1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Film photography- still valid?

Discussion in 'Talking Pictures' started by roobarb, May 23, 2011.

  1. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    Kodak boxed 35 mm film = 35 grams for 36 exposure
    Lithium-ion rechargeable battery for Sony a900 = 75 grams rated 880 shots.

    880 shots = 24+ rolls of 36 ex film

    Weight for 880 shots:
    Film 840 grams
    Digital 75 grams

    Manual focus Zeiss lenses are available for some dSLRs and fully compatible auto-focus ones for my camera and have been for several years
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2011
  2. dachs

    dachs Well-Known Member

    Ah yes I was forgetting, indeed correct. Puts that to bed then.
    Please send my Nikon D3 and full set of Zeiss in plain brown wrapper to Badger's Rest, Wallington. I'd rather not wait till Xmas, please?

    Point of interest; friend & self started 7 years ago hooked on Leica R/F, quality issue, obviously slides. He uses Nikon Coolscan (the good one), me Minolta Dimage. He now has an M9, using same lenses, and I have to admit a slide after scanning (however carefully to avoid inevitable losses) does no better than the quality raw processed direct from digital - and these are the exact same lenses, manufacturing tolerances etc. Both results printed on high quality ink jet cannot be told apart, though non photo chums almost always pic Leica shots as 'nicer' than say his Nikon f5 done the same way. By the way, the Nikon 18mm is in the same class with ease, for just one example, they do know what they are about at the top end.

    I believe digital has actually arrived, given all the same care caveats as with film.
  3. filmlover

    filmlover Well-Known Member

    The post claiming the weight of two batteries = weight of a couple of dozen casssttes of film, is just totally irrelevant to the argument.
    If you're shooting with a medium format camera, then by the very nature of the camera (in my case a twin lens reflex)
    you take greater care over every shot and shoot far less film as a result.
    On a recently completed long walk, I took just a Rolleiflex in the rucksack..ten rolls of 120 size film..(7 exposed) no weight problem at all, no battery worries. A number of superb quality images that will go to any size needed without sacrificing quality.....and all from a camera costing just £125 secondhand, some 30 years ago!
  4. dachs

    dachs Well-Known Member

    But I suspect a good photographer behind the tool, who is used to his equipment?
    And that would also apply to digital takes. The question of the camera type influencing certain people to be slow, artful and considered is also interesting (I love TLR's for that reason), or even a sheet film folder with the image upside down - have a look see to Joe Cornish's work till recently done that way with an Ebony. What if Nikon did a £20000 twin lens digital reflex I wonder - best of both worlds? Now that digital can (with loads of money and care) rival scanned film (with at least the same care), I think this argument is possibly spent; at the quality end it is now possible to express creativity to high levels in whatever medium is chosen. Film is at its peak, century if development (ugh!), digital is now at a usable level for all bar a few things. I still understand that most of most movies are still shot on film though.....
  5. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Did you write this post eight years ago? Because that's when it belongs...
  6. filmlover

    filmlover Well-Known Member

    But if Nikon did produce a digital 6x6 reflex camera, (a) it would be extremely expensive, (b) it would still be battery reliant, meaning spares and a charging unit having to be carted around.
    I have no arguments about digital quality, it has come a long way in recent years. however it's different from film quality. I just happen to prefer the latter.
    I still believe that on a cost/quality ratio film wins out, particularly with medium format. There is the cost of film, but if you do your processing it saves a lot, as well as being more satisfying.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 7, 2011
  7. dachs

    dachs Well-Known Member

    I am a very slow typist :p
  8. gollum

    gollum Well-Known Member

    Its one of photography’s mediums, so yes its valid, most of the processes of photography are still in use by a number of photographers. Sally Mann’s recent exhibition in London used the wet collodion process, Chuck Close uses Daguerreotype in some of his work, there are many others. I see the digital a bit like the box brownie, its brought photography to the masses, has flooded the market with images, but has brought imense pleasure to many who once relied on their local chemist to return the results of their holiday snaps. Despite that film is a very long way from being dead :)
  9. zx9

    zx9 Well-Known Member

    Well said Martin. Your recent work with the Bronie shows that film is still a valid medium, at least for some of us.

Share This Page