I think the beauty of medium format unlike 35mm produces better detail in print. Otherwise I might go digital all the way. The Rolleiflex is just one of those cameras that anyone even digtial people would enjoy. I will buy a digital again some day, but I beleive you are on the right track keeping an old ROlleiflex and using digital also. As I have said before it is not an easy choice to stay with film today because digital is getting there,but for me to not invest in a Rolleiflex at this time would be something I would always regret. Digital will produce the kind of detail medium format does in the near future. Some feel it does now. It also will be affordable in time to step up to a profession digital camera. A classic like the the Rollei will always have its place in the hearts of many even when film is just a memory. I feel no one should have to choose between digital or film because many medium format cameras are very reasonable today. Some of the older Hasselblads 500s, Mamiya 645s,Fuji 645S,pentax 67 and 645s are out there to be had at a bargin. 35mm which still produces better color when using slide film than digital can be had for a song. The advanges of digital I feel many times make the final decision for many. Film is a hassel when it comes to processing scanning and cost,but I will bet many who are honest with themselves will admit even though I have found the digital world exciting still miss the feeling film gave them for years. Monte Johnson.

It is likely that 35mm Digital will never serpas MF film, only so much you can get of an image 36x24mm before you start making camera with more Pixels than the lens can cope with(LPM). And yes I have seen Medium format beeten by 35mm digital on those web comparisons, I have also seen comparisons where the film looked better then the digital, in both cases one looked far beter than the other.

I still dont like these web comparisons anyway.
If modern slide films don't have all the resolution a lens can deliver why are there no modern ISO 25 slide films??

>>If modern slide films don't have all the resolution a lens can deliver why are there no modern ISO 25 slide films??<<

AJUK,

There were. Most prominently Kodachrome 25. Long since discontinued. Great slides, as long as shot with a solid tripod!

If I were thinking of moving out of roll film into digital now would be the perfect time for me. We've been using Bronica ETRs for the last ten years as our primary image makers. They have mucho mileage on them, have had repairs, but are still operating. However our Repairman tells us he is having a problem finding spare parts as Bronica stopped making replacement parts awhile back. Now I understand they even stopped making any Bronica models at all! So we added a new Nikon 35mm to our stable to go along with several other 35's used for backups and spares. I also have a Nikon F from the early 60's I use and refuse to consider sellling or trading. It came from the camera pool at a newspaper I used to work for. It's been through the mill, but it still works just fine. I just had to have it, and got a good deal on it. No, I don't think the digitals have anything yet that will come close to matching the service life of the old 35's. Besides we are limiting our output lately (age you know)so our film cameras will do just fine for us. I won't say we won't get a digital, but for the time being we're just watching what's going on. We do however avail ourselves of our lab's capability of making scans from negatives for our use in Photoshop when need be.

There has been alot of discussion on this thread, both pro and con. I believe that both types of image recording (both film and digital) have there place in todays world. I like using a digital camera when I've travelled a distance just to shoot a mountain or other landscape as a "pre" picture to kind of help me figure out if I want to set up my Kodak Master View and shoot a 4" x 5" plate of the scene. Since I have my own complete darkroom, having the film processed and printed is easy enough for me, besides, I still kind of like the smell of the chemicals on my hands.

It is not easy to give up the old for the new. It never will be since we humans are so resistant to change. And I'm no different. With all the investment that I have in my film cameras and my darkroom (my JOBO Processer is a little over $2,200), I will have a difficult time switching over for good. Probablly not before I die.

But, it's sad to see the new comers to the art go directly in to digital and never get their hands wet, or fuss with a roll of film trying to load it into their camera when their hands are cold. This is life and it goes on whether we want it to or not.

You are right there is a place for both worlds but many will never know what it is like to use film. I feel most of us who use film are just sad because digital has limited us to the films we like because companies no longer can afford to make them. BW film is in a class by itself. Digital does not replace that it just makes it different. Very few labs are left that even process BW film because now online digital printing is the thing. traditional darkrooms are fewer and fewer every year. Darkroom chemicals that many have used for years have faded from site now. Change is not bad, but when it comes to not having a choicw to using film then that is a real loss. We have been led to believe through marketing and changes in the industry that we must move on because we will be left in the dust. Who says because the world moves today at such a high rate of speed we must jump on for the ride or be run over. Fear of change is not the problem with me, To lose this form of art, the film experience is what troubles me. Things shall always change, but as they do with photography I trhink for the first time we are faced with the loss of something that was very personal. It is always about can we do it faster and better with less effort. What we miss is that the effort and labor we put in things is what brought character and meaning to the end result. You know as long as I have the option to use film I do not care what happens in the digital race, but when that is gone because we no longer see it's value then we are in trouble. Monte Johson.

So right you are Monte. I believe that film will still be with us for a very long time. It seems to me that as technology advances, it quite often advances too far too soon and some force unforeseen drops by and shuts it down until we learn from what we have already developed.

I'm not too sure that I care all that much about the digital verses film race. I like what I do with film because it gives me the expected results that I want.

Who knows? Tomorrow is a different day and maybe Canon or someone else will send me a digital Rebel or whatever to test out for them. Then, we'll see. But, in the mean time, I'm very happy with the film as long as I can get it.

Again, maybe tomorrow Kodak will decide to get out of B&W film like they have with B&W paper. And maybe Ilford will be able to pick up on that market. Who knows?

All in all, I'm just very glad that I brought my children and their children up in the world of film. At least they have the knowledge to decide what world they want to live in and hopefully someday in the future they'll be able to tell their grandchildren how it use to be in a film world.

A lot of photographers moved from film for different reasons. One motivator for me was that the general quality of the prints that I got back from the lab began to diminish around 1999 as supposedly quality/pro labs adopted a wait-and-see attitude toward digital printing. I know from my own experience that two major labs in my area put off undergoing major repairs and overhauls to their equipment before they finally went digital. The result was a decline in the quality of their output. I quit shooting weddings and portraits altogether in 1999. I abandoned print film and shot only transparency as my emphasis shifted toward commercial work.

At the same time, I had a pretty good headshot and promotional business going. My "custom" B&W lab became less and less reliable in its delivery times for black and white work. "Next Day" turnaround became three days, then "I dunno. Call back next week." I later read in the local business journal that the owner of the company had decided to "fire all of his 'wrong' [i.e., non-digital] customers."

It has been a business decision all of the way down the line for all except the guy who can afford to maintain a private dark room. In time, even he will be forced to abandon that activity as essential materials disappear.

I don't like all that has transpired in the Digital Revolution. While I like the convenience of digital capture for shooting for publication, I miss the quality of a really good, traditionally-captured and printed silver print.

In your postion it is understandable why you made the chioce to shoot digital. I constantly stuggle with labs and BW, but for me It is a hobby so I can afford to wait even though at times I do not like to. If film was as fast as digital there would not be so many change, So many have no chioce if they want to make it and some are really happy with digital format. I just wonder though how many who shot film for years for wedding and portraits really feel that digital equals what they shot with film. I do not try to toot my horn to much because many of you have paid your dues here and I respectt that. Monte Johnson.

Quote:
>>If modern slide films don't have all the resolution a lens can deliver why are there no modern ISO 25 slide films??<<

AJUK,

There were. Most prominently Kodachrome 25. Long since discontinued. Great slides, as long as shot with a solid tripod!

True But I would hardly call it modernm Example K64 has an rms granularity of 12, just one better then Provia 400 at 13, I K25 had a rms granularity of about nine, compare that to Astia 100F at 7, now imaging for example Astia 25F!!

On the whole marketing thing it would be good to see Ilford come back with some ads for traditional products, they had an A4 ad in Amateur photographer this week But that was just for a photo competion for the picture to go on the MG paper, But it shows they can afford it.

The lab I use in Salem,Ore when I do shoot film tells me that more local pro's are going back to film. My brother runs "Fox Studios" in Detroit, Mich and they still use film for weddings. I didn't ask why. I love using my med format cameras, especially my RB67. No way would I get rid of them!

Don that is really nice to know. There hope yet. I know there are some who shoot digital for a living, but shoot film for themselves. I want to believe there will be support for film by labs for some time to come. Monte Johnson.

Quote:
Don that is really nice to know. There hope yet. I know there are some who shoot digital for a living, but shoot film for themselves. I want to believe there will be support for film by labs for some time to come. Monte Johnson.

Monte, I don't know what's going on with the labs where you live, I know that down here in northern Utah the labs are very expensive when it comes to processing B&W film and prints. That's why I have stuck with my own lab as I can process a 24 exposure roll with 8" x 10" prints for around a $1.25 per. 8" x 10" at the labs down here run right around $8.50 per. Big difference. And it has been said in previous posts, you have to wait many days, even weeks to get it back. That's because they are doing the same thing as alot of us, processing B&W by hand.

Film down here is still easily obtainable in cassettes or bulk, and the prices seem very fair to me. I can get 35mm, 120 and 4" x 5" with just a five minute drive (except on Sunday's). Chemicals I have to drive to SLC for if I want a good price, but since I work just north of SLC, I don't see that as much of a problem when I buy in bulk.

I only hope that the rumors that I've heard about a slight increase in the interest in film photography is true and that it will stay around for awhile.

I shoot both and both have their respective place in photography. However there are 2 instances in which I shoot film almost exclusivley, Portraits and sheetmetal work (i.e. cars motorcycles in studio). The reason for this is due to films ability to hold back and control certain things much better than digital. When doing sheetmeatal in sudio, I find that film holds the soft subltle reflection of light and tends to hold highlights much better than digital. Digital tends to have a less smooth vignete and likes to blow out highlights much quiker. Also when shooting portrait work. While digital is so tack sharp that it will make you cry, I have found that when you are shooting a model or portrait, clients tend to appreciate the smoother tones of the film and it's ability to not accentuate every little pore on their skin. In this regard it is acctually cost prohibitive for me to shoot digital as I usally spend much more in the way of time re-touching digital files.
Then there is what I refer to as "the gold factor". People tend to treat film negs with more more care and revernce then they do a CD containing there files and therefore the amount of times that I have had a client come to me to request duplicates of film files, it usually out of desperation due to their loss in a fire or flood. People tend to treat CDs much differently and judging by the amount of requests for duplicate files that I have recived from clients citing loss or damage as the reason for the request, I am assuming they just toss the CD into a drawer somewhere and think "oh well, if it gets messed up I will just ask for a new copy".
Kind of like when you are shooting digital and just machine gun off shots with little or no regard because you can just hit delete and try again where as with film you are actually forced to put more thought into a photograph because every time you fire the shutter, it's costing you money.

Dave,

At this point I have one lab in my area that even knows what 120 film is. They have been a standard here for many years, but with digital moving in a high rate their pro side of the lab has decreased production. They print anywhere up to 30+40 prints and do a pretty good job as long as you work with them. I too am glad to see many people coming back to using film again. Even some around here have if not just for themselves. I feel we should all work to keep film alive and here. Film is a medium many of us do not miss until it is gone. Believe me we will miss it. Monte Johnson,

Quote:
Mr. Anonymous:

I get e-mails from Shutterbug readers every day specifically related to digital, and although a few problems have arisen, most have been due to manufacturing problems and the camera was replaced.

As far as film cameras are concerned if used a lot they do not last anywhere near 25 years. Film advance mecanisms break or wear out quite frequently and regularly if used on an every day basis, and shutters demand regular periodic servicing to remain accurate and reliable.

Just so you know this is a different 'Anonymous'. I'll just touch on your last point regarding longevity of film cameras. I have had a Leica Ia which worked fine from the day I got it, until it was sold.

Likewise, I currently use various Rollei TLRs from the 30s, 40s, & 50s, which have never given me a moment of problem in 10+ years of constant use. Additionally, I use an old Army issue 4x5 Speed Graphic (from time to time making use of the camera's shutter), and it too has never failed in over 20+ years. All of these were BUILT TO LAST, not made of the latest plastics, and silicone.

In fact, I've just purchased an Omega D5-XL Superdichroic with all the goodies & 3 Schneider lenses. IMO, digital is the lazy mans way out.

Rollei TLRs, graded paper, Lumedyne (or any manual type flash), and slow films will NEVER disappear. OTOH, last year was a 3gig DSLR, this year a 10, next year who knows..maybe a 30. Which means constantly buying/selling/upgrading.

All the while I'll still be shooting my Rollei TLRs with beautiful b&w films, printed on graded paper.

Quote:

But, it's sad to see the new comers go directly to digital and never get their hands wet, or fuss with a roll of film trying to load it into their camera when their hands are cold.

Oh so true, and very well put!

All I can say is your experience must be due to doing very little real work or one heck of a lot of luck. When I shot Rollei TLR's for a living I would put from 40 to 80 rolls of film a day through them, and often worked 6 days a week. After 2-3 years the transport mechanism gears and bearings were worn down and the advance would slip and jam. It cost about half the price of a new camera to repair the transport mechanism.

The very high tech Rollei 6008 of some years later actually stood up to wear better in the studio. Relatively simpler film transport mechanism run by a servo motor was more reliable. Hasselblads of that era were a notorious problem requiring a lot of service both to the lens shutter interconnect and the film backs.

So, I still say all of the old camera's around still that continue to function do so because they spend most of their lives in a closet. The used Leica's, Rolleis on sale in stores like Samy's for high prices I'll bet if opened there will be hardly any wear marks on the film pressure plate. With real pro use the black finish gets worn off in just a few years. It was a mark of a pro shooter like Paul Fuscoe (Look magazine) to have a Leica M slung around the neck with half the black finish worn down to expose the brass.

Quote:
All I can say is your experience must be due to doing very little real work or one heck of a lot of luck. When I shot Rollei TLR's for a living I would put from 40 to 80 rolls of film a day through them, and often worked 6 days a week.
So, I still say all of the old camera's around still that continue to function do so because they spend most of their lives in a closet.
It was a mark of a pro shooter like Paul Fuscoe (Look magazine) to have a Leica M slung around the neck with half the black finish worn down to expose the brass.

Well, isn't it special that ONLY YOU know absolutely everything there is to know about anything to do with photography?

ONLY YOU are in a position to judge what makes a professional shooter based on how many rolls of film per day shot?

What it must be like TO BE YOU....NEVER WRONG ABOUT ANYTHING, WOW!!!!!

Mr. Anonymous,

Maybe if you had worked nearly all your life since 1952 doing mostly photography, you too might have some confidence that your experience might be some value to others with much less?

There are lots of things even in photography I don't talk about because I don't have any relevant experience, and I readily admit that. So why are you saying I claim to know everything. I don't, I only share what I know and occasionally I find I am proven wrong, and I am not afraid in those instances to stand corrected.

And, I stand behind what I say, sign my name to what I write, I don't hide behind anonymity......