Film versus Digital, and vice versa

[Tim Murphy]

Dear Board,

OK, let me begin by saying I'm 64 years old. I remember my younger years when except for Polaroids, which are instant film cameras, all cameras ran on film. If you didn't have a darkroom and didn't have a Foto-Mat nearby you shot your film and mailed it away. Then you sat around for like a month, waiting to see what came back in the mail.

I got into digital photography in 2005 when I was gifted an Olympus C-2040 by a friend. At that point I stopped using film cameras altogether and began the digital journey. While the C-2040 still works perfectly, and I still have a working Smart Card reader my collection has grown immensely since 2004. I shoot mostly nature, landscapes, and birds and wildlife, Digital beats film in convenience by wide margin for me given my preferences.

Mind you, as I stated above, I'm kind of old, and for all the ease and convenience I couldn't help but think that digital was too easy. So, in the last few years I've found myself gravitating more to shooting film. I've even developed a few rolls of B&W film at home and had decent enough results for me. I think for me it helps that I am somewhat more of an active participant when using a film camera.

Since I don't know how to make a poll on the forum, I'm interested in hearing from forum members how they balance modern convenience with traditional methods. Do you use both interchangeably, or do you stick with one over the other? And why do you do what you do? I just feel kind of old and weird right now, which is pretty much what I am anyway. 😉

I'm curious where others fit in. There are no right or wrong answers, I'd just like to know more about people on this message board since I've been a member for a decade.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg PA 🙂

 

[Cascadilla]

I was dragged kicking and screaming into digital in 2004 for business reasons. I had a full set of equipment for 35 mm, 6x6, 6x7 and 4x5 along with a really efficient B&W darkroom and excellent labs for E-6, color neg and custom color printing. When I saw the poor quality and high cost of early cameras and equipment for digital along with the fast pace of obsolescence that occurred, I stayed away as long as possible and watched a couple of competitors flame out as early adopters. But by 2004 the tide had turned. Quality was getting better and new cameras no longer seemed as though they had to pay for themselves in 6 months or less before they had a resale value of 10% of their original selling price since they were being replaced by something significantly better that quickly. Also, by then virtually everything I did for my clients had to be digital for websites or printed materials, so shooting film would have added time and costs to the job. And good local labs were closing for lack of volume. So all of my commercial work has been digital since around 2006 when I finished up my last construction project photos for a contractor working on a state funded project that required B&W print sets on a regular basis with specs from the 1950's.

My personal work over the last 12 years has been done with B&W film, and mostly with classic Contax rangefinders from the 1930's and 1950's and vintage lenses. I know that my DSLRs can make technically better images and that modern lenses certainly have advantages, but this work is for me and I enjoy the process. So until film hits $30/roll for B&W or chemicals for developing disappear, I expect to continue shooting film.

 

[Harry the K]

There's no "versus" for me, it's digital for colour and film for b/w, that's all. Never gave up my darkroom.

 

[Pioneer]

No versus. Use both. Prefer film.

 

[Godfrey]

No versus. Use both film and digital capture.
For what and when I choose one over the other depends on the what, the when, and whim.
Same for instant print.

G

 

[Dogman]

I started out shooting digital in 2007 with a Canon DSLR. Color only. B&W was done with a pair of Leicas. By 2008 I had sold my Leicas and shut down my darkroom. The reason wasn't due to convenience as much as it was due to the quality I could get with digital. It might seem easy but, really, it's not easy. I'm old too. I'm approaching 77 next month. Having to learn a new skill set, how to use various software and how to meander through the minefield of overly complex digital cameras is a PITA for an old man. At least I can process my shots with the lights on while sitting down. And I love being able to see what the results of each step will be without wasting another sheet of expensive photo paper.

A while back I thought I tried to shoot film again. I couldn't get into it at all. While I'm a long time lover of Tri-X and HP5, I've learned to like the look of what I'm getting from my digital files. I certainly am not anti-film. I don't think digital is better, it's just different. And I quite like it.

 

[Slumgullion]

I prefer to use film cameras, but realistically there is no versus.

Digital will out-resolve 35mm film (which has been the case for a long time). Digital can be used available darkness without any real penalty anymore. Digital files can look great.

But sadly, digital cameras will (likely) not be usable family heirlooms the way that mechanical film cameras can be. And sadly, I don't have any emotional bond to any digital camera. I know that they are (relatively) disposable...and they feel like it (even the nice ones).

 

[Tim Murphy]

I started out shooting digital in 2007 with a Canon DSLR. Color only. B&W was done with a pair of Leicas. By 2008 I had sold my Leicas and shut down my darkroom. The reason wasn't due to convenience as much as it was due to the quality I could get with digital. It might seem easy but, really, it's not easy. I'm old too. I'm approaching 77 next month. Having to learn a new skill set, how to use various software and how to meander through the minefield of overly complex digital cameras is a PITA for an old man. At least I can process my shots with the lights on while sitting down. And I love being able to see what the results of each step will be without wasting another sheet of expensive photo paper.

A while back I thought I tried to shoot film again. I couldn't get into it at all. While I'm a long time lover of Tri-X and HP5, I've learned to like the look of what I'm getting from my digital files. I certainly am not anti-film. I don't think digital is better, it's just different. And I quite like it.

Dear Dogman,

I completely understand what you are saying, and I didn't mean to imply that digital is really easy to get right in camera every time. It is definitely more convenient though since you can take multiple shots, view them immediately, and either keep them or change settings right then. No waiting for results from the lab to see what you should be doing. That is certainly an advantage.

I just kind of enjoy doing things the hard way by myself if that makes any sense. I tie my own fishing flies, and I fish out of a float tube and a kayak without electronic fish finding gizmos. I go out and find the fish myself and prefer that. Using film cameras especially for B&W gives me more of a sense of involvement and accomplishment when I get it right. That's not often, but to me that is a part of the process and the fun.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg PA 🙂

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I would love to be more film oriented as this site has shown me that the cameras and lenses I've inherited are some of the most coveted ones around. That being said, it is still out of my economic capacity to use, especially as much as I've used digital.
I consider my photographic life to have come alive with the purchase of my first digital camera, a Nikon CoolPix 995. That was a big purchase for my growing family to have made. I shot it for a long time before upgrading to a D80.
I'm a SOOC shooter as the software is, well, pricey, and I have a lot more fun trying to get the image I want straight from the cameras I use now. I'm of the opinion that if you have a good idea of the relationship between the 'photographic triad' of aperture, shutter speed and ISO, you shouldn't need to do too much in post to get what you want out of an image.
Sign me off as 'Just an old guy with some cameras and lenses.'

 

[JeffS7444]

I've been fascinated by digital since the mid-1980s (Koala MacVision, Apple Quicktake, etc) and have been primarily a digital shooter since the arrival of the Panasonic DMC-LC1 (~2005), followed by the Leica M8 (2006).

I love film too, but it can be very resource-intensive, in terms of time, and the fact that much of one's expenditures wind up literally going down the drain (exhausted chemistry), or in a landfill (rejected prints, slides and negatives).

Nevertheless, Lomography lured me back into shooting film at a reduced scale compared to 1980s-90s, and I've come to appreciate film grain, and film's non linearities as something which can have it's own sort of beauty. And I've been having fun with new analog products from Ferrania, Harman, Pentax and others.

What's ahead? I had been thinking that I'd be making no major additions to my film or digital gear until the release of say, the Sony A7CR III. But if rumors of a new fixed-lens Fujifilm GFX compact camera prove true, I might want to revise my plans a little bit.

 

[maddoc]

Since I started to go back into film more seriously last year again, I much prefer the workflow of developing, scanning, and occasional printing in my make-shift darkroom if time permits. Digital imaging with my Nikon Zf is much easier, I could use AF, all kind of automatic modes and even shoot color but honestly, I hardly look at those images at all. I haven't uploaded anything from the SD cards to my computer in months. Where digital really shines is in dim light, for macro, ultra-wide lenses or the occasional 500mm f/8.0 Reflex-NIKKOR photo of some stars or the moon at night.

I have used my friend's M10 Monochrome and M10-R from time to time and while it is always fun to use, it doesn't come close to the joy of viewing a nicely exposed stripe of film after having developed it.

 

[JohnGellings]

I prefer digital for many reasons. I work in color and I photograph often. Digital allows me to very organized, work at home and print large easily while being more archival (for color). It also allows me to make books easier as well. And with the latest medium format cameras, we get almost large format results in a camera that is small, can be handheld, has high ISO and stabilization.

 

[agentlossing]

But sadly, digital cameras will (likely) not be usable family heirlooms the way that mechanical film cameras can be. And sadly, I don't have any emotional bond to any digital camera. I know that they are (relatively) disposable...and they feel like it (even the nice ones).

I don't know, I've had a lot of film cameras crap out on me lately. Or at least, be in need of (often costly) repair. Sure, maybe digital cameras don't have a chance of lasting 60 years or more, but then, I don't need them to last that long either.

 

[pvdhaar]

There are periods where I shoot almost exclusively on film and there are those where I almost exclusively shoot digital. Whenever one medium becomes stale because I've exhausted my ideas, I switch to the other for a while.

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

I’ve heard people say things like digital is a nice convenience but film has soul. Film doesn't have a soul. Look up the definition of soul.

People can believe what they want to, I don’t care. People can try and spread their beliefs about their preferred medium like missionaries spreading the word of their God… as if there is only one and all others are pagan.

I think that both film and digital have their place in the world of photography.

A crappy picture shot on film is still a crappy picture, likewise digital.

Endlessly rehashing film versus digital is what we do. We never stop. We never get tired of it. We are what we are… we are human nature.

Personally I just want to see good photography, film or digital, from passionate photographers. I prefer to see new stuff instead of the same old rehashed stuff, but that’s just me… YMMV.

The end.

All the best,
Mike

 

[Axel]

I’ve heard people say things like digital is a nice convenience but film has soul. Film doesn't have a soul...
People can believe what they want to...

Yes and if they believe that camera xyz blesses every photo they should do that - as long as it helps to make photos 😉

I am mid-sixty and when I started my photography there was only film. Today its mostly digital and I am thankful for my mobile phone
with its camera that enables me to take a picture wherever I am and whenever I want.
There are a few wonderful film-based cameras in my cupboards also but all of them haven´t seen a film since a long time.
With my digitals I often take one picture or two and when I am at home I can see and use the results.
Not possible with film. This is the biggest advantage of digital photography for me.

 

[Saganich]

I thinks it is rare these days for someone to be 100% film and darkroom without any computers involved like it was into the late '90 and early aughts, lol, not that long ago. I moved from 100% film and darkroom to 100% film and about 10% darkroom. Film scanners, changing bags and digital printing services eliminated 90% of my darkroom work over the years. I think this is just natural, to use whatever is available for economic and creative survival. I doubled down the last few years on mechanical cameras in an apparent attempt to convince my future self to stick with film, but, idk, will anything I have today still work in 20 years? The last thing I want is to become sentimental about equipment...maybe too late.

 

[wlewisiii]

Film for medium format and larger.

Digital for smaller. I can't afford digital for larger formats.

That's my reality. 120 film is still marginally better than digital, overall, if you have access to a company with a good scanner. So I don't mind.

That said, it's still a PITA and I want a Digital Super Ikonta 531 that I can put in my pocket, unfold, take a photo with a beautiful T* Tessar 75mm f/3.5 and then upload to my computer from a sdhd card when I get home. f*** the chemicals and scanning. St. Ansel was right about that 😉

 

[JohnGellings]

120 film is still marginally better than digital, overall, if you have access to a company with a good scanner. So I don't mind.

Define better...

 

[Dogman]

...

That said, it's still a PITA and I want a Digital Super Ikonta 531 that I can put in my pocket, unfold, take a photo with a beautiful T* Tessar 75mm f/3.5 and then upload to my computer from a sdhd card when I get home. f*** the chemicals and scanning. St. Ansel was right about that 😉

And I want a digital Rolleiflex TLR but I won't hold my breath.🙄


.................................