The flip side of the coin - digital

[Schlapp]

I still find digital lacking in 'something'. Too clinical and lacking nuance although it's just my take as I realise most others think otherwise

 

[dasuess]

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...

+1 for vinyl records (and the vacuum tube electronics I use to listen to them).

My reasons for moving to digital are for the convenience of the post processing and the ease with which I can produce beautiful B&W and color prints. Having a "darkroom on a desktop" is too cool for words to describe.

And the move to digital was a natural evolution for me. While I still have my vinyl and tube electronics, I also have a large digital library of music that I listen to on my iPhone - there's that convenience thing again. Same thing with my photography - I still have my film camera and darkroom stuff, but digital is so much more convenient.

 

[Alfasud]

Equipment is the Thing

Equipment is the Thing

I find that more of the pictures I like are those taken with my digital camera. I think the only reason I still use film is to use my collection of mechanical cameras (I can not/not afford an M9). I admit I fell for the "digital film" thread on April 1. Every time I use my mechanical cameras, I wish for such a thing.

 

[thegman]

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.

If this turns into a digital vs. film thread, it's not the OP's fault, it's those people who cannot have a civil discussion with people who disagree with their point of view.

If we're to not discuss controversial topics, because of the trolling and unpleasant posts it will cause, that would be a sad reflection on the state of this forum. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I do think that we should at least try to have grown up discussions without having to think "I won't say that, it'll make people angry".

 

[FrankS]

No name calling or snide put downs, and we'll be okay.

 

[Bill Pierce]

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 recently saw some comparison shots between the IQ180 and 8x10. The IQ won, but you would have to make murals and view them from nose bending distance to see the difference. I think the real difference at that point is carrying medium format digital vs. lugging an 8x10 view.

 

[David_Manning]

I get very nostalgic for film, especially when I fondle my Contax T3. I wish there was a true compact with a 35mm sensor! However, the whole process is better for me with digital. No finger prints, no dust, no darkness, no chemicals, it's just better for me.

However, I print my images less these days, and I would like to change that.

 

[sepiareverb]

I use digital solely for color work for a few reasons:

I quite prefer the look of a nice big inkjet print on nice paper to what I could ever get with a C-print. Times ten. Surface, depth of color, crispness.

Contrast control.

I really like the control over color one gets with digital, and from a RAW file in particular.

The ability to change ISO on the fly is remarkably handy.

The high ISO quality is more to my liking than I ever got with any 1600 C-41.

When availability of the color materials I used began to get erratic (many of them are just gone now) I reluctantly made the switch to the M8. I now wish I'd done it as soon as it came out.

Oh, and I hate scanning film.

 

[MCTuomey]

My time is precious. I make better pictures digitally than analogically with the all-too-short time I have for photography.

 

[celluloidprop]

Immediate gratification (though I try to hold off for a while before editing new images)
No access to a darkroom - scanning is a necessary evil, nowhere near ideal
I was an okay color printer and a middling B&W printer, I'm better at both in LR4 w/ plug-ins
I have no nostalgia for spending the night in the darkroom waiting for a project to wash and dry, nor for spotting fiber prints

 

[shimokita]

The digital workflow is optimized for digital images

is the conclusion that I have come to... I understand that in the early days, the color film was optimized for the lens coatings... e.g. German lenses and film results or Asian lenses and film... and who knows what Kodak was doing with their film and cameras...

My theory (and who does not love a good theory) is that the reason people like digital color is the optimization of the post processing tools. Color from film is just as good (project a slide on the wall...), it's the post processing to digital files that can kill color film results. ... at least that's my limited experience.

Long way around, but I use digital when "the group" wants to see the results immediately and/or for macro images. For the cherry blossoms this week, I will use both digital and (color) film.

Casey

 

[BobYIL]

I recently saw some comparison shots between the IQ180 and 8x10. The IQ won, but you would have to make murals and view them from nose bending distance to see the difference. I think the real difference at that point is carrying medium format digital vs. lugging an 8x10 view.

I have seen some magnificent landscape photos by the 645D, stunning details, yet they were short of reflecting comparable vibrancy of the Ektachrome prints of Joseph or David Muench, for example.

For us amateurs digital color was sent from heaven. No more having to deal with correction filters, begging the lab to be more careful with handling this time, scratches and dusts, retouching the prints, mold and grim on the mounted slides... From the second the shutter clicked up to the shot appears on screen, only the user is in charge.

The B&W however is a totally different story: The fun and confidence of DIY film processing, a gradation and tonality digital still trying to catch up with and above all it has its own magic to "add" something over what is seen through the viewfinder.

 

[splitimageview]

Digital is great for practice. The immediate results lets you get the necessary feedback to learn and improve. Shooting digital has made me a better film photographer...at least in my own opinion. 😉

I still prefer the look of film and shoot it more than digital for my personal work.

Truthfully though, all my analog stuff is ultimately digitized...

 

[FrankS]

So how much does a medium format digital setup go for anyway?

 

[Contarama]

My DSLR is set to M mode and I use pre 1979 lenses only...plus I have a full frame camera too! I use one to set up the other one...both are meterless in my set up! 🙂

DLSR HDR

SLR Drugstore Fuji 200

Wonder what it would have looked like if I would have used a filter???

I have a Anscoset Rangefinder shot around here somewhere...you gotta love those Rokkor lenses...

 

[peterm1]

I put off shooting digital for some time as I thought that early digital cameras were just not up to it technically and were way way way over priced for what you get. And I loved those old Leicas! But when Nikon started selling good quality DSLRs for a reasonable price I eventually decided to take the plunge and buy a D70s (OK I was already a generation behind.)

The thing I found with digital is how much you learn. I was always very careful about pressing that shutter button with film cameras, knowing that each time it did it was going to cost me about a buck give or take. And the delay between taking the picture, getting the film developed and getting the images back did not help. So the learning curve was long. I feel my photography has improved considerably since using digital. Plus its fun.

It has also enticed me into post processing which has also helped image quality.

Overall I could not contemplate going back to film in a major way although and occasional roll or two is fun.

 

[FrankS]

And your post processing is top notch IMO, Peter!
It's clear that this is a critical step in the digital process.

 

[splitimageview]

So how much does a medium format digital setup go for anyway?

The least expensive:

http://bhpho.to/HGzT65

 

[boomguy57]

I prefer the post-shoot workflow; since I scan most shots anyway, it sometimes feels like I am unnecessarily complicating things for myself. In post-processing, you can often do more to "rescue" a bad digital shot over a bad film scan.

Everyone has talked about the immediacy of results, and for traveling it is helpful to carry SD cards over bags of film--I just took a trip to Portugal for 2 weeks and took my M6 and Fuji X100 and used both extensively, and film can turn into a hassle.

Additionally, when doing any kind of paid gig, digital is really a must these days (at least any kind of paid gig I do).

 

[BobYIL]

So how much does a medium format digital setup go for anyway?

I think this is the new definition of low-cost medium format digital set up:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/843007-REG/Nikon_25498_D800E_SLR_Digital_Camera.html