Anyone else contemplate giving up digital?

I am sort of in the same boat, I love shooting film, hate scanning and cleaning negatives, love the ease of digital and low light abilities it provides but hate the look. Cant have it all I guess so I have both but have considered many times selling my digital stuff.
 
Well, I have stayed with film for most purposes, though I've had a digital camera too for 11 years. The purpose there was job-related, documenting damage and maintenance matters. And snapping pics of film cameras to show off here. :D

I'm using a Canon PowerShot G3 for that kind of documenting now and it's pretty satisfactory... though I could use something with a single fast wide angle lens and a macro lens. That just could "lead" to a Pentax dSLR, as I already have the needed lenses in that mount. Oh well... I tried to avoid it... :)

While I do like 35mm, both RF and SLR, for artistic pursuits, I keep coming back to medium format, again both RF and SLR. If film is good, isn't more film more good? :) There's just a more luscious look, smooth, rich, sharp without harshness, hard to get bad bokeh... Film has come a long way in the past several decades, so even 35mm is looking better than ever. Heck, even *half-frame* 35 is looking pretty decent too!
 
I love film, but I've a hard time digesting the process and printing results as of lately. That has really taken a nose-dive.. The problem is with the labs that under- or overdevelop your film, then try to average out all the exposure choices you've made, and finally won't print pictures that they deem 'too light' or 'too dark'..

Basically, I have to do almost everything with the DSLR lately, because I'm in control..
 
I love film. Give up digital? No way. It has its place for me. It keeps me from burning out on the grunt end of the photographic process: the scanning, editing and printing. If I had to scan all 300-500 images from my kid's soccer match, or the 200 images from a family gathering I'd go nuts.

I get a kick out of using digital. I actually like the complexity of my DSLR as much as I like the simplicity of my RF cameras. Surely that makes sense to the gearhead tech-nerds in all of us(?). What I really enjoy is twisting an old Nikon AI-S onto my DSLR, setting it to manual and taking pictures. To me that's very cool.

Although I eventually will, I don't want a digital RF camera right now, because I reserve film for my rangefinder photography and my RF cameras. I'd like to keep it that way. I'd like to use film with my RFs for as long as I can.


.
 
RayPA said:
I love film. Give up digital? No way. It has its place for me. It keeps me from burning out on the grunt end of the photographic process: the scanning, editing and printing. If I had to scan all 300-500 images from my kid's soccer match, or the 200 images from a family gathering I'd go nuts.

I get a kick out of using digital. I actually like the complexity of my DSLR as much as I like the simplicity of my RF cameras. Surely that makes sense to the gearhead tech-nerds in all of us(?). What I really enjoy is twisting an old Nikon AI-S onto my DSLR, setting it to manual and taking pictures. To me that's very cool.

Although I eventually will, I don't want a digital RF camera right now, because I reserve film for my rangefinder photography and my RF cameras. I'd like to keep it that way. I'd like to use film with my RFs for as long as I can.


.
Click to expand...

I have not yet gone digital, but Ray's post is pretty close to how I am feeling right now. But I don't know if I am intrigued by the complexity thing, I kind of enjoy the simplicity of a manual camera, and am considering getting a DSLR to use as I do my RF cams.

My thought is a body and just a fast prime. Yes those jumbo zooms are intriguing, and ultimately incomparable as a tool for a lot of shooting, but I think a simple kit, body, wide to standard zoom for when I need it, and a fast prime for most of my use will suit me well. If I need longer, then I can always add that, and if the huge (comparably) slow zoom becomes my standard, well, I will buy you a Coke because that will be a bet I lost. ;)

I think Ray has it right in my eyes. He is either smarter than me, or I am just more stubborn for not catching on sooner.
 
Film/Digital- At the end of the day, both are just a tool to be used. Both have their advatages and disadvantages. At the moment, I could not do the webwork and brochure production without the ease of digital. At the same time my expertise in PS and lack of a large printer etc means that I can produce better display prints with film.

It is exactly the same with camera type, format etc etc. I try to use the best/most convenient tool for the job. It doesn't matter to me if it is RF/SLR, MF/AF, Film/Digital, 35mm/MF. I will choose the tool which will either give me to best result if I am after an image or if it is for relaxation, gives me the most pleasure to use.

Kim
 
Can´t express it better than Ray did.

I like to use film in my rangefinder cameras, but I also like my dslr and it´s advantages. I feel comfortable with it, maybe because I am using primes and none of these big fat zoom lenses.

Thomas
 
RayPA said:
I love film. Give up digital? No way. It has its place for me. It keeps me from burning out on the grunt end of the photographic process: the scanning, editing and printing. If I had to scan all 300-500 images from my kid's soccer match, or the 200 images from a family gathering I'd go nuts.
.
Click to expand...


I would completely understand;
that is, if you insist on scanning every...... single..... frame. C'mon, that's way too much work for a half dozen to a dozen real keepers! Be honest with yourself for a moment. Unless you're some genius/lucky photographer you're not going to manage more than a 5 to 10 per cent hit rate on good/excellent shots.

No wonder people want the convenience of digi. They're going about the whole process backwards. Edit, then scan!, not the other way around! Can you imagine anyone standing in a darkroom printing evey single negative on a given roll? You can have virtual contact prints done at the time of developing (or real black and white contact sheets), pick your contenders, and only scan those. It really needn't be the kind of grunt work you're describing.

But, hey, maybe I'm just lazy.

Ron
 
I shot nothing but digital for the last 4 years or so. Discovering this site is the reason why I've returned to shooting and developing lots of b&w film for the last couple of months. I just like the process, and the results are getting close to what I want to achieve. It also made me realise how lazy I'd got: shooting raw, I could be quite lax in my metering and fix it in a few seconds in Adobe Camera Raw. I hadn't really noticed what bad habits I'd adopted until I shot my first few rolls of film in years. Now, I use digital for all colour work, and for when I want very fine detail grainless b&w (contrary to many, I'm not always a fan of film grain in my own work, and I really like the look of b&w at low ISO on my R-D1 for many subjects). Otherwise it's film. I generally carry an R-D1 and an M6, and use whichever seems most appropriate for a specific picture. I also have a Ricoh GR-D and will probably add something like a Rollei 35 for those times when I want a choice of digital or film compact.

If I had to choose just one format, I would find that really difficult.

Ian
 
Bryan, I shoot both - digital for my railroad action stuff and film for most everything else.

Digital gives me a freedom to experiment that I never felt when shooting film. I'm much more likely to try tricky lighting situations or shoot into the light at sunset than I ever was with film - the combination of instant feedback and no cost exposures is what does it for me.

An example is pan shots. I found that shooting pans on film usually resulted in a 1:50 killer hit ratio, with another dozen or so acceptable. On digital my hit ratio has gone to about 4:5 since I can shoot, chimp and adjust as needed.

For me, they both have their place.
 
iml said:
If I had to choose just one format, I would find that really difficult.
Click to expand...
Boy are we ever spoiled these days.

The only real reasons to be using film these days:

1) Better enlargements, especially with medium & large format
2) Film has more tonal range at this point. (by a mile!)
3) To force good habits
4) For the sheer romance of it

I think for most of us here, it is #4. After all, we are shooting rangefinders, right? This is also a primitive technology with more disadvantages than advantages.

But there was one aspect mentioned here that I hadn't thought of. Computers remind us of work. Digital photography involves computers, and we don't really want to be reminded of work when we get home. I too, look at a computer screen all day, ever day. Over the past few years, more of my hobbies are linked to computers through online fora and so forth. But at the end of the day, after I've worked 8-10 hours, gotten home, then done my hobbies for another 3 hours also on the computer, I feel like something is missing. I've done photography, but I still haven't had a release.

Then, I take the dog for a walk, which gets old after a while. But I get home and I feel good. "I actually DID something REAL." That feels good.

Handling film, focusing, setting mechanical things, physically making a print. That is rewarding because you're doing something with your hands. The same way my wife knits. It is a lot of work when it doesn't need to be, but it is still good for her.

Now that I've typed all this, I wouldn't go back to film for color prints, unless they are very big. I think it will have to be B&W, and I think, before long, I will have to develop it to really get the fun out of it. Labor is free if it is a hobby, right? Better than free, actually.

That said, I sure do love my Pentax K100D. High-quality B&W is easy to do. Shoot in color (to have the options later) de-saturate, increase contrast, done. Having the ability to send pictures easily over the internet is huge. If my family wants prints, I just send the files to Walgreens.com and let them pick them up. (and pay for them :D ) Illustrating things online, and displaying one's work online is also easy.

Sometimes, I see the gallery prints here, think of how great they look, then when I realize how much work that too, I question it a bit. I can display a technically better photo in 1/10000 the time. But I didn't "get" to make it from scratch.

I guess for now, I'll continue to do both. There are just so many good things about each medium it's hard to make a yes/no decision.

To the guy who is considering a Pentax dSLR, go for it. Don't settle for the K110D, at least get the K100D so you have the body-integral anti-shake. It is really nice to have that, along with a fast lens. (I'm enjoying the HECK out of the plain jane 50mm f/2 SMC-A lens) The dSLR also gives back some of the hands-on feel, because you have the mirror slap.
 
Right on, Ron.

Years ago, during the anti Vietnam war demonstrations in San Francisco, I did a lot of freelance work covering these. In so doing, I found myself working alongside pros from both US and foreign news agencies. A couple of them told me that if they got one or two "money shots" per roll they were happy.

For me, it's the same today. If I get one or two per roll that really stand out, I'm happy.

However, what I do find interesting is when I peruse contact sheets from 10-20 years ago. I always circled with a red or black marker the frames I printed, so I know which ones I didn't print. And inevitably I'll see one of those and think, "Why in hell didn't I print that one?"

Ted
 
visiondr said:
I would completely understand;
that is, if you insist on scanning every...... single..... frame. C'mon, that's way too much work for a half dozen to a dozen real keepers! Be honest with yourself for a moment. Unless you're some genius/lucky photographer you're not going to manage more than a 5 to 10 per cent hit rate on good/excellent shots.

No wonder people want the convenience of digi. They're going about the whole process backwards. Edit, then scan!, not the other way around! Can you imagine anyone standing in a darkroom printing evey single negative on a given roll? You can have virtual contact prints done at the time of developing (or real black and white contact sheets), pick your contenders, and only scan those. It really needn't be the kind of grunt work you're describing.

But, hey, maybe I'm just lazy.

Ron
Click to expand...

I think you need to define good/excellent shots. When I'm shooting for kid's soccer team, I'm not looking for that ONE shot that's gonna make a magazine cover, or that one shot to hang on the wall.

I'm not looking for "keepers" I'm looking to record as much of the event in as interesting a fashion as possible. For soccer I try to get every player and some "good" shots. I post them at a site and family and players go look and dl the one THEY want. I'll keep the ones I like of my kid and that's about it.
It's the same for family stuff: get shots of everyone there, try to record the event, try to get some nice shots of folks, and that's it.

:)
 
Comments from Bryan, Ted, Kim, Ray

Comments from Bryan, Ted, Kim, Ray

Bryan, I hadn't seen that combination of lens and Toyo Field Camera.. the price point seems quite competitive... hmmm

Ted, the Shen Hao.. I have done a lot of homework there. It seems to be a very good value. People who do have them swear by them with one caveat.. they like them but if they could buy better they would.. no one explains that comment. I'm still thinking about one of them..

Kim, isn't it the British who say "horses for courses" ... I agree whole heartedly. However if I can't afford the 'horse' I jerry rig something else to work or come close the mark.

Ray, digital is seductive. Images in raw are bigger now and approaching pro scans of film so image quality for printing is getting close.. Still the cost of those cameras is up there .. a lot of film can be bought for less than the price of the latest model digital cameras like a Nikon D2 at $5000 incl taxes for just a body.
 
Jan:

Interesting that they don't elucidate. Anyway, I just perused ebay, toting up the cost of getting a view camera operational: lens, lens board, perhaps a polaroid back, developing tank (those darn 4X5 negs just won't fit in my Nikkor stainless steel 35mm tanks), 4X5 neg holders, and - last but not least - a 4X5 enlarger.

Although I already have the enlarger, the cost of the rest is sobering.

Just bought a Kiev 4AM on ebay. (Don't ask why - I just thought it was cute).
 
tedwhite said:
Jan:

Interesting that they don't elucidate. Anyway, I just perused ebay, toting up the cost of getting a view camera operational: lens, lens board, perhaps a polaroid back, developing tank (those darn 4X5 negs just won't fit in my Nikkor stainless steel 35mm tanks), 4X5 neg holders, and - last but not least - a 4X5 enlarger.

Although I already have the enlarger, the cost of the rest is sobering.

Just bought a Kiev 4AM on ebay. (Don't ask why - I just thought it was cute).
Click to expand...

Ted, re: the Kiev 4AM .. you're breaking me up :D
on the 4x5; you now know why I'm going slowly its $$
 
Well, I am now about 98% Digital RF and have the film just for backup and camping trips.
 
I use film and a tiny digital camera when I really want something quick. I scan for digital printing, so I am partly digital. I would like to try a better digital camera at some point. I am also curious how I can deal with future upgrades of my digital darkroom. Will it be possible, or will it just be painfully expensive? If so, I might just turn my back to it and go back to printing in a darkroom? I do not know.

I like film: B&W film has character, looking at slide film is wonderful, mechanical cameras are much simpler than feature loaded digital cameras, no battery worries, I get something physical in my hands (film) and do not have to bother about backups that much.

I fear rising prices, having to upgrade my digital printing equipment as mentioned and rising development cost of color film. I am reluctantly looking for some film processor to reduce costs. Not that the film/development is a huge cost, but I could save money and have better control (I hope).

I think times are pretty good at the moment. I can do both film and digital, or mix in whatever way I want to. Film equipment can be found for good prices second hand and there are plenty of different films around.

/Håkan
 
RayPA said:
I think you need to define good/excellent shots. When I'm shooting for kid's soccer team, I'm not looking for that ONE shot that's gonna make a magazine cover, or that one shot to hang on the wall.

I'm not looking for "keepers" I'm looking to record as much of the event in as interesting a fashion as possible. For soccer I try to get every player and some "good" shots. I post them at a site and family and players go look and dl the one THEY want. I'll keep the ones I like of my kid and that's about it.
It's the same for family stuff: get shots of everyone there, try to record the event, try to get some nice shots of folks, and that's it.

:)
Click to expand...


Your situation is a perfect example of why someone SHOULD shoot digital. In your case shooting, processing and scanning film could easily become an onerous task. You are describing the documentarian's approach. My comments were directed toward situations where one shoots for that "perfect image" (art photography, is a phrase that comes to mind). In that case, scanning every neg would be silly. A digi workflow, especially with a nice cataloguing/editing tool like Lightroom or Aperture would be very useful for what you're doing.

Cheers,

Ron
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom