I found a roll of film in my camera...

[Deja Q]

Not been used in 8 months, the camera.

My new film (same brand) expires 8/2006.

I'm guessing my old one will expire 5/2005 (this month).

Should I risk using it, or not? (36 exposure roll, Fuji Reala 100, on the first exposure right now)

[GOPisEvil]

1. It should be fine.

I wouldn't take anything requiring a lot of detail just in case, but for snapshots, it should be ok.

[Left Is Write]

2. I found eight rolls of film recently.

Eight rolls of film I shot in San Francisco in 1996.

I haven't yet decided if I should spend the money to have them developed; I'm not sure if the pictures will be of any usable quality after nine years in a cardboard box.

[jmowreader]

11. Get that film developed!

In 1992 I found some exposed film in a box in my parents' basement. I had it developed and found it to be film I shot at Fort Devens in 1982. Looked decent, too.

[BikeWriter]

3. Other. Get a digital camera and forget ever buying film again.

[Deja Q]

4. For my purposes it'd have to be D-SLR, 10MP minimum.

At $3000 net price, I'd have to take nearly 2000 pictures before I made up the cost of the camera.

The Nikon D70 is a no-no because it creates moire in certain pictures (that camera, otherwise very nice, shouldn't even be marketed as professional or prosumer, not with that problem.)

The Canon Digital Rebel is cheap plastic piece of junk with a sensor that won't tolerate lengthy open-shutter snaps; it'll create "stuck pixels" all over the place.

Digital captures light differently; it is far more difficult to get properly exposed long-exposure shots (e.g. waterfall w/medium or bright background) than film.

There's also the issue of technological quality, which is vastly different than film/brand quality.

I will go digital someday, in many ways I'd love to now. But not today. Too many technology and price problems, and that new models come out so often to make the predecessor worthless. :-(

[BikeWriter]

5. I'm not too picky on picture quality, and I've posted 300 shots...

on Photobucket in the last two weeks to share with my Eagle Aerie at zero expense. For my uses it's fine.

[Deja Q]

8. 0 expense now, you basically paid up front...

...for a camera that will be superceded in under a year by higher quality capture CCD (or CMOS) sensors for a lower price. Maybe it's a personal bias of mine, but with technology always playing the price-drop/quality-gain treatment, I'm not ready to risk throwing away that much money. (even my 35mm takes better calibrated pics than my current digicam, which is a highly rated one. And both my cameras have the gizmos to do the sensoring for you.)

In short, give me a 16MP D-SLR for $1000 net and I will change... but to prattle on about semantics... (I'm also a prosumer and a quality freak...)

For one 36 exposure roll of slide film + processing = $15. That's 41 cents per pic. At that rate, I'd need to take and process nearly 5,000 exposures to make up the cost of the Nikon D70 I was looking at last June. Since I take ~800 any given year, digital cameras - even the so-called "affordable" ones, are still very expensive for what you get in return. I'm assuming you have the Nikon D70 at last year's prices (which was about $2000 net, after buying lenses and filters and things... oh yes, filters can still be useful...) The D70, today, with generic el-cheapoid lenses is $1000. But that's because newer D-SLRs are out with better quality/more-megapixel sensors. And slide film is equivalent to 18MP; Fuji Reala 100 being about 12MP. The D70 is 6MP! Film, despite having grain to contend with, is superior.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

6. Enlighten the non-photography-geek

What the ignited intercourse is "moire"?

[Deja Q]

10. Moire (with pics!)

Moire is a condition where fine lines or crisscrosses produce undesired colored artifacts.

On the Nikon D70, take pics of things like a backpack.



For a review (scroll down to moire and click on the images for a full size representation):
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d70-review/

Moire thumbnails from the aforementioned review link:



YUCK! Nikon sold this 6MP travesty for $1000~2000 net? (that's the price WITH lenses and excluding extended warranty, which one would want because of the need to manually dig into the camera to clean the bloody sensor... and those things are expensive.)

I tried to find a UK-based site that I recall looking at before that had some prominent shots of a cool building... ruined by moire in all the windows because of reflection and the horitontal venetian blinds within...

Backpacks, certain outfits, certain contrasts in rooftops... this moire should have been enough to keep ANYBODY from buying that overpriced trash. Even at $1200 net these days, I wouldn't touch it. They claim they've fixed the moire problem in the new D70s, but at 6MP, I wouldn't bother. Film does 12-20MP and unless I was a pro being paid $60k/yr and given one, I wouldn't use it.

(I'll slam Canon's D-SLRs later... there's much less to gripe about, but these things are still overpriced disposable toys.)

[jmowreader]

12. An easy demonstration of moire

Get two window screens. Lay one on the other--at about a 30 degree angle.

The weird pattern is moire.

[Redstone]

7. Expiration dates are much more important on exposed

film than unexposed; latent images being more fragile than "virgin" emulsion.

Go ahead and use the film, but don't wait another eight months to get it developed.

Of course, all bets are off if the camera has gotten hot while the film was in it.

Redstone

[donheld]

9. Other

Use it for nude shots only :rofl: