Embracing digital

Dunn

Dunn

Well-known
Local time
5:17 PM
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
Messages
258
How many of you have fully embraced digital cameras?
I really enjoy shooting film, but I'm starting to less and less need to.
For one, it's expensive compared to digital.
Two, I just put the photos on my computer anyway. Although, I do like having negatives and prints. I would just need to not be lazy and get prints of my digital photos too.
Third, the future is only going to get more digital. I'm actually pursuing photography as a career so I'm thinking I might as well get used to digital, eh?
One thing that really bugs me about it though is trying to imagine not wanting to shoot my M6.
 
I have no need for a digital camera although I fully understand the commercial expediency for using one. Keep your M6 for your personal work and use digital for paid work. If I had the room where I live, I would still make silver prints, but I compromise by shooting film and scanning with a Plustek 7400.
 
I tried to, but it just didn't take. I like the idea of digital, no boxes of negatives, easy backups, no worrying about taking film abroad, x-rays etc.

However, it's just not the hobby I like. I like whisky (and whiskey), I can't, however much I try, make myself prefer wine. So I tried to embrace digital, but realised I was trading a hobby I liked for a hobby I didn't.

Yes, the future will be more digital I expect, unless we get a vinyl-style renaissance. However, chances are the future will be a lot of things, perhaps a lot of bad things, does not mean we have rush to bring those changes, especially if we don't want them in the first place.

I would suggest you do what you want. If you like digital, and your M6, use both. It's not a either/or proposition, you don't have to be 'digital guy' or 'film guy', just do what you want.
 
I'm from the newer- or intermediate generation and I started with digital (when 3MP was stunning and digital cameras costed crap loads of money :D) and was very pro-digital/ pro-technology guy, didn't understand why anyone would even want to shoot film with all the hassle involved.

Now my complete heart and soul is depending on film, and shooting with my digital cameras seems as interesting as another trip to a local convenience store for the lack of better description. I find shooting film DIRT cheap considering what "sweet juice" I receive for my soul. It's something you can't simulate or emulate to the same "analog richness" levels with digital even if you're a all-day-at-the-computer Photoshop guru, trying to add grain, make it film-like, fake dust spots etc. :)

How life can change...

I still do use digital though - for documenting, eBay, s/h fleabay shoots or just easy money when possible. Digital is very valuable on those fields since it's built around convenience. But any artistic stuff that has my personal interests involved - only film does the trick for me.

I guess it's "different strokes for different folks" thing, so you must follow your heart on those things.

Just my 2c.

Margus
 
Started digitally, went to film when non-bulky, capable digital cameras did not really exist, happy to move back to digital fully now but don't have the cash to dump on a Fuji X-system. As a consumer of photography, I embrace the image, not the artifact, and would feel frustrated if when shooting, I could not do the same.
 
When I was running my photographic business, I put aside all film cameras in 2004 and worked with digital capture exclusively. I'm very comfortable with what I can get from digital capture now and it generally surpasses what I can get out of film for commercial photographic purposes. And it's more productive to boot, IMO.

However, I closed the business in 2010 and now make my living in other ways. I continue with my photography with digital capture in the main, but I've resurrected several of my film cameras (and acquired a few more along the way). I like 6x6 format too much and it's too expensive to work in that space with digital captures, for me anyway. And I do like Polaroid, 35mm, and even subminiature film images—they have a look and feel which is different from digital capture and allow me to explore other visual language ideas.

My focus now is to continue to create photographs and produce photo books. What capture medium I choose is not important to the viewers by and large—only the results are interesting to them. :)

G
 
It's nice to use both. I flip flop. When I want to be involved in a process I use film. When I don't I use digital (I usually use jpegs). Godfrey's last sentence is always true. Only the gearheads and pixel peepers see the tech specs everyone else sees the picture.;)
 
Rather then making me want to give up film digital has simply made me change the format of film that I use from 35mm to medium format and now to 4x5.
 
I have fully embraced it. However, I'm more interested in color photography than B&W. It was an easier transition because of that I feel. I prefer digital color to color film these days. I love the clarity and resolution. I don't think it is a lesser medium.
 
Never really 'embraced' it; rather used it as expedient. Documentary work I do is now done digitally because it must be. My personal work, or ongoing documentary projects where time is not an issue, are all done with film cameras.

Ultimately its a function of 'the look' I desire. In spite of SEP2, I simply can not duplicate the look of Neopan 1600 via digital capture. Can't be done.
 
I learned more about photography since I went digital in 2002 than in the prior 40 plus years with film. The record of my settings in the image data provides the instant feedback that my film shooting lacked. :)
 
I have moved away from film to digital in the main when shooting 35mm, my M6 and Xpan still get out occasionally but my RX-1 seems to be the user for 35mm and I am quite comfortable with that. If I want to print something though, be it colour or B&W then I am more a film guy with my Linhof 612 or Rolleiflex 3.5f being the platform of choice. I am really into printing at the moment, mainly panoramas or 6x6 obviously, but run a test with my Sony A99 and Leica PC28/2.8 with a stitched pano and my Linhof 612 high res scanned and the Linhof print blew the stitched shot out of the water for detail. So if it is something I do for my 500px site or blogpost most likely digital, but if printing is my aim then definitely film.
 
Last edited:
Hi, in the beginning my m9 shared roles with my m2 or bessa r3a, but every time the m9 took over....now i got a dp2 merrill and i donñt even know where i left all my film cartridges...so i guess i´ve embraced digital...

Have to say that i´ve tested a few great nikon scanners and none of them really convinced me of quitting my m9...not to say the merrill wonder...:)
 
I love digital; it produces high resolution, sharp images with excellent colour. I use it when I want these qualities, or I want results fast.

I love film; it produces outstanding colour, unbeatable B&W, and, with negative film, has dynamic range to die for. I use it when I want these qualities, and don't need results now.

But what I love most about film is...film cameras. Nothing I've shot with feels like my M6 or Mamiya 7. I love that you can get an absolutely brilliant medium format camera like the Mamiya 7 or a 500cm with a decent lens or two for (comparatively) next to nothing.

As for the argument that film is expensive, it depends how you look at it. How much is an M Monochrom vs. an M6 and a Plustek, and how much Tri-X can you shoot for the difference? No, the images wont be the same, but if you like the look of Tri-X (or whatever), then you can shoot a whole lot of it for that difference.
 
Make your world larger and 'embrace' digital with no guilt feelings.
You can always shoot film in your M6 any time you desire (if you don't need the cash,
keep the M6).
People sometimes feel like they are betraying the old ways when the make a change.
That's silly. You can't go home again, but you can shoot film again, if you change your mind.
 
Maybe I am old but I have embraced digital since it first came out. My first real digital camera was a D100. I have had Photoshop since Photoshop 1 on 3.5" disks and now Lightroom is just totally awesome. Like edge, I love the old film cameras and lenses. I do still shoot Polaroid/Fuji film.
Pete
 
For me to be genuinely interested in digital there has to be something unusual about the camera itself .... as a rule digital cameras are very robotic.

The Sigma DP series breaks this pattern nicely IMO and offers incentive to shoot colour which I really can't be bothered doing with film these days. I'm content to embrace digital for colour ... black and white not so much!
 
These days maybe 80-90% digital. My first digital camera was a Toshiba. I think it was a 1mp lol...First good digital was a d100. Mainly color for digital w/ some b&w. Before I bought my dp Merrill, I did not do much in b&w, but there is something about the foveon sensor which provides not only some real nice color, but does well in b&w as well..

Film I mainly shot medium format and it is all mf folders..occasional 35mm but it is always b&w, develop and scan... I probably would use film more if I was not so lazy about scanning.

Digital has come a long way...and in the last 3 years or so, some really interesting products both in the cameras and sw for photo editing have come to market. Good time to jump in if u have not done so before.

Gary
 
The champion of B/W DR film is the incredible sharp XP2 from Ilford...with that film i´ve had results that are really amazing...and it can be developed at any machine since it´s C41 chromogenic process :D

It´s true someone said...the feeling of a film camera has no rival....the smoothness of my converted m1...can´t be compared with the awfull soud of the m9 shutter...but the merrill sounds nothing...
 
I embraced digital in 1991/1992. I worked for a large photo agency back then. We were sent to a private workshop for 4 days to get our feet wet with Photoshop. It was incredible and a harbinger of things to come! It was a good 8-10 years before the industry fully embraced it and I was able to afford my first digital camera. It was a game changer for the photo industry at large. Good or bad, no matter how you feel about it, it is here to stay and will only get more awesome each and every year. For me, there was no problem in transition. It was seamless. I learned by doing and asking questions. I spent over 35 years in the darkroom for myself and for others. I studied printing techniques with Sid Kaplan. Photoshop is extremely intuitive if you had darkroom skills before. The only problem I see with those that have problems with digital, you're being extremely close minded. The technology is there to make whatever it is you want and desire out of it. Am I sad about the demise of film? You betcha. I still have the desire to shoot film, if nothing more then the tactile sense and rewards one gets out of developing film and making prints in the darkroom. Having a family now, digital awards me by not disappearing into another room, basement or whatever. Also there is the fact that the chemistry was never good for the environment or those that had their hands in it.

It's also kind of ironic that Kodak developed the first digital imaging sensor in the late '60s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom