How much MP in a 35mm film?

/me thinks you shouldnt worry too much about the MP equivalent of 35mm film. /me thinks you should worry more about the final photo itself. Can you actually tell the difference whether the level of detail is at par or better than film. Film is dead and those who do lomo... those who do lomo do it because it's trendy and accessible. Image quality is only acceptable by Stalin-era standards.
 
I wouldn't say film is dead at all, perhaps 35mm colour film but I and I think many others have a soft spot for 35mm B&W film. Then you have medium and large format film which are still going pretty strong for certain uses.
 
Film is as dead as painting on canvas. That is to say, it's not; rather, it's become more of a niche for most work. That said, digital cannot touch LF negatives for detail capture yet, not even close. An 8X12 (or even a 4X5) negative outstrips even the most high-resolution digital medium format back.
 
It's worth noting that there's a lot of photographers who still prefer film for its signature and so forth.

Notably, art photographers and very highly respected portrait photographers feel free to use film, while most normal, bluecollar photographers will be using digital, as its faster.

It's a bit like Mercedes-Benz. They can make faulted cars, as they will sell anyway, while Lexus can't do the same.
 
/me thinks you shouldnt worry too much about the MP equivalent of 35mm film. /me thinks you should worry more about the final photo itself. Can you actually tell the difference whether the level of detail is at par or better than film. Film is dead

film is dead? oh noes! Quick better take back that large format pano camera i just got!

If the final image is what your after, why would film be dead? Theres no digital camera around that can touch a panoramic film camera yet, the RED 617 is the closest thing and thats only on paper.
 
There hasn't really been significant revolutionary advances in lens design for decades, you don't go around saying lenses are dead, just because they're only evolving? Think of it, how many radical new ideas about lens design can you recall the last decade? :p

That said, lenses do get better, but that's a different matter. Still, film probably never performed as well as it does today.
 
Best not tell kodak that seeing how they've brought out or revised 7 films in the past two years. Or Fuji who brought velvia 50 back because of consumer demand in 2007 and brought out several new films for Japan in the last 3~5 years.

Film is never going to have the same market share that it once did, but to say that theres no money or development left in it is just simply wrong.
 
Film is still being used no doubt but there has been no growth or advances in the past decade or so.

nikon%20f6.jpg


2004 would like to have a word with you. So would Ilford, for that matter, as the market expanded to the point that they brought back discontinued emulsions in 2007.

Heck, 2007 would like to chip in as well.

VoigtR4M_282a.jpg
 
Last edited:
Notably, art photographers and very highly respected portrait photographers feel free to use film, while most normal, bluecollar photographers will be using digital, as its faster.
I'm shooting both digital and film because it's fun and there's a certain look film gives me that I like.

Film is dead and those who do lomo... those who do lomo do it because it's trendy and accessible. Image quality is only acceptable by Stalin-era standards.
"who do lomo"? Wha...?

Film is still being used no doubt but there has been no growth or advances in the past decade or so.
Uh, right, so Nikon still makes the $3000 king-of-film-cameras F6 for no reason other than because they can? I doubt it.
 
Errr there is no obvious or non-obvious replacement for lenses so the comparison is flawed. A more apt comparison would be the telegraph vs the telephone. Sure the telegraph's still there but the telephone is the preferred medium of communication.

Back in 2004 Kodak stopped selling its APS and reloadable 35 mm film cameras in the United States, Canada and Western Europe. Kodak still sells film well in 'emerging markets'. Acquisition cost being the probable reason.

Nikon sells only two 35mm film cameras vs how many DSLRs from Nikon?

Polaroid filled a second Chapter 11.

Ilford-what?

Canon sells only one 35mm film camera vs how many Canon DSLRs?

Yeah "who do lomo" as in take photos using a lomo camera.

Maybe Nikon makes $3000 film cameras for those who want but cannot afford the D3X or find the thing too complicated?

DOS is still being used somewhere and Latin is taught by the Church but both are only useful within those communities with fringe requirements. Film is also being sold in 'emerging markets'


Phew...

With that being said anyone know what's a good brand of film for a Canon EOS 50 or a Canon FTb?
 
Last edited:
/me thinks you shouldnt worry too much about the MP equivalent of 35mm film. /me thinks you should worry more about the final photo itself. Can you actually tell the difference whether the level of detail is at par or better than film. Film is dead and those who do lomo... those who do lomo do it because it's trendy and accessible. Image quality is only acceptable by Stalin-era standards.

What's funny is that there's gone a couple of hundered years since painters started to get past the idea that a painting needed to be technically perfect, while photographers still want technical perfection.

Who's the greatest fashion photographer of all time? Bob Richardson. What was his style? Underexposing the clothes and pushing ASA400 film.

Great!
 
Errr there is no obvious or non-obvious replacement for lenses so the comparison is flawed. A more apt comparison would be the telegraph vs the telephone. Sure the telegraph's still there but the telephone is the preferred medium of communication.

Back in 2004 Kodak stopped selling its APS and reloadable 35 mm film cameras in the United States, Canada and Western Europe. Kodak still sells film well in 'emerging markets'. Acquisition cost being the probable reason.

Nikon sells only two 35mm film cameras vs how many DSLRs from Nikon?

Polaroid filled a second Chapter 11.

Ilford-what?

Canon sells only one 35mm film camera vs how many Canon DSLRs?

Yeah "who do lomo" as in take photos using a lomo camera.

Maybe Nikon makes $3000 film cameras for those who want but cannot afford the D3X or find the thing too complicated?

DOS is still being used somewhere and Latin is taught by the Church but both are only useful within those communities with fringe requirements. Film is also being sold in 'emerging markets'


Phew...

There is absolutely nothing in your post that indicates or even suggests that film is dead. It exists in a reduced market (as previously stated), but it is far from "dead." Nikon and Canon make film cameras for people who want to shoot film, not because they find "the D3X too complicated."
 
DOS is still being used somewhere and Latin is taught by the Church but both are only useful within those communities with fringe requirements. Film is also being sold in 'emerging markets'

Film isnt anywhere near that stage yet, and in fact a lot of photo communities on the web are slowly returning to film for a number of reasons, from technical to artistic.

If film is dead, where can i get a 150MP+ digital 3:1 panoramic camera that uses a single exposure for under $3k?
 
What's funny is that there's gone a couple of hundered years since painters started to get past the idea that a painting needed to be technically perfect, while photographers still want technical perfection.

Who's the greatest fashion photographer of all time? Bob Richardson. What was his style? Underexposing the clothes and pushing ASA400 film.

Great!
How much MP in a painting?

Film is not as dead as Bob Richardson. ;)
 
Top