I've developed a love for film. My 5D hasn't left my desk in over a week!

 

Sorry if I come off as an asshole here, but to me these two pictures don't do anything for me. Is there something lost in the translation through the internet; I mean is there something about these two prints that stands on it's own? Because I honestly see these as snapshots of buddies.

Again, truly apologize if I'm being a prick here, just wondering if it's like an emporer's new clothes thing and I'm missing something.

 

I've stated this before. You will NEVER EVER EVER.....

a)See the benefit of medium format for anything viewed on a screen
b)Impress someone with a photo that is being shown on a screen against a top end digital camera.

The only time medium format is impressive is print...and large print at that.

 

Prints are awesome, digital or not.

 

^ that's not entirely accurate.

For starters, the exposure latitude of print films easily surpasses any DSLR you can buy at B&H.

The tonal range of B&W films is far superior to that of even the best pro DSLR's. I'm talking about the gradation from black to white in a single frame. The smooth expanse of a sky, turning from light gray to dark, is unmatched by digital.

The range of stops captured by film surpasses even the best DSLR's, despite marketing claims suggesting otherwise. Film retains detail on a level that isn't apparent to the human eye in a straight print. One can burn or dodge to reveal these features that are otherwise invisible.

The specific color response of films is different than that of digital sensors. For example, Pan F B&W responds to blue and red light in a way that is different than the sensor in a 30D. The blue of the sky, the white of the clouds, the green of leaves, are all recorded by the film in a unique manner. One can use the response curves provided by the film maker to try to simulate the effect, but since your sensor only recorded the scene as IT saw it, you still can't reconstruct the original scene as the film would have recorded it. Color films each have unique color signatures that are not reproduceable digitally for the same reasons.

This brings up another aspect of film that is easily visible in a web scan - the variety of films and their response to development. Every film has a unique signature. They vary far more than DSLR's and vary among a single company more than digital sensors vary across the entire digicam industry. One can choose a film for the subject, to impart a mood, and convey an idea. Kodachrome has long been the choice of those who strive to show life as it is, in all it's living, real color. Velvia is the choice of those who don't think nature's color is good enough for the magazine cover B&W has a ton of uses, and that realm alone encompasses a myriad of films that each have their own character. And that's all before anyone starts to play with the image in post.

These are only a few of the image-related features that trump a DSLR image and are visible even in a scan posted on the internet. Film captures a wide range of light and compresses it in a way that a scanner can pick up. In the OP's shot, even with the bright sun in the frame the black camera body is easily a different shade than the black of the jacket's zipper and the sky is an obvious blue. And we are ignoring the fact that digital imaging is still not capable of capturing everything that is on the negative.

MF film prints don't have to be huge to be noticeably "special." 4x6 prints will show far more detail than 35mm at the same size. Grain is smaller, hell, invisible, even in fast films, and especially at smaller sizes. Any samll print of 6x6 Tri-X is going to have no real grain at all. It's only at larger sizes that any visible grain would ever be present. I know I said earlier that web images won't show the real capabilities of MF film, but that was not right. Things like grain will be noticeable by their absence.

One thing that web resolutions won't show you is the level of detail. Any scan capable of showing the real level of detail present would be far larger than any monitor. If resolution is your measure of an image's value, you won't find it in web shots from medium format.

To be entirely fair, I rearely find the shots normally posted here from DSLR cameras to be very compelling. Some are posted simply to ask for help, others to share an experience, and even those to show off their successes often are of the "had to be there" kind of experience. We've all seen shots of shiny cars, race cars, sunsets, skylines, etc. Simple shots of people getting their picture taken are rarely held to prove or disprove the validity of a medium. If they were, flickr would be proof that digital sucks

Honestly, I think some of you are guilty of praising the emperor's new clothes yourself. I am not saying digital is a waste of time, or has no value. But it's value does not lie in the ability to take an image - that is a dime-a-dozen ability. And digital certainly doesn't take a better image than anything else. Film is still king as far as photography goes. But the history of photography has proven over and over again that modest equipment in the hands of a person that understands the limitations of the gear can produce works of timeless value.

 

I agree with you in theory. Without a doubt, film can capture more "data" than a sensor ever could....well...maybe not ever, but you get my point. However, when you "digitize" your prized print, you lose ALL of it's benefits, and lose them all due to the scanner. 99.9% of scanners cannot get the quality out of film to rival DSLR....not yet anyway, and since digital...in the pro world anyway, is taking over, I doubt anyone will ever make one. For the most part, I can usually tell if an a digitized image (assuming we are talking pro photographers here) is a digital file from the getgo, or a scanned file from a slide.

As far as "photography" goes, I disagree with you regarding film. I appreciate it for what it is, but to me, it's like buying a car from the 1890s with wooden wheels, and telling a Ferrari 430 driver that he "is not a true motorist."

 

This is getting old and tiresome. The same person continually comes to the rescue of film and then disappears into the night like Batman. This time however he managed sneak in that all our (digital) pictures "aren't compelling"... yet I can't recall this person ever posting even ONE picture here. I take pictures to capture something special to me, not to impress anyone else.




I'll be in my listening room listening to my record player and tube amps until you guys figure out that film is dead.

 

 

I'd choose film over digital. As a matter of fact, I just sold my 5D to get my hands on some film cameras.

 

Your opinion is yours and i respect it. I guess no one appreciates the tones and dynamic range of photography any more. Maybe if I posted something all HDR'ed out, people would care. I'll keep posting my photos that "don't do it" for anyone for the sole fact that I dig 'em.