Vics
Veteran
My reverse from techno-photography started earlier than digital imaging. I had bought a Minolta Maxxum system in the '80s and shot a lot of mid-tone subjects with Kodachrome starting in '84 or thereabouts. I found that I tapered off and by '91 wasn't doing anythin with my camera. Then I inheirited my brother's old Nikon F, shot a couple of rolls of Tri-x and was HOOKED (again). Long story short, over the intervening time I have dumped as much of the "auto-" part of photography as I can. I've bought and used most of the giants of the industry in the '50s. Now I'm down to just a Leica M and a 50 'cron and Tri-x, Sunny 16, and FB paper. I used to HATE the darkroom, but now I relish the chances to get in there! The only digital photos I do now are for my job and for the occaisional online auction. Interesting thread!
Vic
Vic
DougK
This space left blank
I started photography with film cameras and just couldn't get the hang of anything, then I bought a digital camera. Because the feedback loop between action and result was so much faster than the turnaround between shooting and picking up developed film, I was able to see in real-time what those textbooks were trying to tell me about things like how aperture affects depth of field, how shutter speed works to blur motion, and so on. I was also able to eliminate lab error or adjustments made during the printing process from what I was intentionally doing when I pressed the shutter release. Now I move between formats with no issues.shadowfox said:
EDIT: I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree with you. I'm not willing to say you can't or shouldn't try to do fine art photos with a digital camera. It's just another way to record an image, like Ektachrome or Velvia or XP2.shadowfox said:
Last edited:
wgerrard
Veteran
Now that I think about it, it's the post-processing part of digital that I really don't enjoy. Sure, if you wanna use the web, you've got to scan and process your film shots. But, with digital, if you don't post-process, you've got squat. With film, you've still got pictures.
I don't enjoy post-processing. I don't mind it, but it isn't up there with shooting or looking at the images when they're back from the lab. It's just a chore.
As I implied earlier, I take pictures for the fun of it. Right now, learning about film is enjoyable. Learning about digital is work.
I don't enjoy post-processing. I don't mind it, but it isn't up there with shooting or looking at the images when they're back from the lab. It's just a chore.
As I implied earlier, I take pictures for the fun of it. Right now, learning about film is enjoyable. Learning about digital is work.
kuzano
Veteran
Have shot film for years. Since I am a computer consultant, I thought I should get into Digital. I also teach computer classes at a community college and have taught digital photo classes for about four years. (camera features/selection etc). I still shoot film for the most part.
Digital is convenient where actual image quality is a lesser concern. I can certainly see professionals switching for faster turn around on product. However, I see most of the professionals I know begrudging the whole post processing thing. I truly dislike post processing, even though I am quite computer literate. I've done some photoshop work and the program bores me and certainly lengthens the process of creating a quality image that can match film right out of the camera. Part of the reason for that is that I prefer to shoot 6X4.5 and 6X9. I have a number of old folder cameras, and I can achieve better images with a nicely functioning 1950's folder than I can with my 8 Mp DSLR and much time in photoshop.
Sorry, but I'm staying with film, since I do not plan to generate income with my photography. I'll just stay current enough with digital to continue to teach people to use it. That way I will be assured they will never create images as good as I can with a film camera. (kidding a bit, maybe not)
Digital is convenient where actual image quality is a lesser concern. I can certainly see professionals switching for faster turn around on product. However, I see most of the professionals I know begrudging the whole post processing thing. I truly dislike post processing, even though I am quite computer literate. I've done some photoshop work and the program bores me and certainly lengthens the process of creating a quality image that can match film right out of the camera. Part of the reason for that is that I prefer to shoot 6X4.5 and 6X9. I have a number of old folder cameras, and I can achieve better images with a nicely functioning 1950's folder than I can with my 8 Mp DSLR and much time in photoshop.
Sorry, but I'm staying with film, since I do not plan to generate income with my photography. I'll just stay current enough with digital to continue to teach people to use it. That way I will be assured they will never create images as good as I can with a film camera. (kidding a bit, maybe not)
amateriat
We're all light!
Now, that's a quote for the ages.petronius said:
I suppose that, had I remained faithful to and happy with SLRs, I might have been tempted by the digital juggernaut. But I bolted to RFs and stuck with film...mostly. I inherited a 2001-era Olympus digital p/s just about a year ago. Only gets used for stuff I generally wouldn't bother loading up my film-burners for, so it's worked out...except, of course, for those instances where it was the only camera on my person when a Really Great Image emerges before my eyes, and I would curse its "mere" 2.1 megapixels.
Sooo...I did some wandering on the 'Bay, where I found something a bit more up-to-date, and, hopefully, smaller, than that blasted Olympus. I found my answer in a mostly-gently-used Casio Exilim EX-Z850, with four times the resolution (8.1MP), much-smaller form-factor (slightly smaller than a pack of unfiltered Luckys, which is amusing to this non-smoker), has an optical viewfinder (which I insist on, although I do like this camera's bright 2.5" LCD), minimal lag time, and manual exposure control and focus options. I've only had the camera in my possession for a handful of hours, but I love how something so tiny does so many nice things so well. I've maintained for a while that to love (and generally prefer) film doesn't mean hating digital outright. In fact, I've been of the mind that the real action in the digital camera world isn't with the megabuck dSLRs of the day, but with the more humble compacts and sub-compacts of more-ambitious design. High-end digitals are huge, ponderous, and crazy-pricy. At the present state of the art, I wouldn't dream of ditching my Hexars for any of them. (Having mostly sworn off SLRs of any persuasion, that wasn't exactly a tough decision.) But...as a companion to my kit (even my Ricoh GR1), my new Casio is damned near essential, and does about 95% of what I need a digicam to do for me. And it easily fits in a pocket. My main problem now is not falling asleep while reading the crazy-thick Owner's Manual.
- Barrett
Attachments
Last edited:
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
DougK said:
Doug, my bad, I forgot to attach "For me" in front of my statement of what digital are used for.
It's not a general statement for everyone. Sorry
DougK
This space left blank
No worries, Will, I was pretty sure that's what you meant, but I wanted to clarify the point a bit.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
What's really suffered for me is my SLR usage. I am quite happy that I have a DSLR to take over the chores of my SLR. It is pure heaven not to have to scan rolls of motor-driven (and non-motor driven) sports photos, family group photos, etc. Barring the choice of application, I find that I don't really give much thought to whether I'm shooting film or digital. I don't see one as darker side or evil, anymore (if I ever did).
Anyway, I answered 80-20 in favor of film. Lately, that's about right.
Anyway, I answered 80-20 in favor of film. Lately, that's about right.
Nando
Well-known
I like the digital medium but I hate digital and most electronic film cameras. I shoot film with mechanical cameras and scan the negatives to a digital file.
CuS
Established
I blame it on B&W
I blame it on B&W
I am a recent photonut (about 8 years now) and started off with an SLR (Canon AE-1).
I never really got my head around film (f-stop, exposure, shutter speed -aargh) so i moved onto various Canon P&S models until my first Canon DSLR about 2 years ago.
I've invested pretty heavily is good glass (damn those "L" lenses) and upgraded my DSLR body.
I have found myself shooting more and more in aperture priority mode and converting many of my color digital images to B&W.
By this time, the "instant gratification" of my DSLR had enabled me to finally understand and love the whole "f-stop, exposure, shutter speed" mantra.
But here was the thing: Although i could get some really nice B&W images via digital conversion, I began to feel that all of that manipulation led me farther and farther away from what the image really meant to me.
Let's face it, photography is about a moment of frozen time. After all, you can only freeze and thaw a chicken so many times before it is inedible, right?
I have always felt that B&W via film was far superior to any digital B&W and I have become really hooked on rangfinders (God bless my Yashica GSN, although I now have bad GAS for a Bessa R3M). And those efke films - awesome!
I blame it on B&W!
I blame it on B&W
I am a recent photonut (about 8 years now) and started off with an SLR (Canon AE-1).
I never really got my head around film (f-stop, exposure, shutter speed -aargh) so i moved onto various Canon P&S models until my first Canon DSLR about 2 years ago.
I've invested pretty heavily is good glass (damn those "L" lenses) and upgraded my DSLR body.
I have found myself shooting more and more in aperture priority mode and converting many of my color digital images to B&W.
By this time, the "instant gratification" of my DSLR had enabled me to finally understand and love the whole "f-stop, exposure, shutter speed" mantra.
But here was the thing: Although i could get some really nice B&W images via digital conversion, I began to feel that all of that manipulation led me farther and farther away from what the image really meant to me.
Let's face it, photography is about a moment of frozen time. After all, you can only freeze and thaw a chicken so many times before it is inedible, right?
I have always felt that B&W via film was far superior to any digital B&W and I have become really hooked on rangfinders (God bless my Yashica GSN, although I now have bad GAS for a Bessa R3M). And those efke films - awesome!
I blame it on B&W!
PHOTOEIL
Established
To me, and of course this item can only be answered the very personal way, it is like choosing between 35 mm - and roll-film format (eventually 4"x5").
The M5 is absolutely a true marvel but I make the best pictures with the Hasselblad, why I do not know.
Professionally, I 'have' (!), for about 60%, to shoot digital!
But, it happens all the time, when it comes to demanding situations, the pictures, when originally shot digital, have to be shot over again on slide-film! This happens in about 20% of the digitally shot pictures, the editor is asking to do it over again but on film, when time and the item allows us to do so of course.
And yes, it is much better, not only technically (digital is not that bad at all!), but the 'contents' and tenor of the image is certainly richer!
So when speed is important and the demands of 'contents' are low, digital will do.
When it comes to higher standards, on ANNY level, it is definitely 'film' (even 35 mm slide-film)!
On film, I shoot 90% colour slides and 10% B&W negatives.
On digital, all is in colour, I do not like digital B&W, it gives me a feeling of paint that would not (never) dry and sticks all the time.
But, again, this is very, very, very, personal!
The M5 is absolutely a true marvel but I make the best pictures with the Hasselblad, why I do not know.
Professionally, I 'have' (!), for about 60%, to shoot digital!
But, it happens all the time, when it comes to demanding situations, the pictures, when originally shot digital, have to be shot over again on slide-film! This happens in about 20% of the digitally shot pictures, the editor is asking to do it over again but on film, when time and the item allows us to do so of course.
And yes, it is much better, not only technically (digital is not that bad at all!), but the 'contents' and tenor of the image is certainly richer!
So when speed is important and the demands of 'contents' are low, digital will do.
When it comes to higher standards, on ANNY level, it is definitely 'film' (even 35 mm slide-film)!
On film, I shoot 90% colour slides and 10% B&W negatives.
On digital, all is in colour, I do not like digital B&W, it gives me a feeling of paint that would not (never) dry and sticks all the time.
But, again, this is very, very, very, personal!
PetarDima
Well-known
This pool is pain for me :bang:
I shoot 80% digital - because I must - it's cheaper. Maybe, with Pentax K100D + pancake lenses or Sigma DP1 that could be the way to go ... but ...
B&W film will be in my dreams. If someone would ask me what would I do if I were
rich the answer will be:
kilometers of Ilford HP5+ , chemistry and wide ZM lenses
I shoot 80% digital - because I must - it's cheaper. Maybe, with Pentax K100D + pancake lenses or Sigma DP1 that could be the way to go ... but ...
B&W film will be in my dreams. If someone would ask me what would I do if I were
rich the answer will be:
kilometers of Ilford HP5+ , chemistry and wide ZM lenses
jairy hunter
DSLR Refugee
CuS said:
Oh. My. Gosh.
I could've written this post! Right down to the AE-1.
I, too, have become conflicted about all the manipulation done in post-processing, and I really try to avoid doing a bunch to the film shots I've got scanned. To me it kinda defeats the purpose of going "back" to an analog method only to torque it up to something totally different that what it originally was ('course you do end up scanning the negs, though, and putting them on a computer in almost all cases--no doubt this changes it in some ways).
I floated this sentiment on the board a while back and most of the responses were of the "don't worry about it--do what you have to do" to make the image meet your vision/art or whatever. I guess I decided to try to get as close to my "vision" from the get-go when taking a pic (i.e. not "letting myself" or not having to do so much post processing).
I'm trying to wean off the zoom lenses and "see" things through primes again.
Didier
"Deed"
When I see my old film prints I sometimes would like to go back to film. They look different, and I like their look. But the conveniences of digital shooting - immediate picture output, changing ISO from picture to picture, just to mention two - keep me off going back, especially when I notice the 50 or 100 exposed but still unsouped rolls in my fridge... But I bought a ten-pack of Kodak BW400CN yesterday, so the hope isn't dead!
Didier
Didier
anandi
Gotta catch the light.
Film->Digital->Film-Digital
Film->Digital->Film-Digital
This is where I am (see title). For 10 years I pretty much exclusively shot with a Yashica T5. I'd flirted with a Minox but I was a film guy. First kid arrives I decide I don't need a moving box of negatives to sort through when I'm 60. The 4MP Canon G2 is great, but slow. Even today I'd probably be reasonably happy if it wasn't for the lack of responsiveness. I find a Yashica GT in a thrift store a few years later. It literally called to me. Kind of like the ring that Frodo wore. I rediscovered firm, then RFs then SLRs and most importantly BW film. But then I get really tired of scanning and touching up. And now I have a moving box of negatives. So I pickup a DSLR - it's a Pentax so I can shoot lovely old mechanical glass, stop down metering. I got one AF lens, but it's not the same. This blend of old and new is pretty good. Let's see where it goes from here.
Film->Digital->Film-Digital
This is where I am (see title). For 10 years I pretty much exclusively shot with a Yashica T5. I'd flirted with a Minox but I was a film guy. First kid arrives I decide I don't need a moving box of negatives to sort through when I'm 60. The 4MP Canon G2 is great, but slow. Even today I'd probably be reasonably happy if it wasn't for the lack of responsiveness. I find a Yashica GT in a thrift store a few years later. It literally called to me. Kind of like the ring that Frodo wore. I rediscovered firm, then RFs then SLRs and most importantly BW film. But then I get really tired of scanning and touching up. And now I have a moving box of negatives. So I pickup a DSLR - it's a Pentax so I can shoot lovely old mechanical glass, stop down metering. I got one AF lens, but it's not the same. This blend of old and new is pretty good. Let's see where it goes from here.
moonwrack
Member
I shoot both. Digital capture has a wide variety of applications. Film scores in the matters of archival permanence, dynamic range and, for black-and-white, uniqueness. Every conventionally-produced silver-based print is slightly different and so unique in a way that digital can not be. (Mono prints make ideal presents for family and friends because they bear the unique stamp of whoever produced them).
pvdhaar
Peter
About a year ago, I had some rolls of film printed with truely atrocious results. That triggered me to go DLSR exclusively for a while. I was fed up with the lack of control I have over how well the labs do their work. So digital vs. film: 1-0.
6 months later, I dug out the RF to finish off those last couple of rolls that were still in the fridge, more or less to be done with film forever. But it was such a delight to take that RF along, and some of the prints were so nice, that I thought; 'hey, this film thing wasn't so bad after after all'. So then film vs. digital became a draw..
And just the other day I wanted to shoot a couple of things with the dslr + flash, but the combination would only work half heartedly; AF-assist woudn't light, flash would copy aperture incorrectly etc.etc.. Despite all battery indicators showing full, and having a film slr and older flash at hand to try diagnose the problems I remained lost for more than a day. I fiddled with custom settings on flash and camera before deciding to recharge all batteries anyway (yep, another day lost), and miraculously got everything working again.. However, by that time I had already shot what I needed with the M4.. So, film wins over digital by Knock-Out..
I'll probably never be 100% film, but I've a feeling it's going to be pretty close to that..
6 months later, I dug out the RF to finish off those last couple of rolls that were still in the fridge, more or less to be done with film forever. But it was such a delight to take that RF along, and some of the prints were so nice, that I thought; 'hey, this film thing wasn't so bad after after all'. So then film vs. digital became a draw..
And just the other day I wanted to shoot a couple of things with the dslr + flash, but the combination would only work half heartedly; AF-assist woudn't light, flash would copy aperture incorrectly etc.etc.. Despite all battery indicators showing full, and having a film slr and older flash at hand to try diagnose the problems I remained lost for more than a day. I fiddled with custom settings on flash and camera before deciding to recharge all batteries anyway (yep, another day lost), and miraculously got everything working again.. However, by that time I had already shot what I needed with the M4.. So, film wins over digital by Knock-Out..
I'll probably never be 100% film, but I've a feeling it's going to be pretty close to that..
LOOP
maraboutflash
I began with films in 1968, ...So I know what is the pleasure given:
- the vast majority of old argentic cameras not only 6x6 let you see what you are doing with good clear finder , digital camera don't;
- with argentic, waiting longer for the pictures is part of the pleasure even when you are disappointed with what you have done;
- shooting digital is quick , like speeddating quick but non lasting pleasure...
- but you can afford shooting digital without thinking too much and getting average results;
- if you want good results with digital you have to kow a lot about computers and and, for me it is one of the major bad points, you sit longer in front of a computer.
PLEASURE IS ARGENTIC !
- the vast majority of old argentic cameras not only 6x6 let you see what you are doing with good clear finder , digital camera don't;
- with argentic, waiting longer for the pictures is part of the pleasure even when you are disappointed with what you have done;
- shooting digital is quick , like speeddating quick but non lasting pleasure...
- but you can afford shooting digital without thinking too much and getting average results;
- if you want good results with digital you have to kow a lot about computers and and, for me it is one of the major bad points, you sit longer in front of a computer.
PLEASURE IS ARGENTIC !
otaku
Established
I grew up with my parents shooting film and they occassionally let me loose with cameras (mostly kodak disposables haha) or their olympus cameras (stylus 80 among others)
they bought me my first camera in 2003/4 which was an olympus stylus 400 digital about a year ago I picked up a canon sd500.
I now actually sell cameras for a living (all digitial) but have recently acquired and am shooting with a leica minilux and loving it from what I hear/have seen film cameras while not necessarily as cheap/convenient give better quality photos have better glass and even just build quality. I'd say I prefer film.
they bought me my first camera in 2003/4 which was an olympus stylus 400 digital about a year ago I picked up a canon sd500.
I now actually sell cameras for a living (all digitial) but have recently acquired and am shooting with a leica minilux and loving it from what I hear/have seen film cameras while not necessarily as cheap/convenient give better quality photos have better glass and even just build quality. I'd say I prefer film.
Tuolumne
Veteran
The market speaks...Kodak's Q3 2007 results
The market speaks...Kodak's Q3 2007 results
"Revenue in the consumer digital business increased 1.3% to $1.12 billion as stronger-than-expected sales of digital cameras and retail print-making kiosks were offset by declines in photofinishing. Film revenue declined 18% to $488 million, led by a 32% drop in U.S. sales."
/T
[Also posted in "How long does film have?"]
The market speaks...Kodak's Q3 2007 results
"Revenue in the consumer digital business increased 1.3% to $1.12 billion as stronger-than-expected sales of digital cameras and retail print-making kiosks were offset by declines in photofinishing. Film revenue declined 18% to $488 million, led by a 32% drop in U.S. sales."
/T
[Also posted in "How long does film have?"]