HuubL
hunter-gatherer
I guess the older members here used to shoot film before the dawn of digital. Perhaps young ones started digital and went film to see what all the fuzz was about.
I started with film back in the late sixties, went all digital in 2002 and then returned to film about three years ago. I'm now shooting digital and film about 80/20 and guess that will remain so for the coming years.
A lot of reading for the correct choice. I see I entered the wrong choice myself and there doesn't seem to be a way to fix that
I started with film back in the late sixties, went all digital in 2002 and then returned to film about three years ago. I'm now shooting digital and film about 80/20 and guess that will remain so for the coming years.
A lot of reading for the correct choice. I see I entered the wrong choice myself and there doesn't seem to be a way to fix that
Last edited:
ChrisN
Striving
I swing backwards and forwards - sometimes I just want good images with the least effort, so I grab the digital SLR with the good Pentax lenses. Other times I want to be more involved in the whole process, or just take the time to enjoy using a simpler camera. Last Sunday, for the first time in several years, I had a day out specifically devoted to photography with just a single camera body (the M4) and a single type of film. I did take three lenses, but used the 35 for about 90% of the photos. In one way it was very liberating, but I'd still like to repeat the outing with each of the other cameras I own!
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
I own a Digital SLR and have used one in connection with my job over many years. However I never use it for my own photography.
Personally I don't enter competitions or exhibit (apart from posting to the gallery here). I just enjoy doing photography, and for me, film is integral to that enjoyment.
I can't quite put my finger on the reason, but shooting digital loses something for me, both at the time of doing it and afterwards when examining the shots.
YMMV.
Bob.
Personally I don't enter competitions or exhibit (apart from posting to the gallery here). I just enjoy doing photography, and for me, film is integral to that enjoyment.
I can't quite put my finger on the reason, but shooting digital loses something for me, both at the time of doing it and afterwards when examining the shots.
YMMV.
Bob.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Always shot film, but I keep telling myself that digital is so convenient, etc. Now and then I will go out with my Nikon D70s and can't wait to get back to film.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I should have developed my first roll of film before I bought an M8 .... then I wouldn't have a $6000.00 dollar camera sitting in the cupboard!
Avotius
Some guy
I do really shoot a lot more digital then I do film, and I really hope that I can incorporate a M8 or its competition sometime in the future. Lately I have been shooting my DSLR more and found it to be almost intolerable in low light situations where I could have easily focused my bessa. As nice as it is to have that iso 3200 and 50 1.4 canon stuff for low light, it still seems as if im missing a lot of pictures because of the highly inaccurate focusing and what not. For instance in 3 recent rolls of film, with my bessa and zeiss 50 I had 2 photos that were out of focus do to my error, compared to some 100 slr shots I took today with a 17-40 and a 5d which came back with about 30% off focus on a lens that shouldn't have this problem.
sem
Registered User
I like both! It is a question of situation. Makro with dslr and people with film. A lot more fun is film. The hole process is more exciting and the camera forces to build a picture!
sem
sem
wallace
Well-known
for colour I use digital (Olymus 5050), for b/W analog (various mf and 35mm cams).
I'm still not satisfied with the greytone scale of the digital process.
And I don't like to store my pictures on hard drives or DVDs which
have to be copied every now and then!
I'm still not satisfied with the greytone scale of the digital process.
And I don't like to store my pictures on hard drives or DVDs which
have to be copied every now and then!
mfogiel
Veteran
For me there are two variables: B&W versus colour and high resolution versus average resolution.
In the realm of anything which is not the very best MF digital, or even scanning back, film beats digital in B&W, and larger format film beats digital in definition.
Therefore, for anything which is not average definition colour work, like portraiture or grab shots of your family, while the auntie celebrates her 80th birthday, film is still a winner.
Moreover, it is still a winner in terms of the portability/to quality ratio, especially because of what the rangefinders can do, which is why we are here in the first place.
In the realm of anything which is not the very best MF digital, or even scanning back, film beats digital in B&W, and larger format film beats digital in definition.
