Film v Digital: what drives your choice

tbarker13 said:
I'm passionate about creating images - whether that's on film, digital, tintype, etc.
I'm more skeptical of the supposed passion of a photographer who only gets excited when working with one particular medium. That sounds to me like someone who's more interested in the process than the results.
Click to expand...

now that's an interesting perspective...:p
 
FrankS said:
I'm not trying to insult anyone, can we just talk about it, or is it too much like religion and ploitics?
Click to expand...

I suspect this probably is the case. It seems pretty difficult to speak passionately in support of digital or film without insulting passionate users of the other.
 
for the record...i am passionate about my photography. i am passionate about my images and can sincerely say that my photography has improved since switching to a digital RANGEFINDER.
i have found my niche and am in a joyful and contented place.

all this after more than 30 years of film.
 
The one thing I will say to the question of the OP: I choose to shoot film mostly because I *like* having my options limited. When I started getting back into photography after a long hiatus, I started with a digital SLR. All of the post-processing choices that are available are just too much for me. I never knew when I had done too much post-processing or not enough. I would ask myself, "Should I convert this to black and white? Should I adjust the brightness/saturation/hue? Does this need sharpening? If so, how much?" et cetera ad nauseum. All of these little OCD choices that were available with each image made photography a confusing and tiresome ordeal that I did not enjoy. I was about ready to scrap photography again when I decided to pick up my old 35mm Argus and shoot a roll. The rest is history; I've converted back to film for my "art" projects. Now, the only choice I have to make is what type of film I want to shoot and the subject that I want to shoot. Nice and simple. :D

I don't hate digital, but I do enjoy film infinitely more.
 
Bobonli said:
I'm curious as to what drives the decision to shoot digital versus film.
Click to expand...

I love film cameras, less so the hassle of buying, developing and scanning film. I have recently printed files from a Ricoh GRD III and it blew 35mm scans (Coolscan V ED) away.

So there´s a reason for 35mm slowly dying, when even compact cameras (higher end though) produce better technical results with far less effort.
 
I think the nail has been hit-ith on the head. When you shoot 35mm film - if you're not doing your own wet prints, you have to scan. Most folks have relatively cheap scanners - flatbeds, etc. that do a pretty okay job for the price... But the scans don't look as good as a high quality jpeg or raw file straight from a decent digital camera. Plus - who actually likes scanning stuff?
 
tbarker13 said:
I'm passionate about creating images - whether that's on film, digital, tintype, etc.
I'm more skeptical of the supposed passion of a photographer who only gets excited when working with one particular medium. That sounds to me like someone who's more interested in the process than the results.
Click to expand...

Hi Tim,

I've often heard these opinions: film shooters defend results, final tonality, even if the process is slower and more expensive than digital options, and digital shooters defend speed, and other advantages from a convenience and comfort point of view usually not related to final results and best possible tonality...

I agree with FrankS: no one here is insulting anyone... When you say some of us prefer the best results no matter the process, I think you're not insulting those of us caring more about an easier process...

I've used both media professionally for many years, and yet use them both because they're good for different situations and final outputs...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Brian Puccio said:
I shoot film because an M6 and a Coolscan 4000 cost less (even if I run 300 rolls through them) than an M9 does. Plus I don't have to worry about weird colors in corners. And I can pay for the film as I go, if I get an M9, I need to pay for it all up front, which I can't.

.
Click to expand...

Those and the fact an M body is a lot easier to carry around all day then a 5D is pretty much why I started shooting film again.
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
I agree with FrankS: no one here is insulting anyone... When you say some of us prefer the best results no matter the process, I think you're not insulting those of us caring more about an easier process...
Click to expand...

Hi Juan,
I guess I'm just not buying the idea that film produces better results. Digital isn't just for people seeking convenience.
Different? Certainly. But different isn't necessarily better or worse. I have nothing against film. I love it. I wish I still had a working darkroom.
But I wouldn't be shooting digital if I thought the results were anything less than fantastic.
I think we get a somewhat skewed debate in film v. digital debate on this forum, because there are so many die-hard film users here.
And we hear a lot from novice digital users who complain about subpar results. I would argue that much of that is due to the inexperience of users who have not yet figured out how to get good results from their digital cameras, photoshop, etc.
Anyone who's spent time in a darkroom knows that your skill increases as you gain experience. The prints you are capable of making today are far superior to those you made the first time you set foot in a darkroom.
Unfortunately, when someone starts down that digital path, they must be prepared for a similar learning path. If not, they'll be forever disappointed in the results.
 
FrankS said:
Mike, many B+W film users DO shoot MF and LF. Not sure what your point is.

I wonder if there are any photographers who switched from film and traditional processes to digital capture in order to improve on the technical and aethetic qualities of the print. (not the image, because that is controlled by the eye of the photographer, and not for an online image presentation either- digital capture is far easier if the intended final product is a fickr gallery.)

It seems to me that the reasons given for the switch to digital are many things (time, cost, convenience) but rarely quality.

I'm not trying to insult anyone, can we just talk about it, or is it too much like religion and ploitics?
Click to expand...

