Film or digital

[Gabriel M.A.]

You may as well give up... we are being trolled and have both swallowed the hook in this thread.

I'm not fishing any longer. 🙄

Aw, come on. It's a nice day for fishing. The full moon is out.

 

[Andy K]

Seeing all these anti traditional process responses has made me quite sad. It has shown how the RangeFinder Forum is no longer a true photographic forum. It is now just another Photoshopping forum, no different to the thousands of other Photoshopping forums on the web.

Btw, I used the word 'print' because I figured thats what all you fauxtographers* and photoshoppers* would understand. Usually I call them enlargements or photographs. And before any of you object to the term 'fauxtographer', that term was invented by digital users.

*Apologies to any reading this who still use a traditional process.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I know that Tom has a passion and dedication to the real wet darkroom, decades of experience of film development and photo printing, so painting him and, by the broadside, all of us at RFF as "no longer a true photographic forum" because somebody's "only what I mean is right and not what you mean" attitude (reminds me of somebody called George) is so intransigent it drives the discussion to a point of fruitlessness, is, well, silly.

I for one use the traditional process: I frame, shoot, develop, and print. Whether I print via a Lab, enlarger or inkjet, the end result is still a print to me. Me.

 

[sf]

digital/film

digital/film

I have found that digital has only one benefit over film :

Digital costs less than film. I have taken more than 10,000 pics with my D70 (actually with two D70s because I sold my first and then traded for another). The film purchase and processing fees for that count would have bought the camera, so it has paid for itself. Digital is essentially free if you don't print your work or throw huge amounts of time into editing the digitals. Even if I bought a new DSLR every year, I'd still never spend more on bodies than I would have on film processing. Just imagine a DSLR (consumer level) as a throwaway camera that costs nothing to use.

Film is better when quality matters. I would never think of shooting portraits or anything important with digital. Not even a 16.7 MP super exotic DSLR. Forget it. I'd rather use a Bronica RF645 for casual stuff in the field, or a Mamiya 645E/RB67 in the studio.

So that's it. Digital, unless you go with the 39 MP backs made for medium format cameras and costing as much as a full loaded Corvette, is still in its evolutionary first moments. If you are a working pro photographer, who shoots for clients and not your own pleasure, and the clients don't care between film and digital product, by all means do the digital thing. But film will be better for quite some time (will never catch up to 4x5 + formats because there isn't a large enough market for that).

The hybrid thing makes sense. I use the D70 like a little p&s, I mean I don't generally take it on photographic outings, but rather keep it with me to shoot off frames at a whim, just in the car, at the park, on the street, whatever, because those whimsical shootings cost me nothing, and I can play all I want. But I shoot 4x5 and soon to be MF again, and scan my stuff and print it at home on very nice machines. I use the traditional wet-darkroom methods for my portrait work and landscapes, but leave the rest to the computers. Sometimes I scan AND print traditionals. I think this is how it will be for a long time. Hybrid workflows. The top pros have been doing this for years.

But back to the topic :

Digital sucks, but it is cheap, and makes for cost-free messing around. All you can eat experimentation and mindless shutter-clicking.

Film is divine by comparison in terms of final product pop, tonality, and clarity.

 

[Andy K]

I have found that digital has only one benefit over film :

Digital costs less than film. I have taken more than 10,000 pics with my D70 (actually with two D70s because I sold my first and then traded for another). The film purchase and processing fees for that count would have bought the camera, so it has paid for itself. Digital is essentially free if you don't print your work or throw huge amounts of time into editing the digitals. Even if I bought a new DSLR every year, I'd still never spend more on bodies than I would have on film processing. Just imagine a DSLR (consumer level) as a throwaway camera that costs nothing to use.

Film is better when quality matters. I would never think of shooting portraits or anything important with digital. Not even a 16.7 MP super exotic DSLR. Forget it. I'd rather use a Bronica RF645 for casual stuff in the field, or a Mamiya 645E/RB67 in the studio.

So that's it. Digital, unless you go with the 39 MP backs made for medium format cameras and costing as much as a full loaded Corvette, is still in its evolutionary first moments. If you are a working pro photographer, who shoots for clients and not your own pleasure, and the clients don't care between film and digital product, by all means do the digital thing. But film will be better for quite some time (will never catch up to 4x5 + formats because there isn't a large enough market for that).

The hybrid thing makes sense. I use the D70 like a little p&s, I mean I don't generally take it on photographic outings, but rather keep it with me to shoot off frames at a whim, just in the car, at the park, on the street, whatever, because those whimsical shootings cost me nothing, and I can play all I want. But I shoot 4x5 and soon to be MF again, and scan my stuff and print it at home on very nice machines. I use the traditional wet-darkroom methods for my portrait work and landscapes, but leave the rest to the computers. Sometimes I scan AND print traditionals. I think this is how it will be for a long time. Hybrid workflows. The top pros have been doing this for years.

But back to the topic :

Digital sucks, but it is cheap, and makes for cost-free messing around. All you can eat experimentation and mindless shutter-clicking.

Film is divine by comparison in terms of final product pop, tonality, and clarity.

How is digital cheaper than film?

Half decent DSLR £500 top end $2000 plus.
Computer £1000
Editing Software £100+
Printer £100 (if you want entry level)
Scanner £80
Ink £20 to £25 per cartridge.

I'll leave out the monthly costs of printer paper CDs or DVDs.

So at a conservative estimate that's between £1800 to £3300 just to get started in digital.

For that amount of money I can buy a hell of a lot of film, paper and chemicals. Easily enough to last a few years. And I don't have to upgrade my camera every other year to keep up with the technology.

 

[Kin Lau]

There are some significantly more experienced traditional B&W craftsman who've responded in this thread who deserve considerably more respect than shown here. In fact, I'm fairly sure that a show of hands will show that almost all the respondents so far have done traditional b&w work, and some like Tom, who've done it longer than I've been alive.

I like that fact that RFF is made up of members who don't feel the need for "showing off" how many years of experience that have, but quietly offer advice and guidance when needed.

 

[aizan]

"true photographic forum"

that's the sort of thinking that plagues other forums. irony!

 

[djon]

Only idiots think photography is a chemical process. Photo=light. Graphy=image. Got it?

 

[Socke]

How is digital cheaper than film?

Half decent DSLR £500 top end $2000 plus.
Computer £1000
Editing Software £100+
Printer £100 (if you want entry level)
Scanner £80
Ink £20 to £25 per cartridge.

I'll leave out the monthly costs of printer paper CDs or DVDs.

So at a conservative estimate that's between £1800 to £3300 just to get started in digital.

Ok, I'll bite one last time

A computer for 400 pounds is ok, mine was cheaper and I had it anyways. Not easy to post in this forum without one 😀
A printer is not needed, you can get copies from the same lab that develeops C41 film.
Editing software comes with the camera or just use The Gimp which is very good and free.
Scanner? Why buy a scanner when you use a digital camera?
Good quality DVD recordables cost less than 1 pound and store around 1000 pictures in highest resolution..
Ink? Why if you get better and cheaper copies from a lab?

For that amount of money I can buy a hell of a lot of film, paper and chemicals. Easily enough to last a few years. And I don't have to upgrade my camera every other year to keep up with the technology.

Let's see.
Entry level SLR Canon EOS 300 160 Euro
Basic set of developing tank, beakers, bottles and such 70 Euro
Entry level B/W enlarger for 135 format 520 Euro
Basic set of trays, clamps, thermometer, timer, lightbulb and such 150 Euro
2 ten litre canisters for used chemistry 25 Euro

Fixed cost 925 Euro

Negative developer ID-11 for 10 rolls 6 Euro
Fixer, stopbath, photoflo for 10 rolls 2 Euro
Positive developer, very basic, for 360 prints 13x18cm 17 Euro
350 sheets 13x18 Tetenal Vario PE 112 Euro
10 pack Fomapan 400-36 23 Euro

And 160 Euro consumables for roughly 360 pictures, more if you want better film and paper.

I preferr to compare with slide film, the exposure lattitude is about the same and most slide films are colour.
A 5 pack Fuji Sensia 100 is 15 Euros plus 10 Euro development, that's 180 pictures, my Canon D60 is rated at 50,000 shutter actuations that's 278 5 packs or 6,944 Euro!

Or compare to Tri-X for 3.80 Euro a roll and 0.60 Euro homedevelopment it summs up to 6,100 Euro.

A 13x18cm B/W print on cheap paper is about the same as a 13x18 colour print on Kodak professonal Endura Metallic so that won't change my calculation.

And then you have to find the sophisticated connoisseur who cares about the difference.

 

[Andy K]

Only idiots think photography is a chemical process. Photo=light. Graphy=image. Got it?

When the camera shutter opens for that instant, it allows the scene in front of the camera to be focussed through the lens onto the film. The light contains energy particles called PHOTONS. It is the electromagnetic energy in each PHOTON which causes a CHEMICAL change in the photosensitive emulsion (specifically the silver halide crystals) on the film, this reaction is called PHOTOCHEMISTRY.
When the film is developed you get a roll of NEGATIVES. To make a photograph from a negative what do you do? That's right, you put the negative in an enlrger (in a neg holder) and shine LIGHT through the negative and focus that image onto paper coated in another photosensitive emulsion. You then develop the paper in a chemical solution.

Your translation of photography is slightly wrong. It would be more accurate to translate it as Photo-graphy = Light-drawing.

 

[fgianni]

How is digital cheaper than film?

Half decent DSLR £500 top end $2000 plus.
Computer £1000
Editing Software £100+
Printer £100 (if you want entry level)
Scanner £80
Ink £20 to £25 per cartridge.

You quoted £1000 for a computer as if people that does not shoot digital did not need one, so how are you posting your messages?
I think that most analogue shooters havea computer anyway, so they won't neeed to buy one if they decide to go digital.

Editing software: GIMP= free and is very good.

Scanner, why would I want a scanner, unless I shoot film I am not going to scan my digital files.

My canon cartidges cost £5.65 at 7dayshop.com.

So you see, I more than halved the costs you quoted.

 

[Andy K]

Ok, I'll bite one last time... blah blah blah...

.

Canonet QL17 GIII £45

Meopta Opemus 6 Color enlarger, 35mm and 6x6 neg carriers, 50mm and 80mm lenses, Colour analyser, timer, masking frame, contact printing frame, extra condensers = £65 on ebay.

Developing tank, thermometer, changing bag, film leader extractor = £5.00 ebay.
Mixing Jugs etc. from Asda £1.50
Bulk film loader £20

Paper Ilford MGIV RC Pearl 5"x7" 100 sheets =£14.99
Ilford MGIV RC 8"x10" 100 sheets = £28.99
Ilford Delta 100 30m bulk roll = £35
Ilford FP4+ 30m bulk roll = £32
Ilford HP5+ 30m bulk roll = £30
500ml bottle of Rodinal (enough for over 50 rolls of 35mm) = £6.99
Bottle of stop bath (if you use stop bath, I use water) = £3.99
Bottle of Agfa Agefix (enough for as much film as the developer) = £5.99

Total £294.45 thats about €429

(In fact you could start with a simple mf folder like an Agfa Isolette, shoot mf and contact print the results, so you wouldn't even need the enlarger)

That's enough to get anyone started.

I suppose that's one thing I can thank digital for. All the superb analogue equipment being sold cheap by those who have succumbed to the digital hype. 😛

 

[Socke]

Ok, if you're going used, it's cheaper. Then we have a used Canon Powershot G1 for 60 pounds ....

 

[fgianni]

You forgot the cost of having a wet darkroom, can't use the kitchen cause wife is gonna kill me, can't use the bathroom cause kids are gonna kill me, hmm home extension, plumbing.... I guess a total of £15000-20000 at least.
How many 5D and RD1 can I buy with that money?

Digital is definitely cheaper!

Canonet QL17 GIII £45

Meopta Opemus 6 Color enlarger, 35mm and 6x6 neg carriers, 50mm and 80mm lenses, Colour analyser, timer, masking frame, contact printing frame, extra condensers = £65 on ebay.

Developing tank, thermometer, changing bag, film leader extractor = £5.00 ebay.
Mixing Jugs etc. from Asda £1.50
Bulk film loader £20

Paper Ilford MGIV RC Pearl 5"x7" 100 sheets =£14.99
Ilford MGIV RC 8"x10" 100 sheets = £28.99
Ilford Delta 100 30m bulk roll = £35
Ilford FP4+ 30m bulk roll = £32
Ilford HP5+ 30m bulk roll = £30
500ml bottle of Rodinal (enough for over 50 rolls of 35mm) = £6.99
Bottle of stop bath (if you use stop bath, I use water) = £3.99
Bottle of Agfa Agefix (enough for as much film as the developer) = £5.99

Total £294.45 thats about €429

(In fact you could start with a simple mf folder like an Agfa Isolette, shoot mf and contact print the results, so you wouldn't even need the enlarger)

That's enough to get anyone started.

I suppose that's one thing I can thank digital for. All the superb analogue equipment being sold cheap by those who have succumbed to the digital hype. 😛

 

[Andy K]

Ok, if you're going used, it's cheaper. Then we have a used Canon Powershot G1 for 60 pounds ....

Is that the one with the shutter lag? Where you have to guess a second in advance when to press the button? No thanks.
I wouldn't have a digicam if you paid me to have one. They're only useful for making pictures for ebay, and I have a webcam that can do that.

 

[Andy K]

You forgot the cost of having a wet darkroom, can't use the kitchen cause wife is gonna kill me, can't use the bathroom cause kids are gonna kill me, hmm home extension, plumbing.... I guess a total of £15000-20000 at least.
How many 5D and RD1 can I buy with that money?

Digital is definitely cheaper!

Now you're being silly 🙄 . Use the kitchen or bathroom at night. It makes no mess, takes about ten minutes to get set up and all the plumbing you need is already there. Of course, if you are afraid of your wife, that can't be helped and is nothing to do with analogue photography and more to do with you. 😛

 

[DougK]

Anybody besides me think it's time to agree to disagree and move on?

 

[Socke]

Is that the one with the shutter lag? Where you have to guess a second in advance when to press the button? No thanks.
I wouldn't have a digicam if you paid me to have one. They're only useful for making pictures for ebay, and I have a webcam that can do that.

If you don't know how to use it, it has noticeable shutter lag. It's in the same league with any other P&S with a fixed zoom lens.

 

[ywenz]

*Apologies to any reading this who still use a traditional process.

Why the emphasize on "traditional" or "nontraditional" process? Photography in its purest form should be unrelated to the equipment used. Now, it is entirely fair to argue on the deficiencies of digital compared to film, and vice versa. However, for someone like you who feels such strong bias towards film quipment is baffling, especially considering the uneducated comments you've made regarding digital.

Would you spew the same rhetoric to someone who's images from a digital camera puts your 'monochrome whole-grain' images to shame? Some one like this guy perhaps? http://www.marktucker.com/index2.html

 

[Andy K]

Why the emphasize on "traditional" or "nontraditional" process? Photography in its purest form should not be connected to the equipment. Now, it is entirely fair to argue on the deficiencies of digital compared to film, and vice versa. However, for someone like you who feels such strong bias towards film quipment is baffling, especially considering the uneducated comments you've made regarding digital.

Would you say the same thing to someone who's images from a digital camera put your 'monochrome whole-grain' images to shame? Some one like this guy perhaps? http://www.marktucker.com/index2.html

Oh I see... and this is an educated comment regarding traditional photography is it? "Only idiots think photography is a chemical process."

The link you provided, I think you should have found a better example of a digital imager. I looked at some of those images and they hurt my eyes. Too much photoshopping. Unnatural colours, blurring reminiscent of a migraine attack.
As for my own work, I don't give a damn what anyone thinks of it. I make photographs for me, because I want to, and not to get my ego pampered. There are thousands who make infinitely better photographs than I do, there are thousands who don't, so what? If I post scans of any of my photographs on the web, I don't do it to get my ego flattered, I do it to participate in what others on these sites are doing. Photography is not about being better than the other guy, it is about making photographs that please you, if someone else likes them too, that's a bonus, but it isn't essential. If all you want is an ego boost then perhaps you are in photography for the wrong reason?