3 ms·

Or you can just buy a mid-range digital mirrorless or DSLR camera with a sufficiently wide FOV lens and then crop the photo. Most decent cameras offer an in-cam

• asdff 4y ago
  People like film because its a different process. You don't have to futz about lightroom to get the tones you want. You can get great shots with a camera you got at a thrift store. The battery lasts for what, months? The high cost per shot makes you shoot more for quality vs quantity. When I bring my digital camera someplace, there is a tendency for me to take 400 shots and then have a chore later going through that in lightroom. When I bring a film camera I take only a few dozen if that, and don't fret or do any post processing because I just accept how it develops and scans at my local lab. Post processing takes time, even if you have an automatic import workflow that takes time to establish and set up and chances are you are tweaking it all the time anyhow depending on lighting conditions. Anecdotally the film lab in my city has been very busy with mostly younger people. Every time I go to drop off film I am waiting in line. People still shoot film and still buy polaroids even, despite this age of everyone having a phone that looks like a spider with the amount of lenses on the back.
  • Espressosaurus 4y ago
    > People like film because its a different process. Some people like the process of large format film photography, even though it requires hauling 60 pounds of gear around with you. And hey, whatever works for your artistic process. For professional use however the parent is right. Resolution, dynamic range, and the quality improvements of an all-digital workflow mean that from a technical standpoint you'd have to be nuts to choose film. And so the only reason left to choose film is because from an artistic standpoint the process better matches the artist's needs. People are still shooting film, but it has gone from mainstream (remember film photo albums and polaroids?) to a niche product in a small and shrinking market. I feel like every so often I hear about another renowned photographic film being discontinued, or people complaining about another processing house closing its doors. At some point it will level out the way vinyl has, but for now I expect a very slow drumbeat of bad news for film lovers. We're seeing the start of that process with DSLRs in the digital realm. None of the CaSoKon companies are making heavy investments in DSLRs, and the number sold has dipped below mirrorless cameras. It's already well along in the compact market segment, which has been absolutely wrecked by cell phones.
    • asdff 4y ago
      Of course, digital has its benefits, but even today some professional studio photographers will use medium format film: https://www.adorama.com/alc/faq-what-is-a-medium-format-camera/ https://www.adorama.com/alc/faq-what-is-a-medium-format-came...
    • eternityforest 4y ago
      The thing that surprises me is that GoPros aren't the main way to film anything. I would like to have a dedicated camera, that is more rugged than my old mirrorless. I don't want to pay for a weather sealed mirrorless. I don't want to buy an iPhone. Why cant they make a GoPro-style camera that works like a very high end phone camera, with a zoom and a wide lens, and depth sensing? Something you can keep in your pocket, use in pouring rain, but that's a bit better for filming other people doing stuff.
• vr46 4y ago
  I shoot a Leica Q2 and a Contax G2, amongst other cameras, and the Q2 is fantastic, but there are things that the G2 lenses can do that nothing else can. I don’t care if it’s film or a sensor inside. I also shoot with an old Rollei SL66. There are things that camera can do that no mirrorless can do. Reversible lenses? Scheimpflug adjustment? If you understand the tools technically and visually, then your mind’s eye is just more capable. Either I’m sat at a computer or stood in a darkroom - except other people do the darkroom bit for me, I have to do the computer bit myself. Photography’s boundaries are no more about resolution, noise, dynamic range or workflow, any more than rock music is. Sight isn’t in the eyes, hearing isn’t in the ears, defining senses by the sensors gathering the data is simplistic.
• woodruffw 4y ago
  I like it because it’s fun. There’s a great deal of intentionality required when you only have 36 (or fewer) exposures, and each one costs you money. I also have a mirrorless that I use, but my film cameras are much more fun.
• antiterra 4y ago
  First, the attitudes around film v digital in still photography don’t have significant overlap with that of motion photography. Trying to clump the two together with a smug superiority is a misfire. The separation increases when talking about hobby/art still photography and comparing it to commercial cinema. In fact, decommissioning of cinema film has been a boon for the quirky hobby photography market. The superior process is the process that works for the person doing it. A photograph is ‘technically superior’ than a painted portrait but it is not a replacement. > “Note that a Canon 40D, an APS-C camera that came out in 2007, had the image quality of medium format film, with greater dynamic range.” Yeah, no it absolutely did not. It was 10 noisy megapixels and I have had one since it came out. The 5Dmk2 was close enough to be equivalent if you didn’t like grain. Also, a great deal of 40Ds just broke for no reason while sitting quietly in the shelf, quite literally dead. I have unmaintained cameras from the 60s that work fine. Long before digital was a high fidelity choice, plenty of people intentionally chose ‘inferior’ video formats because they wanted the look it gave. People sometimes cut and paste with scissors and magazine pages, even if Photoshop is ‘superior.’