film or digital for non web use?

[cock-a-leekie]

Just wondering...

I'm going to Africa in a few weeks and I'll be taking some photos during the trip for my own personal use. My question is:
When shooting recreational photos do you shoot film or digi? If film, what format do you use and why?

I'll be shooting 35mil velvia 100f on my little Dynax 7, because I still prefer it to digital for my own personal collection of photos.

[nekrom]

I do both mate. But over here camera shops can put your normal photos into digital format on a cd do same diff really.

I use both a cannon EOS/SLR camera as well as a cannon 5mpx digital I just picked up. Picture quality is same diff, but digital does hold more shots/exposures.

-N

[SGS]

Digital for everything. 2 gig card hold just about all the capacity for pics that you need and then print them off on the Epson PictureMate when you get back. Can't imagine carrying around handfulls of film anymore for anything.

[JP]

In a previous life I was a darkroom technician, developing/printing b/w images ... as much as i enjoyed the process of taking the pic through to framing a nice print, cant imagine doing it now ....

Digital all the way, still get the odd image printed up ... but for me its way more flexible & convenient ... :drink:

[dvtimes]

Just wondering...

I'm going to Africa in a few weeks and I'll be taking some photos during the trip for my own personal use. My question is:
When shooting recreational photos do you shoot film or digi? If film, what format do you use and why?

I'll be shooting 35mil velvia 100f on my little Dynax 7, because I still prefer it to digital for my own personal collection of photos.
I prefer film, if you go to Jessops they will put it onto cd. Slide processing and mount plus cd scanning is £8.99. But if you scan yourself you may get better results.

But for a real punch I prefer medium format, as it makes 35mm shots look poor. You can blow up medium format huge without loss of quality.

But a pro digital will give you splendid shots. I would use both, in case you have a problem with one.

Do not forget velvia will need to be kept cool, so put your camera in a cool bag or the film will be damaged.

[SGS]

I prefer film, if you go to Jessops they will put it onto cd. Slide processing and mount plus cd scanning is £8.99. But if you scan yourself you may get better results.

But for a real punch I prefer medium format, as it makes 35mm shots look poor. You can blow up medium format huge without loss of quality.

But a pro digital will give you splendid shots. I would use both, in case you have a problem with one.

Do not forget velvia will need to be kept cool, so put your camera in a cool bag or the film will be damaged.

Show us one of your photos taken on medium format and show us what you mean?

[dvtimes]

Show us one of your photos taken on medium format and show us what you mean?

I have never had the medium format ones scaned in, but its easy to find examples.

Pick up any fashion magazine and chances are the photographer has used medium format.

The problem with 35 negatives (prints) is that if you enlarge the shots the quality drops qick. Slides work better, and the grain is better.

Black and white 35mm is cool to enlarge, as the grain ads to the shots.

But I tend to shoot family events and speaceal shots on medium format as they look sharper and give a real punch.

Plus the pics tend to be more aquare than 35mm which is more rectangled.

The only down side is that on 6by7 you only get 10 shots on 120 film.

But its a BIG camera, and you do need to use a stand, as its heavy. So I only use it for speaceal times.

[dvtimes]

http://www.mamiya.com/compare.asp?id=4&id2=129&id3=1110

[morefodder]

Sommat my misses heard on day time telly, lord lichfield only uses digital cause of all the scanners and such like on airport security damaging his films ... and been like that for years now, hasnt taken a celluloid pic for years apparently .. hope this helps

[dvtimes]

Sommat my misses heard on day time telly, lord lichfield only uses digital cause of all the scanners and such like on airport security damaging his films ... and been like that for years now, hasnt taken a celluloid pic for years apparently .. hope this helps

Do not forget he used digital medium format digital a lot (very very expensive).

Often people think that they will get the same shots from a £30 digital as they will with a £7,000 digital camera.

[SGS]

http://www.mamiya.com/compare.asp?id=4&id2=129&id3=1110

Show us some of your own photos.

[morefodder]

Do not forget he used digital medium format digital a lot (very very expensive).

Often people think that they will get the same shots from a £30 digital as they will with a £7,000 digital camera.
True, but now that you can get 4-5 megapixels for just over a ton with optical zooms as well as digital zooms ... would you want to bother with 35mm when you could end up with blank pictures after going through a security scanner ???

[Geezer]

I have never had the medium format ones scaned in, but its easy to find examples.

Pick up any fashion magazine and chances are the photographer has used medium format.

The problem with 35 negatives (prints) is that if you enlarge the shots the quality drops qick. Slides work better, and the grain is better.

Black and white 35mm is cool to enlarge, as the grain ads to the shots.

But I tend to shoot family events and speaceal shots on medium format as they look sharper and give a real punch.

Plus the pics tend to be more aquare than 35mm which is more rectangled.

The only down side is that on 6by7 you only get 10 shots on 120 film.

But its a BIG camera, and you do need to use a stand, as its heavy. So I only use it for speaceal times.

35mm all the way, the quality of 35mm film is so good that you can enlarge them to poster size without a significent loss in quality. If you want a grainy affect with B&W it has nothing to do with enlarging but with the speed of the film, the faster the film the grainier the print, true of colour as well.
You could also take a 100 ASA B&W film and push process it to get a good grainy affect, it's not about the enlargement.

Medium format cameras cand and are used handheld, they ain't that big. Most people do use a "stand" or tripod as we call them because it is more practical.

Another reason I prefer 35mm is the portability and flexability, they are easier to move around with. I have shot a few riots in my time and obviously using a medium format camera would be a bit of a bastard :)

[-HF]

where did this myth of airport scanners messing up films come from? more likely it's been one of the cases where loads of films have been bought but stored wrongly and expired.

anyway, where in Africa are you going? if you plan to be out in the desert area, you might wanna reconsider digital, as cleaning the chip is next to impossible in those circumstances. i'm assuming you'd use a DSLR and more than one lens.

[dvtimes]

where did this myth of airport scanners messing up films come from? more likely it's been one of the cases where loads of films have been bought but stored wrongly and expired.

anyway, where in Africa are you going? if you plan to be out in the desert area, you might wanna reconsider digital, as cleaning the chip is next to impossible in those circumstances. i'm assuming you'd use a DSLR and more than one lens.I think I read it was an old wives tale.

I cannot see how a scanner can damage the chemicals in film.

After all if they do, would you realy want to be x-rayed?

Often film is damaged due to heat. I bet if your on holiday, you will see some twit with a compact camera (35mm) left out in the hot sun.

When I was 6, we left our camera next to the heater in the Butlins room, hense a few pics damaged.

[nekrom]

Yeah i've put both normal and digital cameras through the airport scanner bed thingo and both came out fine. Unless you're using and anchient camera, then that may be true.

-N

[-HF]

especially an 'ancient' cam should be unimpressed, as the xrays def have no effect on mechanical parts.

[nekrom]

I can't spell proper, that's why I sale smut. :crown:

-N

[cock-a-leekie]

I prefer film, if you go to Jessops they will put it onto cd. Slide processing and mount plus cd scanning is £8.99. But if you scan yourself you may get better results.

But for a real punch I prefer medium format, as it makes 35mm shots look poor. You can blow up medium format huge without loss of quality.

But a pro digital will give you splendid shots. I would use both, in case you have a problem with one.

Do not forget velvia will need to be kept cool, so put your camera in a cool bag or the film will be damaged.

Yeah I'll be keeping it in the hotel's fridge along with the meat, cream, eggs etc. :D

The reason I'll be using mostly film is that I want the original images to be as high a resolution as possible. I can't help thinking that if I shoot digital, when I look back at them in 5, 10, 20 or 30 years time, I'll be thinking - these look awful, because the cameras are advancing at such an alarming rate. Also, I don't know about you guys but I question how much of what I shoot I'll have lost or had corrupted in the next 30 years, and how much of what I have will be compatable with future hardware. 30 years is nothing in tearms of film, but 10 yrs is light years in the world of computers.

From what I understand 35mm transparency has a maximum resolution of around 25 megapixels. A high quality 12x18 inch print from a drum scan will yield around a 75mb image. Still a good bit higher than dSLR. By having the original slides, I'll be able to have them re-scanned at any time in the future and as scanner technology improves they should be able to extract more information from the original source. A digital image is a one shot deal and will always be limited to my 6mp camera.

Yes it would be nice to use medium format, but I don't want to blow several thousand pounds on something that will probably get used no more than once every couple of years. Apparently digital would need about 100 megapixels to simulate medium format film, or 500 megapixels to simulate 4x5" film. This is all invisible at Internet resolutions, newspaper & magazine resolution, but obvious in gallery size prints. It'd be nice to capture the landscapes I intend to shoot at such high resolutions, but it's a bit OTT for a hobbyist like me.

[-HF]

I can't spell proper, that's why I sale smut. :crown:

-N

hehe, to make it clear, i wasn't picking on your spelling (in fact i only took notice of it after your reply now :D), i was merely highlighting the ancient bit, as i personally see all SLRs without motors and shit as 'ancient'. ;)

[JT]

I can't spell proper, that's why I sale smut. :crown:

-N

I sale short ICQ's :)

[nekrom]

haha no wokers guys, all good. :)

-N