The flip side of the coin - digital

[Bill Pierce]

We’ve talked about why people like film, even prefer it to digital. Now, why do some folks prefer digital?

Many news photographers, especially those working for daily newspapers, started with digital because it delivered an image quickly, no darkroom delay. And, in the early days of the 3 meg digital, the image quality could leave something to be desired. (You carried a film camera in case you ran across a really good shot that you wanted for yourself.)

But the image quality improved. It’s not the reason I started using digital, but it’s the reason I use it now. And when I look at images friends are producing with the new Nikon D800, I realize that the image quality of relatively small digital cameras is going to continue to improve. That’s it; that’s my reason for shooting digital - image quality. The real question for the forum is why do you shoot digital?

 

[kzphoto]

Two big reasons to shoot digital, for me at least:

1) Immediacy: I can see what is happening right away. No development or time required.

2) Post-Production/editing: using an Eye-Fi x2 card I can upload photos on the fly, or edit them on an iPhone / iPad. This literally blew my mind. I shoot this way fairly regularly now.

All methods of capture are valid, just different tools in the bag.

 

[jsrockit]

I prefer the clean, clinical look of digital for color work. I prefer the high ISO range. I prefer the workflow that can be set-up no matter what your living situation is. I enjoy the flexibility.

 

[v_roma]

For me, I like the low-light capabilities of digital and also the flexibility in terms of changing ASA/ISO.

EDIT: Also, no cost for development is becoming more of a factor for me these days.

 

[randomm]

I prefer the look and workflow of film for both colour and b&w, but given I have very limited time currently for photographic pursuits, I'm mostly digital for the time being.

 

[Nikon Bob]

I shoot digital because:

1/ It gives me better results than the C41 colour film I was using.

2/ It is much easier when traveling overseas.

3/ I really don't want to develop at home and around here 1 hour develop and scan has
all but disappeared.

4/ For the little B&W I do a conversion in NX2 is fine for home use.

In all it just works better for me and my needs at this time.

Bob

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I like digital because it frees up time for me to do "slow film", as in "slow food". When I started in photography, back in the 'sixties, the stuff I was doing meant that I had to learn how to trim seconds off developing and printing, in order to meet the deadlines. It became so deeply ingrained a habit that I couldn't shake it, even when left the business.

Now I'm teaching myself to take everything to do with film slowly and with consideration. I use stand development exclusively and I might consider which negative to print for a week or two. I used to rush through my prints as quickly as possible. Now one a night is fast.

I shoot two or three hundred times as many digital images as film, now, perhaps even more and I rush far less. For me, digital has improved film, not improved on film.

 

[BobYIL]

Who could believe a day would come and we would have a similar IQ of Yousuf Karsh's 8X10 from a 35mm camera?

http://pcfoto.biz/images/testovi/Nikon_D800E_preview/050_T10p_galerija_n70-200_f2-8gVRII_raw.jpg

 

[FrankS]

Who could believe a day would come and we would have a similar IQ of Yousuf Karsh's 8X10 from a 35mm camera?

http://pcfoto.biz/images/testovi/Nikon_D800E_preview/050_T10p_galerija_n70-200_f2-8gVRII_raw.jpg

That, I don't buy. Digital has many advantages, but better IQ than medium or large format film is not one, IMO.

 

[jippiejee]

I really love photographing most when traveling. It might even be my strongest motivation to visit new places. And although I do still love the results that film gives me, it's a joy to sit at a bar at night and look at your day's captures on your laptop, upload some to flickr and facebook to share with friends and contacts. When film is for drawers and walls, digital is social.

 

[thegman]

I don't shoot digital anymore, but I like it for how quickly you can learn, you can see what different aperture settings etc. do right away, and not wait for processing. Also, the lack of ongoing cost can justify a larger initial outlay on gear.

 

[Steve M.]

This seems to be a hot subject for this member, now and in previous posts. I'm not sure why. Each of use different types of gear (digital, LF, RF, SLR, medium format, to name a few) depending on the outcome we're after, and the type of shooting that will be needed to get it.

Digital may be be fine for the job at hand, film for another reason, large format for another, etc. I'm pretty sure most people here know which format delivers which type of results, and which gear is best suited for that. Unless someone is really wanting us to list our reasons for using a particular type of format, this will probably end up as the same old Digital vs Film thread.

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

That, I don't buy. Digital has many advantages, but better IQ than medium or large format film is not one, IMO.

Have you tried the latest digital backs? MF film dosn't stand a chance. I recently viewed a number of images by Rodney Lough in his San Francisco gallery. The P65+ and IQ180 leave MF film behind. I've never seen MF come close to a P65+ or IQ180 output...for resolution, or dynamic range. I'm a film lover...but I call it as I see it.

 

[traveler_101]

I have pretty much limited film to b&w so digital does color for me. Sometimes the immediacy of digital is nice.

 

[presspass]

Like Traveler, I shoot digital for color - newspaper reproduction. I also like digital for photos I know I'll never print - sports, etc. It's quick and relatively painless. But I still can't get the B&W quality, even on newsprint, that scanned Tri-X provides. I like digital; I love film.

 

[mugent]

When I shot digital, the benefits were mainly the 'clean' files, no water marks, no dust, although I dev b+w myself, and found better processing companies to solve that problem.
I used Sigma digital, and the quality of the files is outstanding, but only at base ISO. I sometimes miss the Sigma, but not digital in general.

 

[FrankS]

Have you tried the latest digital backs? MF film dosn't stand a chance. I recently viewed a number of images by Rodney Lough in his San Francisco gallery. The P65+ and IQ180 leave MF film behind. I've never seen MF come close to a P65+ or IQ180 output...for resolution, or dynamic range. I'm a film lover...but I call it as I see it.

I was thinking of consumer and pro grade dslr up to 35mm full frame. I don't even know the model numbers you mention so I assume they are medium or large format digital backs.

 

[back alley]

digital does what i want it to do.
no darkroom, 30 years was enough.
full computer post processing, clean and simple.

i like film, used it for many, many years...i liked vinyl records too...

 

[zuiko85]

After my bitter complaint about stupid control layout on DSLR's I have to admit I have a modest digital camera that is fine for happy snaps of the grandkids to post online. I also found a use for it with regard to my film negatives. With a 55mm f2.8 Vivitar macro mounted via an adapter I can photograph my half frame negs on the E-410 and use the files as a sort of digital contact sheets. This is a lot easier than trying to read a regular half frame contact sheet. So yeah, digital has it's advantages.


Oh, almost forgot, the E-410 is handy as a light meter for my film cameras too.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

The benefits of (1) changing ISO on-the-fly, (2) no real limitation to number of images made, and (3) vast range of image characteristics that can be revised in computer totally blow away any unique image qualities film might offer. The only film use I'm still interested in is large format, and that's only because of the movements a large format camera can provide, and the need to have a large negative for alternative process contact printing. Regarding this last point, I don't think it'll be long now before I'll be able to make a Kallitype-style print using digital that'll be unrecognizable as digital.

The one big negative point for digital still remaining in my mind is the lack of a reasonably-priced simple interchangeable lens camera. Think Nikon F2, Olympus OM-1, Leica M, etc.. Many of us continue to desire a digital camera with high IQ, 100%-ish optical viewfinder, knobs to adjust shutter speed, ISO, and over/under compensation. Period. No LCD screen, no electronic viewfinder, no scene modes, etc.. Removing all these unnecessary 'bells and whistles' should bring the cost way down, as well as provide a much more pleasurable experience of basic photography.

Thanks for this thread, Bill.