Does anyone here still use film in cameras?

I have noticed that alot of people have been switching to digital cameras recently, even my Grandad anounced yesterday that he has bought a digital camera. I think the only person who I know who hasn't would be my Dad who rarely takes photos anyway.

I think the quality of film now is about the same as that of digital cameras (and has been for quite a while even), so for most uses, either will do fine.

Having had a digital camera for quite a long time now and not using film since about 2002, I do actually miss film a little bit. There is just that excitement of having to wait a few days for them to be developed.

I am going a way a couple of times during the holidays, and I thought that I might take a film camera rather than the digital one. My Dad has a nice Samsung compact camera which I might borrow (I can't see him wanting to take it due to the batteries being dead). This would of course mean that I will have to buy some new batteries for it, but at least I can be sure that they will last the next few years, rather than me having to worry about the batteries running down every time I take a photograph like I do with the digital camera.
[Reply]

My parents still use film based 35mm cameras, but my mum is on holiday next month and asked me for advice on the best digital camera to get so she is finally making the switch. I told her to get the Canon Digital Ixus 900 Ti which is a very nice camera.

You mentioned digital camera images being as good as film based shots. That is quite a complex issue as it does depend on a lot more than just resolution. The optics in the lens can create images that vary a lot. A camera with a good lens can create a better results on some camera with much lower resolution ccds, than other cameras wit much higher reolution ccds, but a low quality lens.

Also with film you would need to use at least a 8MP camera to get close to the resolution of film, but cheaper film cameras have very cheap optics so the actual quality of the images are never that great when examined. They look fine on 4x6 prints but not larger. The big advantage of digital is that you can easily edit the images, crop them and print them at larger sizes. About the only way to get the full resolution from a film camera would be to drum scan the negatives into the computer. Other than that film isn't as good as current digital cameras and scanning prints into a computer means you are actually getting third generation images (negative to print to computer) so the quality will be degraded and slightly blurred.
[Reply]

I find digital has many advantages over film. The screen on the back might not be good enough to check your photo is perfectly in focus, but is good enough to ensure the image is not totally blurred.

The 'pick the best ones' is often quoted as an advantage and it's true, I find myself taking many photos at an event now instead of just a few because there's space for hundreds not just 26, there's no development cost until I decide which ones to get printed and whereas before I'd save one or two spaces in case a great scene for photo came later in the day, now I can just delete one of the images I've taken that I don't care so much for.

Finally with digital I can back them up easily into several places including off-site.
[Reply]

We just bought a Canon Eos 400D (digital SLR). Digital is much more convenient than film, however we do end up taking a lot of silly pictures and sh!t - easily deleted but the massive storage offered by today's memory cards means there is no dis-incentive to getting snap happy.

I do like film-pictures though, they seem to have a certain charm and depth to them, but digital ones sometimes look a bit more vibrant, and of course there is the massive convenience, editing aspect etc. That being said, I think with a very good camera I would be hard pushed to tell whether pics are from a digital or a film camera with my untrained eye (my judgement would be 'I like that more/less than the other'). I think both are very good and there is space for both, horses for courses and all that.

Our wedding photos were done with a 35mm SLR.
[Reply]

I agree with the advantages of digital, but I suppose with film, you do have to put more effort into making sure that the picture is good so as not to waste film.

I do find the digital camera essential for taking pictures for wesbites like ebay etc, and for taking pointless and crappy photos. And the fact that I don;t have to worry about anyone else seeing them while they are being developed, but for most normal photographs, like holidays photos etc, then other people seeing hem isn't a problem.

Something I don't quite get with cameras is autofocus, and how the camera actually knows that it is in focus. Obviosuly this isn't a problem with SLRs/Digital cameras with LCDs, or for most normal photographs, but I have noticed with my digital camera that when I try to take a very close up photograph, (with autofocus and macro), it will say it is focussed, but it is in fact very blurred, and I can just not get it to focus right, so I end up having to focus it using a different close up object and using the focus lock. This would be a problem with a normal film camera because you won;t actually be able to see if it focussed or not. I managed to do a few good examples of this using my Dad's film camera a couple of years ago, although some of them did turn out very sharp.
[Reply]

Good choice. The 400D is definitely one of the best entry level Digital SLRs. It can use all of the same lenses as the moe expensive camera in the range, plus it has exactly the same focusing and technology as the more expensive cameras in the cannon range. Just trimmed down slightly.

Only thing I would say is that had you asked I would have said go for the Nikon D40 instead. You would be hard pushed to notice much different between the end results of both cameras, but in all of the reviews I've read where both cameras have been tested the Canon 400D and the Nikon D40 have both come out as the best in range with the Nikon always having a slight edge due to slightly better handling of colour and a few other things. But all the reviews also said the Canon is near identical so you definitely picked a good one.

It's much like when you watch something that has been filmed using real film instead of video. It is always hard to actual say why it looks better or what is actually different but it is. I think in that example it is mainly due to film being able to capture more depth of contrast than video can.

In terms of digital photography I would agree that it can be very hard to spot the differences between the two. Although if you know what to look for you can easily work out when a photograph has been taken with a digital camera. When zoomed into the photograph you can always find artefacts, especially in consumer cameras that use jpeg as their native format. With Digital SLR that use RAW files to save the native file it is much harder to see any difference as the RAW file is an actual exact copy of the data captured from the camera's ccd.

I do think that Digital SLRs are now better than film based cameras and can produce better results.

There are still some limitations of digital, but equally there were also limitations of film based cameras. One big limitation that digital eliminates is film sensitivity. You had to use a film of specific ISO rating for the situation. With digital you can just change the setting on the camera.

One limitation of digital is fringing. When you get two areas of extreme contrast the camera can find it hard to work out what the colours between the two contrasting areas of colour should be. A good example of this would be to take a picture of something against a bright blue sky. On most digital cameras this will create a purple halo effect because the sudden difference between the bright blue of the sky and the colour of the object in the picture is a big contrast in colour change. But the big advantage of it being digital is that you can remove this problem after.

That is definitely the huge plus point of digital. The ability to instantly see how images came out, and knowing you are not wasting any consumables taking pictures.

The reason professional have always used SLR based cameras is because they get to see exactly what the image will be like before it is taken. With an SLR you are actually looking through the same optics as the camera uses to take the picture. This works by using mirrors to reflect the cameras view through the eyepiece. And then the picture is taken the mirror flicks out of the way at the right moment.

With the advent of digital cameras, the view screen finally gave a version of this to everyone making it much easier to frame shots correctly and focus. But cameras where you have to use a rear screen are still not going to be as good as a real SLR because being able to view through the actual lens without anything processing the data to a screen is much better.

As to your close up issue Steve. It is very simple. All camera lenses have a focal range usually measured in mm. All lenses have a minimal focal distance, with anything closer never being in focus because it is out of range. Most compact digital cameras have a macro setting that will allow you to get within anything from 5mm to 30mm from an object and still be able to focus on it. And SLR lenses will have a focal range which is one reason many SLR users have different lenses.

Now how auto focus works. Did you ever wonder why photographers used to get out a measuring tape and measure the distance between the camera and the subject? They did this and then set the focal length on the camera to match this distance. Auto focus just does this measuring for you. All auto focus systems have a central area of the camera's view that that take this measurement from. On many cameras you might see a marker in the centre of the viewfinder. This is the focusing point that the camera uses. One the better digital and SLR cameras these days they can have a more advanced focusing system. Canon for example use a 9 point focusing system where is can use up to 9 different points within the view to measure the focal distance from the subject and set the correct focus.

Also you might notice that when in darker shots the camera might either quickly flash the flash or a red light source when you try to focus. This is because there is not enough light for the camera to measure the distance to the objects in the shot and so it generates its own light source to measure the distance.

What you describe when you try to focus when close up Steve is that your camera cannot focus correctly because either it's optics have reached their limit, or the electronics that control the auto focus cannot work out the distance at such a close distance.

Hope you now understand this a bit better. I've been into photography for years and enjoy all aspects of it. I'm currently saving up for a new Digital SLR but am currently a bit stuck on which model to buy. I've always been a big fan of Canon cameras and have wanted the 30D for a while, but now the Nikon D80 is available and winning awards so I don't know which to get, or if I should wait a bit longer for the next wave of cameras. Have decision when the cost over £1000.
[Reply]

Lol, I was about to say that.....I would hate to be a developer....imagine the weird stuff they would have seen
[Reply]

That is true.

I definitely don't miss getting prints coming back with Quality control stickers on them! This normally happened when I managed to get a few of extra shots out of a roll of film past the stated number and the last one or two hadn't developed correctly on the end of the roll. Or if I had experimented with strange exposures or timings and knew it might come out looking strange.
[Reply]

When watching them on the television, I would think video would be better. At least then you don't get little bits of dirt appear on the screen (do they not clean film well before they put it onto video?). Although it will look better in the cinema. I don;t think it would look very good if they were using a CRT/LCD projector on such a massive screen.

It is just strange though how it can do it with one object, but not with another at the same distance.
[Reply]

I went away for a weekend and decided to take my Dad's film camera and used Ektachrome slide film, as I have never used slide film before.

I decided to only get the film developed as I do not have a slide projector, so there wasn't much point in mounting them at the moment. I do very much like the look of the photographs on the slide film. I got ASDA to put them all onto a CD for me so I can look at them on the computer.

I did have a problem with the camera though. For some reason it will not take a photograph if I zoom the lens to more than 50mm. The LCD just flashes with 'LP'. Not sure why this is. It worked fine two years ago and hadn't been used since. I have a feeling that it is trying to take a photo but can't, because sometimes it made a noise, but didn't actually open the shutter or wind the film on.

Anyway, I have ordered some Kodak Ultra films for when I go on holiday. I don't think I will be using the digital camera much because it doesn't seem to be measuring the batteries properly. Sometimes it thinks that my almost new batteries are dead.
[Reply]