Anyone else still shoot film?

[Conrail5]

Absolutely ! Pentax K-1000 

Lenses 50mm , 28mm , 28-200mm zoom

I like having total control with this camera.

 

 

[stevewf1]

I like having total control with this camera.

A lot of digital cameras, even some of the little "point and shoot" ones have a metered manual mode.

Even my (lowly) Canon S3 IS has all of the modes, but I mostly use "aperture-priority" and sometimes "manual". 

Speaking of "total control", this camera also has different white balance settings (I never use "auto"). It also has full-image, center-weighted and spot metering. Unlike my old film cameras, if the day becomes cloudy and dreary, I can simply bump up the ISO setting - I've gotten good shots with this camera I would have never even thought about with film when the weather turned "bad"...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CopCarSS]

This would be a seriously cool way to go about shooting film. I fear it's going to be a bit too much for my pocketbook, but man is that retro look COOL! And 6x7 negs will deliver detail that only the very best digital cameras (think Canon 1Ds Mark III and Medium Format Digital Backs) will be able to touch.

[MikeSanta]

I do. I'm not sure I'm used to the computer age(this is my WIFE'S computer I'm reading this forum on) so I'm better off with a roll of film. When I get my pictures back from WalMart, I get a disk with them so I may be able to e-mail them to y'all sometime. But that's a while off, probably.

[Cris_261]

I was still using my trusty Minolta 5000i that I bought new in 1991 up to last year, when my camera for some unknown reason stopped working when I was using it, and the word "help" appeared on the LCD. I've heard that parts are no longer available for this camera line, and if there's a place that can repair it, could the cost be justified, or would the repair money be better spent on a digital camera. That's the question going round and round in my mind.

Meanwhile, I'm using a Kodak digital camera handed down by my sister until I can decide if I want to stick with 35mm or to go digital. Of the digital cameras that I've looked at, so far the Nikon D40x looks the most promising, but I won't make a final decision (and purchase) until I get my tax return back.

[jockellis]

I've pretty much quit using my Canon F-1 and lots of lenses and gone to my Canon 2B or somesuch rangefinder from August, 1949. It makes me think more about what I'm doing. When I use my wife's digital, I find my pictures are really bad because I don't think about what I'm doing and often cut off heads or other important things. Now if I could afford a nice Canon digital which takes photos in real time (whatever model that might be) so that I can get HCB's critical moment, I'd jump in a New York minute, whatever that is.

[miniwyo]

I keep my 35mm rebel in my bag with me, And usually have some Fuji 100 color film and Kodak Tri-X 400 B7W film with me. one thing is that it is hard to get the B&W film processed either myself due to time, or the alck of a processor here in town.  I am also toying with the idea of medium format... But If I were ro try medium format, it would be this camera HERE.  I am really not a fan of Large format, mainly bacur most of my shots are really spontanious, and are done with limited time, i.e. sunsets, wildlife, and things like that, So a hand held is better for my needs....

 

XT arrives in 7-10 days... 

 

Hey, You should have waited a bit... Canon JUST(in the past week) released thier newest Rebel, the XSi, All the Cool rebel features, with a new 12.2MP sensor....

 

Myself, I am looking into the Canon 5D soon....

 

[CopCarSS]

RJ,

I'd avoid the Seagull cameras. If you want a good TLR, head over to everybody's favorite auction site and look around for a Yashica Mat 124G. They're excellent cameras with good optics and won't be very much more expensive than a new Seagull.

[miniwyo]

RJ,

I'd avoid the Seagull cameras. If you want a good TLR, head over to everybody's favorite auction site and look around for a Yashica Mat 124G. They're excellent cameras with good optics and won't be very much more expensive than a new Seagull.

 

That is a good little camera as well. the college here in town has something liek that one, maybea different model, as well as that exact seagull and even a pentax SLR(weighs like 6 pounds) But I used the Seagull most, and i became fond of it, but I may look at that Yashica... A friend of mine just got himself a Rollecoid on eBay, he looked into it, its was made in 1936! The optics on it are great, and its light and easy to carry....

[trainboyH16-44]

I keep my 35mm rebel in my bag with me, And usually have some Fuji 100 color film and Kodak Tri-X 400 B7W film with me. one thing is that it is hard to get the B&W film processed either myself due to time, or the alck of a processor here in town.  I am also toying with the idea of medium format... But If I were ro try medium format, it would be this camera HERE.  I am really not a fan of Large format, mainly bacur most of my shots are really spontanious, and are done with limited time, i.e. sunsets, wildlife, and things like that, So a hand held is better for my needs....

 

XT arrives in 7-10 days... 

 

Hey, You should have waited a bit... Canon JUST(in the past week) released thier newest Rebel, the XSi, All the Cool rebel features, with a new 12.2MP sensor....

 

Myself, I am looking into the Canon 5D soon....

 

Yeah, that's why I bought the XT! I can't afford anything else! Besides, I don't really want a Rebel, 40D's looking awfully nice! I'm sticking to crops for the time, I like the 'extra' reach. 

[LVJJJ]

I cannot stand the supposedly "better" digital cameras.  the delay between pushing the button and actual shot taking place is downright annoying and has ruined many many photos.  With a moving object you cannot afford any delay.  Shoot, most of my still pictures are blurred cause once that first flash occurs I move the camera.  I've taken many great pictures with the old 35mm and none with the digital.  Sure hope they don't get rid of film altogether as photography as we know it will die.  Larry  

[artpeterson]

A loyal film (Kodachrome) user and will stay that way until the folks in Rochester bring the curtain down on K-64.  Have Kodachrome 10s from pre-war era that have not walked one iota in color in the intervening 65+ years!  For what it's worth, Art

[oldyardgoat]

I put my A-1 way while watching the twin towers disintegrate on 9/11/01.  Only had out once since - when the 844 (and 4449) came by the house last May, and I was on a bluff far away from the U.P. gestapo, who think they own the BNSF.  I'll get it out again if/when STEAM is in the region again in my lifetime.  Digital is my choice for my model RR shots.  I'm not much of a shutterbug. 

ardenastationmaster 

[BuckeyeandWalnut]

  If you are smart you will keep those film cameras as you explore digital. Digital has its place for what I call "record" shots and virturally unlimited image capacity. But the lower end digitals are too slow for that next shot you just need to have, the battery costs (including rechargables) are extreme and you had better have a darn good (read expensive) photo program on your PC and the time to utilize it.

My Pentax film camera gives me consecutive frame and auto-bracketing capabilities which, to me, are very useful for passing shots of moving trains. Both camera types have their place, so you might keep the old filmer handy for that time when the digital's batteries die and you MUST have that next shot now.

[RicHamilton]

My Pentax film camera gives me consecutive frame and auto-bracketing capabilities which, to me, are very useful for passing shots of moving trains. Both camera types have their place, so you might keep the old filmer handy for that time when the digital's batteries die and you MUST have that next shot now.

You may want to check out the DSLRs. Even my midrange Finepix has bracketing and burst shooting (albeit only three sequential shots).  A friend of mine has a Nikon D70 where he can depress the shutter and it will fire until the card is full including the bracketing. 

At least with mine using NImH rechargable AA's I can always get something at a convienience store to finish the day if I burn through my extra set. unlike my Nikon F60 camera

[stmtrolleyguy]

I started off shooting film, but I've almost entirely switched to digital now.

Pretty much the only film shooting I'll do is with my Rolleilex, which shoots 2x2 negatives, which are more fun to work with in the darkroom, and larger, so they can handle MUCH larger prints.

Digital for me is easier for a few reasons : 

1.  My average photo shoot is 90 photos - thats 3 rolls of film/trip.  That's at least $20 for film/processing right there.

2.  My camera has ISO 100 - 1600.  I don't need to worry about letover film hanging around inside my camera when I go to shoot something different.

3.  There's no delay with film.  No processing fee.  Nothing.

 

The one thing I've noticed about a lot of the people here who've had trouble with digital is that they've tried going digital on a budget.  I know that everyone can't afford $700 for a high-end DSLR.  But if you get the cheap $100 digital camera on sale @ Target, don't be surprised if the results aren't as good.  A cheap digital is the same as a cheaper film camera - your results may vary.  A cheap digital can give just as lousy performance as a cheaper film camera.

[trainboyH16-44]

I cannot stand the supposedly "better" digital cameras.  the delay between pushing the button and actual shot taking place is downright annoying and has ruined many many photos.  With a moving object you cannot afford any delay.  Shoot, most of my still pictures are blurred cause once that first flash occurs I move the camera.  I've taken many great pictures with the old 35mm and none with the digital.  Sure hope they don't get rid of film altogether as photography as we know it will die.  Larry  

You, my friend, need to put down the credit card sized silver load of cheaply made crap, and pick up a DSLR!

If you look around a little more, you'll find that photography as we know it is currently far more digitally-oriented than film-oriented. Rent a Canon 40D or 1DsMk.III for a week, then get back to me on how laggy and low quality digital is.

[trolleyboy]

 I do both. I love my old Minolta 35mm SLR it's knd of like an old friend.I do have a digital that's seems to be used increasingly more often. Nice thing about still haveing film though is that the place I use to develop automatically burns me a CD as well as returns the prints and negatives , so I have a digital copy of all my film shots as well , which when I'm board allows me to edit them with the editing software my digital camera came with. Wierd probably but hey it works for me.

Rob

[al-in-chgo]

Let review the bidding, shall we? 

There are people who are dubious about digitals and don't wish to spend nine hundred dollars for a genuine DSLR with a bag and a lens, discounting compatible film/digital lenses.  Besides the body and lens or two there's still hordes of double-A's or cell batteries to be bought, new software, new non-compatible lenses, upgradable digital storage media, any training videos, etc. . .   

I know digital is "better," I have no desire to contest that point.  Most if not all of you DSLR mavens definitely feel the expensive change of picture-taking modes was well worth it, don't doubt your word.  But that leaves me with a problem beyond consumer electronics, the thrill of the new, and whether it's only the cheapskates who balk on the mantra of "newer is better"  -- we are talking about photography, an art and craft that by definition, exists to be seen. 

Of course we all are impressed (unless, like me, you're somewhat awed too) that a digital image, a still photo, can be forwarded virtually infinitely to anywhere there's Internet.  That I get in abundance.  Other than obvious photoshopping effects, though, I have yet to see a digital image that is noticeably superior in standard reproduction modes (i.e., the VGA type video screen and the four by six print).

I would love to see some evidence of digital's superiority in the real world.  I'm sure it's out there.  Thus far, I've yet to see any evidence of digital's superiority, whether an action shot or a carefully-planned-out shot, that gives results significantly better than a film camera, tripod, great B&W or color stock, and knowledge of the pre-existing medium which hasn't died yet.  Those of you who have shot extensively and even professionally in both modes almost always testify to the superiority of digital, it's just that I should have been born in Missouri . . .   

Cybernauts, would you like to post here or on some railfan dot site examples of the superiority of the digital?  Or reproduce prior images of same; link to some sites? By definition film cameras don't manipulate images just as once a diapositive is ruined, it is ruined forever.  I just want to see a few clear examples -- RR preferred -- of demonstrably better digital images without your using the absolutely huge advantages digital has over film as to what we used to call process shots (I have always disliked the catch-all "trick photography") -- IIRC current digital slang sometimes uses the term "photoshopping" as the umbrella term.  Of course I'm fine with DSLR's or any digitals correcting line, correcting grain, adjusting color, and anything else you used to produce the best-looking picture with an eye to realism (or, if you prefer, "verisimilitude").

Basically I'm giving some very devout veterans and supporters of of full DSLR conversion the opportunity to put their pixels where there mouth and money already are.  - a.s.

[stmtrolleyguy]

 I do both. I love my old Minolta 35mm SLR it's knd of like an old friend.I do have a digital that's seems to be used increasingly more often. Nice thing about still haveing film though is that the place I use to develop automatically burns me a CD as well as returns the prints and negatives , so I have a digital copy of all my film shots as well , which when I'm board allows me to edit them with the editing software my digital camera came with. Wierd probably but hey it works for me.

Rob

 

Last time I checked, most of us shoot pictures b/c we enjoy doing it. . .

So if it works, use it and have fun. 

 

I mean, one of the things I enjoy about film is that I don't have to sit in front of my computer to edit the images.  Its a much-more hands-on experience working with film.  There's no point and click, knowing that the button you're pressing is applying someone elses algorithyms and programming to change the image.  Its your hand directly effecting the way the print comes out.  You don't just click print, and wait for your image to appear.  At least for me, its a lot more personal shooting film.  I still have to admit that I shoot digital 90% of the time now, but my Pentax gets dusted off every now and then.  I'm actually especially happy I've got it for when it snows - I don't let my digital camera anywhere near snow/rain, but the Pentax can be easily covered, and if it gets a drop or two of water on it, I can just wipe it off, and let it air out.

The one thing that digital will never win out on though, is the sound of the shutter. . . .the elctronic click of my Rebel just isn't the same as the spring on my Pentax when shooting a pic.

 

 

[CopCarSS]

Basically I'm giving some very devout veterans and supporters of of full DSLR conversion the opportunity to put their pixels where there mouth and money already are.  - a.s.

I'll step up. This isn't the greatest shot I've ever taken at Union Station, but it is one that shows the detail that my 6 Megapixel Pentax K100D body can deliver when used with good glass (in this case my DA 21mm f3.2 Pancake), and used with good photo practices (e.g. camera was on a tripod, mirror lock-up was used, etc.):

And here are some 100% crops from various parts of the main image:

None of the crops have had any USM applied, so they're lacking a little *snap* but you can still see that the 6 Mp sensor is recording plenty of data. The film enthusiasts may burn me at the stake, but I'll venture to say that this meets or exceeds anything I could do with most types of 35mm film (excluding the late, great Kodak TechPan, perhaps).

Now that Pentax has announced a body with a CMOS sensor approaching 15 Mp, I'm fully confident that I'll be able to get near Medium Format film quality from a much smaller DSLR body. Had I the money for a Medium Format back, and some really good glass, I'd venture to guess that I could equal 4x5 film.

As I said, I still use both film and digital, but to my eye at least, the argument that 35mm film makes a better picture doesn't hold much water.

[trainboyH16-44]

Al,

I might argue that the ability to edit a digital photo is what makes it better. I can't showcase any really good ditial shots because my last digital wasn't a DSLR. However, I assure you that the many-megapixelled offerings of today (When paired with a suitable lens and photographer) can take any photograph that film could, and blow it up with about as much noise as you'd get grain on a film shot! As you know I'm sure, film only has a couple stops tolerance, but using RAW you can save a photo that could be completely over or underexposed. 

If you expose them right, frame them right, and take the picture right, the picture that comes off the digital will be great. Then you do the tiniest bit of post-processing to make it amazing.

Plus, you don't have to fiddle around with filters to get the colour cast right  

[stmtrolleyguy]

Basically I'm giving some very devout veterans and supporters of of full DSLR conversion the opportunity to put their pixels where there mouth and money already are.  - a.s.

I posted a few JPEGs here that I downsized for web, and they looked like crud, so I'm working on posting some full-resolution JPEG examples to show what digital can actually do.

[tom569]

I own a 'passable' digital but feel more comfortable with a film (Minolta or Cannon) SLR. Why?

1. The oft-repeated rapidity between shots these cameras deliver. Granted new expensive digital SLRs deliver the same thing but I already have good film stuff and the expense of the 'good' digital equipment is daunting.
2. Daylight color train pictures really don't ask much of a camera. You are stopped down, at a reasonable shutter speed and are using the best part of the lens. K-1000s, A-1s are fine.
3. I think digital cameras neither give as good color rendition nor as good a depth of field in some instances. I could be wrong, but I've seen this in my son's photos and he uses a high-end digital.
4. Digitals are to photography as automatic shotguns are to upland game hunting. When you know you can get long sequence photos of an event, you tend to just blast away and then discard the chaff. I like to think I think out the shot, wait for it to develop, etc.
5. Again hearsay perhaps but a wedding photographer once told me (as he shot away with his digital) that Kodakchrome slides yield approximately 31 effective mega-pixels. Only industrial grade digitals come close at this point.

At this point I'll use both, film where I feel it counts. The price of all consumer electronics drops so fast that maybe one day I'll transition completely. Has anyone ever enquired as to why the electronic folk don't make a digital insert (like a Polaroid back)usable in our old 35mm stuff so we can have the best of both worlds?  

[CopCarSS]

Tom,

Just my take on this, but per your points:

1. My K100D shoots at 3 fps. Because of the neverending march of technology, I would guess that used K100Ds could be found in the neighborhood of $300 or less (though I haven't actually priced it). Still a bit steep, but not much more than a decent film body and lens a few years ago.
2. No argument.
3. I think color rendition is a big reason to go to digital. In the film era, I used several types of film for different looks. I used Provia 100F for most of my shooting, but would also shoot Portra 160NC for portraits, E100VS for fall color, Press 800 for low-light, T-Max for B&W, etc. Now, I simply change the RAW file to look the way I want based on what I'm shooting. I never have to worry about what's in the camera. There's greater DOF available to most digital bodies because they use sensors smaller than a piece of film. Full frame sensors, on the other hand, will perform exactly like a piece of film in regards to DOF.
4. I won't argue too much. When I shoot 4x5, I'm a lot more deliberate with my shots. "Blasting away" on digital does give me the opportunity to tweak shutter speed/aperture/etc. to get the best exposure, though. I'm also able to gamble a little bit with shots. If it works, great. If not, it wasn't a waste of film.
5. This link might be interesting on that nasty "film resolves more than digital" myth.

Again, just my .

[zardoz]

This link might be interesting on that nasty "film resolves more than digital" myth.

Chris, how do I get my digital (Nikon D70, Nikkor 24-120 zoom, 200ASA) to produce the beautiful colors that the Kodachrome 100VS and/or Provia 100 gave me?  I agree that digital can be as sharp as film, but all of my shots seem to lack the "punch" or the "life" that my slides provided.  That's why in my earlier post I mentioned that I still use film for my nature shots.

I've tried using all the vari-program settings, tried doing all the settings manually, using a polarizer or a warm polarizer, etc.  Any suggestions?

[CopCarSS]

Zardoz,

For starters, are you shooting in RAW? If not, try it sometime. Shooting in RAW may add a step in post-processing, but it gives you a lot more control over the shot later on.

Secondly, what program are you using for editing? At the moment I'm using Photoshop Elements 6.0 which comes with an embedded RAW convertor that's actually pretty easy to use. Using sliders you can fine tune adjustments on white balance, color saturation, fill light, etc. 99.9% of the time, I do all of my color adjustment in the RAW conversion now, and can tweak shots to look just about how I want them.

You mentioned fall colors. Here's a few shots that were either done in the Adobe Raw Converter or in Adobe Lightroom, which is also a really nice program for RAW conversions:

I haven't worked with Nikon, so I don't know how the camera processes colors. I would still venture to guess that all it would take is a little boost in saturation to give the same color pop as E100VS.

Hope this helps a little bit. If there's a specific shot that you would like to try working on, you can e-mail it to me, and I can see if I can bring it out in post-processing if you'd like.

[Sunnyland]

Yes, I do. I don't own a digital camera, maybe I will someday if that's all I can get.  I use a Pentax 35 mm with zoom lens. Took some good shots on Algoma Central this past summer with it.  I knew we were going to cross a high trestle, so I took shots out the back window without flash and they turned out great. I used it on Amtrak trips I took on Empire Builder, Coast Starlight and Southwest Chief and no problems with blurs outside the windows.

Only thing nice about the digitals is being able to see your pictures immediately, so you can retake if you don't like it.  But that's the only advantage, I get pictures that are just as good as friends take with their digitals.

[stmtrolleyguy]

Here's a couple of Full-Res JPEGs of what my Rebel can do. . .

None of these have had any post-processing done at all - no level, no color balancing, nothing.

They were originally shot as RAW files, and converted in Photoshop. 

(Warning - Extremely large files if you click on the pic)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[zardoz]

Zardoz,

For starters, are you shooting in RAW? If not, try it sometime. Shooting in RAW may add a step in post-processing, but it gives you a lot more control over the shot later on.

Secondly, what program are you using for editing? At the moment I'm using Photoshop Elements 6.0 which comes with an embedded RAW convertor that's actually pretty easy to use. Using sliders you can fine tune adjustments on white balance, color saturation, fill light, etc. 99.9% of the time, I do all of my color adjustment in the RAW conversion now, and can tweak shots to look just about how I want them.

Chris,

I guess I'm just not up to speed with all the post-processing.  I'm kinda "old-school" in that I try to get the image correctly with the camera, rather than with the software.  For years I've thought that it was 'cheating' to use a computer program to help create the image, rather than the creativity of working the camera to create an image that reflects what I see with the mind's eye.

However, upon recently seeing a PBS documentary on Ansel Adams, I have realized that much of his genius was his abilities in the darkroom.  So I have now re-evaluated my criteria, and have begun to look for a good image editing program.

You mentioned Photoshop Elements 6--do you recommend this program, or do you think it would be too complicated for a novice user?  And if you feel it would be too much for me, are there any other programs you would recommend?

Oh, and btw, excellent shots (as always).

Thanks.

Jim