How do you feel once you move from film to digital?

aperture64 said:
After holding strong on the film front and refusing to switch to digital, I gave in this week and bought a D90 to use with all of my Nikon lenses. I haven't used it yet, but I already feel liberated. I have taken less and less photos with film because of the cost of the film and development. Then there is the drive to the lab, which is 30 minutes each way (for both drop off and picks up.) Then the time spent with the scanner and re-touching. I will no longer have to deal with any of it and will feel like I can concentrate on the composition and taking as many photos as I want without having to worry about the cost.

The other aspect of going from the M4 to the D90 is the cost of equipment. For the last few year, I have had these moments where I realize that Leica equipment is just too expensive. I can afford it, so I'm not someone who is bashing it because it's expensive. I also like the Leica 'look' of their lenses, but $850-1000 for a 50mm lens is a little crazy, or more depending on which model. The D90 has brought me back to the days of when I first started using a SLR and only had one lens. It's no longer really about the equipment, but more about just taking photos.
Click to expand...


Great, just enjoy it and ignore the detractors

Mike
 
i did the opposite. i moved from a Nikon D3 system and shooting freelance / semi-professionally to shooting with a 500 series Hassy and being a hobbyist again, then on to 35mm and Leicas. i now feel liberated, surprisingly!

i enjoy the restrictions, and often, drop in overall image quality and resolution (when shooting in low light with high speed films) and the potential for (often occurring) errors. it's been almost 3 years now since the switch, and every time i think i feel digital calling i just run some B&W prints and put my mind at ease. sure, i will probably move into the digital world again one day, but it'll probably be a digital RF and i wont be able to afford one for quiet a long, long time. so for now, i'm happy and content with film.
 
_mark__ said:
Waffle warning!

I see the results from digital cameras and pp, as they technology gets better, moving further and further away from the film aesthetic, there is a new hyper-realist sense to the scenes they capture!

With each new M9/Canon/Nikon shot I see I am reminded of the atmosphere portrayed in the work of Philip-Lorca Dicorcia, where the light and saturation of life are not enough so they are augmented with theatrical and cinematic lighting techniques - figures and objects aren't rooted in the reality of their environment but are set appart by this clever fakery! This sense of alienation of object/figure can be seen in the results from the new sensors - subjects float in a strange, new digital miasma and its hyper-reality is most noticeable in the skies, geometric patterns, the rendering of darker evening shadows, motion highlights, very busy landscapes etc. To me the faults are all there, I see them and I cannot deny them, the more I analyse the more I see.
Click to expand...

Well put. I think there's an unspoken assumption that "digital is more like REALITY". But all images are just representations: they're cultural constructs. My retina and neurological system happen to have a graininess, so for me Tri-X looks more like REALITY.
 
Ben Z said:
... since I got a Canon 5D (mark 1 refurb) I haven't touched the M8. Partly that's due to that the M was basically always only my camera for travel due to its size ...
Click to expand...

I could see myself, if pressed by economic reality, chucking the leica dRF gear and shooting with the 5D and a couple of the "new" zeiss ZE lenses. As Roger says, less tactile joy in use, but still very competent tools, the SLRs, digi or otherwise.

As triple B says, film v digi is a non-issue if you've got feet in both camps. I feel fortunate to have both.

Re the feeling of liberation (in either direction), maybe it's a by-product of workflow and gear simplification. It'd be a pleasure not to have to maintain as much "stuff" ...
 
Last edited:
Everyone talks cost. Digi cams have a life limited by parts availability and repair people really can`t do much with them without factory parts.

Leica M9, good for 5 years if Leica is still around and they can get parts, remember the DMR. Then the issue of special batteries. So figure the camera is worthless at that point. Balance that against "free film" and computer equipment/programs etc.
 
Keith said:
If I moved from film totally to digital I'd feel that I'd abandoned photography and sold my soul to the devil!
Click to expand...

Keith,
Maybe this is why I am still using film cameras.
Maybe I am an even stronger "believer", and I have not used digital photography except for taking photos of items [for film based photography] that I sell online?
 
Well, I kind of thought Mark's post was interesting. Let me tell you how I feel:

For me, film just applies an aesthetic interpretation to a scene. Digital, on the other hand, with post-processing comes very close to (is?) pornography. It is probably clear to many of us here, that the visual techniques of pornography have permeated completely the audio-visual, multi-media world we live in.

These are 2 very different beasts. I have nothing against pornography. But, it's not the art I'm striving to produce.

I have both a MP, FM and a D100, M8. I will not "switch" to digital any time soon. I only use digital once in a while only for convenience reasons, for snap-shots, just 1 shot and at funny ISO where it's not worth loading a film. When I really go to shoot something, I almost always have film cameras. The only liberating thing about the M8 was that at least I can understand how to use it. I still don't understand the D100!

JP
 
I feel the same as some of the other responders. I use an M8 and also an R-D1 for digital and realized that I was missing the square format of my Mamiya Mf6 rangefinder so shot some film on that and have been going back and forth ever since. I use black and white and color on my Mamiya primarily. But, find that unlike many people I use my digital in much the same manner as the film camera- that is that I do not shoot hundreds of frames but judiciously keep the numbers down to what I was doing in film- either 12-24 or 36 frames before processing. Different strokes for different folks!
 
JPSuisse said:
For me, film just applies an aesthetic interpretation to a scene. Digital, on the other hand, with post-processing comes very close to (is?) pornography. It is probably clear to many of us here, that the visual techniques of pornography have permeated completely the audio-visual, multi-media world we live in.

These are 2 very different beasts. I have nothing against pornography. But, it's not the art I'm striving to produce.

JP
Click to expand...

Digital workflow = pornography
Film workflow = aesthetic interpretation of scene (art?)

JP, i'm oversimplifying, i know. what are you asserting? i can't even begin to put my mind around how a choice of capture medium and subsequent processing equates to pornography.
 
Double Negative said:
In a word? "Sad."

I still shoot both, and plan to for the conceivable future. Digital is nice, film is nice. They each have their pros and cons. I'd say be glad you can still shoot both, as the sad reality is - film won't be around forever. So shoot both and be happy!
Click to expand...

+1

Everyday that I'm on the right side of the turf and that I'm shooting, I am quite content!
 
Sorry MC, my thoughts got ahead of my words.

I don't mean digital is pornography. I mean that the tools implemented to produce "supra-vivid" pornography have permeated the means to create images and video in the multi-media world to make other kinds of productions that are also "supra-vivid." This applies to digital capture.

I'm more agreeing with Mark, that I find this kind of post production is not what I'm striving for, and there is something that is not quite real about it. It's perfect, but it always leaves me with a funny feeling.

BTW, this has nothing to do with akt photography, i.e. nudes, etc. It's more about the supra-vivid presentation of reality.

JP
 
i see, jp. *peterm1* has lately had an interesting take on digi processing, where he makes the point that he's able to get closer to his imaging vision with digital capture because he's more adept at processing digital files than analog film.

i've been spending time lately viewing an Avedon exhibit that's in my home town. i'm hardly fit to judge, but i can't imagine myself preferring to own or view some of the current digi fashion work to that of Avedon's. it's iconic, yes, but it's just so richly gorgeous to take in. a feast versus so much of the current eye-candy ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom