File :-(, x, )
film Anonymous
Anyone else here shoot film? i use digital as well (d200) but i have been using film for ages, i love my eos 5, sx-70 and holga to death

this one was taken with a olympus om-pc and then xprocessed
>> Anonymous
use the other topic
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
I just finished off two rolls of 120 yesterday. Hoping to get them developed today (depends on whether or not the little photo lab within walking distance of my office building can handle 120).

There are several other filmfags here, too.
>> des
     File :-(, x)
filmfag reporting for duty lol

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image Width2285Image Height3414Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16Compression SchemeUnknownPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution273 dpiVertical Resolution273 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2007:07:25 09:00:39Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width640Image Height800
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I shoot 100% film.
I can't stand the digital crapola. No one knows what photography is all about anymore.
>> N.C.F.
If i'm feeling retro i'll break out dads Cannon 750 and shoot film.
>> ????? !wAHA/GeRU.
I take out my F100 when I want to shoot film.
>> pskaught
>>64599
great fucking picture
people who don't like film either never shot it or were no good at it.
>> Vincent
     File :-(, x)
Velvia FTW, (Exif says D70s cause thats how i scanned it), Really shot with an N80 and a sigma 24mm f1.8

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D70sCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern822Focal Length (35mm Equiv)138 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:07:10 22:39:59Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/11.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityExposure Bias1/3 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length92.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1504Image Height1000RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationHighSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> elf_man !fBgo7jDjms
>>64736
Ouch, you need a real scanner.
>> Vincent
     File :-(, x)
>>64739
I agree, But I broke the bank with a D200 2 weeks ago, And paying per scan is ridiculously expensive, So this way works for now.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D70sCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsFocal Length (35mm Equiv)138 mmMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern818Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:07:10 22:43:05RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationHighSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeUnknownExposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/11.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityExposure Bias1/3 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length92.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width982Image Height1472
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>64717
If you're not shooting on wet glass plates, you're the cancer that's destroying photography.
>> Anonymous
I'm shooting all film at the moment. Going to need digital for school (the local trade school tore out their darkroom, the scoundrels), but for the moment I'm all old school and shit. Have a Pentax ME and a Bronica ETRSi, want to get an Olympus Stylus Epic (I'm told they behave like a Lomo) and a Rollei 35.
>> Anonymous
>>64612
This tree has mustache. And a huge gaping vagina. I'm lost.
>> nokin !ozOtJW9BFA
>>64717
Change with the times oldfag. otherwise you'll be left in the dust. stop trying to be the nostalgia hero because no ones buying it.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
I also shoot 100% film and i love every minute of it. Always have, always will.
>> nokin !ozOtJW9BFA
>>64792
Don't get me wrong. 35 mm is fine. infact I still shoot it every now and then with my f90x but nothing compares to a dslr.
>> Anonymous
I went to Yosemite recently and ended up shooting about 50 pics with my 20D and about 70 with my EOS 5 and Yashica Mat 124 G.
>> Otherwise Anonymous !R09./old82
     File :-(, x)
Only shooting film, too. We are many.

Picture related, not digitally modified in any way.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>64798

As pure curiosity, go out and take some photos with some Fuji Velvia or Provia film, then come back and tell us if you still feel that way. Not trying to start a debate, just saying. Velvia/provia and the picture quality I get from shooting them is the reason I refuse to go digital.
>> Anonymous
>>64803
You mean the look you get from them. Which is fine and a completely legit reason. However, digital has higher quality than film.
>> Anonymous
>>64805

You're a fucking noob. Prove it, without linking to some bullshit website. I can show you some 20 megapixel scans from a 35mm slide if you prefer to just give up now.

oh, and I shoot both digital and film. There aren't any digital tricks around yet that simulate the colors of Velvia, or the salt and pepper look of ISO 3200 film, or anyway to get around square pixels. Film sucks because it's expensive, it's harder to manipulate and less forgiving of mistakes, no EXIF data (anyone who's ever kept an exposure log knows what I'm saying) and it works in slow motion compared to digital.

And it doesn't matter what you use, since photography's been a populist medium since 1900 anyway.
>> Anonymous
>>64807
I didn't say anything about Velvia's colors or the look of grain or any of that, except that such things are actually legitimate artistic reasons to go with film. If someone wants the look of Velvia, they have to shoot film, of course. And they should.

All I said was that the image quality- if you want me to be precise, I meant resolution- of digital is higher than film. Which is true, and I don't know how to show it to you without either a link or doing tests myself, which I am not doing.
>> ebc !!CrSG8WXPtZF
I would shoot a lot more film, but I have nowhere to get anything other than C-41 developed around here.
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
I recently started using film. I like digital, but I like the look of B&W film more.

Now, if only I can have my rolls developed and scanned..
>> Anonymous
>>64854I have nowhere to get anything other than C-41 developed around here.
>>64855I like the look of B&W film more. Now, if only I can have my rolls developed

Where the hell do you guys live that you don't have bathrooms in your houses?
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
>>64857

Like I said, I just got started with film.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>64857
The chemicals, supplies and whatnot for developing B&W film will run you over $100.

Then, to actually do anything with the pictures, you need to invest in an enlarger and associated supplies and consumables, or at least a decent negative scanner. So that's more money.

And also, even if you're lucky enough to have a bathroom without, say, a window in it (like I do. Second-floor bathroom, nice big window), you still have to light-seal the cracks around the door.

You should keep in mind that "Just develop it yourself" is much easier said than done.
>> Anonymous
>>64860

True, but you can run processed black and white negatives through any Noritsu minilab and get prints. So you really only have to process them. But, like you said, that's still much easier said that done, considering that processing is a skill that takes a photographer some 6 or 7 years to master.

>>64832

Here, I'll help you with the math. A 35 mm frame measures 24mm x 36mm. Convert that into inches. You get about .95 x 1.42 inches. Multiply that by the 4000 pixels per inch of the common (and fairly low-rez) Nikon scanner. You get a 3800 x 5680 pixel scan from that. Multiply them together? 21 megapixarz. Know anyone with a 20 megapixel camera?
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>64832

I just recently did an enlargement on one of my photos to a 30x36 with very little color and focus loss. I don't think any digital photographs would be able to do that.

I will agree with you that digital has *most* films beat out, hands down. However, it still has yet to beat the color, quality and look of Fuji Velvia. The day that digital doesn't require any work in photoshop at all is the day I will consider switch.
>> Anonymous
>>64869Know anyone with a 20 megapixel camera?
Not personally, but they do make 39MP digital cameras...
>> elf_man !fBgo7jDjms
>>64872
Which one did you get enlarged?
>> Anonymous
>>64860
I got all my supplies (developing tank, dishes, etc.) and chemicals for about $35 total. And that, as of 22 months later, was a one-time investment. I develop 4-5 films monthly (in one session), and you can barely see there's anything missing from the 250 ml bottle of Rodinal (Foma's R-09 actually). Concentrated fixer runs out faster, but I still have about 4-5 months worth of it. The only recurring cost is distilled water, which is like $1,75 for 5 litres (one developing session takes about 2 litres).

I actually do all my stuff in my very room, with a nice big window taking the bigger part of the wall. Night and a dark blanket hung over it does the trick.

But you don't even need that for just developing. Wait until it's dark, put a dark blanket or two over your duvet, hop under it making yourself enough of sealed space to manipulate stuff, and wind the film on the spiral and put it in the tank there. Et voila, rest of developing process is done in the light.

Developing your own films is as easy as it sounds. Don't make it look harder and more expensive, because it's not. All it takes is a small one-time investment, and evening or two of "dry" practice, and a bit of reading. Which you can do here:

http://www.silverlight.co.uk/tutorials/toc.html
http://digitaltruth.com/devchart.html

The only thing I ever messed up (and I started with zero experience) was pouring out freshly mixed fixer solution instead of saving it during my first developing session. I was quite nervous as you can guess, but the film itself turned out perfectly
>> Anonymous
>>64869
There's more to image quality than sheer size. I know you said "no links," but this page explains the difference:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/clumps.shtml

>>64872
Photoshop is to digital what the darkroom was to film. Just like before, to get a high-quality, usable print/file, someone has to put in some work with the out-of-camera output. Your film isn't done until it's been processed, and the same is true of digital.

I've not measured them to know what size they are and I can't ID those large print sizes on sight, but I've seen plenty of extremely large digital prints that look perfect. It's all a matter of processing.

Of course, there's no Photoshop labs out there to do it for you.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>64869
Just because the scanner's capable of 4000dpi doesn't mean the film is. With the vast majority of films out there, you're gonna be scanning multiple pixels per actual grain of film well before the 4000dpi mark. The only one I can think of for which that might not be the case is Velvia 50.

A quick google search reveals a lot of resolution comparisons. Digital SLRs--especially the full-frame beasts like the 1Ds and 5D and especially the 1Ds mk II--tend to come out way ahead of 35mm, and they even give 6x4.5 a run for its money.

>>64872
>The day that digital doesn't require any work in photoshop at all is the day I will consider switch.
People (including you, I might add) have been quite complimentary of the pictures I've posted here.

None of them have had any postprocessing done. Hell, I don't even shoot in RAW.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>64880
Maaaan. Where'd you get your supplies? I got mine from Adorama and it was something like $150 for everything I needed...
>> Anonymous
>>64886
According to the tests I've seen, full frame digital beats medium format film.
>> Anonymous
>>64887

craigslist craigslist craigslist. guys can't get rid of their darkroom stuff fast enough.

>>64883
It's funny how every film vs. digital debate always includes a link to luminous landscape. The guy is hardly an objective source; his whole site is geared towards how much awesome digitals to filmz. Note that he conveniently forgets to mention bayer interpolation.

wikipedia ftw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosaicing
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>64895
>his whole site is geared towards how much awesome digitals to filmz.
I would dispute that. There's a lot of pro-Digital articles on there, but that's just a reflection of the trend in photography as a whole. There's also a lot of reminiscing about Leica film cameras on there, for instance.
>> Anonymous
>>64887
I got R-09 ($6,75) and Fomafix ($4,50) from real-world outlet of a domestic shop. But fomafoto.com and ars-imago.ch carry them at comparable prices. Developing tank from ebay ($5,75). One 100 ml and two 600 ml beakers from local chemistry shop, two 1 litre measuring dishes and two funnels from local household equipment shop, totalling about $10. Two 20 ccm and one 5 ccm syringes from a drugstore for, uh, $0,20 total I guess. Box of 10 small binder clips for hanging wet films to dry for $1,50. 5 used AA batteries to mount on aforementioned binder clips to weigh down aforementioned drying films - priceless.

Rodinal doesn't like acid stop baths, so I stop with water, and wetting agent whatevers are snake oil if you use distilled water for washing (and you should), and like every decent human being go have 8 hours of sleep after the developing session.

Which brings us to total $28,70. Seems like you got ripped off about 5 times.
>> Anonymous
>>64897
Oops, forgot a 500 ml bottle of Coke for storing the fixer solution after drinking/pouring out the original content. $29,70.

For the record, R-09 comes in 250 ml bottles of concentrate to be diluted as one-shot portions anywhere between 1:20 and 1:1000 (yes, one to one thousand) - I use 1:100. Fomafix comes in 500 ml bottles to be diluted 1:5, working solution lasts ~3 months / ~8 films.
>> Anonymous
>>64898
Oh, I knew I was still forgetting something - the thermometer. Make it the missing $5 of my first estimate.
>> Anonymous
i shoot film with my minolta x-gm, although i have a digital slr, i resort to film,
expensive but worth it.
anybody in adelaide,australia know where to buy developing chemicals
>> Anonymous
>>64805


are you drunk, film i can blow digtal out of the water with my blad 500c, digital is limited to 256 colors, film is a checmical process, there for its colors are infinite ,
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>65068
Not 256 colors. 256 levels per color. So the total number of colors is 256red * 256blue * 256green or 16,777,216 colors.

While, yes, the analog process of film can theoretically hold more color information, 16 million colors is already more than a human eye can actually distinguish.
>> Anonymous
>>65069
16 million colors is already more than a human eye can actually distinguish.

Yes but the 265^3 colors do not contain all the colors the human eye can distiguish. Also it's more complicated than that anyway. Digital >>> film, but not b/c of the reasons you state.
>> Anonymous
>>64895
That's obviously an issue with digital, but once Foveon's patent expires, it'll be good to go.

In the meantime, every test I've seen has digital still outpacing film.

Something else I'd like to see: Interchangeable sensor backs. Obviously, most of us will only be able to afford one or two, but it'd be nice to know there's a special, hi-res, no Bayer filter, black and white sensor we could pop in the back of the camera, or a sensor optimized for low noise, or a sensor that gives exceptionally vibrant color, like Velvia does with film.
>> Anonymous
Shooting RAW and ramping up the saturation = velvia... discuss.
>> Anonymous
>>65080
Oh shi-
>> Anonymous
>>65080
To an extent, yeah, but different sensors show color differently and there's more to the look of colors than just the extent of saturation.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>65082
Still, something that could presumably be done in software with any reasonable color sensor. I'm surprised that nobody (especially, say, Fuji, who make a lot of digital cameras) has added in a specific Velvia Mode.
>> Anonymous
>>65085
>>65080

nah, there are elements of the velvia "look" that are very specifically film-only. The deep shadows and warm yellows are good examples. I've been using the RGB color space graphically since I was 12 (moar lens flare11) and I haven't seen any yellows that compete with velvia.
>> Anonymous
>>65088
As for the yellows, you're doing it wrong. As for the shadow info, I can't really argue with that...