Do you shoot digital and film?

I disagree, it has nothing to do w/"progress." Some of us just enjoy using both technologies. I like the look of film & love using mechanical cameras, but prefer working on digital files to burning/dodging in the darkroom & never enjoyed developing film (about as much "fun" as doing the laundry or ironing). I used to enjoy making wet prints (& still like looking @ traditional prints), but don't have the room or time for it. Scanning is no more tedious than developing, though more time-consuming, & I find it much easier to make adjustments on a computer & print digitally (inkjet). Plus, should I need to, I can always make wet prints from my negs.

shadowfox said:
If you use film, but you don't progress to learn how to develop yourself, and then print in the darkroom, you're missing more than half the fun.

Might as well shoot digital exclusively.
Click to expand...
 
I started on digital, hadn't used my DSLR in almost a year, until I started to do some work with photography. Whenever i do anything for myself, it's film, but for work digital is so much more convenient, for review, making sure I have the shots needed, editing, and then returning finished work quickly.
 
digital for testing lenses, shooting events for friends and occasionally for the instant gratification. film for one's pleasure and for the daily, random shots; ie for fun.
 
I am an amateur.

I have a DSLR that is rarely used. I don't like to carry it, and if I were going to carry it I would take the Mamiya 7 (Medium format RF) instead, which weighs less and produces images with much higher resolution.

I suppose I would take the DSLR for nature photography, but mostly because it is an SLR. I have a film camera that is compatible with it, lens-wise, but that is also never used.

For me, the hassle of scanning is not that bad. If I were working in the field it might be different, but for a couple of rolls a week, it is not so bad. Plus, I really like Tri-X. Now if I can find a color film I actually like, I will be in business.
 
Film 95% for the things that I care about.

Digital 5% for the things that I don't care about.

By the way, the D700 is a very large, heavy camera. The manual is something like 250 pages. I've seen some nice shots from it. But it's not my thing, obviously ... or apparently.
 
I shot both, as many others digital is for the serious stuff, film is for fun. Even if you are an amateur I sure there are times you want the shot to come out for sure and other times you'd rather experiment or want the good old look of b/w on fiber based paper...

Ah, the D700 is not that huge and is quite easy to use I would say.

GLF
 
Both. Mostly film because I like the cameras. I'm frequently tempted by a D700 and 24-70 2.8 but I can't imaging actually bringing that kit anywhere when I've got a lovely M7 at my disposal.
 
I'm an amateur so it's a hobby, and I mostly use my film rangefinders for B&W work, nothing comes close to the look you can get from film. When it's a work, family or personal thing that requires color - and fast, then I'll use the dSLR because it's really suited to that need. So I use the different media where I perceive each one is best used, they are after all complementary, not mutually exclusive.
 
Hobby only, mostly digital and a little film. My backlog of un-processed film is getting larger and larger.
 
I'm just a hobbyist. I shot SLR before I went digital several years ago and went back to late last year. I still shoot both digital (SLR) and film (RF and SLR). Lately, I mostly shoot film (RF) cause after months of using both, I find that I prefer the smaller size of RF camera.
I keep the dslr though, cause my daughter, a student, is a freelance photographer and she has photo job at least once a month.

Bob
 
Amateur only here (though I've sold a few prints and limited usage for a few image files). I shoot about 50/50 film and digital.

I use digital for wildlife, for some (but far from all) travel photography and "event" types of photography (kid's birthday's etc.) and film for other things. I tend to prefer black and white for some subjects and most certainly prefer film over digital for B&W. I also prefer rangefinders for most of the subjects I find work best (for me) in B&W. So my split is mostly rangefinder/film/B&W and SLR/digital/colour.

But that's far from hard-and-fast. For social events I often shoot digital/colour for fast turn-around but also B&W film. When I've provided prints people are often appreciative of both, and seem to think the B&W work I do has a more "timeless" quality. Certainly many more of the larger or framed prints I've been asked for have been from B&W film, while colour prints tend mostly to be 6x4s for inclusion in an album. (All of this is for friends or family, so it's all as gifts or occasionally at real cost for more expensive framed items. I'm not doing it for money.)

And sometimes I just use other film cameras (mostly film SLRs) because I like them - I enjoy using different cameras and lenses for their different strengths and ways of working or for the differences I get (or imagine) in the final results.

...Mike
 
I shoot both digital and film. With film, I both scan my negatives for digital output, and print them by a traditional wet process.

Unlike Bill, I sell and display in galleries, many more silver prints than inkjet prints.
 
I shoot both. I'm an amateur that started with film last month. When I leave the house I either grab my M2 or my Yashica 635 to shoot for fun, so I'd have to say I use film the most. If I have to shoot for a job I'll use my DSLR.
 
i shoot a dSLR for sports. also whenever it makes sense to do so: deadlines, need for controlled lighting, subject matter (product, etc). for my pleasure i shoot a dRF and a film RF. they're complementary, i think. as others have said, it's a pleasure not to lug SLR equipment around. i like to carry a camera "wherever, whenever" and RFs are wonderful for that, whichever medium.

i guess what i'm saying is, i use what suits me and the end-product. the tech is now deliriously good, digi or film, RF or SLR.
 
Taking photos is strictly a hobby for me. I am shooting mostly digital having got the D700 the day it was released. Yes, it is that good size be dammed. If you do get the D700 and have no urgent need to sell your film gear keep it. At least keep one body and a few lenses for when you have the urge to shoot film. With film I shot mostly colour and converted files to B&W when wanted and the same holds true with the D700.

Bob
 
hexar_hp5 said:
I'm considering making a foray into the serious digital world with a D700 and am thinking what will happen to my hexarAFs. I'd hate to sell them but hate even more to see them sitting on a shelf in a cupboard.

So the question for the people that have dipped your toes into the digital world, do you still shoot film, if so why?

I have to admit, developing film is a chore for me as is scanning, but I have to say I love the way the hexarAF are in use.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

When I shoot film these days, it's C-41 film (including XP2) that I have developed at one-hour photo places, with just CDs, so I have developed negatives plus preview-quality scans in an hour. Then I can do high-res scans of the ones I really like. If you find developing and scanning a chore, you feel the same way I do and can consider eliminating that part of your workflow with film. The cost of the one-hour kind of service is small enough if you are only going to be shooting a roll here and there. I kept my developing tank for the occasional project that requires other film. (Like, I got some Ilford SFX the other day to try some near-infrared shooting one of these days with the Hexar.)

I still often shoot film (sometimes with a Hexar AF) if I am very consciously going out, for a day, to shoot stuff that I think I will want to exhibit, but digital is overtaking this and everything for me, gradually. I used to shoot E-6 film mostly, but that has gotten to be too much of a hassle. I like the new Ektar 100 as a semi-replacement.

The Hexar AF is still, at the moment, my "take-everywhere" camera that I have with me in the car and elsewhere even if I have nothing else. I have places I can stash it, including in a backpack pouch, and I would much rather have it as my one camera on hand than a point-and-shoot. The "camera I always have with me" is one arena where almost any film camera is going to please me more with image quality than a point-and-shoot digital camera. If you go to a party or something, you're going to have whatever it is around your neck or in your hand all the time. Why have a teeny digital P&S? Acknowledged that the digital P&S can be in your pocket all the time, but I found I was not satisfied enough with the pictures I was getting. Cameras like the Leica X1 may change that for me.

I have already sold one of my favorite film cameras, a ZI, but the Hexar is one that I probably will hold onto longest.
 
furcafe said:
I disagree, it has nothing to do w/"progress." Some of us just enjoy using both technologies. I like the look of film & love using mechanical cameras, but prefer working on digital files to burning/dodging in the darkroom & never enjoyed developing film (about as much "fun" as doing the laundry or ironing). I used to enjoy making wet prints (& still like looking @ traditional prints), but don't have the room or time for it. Scanning is no more tedious than developing, though more time-consuming, & I find it much easier to make adjustments on a computer & print digitally (inkjet). Plus, should I need to, I can always make wet prints from my negs.
Click to expand...

You may say all the above, and your views are valid.
Why? Because you have indeed "progressed" beyond taking picture only with film. You have done developing and wet-printing.

Whether you like it or not, that's not my point. It's subjective and I wouldn't dream of making a general statement about it.

My comment was intended to those who has just started with film photography. I would like to encourage progressing beyond just using film cameras. Because there are so much more to do just like you described.
 
Ciao
as others have already said, "digital for money and educational purposes", film for pleasure (I DO have a D700 as well as an F6 and a FM3a) - which is more or less a 20% - 80% ratio in my case
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom