Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sammydemon)
    Yeah, I managed to get hold of it for £550, a bargain!
    I wouldn't rush to replace it though if it broke. My manual focus film cameras are just as good in almost all situations and gear is not, of course, everything.

    Also, my digital is only a D90, I only have a D700 in my dreams
    I'm kinda surprised that you'd spend £550 on a film camera - I mean they're nice and that, but film is finished in reality apart from the novelty of using it occasionally. When did you buy this?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shmuxel)
    I'm kinda surprised that you'd spend £550 on a film camera - I mean they're nice and that, but film is finished in reality apart from the novelty of using it occasionally. When did you buy this?
    I bought it a few weeks back.
    I shoot slides and black and white film. I occasionally develop the black and white myself when I get time.

    With film I get better colours, I don't HAVE to use a computer and I get full frame quality/wide angles without the cost of a D700.

    Also, the F6 is in some ways better than the D700 and with film i take better pictures because I have only 36 frames and you aren't tempted to faff around looking at it afterwards.

    What camera do you use?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sammydemon)
    I bought it a few weeks back.
    I shoot slides and black and white film. I occasionally develop the black and white myself when I get time.

    With film I get better colours, I don't HAVE to use a computer and I get full frame quality/wide angles without the cost of a D700.

    Also, the F6 is in some ways better than the D700 and with film i take better pictures because I have only 36 frames and you aren't tempted to faff around looking at it afterwards.

    What camera do you use?
    I with Shmuxel here - I really can't see why you'd spend so much money on what is technically obsolete technology. I still shoot film too - I have three film cameras - but two of them were free and the other was less than £50. Film isn't like Digital where the body makes up a big part of the image, with film the body is simply a holder for the film and the lens is literally almost everything. Bodies sometimes have nice features - the film loading on my Konica FC-1 was hailed as one of the best and easiest film loading systems in the world before auto-loading cameras were commonplace but that is simply nice, rather than something I would actually spend money on.

    Film itself is an art form, but really not much more than a hobby/recreation these days. Digital makes much more financial sense in almost every case except certain situations like wedding photography when both formats could possibly be used. I currently have one DSLR - a Canon 50D - but I'm currently looking into picking up a 1D mk1 because they're cheap, fully weather sealed and have staggering AF ability coupled with 8fps. I think my dream gear would be a 5D mk3 (the one where they've fixed the awful AF performance) + 1Dmk3/4 + 85mm f/1.2 + 50mm f/1.4. This would cover pretty much everything I want to do as a photojournalist, but possibly the 24-70mm f/2.8L but I'm not a massive fan of zooms so I don't think it would make my dream list.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nuffles)
    I with Shmuxel here - I really can't see why you'd spend so much money on what is technically obsolete technology. I still shoot film too - I have three film cameras - but two of them were free and the other was less than £50. Film isn't like Digital where the body makes up a big part of the image, with film the body is simply a holder for the film and the lens is literally almost everything. Bodies sometimes have nice features - the film loading on my Konica FC-1 was hailed as one of the best and easiest film loading systems in the world before auto-loading cameras were commonplace but that is simply nice, rather than something I would actually spend money on.

    Film itself is an art form, but really not much more than a hobby/recreation these days. Digital makes much more financial sense in almost every case except certain situations like wedding photography when both formats could possibly be used. I currently have one DSLR - a Canon 50D - but I'm currently looking into picking up a 1D mk1 because they're cheap, fully weather sealed and have staggering AF ability coupled with 8fps. I think my dream gear would be a 5D mk3 (the one where they've fixed the awful AF performance) + 1Dmk3/4 + 85mm f/1.2 + 50mm f/1.4. This would cover pretty much everything I want to do as a photojournalist, but possibly the 24-70mm f/2.8L but I'm not a massive fan of zooms so I don't think it would make my dream list.
    You are quite right about bodies being a holder for the film, but is this not the same as for the digital sensor? The image processing hardware is mostly irrelevant because far greater modification can be made on computers with the RAW. Also, all digital sensors these days push lenses to their limits in terms of quality so there is little difference between them anyway.

    I wouldn't deviate from saying that photography is the art form and film is merely a medium on which to produce it. The simplicity of just picking up my F6 or OM-4 is bliss without having to worry about setting things up and so on like on my D90. Fujichrome Velva 50 just goes!

    I'm not saying digital is bad or in fact that either is better than the other. They can live side by side because they each have their own merits and downfalls. If you are a guitarist you may know of the old valve vs. transistor amp debates. Finally, I can say that there is no digital post-processing that rivals the feeling of taking that ISO3200 Ilford Delta out of the bath and basking in that glorious grain!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sammydemon)
    You are quite right about bodies being a holder for the film, but is this not the same as for the digital sensor? The image processing hardware is mostly irrelevant because far greater modification can be made on computers with the RAW. Also, all digital sensors these days push lenses to their limits in terms of quality so there is little difference between them anyway.

    I wouldn't deviate from saying that photography is the art form and film is merely a medium on which to produce it. The simplicity of just picking up my F6 or OM-4 is bliss without having to worry about setting things up and so on like on my D90. Fujichrome Velva 50 just goes!

    I'm not saying digital is bad or in fact that either is better than the other. They can live side by side because they each have their own merits and downfalls. If you are a guitarist you may know of the old valve vs. transistor amp debates. Finally, I can say that there is no digital post-processing that rivals the feeling of taking that ISO3200 Ilford Delta out of the bath and basking in that glorious grain!
    I'm not really disagreeing with you on any of that - just spending 4 or 5 hundred pounds on a film body - but there you go That same money could buy me a nice lump of second hand glass which I would appreciate far more than a film body.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sammydemon)
    I bought it a few weeks back.
    I shoot slides and black and white film. I occasionally develop the black and white myself when I get time.

    With film I get better colours, I don't HAVE to use a computer and I get full frame quality/wide angles without the cost of a D700.

    Also, the F6 is in some ways better than the D700 and with film i take better pictures because I have only 36 frames and you aren't tempted to faff around looking at it afterwards.

    What camera do you use?
    I generally use a Nikon D5000 which I've had for the last year, but I also have a Nikon F60N that I was given for free. I mean, Although maybe what you say about better colour is true, but in all honesty, Digital is far more convenient than film. They both have their places in Photography, and people will still use film occasionally, but it cannot be denied that film for the mainstream is dead, which is why it highly suprised me that you would spend that kind of money on a dead technology.


    (Original post by Nuffles)
    I with Shmuxel here - I really can't see why you'd spend so much money on what is technically obsolete technology. I still shoot film too - I have three film cameras - but two of them were free and the other was less than £50. Film isn't like Digital where the body makes up a big part of the image, with film the body is simply a holder for the film and the lens is literally almost everything. Bodies sometimes have nice features - the film loading on my Konica FC-1 was hailed as one of the best and easiest film loading systems in the world before auto-loading cameras were commonplace but that is simply nice, rather than something I would actually spend money on.

    Film itself is an art form, but really not much more than a hobby/recreation these days. Digital makes much more financial sense in almost every case except certain situations like wedding photography when both formats could possibly be used. I currently have one DSLR - a Canon 50D - but I'm currently looking into picking up a 1D mk1 because they're cheap, fully weather sealed and have staggering AF ability coupled with 8fps. I think my dream gear would be a 5D mk3 (the one where they've fixed the awful AF performance) + 1Dmk3/4 + 85mm f/1.2 + 50mm f/1.4. This would cover pretty much everything I want to do as a photojournalist, but possibly the 24-70mm f/2.8L but I'm not a massive fan of zooms so I don't think it would make my dream list.
    Totally agree with you there
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shmuxel)
    I generally use a Nikon D5000 which I've had for the last year, but I also have a Nikon F60N that I was given for free. I mean, Although maybe what you say about better colour is true, but in all honesty, Digital is far more convenient than film. They both have their places in Photography, and people will still use film occasionally, but it cannot be denied that film for the mainstream is dead, which is why it highly suprised me that you would spend that kind of money on a dead technology.



    I agree that for the most part digital is more convenient. However, film is not dead in any way. Dead means that the technology is unavaiable or inaccessible; neither of these are the case!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sammydemon)
    I agree that for the most part digital is more convenient. However, film is not dead in any way. Dead means that the technology is unavaiable or inaccessible; neither of these are the case!
    When I say 'Dead', I'm referring to the technology not being used in the mainstream. Yes, you can get a few people using film, but asking an average person in the street, they will 98% likely say that they use Digital. It's similar to TVs: The mainstream use LCD/LED TVs, whilst a few use CRTs
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shmuxel)
    When I say 'Dead', I'm referring to the technology not being used in the mainstream. Yes, you can get a few people using film, but asking an average person in the street, they will 98% likely say that they use Digital. It's similar to TVs: The mainstream use LCD/LED TVs, whilst a few use CRTs
    That would be me :awesome: 20" CRT in my room for movies/normal tv + a 42" LCD in the living room for Xbox
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nuffles)
    That would be me :awesome: 20" CRT in my room for movies/normal tv + a 42" LCD in the living room for Xbox
    As a question, can I ask why use use CRT for movies?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shmuxel)
    As a question, can I ask why use use CRT for movies?
    Mainly because it was free (freecycle) and I do the majority of my TV/film watching in my room. I occasionally watch films on my Xbox on the big TV but I have the one in my room hooked up to my sound system (80's JVC/Celestion setup) which is far nicer than the built in speakers on the big TV. In favour of the CRT are the dark and deep blacks, good colour rendition and nice movement. Technically, CRTs produce a far higher quality picture than LCD/LED, but are let down by lack of sharpness and their gargantuan size.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nuffles)

    I really can't see why you'd spend so much money on what is technically obsolete technology.

    Digital makes much more financial sense in almost every case except certain situations like wedding photography when both formats could possibly be used.

    I think my dream gear would be a 5D mk3 (the one where they've fixed the awful AF performance) + 1Dmk3/4 + 85mm f/1.2 + 50mm f/1.4. This would cover pretty much everything I want to do as a photojournalist, but possibly the 24-70mm f/2.8L but I'm not a massive fan of zooms so I don't think it would make my dream list.
    Obsolete? Hmmmmm I'll go in to that in the next post, but I think there are only a handful of professional or university level courses in the UK that do not teach film.

    To weddings add fashion, fine art, large scale advertising, landscape, large format, photography in areas of extreme poverty and many others where film is on at least an equal footing.

    I can guarantee you the 5D mkii does not have "awful AP performance." As would many other photographers who use this camera day in, day out. Your dream list "as a photojournalist" will need a 16-35mm f/2.8, a 24-70 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8. The lenses you posted are beautiful and fantastic lenses, but in modern photojournalism, you'll be missing out on the shots that sell.


    (Original post by shmuxel)
    Digital is far more convenient than film. They both have their places in Photography, and people will still use film occasionally, but it cannot be denied that film for the mainstream is dead,
    (Original post by shmuxel)
    When I say 'Dead', I'm referring to the technology not being used in the mainstream. Yes, you can get a few people using film, but asking an average person in the street, they will 98% likely say that they use Digital.

    By mainstream, do you mean consumers or those working within photography? Whilst I'll agree that for most consumers film is "dead", within the professional (and amateur) world it is very much alive.


    Long story short, film isn't dead, and I cannot see it dying for a long time to come. It is still very much the mainstay for some areas of photography and in equal footing in others. For those who aren't earning money from their work, film is more expensive, more time consuming and more complicated. I will concede that to the consumer it's gone the way of the Dodo.

    Hope this random collection of thoughts helps!
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sammydemon)

    I wouldn't deviate from saying that photography is the art form and film is merely a medium on which to produce it.
    Being somewhat of a pedant here, I have to disagree. Photography isnt an art form, never has been, never will be.

    Photography can be used to create art, but so can painting. Painting can also be used to paint a wall and make a mess on the carpet.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ragman_wonder)
    Being somewhat of a pedant here, I have to disagree. Photography isnt an art form, never has been, never will be.

    Photography can be used to create art, but so can painting. Painting can also be used to paint a wall and make a mess on the carpet.

    You're right. However, it CAN be an art form, and almost always is. Is it not better to describe photography as the art form rather than the medium upon which it is produced?
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sammydemon)
    You're right. However, it CAN be an art form, and almost always is. Is it not better to describe photography as the art form rather than the medium upon which it is produced?
    I can see your point, but I'd describe the result as the art form. Photography itself, as far as I'm concerned, isn't. It is the thought process, the addition of meaning or values that creates a piece of art.

    This is why I gave the painting example.

    Painting
    Tool: Brush/Palette Knife/Roller/Spray
    Medium: Oil Paints/Waterbased/Powder/Emulsion/Gloss
    Canvas: Canvas/Paper/Living/Wall
    Purpose: Still life/portrait/painting the fence/touching up the radiators

    Photography
    Tool: SLR/Compact/Rangefinder/Medium Format/Large Format
    Medium: Digital/Negative/Slide
    Canvas: Newspaper/Magazine/Facebook/Slideshow/Canvas/Album
    Purpose: Journalism/Fashion/Art/Portrait/Wedding/Snapshots

    Do you see my point? Just because something is capable of making "art" it doesn't make it an art form. That happens when you decide that you wish to create art, or someone else labels it as art. (though let's not get in to "what is art")
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ragman_wonder)
    I can see your point, but I'd describe the result as the art form.
    So you are saying that the photograph its self is an art form? Which could imply that any old snapshot could be considered art, no?

    Also, don't forget that all photographs are produced through the act of photography, which backtracking, makes that the art form?
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sammydemon)
    So you are saying that the photograph its self is an art form? Which could imply that any old snapshot could be considered art, no?

    Also, don't forget that all photographs are produced through the act of photography, which backtracking, makes that the art form?
    You miss my point.

    Nothing is art until we say it is.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Articles:

    The Student Room tech wikiTech forum guidelines

    Quick link:

    Unanswered technology and computers threads

    Sponsored features:

    Web Legend

    Win a Macbook Air!

    Blog about setting up a website for a chance to win in our Web Legend competition.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.