Digital - Film -Digital, what happened?

[Godfrey]

I want to look at whatever photos I take, film or digital, immediately or as soon as possible after I take them. I want this so I know what it was I captured, whether the equipment is working properly, etc. So with digital capture I look at them when I get home, and I look at film images as soon as I can get around to processing and scanning them. (I always scan all film images because the scans are my master images from film; the film itself is irrelevant—scanned once and forgotten.)

I generally then leave them for a while, after picking a couple to maybe post and show, and months later go back through them to find what appeals to me at a deeper level or with a particular project in mind. That's when I discard what I consider dross (or at least mark it as discarded, because I only rarely actually delete digital images).

There's little distinction between my digital and film workflows, other than the amount of effort required to process and scan the film. To me, that's the mindless tedium that takes up precious time I don't have enough of...

G

 

[jsrockit]

This is the opposite of my experience. I have hundreds of thousands of digital images that I hardly ever look at. Some of them I've messed around with, either in the act of capture or afterwards with Photoshop, but I'm hardly interested in looking at them, and they taught me nothing. My real experimentation - where I try to extend my photography to be something meaningful - has come when I changed to film.

I think it depends on what and how you photograph. I photograph out on the streets. By being out there doing it often, I keep trying new things in order to find a new way to photograph. Digital allows me to do that in a more efficient manner than film did (i.e. easier to keep up with my output).

However, I'm happy with my results, so that might be the difference. If you aren't happy with your ideas / content / framing in digital, I'm not sure how film corrects that. That said, I learned with film for many, many years... and then moved to digital where I'm always looking to make breakthroughs. And I really truly am happy photographing. I'm sure I could use film and be happy too... I just wouldn't be able to keep up with my output as well.

 

[pepeguitarra]

There's nothing I want to do that can't be done on film, except take lots of trivial photos for selling things on ebay.

Sorry, were you the one selling that thing? 🙂:angel:

 

[maggieo]

"Quit" film? "Quit" digital? Absurd.

Shoot with whatever camera and medium you like.
Do Photography.
Don't worry about what other people think.

G

I think this should go on the tombstone of the "Film v. Digital" forum.

Godfrey wins RFF for the week.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

John, I'm not sure I buy the "grain" issue I see talked about a lot. In my opinion, this grain "style" shows up mostly in extremely exposed/developed black & white images. Otherwise, it seems to me that grain is not something we see in 99 percent of photographs. I still think the things we see when viewing nearly all photographs are subject matter, lens characteristics, and color/tonality. These all seem to me to be 'treated' the same by film or digital media.

I think it's in response to the clean images (or perfectness) digital gives while many people like the grain in film (or the imperfections). I would also think that film has an inherent distinct color palette that is harder to change than digital... and one color temperature vs. digital's ability to be any color temperature.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I quit digital for BW film and darkroom printing. I wanted to use more color film as well, but I'm switching to digital most of time I need it in color.

 

[jsrockit]

John, I'm not sure I buy the "grain" issue I see talked about a lot.

You may not buy it, but since it is talked about a lot (as you even attest to)... it is apparent that there are those that do buy in. I actually prefer a clean grain-less image. Believe me... what seems like minutiae to some is the be all end all for others when it comes to photography.

 

[ktmrider]

Never Fully Left Film and Never Got Fully Into Digital

Never Fully Left Film and Never Got Fully Into Digital

I developed my first photos back in 1966 as a freshman in high school. I paid my way through college with photography and worked for awhile as a photojournalist. That was all film and did not get into digital until three years ago and have never been without a film camera of some type.

Now, I just returned from Iceland and used my M9 while loaning my M2 to a young woman who wants to shoot film. Have to say the M9 images are still on the SD card in the camera. Processing digital in Lightroom still requires me to pull out the manual. Don't have to do that with film. Have used the M9 as my main travel camera for the last three years but that is behind me.

Next trip is to the Philippines and will be taking an M2 with 35mm lens and TriX. I can do everything with film except upload the images immediately to Facebook or some such.

Anyone want an M9 at a great price?

 

[nobbylon]

seriously, film vs digital AGAIN?

 

[mani]

However, I'm happy with my results, so that might be the difference. If you aren't happy with your ideas / content / framing in digital, I'm not sure how film corrects that.

I worked in digital imaging for over a decade - working with a few of the biggest companies in their fields in the world, so no need to patronize me.

It seems difficult for some people to see that other people's experiences differ from their own. The generalized, sweeping statement that I was responding to in my previous post was a typical example.

I've found switching to film a very liberating and creative experience for a vast range of reasons (the beautiful accidents that are possible on film, the exquisite rendition of the medium, the enormous variety in the look of different films, the feel of the cameras themselves, the concentration needed to visualize a shot where before I could chimp and re-take it and so on).

Anyway I'm done with this thread. It always just boils down to point-scoring.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

I like these thoughts. Thanks.

I've found switching to film a very liberating and creative experience for a vast range of reasons (the beautiful accidents that are possible on film, the exquisite rendition of the medium, the enormous variety in the look of different films, the feel of the cameras themselves, the concentration needed to visualize a shot where before I could chimp and re-take it and so on).

 

[David_Manning]

I waffle back and forth.

When I've taken lots of digital images and they don't seem special anymore (as if I'm just button-pushing), I pull out the film and shoot. Then, after the initial high from film wears off and I'm scanning, dust-spotting, color-correcting, I pull out the digital and remember why I use it too.

Rinse and repeat.

I like the ability of photography to be all-inclusive.

Lately, I've been on breaking-rules-with-film kick...backlight, underexposure, overexposure, high-contrast, etc. Works better on film...digital likes pretty pictures, film isn't picky.

 

[JoeV]

If a person is sharing film images online, then film become an intermediary medium between mechanical cameras themselves and online sharing of images.

Sure, some film-era lenses and bodies can be pricey, but most others are so inexpensive that there's little reason to suggest it has to be one or the other. So I have both, and use both, with no intention of selling off either. They're both too fun not to enjoy.

~Joe

 

[jsrockit]

I worked in digital imaging for over a decade - working with a few of the biggest companies in their fields in the world, so no need to patronize me.

It seems difficult for some people to see that other people's experiences differ from their own. The generalized, sweeping statement that I was responding to in my previous post was a typical example.

I've found switching to film a very liberating and creative experience for a vast range of reasons (the beautiful accidents that are possible on film, the exquisite rendition of the medium, the enormous variety in the look of different films, the feel of the cameras themselves, the concentration needed to visualize a shot where before I could chimp and re-take it and so on).

Hey man, sorry but I didn't mean it in any negative way. I was just wondering and you've answered the question. Thanks. When I said "you" in the thread, I wasn't speaking about you specifically.

 

[Bill Clark]

However, I have noticed that some folks went back to film and apparently changed their minds and are going back to digital. Something made them quit the film. What can it be?

I use film only for black and white. Using my own darkroom to make prints. I still like black and white analog prints.

Digital has improved over the years and has reached a point where it's pretty darn good now. For color, I use all digital. To me, it's better than film. The lab I used (WHCC) printed on Kodak Endura paper.

This isn't absolute. It is what I use, I see, and works for me.

 

[jsrockit]

Lately, I've been on breaking-rules-with-film kick...backlight, underexposure, overexposure, high-contrast, etc. Works better on film...digital likes pretty pictures, film isn't picky.

Good point...

 

[maggieo]

Anyone want an M9 at a great price?

Let's talk turkey. Seriously.

 

[maggieo]

I use film only for black and white. Using my own darkroom to make prints. I still like black and white analog prints.

Digital has improved over the years and has reached a point where it's pretty darn good now. For color, I use all digital. To me, it's better than film. The lab I used (WHCC) printed on Kodak Endura paper.

This isn't absolute. It is what I use, I see, and works for me.

If i still had a darkroom, I think I'd do that too.

 

[Bill Clark]

Nice discussion.

I believe the print and ink jet printers are getting better. I have a couple of black and white prints made with an Epson ink jet printer using watercolor paper. They look real good.

 

[Aristophanes]

Lately, I've been on breaking-rules-with-film kick...backlight, underexposure, overexposure, high-contrast, etc. Works better on film...digital likes pretty pictures, film isn't picky.

Despite all the necessary filters...?