File :-(, x, )
35mm or digital? Anonymous
I want to take some hi res gritty black and white shots, would i be better off using a 35 mil? or a hi spec digital? one of my friends told me that 35 mil gives better detail/depth... is that right?

Maybe with a certain type of film?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
inb4shitstorm

basically b&w film is better than digitally greyscaled photos, has better contrast etc.
>> Anonymous
Film bodies are cheap enough today, especially if you can afford a high spec digital. Maybe you could try both and see what you like? You might even want to keep both if you choose compatible bodies and lenses. There are folks who use both systems, rather than being exclusive to one or the other.

B&W on the right choice of film has it's advantages in some areas yet today, though the high spec digital cameras are capable of ever more impressive stuff and are cheaper and easier to use in the long run. Something like the latest Fuji pro DSLR (or even medium format cameras - I don't know what your budget is) is capable of great shots, better dynamic range than ever before or even better detail than was possible on 35mm film. You can also get away with a lot of changeable light conditions and low light work with digital. What do you think about the pros and cons of each? Are you happy about working with limited rolls of film, less flexibility with the ISO of the sensor/film, developing or printing your film?

I'd put it down to personal preference a lot of the time. Are you used to developing your own film? Have you shot a lot of colour or B&W film? It's a good idea to try these things out before blowing all your money on a vague idea. What kind of budget and experience do you have? Got any samples of your work to give us an idea of what you are aiming at? Buying tens of thousands of high spec gear on a whim is a risky move.
>> Anonymous
digital.
all the good B&W films and developers have been discontined.
if you want a dedicated B&W digital camera look into a....nah, i'm not gonna tell you
>> Anonymous
Get some Ilford Delta 3200 and push it to 6400 or 12800. Epic grain.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>91235

OP: ok, ive been shooting using digital for years, but im currently stuck with a sony cybershot p200 7.2mp (not so terrible really). Im considering a move up to something like a canon eos 400, but im not sure how good the filter is. All things considered i think that maybe sticking with digital is best, i just like the shots that you see from 35 mil, especially war shots.

<<< This is the kind of thing im after.
>> Anonymous
>>91238
Save your pennies. That was probably taken with something like this. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/179639-REG/Linhof_000113_72_Technorama_617s_III_Medium.html
>> Anonymous
>>91240

That photos from the fighting in grzny ten years ago, couldnt he of just been using a telphoto, a crappy nikon, and some good bw film?
>> Anonymous
>>91238
Then either digital or film will work, really.

"Gritty" is a matter of subject and style, not of medium. "Grainy," like someone said, is best achieved by getting a fast film and pushing it so far you make God worry it's the Tower of Babel incident all over again.

>91240
Because cropping to a wide aspect ratio is impossible, amirite?
>> Anonymous
>>91243

OP: nah wasnt cropped, probably was extortionately expensive. Ok then Anon.. whats the best, affordable (£300/$700ish) camera for black and white...

...im thinking i need big ISOs, right? or maybe just a really clear digital filter.
>> Anonymous
>>91247

Buy an old medium format camera and lens in an auction or market stall. Get some film and start shooting.
>> Anonymous
>>91253

just found a nikon d80 on a site for $210.. comes with 2 lens and a 4gb card, is it any good for B7W? anyone?.
>> Anonymous
>>91254

$210 US dollars? Beware of that. That is HIGHLY suspicious.
>> Anonymous
>>91255

Its a refurb.. which is worrying, because it must of been pretty fucked up for it to drop that far.

And get free stuff too.

im in the uk, so its equivalent to even less here! maybe 130 dollars US!
>> Anonymous
>>91257

You couldn't really get the lenses for that second hand. Even "refurb" isn't that cheap on some Hong Kong eBay site or something. I've seen refurbished bodies alone for twice that. It's probably a rip-off. It's too much for too little for something not to be wrong there. If it is too good to be true, it probably is not true.

You've either read it wrong or it is a scam.
>> Anonymous
>>91243
I doubt it was cropped unless he was using some kind of prototype insanely rectilinear fisheye with no distortion. Look at the field of view, it's at least 160 degrees.

>>91242
Look up telephoto. You're confused.
>> Anonymous
1.get a seagull tlr, light meter, and a case of ilford delta 3200.
2.?????
3.profit
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>91236
>all the good B&W films and developers have been discontined.
Troll much?