Frank
I was simply posing a question, and wasn't in any way insulted by your previous post.
 
tbarker13 said:
Hi Juan,
I guess I'm just not buying the idea that film produces better results. Digital isn't just for people seeking convenience.
Different? Certainly. But different isn't necessarily better or worse. I have nothing against film. I love it. I wish I still had a working darkroom.
But I wouldn't be shooting digital if I thought the results were anything less than fantastic.
I think we get a somewhat skewed debate in film v. digital debate on this forum, because there are so many die-hard film users here.
And we hear a lot from novice digital users who complain about subpar results. I would argue that much of that is due to the inexperience of users who have not yet figured out how to get good results from their digital cameras, photoshop, etc.
Anyone who's spent time in a darkroom knows that your skill increases as you gain experience. The prints you are capable of making today are far superior to those you made the first time you set foot in a darkroom.
Unfortunately, when someone starts down that digital path, they must be prepared for a similar learning path. If not, they'll be forever disappointed in the results.
Click to expand...

I agree with every word you said, Tim... Digital capture requires a lot of knowledge and experience: as much knowing about light and camera settings, as knowing about light and films a great film shooter requires... The same for digital processing, scanning or digital printing... And for sure what digital can do is amazing and gets better and better because it's a very young media and keeps growing,,, Both can give great results at a pro level... But if we talk about general things, the majority of digital users are there for the easier process, and most film users are there for the final look...

The day I see better tone from color and B&W digital compared to film, I'll happily avoid film... Why not use then the faster and cheaper media only?

Cheers,

Juan
 
DanOnRoute66 said:
Do you mean the other way around? Film still has higher resolution than digital although I can certainly see a day coming when digital might surpass film. As far as prints go, I've seen lots of exhibits of prints made from film and digital, and film is still vastly superior. But then again that's images made from large-format film. If you ever get to see a print (not a digital reproduction or book reproduction) of an Ansel Adams photograph in person, for example, next to a print made from a digital file, you'll know right away which is superior. But then most of us won't or can't lug 8X10 or even 4X5 cameras around.
Click to expand...

I had a class with Joel Meyerowitz recently in which he had the Leica S2 on loan. He said he printed 5 foot long prints from the S2 that looked just as good as the prints he made from his 8x10 camera. Both were digital prints. I cannot confirm that they did look better or worse, but I'm saying that digital is not so horrible. I've seen Ansel Adams prints in real life... the are stunning. I've also seen Joel Meyerowitz digital prints that were stunning. Good photography is good photography and good printing is good printing... no metter the era, medium, or context.
 
I'll weigh in here with my usual concern. Has anyone here on RFF seen a well-done b&w or color print made from film along side the same image made with a digital camera? I'm not talking about looking at images seen on the web. I'm talking about looking at the images side-by-side on a wall in front of you, at normal viewing distance? And I'm not talking about silver prints here. I'm talking about both images produced with the same ink jet printer.

I can't say I've done this experiement precisely. But I have work prints up on the wall here in my office. Some of them are from a digital camera and some are from film cameras. I've never been able to see any clear pattern that reveals the digital images from the film images.

I would admit that b&w images printed as silver prints are normally recognizable, but I've also seen some amazing b&w ink jet prints that didn't strike me as being 'digital' at all. It seems that digital cameras, computer software, and ink jet printers have brought us close enough that its truly hard, if not impossible to tell the difference. At least to me.
 
From my point of view, the best digital camera ever is the M9 because it rivals, having a wonderful IQ, the size, weight and looks of unobtrusive classic RFs using the same lenses those cameras used and use... The most amazing move in history of digital photography to me... In a world of digital color printing, it's hard to avoid seeing such an evident present the M9 just brought for color shooting...

Cheers,

Juan
 
I'm still shooting film because my shooting rate isn't high enough to justify a new camera. Plus I haven't seen any COMPACT digital camera that makes a digital file as good as my own scans of 35mm. Sigma DP2 excepted-and the RD-1 is not a compact.

And I don't need to make free pictures of my feet when I'm bored.

Now the time may well come when convenience and new camera models will change my mind. Say, a full-frame small camera for under $600. Or a good deal on a Pentax dslr.
 
Thank you all for your responses. I'm grateful for your input. One of the things I noticed during my trial return to film last fall was the need/desire to slow down my workflow and pay more attention to my picture-making than I normally would with the DSLR. It's easy to machine gun your subject when the media is essentially free and you can chimp your shots and re-do them.

Interestingly, only a handful of people mentioned smaller, less complicated kit as a reason for choosing film/RF. Maybe that's taken for granted.

I didn't intend to trigger a film v. digital quality debate. As a few people mentioned, I've seen good/bad examples of both. I do know the scans I'm getting from my local shop look poor compared to what I see here, so I have some homework to do in that area.
 
Really, I think most here miss the point. It's about the subject:

Hulk Hogan - digital only
Gamera - film or digital
Kilocycle - film
Isinglass - digital
Old ladies riding unicycles - digital
Abe Vigoda - digital
Puppies - film
clams - film
normal sized squid - digital
giant squids - film
lederhosen - film
Smoking hot babe, waste down - film
", waste up - digital
Elvis sighting - film
UFO - grainy film
Any pictures taken on the Isle of Malta during the spring - digital
" all other seasons - film
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom