Still photography

Post by **Patrick** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:17 am

The film I use most often for 35mm is Fujichrome Sensia - gives clean, sharp, fine grain images and it's cheap too. Though what I don't like about it is the incredibly narrow exposure latitude. In fact a photography magazine did a test and found that Sensia had the narrowest exposure latitude of all the slide films on the market.

Whenever I can (when money is not tight) I use Fujichrome Provia 100F and Velvia in 35mm. I almost always use Fuji Velvia in medium format. I adore Velvia 50 in particular. I cannot confirm this as yet (so don't quote me on this) but although Velvia 100 is finer grained, it seems like Velvia 50 might be sharper. Though I would have to do more comparison shooting to find out.

Wado: "While taking some light readings, somebody passed by and commented that we looked antiquated or primitive or something like that."

When I was filming womens beach volleyball recently with my Canon 1014E, one guy walking by told his friend beside him: "The cameraman's using an old gooky camera."

Ive never heard the term 'gooky' before!

Post by **Nigel** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:23 am

I will keep the F5 as long as they make film for it.

The issue is that I am now getting people that won't accept images that originate on film.

Good Luck

Post by **Taqi** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:41 am

I mainly use a Bessa r3a with various lenses - nokton 1.4/40, Heliar 2.5/75 and Heliar 5.6/12. I use several other film cameras also, but I have to say the camera I have been most impressed with over 20 odd years of use is the Olympus XA - perfectly capable of kicking the shit out of any digital compact (and many a slr) any time, any place, any where.

As for film - pretty much all neopan 1600, some superia reala 100. About to try Kodak high speed infra red.

Post by **ossioskari** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:04 am

i got recently into pinhole-stuff again. somehow it's excitingly fresh approach after a few years of shooting mainly digital. here's a recent shot of a church in helsinki, should someone want to take a look:

the camera here is a ballantine's-gift-box with ilford 8 x 10" 6asa photopaper, exposure time 120s.

Post by **Angus** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:15 pm

Film....Fuji all the way whenever I can. I much prefer its look over anything Kodak has to offer...though I do use Kodak HD400 when I am in the USA (its not available in Europe).

I like to shoot stills in low light situations without a flash...I revel in getting the shot nobody else gets....so I often have Fuji Press 800 or Superia 1600....or the pro film at lower speeds...

I do like my B&W with funky stocks such as Efke 50 or Maco Cube....as well as the obligotary Ilford Delta stocks...I've pushed Delta 3200 two stops for real low light shooting and it can look amazing.

Post by **Patrick** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:44 pm

Ossioskari, that is a very eye catching image of a church. I like it! How did you get that fisheye effect? I thought that effect was only possible if you used a cyclinder / circular shaped object as a camera. Though I assume that a ballantine's-gift-box is square shaped.

Post by **ossioskari** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:26 pm

patrick, thanks. yes you're right, it's due to the cylinderic surface.

Post by **flatwood** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:59 pm

Really, I dont see any advantage of 35mm film stills compared to digital. Ive been shooting with a D50 for the past year or so and have taken thousands of snaps. Ive also been scanning in hundreds of slides and negs in my collection for the past six months.

What I prefer about film is the obvious film look from a scanned 35mm slide or negative so what Ive done is to shoot slides and negs of blue, green, white and black backgrounds to use as filters on my digital stills and video with my Nikon FM with 24, 50 and 105mm.

What I'd like to get my hands on is the equivalent in 35mm movie film, or even super 16 so I could have a moving grain filter to overlay my DV work. Im sure this is being done since its so obvious. If theres nothing available I may get some done.

Post by **wado1942** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:09 pm

REALLY!? You don't see the difference between these 2 photos? They're not even full res either.

Post by **flatwood** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:39 pm

Of course I see the diff, but, no offense meant, so what??? I've been making my living with pictures and sound for a long time and I again, I see no real financial advantage to shooting film unless thats what the client wants.

Post by **wado1942** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:58 pm

Well if quality doesn't matter, then fine, digital is the way to go. But for how much professional photography costs vs film costs, the cost of film is nothing. Even though I'm an amateur still photographer, I've had people come to me wanting my services because all of a sudden the quality of their regular photographer's pictures dropped. As it turns out, every time, the "regular" photographer's quality dropped, it was because they switched to a DSLR.
I remember my band did a photoshoot a couple of years ago and we hired a well known photographer/graphic designer to do it. He used a brand new $4,500 DSLR and we looked looked like cardboard cutouts. So I pulled out my 35mm Pentax and did a shoot and everybody loved the look. We also did some studio shots using some kind of large format and those were the ones we wound up using. So if you don't mind losing clients to guys like me, then yes, save yourself $50 on film so I can make $200 next time they need shots done. People don't think anybody notices the difference, and most people don't really, but some do and there lies the problem. Most people don't think to ask for film because they don't know any better. Now I have several friends and family members that do/have done photography work and I've heard countless stories about how people ask them why they can't take as good pictures as they did 10 years ago. They have no idea that digital cameras suck because to their minds, digital is better for everyting just like advertised.
So you want a financial reason to use film? OK...... because IT'S BETTER!
Think about what would happen if an auto manufacturer decided to make their car frames out of plastic instead of steel. There's no financial reason to use metal after all since it's so much more expensive and time consuming to build. Cutting corner's isn't always a good thing. In fact, it's usually a bad thing.

Post by **flatwood** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:08 pm

I truly know what you mean on many levels however I can give you examples in the other direction. My pal since age 5 is Ralph Nelson (look him up, and his dad too) one of the top Stills photographers in the Hollywood film business and he went digital several years ago and says its the best thing ever. He's a Canon digital shooter. He shoots about 20 to 40000 stills per film. Pete Biro, former editor of Car and Driver magazine and sports photographer for Goodyear and Ford Racing says the same thing. I used to be Pete's backup for off road racing in the Nevada desert. Pete shoots Nikon.

I love the new Nikon D80. There's one in my future. It's not a question of costs or quality, its a question of workflow and end result. In addition to shooting two hours of DV on this project I snapped about 500 stills and downloaded them onto my client's laptop at the motel before we went to the bar. They loved them.

It's just whatever you are happy with to me. I have none of my identity tied to film or digital, just work flow and content creation.

Post by **wado1942** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:25 pm

Well I do admit the workflow is faster on digital cameras. But I'm the kind of guy that takes quality over workflow and clients don't see our workflow, they just see the final results. I therefore chose the path that gets the best results in my eye.

Post by **Superbus_** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:25 pm

Yes, I agree with you: film photography is just better!!! I hope I will have the opportunity to use film as long as possible for movie making and for stills as well.

Post by **wado1942** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:44 pm

Oh yeah. Me too. Now I while I do have a digital camera, I just use it for pictures for my website. Though most of the pictures on my website are still scanned film prints and negs.