4 ms·

Not that it won't be anathema to some folks, but have you considered just going with digital? For all that film has had something of a hipster renaissance latel

Not that it won't be anathema to some folks, but have you considered just going with digital? For all that film has had something of a hipster renaissance lately - I mean, I grew up on the stuff, and there's a reason I bought my first digital camera in 1996 - and a reason I haven't shot my heirloom Nikkormat FTn since about that time, too. Granted, that first Mavica gave up a lot in quality compared with 35mm, but it's been a long time now since you had to make that tradeoff, and you can get a very nice APS-C body and lens kit for around $600. If you're primarily interested not in using film specifically so much as in in making photographs, that $600 kit can serve you just fine for a long time, at an incremental cost per shot of zero. (Depending on body and system, you can even still use lenses made for film bodies - I haven't shot Grandpa's Nikkormat since the 90s, but I have quite recently shot its 50mm f/2 prime manufactured in 1967, on my D5300 body. Honestly, to my mind the lenses are at least 90% of what's worth keeping around from the film days, and it's often quite straightforward to use them with digital bodies whose capabilities vastly exceed anything a lot of those lens designers probably ever even imagined.)

woodruffw 5y ago
I can try to produce both an objective and subjective justification, without leaning too heavily into camera hipsterism :-) In terms of objective qualities: digital sensors still haven’t fully caught up to film emulsions in terms of dynamic range. Digital sensors also tend to take “antiseptic” pictures, whereas half of the work of film was originally in developing emulsions that perform well at specific tasks and intentionally capture colors differently. Fuji in particular has done an incredible job replicating those emulsions in their digital cameras, but it’s not quite the same. On the more subjective side: I have more fun when I use my film cameras than I do when I use a modern mirrorless or DSLR. I don’t know if everybody enjoys it in the same way, but I like having to do the reciprocity triangle in my head, having to know the specific qualities of the film I’m using, etc. Those elements are a big part of what makes it a tinkering hobby for me, rather than just something I flush money into so that I can perform it with the greatest tékhnē. (All of this said, I take a mirrorless Fuji with me when I’m traveling. Digital is the best of both worlds for many, many occasions.)
- gruez 5y ago
  >In terms of objective qualities: digital sensors still haven’t fully caught up to film emulsions in terms of dynamic range source? A search reveals: "A release by Kodak showcased that most film has around 13 stops of dynamic range. Today's modern digital cameras all average around 14 stops of dynamic range, " https://petapixel.com/2015/05/26/film-vs-digital-a-comparison-of-the-advantages-and-disadvantages/ https://petapixel.com/2015/05/26/film-vs-digital-a-compariso... >Digital sensors also tend to take “antiseptic” pictures, whereas half of the work of film was originally in developing emulsions that perform well at specific tasks and intentionally capture colors differently. This sounds a lot like taking the pictures in RAW format and then manually doing the adjustments yourself afterwards, rather than letting the camera's image processing algorithms do it for you.
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    The newly released, top-of-their-line, Nikon Z9: > Well, IMATEST confirms the observation from the waveform plot above: there are about 12.7 stops max. dynamic range, but nothing more. Also, in the middle graph above the blue “12.7” line (indicating SNR = 1), there is nothing. > If we look at the measured gamma curve (first graph in the IMATEST result above) – which is the used N-Log profile – it becomes obvious what is happening. N-Log as it is designed for now cannot hold more than 13 stops. If you look at the distribution of stops on the shadow side (to the left), there is a more or less horizontal line – meaning, that there is no code value differentiation between shadow stops anymore. * https://www.cined.com/nikon-z-9-lab-test-rolling-shutter-dynamic-range-and-latitude-test/ https://www.cined.com/nikon-z-9-lab-test-rolling-shutter-dyn... Sorting by Maximum PDR gives a top value of a hair over 13 with the Phase One IQ4 150MP (MSRP US$ 50K): * https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm
    - gruez 5y ago
      from the article: >However, dynamic range results stay below expectations – the Z 9 shows about 1.5 stops less dynamic range than its competitors from Sony and Panasonic. That implies "its competitors" have a dynamic range of around 14.2 stops, which would put it above film cameras. Moreover, I'm wary of comparing values like "stops" between various sources. In the two sources you provided, the Nikon Z9 has either 12.7 stops or 11.3 stops. That seems like a pretty big difference, especially if the original source says that the difference between film and digital is only 1. Are there any dynamic range measurements for film and digital cameras from the same source?
999900000999 5y ago
You actually have a very good point, I think I'm going to end up buying a cheaper digital camera and Something around 5 to 600, but I still love the idea film. Film. The idea of making something where you don't know exactly how it's going to turn out until a week later, you can't just do a reshoot instantly because you didn't get the shot you wanted. So with that spirit, I would like to be able to get my film developed in scanned for cheap.

woodruffw 5y ago

I can try to produce both an objective and subjective justification, without leaning too heavily into camera hipsterism :-) In terms of objective qualities: digital sensors still haven’t fully caught up to film emulsions in terms of dynamic range. Digital sensors also tend to take “antiseptic” pictures, whereas half of the work of film was originally in developing emulsions that perform well at specific tasks and intentionally capture colors differently. Fuji in particular has done an incredible job replicating those emulsions in their digital cameras, but it’s not quite the same. On the more subjective side: I have more fun when I use my film cameras than I do when I use a modern mirrorless or DSLR. I don’t know if everybody enjoys it in the same way, but I like having to do the reciprocity triangle in my head, having to know the specific qualities of the film I’m using, etc. Those elements are a big part of what makes it a tinkering hobby for me, rather than just something I flush money into so that I can perform it with the greatest tékhnē. (All of this said, I take a mirrorless Fuji with me when I’m traveling. Digital is the best of both worlds for many, many occasions.)

gruez 5y ago
>In terms of objective qualities: digital sensors still haven’t fully caught up to film emulsions in terms of dynamic range source? A search reveals: "A release by Kodak showcased that most film has around 13 stops of dynamic range. Today's modern digital cameras all average around 14 stops of dynamic range, " https://petapixel.com/2015/05/26/film-vs-digital-a-comparison-of-the-advantages-and-disadvantages/ https://petapixel.com/2015/05/26/film-vs-digital-a-compariso... >Digital sensors also tend to take “antiseptic” pictures, whereas half of the work of film was originally in developing emulsions that perform well at specific tasks and intentionally capture colors differently. This sounds a lot like taking the pictures in RAW format and then manually doing the adjustments yourself afterwards, rather than letting the camera's image processing algorithms do it for you.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  The newly released, top-of-their-line, Nikon Z9: > Well, IMATEST confirms the observation from the waveform plot above: there are about 12.7 stops max. dynamic range, but nothing more. Also, in the middle graph above the blue “12.7” line (indicating SNR = 1), there is nothing. > If we look at the measured gamma curve (first graph in the IMATEST result above) – which is the used N-Log profile – it becomes obvious what is happening. N-Log as it is designed for now cannot hold more than 13 stops. If you look at the distribution of stops on the shadow side (to the left), there is a more or less horizontal line – meaning, that there is no code value differentiation between shadow stops anymore. * https://www.cined.com/nikon-z-9-lab-test-rolling-shutter-dynamic-range-and-latitude-test/ https://www.cined.com/nikon-z-9-lab-test-rolling-shutter-dyn... Sorting by Maximum PDR gives a top value of a hair over 13 with the Phase One IQ4 150MP (MSRP US$ 50K): * https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm
  - gruez 5y ago
    from the article: >However, dynamic range results stay below expectations – the Z 9 shows about 1.5 stops less dynamic range than its competitors from Sony and Panasonic. That implies "its competitors" have a dynamic range of around 14.2 stops, which would put it above film cameras. Moreover, I'm wary of comparing values like "stops" between various sources. In the two sources you provided, the Nikon Z9 has either 12.7 stops or 11.3 stops. That seems like a pretty big difference, especially if the original source says that the difference between film and digital is only 1. Are there any dynamic range measurements for film and digital cameras from the same source?

999900000999 5y ago

You actually have a very good point, I think I'm going to end up buying a cheaper digital camera and Something around 5 to 600, but I still love the idea film. Film. The idea of making something where you don't know exactly how it's going to turn out until a week later, you can't just do a reshoot instantly because you didn't get the shot you wanted. So with that spirit, I would like to be able to get my film developed in scanned for cheap.