does anyone use 35mm anymore? - GoFuckYourself.com

Dawgy · 07-06-2002, 12:33 PM

ive been experimenting with different cameras and stuff, and i decided to take a few shots using my old 35mm nikon.... to me, the pictures looked better than the digital ones... its like u can kinda tell the digital ones are digital... i was also able to shoot a lot faster too....

anyone use standard film or slides anymore, then scan from there?

ADIDAS · 07-06-2002, 12:35 PM

I know some do, you just have to figure in the cost of film, the processing and the scanning time....

And most like to shoot on Chrome film, more expensive but better light penetration.

And then get them on slides and scan those....

foe · 07-06-2002, 12:36 PM

I still use 35 mm sometimes mostly digital now, you can see content right away and why use 35mm when you will have to scan the pictures in anyways, just more wokr.

Dax · 07-06-2002, 12:55 PM

I only use 35mm when Im shooting for magazines. When I shoot for my sites, It's 100% digital, only because is less time consuming and is waaaaay less expensive.

RK · 07-06-2002, 01:15 PM

IMO, If the pics will end up on the web then it's probably better to shoot them digital since 35 mm --> digital takes time and you loose quality.

As for pics that will remain non-digital (actual physical pictures) 35mm is a better choice since the quality of the print is usually higher as well as cheaper and often quicker if you are using a professional (privet) lab. From my experience most professional photographers for events still use 35mm or wider.

07-06-2002, 12:33 PM	#1
Dawgy Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 5,856	does anyone use 35mm anymore? ive been experimenting with different cameras and stuff, and i decided to take a few shots using my old 35mm nikon.... to me, the pictures looked better than the digital ones... its like u can kinda tell the digital ones are digital... i was also able to shoot a lot faster too.... anyone use standard film or slides anymore, then scan from there? __________________ the revolution is coming.

07-06-2002, 12:35 PM	#2
ADIDAS Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: San Diego CA USA Posts: 638	I know some do, you just have to figure in the cost of film, the processing and the scanning time.... And most like to shoot on Chrome film, more expensive but better light penetration. And then get them on slides and scan those.... __________________ <img src="http://www.sunlightcontent.com/images/sl_but.gif" border=0> Professional Video Encoding As Low As $2.00 Per Minute ICQ # 125084296

07-06-2002, 01:15 PM	#5
RK Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In a Bunker Posts: 868	IMO, If the pics will end up on the web then it's probably better to shoot them digital since 35 mm --> digital takes time and you loose quality. As for pics that will remain non-digital (actual physical pictures) 35mm is a better choice since the quality of the print is usually higher as well as cheaper and often quicker if you are using a professional (privet) lab. From my experience most professional photographers for events still use 35mm or wider. __________________ Does anyone look down here?

07-06-2002, 12:36 PM	#3
foe Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: CT Posts: 5,246	I still use 35 mm sometimes mostly digital now, you can see content right away and why use 35mm when you will have to scan the pictures in anyways, just more wokr.

07-06-2002, 12:55 PM	#4
Dax Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 3,161	I only use 35mm when Im shooting for magazines. When I shoot for my sites, It's 100% digital, only because is less time consuming and is waaaaay less expensive.