lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Wish I had a Medium Format film camera to say nothing of a digital medium format camera. I can only dream. I still shoot some film. Not totally sure why, perhaps for comparison. I still have three Asahi Pentax film cameras, a K2 DMD, K1000, and Spotmatic. I do also have two 4x5" cameras. One a studio rail view camera, and the other a vintage wooden folding field camera. I use Schneider and Nikon-W Lenses on the view cameras.

editorsteve

My wife has experimented with an 8x10 at FIT. You are lucky to have the 4x5 cameras.

jeryh Loc: Oxfordshire UK

I still have my Hasselblad, Leica, and Minoltas. Also a Nikon FE, a brilliant camera; I am very loath to sell any of them. But, the big problem here, the film can be got- but
you have to specify at the time of developing that you want it digitised. This whacks the cost very high. You end up with 36 shots ok, maybe not so many keepers.

Almostageezer Loc: USA

I kept my Canon A-1, Nikon FA, and Wollensak Stereo10, a 3D camera. It might be fun to try each of them again.
Just to see......

clint f. Loc: Priest Lake Idaho, Spokane Wa

Yes you can. A friend of mine uses an alternative process ( cafinol I think) and does just what you describe. He made a simple light box and shoots the negatives on his digital camera. The results are very pleasing, sort of the best of two worlds.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

Although the apparent "quality" may be the same, subtleties in the image will be apparent. Film relies on an analog photo-mechanical process in which
the image consists of grains of silver. Digital relies on an optical-computer process in which the image consists of pixels. In the end, it's a personal choice.

from SB

I let go of my two A-1 with power winders when I switched DIGITAL in early 2001. I regret it. What you are feeling now is a good indication that you probably do not want to sell them. I say you hang on to them.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

I never processed film. I just took it to the local community stores and had it developed. My dad did both Ectachrome and Kodachrome, and Kodacolor film for prints. Some of the film processors have complained of health issues later in life, doing that job for hours each day, year end and year out. Despite precautions. But, film was it. And Kodak was king then. Kodak blew it with the coming of the digital age. Film sales started to decline, and the film cameras. Kodak had an opportunity to join the digital club. And declined to do so. I don't miss film either. Just like you don't miss it.

adm

35mm film may not be better than digital in terms of sharpness and resolution. However, film does have a unique look. If you prefer the look of film and/or like it as an alternative to digital, I would hang on to your 35mm camera and use it from time to time. There is also something to be said for the processes of film photograpy, especially if you do your own developing and printing. I have several 35mm (as well as medium format) film cameras that I use regularly. I prefer mechanical film cameras, since no electronic shutter camera, film or digital, can replicate the sound and feel of a mechanical camera.

LEGALDR Loc: Southern California

Hang on to your AE-1! This digital business is just another passing fad. When everyone is tired of buying more gigabytes, higher ISO, and faster fps, we will all want Kodak 64 ASA rolls of 36 exposure.

Jim70 Loc: Delaware

Interesting discussion! This reminds me of the conversations when Polaroid introduced their film. It was going to be the end of Kodak because you "saw the image right away and avoided processing costs and time loss".

We saw how that turned out.


My own take is that if you are shooting for art and permanence, use film - it has been proven to last. B&W so much more than color. If you are taking snapshots, digital is fine, in 30 years, no one will care about those images anyway.


I recently read a story about a museum who hired a film photographer to shoot all their digital images because they were concerned that the digital media would not have the permanence of B&W film. they wanted to be sure that future generations could see these images.


Just to be clear, I have a Nikon D7100 that I use often and a Mamiya 645 pro tl that I use as well for shots for the local historical society. I think each photographer needs to consider the end use of the print and choose accordingly.

JasonC Loc: Houston, Texas

Thank you for bringing up Polaroid and its perceived potential to damage Kodak. I remember the Polaroid Swinger as being very popular in the late 1960s.

Jason

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

I know what you are going thru. I sold my F-! and FD lenses. a coupla years ago. Now I wish I would have kept it all. Not to use but to display antiques. I guess I just miss the old (first rate) gear) and the daekroom stuff from the past. Keep the old AE1. I still shoot B&W (excuse me- monochrome). or convert when the scene warrants B&W

Bipod

Great point.

Pinhole photography has come back just like LPs have. It's a good example of how a
technology can go in and out of fashion in response to changes in photographic style,
cultural values, and what else is available.

Eric Renner's excellent book Pinhole Photography describes the rise, fall,
and re-rise of the pinhole photograph.

The earliest cameras had lenses (Joseph Nicéphore Niépce, Henry Fox Talbot,
Louis Daguerre, etc.). The Daguerreotype process (offering unsurpassed resolution)
was in use worldwide by 1839. But the first attested pinhole phographs are from
the 1850s. Some of the earliest are by Sir David Brewster, who may have coined
the term "pin-hole photograph" in his book, ;b]Stereoscope[/b].

Sir Flinders Petrie, the famous Egyptologist, used a pinhole camera for his second
expedition to Egypt in 1881, and took photos of the pyramids at Giza. The fact that
a pinhole has no distortation (and no aberrations) made these photos uniquely useful
for measuring the shape of the pyramids.

When the pictorialism movement arose in the 1880s, pinhole surged in popularity,
because it gave a soft look. A major proponent of pictorialism and the pinhole
camera was British photographer, George Davidson. By the 1890s, pinhole cameras
were available commercially.

In 1892, renowned Swedish dramatist August Strindberg took up the pinhole camera.

Then in the 20th century, pinhole was viewwed as an inexpensive way for amateurs to
get into photography. Eastman Kodak even sold a pinhole camera kit in 1940s.

Then, in the 1950s, a profound cultrual change occured. People moved to the
suburbs. This was the era of the "space race" and technological one-uipmanship.
Owning the latest refrigerator and latest camera became a status symbol for Ozzies
and Harriets across the US. And mass-produced cameras became available at
affordable prices. The popularity of the pinhole camera crashed.

In the 1960s, a number of artists independently began to explore pinhole photography,
including: Paolo Gioli in Italy, Gottfired Jager in West Germany, and David Lebe,
Franco Salmoiraghi, Wiley Sanderson, and Eric Renner in the USA.

The 1970s saw an interest in alternate processes and non-traditional cameras. One
of the champions of photographic diversity was Nathan Lyons, curator of
comtemporary photography at George Eastman House. Even more artists
begin working with pinhole cameras, including Carlos Jurado from Mexico,
Nobuo Yamanaka from Japan, and Phil Simkin from Boston.

The decade saw the publication of a dozen book son pinhole photography. Academics
got involved: Prof. Peter Olpe at the Basel School of Design began making pinhole
cameras in his course on photography. Most importantly, experienced photographers
begin to take pinhole images (Ansel Adams included one in his famous book,
The Camera).

By the 1980s, so many photographers were usign pinhole cameras that it is impossible
to list them all. Suddenly, you could buy a commercial pinhole "lens"(more like a body cap)
for Nikon F-mount or Canon EF-mount. (Unfortunately, the smaller the format of a
pinhole camera, the fuzzier the image is. Pinhole favors large format cameras.)

Today there are numerous Internet forums and web sites devoted entirely to pinhole
photography. There are probably more pinhole photographs being made than ever.
But you'd never know it from the websites, adverstising and paid articles of the big
consumer camera companies. Laser-fabricated pin holes are available from optical
suppliers and speciality manufactures.

But not from Sony, Canon or Nikon. They could never charge as much for pinhole
body cap (and you could make your own!) as for an expensive lens. So for them, there
is only one way to go: an expensive (but miniature or sub-miniature format) camera
with an expensive lens (epitomized by the 24 or 33 element zoom lens).

No pinhole has any aberration or distoration, but every lens does. When you buy an
expensive lens, you are paying to mimize aberrations and distoration. With a pinhole
you get zero (but you get more diffraction).

So if you want zero geometrical distortion, a pinhole will do that everytime (provided
your film or sensor is flat). The downside is that pinholes are very slow and have a
lot of diffraction.

What is the right camera and lens to use depends on the effect the phogorapher is trying
to achive. There is one One True Technology that is Good For Everything. It depends.

While there may be "evolution" of technology, it is just as complex as biological evolution,
with as many "dead ends". The difference is that technologies can come back from extinction.

Technologiocal "progress" exists and is the same for all photographers only if we can all agree
on what the goal of photography is. Fat chance of that happening. To have "progress" you have
to have a destination...you're getting closer and closer to....something you want to get to. But
what is that? For the manufacturers, its higher earnings and bigger bonuses for executives--
is that your goal too?

The mime of linear technological progress--everything always getting better and better--
is false. But it serves the interests of technology companies. It's spread by advertising and
salesmen trying to get you to replace or "upgrade" everything you own.

"Still using the toliet the old-fashioned way? Don't be the last one on your block to buy the
new Krapomatic 3000 smart vacuum-evacuator!" Nevermind if it sucks your guts into the bowel--
that's supposed to be fixed in the next release.

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

I also have the T90.