Still using film cameras?

[AAFO_WSagar]

This is going to be a good section for Wingman and Cobra to take up the torch for their favorite brand of film and film cameras..

You guys know where I stand on this.. DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY all the way!!

Convince me

Wayne

[T. Adams]

Re: Still using film cameras?

Uhh.... I still use the historic technology known as film. Digital soon I hope, tough. I don't think I'll ever sell my EOS 3. Besides it's all digital once I scan the print, and stare at the computer for 15 minutes, (for each print!!!) removing all the damn dust!!!!

[rpzo]

Re: Still using film cameras?

Tim,

If you can pick up a scanner with ICE technology that will go a long way in minimizing the amount of time spent cleaning up dust. I upgraded from an Epson flatbed to a Minolta Dimage 5400 a few months back and spend almost zero time removing dust now. (not to mention a drastic improvement in the sharpness of the scans)

The scans take a bit longer with ICE enabled (much less than touch-up time though!) and you do need some processing power if you want to multitask while scanning. On my 1Ghz/256MB system it would run just fine as long as it was the only app running. Open up Photoshop at the same time and the scan times would triple and the hard drive would go nuts swapping out memory. I'm now running on a 2.3Ghz system with 1GB of RAM and all is right with the world.

Rick

[AAFO_WSagar]

Re: Still using film cameras?

Hoping Mark K. will chime in here on this subject. He's got a transparancy scanner that we've talked about that not only does the dust/grain removal, it scans in batches!

Wayne

[rpzo]

Re: Still using film cameras?

The 5400 can do batch scanning of up to 4 35mm slides and 6 negatives. I prefer to handle each image seperately and tweak the curves on an individual basis. I know, most people say to scan it at the scanners auto setting and make the adjustments in Photoshop. For the majority of the scans I use the 2700 DPI setting and save as a 16 bit TIF image. Can you say 'sucks up the hard drive space?'

Rick

[T. Adams]

Re: Still using film cameras?

I thought about getting a better scanner, but that money will go towards a digital SLR, plus my also historic PIII 600Mhz barely runs PS6 right now.

I think for just over $100 my Epson flatbed does a mighty fine job.

[rpzo]

Re: Still using film cameras?

The good thing about film is that as the scanning technology improves you can go back at a later date and rescan it to improve the quality. Hard to do that with a digital image.

I think for just over $100 my Epson flatbed does a mighty fine job.

I'd say your getting a decent bang for your buck!

Rick

[FlyinLo]

Re: Still using film cameras?

I still shoot film from time to time, although most of my shooting of late has been digital. Nikon F100 and N70 for 35mm, plus I've got an FA, an FE2 and a couple F2SB's for when I'm feeling nostalgic, or when I need a workout. Just try lugging an F2SB with an MD-2 motor and a 300/2.8 for a while.

The film camera I use mostly these days is a Hasselblad 553ELX. Although it is a bit unwieldy for race photos, I want to bring it out to Reno again for some of those early morning ramp photos. I've been playing with a Mamiya RZ67 lately as well. I must say, there's nothing like eBay when you've just got to play with one of those weird cameras you've always wanted...

Of course nothing else I have has beat the sharpness of an 11x14 made from a 4x5 negative shot with my Toyo 45CF field camera. I've got a couple Speed Graphics and a couple old 8x10 view cameras as well, but just for fun, I've not shot anything serious with them.

[Pylon1_Mark]

Re: Still using film cameras?

Personally - I had to make the decision awhile back wether to invest in a digital setup or stick with the film. For me, the choice became obvious once I wieghted all of the variables. In order to make use of contributor's photos, most importantly the ones taken "back in the day" - a scanner is a must have here. A lot of the photos I've personally taken over the years were also either slide or negatives - so making them available in a digital format was also a concern. I'm also somewhat of a tactle person (I like to hold - FEEL the photo in my hand) as well as see it in front of my eye. There's just something about having a solid object that appeals to me. Also, with film - it's not like there is only one made.... you can experiment and use many different types of films that all yield unique qualities that can enhance a picture beyond what you can do by just framing the subject matter correctly. So for me - film is the way to go.

I have a Nikon Super Coolscan 4000ED with the SF-200 slide feeder (50 slide capacity). It workes very well for what I do... and the digial ICE, grain management & other bells & whistles work wonders for keeping the post processing time at a minimum. However, it also has the limitation of not being able to use any of the digital enhancements on any Kodak films (something about the Kodak films & infared that don't mix) and as a result, many of the "back in the day" pics require more post-processing time. Still it does as good of a job as what many drum scanners could a few years ago, and it's hard to beat for the price.

Besides, it's hard to agrue digital vs. film when the old pics look like this

[AAFO_WSagar]

Re: Still using film cameras?

Besides, it's hard to agrue digital vs. film when the old pics look like this

Eeeyoew! No kidding Mark..

Just like with digital cameras, you get what you pay for with a scanner, obviously!

I have had huge trouble getting a decent scan out of my old HP Photosmart unit. I've seen comparison reviews between it and higher end units, like your Nikon Super CoolScan and the difference was absolutely amazing!

The HP will give you a pretty decent scan if everything about the slide is spot on, (focus, exposure, etc, etc, etc) if there is the slightest bit of "soft" then it seems to exagerate it to the extreme.

... Man that's a nice pic of Precious Metal!!

History question.. did the original become the current or is it an entirely different airplane??

Wayne

[W J Pearce]

Re: Still using film cameras?

Totally different. The original was ditched into the Gulf of Mexico (Galveston Bay I think) due to Wx, leading to low fuel in 1990. The Griffon PM shares the data plate.

Bill

[Pylon1_Mark]

Re: Still using film cameras?

Yeah, we've talked about that HP scanner and it's limitations (as well as the numerous reboots you have to do). But at the time we got them, they were a great value and did an acceptable job for internet stuff.

The new unit I have just makes it a lot easier to do the digital scans and make 'em look as good as they can get.... and now that I have a DVD burner, storage isn't a problem. From now on, anytime I get some pictures from people that allow me to use their images on the site I will in turn, provide them with either a DVD or CD of the images for their collection. That way, everyone benifits

You know me Wayne, I have always had a very soft spot for the historical aspect of air racing, maybe even more so then the current day stuff. Knowing where we came from makes one appriciate more where we are at today... and there's no better way to do that then pictures. As I said before, when I do start getting the time to help you out here my main focus will be presenting the historical aspect of air racing... and I gotta have a nice scanner to do that.

BTW: If it was just me taking photos & showing 'em off... then I would go totally digital in a heartbeat. It's just that there is soooo much other stuff out there, it's better to have the flexability to scan. Just MHO of course.

[AAFO_WSagar]

Re: Still using film cameras?

You know me Wayne, I have always had a very soft spot for the historical aspect of air racing, maybe even more so then the current day stuff. Knowing where we came from makes one appriciate more where we are at today... and there's no better way to do that then pictures. As I said before, when I do start getting the time to help you out here my main focus will be presenting the historical aspect of air racing... and I gotta have a nice scanner to do that.

Can't wait to see some of what you can come up with Mark!

It's great to see you participating in the sport again !

Wayne

[HiredBitSlinger]

Re: Still using film cameras?

I have the HP Photosmart scanner as well. When you decide on switching, let us know what your choice is. Probally can't switch, but it would be nice to know.

On a slightly different historical note, I have quite a black and white negatives. Has anyone had success in printing black and white. It just does not look correct. Whites aren't white and the blacks look purple.

[wingman]

Re: Still using film cameras?

Interesting (and predictable I suppose) that it's largely the "old farts" that are still mostly using film. I had a talk with Jim Larsen about this at Reno last year and he sees no need yet to go digital -- and as far as I know Jerry Liang and Bucky Dawson are still completely film.

I certainly agree that digital has gotten awfully good, and I had a chance to play with a D2H recently and was mightily impressed, but I still cannot see laying down $3200 (plus more for memory, cords, software etc.) for any camera, when the lovely and supremely capable F100 goes for well under a grand. I simply don't make enough money at this to justify it. In my case things are complicated also by the fact that there are two serious shooters in the family -- which means we need several of everything.

I'll never argue that film is better than digital -- just different, and so far film works for me just fine...

The Dinosaur