Fifty years of progress (?): I bought my first "real" camera in 1969, when I entered the Air Force and suddenly had a bit of $$$. I just bought the D850 in May. I cleaned up my F (The...

RichinSeattle

I bought my first "real" camera in 1969, when I entered the Air Force and suddenly had a bit of $$$. I just bought the D850 in May. I cleaned up my F (The light meter still works!), bought some film and batteries at a local shop that deals only in film cams (good luck with that), and am excited to do some comparison shooting.

Since these are my only two working "real" cameras, I shot this with an ancient Kodak "EasyShare" point-and-shoot, hence the low res.

(Download)

captivecookie Loc: Washington state

Sooo.... are we going to see some side by side comparisons?

RichinSeattle

captivecookie wrote:

Sooo.... are we going to see some side by side comparisons?

Hope so. The film is ISO 100, so for comparison I'll have to set the D850 on 100 also and shoot in good daylight.

MoT Loc: Barrington, IL

I still digitize slides from back in the day and I am surprised how much light information is available. I am not saying that film is better then the D850 but there is a certain quality of film that I don't think has ever been duplicated in digital. It is like a new age in art. There is the film analog and the digital. Although composition comes first I think that the same composition photographed in film would evoke the same emotional response as the same composition photographed in digital. Maybe I miss the good old days and my less complex film cameras where one was more careful taking pictures vs. one that can take many images per second. And are more and more like computers with a lens with many things to remember so the photographer can utilize the technology to achieve the desired result. That said I have taken, what I feel are satisfying images with both types of cameras. I am interested in hearing your results in comparing the two Nikons.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

RichinSeattle wrote:

I bought my first "real" camera in 1969,... (show quote)

So, you've been using the film camera since 1969?

MoT Loc: Barrington, IL

I meant to say that that images photographed in film would evoke a different response than the same composition photographed in digital. (I need to review my responses before sending them, my apologizes)

RichinSeattle

rehess wrote:

So, you've been using the film camera since 1969?

No, it's been in a box (I took the batteries out.) since the '90s, when my kids were born and I started using simple point-and-shoot digital cams.

dandi Loc: near Seattle, WA

RichinSeattle wrote:

I bought my first "real" camera in 1969,... (show quote)

Can please tell me where is the shop that deals only with film cameras, it would be fun to visit it. I live in Woodinville area. Thank you.

MoT Loc: Barrington, IL

Try Shot in One or Glazer's in Seattle. They both got good ratings.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

RichinSeattle wrote:

I bought my first "real" camera in 1969,... (show quote)

So what you're saying is the Kodak isn't a real camera and the picture isn't a real photograph? Please explain what constitutes a real camera?!

RichinSeattle

dandi wrote:

Can please tell me where is the shop that deals only with film cameras, it would be fun to visit it. I live in Woodinville area. Thank you.

It's on the east side of Lake City Way, just south of 125th st. (in the heart of Lake City). They do film processing, printing and/or scanning, as well. I just bought an immaculate, 50 year-old Nikkor 35-70 MM, f/3.5 macro lens there for $60.

RichinSeattle

rmorrison1116 wrote:

So what you're saying is the Kodak isn't a real camera and the picture isn't a real photograph? Please explain what constitutes a real camera?!

For God's sake, lighten up. I wasn't looking for an argument; that's why I put "real" in quotes. I love that little Kodak, and the Nikon Coolpix I also used when converting to digital. I was simply making an excuse for the absence of sharpness in the shot I posted.

bleirer

MoT wrote:

I meant to say that that images photographed in film would evoke a different response than the same composition photographed in digital. (I need to review my responses before sending them, my apologizes)

Maybe if you kept the whole process analog including the printing paper. It sounds romantic, but If you scan the film and publish a jpeg to be viewed on a screen, it's now the same 255 gradations of tone with the same curve as any other digital image.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

RichinSeattle wrote:

For God's sake, lighten up. I wasn't looking for an argument; that's why I put "real" in quotes. I love that little Kodak, and the Nikon Coolpix I also used when converting to digital. I was simply making an excuse for the absence of sharpness in the shot I posted.

I don't expect images that started off as film to be sharp - nor am I addicted to edge-to-edge needle sharpness. I believe most of the people who revel in the "look of film" are actually responding to its lack of sharpness.

Before I moved from film to digital, I had a professional scan some of my Kodachrome 25 slides, and concluded that 6mp would give me as much sharpness as I had been getting, so I consider everything past that as being bonus.

RichinSeattle

bleirer wrote:

Maybe if you kept the whole process analog including the printing paper. It sounds romantic, but If you scan the film and publish a jpeg to be viewed on a screen, it's now the same 255 gradations of tone with the same curve as any other digital image.

Bleirer, I totally agree. The second phase of my comparison experiment will be to compare the printed JPEGs my scanner gives me to prints from this local shop (as long as they will print from negs, and not from computer files.) Stay tuned.