Quote:
Originally Posted by acropolite
I can't help but agree with the comment on exposure latitude of film. I once had one film (one of two) overdeveloped by the processers. Even though the negatives looked unusable, the final print quality from the botched film was as good as that from the correctly processed roll. That said, I don't miss film, it's much nicer to be able to slightly alter an image to achieve a better result and the ability to simply shoot dozens of images means that there is less chance of missing that once in a lifetime shot. The ability to print without messy chemicals and dedicated darkroom is also a bonus. As far as the resolution of landscape camera's is concerned it's largely irrelevant as modern software allows stitching of composite images to record larger ( gigapixel even) images, try that with film. |
G'day Phil,
You're right about the exposure latitude of negtative film (different story for slide film unfortunately!). I once forgot to change some settings after shooting some fast action in low light at Bathurst and then went on to shoot in very bright daylight conditions without realising until it was too late! Much to my suprise the negatives came out superbly without any loss of detail even though they were over exposed by 5 or more stops. I wish my digital cameras could do that
When it comes to using film these days I think you (and possibly many others) have got the wrong idea about how things are done. Some people still do their own enlargements but there's a far better and easier way.....
Once the film has been exposed in the camera you obviously get it developed (or DIY), but after that there's no use for the messy chemicals you're talking about, and there's no need for a dark room either, it's far more simple than that. You simply put the film into a scanner at home whether it's a dedicated film scanner or a good flat bed, or if you're after the absolute best quality you give it to the lab to do a drum scan. Either way you end up with a high resolution digital file that can be manipulated on a computer the same as a file out of a digital camera. After that you get it printed the same as you normally would with any other digital picture. So stitching images together from film is the same as digital. It's good for long panoramic shots but it still leaves you with the problem of perspective distortion, that is several photo's taken with a telephoto lens will look very different (and often very odd) compared to one image taken with a normal or wide angle lens over the same field of view. Nothing beats large format film for landscapes. When you want hundreds of megapixels worth of image to play with there's no substitute...... yet!!!
I've got to say that digital rules when it comes to holding the button down for a long burst to make sure you get that one magic shot! I remember doing that many times with film only to have the damn thing hit the end of the roll! One thing that is annoying though is that 35mm SLR's have been able to take 8+ frames per second for a many years, but most digital SLR's are 5fps or less, the classic example is the Canon 5D that has superb image quality but it's only rated for 3 fps which I wouldn't even consider taking to a sports event. A 35mm SLR for one tenth of the price can do that. It seems you have to spend well in excess of $5k to get a fast DSLR like a Canon 1D or Nikon D2H or D2X instead of about $1.5k for a fast 35mm SLR. That said, I'm happy with 5fps out of both my main digital and film cameras anyway
