Film v Digital: what drives your choice

[FrankS]

Some may not like this and others will understand, but for me: film for when photography is important, digital for when the images are disposable and/or for internet use.

 

[Darshan]

1. B/W prints from my DSLR come no where near close to prints from Tri-X (developed at a lab). I am going to try a hand at self-developing, as 1 roll of Tri-X cost me $20 :bang:

2. "full frame" film cameras are so cheap compared to their digital counterparts (that might change in a few years tho)

3. i don't like to do pp 🙄

cheers,
dan.

 

[Andy Kibber]

Dear Andy,

And quality and control.

Cheers,

R.

Well of course. But any decent camera (film or digital) will give you control and sufficient quality.

 

[Pico]

Digital is the liberation of film photography.

If you cannot appreciate the difference, then no worries.

Enjoy.

.

 

[alexnotalex]

I can't get my digital pics to look as good as cheap film through a Summar or Nikkor-HC... I need to work on my technique.
I also get a huge irrational thrill from battery-free photography.

... but i have phases 🙂 both are my favourite

 

[wgerrard]

People take pictures for different reasons. That's reflected in their choice of digital or film. People have different tolerances and annoyance thresholds. I.e., some like to process film and create prints, others don't. Some don't mind carrying around big DSLRs. Others wouldn't even try. All that's reflected in their choices.

 

[NickTrop]

Since purchasing the Nikon D5000 with 35mm f1.8 DX prime, I have used this in place of 35mm film, with the exception of the Fujica Compact Deluxe, now my only rangefinder, since I like the tactile pleasure of shooting a classic fixed lens film rangefinder and the IQ of this particular rangefinder. It also gives me a look I can't "Photoshop".

1. Digital for 35 mm, except when I want the tactile pleasure of using a film camera...
2. Medium format and above - film.

 

[Keith]

It's all about the look.

I recently shot some cheap long expired Kodak 400 Max that had been given to me and when I processed it, I liked what I saw more than I do the results that come out of my D700. That's not putting the D700 down because the colours that the Nikon produces are exceptional IMO and it would quite likely be more accurate in it's colour rendering than that crappy expired Kodak C41 film!

 

[Bobonli]

Thank you, everyone. Lots of thoughtful answers.

I think that one of the things that is pestering me is that the scans I have of my trial with the M6 and TMax are not nearly as good as what I see on this site. When I compare them with my D200 files in Aperture, the D200 material looks significantly sharper than the scans. I have my film developed and scanned at the local camera store which has a lab, but maybe I could do better.

Anyone in NY (Long Island) and can recommend a place that does good scanning?

 

[35mmdelux]

Fuji 100F, Kodachrome, HP5.

 

[shadowfox]

This thread contains probably the most (as joe mentioned it) mature discussion about when to choose film over digital.

For me it's easy. If I'd like a print out of an event or shooting opportunity, I'd always bring a film camera.

I think that one of the things that is pestering me is that the scans I have of my trial with the M6 and TMax are not nearly as good as what I see on this site. When I compare them with my D200 files in Aperture, the D200 material looks significantly sharper than the scans. I have my film developed and scanned at the local camera store which has a lab, but maybe I could do better.

Unlike cameras, gear matters a whole lot when it comes to scanning. If you haven't yet, get yourself a dedicated film scanner and learn (and I mean learn) a good scanning software like Silverfast.

Getting a good scan is useful even if you print in the darkroom, because a well scanned film strip is more useful than contact prints.

 

[amateriat]

I largely shoot film, occasionally shoot digital. Digital for me is mostly about absolute speed and convenience, usually related to posting images for utilitarian purposes.

Film-based cameras, big and small, are more responsive, less cluttered, quicker-on-the-draw for me. Small digital cameras from my experience are generally slower, more ponderous, more gadget-dense, and less intuitive. Big digital cameras are faster, a tad less ponderous, sometimes even more gadget-dense, and somewhat-more intuitive. But, for my taste, most are too damn big. (The lenses, usually, are even worse in this regard...I'm talking dSLRs, of course.)

I grok the response characteristics of most of the film types I regularly use. There's minimal guesswork involved. And, most of the time, I'm pretty good at pre-visualizing what I'm photographing, to the point where, if the camera in my hands happens to be digital, I keep the rear screen shut off...not much need to chimp.

I was walking in the Brooklyn Botanical Gardens with galfriend this afternoon, little Contax Tvs in hand, and overheard a conversation between three people about digital cameras, with one person complaining about the sluggish response of his compact digicam (brand/model not mentioned), where he never quite gets the shot in time. I've often taken the Tvs' responsiveness for granted, but only until I've handled someone's little digital wonder. (One mild exception would be my old Casio EX-850, which is relatively fast on the draw, but, alas, only offers up JPEG files...still great for my utilitarian uses, though.)

Unlike cameras, gear matters a whole lot when it comes to scanning. If you haven't yet, get yourself a dedicated film scanner and learn (and I mean learn) a good scanning software like Silverfast.

Getting a good scan is useful even if you print in the darkroom, because a well scanned film strip is more useful than contact prints.

Word. 🙂


- Barrett

 

[akremer]

I shoot film because it's really fun, I like the look and I like the whole work flow. I like having a limited number of shots per roll etc - I like physically carrying rolls. I like the fight for perfect exposure etc

I have used digital for 'work' when needed and have nothing against it. I'm currently looking to get a digital slr for that kind of thing.

I've just never really thought about digital, film just felt right and still does.

 

[Chris101]

Expediency is what drives my use of digital. When I need an image 'right now', I shoot it with a digital camera.

I haven't figured out what drives my use of film.

 

[FrankS]

Expediency is what drives my use of digital. When I need an image 'right now', I shoot it with a digital camera.

I haven't figured out what drives my use of film.

Could be passion?

 

[gavinlg]

film is good

digital is good

 

[Chris101]

Could be passion?

Thanks Frank. Quite a compliment! And probably true, but I don't want to question my motives much for fear that I will succumb to apathy and stop doing it.

You know - gift horse's mouth and all that.

 

[jsrockit]

1. B/W prints from my DSLR come no where near close to prints from Tri-X (developed at a lab).

Your lab must be incredible or your digital skills are lacking .... 😀

 

[shadowfox]

Your lab must be incredible or your digital skills are lacking .... 😀

You don't know either of those two until you and DanP meet in the same room and discuss the prints together. 🙂

 

[andredossantos]

I like both but my favorite is definitely color 120 film in a 6x6 format.

However, with my daughter entering pre-school (which is absolutely shockingly expensive here in NYC) I will be shooting a lot of digital in the coming months to save on processing costs...