Anyone Still Use a Film Camera for Model Photography?

[Anonymous]

Its a shame, I have a fairly decent film SLR (Canon EOS 10s) camera.

And, of course, unless you don't have a computer at home, its kinda primitive --- and costly ---- not to use a digital camera.

I keep looking at ebay and such places, and I see I won't get hardly anything for my film camera.

Does anyone still prefer a film camera? Do any professionals use them .... is there any advantages to film.

Is there anyone like me here who has a nice film camera, but is straining to buy a nice digital SLR? I'm at that point where I am kinda proud of my little layout and want to take some photos. I'm a novice photographer.

Greg

[Anonymous]

hi,
I use both film and digital. For model RR stuff its almost all difital because I honestaly dont have much to show off yet. For lots of other things I still used my film camera. I have a Nikon F2S, and I love it. I use both it and my digital for real train photography. While i love the convenience of my digital, I still can shoot a lot better with my F2. I also really like the way that slides turn out. I think they end up with much better color than prints or digital... just me though.
Digital cameras have made film equitment prices go way down. Its kinda sad. I am planing on getting a DSLR if i get a job this summer, if not I may be able to scrape together enough money to get a cheeper one anyways. If i get one it will replace my current digital camera and my F2 in some uses, but I'll still be luging that F2 around often enough.
~matt

[GAPPLEG]

I think the era of instant self gratification has taken hold, we get to see our pictures so quickly now . my [2c]

[Anonymous]

use it,do you have a scanner with your computer. if so scan photos, adjust , put them in a file and get photobucket or like and then send away.

[selector]

O, take a roll of carefully crafted pictures of your layout, get the prints AND a CD made at the drug store/photo finisher, and then you will have both formats. You could even post the digital ones here through a webhost.

[orsonroy]

I've never been able to get decent photos of models while using film, and so I never really pursued it. Now that I have a digital, I've taken thousands of images of my and other's modeling efforts, including over 400 on a single engine superdetailing project alone! Now that I'm getting good with it, I'm planning on upgrading to a 8+ meg digital SLR and start writing a few articles. I would have NEVER done that if I was locked into film photography.

Do I still use film? Not much. I've still got an 8mm videocamera that I use regularly, and I bring my Canon and Nikon film SLRs on trips with me just in case my digital craps out on me, but I haven't used a single frame of film in well over a year. The only time I can see using film (for now) is if I decided to chase a fantrip: the lag time on my HP 945 is too slow for more than 3-4 shots in a row, wheras with my film, I can burn through 32 frames in about 13 seconds. Once I pick up a high-quality digital SLR that doesn't have that problem, I'll probably donate my film stuff to a museum somewhere.

[Anonymous]

I use both , digital and 35mm. If its just for fun or convenience, I use my digital, it fits in my glovebox or my shirt pocket. I also have a Canon AE-1 with an assortment of lenses for real keeper pictures or anything I might want to submit for publication.
The magazines want 35mm slide (preferred) or 8 megapixel files for print, my current digital is only 2.5 megs, fine for my uses. I'm not ready to spend the huge bucks yet!!!!!!![;)]

[Anonymous]

I intended to keep using my Canon film cameras (EOS Elan IIe & 7e) when I first got into digital, but they quickly became sidelined even with point and shoot digitals. I was shooting more and enjoying the photos more because there wasn't any cost to them, taking many more than I would have with film. When I got my first Digital Rebel I hadn't used either film camera for about a year and a half. Then on to a Rebel XT, and I finally bit the bullet and sold my film cameras. Of course my lenses still fit the digital cameras, so I wasn't totally rid of the equipment.

I've had several articles published with my digital images, and I'm quite pleased with the cameras - I also have two small point and shoot digitals that I carry around with me most of the time.

When I'd shoot model photos with my film cameras, one roll of 36 exposure slide film (Ektachrome 64T) would cost me about $27.00 including processing. No such costs with digital, and instant feedback! I also share quite a bit of my social photos - at train shows, family events, etc., through online albums. With family spread around the country quite a bit, this is a great way to share photos. I know I certainly wouldn't send them all color prints!


Bob Boudreau

[trainboyH16-44]

I exclusively use film, partially because I'd rather buy a pair of Stewart FP7s than a digital camera, and partly beacause I know how. Set 'er up on a tripod, set the f stop as low as possible, and keep the shutter open for 20-30 seconds....
Works like a charm, my photos look great!
I am a bit of a film zealot, actually, and I firmly believe that slides are the ebst media out there for many purposes! But the patience..I'm still waiting for a print to come back of a picture I took over a month ago!

[leighant]

I use a Pentax K1000 as a carry-around camera for railfanning and documenting scenes/ structures/ equipment I might want to model... also for color slides for "serious" stuff like submitting for publication.

For trading and posting on-line, I have the gosh-awfulest system. I have a $4000 broadcast television camera bought for a TV show I was going to produce but it went bust and I did too.
I can't afford to buy new $200 batteries to lug the thing around, but I use the AC adapter to power the the thing for shooting digital video of little models. Upload a video clip to computer. Freeze it in my Premiere editing program to get a still picture. Crop or manipulate the image in Photoshop. And email to a friend or upload to railimages to post on this site or elsewhere.



The picture I was shooting--- my 1969 first attempt at N scale scratchbuilding.
http://www.railimages.com/albums/kennethanthony/aed.jpg

[wjstix]

I was taking pics with my old 35 mm Zenit camera yesterday !! I love being able to shoot digital pics but to get the close-up ability etc. on a digital is (from what I understand) a pretty expensive proposition. I use my wife's digital camera for 'real' train pics, still getting used to the delay though.

[jrbernier]

I hardly use my Pentex MX or Nikon N2000 - The Nikon bodies go for $50-$100 on eBay(if you can get that much). Most of my current photography is with a Powershot A95(my son's camera). For eBay, I use a cheap computer cam(takes super model photos on my desktop for things like eBay).

Jim Bernier

[MisterBeasley]

My digital camera is a nice 5 megapixel one, but it is still fundamentally a snapshot camera. The flash is built-in, and there is no tripod mount. For the closeup photography on my layout, I find the flash on the camera is overkill and does not return true colors very well. On the other hand, with no tripod it's tricky to work with just room lighting. As an amateur, I don't have a bunch of professional photo floods lying around, either.

Mostly, I just live with the shortcomings of the digital camera to gain the turnaround time and cost advantages. I have used my old SLR for some of my favorite shots, though.

[Anonymous]

Still film here. I can't get the results I want with a digital camera that is in the price range I'm prepared to pay. When digital SLR that can use my existing lenses gets below $500 I'll jump on board. My son has a 4MP point and shoot digital that I use occasionally.

[Anonymous]

I don't have a digital SLR with changeable lenses. I have a Kodak EasyShare digital. The maximum f-stop is only f-5.5. Not that good for model photography. I have more control of the depth of field with my film SLR camera. It has a lens with an f-stop of 22 which is better for model photography. The higher the number the depth of field (smaller the aprature) the sharper the focus between what's in front of the camera, the subject and behind the subject. A pinhole lens is f-90 or higher but they're expensive.

The digital is good for setting up the shot and judging lighting. Lighting position and intensity is the tricky part. Shadows are a pain to deal with. It'd be great to shoot everything outdoors.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wjstix

I was taking pics with my old 35 mm Zenit camera yesterday !! I love being able to shoot digital pics but to get the close-up ability etc. on a digital is (from what I understand) a pretty expensive proposition.

Most point and shoot digital cameras have a close up mode that allows you to get in close enough for model photography. Digital SLRs can also focus farily close with the lenses that come with them - see the following HO scene, taken with my Digital Rebel XT and it's standard 18-55mm lens:



You can get in close with most cameras using add-on close up lenses that screw onto the front of the lens just like filters. A set of 3 is around $35.00, not overly expensive.

Bob Boudreau

[hminky]

The use of a Depth of Field program like Helicon Focus makes the digital camera great.



A practice picture with Helicon Focus and an under $200 refurbished Konica Minolta Z20 (Click on Image to enlarge)

The price of digital camera is made up by the cost of the images. I know I couldn't afford to take pictures for my website with film. Digital makes it so that one is losing money not taking pictures. As far as 8 meg pictures I was told by a professional; that is why you have Photoshop, you can jazz a 5 meg to 8 .

Just a thought
Harold

[beegle55]

Well I dont think film is bad, but the market is dead for film. Sorry about your luck with selling your camera's. I have a Nikon and a Komica-Minolta or however you spell it that are excellent camera's that use film that I purchased... wait no I didnt even buy them, they were given to me. See how dead the market is?? But I have 3 digital cameras and love them ALL!

[Anonymous]

I still use film (slides) when i take trackside pictures, but use digital too. I got a Canon EOS when they came out, and loved it since. Last year I got a Canon G6, and love that too. The difference is not I shoot everything at any time. I do not have to worry about lost film. And I sometimes take multiple pictures, just in case. The bad ones get tossed in the Recycle Bin. One thing to remember is that digital is not as fast as film (yet), but it is getting there. For us with a budget, those Digital cameras will take a while to be affordable. It used to be the megapixels, no more; now it is the speed of the chip to process the image and store it in memory.

Cheers
http://home.earthlink.net/~pesce/

[Bob Hayes]

I have an Olympus OM4 w/ 35-200mm Tokina lense. If Olympus comes out with a DSLR that will accept my lense, I'll switch. Until then, I'll stay with film. Processing a roll of film at Wally-World only costs about $3, and the film itself isn't very expensive either.

Bob Hayes

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by lpesce
One thing to remember is that digital is not as fast as film (yet), but it is getting there.

Do you mean fast as in sensitivity? I can adjust my Canon Digital Rebel XT from ISO 100 to 1600, which should be fast enough for almost anything. And I can shoot any combination of ISO speeds one right after another, no changing over to a new roll of film.

Bob Boudreau

[jkroft]

Film is still the best picture quality unless you buy a fairly expensive digital. I still have not seen a digital that compares with shots taken on Fuji Velvia 50 with the right lens. There are some things that most digitals can't do yet (minus photoshop of course) such as multiple exposures, but for average photos you can't beat digital.

[larak]

Both.

Digital is lightweight and convenient. No wait for prints, may even do simple video. A great way to test shots, over 300 photos per memory card, cheap to use, etc.

Film with the right lenses is FAR better for low light, closeups, instant shots (no delay), print quailty (300dpi for digital vs 2400 or better film depending on real ASA/ISO rating), adjusting depth of field or shutter speed (although my digital can do these), choice of flash units, and everywhere else you need better than good image quality.

Big enlargements from even the best digitals are only OK while film is excellent .

Rember that computer screens can typically display less than 100 dots per inch, printers 300-600, and photographic negatives or slides thousands.

The question is how much quality do you want/need for a given circumstance?

[james saunders]

i have a pentax MZ50 film camera which is great and DSLR been about $1000 here it's out of the question for now, but i do have a point and shoot Fujifilm digital camera which does the job of close ups and model photos.

[orsonroy]

Most of you guys who are still claiming that "real film beats digital" are forgetting that 90% of all professional photographers now use digital exclusively. Model railroad magazines are an oddity in the press world, in that most of the images are still film-based. In the fashion/design worlds, film is a thing of the past. Astronomy, once the last bastion of film for it's long-exposure qualities, is now fully embracing digital (NASA doesn't use film any more) Even the bulk of National Geographic's photos are now digital. And those professionals aren't schlepping $900 digitals, nor even $2000 digis. Their gear STARTS at $20K. Most of us "average" users won't ever see one of the high-end digitals in our lifetimes, let alone use them.

But I do miss the depth of field of B&W medium format. Now that they're selling for rediculously low prices, I've been tempted to pick up a Leicia medium format for the occasional "art" shot. That is, so long as someone still makes the film for them (anyone remember B&W Polaroid film? And how long it's been since it was available? Kodachrome 64 will be a thing of the past in ten years, and harder to find than typewriter ribbon)

[Anonymous]

I used to use them but then I got a good digital camera a Kodak C340 5mp camera. It takes real good pictures so I no longer have a need to use 35mm camera. I am glad now too!!

[RMax1]

Still fairly heavy into film cameras. I have a pair of Nikon's an F100 and an N70. I also still use an olympus OM1n and an OMPC. Digital I get by with a little Sony. For most the heavy stuff the Nikon F100 is the weapon of choice.

RMax1

[R. T. POTEET]

Podna', I've seen nothing in (cheap) digital cameras which would entice me to give up my film cameras. I have a couple of Canon 35mm SLRs - an FTb that dates to 1971 (the first one sold in West Germany, incidentally - I bought it at the Canadian Forces exchange at Solingen in January of that year [the clerk was still unpacking the shipping carton when I came through the door looking for one]) and an A1 which I bought right after my retirement from the Air Force in 1978. Both have served me well. I usually shoot B&W with the FTb and color slides with the A1. I have seven FD lenses to go with these SLRs and I will run these two cameras until the drop. That FTb might just be the best purchase I ever made in my life.

(In addition I also have a couple of cheap Chinese manufacture TLRs with which I shoot color prints if I just happen to get an insatiable urge to shoot color prints but that doesn't happen very often.)

As much as I would like to believe otherwise these two cameras are not going to last me forever (they no longer have any spare part's support by the manufacturer, for instance); before I buy a digital as a replacement, however, there is an 8X10 View camera in my future (read: probably some time in the next two years) and I anticipate that, unless I can find a (ridiculous) bargain somewhere I will spend between fifteen hundred and two thousand dollars on it.

I am certain that there is a digital camera loitering somewhere in my distant future - probably costing almost the same amount of money as I anticipate having to spend on a View camera. I can gay-ron-tee you one thing, however, when that day does arrive my purchase will be something with the same flexibility as my film cameras (read: interchangeable lenses) - ain't no $239.95 Wal-Mart special for this coyot. I demand more from my photography - and take it more seriously - than that.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by larak
Film with the right lenses is FAR better for low light, closeups, instant shots (no delay), print quailty (300dpi for digital vs 2400 or better film depending on real ASA/ISO rating), adjusting depth of field or shutter speed (although my digital can do these), choice of flash units, and everywhere else you need better than good image quality.

"Instant shots (no delay)" - yes on point and shoot digitals, but not on DSLRs. They are just as fast as film SLRs.

"adjusting depth of field or shutter speed" - as you already stated, DSLRs can do these, so why mention it? My DSLR has a depth of field preview button, and my lenses stop down to f/22, others to f/32. Shutter speeds from 30 seconds to 1/4000 are available.

"choice of flash units" - this could be right, but is not really a problem. There are half a dozen flash units available for my DSLR from the manufacturer, and many others too. So I don't really see how its a problem if I cannot use my 15-20 year old Vivitar 283 on my digital.

" everywhere else you need better than good image quality." - not sure where the average model railroader would need better image quality than can be supplied by a decent 6-10 MP DSLR. Maybe if you need to make 20" by 30" posters all the time, but for normal use, magazine articles & covers, digital is not a problem.

Bob Boudreau

[rolleiman]

I don't think there's any denying the advantage of immediate feedback from digitals. For posting on the internet or viewing on a computer screen, just about any digital will do. Some are pretty respectable for making prints as well, up to a certain size (depending on the camera). Some are better than others, granted, no argument there. My true passion when it comes to photography, even model photography is Black and White. I haven't seen a digitally produced, or enhanced photo (print) yet that can touch film. That's not to say that very respectable results cannot be obtained, just that my preference still lies with film. At the risk of sounding like a snob on the subject, I don't think most people care enough about the differences though to go through the extra effort. To me, there's just something about a well done b&w print that is very pleasing. I guess I'm just not in that big of a hurry to see the end result. I still enjoy the journey (35mm - Olympus OM; Medium format - Rolleiflex, Mamiya, Hasselblad; Large format - Graflex; Digital-Panasonic Lumix FZ20). Then again, I still prefer vinyl records over CDs for audio [:D]...