Coming back from Digital?

Coming back from Digital?

  • What is digital?

    Votes: 53 6.5%

  • I've tried digital, but found it's not for me

    Votes: 100 12.2%

  • I've never left film, but now shoot some (<20%) digital

    Votes: 144 17.6%

  • I've never left film, but now shoot mostly (>80%) digital

    Votes: 104 12.7%

  • I'm back from 100% digital to some (<20%) film

    Votes: 148 18.0%

  • I'm back from 100% digital to mostly (>80%) film

    Votes: 186 22.7%

  • I'm back from 100% digital to 100% film

    Votes: 58 7.1%

  • What do you mean, film?

    Votes: 27 3.3%
  • Total voters
    820
sitemistic said:
I love film. I love digital. But it's mostly digital for the last few years. I used to carry four slrs around my neck to do what I can do with a single digital SLR now. I'll shot an event this weekend that will take me from a parade at noon to candles at night, and everything in between. With a button push and the turn of a dial, I will go from ISO 100 for the parade to ISO 3200 for the candle thing. I'll have color for the web and b&w for the newspaper. And I'll only have to carry one camera, two lenses and no film. As much as I love my M's and my Nikon FM and F3, the convenience and quality output of that digital SLR trumps film.

It's kinda like my big hobby, cars. In 1969, as a 19 year old, I bought a Mustang 428 Cobra Jet Mach 1. Oh, man. What a car. Had it all. Speed. Handling. Styling. A girl magnet! 🙂 That car was perfect. So, for my 50th birthday, I bought myself a 1969 Mach 1, restored to original condition, just like it was when driven off the showroom flow 30 years before. Well...

Auto technology has come a long way in 30 years. And now I'm used to my 2004 Mustang GT. The 69 is raw power, but the 2004 just beats it in every way. Handling, speed, reliability, maintainence, comfort. There is just no comparison. So the '69 is my weekend car. It goes to "show and shines," stuff like that.

That's where film has ended up. I still shoot film, because I spent most of my professional life shooting film. It's warm and familiar. And the Leica M's feel good and are beautiful. But the digital SLR is fast, dead reliable, extremely versatile. B&W, color, ISO 100, ISO 3200, sharp, soft, fast, slow, manual, auto. It's just a push of a button and twirl of a dial away.

But it comes down to what works for you. Like everything else in life, you make your choice and you pay your price. 🙂
Click to expand...
I feel the exact same way.......one differance.....I had a Torine Cobra 428 Ram Air black/black 391 Detroit locker rear.....today my Honda S2000 is faster...more fun and will get 30 mpg....go figure
 
First, I'm an amateur so I don;t have an imperative to use one or the other commercially. I do this for FUN. I've had all manner of film cameras from Brownies, to 127 to 645 to 6x7 and, of course 35mm (SLR and rangefinder). I now own one film camera - an M6 with 3 lenses (CV 28mm Ultron, 35mm 'Cron and a CV 75mm). I love them and haven't picked my digital up in a few weeks.

However, I'm going to be taking a couple of days off between Crimbo and New Year and will be packing my M6 kit AND my D200 / 17-55 f2.8 / 80-200 f2.8 to do some landscape shots.

I'm one of those people who doesn't see the medium as the defining issue. The image is key as far as I'm concerned and cameras / lenses are simply tools to get to an end result. If I thought I could get a better result from a box with a hole in it, I'd swap in the blink of an eye. I know I can't and, despite what I've just said, I will admit to always having wanted a Leica from the age of 13 (1974) whe my mate's dad had one and I had an Edixaflex.......

Ain't choice a great thing.......?
 
I seem to be a freak statistic in that I grew up in the film era but, while I was familiar with film being tied to photography and my father for a time did his own darkroom work, I never really got into photography in those years. Thusly, when digital cameras became mass market items, it was still a kind of revolution to me even though I couldn't exactly move "away" from film since I'd never really been there. I don't think shooting one roll twenty years ago counts for much. I basically started photography in digital and have recently started to shoot film, but as the poll options are limited, I still say I've recently gone "back" to film.

Far as I've experienced, I seem to be the least emotionally attached to each platform.

I got into photography because digital promised me one up front investment, and then unlimited practice with no recurring cost per shot and no waiting to see my stuff. It delivered that and that convenience continues to be the reason it remains my primary way of shooting. My Nikon D40 DSLR addressed all the major complaints I had about my first digital, a Coolpix 995, and it shares lenses with my Nikon film bodies.

I decided to start shooting film because I frankly wanted the resolving power and dynamic range it has to offer. Being forced to shoot in multiples of 24 or 36 (for 135 anyway, I'm not yet to medium format) before I can then pay to wait to get my negatives developed and then having to scan them up is something I tolerant for the sake of that. At the moment, I'm not doing any home developing or darkroom printing. The former may change soon, the later less likely so, but again it'll be a matter of something I put up with for the sake of the results. I have no romantic notions about the chemical process vs the electronic one.

I admit, shooting film does give me a certain kind of amusement that digital doesn't, but I chalk that up to the same personality trait that makes me enjoy explaining to people that my leather jacket is actually a woman's jacket. Imp of the perverse likes screwing with people's expectations and nowadays, they expect you to be shooting digital.
 
I had a brief moment with film over 10 years ago in High School, but have been shooting digital SLRs for quite a while. I just recently picked up an R4A and a 28mm to use for my street photography (the 5D is just too noticible and loud).

I just got back my first rolls of film and am very humbled. The majority of my shot's were underexposed (sent it out to get developed) and the framing was off. I guess not being able to chimp and not having a 100% accurate frame brings my photograhy down a few notches. No worries though, I'll learn to use this tool with practice. I do find myself taking the RF everywhere, while my DSLR patiently waits at home till needed for something special.
 
Mostly film...

I use digital for long lens wildlife work and for macro. But most of my shooting is documentary and in the realms of 21 to 100mm lens...and for that: digital sucks. Having to check EVERY damn shot to make sure crucial parts arent blown out...constant compromises...

So it's Fuji neg film for me. When they make a decent digital slr that copes with 10 stops of light then I'll wave goodbye to film. Until then...
 
I shoot some (<5%) digital for the convenience, but for the most part I shoot film and either process and print it myself if its B&W or just get the negatives developed locally for color film and dumped on CD so I can print digitally at home.
 
I like B&W film and manual film cameras so I still shoot a lot of film. I also embrace digital and have come to like it very much indeed. I now shoot about 80% digital and 20% film.

Gene
 
Perfect use for a digital: You are taking something apart and may not put it together for several weeks. Photograph its deconstruction and put it on the computer. When you are finished reconstruction delete.
 
I shot film years ago without taking photography seriously until jumping back in with the digital revolution. Later I picked up an old TLR just for a different way to shoot.

I now have various film cameras - a few TLRs, an SLR that shares a mount with my DSLR, some old Brownies, a couple Polaroids, and my latest acquisition - an R3A; but I can't really say I shoot more film than digital, or vice versa, or even that I shoot the two equally. It just depends on what I feel like shooting with when I walk out the door that day.
 
Since 11th grade ('92) my main camera was a Canon A-1. Then in about '03-'04 my wife got a digital olympus point & shoot, and my film usage dropped off significantly until (I can actually give a date) July 15, 2005, when I believe I shot my last roll of film and never even got it developed (I still have it, what do you think it would look like now?). I won't bore you with the whole story as to why I'm starting to use film again, but part of it has to do with my discovery of a wonderful little anachronism called a Holga.

The thing about film vs. digital is that it is so expensive to get a good camera with a good, large sensor, whereas you can pick up a really nice used film camera (or even a decent new one) for far less, and get really nice shots. And medium format? Forget about it! You can get an inexpensive used MF camera and get picture quality that many high end digitals can't even touch!

I think digital is great too, it allows you to take hundreds of shots without even thinking about it, you can experiment all you want without eating up film (or time developing), and you can instantly change things you can't on a film camera like ISO. I think the real answer is to use both - remember, they're tools for us to use, so rather than argue about which is better, why not use both to make things better for ourselves?

Oh, and of course it allows us to lust after even more gear!
 
Always an interesting topic! I feel humbled to admit that my first girl magnet car was a lowly '66 Mustang w/ a tiny 289 v8 and 4 on the floor. But I put a 4.63 gear in the rear, and 2 holleys on a cross ram w/ a big solid lifter Cobra cam (probably bored everyone now) and it would scoot down the 1/4 mile pretty good.

Oh. Film vs digital. Love the digital for ebay product pics and the snapshot thing. Had a D50 w/ an 85 1.8 that took really great color shots, but couldn't make a good B&W shot in a million years. For B&W it's film baby. I had thought it would be digital for color, but I am beginning to play w/ different films, and good luck getting a digital file to look like Agfa. I don't like the digital cameras either. Plastic crap. And as someone else said on here, $100 buys you a Pentax Spotmatic or Canon AE 1 w/ a tack sharp fast 50 lens that will make images as good or better than a $5000 digital wonder. It just won't take the same type of pics, as the rapid AF and big buffer of a good DSLR can capture action as it happens.

I am sure things will change in the future, but for those of us who like well made and wonderfully crafted cameras, it's hard to beat the old technology. It's the same w/ cars. These new cars are smooth, reliable, and safe, but boring. Give me the old 1950 Ford sedan that I can actually fix under the shade tree instead of having to take the Banal Wizzard Coupe de Ville III to the dealer and have them stick a probe up the tailpipe (ouch!) and hook it up to a computer, only to be told they can't fix anything, they have to replace stuff.
 
Last edited:
I started with a dSLR but only because I got into photography a few recent years ago. Since then I found some old film gear laying around and gave it shot. Now I shoot with film whenever I have the luxury of taking my time and digital when I need a picture at that very moment.
 
Back to c75% transparencies and prints after spending the past 4 years exclusively digital.

