Film or digital

[NickTrop]

Film - black and white shooters who develop and print in particular, are folks who like to roast the beans themselves, grind them, don't mind the extra work, labor of love. Appreciate the subtle differences between the various types of "beans" (film/developer combinations...)

Digital are people who WANT IT NOW! RIGHT NOW! Boil water, throw in a teaspoon of instant, quick stir, kill the taste with sweeteners and half and half, and try to convince themselves (and others) that it tastes the same as the real stuff. And it's sooooo easy, who wants to do all that work? Who wants to get their hands dirty, do all that cleaning up?

They turn their noses up at a fine cup of Expresso with a twist - ewwww! Bitter, like digital shooters say about "grain"...

Digital is a loaf of Wonderbread... characterless, tasteless, bland but easy. It's instant coffee, it's a Betty Crocker cake from a mix. Quick and easy and as satisfying as all things "quick and easy".

 

[kshapero]

Film - black and white shooters who develop and print in particular, are folks who like to roast the beans themselves, grind them, don't mind the extra work, labor of love. Appreciate the subtle differences between the various types of "beans" (film/developer combinations...)

Digital are people who WANT IT NOW! RIGHT NOW! Boil water, throw in a teaspoon of instant, quick stir, kill the taste with sweeteners and half and half, and try to convince themselves (and others) that it tastes the same as the real stuff. And it's sooooo easy, who wants to do all that work? Who wants to get their hands dirty, do all that cleaning up?

They turn their noses up at a fine cup of Expresso with a twist - ewwww! Bitter, like digital shooters say about "grain"...

Digital is a loaf of Wonderbread... characterless, tasteless, bland but easy. It's instant coffee, it's a Betty Crocker cake from a mix. Quick and easy and as satisfying as all things "quick and easy".

damn, Nick, I wish your words were untrue but they are not. pass me another fresh brewed java.

 

[maddoc]

Film - black and white shooters who develop and print in particular, are folks who like to roast the beans themselves, grind them, don't mind the extra work, labor of love. Appreciate the subtle differences between the various types of "beans" (film/developer combinations...)

Digital are people who WANT IT NOW! RIGHT NOW! Boil water, throw in a teaspoon of instant, quick stir, kill the taste with sweeteners and half and half, and try to convince themselves (and others) that it tastes the same as the real stuff. And it's sooooo easy, who wants to do all that work? Who wants to get their hands dirty, do all that cleaning up?

They turn their noses up at a fine cup of Expresso with a twist - ewwww! Bitter, like digital shooters say about "grain"...

Digital is a loaf of Wonderbread... characterless, tasteless, bland but easy. It's instant coffee, it's a Betty Crocker cake from a mix. Quick and easy and as satisfying as all things "quick and easy".

... hit the nail on the head. Best summing-up I have read so far.

 

[Sisyphus]

All film, black and white and color!

 

[Henryzx]

35mm will come back once the mass market consumers have learned how to take pictures with their $35 digital cameras...you see that people started to listen to talk RADIO again, wearing mechanical watches.....eventually running their car with water lol.....so......everything will come back to the feasible basic .... 35mm film ind. will come back stronger than they've ever been before.....a wishful thinking ... or not ... I'm keeping my/shooting 35mm cameras and lensese ... 95% film/ 5% digital

 

[TheHub]

I shoot 100% film now. I only use digital for auctions (which I'm not doing right now, so that would be 0%.)

I did film, then digital, now I'm back to film. I've never had this much fun before. There are so many great films to try and film bodies are cheap as dirt. With the $800+ I got from selling my horrible D1x, I was able to pay for 8 film cameras

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

I voted 25% digital / 75% film, but in reality it is about 90% film and 10% digital. I only have a Nikon P&S digital and I use it primarily for web or if I have to share a picture quickly on the net.

I have no DSLR or Leica M8 so all my 'serious' shooting is with film, either with Kiev 4 that actually works down to the selenium light meter* or SLRs. Also shoot quite a lot with fixed lens rangefinders, MF folders and film P&S with fast (f/2.8) prime lenses -- a class of cameras I find seriously underappreciated. The best P&S I have are Konica Big mini F and Yashica T3 Super. The former is seriously undervalued. It has a better lense and features than the much vaunted Olympus Stylus Epic / µ II. It also has better features than the T3 Super, although the Yashica has a slightly better lens thanks to Zeiss T* coating.

* The thing is accurate enough to shoot slides! However, I mostly use a separate light meter since the Kiev 4 meter only goes down to EV 8 or thereabouts.

 

[PaulEv]

I use 80-90% film, with a little digital. My main picture taking, is either LF or rangefinders, B&W and chromes, and the stuff I used to use on C-41 with a P&S (pictures of the kids, and snapshots at family events etc.) I use digital.

I like the reward of using film, but sometimes want the instant coffee I previously used a P&S for these pictures, but now use a DSLR which I bought to explore digital a little more when my 1st P&S died, but still prefer the rangefinders for most of my work. May be this will change, but the contemplative side of taking a picture, is important to me, and somehow even if I go thorugh the same workflow in taking the picture, digital reduces this aspect of the process for me.

 

[rxmd]

Film - black and white shooters who develop and print in particular, are folks who like to roast the beans themselves, grind them, don't mind the extra work, labor of love. Appreciate the subtle differences between the various types of "beans" (film/developer combinations...)

Digital are people who WANT IT NOW! RIGHT NOW! Boil water, throw in a teaspoon of instant, quick stir, kill the taste with sweeteners and half and half, and try to convince themselves (and others) that it tastes the same as the real stuff. And it's sooooo easy, who wants to do all that work? Who wants to get their hands dirty, do all that cleaning up?

They turn their noses up at a fine cup of Expresso with a twist - ewwww! Bitter, like digital shooters say about "grain"...

Digital is a loaf of Wonderbread... characterless, tasteless, bland but easy. It's instant coffee, it's a Betty Crocker cake from a mix. Quick and easy and as satisfying as all things "quick and easy".

Oh, I don't like that. I'm a film photographer myself, but I think this kind of polemics is just too condescending and simple.

In a similar vein, a digital photographer might say a lot of very condescending things about film that are probably even true when applied to some film photographers. Polemics work both ways - just an exercise in thinking about photography, not directed at anyone in particular, let's try it out:

"Digital is for those for whom a camera is an instrument to an artistic end, the artistic merits of which outweigh the lodestone of tradition that artistic communities tend to place around the neck of the artists. Digital is for those for whom a timekeeper is an instrument for keeping time (and not to enjoy the ticking of), a brush is an instrument for producing paintings (not for wasting their time discussing the relative merits of otter vs. horse hair), and a pen is an instrument for producing text (not producing script script). Digital is for those who think that a work should live on its own merits, not on the merits of the elitism and outdatedness of its means of production. And digital is for those who buy and use devices for the sake of the results that they produce with them, instead of fondling them and pretending to care for the results these devices might be capable of in the hand of a master.

Film is for those who think that the labour of love is all about the labour, to whom an achievement is not an achievement unless it has been achieved through blood, sweat and tears and who forget over all the blood, sweat and tears that it's the achievement that counts. Film is for those who think a steam engine is a quaint thing of the past which is vaguely more in touch with nature's inner being, and not a milestone of progress and an amazing technology which results in revolutionarily productive and creative exchanges of people, goods and ideas. Film photography is for those who, in the face of their own mediocrity and the realisation that their work has little speaking for it, try to excel in the quaintness of their processes and then call it "authenticity". Film is for those who think that expression is sufficient and should be possible only in the ways of the Grand Old Masters, just like the vast majority of 19th century painters produced excellently executed, but bland paintings in the styles developed in their academies for centuries, while only a small minority had the greatness of mind to embrace the new modes of artistic expression that rapidly became possible through technological innovation and the release of the creative minds from the shackles of the past, and just like a judge in Riyadh will assert that all the tools that the human mind needs to form a judgement have been developed to perfection eight hundred years ago, while everything new is an innovation that distorts the essence of the immortal principles of truth and beauty.

They turn their noses at a photographer who looks at a display on the back of their camera, as if this simple act already told everything about the person: "Bah, behold his inability for creativity, his lack of empathy, his mindless subscription to the progress meme." Film shooters pretend to be deep, artistic and understanding, but if you want to see their true face, start a discussion about digital photography with them, and you will have the revealing experience of your life."

Philipp :angel:

 

[iml]

Well said. Format evangelism is mis-placed.

Ian

 

[BBonte]

Shooting 60% digital with Canon G7 since march 2007; 40% film, but it might change again towards film. With these small digital cameras you got no control on depth of field. Back from Italy with 300+ digital pictures, but what a hell to process all those files and transfer them to the lab (computer crash...). Prefer the pictures with my OM 2n. Digital is good for birthday parties... for serious landscape pictures still love my Bronica EC with BW and slide film.

 

[mfogiel]

I have no prejudices, for me it is a matter of what is the best tool for the job, but since I do photography as an amateur, I do not care too much about the time I am going to spend on scanning, etc ( this plus the preference to waste my time on scanning rather than on heavy post processing of files).

I have tried several digital cameras , and to start with the only type which passes the quality test in terms of colour fidelity/dynamic range/ noise performance is the Fuji S3/S5.

The other digital sensors, to me, demand too much post processing just to give you a decent shot without being a computer addict.

So, here is the division of labour:

- all non quality grade shots, like events, birthdays, "pro memoria" snaps, etc are done with digital
- all the colour portrait work, which does not require specialized lenses (C Sonnar, Nokton 35) is done with digital
- all the colour close up / telephoto work is done with digital
- all the colour work that does not need high reolution and/or portability is done with digital

To sum up, today my digital shots are about 5% of what I do.

- all the B&W work, irrespective of format and type is done with film

- all the high resolution work B&W and colour (landscape, architecture, texture shots) is done with film (MF)

- all the on the fly quality work that needs portability, fast reaction, low light capability is done with film

These days I shoot B&W 80% of the time.

If a full frame sensor RF comes up, with a 16 bit processing, no AA filter and no Bayer pattern, etc, it will probably blow away completely everything below 4x5" and I will adjust - I believe that we might see one in B&W first, who knows...

 

[wintoid]

% taken digi:film 50:50
% kept digi:film 10:90

I tend to experiment more with digi. It's how I learn. With film, I tend to be more careful as I'm going to be experimenting in the darkroom anyway (after x years I still don't have a standard film/dev)

 

[iridium7777]

99% film

99% film

since i got my m6 about a month and a half ago i took maybe quick 30 shots of a bee flying around a flower with my dslr... knowingly i'd only pick around 5 to keep.

shot around 12 rolls of film in the mean time though and don't plan on doing much digital besides the bee shot.

 

[rich815]

since i got my m6 about a month and a half ago i took maybe quick 30 shots of a bee flying around a flower with my dslr... knowingly i'd only pick around 5 to keep.

shot around 12 rolls of film in the mean time though and don't plan on doing much digital besides the bee shot.

A bee!

Was it like any of these?

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Bee&m=tags&ct=0

(now I expect you to look through all 90,954 of those images before you answer!)

 

[rich815]

Oops. It's up to 90,955 now. Better get started!

 

[literiter]

I shoot mostly film, either MF or 35mm, haven't graduated to 4x5 as of yet.

The Wife and I also have a little digicam which we share between us mainly as a recording tool.

This little digicam, a Coolpix 995, is a frustrating little brute but we have it likely because part of us wants to join the herd I suppose. I resent having to reach for the now very tattered operators manual everytime I want to take a picture. I resent not being able to easily bypass the automatic controls. I expressed my frustration to a friend of mine, a pro wedding photographer, and he tells me his Nikon D200 is worse and he generally sets it to full auto. For his good stuff he uses film in his MF.

At this point in time I use film in completely manual cameras.

 

[iridium7777]

pretty close to the first 6 pictures and then 8, 9

didn't make it through the other 90,946

actually if this thread is still going in a day, i'll put my pictures online.

there are some old bee shots under the life section of my website. it's blocked from work for some reason though, classified as "sex" so i can't directly link.

A bee!

Was it like any of these?

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Bee&m=tags&ct=0

(now I expect you to look through all 90,954 of those images before you answer!)

 

[iridium7777]

you post sarcasm like that on nikonians and it won't be too favorable . kinda funny, and probably has no place in this thread, but it made me think of different "stereotype" photography that's associated with an rf and dslr system.

but then again, to be honest, it seems some people on here load up b&w and shoot a roll of absolute crap of someone talking on the cell phone that they've snapped while they were walking by and display it like it's the greatest art ever or an epitome of street shooting. in those cases, i'd much rather scroll through the endless macro shots of bees and flowers. i guess everything has it's own place.

Oops. It's up to 90,955 now. Better get started!

 

[narsuitus]

Every time I think I am going to shoot more digital, my digital camera breaks (I am on my fourth digital camera) and I am forced to rely on my film camera.