DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.

DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

New F6 is out

> [FWIW, I agree with you on this subject. I'm still shooting film and have > bought a Nikon Coolscann 5000 ED. I can scan negatives and slides and get > excellent results with it. I too feel I have the best of both worlds with > this setup.

That being said I am stricktly an amature, not a professional. I take pictures for fun and personal enjoyment. If I was a professional I would suspect I would feel compelled to jump into the digital arena just to stay competative. From what I've read and heard it's the instant response and gratification that is expected from professionals and digital is really the only way I can see that they can meet those expectations.

Just my 2 cents worth...... ;^D]
 
I'm going to try to answer this quickly and succintly, having seen this type of discussion many times on this forum (and forums like this):

There are so many individual variables that can make up someone's decision on when (and if) a person should go over to digital in a big way (not just p&s digital). As a former advanced amateur (and sales-droid within a photo retail environment), I shoot 95% digital (using Nikon D100). Even though I own a N90 and FM2N (leaving out my med. format camera).

Digression:

I still shoot b&w film (having been a former B&W darkroom afficianado for 10-15 yrs) and also shoot in medium format. My Nikon Coolscan 2000 will only handle the 35mm format.I (arrgh) still am obliged to have a custom lab ahndle some B&W processing.

When I Went Digital:

I switched over to digital Sept 2001after buying a a P&S Olympus Camedia 4040 zoom (4 mpix). After spending 18 months with this cmara, I craved a DSLR. I waited for the Nikon D100 to come down belwo $1500 USD, made my purchase and never looked back.

Shooting more and enjoying more:

Interesting part is that since my first digital purchase, I shoot much morer and mroe often. I explore more (less worried about burning film and processing) and so I make 10x the amount of images as before and have 4x more keepers (as a guess). Digital SLRs don't make you a good photographer a better photographer,k but tehy sure make it easy for you to shoot more; and, consequentrly, the more you shoot, the better, and (sometimes, with some discipline) the more selective, you get.

Tools: It's the "wet-ware":

The type of technological tool, whether it's a D1X, D2x, or New F6, is somewhat irrelavant, even to professional.

Learn your tools well, and remember - it's not the hardware (or software), it's the "wet-ware" (the mind) that's the most meaningful difference. All forum discussuins often turn itno a an academic discussion,that drifts aware from what matters - the shooter/creative artist!
 
Yes, I still shoot film - medium format. The only camera where 35mm is still viable is my WideLuxe 140° panoramic camera, where the format is 24mm x 59mm - essentially 6cm wide like medium format. A Nikon F3 system has lain idle for the past four years and probably should be sold.

The edge of 35mm over digital is too small to make up for the lack of convenience, as well as the limitations. The histogram is a major advance in exposure over the Zone System. With it, I get perfect exposures every shot. I am not limited to daylight or tungsten type film, but frequently shoot in extreme mixed lighting with the ability to indiviually balance areas of the picture for absolutely correct skin tones when shooting RAW format. I have also done this in the fume-room from colour negatives, and it took the better part of a day to produce an acceptable result.

For ex&les of working in extremely challenging conditions, as well as s&les of the results please see http://www.larry-bolch.com/ephemeral/

Of course, this same limitation is part of medium format photography, so I use it primarily for epic landscapes and the like where mixed light or poor light is not a factor. Scanned medium-format film does provide an edge in print quality over that of a prosumer digital camera. However, it may not be noticeable with a high end camera such as the D2X or 1Ds.

Of course, the limitations with digital are for those who do not understand photography on-site or in the digital darkroom. With film, you have a lab with an experienced operator and a very expensive machine to save your efforts. With digital, you actually have to BE a photographer.

Of course, what counts is the final print. I have a huge number of excellent 35mm legacy images, and while they may equal the quality of my digital images, they do not exceed it. Given equal image quality, the flexibility of the digital medium far exceeds that of current 35mm cameras and films. Unless a magazine or commercial client specifically requests Kodachrome, my Leicas and Nikon system will remain dormant.

larry!
 
Let's revive this dormat thread!

Years have passed since the last post here.

Let me stir up the pot.

I do not agree with any of the posts here ... except Dirk's enthusiasm for the Nikon F6.

First of all, it IS possible to adapt a film camera to take a digital back, and it is not all hand done nor is it "breathtakingly" expensive. Leica made one called the DMR which fit the R8 and R9 without any effort except to remove the rear film door. To this day the DMR produces wonderful images.

Comparisons between film and digital is a horse that has been beaten to death, and then resurrected time and again.

Film is still here, and gaining new followers. It will never be as it was, because the general consuming public have moved to P&S digital cameras. However, more and more "photographers" are re-discovering film for it's unique qualities.

I personally still shoot film ... both 35mm and Medium Format. I am digital up to my eyeballs (Nikon D3/D3X, Hasselblad H3D-II/31 & 39, Sony A900, Leica M8). Still I shoot film because digital cannot match the look of film no matter what Photoshop plug-in or film effects program you may use.

I have not seen a single digital image done by anyone, anywhere that has the feel and look of the master prints that hang on my walls ... some done in the 1930's. Whether anyone will be able to look back on a digital image 75 years from now is question in need of being asked.

The F6 is THE single best SLR ever made IMHO. Nikon went out on top with this camera. If you shoot Nikon it is one camera in the film arena that you should experience first hand ... life is short, experience the best of something at least once ... and for film cameras this is it!

-Marc Williams
Fotografz
 
Back
Top