I'm a hobbyist so I don't have the finanacial pressure to "get the shot" - but digital is great in iffy conditions when you want to capture something. I know if I've got it a second or two after releasing the shutter. (And I still haven't found a try great lowlight, M sized performer - though my Fuji 6500FD is a good start.) Digital is also great for "email postcards". But, the postcard idea has led to lots of uncomposed, snapshot like images.

After cleaning out my storage room, finding boxes of slides and viewing them with a good projector and lens on my nearly 8 feet high walls..... NOTHING for me compares to carefully composed, accurately exposed, properly projected and large size slides. The impact is immense and having fewer images, IMO, creates more value.
 
Although not really wanting to join the endless, and tiresome film V digital debates,- this is my situation,- when I took early retirement a couple of years ago, I bought a Fuji S3 pro. dslr and three prime lenses, a big heavy but exellent camera, that has given some great pictures (IMO!). After much thought I have just sold this outfit, - while I can still get a decent price for it, the reason being,-as I look through my albums and print folders etc., the most pleasing pictures, to me, and others, have come from the Nikkormat FT2, that has been in my bag for over thirty years, somehow the rendition is 'nicer', colors more subtle, and mono 100% better!!. I tend to travel light, these days, and a small rangefinder with a couple of lenses is my ideal companion. For the amount of shooting I do, the processing is not a big issue for color, and I still enjoy fooling around with various b+w films and developers. If I was still in the same situation as ten years ago, shooting a few weddings, portraits etc. - the Fuji dslr would be no.1 tool.

Dave 🙂
 
I started shooting digital, now trying my hand at film.. planning to shoot equal amounts, as they both have their positives and negatives. I see them not as opposing mediums but complementary.
 
When one can shoot 100 images of a child on a slide playing (with no financial cost) simply by holding down he shutter release....

Compared to two or three shots that one needed to compose or plan for...

Sure, there may be 25 keepers out of the 100. (And I acknowledge that there may also be the "best one" too, simply by the ease and percentages.)

I don't care to be a professional photographer. I don't care to be a fine artist. I create images because I want to remember a moment in the closest way that I see it. (This is why I find macro work sooooo tiring, or studio work so often artificial.)

I make these images for myself to view first, for my family second, and sometimes I share them with friends as well. But, my motivation is to capture where I was, what I saw, and how I felt - to remember.

My shooting workflow with digital could be the same as film - but the instant reward and the penalty free ability to shoot my subject 10, 20, 30 times more is too tempting. I am weak and use the digital medium as a crutch. There is no reason that I couldn't get nearly the same results with digital. It is simply, preference and the natural handicap of a roll of film vs 16GB card.

This ability to shoot so many images reminds me of video. I've owned two video camera in my life, the last one a DV that has seen maybe 3 or 4 hours of tape in 7 years or so. Video, like my shooting with "freeflow, shutter happy" digital, does not help me to remember an event. I think I see in steps, like an old out of synch projected movie, as opposed to a smoothly moving world.

I fully underscore my comment. I shoot to remember and account times my life. The one or two images from an evening or event are more valuable to me than a flowing documentary like video or 250 images cranked out by my DSLR.

---

It's not film vs digital for me. It's being forced to slow down, create less that gives me more.
 
Last edited:
Tho' I haven't developed a roll of film in around 3 months, I am NOT totally abandoning film. There's color print film and B/W C41 to be used in several favorite, vintage film cameras. From the various posts above, many of us seem to be "switch hitters." GeneW and a Jerusalem friend helped me to integrate digital & film work, so there's no need for "either-or."
 
I shoot mostly film. And in my brief time with digital, I find no difference in the way I shoot the two media. One considered shot at a time. No continuous shooting. I don't want to have to process and sort through umpteen hundred shots later. Aiming for quality over quantity of photos whether film or digital. I'm shooting RAW, using the optical viewfinder, with the LCD turned off; no chimping. I'm not a pro, so I have the luxury of just waiting until later to look at my "take" on the computer, like a scanned roll of film.
 
I've tried the DSLRs and loved then for family snaphots, but found for fine art work film is still it for me - including film images of my family. It's a matter of process - with digital the process of seeing is cheapened for me - when I know I can blast off a basically unlimited number of frames, I find I stop thinking about WHY I'm shooting something. That's fine for newspaper work where all you're trying to get is the event - a good action shot of a sport or a decent images of talking heads etc. - but I find in art photography, that if your mind is allowed to take a vacation while you're working, the images you have to choose from may not be a strong as you would have liked. Although I'll give that shooting is generally intutive, so maybe it doesn't matter as much as I think.

I did a series of night landscapes in color on a DSLR that I could not have done conventionally, so digital has its uses.
 
Just packed for a week away and all my digital gear is staying on the shelf. Have a lod of interesting film to shoot (Kodachrome, expired RSX, SPUR process Agfa Copex, new Velvia) and three interesting film bodies (R4M, GA645, GR1v) to play with. Looking forward to full frame and using my lenses as they were intended (VC12mm, Zeiss 25, VC 40mm, Canon 50mm f/1.2, Jupiter 9). Can't wait! (although I'll have to for the Kodachromes 😉 )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom