File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Anybody here still use film for the majority of their work?
>> Anonymous
I use that very camera and lens. I also have a 50mm 1.4 and 70-210 f/4 to go with it. Other than that, just a P&S.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>208849

I have an f100 that I use also, i wish My a-1 still worked :(
>> Anonymous
>>208866
what happened to it? Mine sort of leaks light when I advance film or sometimes double exposes frames.
>> Anonymous
What's the difference between fully manual film SLR cameras? Besides the build quality. The cameras professionals use should be identical to the cheapest consumer one, right?
>> Anonymous
>>208869
Yeah, kinda like dSLR's.
>> Anonymous
>>208869
Build quality, metering modes (most lack spot), motor support, data/bulk film back support, mirror lock up, flash sync speed, double exposure function, top shutter speed, etc etc.

>>208849
Just moved to digital. Before that, Oly OM-1 and Canon 7.
>> Anonymous
>>208867
Then ebay a new one... eventually light seals go and mechanical linkages degrade beyond a point at which things start to fail. it's an old camera.

I still shoot film a lot, primarily using a Nikon FE, great camera with a good feature set that's simple to use and built from old tank parts.
>> Anonymous
>>208873
So just minor stuff then. Same as with dSLRs. Camera manufacturers are just out to get poor fools' money.
>> Anonymous
I usually shoot film, 4x5 though. For the past year, I've been using a 20mm 4x5 pinhole camera with a laser-cut (I suck at making them) pinhole I ordered. 100 micron hole with 20mm focal length works out to about f/200. Fuji Provia 100f has a great reciprocity curve, so I don't even have to adjust my meter readings when I shoot in daylight.

When I need something sharp and more predicable, I use a 4x5 monorail camera.
>> Anonymous
>>208875
Depending on the kind of work you do, a lot of that stuff isn't very minor.

Another would be motor speed, allowing quicker shots.
>> Anonymous
>>208865
I love you.
>> Anonymous
>>208875
Viewfinder coverage, too. Consumer film SLRs had even worse coverage than consumer DSLRs have now, because the expectation was that some one hour photo monkey would crop the hell of the picture to make up for Aunt Helen's bad composition. I think the film Rebels, for instance, are only 90%.

Besides, why not go for the top line F, F2, F3/OM-x/A-1/Pentax LX/etc? They're cheap now since most people have gone digital and almost everyone's too lazy to manually focus.
>> Anonymous
>>208879
pics or it didn't happen.

No seriously post pics you've taken with your f/200 pinhole camera.
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
I do, but I'm going to be switching to digital as I start doing more commercial work. I trust my film abilities, but I can't say no to the ability to check exposure during the shoot when my ability to buy food (and more camera shit) hangs in the balance.

I'll definitely still be using film for my personal work. There really is nothing like a traditional wet-process black & white print on matte fiber paper. For images I want people to critique based on their artistic relevance and creative merit, I want timeless and time-proof. I 'see' better in monochrome, anyway.
>> Haddock !!xREx2m9lgBs
     File :-(, x)
100%
Just got another to add to the stable too.
>> Anonymous
Film is for faggots.
Digital is for dicks.

Real men shoot on glass plate.
>> Anonymous
>>209246
Real men use oil pastel.
>> Anonymous
rebel 2000
still cant find any of my shots though
>> Anonymous
Is it wrong that I switched to digital years ago but still miss cranking the film advance lever?
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>209291
Let it out, my brotha. Repeat after me: "My name is Anon, and I'm a filmaholic."
>> Anonymous
>>209301
does that fake rolleiflex digital that's coming out have a film advance leaver?
>> Anonymous
Praktica BCA here, made in the German Democratic Republic
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>209291
It's the reason I like slr's over point and shoots: the tactile feedback. It may not be especially practical, but there's a nice feeling to loading film and using the lever.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>209301
I would kill for a digital camera that you had to manually "advance"
>> Haddock !!xREx2m9lgBs
>>209307
Epson R-D1.

>>209262
Real men use Charcoal on stone.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>209326
I was under the impression that the "film advance" on the Epson was just a menu navigation tool. Does it actually cock the shutter too?
>> Haddock !!xREx2m9lgBs
>>209328
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/epson-rd1.shtml

" In an unusual design move, the camera’s shutter is cocked by a manual lever that feels much like a short-throw film advance."
>> Anonymous
>>209214
>I want timeless and time-proof

Not attacking your overall choice, but how is a physical object that will inevitably degrade more "timeless" and "time-proof" than a digital file that can be perfectly copied in perpetuity?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
i still shoot 90% film, because i just cant get used to digital, its weird, and makes me take bad photos.

pic is film & related
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>209330
DESIRE TO OWN RISING
>> Haddock !!xREx2m9lgBs
>>209338
Probably the only Digi I would buy, especially since I can use LTM lenses.
>> Anonymous
I shoot almost entirely film.
Have a Konica HEXAR for 35, Bronica SQ-Ai and Zeiss Super Ikonta BX for 120, Tachihara for 4x5 and a Calumet C-1 for 8x10.
I'm rarely satisfied with my images when I shoot digital, not quite sure what it is.
I know in most ways for smaller formats digital should be technically superior at this point but...
>> Anonymous
>>209331
The argument can be made two ways. One is that film will eventually degrade and bytes will always be bytes. The other is that film, particularly B&W negative and color transparency, are archive stable for hundreds of years and require only an eye to view, whereas digital files are subject to format obsolescence (particularly a concern with camera raw files), CD/DVD degradation (which has been shown to happen in as little as 3-5 years), file corruption, and hard disk failure. As I said to myself the first time I lost a bunch of raw files to an HD failure (about 500 shots, from two days of shooting, that I hadn't gotten around to backing up yet) "at least my slides never crashed."

I personally feel that it's a toss-up either way. The most secure method would definitely be digital, in a common and standard format like TIFF, backed up on multiple types of media and archived in multiple physical locations, and regularly updated to avoid breakdown of the physical recording media. Of course the vast majority of people are going to just stick their digital photos on a hard drive and probably won't even bother with a single backup DVD.


I still shoot mostly film, but not because I have anything particularly against digital. I usually use either 4x5 or 35mm with a Leica M3. I like the look of color slide films and find it to be a pain to reproduce it digitally, and I don't particularly like using current DSLRs. I've thought about the Epson R-D1, but really wish there were a version with an updated sensor. If there were one with a current generation 10-15mp sensor that sold for less than $2500, I would buy it.
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>209331
Digital (ie inkjet) prints fade faster than archivally-processed silverprints, and they don't fade gracefully.
Lightjet prints last a little longer, but those are just digital prints on RA-4 paper.
>> Anonymous
Just got 4 old SLRs today, actually. :]
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>209440
Which ones?
>> Anonymous
>>209431
Lightjet prints last a ton longer.
A properly handled RA-4 print should last well over a hundred years before it fades.

That said, an even slightly misshandled print can fade rather quickly, I've seen some of Alec Soths contact prints that couldn't have been more than 10 years old and already had noticeably begun to shift cold.
>> Anonymous
>>209214
>I'll definitely still be using film for my personal work. There really is nothing like a traditional wet-process black & white print on matte fiber paper. For images I want people to critique based on their artistic relevance and creative merit, I want timeless and time-proof. I 'see' better in monochrome, anyway.

RAGING FAGGOT ALERT
>> Anonymous
>>209549
ITT: 13 year olds who don't realise photography has been around much longer than digital cameras.
>> Anonymous
>>209549
butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>208867

it just.... went dark, and i could never get it out of it's mode. I couldnt' risk using it.
>> Anonymous
>>209362
>film...require only an eye to view

This. A reversal slide is an analog reproduction of the scene and doesn't require any special software or hardware to view. It's trivial to flip the colors on a negative, with tons of processes. If there's a global thermonuclear war and all the scientists die and no one can remember how to read a DVD, or decode an image in TIFF format, there will still be little squares of polyester with images on them drifting in the wind.
>> Anonymous
>>209691
But assuming civilization doesn't completely and utterly collapse, the film will have degraded in a few hundred years at the most. Bit-for-bit copies of the raw file can be made indefinitely.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>209648
awww, sad camera.
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>209693
As long as there are computers, and software to decode the images. It is far more likely that electricity/computing will be unavailable than light.
Also, in the event that there's no more electricity or computers, more than ~150-200 years is hardly going to matter.
>> Anonymous
>>209705
What, you think that:

1. Something to convert raw files, TIFFs, and JPEGs to whatever, if any, new format replaces them won't be developed?
2. People won't care enough about their own digital files and the digital files of great photographers working today to retain some means of getting at the files?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>209724
Fake or someone trolling as DC. I'm going to call fake.

If DC was actually asking a question like that, he'd use a newer picture. If someone was trolling or faking it, nothing better than the classic silver Rebel shot.
>> Anonymous
>>209726

look at the date on the image
i don't know if it's real or not, but it's 01/02/08
so it seems like a lot of work for a troll to do that and then keep it around

not the guy who posted it so i don't know if it's fake or not
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>209694

Sad camera decided to be sad while i was in yellow stone national park the first time :( it was the inspiration for going back to the grand tetons for that moose workshop where i got those fuck awesome shots though, remember when i left for that ?
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>209745
Oh, yeah. I know the shots, I don't think I knew when you went?
>> Anonymous
I prefer film to digital.

However, I'm a poorfag so I can't afford film :(.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>209797

I found i'm able to do both.. within limits. I have one film cam & one digital. For anything that could possibly be sold, like models and stuff, or if i'm just out goofing around & not looking for a trophy shot, i use digital. If it's something i may potentially want to enlarge & frame later and i'm in the right mindset to take a 'trophy', I switch to film.
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>209711
Oh, I think someone will keep the digital media alive. My point is/was just that it's IMPOSSIBLE for film to be unreadable, unless it is entirely destroyed. It's the difference between 99% and 100%, and I'll be the first to admit that it's basically an academic one.
>> Anonymous
Film with the A-1 on the 100 speed is great for high-quality still/landscape photos with the ability to size up that is hard for digital to approach unless your spending a thousand~. When digital pictures are sized up they become blurry and just make it not a very fun experience. The only problems I have with film is keeping it still while taking pictures and finding out later I fucked up what could have been a beautiful shot, also carrying all the film I need with me. I'll probably end up using my dad's A-1 until I graduate college and get a real job, but I don't mind it's a great camera and it still works beautifully. For regular photos I use this nikon 7900, horrible for anything but casual photography.

Fuck you and your new expensive camera's /p/, fuck you.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>209338
Popping in while on holiday to say that my RD-1 is treating me well and I wish I had more SD cards. That's one drawback - it doesn't take SDHC.

Strangely, I used lever wind cameras for ages before getting that RD-1 (forgot to put in my name for>>208873), but the first week I had it I kept forgetting to advance it. It's second nature again now, though.
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>211171
Nice. I don't know about where you are, but here we can reliably get 2GB SD cards for like $20. At that price there's no reason not to buy a bunch.

Glad to hear the lever wind on the RD isn't gimmicky, I was worried it might feel like crap.