35mm Film

Hey!

Just ordered a Nikon F80 and need some film. Both Color and B/W. Have been using Velvia 100 and Provia 100 for my Bronica, is that the shit for 35mm as well? And then some B/W. Not sure if I want ISO 100 on that one. 400 or 800 maybe? Grain doesn't bother me on B/W.


Tommy

Not into Film so can't help sorry!

I'd guess it may be trial and error tho - to see which you like best.

'is that the sh*t for 35mm as well?'

Well I was brought up on film (mainly colour slide and bw) but Fuji Velvia (or Kodak) was the best back then, and Ilford for bw. Fuji tended to provide saturated colours that Kodak later followed with their products. ISO 100 will give you a quality image and Fuji warm saturated colour. Of course there are many variables in printing affecting the final result. Now you can also Photoshop a scanned negative including adding grain which you couldn't do years ago.

Modern emulsions will require some big prints and maybe 800 or 1600 ISO to see some grain unless you are enlarging a cropped portion. Not sure of the current situation but some BW films (Ilford XP1/2) were using dyes years ago instead of crystals so these will be grainless if they are still available. 400 ISO should see you through many situations. One thing about film is you are stuck with that ISO for the whole film rather than being able to vary it per image like with digital.

I do love how poeple hang on to outmoded methods of photography. Its like vintage car owners clinging onto to the old days when motoring was a test of how good a mechanic you were because the cars needed constant maintenance.

For me digital photography was the best thing invented and in no way would I go back to pictures on film guessing if they would come out ok.

Bazza

It may be daft Baz but no way am I letting go of my Zoe (35mm camera) I tell myself I may use it but doubt I will, also have about 5 films in different ISO settings in the case and I would never use them but have not thrown them out.

If you get the chance to see a 6x6 Fuji Velvia transparency on a lightbox you may understand why people "hang on to outmoded methods of photography". It's because there is no way you would get the same quality from digital at this moment in time.

The colours just sing out to the viewer and give a impression of 3D that no digital image can.

I love digital, but I also love film. They're different and I fail to see why people have try to make it a competition between the two formats.

Oh and by the way, a film camera manufactured 20 years ago can take the latest films and produce stunning images whilst the same cannot be said of digital. A 3 year old DSLR is now ancient and we are co-erced into the "Oh my God my camera only has 8mp and it doesn't take video and it doesn't have live view.......ad infinitum" way of thinking.

I hold my hands up to being caught by this way of thinking also.

Steve

I thought that was a worthy point. It's a bit like the hifi buffs arguing about vinyl vs. CD but we all know in the end market forces will determine digital wins as it is doing now in all aspects of life. I have been looking through some of my 35mm and 6x6 negs and slides and like Steve says the images are rich and vibrant with a feel somehow not seen in digital. It's true that you didn't for sure know the result until the film was processed. However, I was that experienced with my cameras and knew the films well that I had a damn good idea what it would look like without guessing. To be honest I find digital more unpredictable and in some respects more difficult to control and of course most of us are struggling to achieve affordable quality. DX sensors are the equivelant of APS and few can afford full frame (except Steve, Tommytee and a few others! ) I was making 16x20 prints from 35mm film 25+ years ago and I can't say I am even back at that quality in 2008. I am wondering where it is going in terms of quality. They are already thinking DX sensors are at their limit or thereabouts and maybe as FX becomes cheaper we will all be going full frame and throwing DX lenses away!

There is nothing much I could identify about digital being better than film for enthusiasts like us in YoP. The biggest advantage is simply instant results and the ability for more lay-people to manipulate images on a PC. You can of course take more images and at less cost per press of the button.

To be honest though I do wonder what the point of messing around with film is now. By the time you have done all the processing and then lost quality scanning negs and all the dust etc. I'm not sure you can achieve a great deal.

Re the upgrades, well with computers they tell you to miss a year or two to see much (noticeable) difference in processing power and cameras probably are the same. I was considering a Nikon D300 and splashing out. There are hot debates trying to compare it to a 3 year old D80 or D200. People argue metering is a bit better, low light performance or faster focusing but it seems so close that many enthusiasts can't tell a difference in many circumstances in which they take pictures. It's a better camera but it's not incrediably different for a large percentage of situations. I'd still like one though!

I still have a collection of 35mm slides that I took with a nasty old Praktica TTL SLR - the colours are so saturated and bold, I've not seen one single digi picture of the same colour quality yet. but would I go back to wet film? Like I'd go back to driving my old Vauxhall Viva - no way!