1750Shooter
Established
Was out today with my M5, just wandering around & shooting. I stopped for coffee & a group of 30-somethings stopped, recognized the M & sat down to talk photography. Among them were 2 X-Pro1s, a NEX-?, & another camera. We sat & they made some points I wanted to share:
1. Currently, they don't think it's possible to tell the difference between film & digital, except LF.
2. One, who worked for a local camera shop's darkroom, noted that in the darkroom there are quite limited things that can be done to "help" a negative, unlike digital w/Photoshop, etal.
3. Most film cameras are older & less reliable.
4. Film is drying up(?!).
5. Even though we all like film, to handle it well requires scanning so that we can manipulate it in Photoshop thereby making it kind of a b*****d digital.
Based on the above thoughts they couldn't understand why anyone would shoot film since "digital can do it better or with a smoother workflow".
I though this line of thought was interesting & while I don't agree with all the points, some of them struck a chord. Interesting thinking.
1. Currently, they don't think it's possible to tell the difference between film & digital, except LF.
2. One, who worked for a local camera shop's darkroom, noted that in the darkroom there are quite limited things that can be done to "help" a negative, unlike digital w/Photoshop, etal.
3. Most film cameras are older & less reliable.
4. Film is drying up(?!).
5. Even though we all like film, to handle it well requires scanning so that we can manipulate it in Photoshop thereby making it kind of a b*****d digital.
Based on the above thoughts they couldn't understand why anyone would shoot film since "digital can do it better or with a smoother workflow".
I though this line of thought was interesting & while I don't agree with all the points, some of them struck a chord. Interesting thinking.
back alley
IMAGES
i don't know anyone, non photographer types, that would consider getting a film camera today.
thegman
Veteran
1) Obviously, it's possible to tell the difference between film and digital, but I'd certainly agree that with enough manipulation, digital can look, to all intents and purposes, the same as film.
2) I'd agree with that, you can do anything you want on a computer, make look like a pencil drawing, oil painting, clone out people you don't want in the image.
3) Obviously not older, as film cameras are still being made, less reliable? Some are, some are not, bit like comparing a manual watch to a quartz.
4) I can buy film easy enough.
5) Nobody is making you manipulate in PS, I think if that appeals, then maybe digital is a better choice.
I think for most people digital is easier than film, but then for most people it's easier to order pizza than make it.
I think if part of the hobby is to manipulate in Photoshop, then I'd use digital, but for me, it isn't.
2) I'd agree with that, you can do anything you want on a computer, make look like a pencil drawing, oil painting, clone out people you don't want in the image.
3) Obviously not older, as film cameras are still being made, less reliable? Some are, some are not, bit like comparing a manual watch to a quartz.
4) I can buy film easy enough.
5) Nobody is making you manipulate in PS, I think if that appeals, then maybe digital is a better choice.
I think for most people digital is easier than film, but then for most people it's easier to order pizza than make it.
I think if part of the hobby is to manipulate in Photoshop, then I'd use digital, but for me, it isn't.
thegman
Veteran
I have known non-photographer types to consider instant film, but other than that, I'm sure you're right. Except maybe disposables, for weddings, underwater etc.
xia_ke
Established
jordanstarr
J.R.Starr
1. what do you mean, tell the difference? Quality? if so, I would add medium format to that list. I have never felt that any digital black and white image I have ever made has stood up to a black and white print. And I use photoshop probably as much as I go in the darkroom (for online submissions, website, etc.)
2. This is good in my opinion. Its what make film feel real. And it's not just the negative that can be "edited" to enhance the print. There's many other techniques and tools.
3. Show me a digital camera that will outlive ANY film camera. I haven't seen too many digital cameras live beyond 10 years. 90% of film cameras will last 3 times this, easily.
4. Less choice doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
5. I hate scanning film, so I agree. That said, I'd rather be in the darkroom than in front of a computer any day. It also helps me narrow down my selects rather than editing every mediocre photo I take.
Just an opinion from a 30 year old.
2. This is good in my opinion. Its what make film feel real. And it's not just the negative that can be "edited" to enhance the print. There's many other techniques and tools.
3. Show me a digital camera that will outlive ANY film camera. I haven't seen too many digital cameras live beyond 10 years. 90% of film cameras will last 3 times this, easily.
4. Less choice doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
5. I hate scanning film, so I agree. That said, I'd rather be in the darkroom than in front of a computer any day. It also helps me narrow down my selects rather than editing every mediocre photo I take.
Just an opinion from a 30 year old.
mooge
Well-known
unless it's a Fuji instax??
another advantage of film cameras: higher scrap metal value.
Richard G
Veteran
Hard to beat (my 55 year old) M2 for instant 'on' always; and colour neg film for exposing both sides of the street, shaded and sunlit, in the same picture. Those young guys you chatted with are unlikely to have even a tenth of the available darkroom skills to rescue a poorly exposed negative. I can still get film. I am not exposing much now with the M9 and MM, but without them I'd still be at it, even with the X100 in my stable. For travel I'll take that and the M2. My film Ms are doing less but aren't retired. The only ones interested in taking up film photography are young people. Very few people know the deficiencies of digital and the wonders and forgiving nature of film, black and white and colour negative.
Bill Clark
Veteran
Unless ink jet, most digital files, even B&W are printed on color paper and, of course, color chemistry. I find some still like a B&W photograph made with B&W paper & chemistry.
maddoc
... likes film again.
De_Corday
Eternal Student
eh...
A couple thoughts. And I say this as a photographer in his late 20's...
I appreciate the "digital can be made to look like film" bit, but I don't %100 buy it. Still, I shoot film first and foremost because it keeps me disciplined. I shoot digital when reporting, digital if its a job... the workflow *is* easier, but shooting film instills a kind of discipline.
And that's a to-each-his/her-own kind of a thing, I'm cool with that. The bone I'll pick, however, is reliability.
My F3 was my uncle's F3, and it is the definition of pro-smoked. More brass than black, dented in about ten places. When I got my hands on it the shutter was capping like crazy, and some liberal application of naphtha took care of that. Since then, not a single problem. And it's an F3, not a full manual camera. In the time that I've owned the F3, I'd had a Nikon D70 blow a power board because I switched lenses too fast with the power on, had command dials freeze up and stop working on my D200, have CF card pins bend on my D200, and have both the D200 and D70 return mysterious "CHA" errors when they decide to not like a data-card (and I format with each upload).
So yeah, digital is where my serious photography goes, yes the workflow is quicker (not better, not worse--see the discipline thing). But digital camera bodies, IMHO, even at the pro level, have a thing or two to learn from their ancestors in the reliability department.
A couple thoughts. And I say this as a photographer in his late 20's...
I appreciate the "digital can be made to look like film" bit, but I don't %100 buy it. Still, I shoot film first and foremost because it keeps me disciplined. I shoot digital when reporting, digital if its a job... the workflow *is* easier, but shooting film instills a kind of discipline.
And that's a to-each-his/her-own kind of a thing, I'm cool with that. The bone I'll pick, however, is reliability.
My F3 was my uncle's F3, and it is the definition of pro-smoked. More brass than black, dented in about ten places. When I got my hands on it the shutter was capping like crazy, and some liberal application of naphtha took care of that. Since then, not a single problem. And it's an F3, not a full manual camera. In the time that I've owned the F3, I'd had a Nikon D70 blow a power board because I switched lenses too fast with the power on, had command dials freeze up and stop working on my D200, have CF card pins bend on my D200, and have both the D200 and D70 return mysterious "CHA" errors when they decide to not like a data-card (and I format with each upload).
So yeah, digital is where my serious photography goes, yes the workflow is quicker (not better, not worse--see the discipline thing). But digital camera bodies, IMHO, even at the pro level, have a thing or two to learn from their ancestors in the reliability department.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
1.If I couldn't see film - digital difference, it would be so much easier to me.
Actually, it easier to see the difference on half-frame, not LF
2. I meet one lady in local pharmacy, she used to work in film lab and she was nice, very nice, but not really aware of many film related things.
3. My family FED-2 is made in sixties, I have Zeiss made in thirties.
This group of thirties something has to make it for another fifty or better eighty years to see if their digital gear is going to make it as well.
4. And digital cameras are shrinking. From DSLR to mirrorless.
5. So this guy who works in darkroom, what does he do?
Actually, it easier to see the difference on half-frame, not LF
2. I meet one lady in local pharmacy, she used to work in film lab and she was nice, very nice, but not really aware of many film related things.
3. My family FED-2 is made in sixties, I have Zeiss made in thirties.
This group of thirties something has to make it for another fifty or better eighty years to see if their digital gear is going to make it as well.
4. And digital cameras are shrinking. From DSLR to mirrorless.
5. So this guy who works in darkroom, what does he do?
Photo_Smith
Well-known
1 Think the differences between film and digital are quite large, except LF where the noise (grain) becomes less apparent. But if the differences are not possible to tell-why pay all that money for a FF DSLR when a £100 Nikon F90 will do it all?
2. As someone who owned a lab I can tell you almost everything you can do in PS can be done on an enlarger-it's just harder.
So what you do is take images that don't need so much manipulation, sometimes you learn not to seek total perfection and accept flaws for the beauty and honesty they represent.
3. Tell that to my old Rolleiflex, Leica, Nikon etc they just keep working and I'll bet they still will be when early digital 1-2mp will be considered junk.
4. Film is less prevalent and visible, sure but buying on the internet is easy just like DVD, and bookshops seem to be in decline people buy from Amazon.
5. Is printing a digital file on paper a kind of b****d analogue?