Mix of film and digital (2010 update)

Mix of film and digital (2010 update)

  • 100% film

    Votes: 100 29.2%

  • 75% film and 25% digital

    Votes: 89 25.9%

  • 50%:50% film and digital

    Votes: 55 16.0%

  • 25% film and 75% digital

    Votes: 77 22.4%

  • 100% digital

    Votes: 22 6.4%
  • Total voters
    343
  • Poll closed .
akarin

akarin

Established
Local time
1:52 AM
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
116
I searched and found a similar thread that was started in 2007. I guess it's time to take another pulse? :)

What is the percentage mix between film and digital do you use over the past, let's say, 6 months?
 
Other than taking photo of whiteboard in meetings, other work related "recording", insurance claims, RFF/ebay listings, virtually no digital at all. I'd say 99:1=Film : Digital in the past 6 months.
 
Good point coelacanth....let's exclude cellphone camera snap shots that are taken in lieu of note taking e.g. whiteboard, cover page of a book you like, a recipe you found on a newspaper at the dentist's office, etc. ;-)
 
100% film for me, but that's probably going to change over the next year, thanks to the lack of availability of C-41 in any real world shops I can find, and the expense of getting it shipped here. I shoot mostly colour too.
 
100% film for me .... occasionally I use a digital P&S to take some snaps of gear I am going to sell... M9 would be the digital camera to go for me but the price tag is out of my reach.
 
Mixed marriage

Mixed marriage

I'm still 100% film, but when we travel my wife takes her digital P&S so together we're 50-50.
 
well, my film cameras get 90% usage, so the other 10% goes for my d40 for those family occasions and out-of-town/country vacations and when i ran out of films.
 
I'm probably 90% film, the digital being used for outings with my girlfriend. That being said I sold my DSLR and lenses and bought an Olympus E-P1. The irony is it allows me to shoot a little more film because carrying both is less cumbersome than a rangefinder and a 40D.
 
akarin said:
Good point coelacanth....let's exclude cellphone camera snap shots that are taken in lieu of note taking e.g. whiteboard, cover page of a book you like, a recipe you found on a newspaper at the dentist's office, etc. ;-)
Click to expand...

Why? Just because you wouldn't have thought of taking the same picture on film because film is too expensive? A picture is a picture, no matter where and why you take it.
 
rxmd said:
Why? Just because you wouldn't have thought of taking the same picture on film because film is too expensive? A picture is a picture, no matter where and why you take it.
Click to expand...

Nope. That wasn't the point. Cost of film has nothing to do with my thinking when I wrote that. I thought it would be a good idea to distinguish between photography as hobby and art from those that serve as 'note taking'. The ubiquity of tiny cameras make it ideal for such use, which I believe is a new phenomenon.

Do people use film for this same 'note taking' purpose? I guess some probably do, but I doubt there are any great number of them. So, we don't single this type of digital photography out, the responses can bias towards digital.

Anyway, this is hardly a scientific exercise, so I'll stop here. :)
 
Since August of 2008 I've been 99% film, of that about 80% has been medium format with the other 20% being 35mm.
 
50/50 now.

Digital has become 'must use' at the paper in the last year.

Yes, country paper - slow to adapt. If the local photoshop who
did our processing hadn't closed, we'd probably still be mostly film.

Personal work is 99% film.
 
Last edited:
25 film, 75 digital- historically. Over the last 10 years 100% digital. However, have plans to start using film again, for special applications.
 
I have been especially digital biased in the last few months, because I got a new lens for my dSLR for Christmas.
 
I shoot one, the other and both. I'll pretty much shoot anything, from a cell phone to a 4x5 monorail camera, by way of a pinhole, a full frame DSLR and a Holga. It's all just controlling the light that hits a bit of light sensitive material. If it all went away I'd probably coat an ace bandage with emulsion and shoot that.
 
75 film for me........I thought I would pick up my digital use after thinking, "the inevitable digital is here", but after shooting digital, I went back to film (despite the awesomeness of my RD-1s and Canon s90 P&S). Film is just plain special, not only the results but the process of taking the shot: i know that I cant just look at the shot immediately afterwards on an LCD and throw it away; with film, every shot counts, not only b/c of the expense, but b/c I have to conentrate on my fotog skills-->and thats what I like, the challenge of taking good shots with film and not seeing the results immediately. With film, I have to know in my mind that its a good shot while Im taking it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom