family. Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Diane Dupuis |
Thanks so much Dwight for your positive feedback. BP is a wonderful place to get answers to your questions - and I'm glad to see you've come to a decision! Good luck in your photographic endeavours!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Steve McCroskey |
Hi Dwight! I agree with Diane,BP is a wonderful place to get answers for your questions and wonderful feedback on just about anything photography related!! Good luck in the future!!!!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Cammarata |
You've chosen wisely to start buying slide film...(if film is indeed what you are going to stick with.) The point I was trying to make in my post is that a properly exposed, tack-sharp original slide can be a thing of beauty! Once you've scanned it to digital, some softness is inevitable. This is a fact of life film users have to learn to live with. Thanks for your kind words on my web site. Bob
|
|
|
|
||
|
Wing Wong |
Wow! Thanks for the compliment, Dwight! Your photography will keep on improving so long as you continue to keep shooting. There is always something more to learn. :) Bob's right, btw. I've seen some nicely done slides my brother shoots(he does film and digital) and they are a sight to behold. The only thing more spectactular would be 4x6 slides. :) Wing Wong
|
|
|
|
||
| Log in to respond or ask your own question. | ||