randymoe

Maybe I am too critical, but I think digital and especially phone cameras are producing the worst images in decades. The images are often underexposed, no flash, and of very low resolution. I look at my former employers news letter and I am astounded by how low quality the images are, especially compared to the film era. Another problem is many people never download their images. They leave them in the camera. Education is futile. And yes, I use high end digital cameras for instant gratification.

Now as soon as I finish my new darkroom, I will truly be a dinosaur...

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

I am with you. I have a Mamiya 645 AFD and AFD II with 55mm, 80mm and 150mm lens and a host of other equipment. I shoot B&W and develop my own negatives then scan them in to the computer with an Epson Perfection V600 Photo scanner. The rest of the lab work is done using Photoshop CS5. Now my one worry is that manufacturers will continue to make film and DK76 at a reasonable price for at least the next 20 years.

rharvey2 Loc: Largo, Fl

Minolta XE-7, I love my film camera.
Canon XTi, love my dslr

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

The point and shoot (box cameras) of film days were worse than terrable. They had one aperture and one film speed. You needed to be in full sunlight to get a good exposure. From the 50's on the film size wa so small that it was a stretch to get a good 3 1/5 X 5. A pro or a advanced ameture had it all over the snapshooter. No newsletter would even think of using them. Todays point and shoot or even phone cameras have it all over the cheap cameras of yesteryear. But saying all that I still loved doing darkroom work. Still go out with mey 1938 Crown Graphic and play Ansil Adams and then head for the darkroom and seeing that picture develope under the safe light is still magic. - Dave

unclestu Loc: NJ

Funny thing seeing this thread today, as I just packed and shipped a new in the box never unpacked Canon Rebel that my wife got as a gift from a past boy friend. To give an idea of age we hav e been married 18 years LO Sold it for $275.00

anotherview Loc: California

The few film photographers I've talked with who've switched to digital photography say digital allows more control. I assume they mean more control during shooting, developing, and printing. They also say they do not miss the darkroom chemicals.

Film does have its own look and feel, but now software can replicate its appearance, by clicking on a preset engineered for a particular film which one may adjust further. As well, the variety of photographic paper available for printing the digital image enables the photography to achieve fine results.

In one sense, film photography will never go away because of all the craft it has imparted to the practice of photography. Digital stands on the shoulders of film.

I used to shoot film, long ago, with a Yashica Mat 24, a TLR, and I feel a nostalgia for it, yet I never had a darkroom, and so had to rely on a lab to develop my film and do prints. I disliked that struggle. The lab only once produced a print that met my eye. I still have that print after all the years. I recently scanned it using the Epson V750, developed it in Photoshop, and made prints for the family.

I shoot nothing but digital and prefer it because I can control the photographic process from capture to development to print. I probably spend as much time developing my photos on the computer as those individuals who do the same in a darkroom.

I’m still learning, and mostly from experienced film photographers passing on their craft.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

I am still developing medium and large format film, but gave up printing several years ago. Althought I enjoy printing, it has just become too time consuming and expensive. Too many times I burned thru $100 worth of paper and never got a print exactly like I wanted after a whole day of trying. And, unsharp masking in the darkroom, a necessity IMO, is extremely difficult and time consuming. Scanning, PhotoShop, and professional LightJet printing is less expensive, more intuitive (for me at least), and results in a better end product for me.

I have no more interest in 35mm, it has been surpassed by affordable digital DSLR cameras.

Unclewiggley Loc: Winter Haven, FL

I have a Canon T-90 with the flash and a Canon AE1 Program with Vivitar 5600. Seem not worth much so I will leave them to my children as antiques and they are still in perfect working order.

chinajack Loc: nw chicago

I still have my Nikon F4 and my Bronica I don't use the very often but I will still keep them.

Bullfighter

The question is, when does a film camera become obsolete? NEVER! When does a digital camera become obsolete? Usually the week after you bought it when the company comes out with their new, lighter, more megapixel, more expensive models.

clarencephn Loc: Capitol Heights, MD

Any of you film guys interested in a Minolta Maxxum 7000i with data back, flash and various scene cards?

bdo Loc: Colorado

I have two 35mm film camera bodies from the '80s, a Nikon FM2 and a Contax RTS.

About a year ago, I got interested in photography again and went through a "35mm v. digital?" phase. I came down on the side of film, even though Kodachrome had vanished.

I upgraded to an RTS II Quartz (KEH, used). Since then I have used both the RTS II and the FM2, and even bought more lenses (used) for each.

Now, a year later, I am swinging over to the digital side, actively looking for a used D700 (so I can use my Nikon lenses, but also because the D700 looks like a great camera from everything I have read).

I like film. I shoot in manual mode (the FM2 is all manual, the RTS II allows aperture-preferred mode if I want it). We have great landscapes in my neck of the woods, and I like photographing my wife's roses, lilies and other flowers in the summer and fall.

But I have been swayed by the immediate feedback a digital SLR provides. When I am out in the field, or even in the backyard, I never know, with film, if I got an image anywhere close to what I was visualizing until after it is developed. I currently use a Kodak M580 p&s for digital images, and I like seeing my results immediately.

I'll keep my FM2 and RTS II bodies, and keep using film. But I look forward to using a DSLR, as well.

randymoe

I shot a D700 for 3 years. It is a great discontinued camera. That camera is gone. I now shoot a D7000 and find no difference in anything, but do like the crop factor for longer reach.

"Now, a year later, I am swinging over to the digital side, actively looking for a used D700 (so I can use my Nikon lenses, but also because the D700 looks like a great camera from everything I have read).

I like film. I shoot in manual mode (the FM2 is all manual, the RTS II allows aperture-preferred mode if I want it). We have great landscapes in my neck of the woods, and I like photographing my wife's roses, lilies and other flowers in the summer and fall.

But I have been swayed by the immediate feedback a digital SLR provides. When I am out in the field, or even in the backyard, I never know, with film, if I got an image anywhere close to what I was visualizing until after it is developed. I currently use a Kodak M580 p&s for digital images, and I like seeing my results immediately.

I'll keep my FM2 and RTS II bodies, and keep using film. But I look forward to using a DSLR, as well."

Cloudwalker Loc: New Bedford, MA

I'm onboard Steve! For 2 decades my Hasselblads, with their howitzer-proof bodies and coral-sharp glass, have dependably accompanied me on about 3,000 miles of hiking trails, in sub zero cold and hundred degree heat.
The Velvia chromes are sumptuously detailed with eye-popping resolution. The wedding and portrait work, shot on negative materials, has the kind of tonality and dynamic range that is absolutely necessary for that type of photography. And the generous proportions of that square image, a full 50% more inclusive than the 4 x 6 ratio of a digital camera, help to easily capture critical subject matter without having to backpedal 30 yards to squeeze it in. The psychological thrill of holding a transparency or print, something TANGIBLE in your hand to view, is an old school luxury as well. To perform necessary retouching work one simply has to burn the image to a CD and get to work. One other point...lab managers with whom I deal have universally expressed a concern about the archival capability of digital on compact discs. Negs and slides have the shelf life of a Galapagos turtle - with CDs we just don't know. Of course, we are at the mercy of those who produce the materials we love. Hopefully it will be financially feasible for them to continue to feed our passion for a long time to come.

rickyd Loc: Dothan, Al

I shoot film some myself,,I was given a perfectly working canon ae-1, flash, bag and all by a fellow Hog member,,I hope to have some posted from it soon,,