Film v Digital: what drives your choice

[tbarker13]

There was a time when I thought I'd never switch to digital. But I have. And I embrace the change.
I'm very happy with the B&W results I get with my M8 and my D700. I really don't understand the complaints I hear in this regard.
Do they look different than results you get from film? Of course they do. Just like the results differ among various film/developer combos. It's simply part of the continuing evolution of photography that started long before film was even invented.

But in the end, one of the biggest drivers is that I simply don't have the time to process and scan/print the volume of shooting that I do.
I still own a film camera (and use it every so often) but it's more of a curiosity for me these days.

 

[FrankS]

Seems that the common reasons given in favour of digital capture are convenience, time saving, and immediate results. The common reasons given for film photogrraphy are quality and passion. Uhmmm...

Is anyone passionate about digital capture?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

There are two different groups of things I enjoy a lot more with film, and I've used digital for many years, from DSLRs to digital Hasselblad to digital backs on a Sinar...

One group is related to tone... I'm not sure we have the right words to describe it, but both on B&W and color, the tone I get with film, looks more real to me, more physical... Of course latest digital cameras have better tone, a less plastic one, but yet it's different: an optical film enlargement (wet print) is a lot more pleasing to my eye than any digital sensor with high resolution I've seen...

The other group is related to fun and the whole process... Size and weight too... Film is so relaxing... Digital requires technology from batteries to computers... I can shoot my very light film cameras for months without issues or worries...

I use digital for things I don't care too much about, and it's useful. It's fast "only" sometimes: for a 500 or 1000 shots session and a serious team work it can be a real pain for hours and days of technowork...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[NickTrop]

There was a time when I thought I'd never switch to digital. But I have. And I embrace the change.
I'm very happy with the B&W results I get with my M8 and my D700. I really don't understand the complaints I hear in this regard.
Do they look different than results you get from film? Of course they do. Just like the results differ among various film/developer combos. It's simply part of the continuing evolution of photography that started long before film was even invented.

But in the end, one of the biggest drivers is that I simply don't have the time to process and scan/print the volume of shooting that I do.
I still own a film camera (and use it every so often) but it's more of a curiosity for me these days.

Mostly ditto. However, I don't consider the film cameras I own as a "curiosity". Sometimes I just want to shoot a film camera - the simplicity, they're a joy to use. It's like driving a classic car - a 60's era classic Mustang or something, that doesn't hold a candle - technologically, to even a lower end modern car... But that's not why people drive them. Both getchya where ya gotta go. The older lenses are less "technically perfect" than modern glass, and coating technology has come a long way since (say) the 60's... this results in (imo) a measure of unpredictability that is sometimes pleasing, sometimes not when shooting older glass at wider apertures. The signature of some of these lenses can't be replicated. Sometimes I want that unpredictability. The cheap 35mm f1.8 I used with my Nikon DSLR produces very predictable results wide open... that is it's perfect to the eye at 1.8 as it is at f4 with a little less sharpness but flare, glare, contrast loss is so well controlled with this lens I know what I'm going to get when shooting at risky aps - but this leaves little room for "happy accidents"...

What I am finding is that the many emulation software packages out there do a pretty admirable job in replicating the look of various types of film stock. Purists will balk but I'm only being honest... And as you alluded to, the out of the camera black and white with DSLRs or other prosumer black and white modes have their own look - like a different film stock or film/developer combination. I am pleased with "the look" of black and white on my little Fuji and the Nikon DSLR straight out of the camera.

 

[FrankS]

processed cheese (Velveeta/CheeseWiz) vs real cheese

 

[back alley]

Seems that the common reasons given in favour of digital capture are convenience, time saving, and immediate results. The common reasons given for film photogrraphy are quality and passion. Uhmmm...

Is anyone passionate about digital capture?

i wouldn't go there frank.

suggesting that i am not passionate about what i do because of the tools i use is setting up a false god argument.

as has been said before...photography started before film was invented...painting with light...i paint with the same light that you do.

 

[FrankS]

Good to have your perspective here, Joe.

 

[jsrockit]

Seems that the common reasons given in favour of digital capture are convenience, time saving, and immediate results. The common reasons given for film photogrraphy are quality and passion. Uhmmm...

Is anyone passionate about digital capture?

Yes, I actually really like the look of digital believe it or not. There is no reason quality cannot be synonymous with digital. It seems to me that some people are just used to film so the look of digital is shocking to them.

 

[bhop73]

If i'm shooting for someone else, or an event where i'll be taking a lot of photos (sports for example), i'll shoot digital. If i'm shooting for fun, for myself, i'll almost always shoot film.

 

[panerai]

Film v Digital: what drives your choice

I shoot digital as it's cheaper for me and the fact I can switch the programs around to suit the situation.

If I want a color image and a BW the next. I can't do that with a film camera unless I carry 2 of them.

I just got a Yashica GX. Little less than what was described by the seller and just trying out some BW film in it, but I already know, that the overall cost for the film and developing is going to prevent me from using it too often.

I have my father's NM Konica S, but wanted something a little smaller to try out (probably should have tried my fathers first)

Image costs for my digital camera is nil and I can shoot as much as I like and get the images right away. Something I can't do with the film.

Not really technically minded with film, but bought Understanding Exposure and reading it through.

Yashica could end up being a display item if the expense gets to be more than I'm willing to pay.

DON

 

[Turtle]

the beauty of the mounted and framed print. Silver Gelatin off film for me. I am patient and do not care to see the images right away, bu when I do, I want it to look the way I want it to look and I get that with film (whether shooting a Leica M or Eos 1n with spectacular 85 1.2L).

 

[hipsterdufus]

Yashica could end up being a display item if the expense gets to be more than I'm willing to pay.

If you start developing your own film, the price will drop dramatically. Just giving you another option, if you haven't already thought of it.

 

[Mcary]

Seems that the common reasons given in favour of digital capture are convenience, time saving, and immediate results. The common reasons given for film photogrraphy are quality and passion. Uhmmm...

Is anyone passionate about digital capture?

Question: if as you say quality is so much more important to people who use film then why do so many people that use film shoot only 35mm? I mean if their standards are that much higher then people shooting digital then why not use medium or even large format? After all it only seem logical that people with so much passion would want the best results possible regardless of convenience.

 

[panerai]

developing

developing

If you start developing your own film, the price will drop dramatically. Just giving you another option, if you haven't already thought of it.

True, but then there's chemicals, developer, a room to do it in etc.

It's OK if one is a serious hobbiest, semi or professional photographer, but the average person isn't going to get into that expense.

I just got a camera a few days ago to try it out.

DON

 

[jsrockit]

Question: if as you say quality is so much more important to people who use film then why do so many people that use film shoot only 35mm? I mean if their standards are that much higher then people shooting digital then why not use medium or even large format? After all it only seem logical that people with so much passion would want the best results possible regardless of convenience.

😱 but true!

 

[FrankS]

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?

 

[Brian Puccio]

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.

If I want a color image and a BW the next. I can't do that with a film camera unless I carry 2 of them.

When you shoot B&W with a digital camera, you do it with a color sensor. You simply discard the color information (assuming you're not shooting a RAW format that keeps color informatino regardless). Why can you not shoot B&W with a film camera by using color film and simply discarding the color information?

True, but then there's chemicals, developer, a room to do it in etc.

you don't need a room to develop film, it simply goes into a tank, you can do it on your kitchen counter. If you want to do wet prints, then yes, DIY is annoying, but since you seem big into color, i'd guess that you don't want to DIY color printing. You could just scan your negatives and print everything digitally, regardless of the initial capture medium.

 

[tbarker13]

Is anyone passionate about digital capture?

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.

 

[Darshan]

you don't need a room to develop film, it simply goes into a tank, you can do it on your kitchen counter. If you want to do wet prints, then yes, DIY is annoying, but since you seem big into color, i'd guess that you don't want to DIY color printing. You could just scan your negatives and print everything digitally, regardless of the initial capture medium.

sorry to go off topic in this tread, but could you point me towards a good resource to learn self-developing and printing? I want to give it a try and see how it goes. thx.

dan.

 

[thegman]

I shoot film because I seem to enjoy doing it more, I find it hard to quantify why that is. Maybe it's the delayed gratification of seeing the images in a few days or a week, maybe it's the fact that once the photo is taken, it's locked away, and no-one can demand to see the screen on the back. Also I find the colour more pleasing, although Lightroom can see to most of that. Long exposures are fun too, as you don't need to worry about noise, although digital is improving so much there.

The film cameras are so nice too, and are very cheap by comparison, even with all the money in the world, I don't think I'd buy an M9, it just does not appeal in the same way even a Black Slim Devil does for £25 (http://www.fredaldous.co.uk/product_707300002.htm), I have no explanation as to why that is, it's ludicrous I know. Maybe it's the minimalist in me that feels a bit odd when I have expensive things I don't need.

Digital is logical in just about every way, but this isn't about logic, it's about having a hobby we enjoy.

I think action/sports cry out digital though.