Do you shoot...

[Hydra]

It's definitely a different process, at least mentally. Nit being able to see your results and only having 36/24/15/12 shots a roll means you have to slow down and focus.



And the results are definitely different. A fine grain film negative is equivalent to about 20MP, but has way more depth than most digital. Its just extracting and using that depth is dependent.

A medium format negative is upwards of 45-50 MP, so better than most digital that people have access to.

[HeavyMetal]

It's definitely a different process, at least mentally. Nit being able to see your results and only having 36/24/15/12 shots a roll means you have to slow down and focus.



And the results are definitely different. A fine grain film negative is equivalent to about 20MP, but has way more depth than most digital. Its just extracting and using that depth is dependent.

A medium format negative is upwards of 45-50 MP, so better than most digital that people have access to.

I have to disagree entirely. If you know your settings, its all the same thing. Literally. If you're a person that normally fires off a million pics, its different of course. But then what are you really doing? I guess I cant argue with you need to be more selective, but I dont see that as a benefit that you cant enjoy the same on a digital platform. I hate coming home from a job with 100,000,000 pictures, so I trained myself over the years to shoot as little as possible to achieve what I need and it forced me to think about my shots, I didnt need film to do that, but film would have acted only as a detriment and risk in the process.

Results/depth are certainly up to opinion/taste. Digital cameras have extreme capability with dynamic range these days, even more so than most film applications. Megapixel isnt a measure of anything realistic once you have a generally good camera unless you are shooting something with a very specific need. If youre shooting action and want the ability to do an extreme crop, or shooting a massive print campaign or something for a big wall or building, sure. But then again, digital still offers this ability in some capacity as you mentioned, even in consumer level stuff. A Nikon D800 shoots nearly 40 megapixels, and it costs 1400 bucks now. The replacement D810 costs under 3,000. I have seen great results when using these in sports. Meanwhile most prosumer/pro DSLRs shoot right at 20mp or more. We are talking sub-1000 dollar cameras that can produce world class imagery. So you are comparing the upper level of film to the lower level of digital in terms of MP. ISO and low light? Sony A7 series can turn night to day with its sensor sensitivity, with very little noise, film cant come close. Sensor technology and glass quality is everything.

I see the value of film from a nostalgic/"feel"/mechanical enjoyment standpoint, and it has its place. The shortcomings of film are not worth the very few circumstantial benefits. I know it isnt cool to say that, but

And as far as movies being shot on film, plenty and plenty of movies are being shot digitally these days by top shelf directors with the same or better results. The tech is here. Medium format film works well for extremely large resolution prints and that sort of thing, but it isnt running away as untouchable. Medium format film can produce truly retarded megapixel numbers, but lets talk realistic needs/application versus the benefit of digital in 95% of all cases.

Bonus: I dont need to build a darkroom or pay someone to develop my photos. Or to buy endless rolls of film.

you made me get wordy...

edit: forgot to mention the Sony A7R2! 42MP stills, 3000 bucks. Full frame mirrorless. Small package. Cant beat that!

[Hydra]

I have to disagree entirely. If you know your settings, its all the same thing. Literally. If you're a person that normally fires off a million pics, its different of course. But then what are you really doing? I guess I cant argue with you need to be more selective, but I dont see that as a benefit that you cant enjoy the same on a digital platform. I hate coming home from a job with 100,000,000 pictures, so I trained myself over the years to shoot as little as possible to achieve what I need and it forced me to think about my shots, I didnt need film to do that, but film would have acted only as a detriment and risk in the process.

I agree, but I've met more photographers that would rather shoot thousands of shots and pick and choose than just take a moment to compose, light, and bracket a fews exposures.

Results/depth are certainly up to opinion/taste. Digital cameras have extreme capability with dynamic range these days, even more so than most film applications.

True, digital has the capabilites to record DR and with photoshop work it's of course possible to mimic just about every kind of film "feel" there is. But, the grain of film, with is part of its depth, is something that isn't so easily achievable. Sure, you can increase noise by upping the ISO on a digital, but it's effects are definitely different.

Megapixel isnt a measure of anything realistic once you have a generally good camera unless you are shooting something with a very specific need. If youre shooting action and want the ability to do an extreme crop, or shooting a massive print campaign or something for a big wall or building, sure. But then again, digital still offers this ability in some capacity as you mentioned, even in consumer level stuff. A Nikon D800 shoots nearly 40 megapixels, and it costs 1400 bucks now. The replacement D810 costs under 3,000. I have seen great results when using these in sports. Meanwhile most prosumer/pro DSLRs shoot right at 20mp or more. We are talking sub-1000 dollar cameras that can produce world class imagery. So you are comparing the upper level of film to the lower level of digital in terms of MP. ISO and low light? Sony A7 series can turn night to day with its sensor sensitivity, with very little noise, film cant come close. Sensor technology and glass quality is everything.

MP are of course, semi-arbitrary. My X-Pro1 is only 16.X MP and I would never find fault in the image quality, especially with Fuji's awesome lenses. From a business/career standpoint, there is very little reason to shoot film over the great digital offerings that can be had for cheap.

I see the value of film from a nostalgic/"feel"/mechanical enjoyment standpoint, and it has its place.

This is the real draw for me. Shooting with strobes and digital for work is great, I know I can good results with that very consistently. But I love grabbing a roll of film, loading it up, and shooting it one by one. It's really the ritual of shooting film that I love.

And as far as movies being shot on film, plenty and plenty of movies are being shot digitally these days by top shelf directors with the same or better results. The tech is here.

True, true.

Medium format film works well for extremely large resolution prints and that sort of thing, but it isnt running away as untouchable. Medium format film can produce truly retarded megapixel numbers, but lets talk realistic needs/application versus the benefit of digital in 95% of all cases.

Medium format is specific to app/need, but I know many people who still choose to shoot medium format over a FF digital. I'll agree again that MP aren't truly a tell-all of image quality. Lens design, post/development are all huge factors. It goes back to the enjoyment of carrying a big SLR, or a wonky TLR, or even a comically big rangefinder and slapping away shots casually. I still bring my digital with me everyday, no matter what film stuff I have.

Bonus: I dont need to build a darkroom or pay someone to develop my photos. Or to buy endless rolls of film.

I'm working on developing my own stuff, printing is another story. But buyin film is like buying ammo. If someone were selling you on buying an infrared insert for your AR that would mark targets and such without expending bullets, I doubt you would. I mean, sure it'd be more practical for practice situations and casually target shooting, but where's the fun?

you made me get wordy...

You're welcome.

edit: forgot to mention the Sony A7R2! 42MP stills, 3000 bucks. Full frame mirrorless. Small package. Cant beat that!

You really can't. My next digital purchase will be an A7XX so I can rock all sorts of FF lenses.

[HeavyMetal]

get the A7S2. probably my next camera purchase. I have rented it for different jobs probably 10 times now, although primarily for video. Obviously an excellent stills cam also.