Therefore, for anything which is not average definition colour work, like portraiture or grab shots of your family, while the auntie celebrates her 80th birthday, film is still a winner.
Moreover, it is still a winner in terms of the portability/to quality ratio, especially because of what the rangefinders can do, which is why we are here in the first place.
patrickhh
GAS free since Dec. 2007
I started with a DSLR and went to film later. Now my film/digital ratio is like fifty/fifty. Funny thing is, that I'm shooting much less images with the DSLR, since I also shoot film. On tours where I used to shoot 100-200 pictures, I shoot 10-20 now. It's like film shooting had taught me how to forego an "average" picture, instead of firing the shutter all the time and relying on "trial and error"
Bill58
Native Texan
I often get some astonishing good/ easy/ fast/ cheap results (and a few miserable blurred ones too) in color from my 5 yr. old Fuji 2800/ 2 MP zoom, but it's just not as much fun as my film RF stuff--esp. B&W. I hate to fiddle w/ the batteries, handheld meter, film loading/ unloading, etc but there's some kind of magic with the whole process.
Someday, I'll find a good low light, very W/A compact digital that duplicates B&W film. but it isn't out there yet.
Someday, I'll find a good low light, very W/A compact digital that duplicates B&W film. but it isn't out there yet.
Last edited:
djonesii
Well-known
I have started my first foray into film ...... this coming weekend! Bessa-R + CV 21 and leica 90/f4 "user" and russian 50/2.5 on the way!
I have lived in the Nikon DSLR world for almost 3 years, and snapped litteraly 10 of thousands of photos ...... of those, about 50 merited 8X10's, and in the mid 100s have made it to the web .... My keeper rate has been going up, I am slowly learning both the craft and the art ..... I hope for film to help this process!
Dave
I have lived in the Nikon DSLR world for almost 3 years, and snapped litteraly 10 of thousands of photos ...... of those, about 50 merited 8X10's, and in the mid 100s have made it to the web .... My keeper rate has been going up, I am slowly learning both the craft and the art ..... I hope for film to help this process!
Dave
Finder
Veteran
A process is a process. The choice is personal (and technical arguments are simply are justifications in hindsight of personal choice). I choose the process I use because I like it.
HuubL
hunter-gatherer
patrickhh said:I started with a DSLR and went to film later. Now my film/digital ratio is like fifty/fifty. Funny thing is, that I'm shooting much less images with the DSLR, since I also shoot film. On tours where I used to shoot 100-200 pictures, I shoot 10-20 now. It's like film shooting had taught me how to forego an "average" picture, instead of firing the shutter all the time and relying on "trial and error"
That's funny you mention this. When shooting digital I shoot more than when shooting film. However, not much more, like 1000 during a three week vacation at most. Shooting film for years has made me careful to "not spoil" frames and there seems to be a "repressor" built into me that prohibits me shooting endless numbers of images of the same subject. OTOH, the instant feedback of digital has definitely made me a better photographer.
literiter
Well-known
The Wife and I share a Coolpix 995. This camera allows me a certain axcess to the web. We are considering upgrading soon to a similar camera.
I know one fellow, a popular wedding and portrait photographer who will shoot digital but insists his client have film as well for important events. He reports now that he is hired for this and has done some weddings exclusively in film. (his helper shoots the thing in digital.) His clients want permanence.
The local news photographers use only digital and completely scoff at the idea of film. We are blessed with some remarkably good images from these people.
Many years ago, when the earth was young, and digital was only a figment in the mind of a tortured soul, I shot professionally. The last work I did was slide tape productions, where slide projectors were used in the presentation, syncronised with sound using audio tape. These productions could be fantastic things visually. (Now when I see similar stuff done using video projectors, and their pathetic rendering of an image I'm saddened.) I still have all my slides.
To me the advent of digital has presented a population with a way to build marvelous sand castles. Even the tools seem to have a best before date. In ten years the much coveted M8 won't fetch the kind of coin my old M2 will now.
Film is the medium that best expresses permanence.
I know one fellow, a popular wedding and portrait photographer who will shoot digital but insists his client have film as well for important events. He reports now that he is hired for this and has done some weddings exclusively in film. (his helper shoots the thing in digital.) His clients want permanence.
The local news photographers use only digital and completely scoff at the idea of film. We are blessed with some remarkably good images from these people.
Many years ago, when the earth was young, and digital was only a figment in the mind of a tortured soul, I shot professionally. The last work I did was slide tape productions, where slide projectors were used in the presentation, syncronised with sound using audio tape. These productions could be fantastic things visually. (Now when I see similar stuff done using video projectors, and their pathetic rendering of an image I'm saddened.) I still have all my slides.
To me the advent of digital has presented a population with a way to build marvelous sand castles. Even the tools seem to have a best before date. In ten years the much coveted M8 won't fetch the kind of coin my old M2 will now.
Film is the medium that best expresses permanence.
jbf
||||||
I started with digital... yet after a few years using digital I realized that I didnt really "get it". My photos sucked and lacked emotion or any deeper meaning.
Then I learned how to shoot/develop/print my own photographs using traditional film and darkroom.
I've been hooked ever since.
Now I shoot completely in film and only digital for dumb stupid things that have no value to me. Otherwise I'm completely switched back to film.
This coming from someone who is a self-proclaimed super savy computer user.
Maybe its because all I do day in and day out is work on a digital computer creating digital illusions of real world environments.
(I'm a visual effects artist who creates computer generated environments... so yeah...)
Then I learned how to shoot/develop/print my own photographs using traditional film and darkroom.
I've been hooked ever since.
Now I shoot completely in film and only digital for dumb stupid things that have no value to me. Otherwise I'm completely switched back to film.
This coming from someone who is a self-proclaimed super savy computer user.
Maybe its because all I do day in and day out is work on a digital computer creating digital illusions of real world environments.
(I'm a visual effects artist who creates computer generated environments... so yeah...)
V
varjag
Guest
It's been mostly the ease of getting the good BW which dragged me back to film.
That said I do enjoy the difference in the process. With film and a simple mechanical camera, it feels more like a hike through the wilderness than like a car trip.
That said I do enjoy the difference in the process. With film and a simple mechanical camera, it feels more like a hike through the wilderness than like a car trip.
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
Like you JBF I also alter and re-touch images as part of my job. I think because of this I value the honesty of film.jbf said:
With film I find the fact that the shot has to be right from the outset does help focus my mind. I also find the more expensive the film the higher my hit-rate. I get far more good shots when shooting Medium format than with 35mm.djonesii said:
I'm afraid I'm no perfectionist and the quality arguments between film and digital mean little to me.
NickTrop
Veteran
On my wrist right now is a spring-wound watch. An old Timex with a new band. In my drawer are several "digital" watches that need batteries...
My last car was a manual transmission car (this one isn't because it wasn't an option) My next car will have a manual transmission...
I have a digital - a "big zoom" compact. An "old" (by digital terms) Panasonic Lumix FZ1v2. I use it sometimes. It's - in a very real sense, more "outdated" than my 45 year old folder, my classic SLR and RFs...
Back to my watch. Bought it on eBay for around $20, serviced. Nothin' fancy. It's a later model, a pie plate kinda cool in a Spartan kinda way.
- It has character
- It tells time
- It's battery independent
- It's interesting, people comment on it.
- There's craftmanship behind it, it was made largely by human
hands, not stamped out by machines.
- The mechanical engineering/clockworks behind it are fascinating
- It's "elegant" in its simplicity.
I see nothing interesting about digital watches. They're functional. Tell time, that's it. The batteries are a pain in the arse to change - need to take a trip to the store, make sure I buy the right one, futz with the back... For $10 for a new one it hardly seems worth it. They all have the same "movement" stamped out by the gazillion in some assembly line in Asia.
No personality whatsoever.
Apart from adornments, each one is the same, with nothing to distinguish them, really...
From where I sit, digital watches were a boom - initially, for the manufacturer. No more labor that had to be paid, they took something that was a mechanical marvel that people became "attached" to, something elegant, something with personality, something made with human hands, something that didn't require batteries being dumped in a landfill, something you wore for years, which became a "part of you", something with tactile enjoyment...
Something that had celebrated manufacturers -
Gruen
Omega
Timex
Rolex
Each with many offerings, each having its own "personality"...
Digital came along and "commoditized" everything. And in the process, sucked the soul out of watches. Now they're cheap, souless, battery dependent, personality-less, commodity items to be discarded and replaced every couple years.
The "thrill" of dad giving you your first watch on your birthday is gone...
Both digital and spring-wound tell time...
I appreciate the fact that when my watch runs down, I simply have to set the time and wind it. I "enjoy" the tactile nature of winding a watch. Don't ask me why...
I've been wearing this watch every day, might buy another. I love it for its timelessness...
Film cameras vs. Digital
Nick
My last car was a manual transmission car (this one isn't because it wasn't an option) My next car will have a manual transmission...
I have a digital - a "big zoom" compact. An "old" (by digital terms) Panasonic Lumix FZ1v2. I use it sometimes. It's - in a very real sense, more "outdated" than my 45 year old folder, my classic SLR and RFs...
Back to my watch. Bought it on eBay for around $20, serviced. Nothin' fancy. It's a later model, a pie plate kinda cool in a Spartan kinda way.
- It has character
- It tells time
- It's battery independent
- It's interesting, people comment on it.
- There's craftmanship behind it, it was made largely by human
hands, not stamped out by machines.
- The mechanical engineering/clockworks behind it are fascinating
- It's "elegant" in its simplicity.
I see nothing interesting about digital watches. They're functional. Tell time, that's it. The batteries are a pain in the arse to change - need to take a trip to the store, make sure I buy the right one, futz with the back... For $10 for a new one it hardly seems worth it. They all have the same "movement" stamped out by the gazillion in some assembly line in Asia.
No personality whatsoever.
Apart from adornments, each one is the same, with nothing to distinguish them, really...
From where I sit, digital watches were a boom - initially, for the manufacturer. No more labor that had to be paid, they took something that was a mechanical marvel that people became "attached" to, something elegant, something with personality, something made with human hands, something that didn't require batteries being dumped in a landfill, something you wore for years, which became a "part of you", something with tactile enjoyment...
Something that had celebrated manufacturers -
Gruen
Omega
Timex
Rolex
Each with many offerings, each having its own "personality"...
Digital came along and "commoditized" everything. And in the process, sucked the soul out of watches. Now they're cheap, souless, battery dependent, personality-less, commodity items to be discarded and replaced every couple years.
The "thrill" of dad giving you your first watch on your birthday is gone...
Both digital and spring-wound tell time...
I appreciate the fact that when my watch runs down, I simply have to set the time and wind it. I "enjoy" the tactile nature of winding a watch. Don't ask me why...
I've been wearing this watch every day, might buy another. I love it for its timelessness...
Film cameras vs. Digital
Nick
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
I started with film 18 years ago - mostly large format. Went through a dSLR period briefly, tho I still occasionally brought out the 4x5. Found a good deal on a Rolleiflex a few years ago, then followed up with the Canon P, and brought my F1N's back out of the closet.
I now only take out the digital for event gigs (hundreds of "grip-n-grins") or headshot sessions. Or if I just need to document something and email/post it.
Everything else is film - I'd guess 90% - especially client work (mostly 120 and 4x5). For myself it's almost exclusively 35mm bw.
I now only take out the digital for event gigs (hundreds of "grip-n-grins") or headshot sessions. Or if I just need to document something and email/post it.
Everything else is film - I'd guess 90% - especially client work (mostly 120 and 4x5). For myself it's almost exclusively 35mm bw.