Still using film cameras? [Archive] - RENO AIR RACES DISCUSSION FORUM

rpzo

03-15-2004, 08:54 AM

Tim,

If you can pick up a scanner with ICE technology that will go a long way in minimizing the amount of time spent cleaning up dust. I upgraded from an Epson flatbed to a Minolta Dimage 5400 a few months back and spend almost zero time removing dust now. (not to mention a drastic improvement in the sharpness of the scans)

The scans take a bit longer with ICE enabled (much less than touch-up time though!) and you do need some processing power if you want to multitask while scanning. On my 1Ghz/256MB system it would run just fine as long as it was the only app running. Open up Photoshop at the same time and the scan times would triple and the hard drive would go nuts swapping out memory. I'm now running on a 2.3Ghz system with 1GB of RAM and all is right with the world.

Rick

AAFO_WSagar

03-15-2004, 09:11 AM

Hoping Mark K. will chime in here on this subject. He's got a transparancy scanner that we've talked about that not only does the dust/grain removal, it scans in batches!

Wayne

rpzo

03-15-2004, 09:36 AM

The 5400 can do batch scanning of up to 4 35mm slides and 6 negatives. I prefer to handle each image seperately and tweak the curves on an individual basis. I know, most people say to scan it at the scanners auto setting and make the adjustments in Photoshop. For the majority of the scans I use the 2700 DPI setting and save as a 16 bit TIF image. Can you say 'sucks up the hard drive space?'

Rick

T. Adams

03-15-2004, 09:39 AM

I thought about getting a better scanner, but that money will go towards a digital SLR, plus my also historic PIII 600Mhz barely runs PS6 right now.

I think for just over $100 my Epson flatbed does a mighty fine job.

rpzo

03-15-2004, 09:57 AM

The good thing about film is that as the scanning technology improves you can go back at a later date and rescan it to improve the quality. Hard to do that with a digital image.

I think for just over $100 my Epson flatbed does a mighty fine job.

I'd say your getting a decent bang for your buck!

Rick

FlyinLo

03-15-2004, 11:08 PM

I still shoot film from time to time, although most of my shooting of late has been digital. Nikon F100 and N70 for 35mm, plus I've got an FA, an FE2 and a couple F2SB's for when I'm feeling nostalgic, or when I need a workout. Just try lugging an F2SB with an MD-2 motor and a 300/2.8 for a while. :eek:

The film camera I use mostly these days is a Hasselblad 553ELX. Although it is a bit unwieldy for race photos, I want to bring it out to Reno again for some of those early morning ramp photos. I've been playing with a Mamiya RZ67 lately as well. I must say, there's nothing like eBay when you've just got to play with one of those weird cameras you've always wanted...

Of course nothing else I have has beat the sharpness of an 11x14 made from a 4x5 negative shot with my Toyo 45CF field camera. I've got a couple Speed Graphics and a couple old 8x10 view cameras as well, but just for fun, I've not shot anything serious with them. :D

Pylon1_Mark

03-16-2004, 01:21 PM

Personally - I had to make the decision awhile back wether to invest in a digital setup or stick with the film. For me, the choice became obvious once I wieghted all of the variables. In order to make use of contributor's photos, most importantly the ones taken "back in the day" - a scanner is a must have here. A lot of the photos I've personally taken over the years were also either slide or negatives - so making them available in a digital format was also a concern. I'm also somewhat of a tactle person (I like to hold - FEEL the photo in my hand) as well as see it in front of my eye. There's just something about having a solid object that appeals to me. Also, with film - it's not like there is only one made.... you can experiment and use many different types of films that all yield unique qualities that can enhance a picture beyond what you can do by just framing the subject matter correctly. So for me - film is the way to go.

I have a Nikon Super Coolscan 4000ED with the SF-200 slide feeder (50 slide capacity). It workes very well for what I do... and the digial ICE, grain management & other bells & whistles work wonders for keeping the post processing time at a minimum. However, it also has the limitation of not being able to use any of the digital enhancements on any Kodak films (something about the Kodak films & infared that don't mix) and as a result, many of the "back in the day" pics require more post-processing time. Still it does as good of a job as what many drum scanners could a few years ago, and it's hard to beat for the price.

Besides, it's hard to agrue digital vs. film when the old pics look like this (http://www.sn8k.com/graphics-misc/precious_metal_78R_gl02.jpg) :D

AAFO_WSagar

03-16-2004, 02:26 PM

Besides, it's hard to agrue digital vs. film when the old pics look like this (http://www.sn8k.com/graphics-misc/precious_metal_78R_gl02.jpg) :DEeeyoew! No kidding Mark..

Just like with digital cameras, you get what you pay for with a scanner, obviously!

I have had huge trouble getting a decent scan out of my old HP Photosmart unit. I've seen comparison reviews between it and higher end units, like your Nikon Super CoolScan and the difference was absolutely amazing!

The HP will give you a pretty decent scan if everything about the slide is spot on, (focus, exposure, etc, etc, etc) if there is the slightest bit of "soft" then it seems to exagerate it to the extreme.

... Man that's a nice pic of Precious Metal!!

History question.. did the original become the current or is it an entirely different airplane??

Wayne

W J Pearce

03-16-2004, 03:14 PM

Totally different. The original was ditched into the Gulf of Mexico (Galveston Bay I think) due to Wx, leading to low fuel in 1990. The Griffon PM shares the data plate.

Bill

Pylon1_Mark

03-16-2004, 03:18 PM

Yeah, we've talked about that HP scanner and it's limitations (as well as the numerous reboots you have to do). But at the time we got them, they were a great value and did an acceptable job for internet stuff.

The new unit I have just makes it a lot easier to do the digital scans and make 'em look as good as they can get.... and now that I have a DVD burner, storage isn't a problem. From now on, anytime I get some pictures from people that allow me to use their images on the site I will in turn, provide them with either a DVD or CD of the images for their collection. That way, everyone benifits :thumbsup:

You know me Wayne, I have always had a very soft spot for the historical aspect of air racing, maybe even more so then the current day stuff. Knowing where we came from makes one appriciate more where we are at today... and there's no better way to do that then pictures. As I said before, when I do start getting the time to help you out here my main focus will be presenting the historical aspect of air racing... and I gotta have a nice scanner to do that.

BTW: If it was just me taking photos & showing 'em off... then I would go totally digital in a heartbeat. It's just that there is soooo much other stuff out there, it's better to have the flexability to scan. Just MHO of course.

AAFO_WSagar

03-16-2004, 03:21 PM

You know me Wayne, I have always had a very soft spot for the historical aspect of air racing, maybe even more so then the current day stuff. Knowing where we came from makes one appriciate more where we are at today... and there's no better way to do that then pictures. As I said before, when I do start getting the time to help you out here my main focus will be presenting the historical aspect of air racing... and I gotta have a nice scanner to do that.Can't wait to see some of what you can come up with Mark!

It's great to see you participating in the sport again !

Wayne

HiredBitSlinger

03-19-2004, 02:55 PM

I have the HP Photosmart scanner as well. When you decide on switching, let us know what your choice is. Probally can't switch, but it would be nice to know.

On a slightly different historical note, I have quite a black and white negatives. Has anyone had success in printing black and white. It just does not look correct. Whites aren't white and the blacks look purple.

wingman

03-21-2004, 07:18 PM

Interesting (and predictable I suppose) that it's largely the "old farts" that are still mostly using film. I had a talk with Jim Larsen about this at Reno last year and he sees no need yet to go digital -- and as far as I know Jerry Liang and Bucky Dawson are still completely film.

I certainly agree that digital has gotten awfully good, and I had a chance to play with a D2H recently and was mightily impressed, but I still cannot see laying down $3200 (plus more for memory, cords, software etc.) for any camera, when the lovely and supremely capable F100 goes for well under a grand. I simply don't make enough money at this to justify it. In my case things are complicated also by the fact that there are two serious shooters in the family -- which means we need several of everything.

I'll never argue that film is better than digital -- just different, and so far film works for me just fine...

The Dinosaur

rpzo

03-21-2004, 08:35 PM

There's another consideration in the film vs. digital debate that hasn't been brought up yet and that is how long it takes you to recover your film and processing costs.

Lets assume that you plop down $4k for a camera, lenses, memory card, etc. Yesterday I came home with 203 images from an airshow not counting the 25 or so that I deleted. I would have shot around 7 rolls of film for the day. I pay around $8 for a roll of Provia film and another $10 to process it. Therefore it would take me 32 airshows (4000/(18x7)) to recover my costs. That's not including the 18 rolls I would normally shoot at the races as well as the 2000, or so, non airshow pictures I would otherwise take during the course of the year. It would only take 222 rolls worth of pictures for the camera to pay for itself. That's a bit over 2 years for me.

The other advantage is time. I got home yesterday and it took 45 minutes to convert 203 images from RAW to Tiff and they were ready to go. I've already made some 8x12 prints from pictures that I took less than 24 hours ago. No waiting a few days for the lab to get them back so I could see the results. With film I would have spent another 18-25 hours scanning the pictures. How much is your time worth?

I'm strong believer in film and will continue to use it for some purposes. The airshow yesterday was the first time that I did not shoot a single frame of film at an airshow. The only reason I carried a film camera with me was for backup purposes. On the other hand, if I were headed into the Yosemite back country for a week then I probably would leave the digital at home and carry my 25 year old OM-1 instead.

Just my .02

Rick

HiredBitSlinger

03-22-2004, 12:13 AM

The film and processing was a powerful argument for me to go digital. I posted orginally here because of the scanner discussion. Anyway, in 2003, from January to September, I shot about 120 rolls of film. A mix of kodak, Fujii, asa 400, 800 and a little 1600. There was a wildlife trip to shot eagles on the Skagiit(sp) river. There was a family vacation a couple of birthdays and Reno. For the first time ever, I got to be in Reno from Monday to Monday. Before I knew it, well 45 rolls just ran through my Canon EOS2. Well after fighting and paying the finishing bills and the ceremonial knashing of the teeth about this shot and that shot I decided to try digital.

What I like best is the immediacy (is that a word) of digital. When I am shooting film, with say a 400mm lens, and I am panning to try and get the aircraft and the start pylon compossed just so, well; it takes a few attempts. And you dont know until you get it home, so you better try a few more, and so on. With the digital, you know.

FlyinLo

03-22-2004, 12:55 AM

And you dont know until you get it home, so you better try a few more, and so on. With the digital, you know.

Not that I am knocking digital, lord knows I fill my share of memory cards at Reno and elsewhere, but you still don't really know until you get home, even with digital. I mean you can look at the little 1.8" LCD and get an idea if the image is framed right, but it is still hard, especially with something that moves as fast as air racing to know if you really had a good focus on the plane, and that there wasn't any motion blur, etc. I've had a few that I thought were great shots in the camera, only to find out something just wasn't right later on. I just knew that night in the hotel instead of a week later at home. If you've really got to get the shot, and you're not just doing it for fun, you've got to keep shooting anyway.

For me, digital is a great way to get a lot of shots quickly and cheaply, to try things out, check lighting, and get instant response to see if I am on the right track, to quickly and easily get photos onto a computer and the Internet, etc., but if I am looking for the best quality image I put away the CF cards and get out the film. I've got images I printed from digital hanging next to images I printed from scans of negatives, and there is still a long way to go to match the sharpness of a big negative (2-1/4 or 4x5) with digital (although I must say the F100 doesn't see a lot of use anymore). I use 'em both. The right tool for the job, I guess.

AAFO_WSagar

03-22-2004, 01:04 AM

There's another consideration in the film vs. digital debate that hasn't been brought up yet and that is how long it takes you to recover your film and processing costs.Rick, that really is a huge consideration when you factor it all up and think about it. Looking at Wingman's situation is really a good example. With two in the family shooting, the film costs really do have to be factored in.

Yes, a good (very good) film body is quite a bit less than a comparable digital body, but then there is that annual cost for film.

In my case, I came into digital "early" in that I got one of the first "affordable" digital SLR's. I choke when I say affordable, having spent $5000. for that original Nikon D1 (now worth, maybe a fifth of that :( ) But taking into account the amount I'd have spent on film during the 4 seasons that I've shot that camera, even factoring in the additional storage I've purchased for it (cards, portable hard drive, etc) even with conservative film use, I'm probably at a break even, if I factor in the few prints and fewer publications that I've sold my work in.

There is no question that the technology has matured in the four years since I got my D1, which brings up an additional consideration. Obselence of one's equipment.

In the case of a film body, you can "upgrade" simply by buying the latest greatest film. In the case of a digital body, you're pretty much stuck at the level of tech that was available at the time of purchase.

There are MUCH better bodies out there now than the D1 that I own and use, does that make it obsolete? Not really but, it does put a person who tries to make a dollar or three with his equipment in a bit of a quandry.

Shooting airplanes for $$ is a HIGHLY competitive venture, others are going to have the "latest greatest" either in film or DSLR's, so where does that leave a person like me "stuck" with year 2000 technology, when we're now growing on half way through 2004...

I'll tell ya where it leaves ya.. WISHING YOU HAD ENOUGH TO BUY THE "LATEST GREATEST" :1zhelp: :rolleyes: ;)

Fun discussion though, I still have a great camera and stuf out there to dream about... can't really knock that!

Wayne

AAFO_WSagar

03-22-2004, 01:28 AM

For me, digital is a great way to get a lot of shots quickly and cheaply, to try things out, check lighting, and get instant response to see if I am on the right track, to quickly and easily get photos onto a computer and the Internet, etc., but if I am looking for the best quality image I put away the CF cards and get out the film. I've got images I printed from digital hanging next to images I printed from scans of negatives, and there is still a long way to go to match the sharpness of a big negative (2-1/4 or 4x5) with digitalJeff, though I've never actually seen a digital scan from a large or med format, the stuff I've seen coming from the new Canon 1dmkII is awfully clear. That is, if it's really images from the 1dII that are being thrown around out there.

8mp may not sound like that much more than say, 6mp, which is currently pretty common.. but wow, the images sure look good..

Dunno if it's in the large format arena yet but I've read things by those familiar with both and have seen comparisons made..

Ahh.... but for a few dollars more ;)

Wayne

FlyinLo

03-22-2004, 02:12 AM

Jeff, though I've never actually seen a digital scan from a large or med format, the stuff I've seen coming from the new Canon 1dmkII is awfully clear. That is, if it's really images from the 1dII that are being thrown around out there.

8mp may not sound like that much more than say, 6mp, which is currently pretty common.. but wow, the images sure look good..

Dunno if it's in the large format arena yet but I've read things by those familiar with both and have seen comparisons made..

Ahh.... but for a few dollars more ;)

Wayne

Well, even scanning at a moderate resolution of 1200dpi gives you on the order of 4800x6000 pixels which is 28+MP. Some scanners go up to what, 4000dpi, although in most cases you're imaging every single grain in the film at 4000dpi. Think about it, an 8x10 print is only a 2x enlargement. Then again, I'd never try to shoot Dago (or even one of those slow biplanes :D ) coming around a pylon with a 4x5 (well maybe I would, but I'm kinda strange that way :screwy: ). Now if I could get a couple of planes lined up just right at sunrise, and I wanted to make an enlargement that would cover the wall, I'll get out the big tripod and the 8x10 Provia 100F ($7.50 a sheet :eek: )... Like I said the right tool for the job.

T. Adams

03-22-2004, 08:32 AM

AAFO_WSagar

03-22-2004, 09:15 AM

Check out this thread here.
http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=12603

You may need to register to see it, I don't know.

I have to agree with the second poster E.J. Peiker. Check out his website if need to see if he knows what he is talking about. He does not make a living from photography, but runs workshops, and went full digital a couple of years ago. With the 1DmkII, and soon a full frame 1DsmkII for landscape shooters, I think even many MF guys will make the switch.Arrguh... I hate to have to reg to see things!!! From what I've read though, I think there will be some MF guys who have pretty inactive MF bodies once the mkII comes out..

I'll have to salivate over it for a long while I think.. Looks like another season with my old D1..

Wayne

wingman

03-22-2004, 09:31 AM

AAFO_WSagar

03-22-2004, 10:02 AM

Just a quick note regarding film costs -- I order my film in bulk from New York. Right now Fuji Sensia 100 is listed at $2.89 per roll, Provia F at $4.49 per roll and Fuji processing mailers are $3.99 each. No tax paid if ordered from outside New York State. I've been very pleased with Fuji processing (after all they make the fim, so they have an obvious interest in getting it right). Film costs are always significant, but they do not have to be prohibitive.

NealNeal, agreed, I was getting Fuji out of the fridge at Camera World, in bulk, plus developement was running about $10. total for film and processing..

Still, that adds up to something in the range of $1000. per 100 rolls..

Depending on how much you shoot, you're pushing toward that DSLR cost pretty quick at that rate. I think, currently, you're shooting mainly at Reno?

Add in PRS, a show or three, plus Reno, then Vegas and it does not take long to really have a staggering film bill..

It really amounts to, for me at least, just being able to do it .. ;)

If I had to budget the film, as well as travel costs for shows, balanced against the "maybe" of selling some prints or shots for publication, it's just too lopsided to even think about doing..

I don't discount film as a viable format for many, and I'm sure it will continue to be used by many for years to come. Digital will, eventually edge it out for publication work (we may be seeing that process well in progress at this time) perhaps for prints as well. Certainly, the newest DSLR bodies rival the very best of 35mm for resolution, perhaps, the upcoming Canon body rivals not only 35mm, but maybe even medium format..

Someday, an anthropologist will pry your film body from your stiff and reluctantly clutching fingers.. and a thunder clap will echo from above.. and it will be... ;)

:eek5: :shocked: :yes:

Wayne
BUT.. PS... how bout some candidates for POTW selections??

You've sent me a few, but I can't remember if they were in the right size format... (1024x)

Have a particular favorite you'd like to see featured???

FlyinLo

03-22-2004, 11:18 AM

BUT.. PS... how bout some candidates for POTW selections??

You've sent me a few, but I can't remember if they were in the right size format... (1024x)

Have a particular favorite you'd like to see featured???

Yeah, me! :D

AAFO_WSagar

03-22-2004, 12:07 PM

Yeah, me! :DLOL Jeff, not one of Wingman's but I'd thought I ran that one of you (that I still owe you the digital copy of) as a POTW once.. hummn.... mebbie soon then.....

Wayne

Kummer

06-03-2004, 03:34 AM

I'm an Imax guy, so for my buck - film's resolution & color qualities still can't be beat.

But .....

It looks like digital is coming a long way -

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/cameras/dcsPro14n/dcsPro14nIndex.jhtml?id=0.1.18.18.3.18&lc=en

At least this new Kodak 14 MP model is upgradable. You no longer have to buy a new camera at every turn.

Rumor is Canon will have an 18 MP model available later this year. Their 11 MP version just came out.

Now, If we could only get that digital price point to come down!!!

Hans