Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,766   Posts: 1,484,156   Online: 814
      
Page 17 of 21 FirstFirst ... 71112131415161718192021 LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 205

Thread: 35mm SLR - why?

  1. #161
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by totalmotard View Post
    I'm even thinking about selling the D700. The only thing holding me back is there ain't any film that will shoot like D700 does at 12800 iso.
    Same here, I also don't have much use for mine except for high ISO color, 800 and up. For that it is a true weapon.

    Lovin' my 35mm film cameras though, especially for astia 100f and b&w in general.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  2. #162
    BradS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    S.F. Bay Area, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,921
    Quote Originally Posted by rippo View Post
    I'm just asking: why, in a digital age, would a photographer specifically choose a modern film SLR camera such as those mentioned above?
    I think your question is a little like asking "why would one choose to eat a banana when strawberries are available?".

    The answer is simply that one chooses what tastes better and obviously, what tastes better, what one wants to eat at any given moment is completely subjective.

    I think that the answer to your question is kinda the same. One chooses a 35mm SLR because one wants to shoot film. Why would one shoot film in such a small format given the current state of the art of digital SLR? Obviously, one shoots film because one wants the look and the experience that can only come from film. Further, one shoots digital because one wants the look and experience that only comes from digital. There is nothing in there about one is better than the other...that is all subjective. The two produce completely different results and require completely different skill sets.

    As an (extreme?) example, if you want the look of Kodachrome, you must shoot kodachrome. There is really no way to get that look from a digital SLR. There is simply no way for a viewer of a digital image to have the same experience as the viewer of a projected kodachrome slide. (yeah, I know that digital images can be projected...anybody who says they are the same experience has not seen a kodachrome slide show.)

  3. #163
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California & Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,635
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  4. #164

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Tasmania, Australia
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by jphendren View Post
    After selling my Nikon F5 to finance a Nikon D2H in 2004, and going through a Canon 5D, and a Canon EOS-1Ds, I have returned to film exclusively. I have decided that I just don't enjoy the digital workflow that is associated with shooting DSLR's; I much prefer looking at Velvia 50 slides on a lightbox. I currently own all of the top dogs in the 35mm SLR world; the F5, F6, and EOS-1V. You simply cannot buy a DSLR that is built as well, and with all of the features of these cameras, for anywhere near the price of the above mentioned cameras. When 35mm Velvia 50 is scanned on a Nikon Super Coolscan it rivals the best DSLRS for detail, but the color is FAR superior IMO. I could only imagine how much detail can be captured with a drum scan! I also do not miss those stupid dust bunnies on the sensor, what a pain.

    Jared
    I would have to agree.
    I came from playing with 35mm point and shooters as a kid, and wanting an SLR but not being able to afford one (oh how I wanted that nice looking Pentax MZ-50 in the camera shop window...and what a dissapointment it was when I got one for $0.99 on eBay after I had played with some really nice SLRs!) to not messing about with cameras for a couple of years after my camera died, to finally grudgingly joining the digital revolution with a Nikon Coolpix, and then the revelation when I had a play with a friend's Fujica ST605...and he showed me how cheap they were now.
    One year on I havec I think 15 cameras at last count, stacks of lenses and light meters and filters and all the junk that goes with them, and all in I have spend around $1k...
    As I said earlier, my Canon EOS RT does 95% of the cool stuff a 5D would do, but it cost me $80 for the camera and $60 for the lens...as opposed to $1k+ for a secondhand 5D Mk1...
    Also I like the permanence of a real tangible piece of film (except for when the bloody kitten chews up my bloody negatives!!!) and the colours of a Velvia slide are not quite matched by any digital I have seen (although I am the first to admit I have seen some WONDERFUL images from DSLRs...) and I also like actually projecting slides.
    The modern autofocus SLR does for me nearly anything I would possibly ask of a DSLR at a fraction of the price, and lets me shoot film which I love.
    I do carry a digi pocket camera, use it most days for snapshots or even to record the settings on a manual SLR for future reference, and I do scan my negs and slides as I don't have a darkroom so I get prints done of the digi files, but the 35mm SLR just gives me great results at a great price so I will continue to use it.

  5. #165
    5stringdeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    603
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by derwent View Post
    Also I like the permanence of a real tangible piece of film (except for when the bloody kitten chews up my bloody negatives!!!)

  6. #166
    e-k
    e-k is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Naples View Post
    My source says "graphy" is derived from the Greek "graphein" which means “to draw". A "drawing" is an "image". Hence "photo[light]graphy[drawing or image]" is defined as "the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface". This excludes digicameras, as no image is produced on a surface sensitive to light; rather a computer file of 1s and 0s is generated and placed on a disk.

    Yes it does follow that digital files are not images. How is a computer file comprised entirely of 1s and 0s an image? It's not. It's mere code that can be read by certain software to create an image, but the computer file itself is not an image. Conversely, a negative or transparency is itself an image.
    The real image is formed behind the lens. The light from this real image strikes a surface sensitive to light: film, CCD or CMOS sensor. A latent image is formed.

    With film you develop it and yes at that point you have a physical image again (although for a negative it could be argued that this isn't a true image as it isn't an accurate representation of the object that was imaged).

    With a sensor, the information is stored physically in some form of memory but remains a latent image until it is subsequently displayed.

    To me, this has been the true marketing genius of the digital camera manufacturers and their cronies at Ritz et al. - get people to think their digicameras are creating and storing "images".
    I'm not sure I get what you are trying to say here. To the average person, there is no practical difference between the image on a piece of developed film and the latent image produced by a digital camera. One's going to get stuffed in a box somewhere, having never been looked at, or one's going to get copied to some hard disk somewhere.

    Both negatives and the latent images stored in files from a digital camera are generally intermediate steps. The negative, in and of itself, is not the end goal, the print is. For digital, viewing on the screen or a print may be the end goal.

    e-k

  7. #167

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    268
    So people can read clots of chemicals on a gelatin-based backing sheet and series of electrons on a magnetised surface. I'm missing out in life.
    500ELX, 80CB
    RB67 SD, 65KL, 90KL, 127KL, 250KL
    Nikonos V, 35/2.5

  8. #168
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,459
    the bloody kitten chews up my bloody negatives!!!
    :oYou didn't! Poor kitty...
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  9. #169
    e-k
    e-k is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by film_man View Post
    So people can read clots of chemicals on a gelatin-based backing sheet and series of electrons on a magnetised surface. I'm missing out in life.
    Well of course they can


    Seriously though, I was saying that undeveloped film and a file from a digital camera are similar in the sense that they both contain latent images. Meaning they both have the potentialto be used to create an actual image.

    For developed film, yes you can see/read clots of chemicals. However, how often is this done without aid--especially for small formats. You don't see many negatives hanging on the wall of the family home .

    e-k

  10. #170

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    New Jersey (again)
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,932
    Oh good lord -- digital vs. film. Film vs. digital. Each side trying so hard to convince the other.

    (actually, I'm a film guy, but even I get tired of watching this unfold.)



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin