therwol Loc: USA

In a recent post, one of our members suggested to someone wanting to try film that they use Kodak Ektar 100 or Portra 400. So my question is what does that get you? The simple answer is color negatives. Perhaps there are still people who print color negatives on their own. Most likely people shooting color negative film are having it scanned at the time of developing by the processing lab. Does this really give you something better than what you get from a good digital camera? I just want to hear some opinions about this. I've scanned thousands of color negatives myself that were taken in the "good old days." The old days for me ended in 2007. My answer is no. Although the best preserved negatives do give good and pleasing results, they can't hold a candle to what I've gotten out of my Nikon D810 and D850 cameras. This is my opinion based on what I'm looking at on my computer screen.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

No one said film was better. Well, no one with any sense in 2022. No one said you have to shoot film. In another thread someone pointed out it's actually rather expensive, contrary to what others were claiming in that thread. As I remember it, someone was asking about one type of film, where the ideas you captured were suggested as maybe more practical alternative ideas. Nothing more. What's your malfunction?

therwol Loc: USA

Come on. Be nice. I defend you and your sarcasm all of the time. I really want to hear if anyone in their right mind thinks that film is "better" in 2022. I'll concede large format, and that's as far as I'll go.

flip1948 Loc: Hamden, CT

Why would "anyone in their right mind" want to respond to your question when you pose it that way and apparently already have your mind made up as to what a "sane" answer should be?

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

I think I'm still in my right mind, but I'm going to give it a shot.

I started in film. I love film. I still shoot film in addition to digital. Yes, I shoot a lot more digital than film. My Mamiya 645 1000s is loaded with B&W Tri-X 400. I develop it myself in HC110, scan it on an Epson V500 scanner, take the images into LR and / or PS then print on a Canon Pro-1000 printer. If you scan it at a high enough resolution, it maintains the film's characteristics. Why? Because film is a different creative medium with it's own endearing characteristics. For me, even nostalgic. It's fun to use a completely manual camera with a split prism focusing mechanism and without a metering system. It is not better or worse than digital, just different. No, digital noise is not anywhere near the same as film grain. In a photography club I belonged to back in Illinois, there was (is) a husband and wife team that shoots 4 x 5 and 8 x 10 with antique wooden bellows cameras with both film and glass plates. A well exposed 8 x 10 piece of film is just absolutely amazing to look at.

Why would any serious photographer disparage another photographer who chooses to practice their art and science in a different, older media?

therwol Loc: USA

Poor choice of words on my part for a public forum. It would be appropriate in a small gathering of friends where it would be understood that my intention was not to be confrontational.

I understand that film has made a comeback with some, though I think that rising costs will put a damper on that. I took large format pictures in my college days that I don't think could be matched in terms of IQ by my digital cameras. My question for those using film is whether they really think it's a better medium than digital or whether the experience is like driving a vintage car, with some secondary pleasure coming from using it. I have a 1969 Nikon FTn in perfect condition along with some lenses. I even have battery adaptors for the meter. (No more mercury batteries.) I can take it out any time I want and use it. It was supposed to be my forever camera when my father bought it for me in 1970. I just know that I won't get the results I'm now used to if I use it.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

Guys, of course they are not in their right minds if you test their mind by that very point.

My Hasselblad H2 has both a medium format film back and a medium format digital back. I bought a few rolls to try it, but they are still in my freezer (which people have started using for food) a couple of years later.

But if I could buy Kodachrome film in 120 size, I would certainly try it and expect it to be better than the digital (which is of course excellent). Here is what I would do. I would use the digital back to take a few test shots, and then put on the film back for the real shot. Using the same camera, lens, scene, and light should make the film right, but like my paper printer for digital pictures, I would probably find that one of the other likes a bit more light. Then I would scan the Kodachrome to make pictures, and compare with the test shots using the digital back.

Or even better, how about Kodachrome in 4x5? How many MPs would that take for digital? Would you still sneer at film then?

In fact that is what I did--my first digital camera was just to test the scene and then I took the real picture with film.
I now know that film has limitations that digital does not--especially in processing. If I wanted greatness with financial abandon, I could have Cibachromes made from the transparencies.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

It’s sad that there is no more Cibachrome. Made beautiful prints that in my opinion you can’t match with an inkjet (and they lasted forever).

flip1948 Loc: Hamden, CT

Good luck getting Kodachrome processed. The last lab to process Kodachrome as color slides stopped in 2010.

There are some places today that can process it as black and white, but as negatives only, so forget getting Cibachrome prints which are made from slides. There is also the problem that Cibachrome paper was discontinued by Ilford in 2012.

Harry0 Loc: Gardena, Cal

IMNSHO film gives a slightly more 3d look. Digital looks flatter.
Tho I lerv my Nikon Ds. I've gone thru the menus, and setups,- almost point-and-shoots.
I can just grab one and shoot. And shoot. And shoot.
Cost? Zilch. Time waiting? Wasted? Zilch. Shoot now, see now,

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Film is not better.
I use it in my film cameras for something different.
I use all manual ones like a F-1 or FTb. Having to focus, read the meter and adjust shutter and/or aperture (ISO is fixed) then hoping you got it all correct is a good way to remember how far things have come in the past decades.
I do scan them and have posted some here on UHH.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

No one has to take pictures, and no one has to use film. Some people like shooting film, just like some people like the looks of the Nikon Df and Z fc. To each his own. As far as I'm concerned, the cost and the time required have ruled out film for me. I was considering buying film mainly to test two film cameras.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I wish people would understand that film and digital are two separate media. They produce similar results but it's futile to keep playing the versus game.
--Bob

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

GeneinChi Loc: Chicago, IL

Trying to compare film to digital is an endless conundrum. There is no “better”. It’s about what makes you happy and gives you satisfaction and pleasure. If you get into the Fujiworld, you can have a mirrorless camera with numerous film simulation settings which do give results similar to the film it is trying to emulate. Kind of gives you the best of both worlds. I have a Nikon F3 and an FE from years ago that I occasionally use as I love the noisy mechanics. Plus, it takes me back to a simpler time and the anticipation of getting pictures back from a lab. And it’s not cheap which is why I use them “occasionally”.