Is digital capture easier than film?
- Thread starter FrankS
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 62
- Views 6K
back alley
IMAGES
Nh3
Well-known
FrankS
Registered User
Thanks everyone for the discussion! Good night.
newsgrunt
Well-known
M
Morris
Guest
Your mixing words up here and turning them around.
Up untill the exposure is made, their is no difference at all.
This is not a philosophical point. Sounds more like trolling.
kuzano
Veteran
I've posed the question to professionals....
I've posed the question to professionals....
The overwhelming leading answer is, "Because I get paid faster".
I asked one fellow, if he thinks digital is easier or offers better quality. He looked at me oddly, and responded, "I'm sorry. Perhaps you didn't hear me.... I get paid faster. Where does image quality fit into my getting paid faster?"
So obviously for professionals it's about shortening the time to a paycheck.
One wedding photographer even told me that he was amazed at how many bigger checks (ie, bigger orders) he got when he proofed the pictures on his laptop with the family, during or after the wedding reception.
So, going back to the original question, it appears that professionals do not factor in "easiness" except as to how it affects "compensation". Therefore, including professionals in the original question is a faulty criteria for whether digital is easier.
Personally, I think it is not. It may be cleaner, but I advance the notion that most people who take into consideration the time spent in learning all the digital workflow, the editing and organization systems and the processes that need to be put into place to protect images over time, will find that digital is ultimately more costly and requires MORE time, all things considered. The huge investment in equipment overshadows the cost of film and processing costs by a huge amount. The only offset to the "costly" comment is if you are making a living from Photography.
Good Night!
I've posed the question to professionals....
The overwhelming leading answer is, "Because I get paid faster".
I asked one fellow, if he thinks digital is easier or offers better quality. He looked at me oddly, and responded, "I'm sorry. Perhaps you didn't hear me.... I get paid faster. Where does image quality fit into my getting paid faster?"
So obviously for professionals it's about shortening the time to a paycheck.
One wedding photographer even told me that he was amazed at how many bigger checks (ie, bigger orders) he got when he proofed the pictures on his laptop with the family, during or after the wedding reception.
So, going back to the original question, it appears that professionals do not factor in "easiness" except as to how it affects "compensation". Therefore, including professionals in the original question is a faulty criteria for whether digital is easier.
Personally, I think it is not. It may be cleaner, but I advance the notion that most people who take into consideration the time spent in learning all the digital workflow, the editing and organization systems and the processes that need to be put into place to protect images over time, will find that digital is ultimately more costly and requires MORE time, all things considered. The huge investment in equipment overshadows the cost of film and processing costs by a huge amount. The only offset to the "costly" comment is if you are making a living from Photography.
Good Night!
Last edited:
meven
Well-known
Agreed, I still need to frame, focus and meter with my M8 same as I do with my film cameras so I don't see the difference (and no, I don't look at the LCD after, I just wait until I am at home). Definetely sounds like trolling!
Last edited:
thomasw_
Well-known
Your assumption of Frank's post is just wrong; I know him and he is not a troll. Further, I think you are overlooking the mental aspects of capturing a scene. It is clear that many adopt a different attitude and system of composing images when digital gear is used. As such, to say there "...is no difference at all" is false.
M
Morris
Guest
Nonsense!
Why would anyone change their mental attitude to composition when shooting digital?
dimitris
Established
To me digital is more convenient. Sometime I think about going back to film but then i remember the time I would get 3-4 good photos per roll and I grab my digital again. I guess you can put limitations to the way you take photos like not looking at the histogram.
Nh3
Well-known
back alley
IMAGES
to be clear, i do not for a second think that frank is trolling.
he's only just a little confused from breathing in too much fixer😉
j/k frank.
he's only just a little confused from breathing in too much fixer😉
j/k frank.
Frank1969
Member
Yes it is easier, when you shoot in raw. I have a Fuji S5pro. When I just had it, I tried a shot with correct exposure and one that I overexposed 4 stops. After just very little reworking the overexposed image image in the raw processing program, I got a photo that was indistinguishable from the correct exposed image.
Digital is nice and comes in handy but it sure makes you lazy. However, it got me some shots that I could not have made with my medium format film cameras.
Digital is nice and comes in handy but it sure makes you lazy. However, it got me some shots that I could not have made with my medium format film cameras.
peterm1
Veteran
making pictures is not just about pointing a camera and shooting and for many it never has been. what happens in the lab is an integral part of the process. So I would say its absolutely easier in one crucial respect - post processing! In the film based world I would never have had a darkroom for post processing. Therefore I was forced to do all of my editing in camera. I had liitle choice but to take what came out of the camera as the final product. Post processing for me was just too hard.
Now with digital, I inevitably spend time in Photoshop post processing. Every shot gets sharpening, contrast/ brightness and saturation adjustment. The better ones get more extensive / exotic treatment - be it just converting to black and white or sometimes the use of artistic filters. It is now much easier to turn out really good photos of the sort that I never attempted in the film world as it was plain too hard. Now I can turn out something approaching a work of art -and most of this is in post processing.
Ok if I use film today, I can still scan the photos and then make the digital transformations I mentioned above but thats still one step extra (scanning) - with I might add, the extra cost of film and the inconvenience of the delay, combined with the uncertainty as to just how the shot will turn out.
I keep my film cameras due to an emotional attachment to them but the cruel truth is digital is so seductive because it is so easy and I am using it more and more in preference to my film cameras.
Now with digital, I inevitably spend time in Photoshop post processing. Every shot gets sharpening, contrast/ brightness and saturation adjustment. The better ones get more extensive / exotic treatment - be it just converting to black and white or sometimes the use of artistic filters. It is now much easier to turn out really good photos of the sort that I never attempted in the film world as it was plain too hard. Now I can turn out something approaching a work of art -and most of this is in post processing.
Ok if I use film today, I can still scan the photos and then make the digital transformations I mentioned above but thats still one step extra (scanning) - with I might add, the extra cost of film and the inconvenience of the delay, combined with the uncertainty as to just how the shot will turn out.
I keep my film cameras due to an emotional attachment to them but the cruel truth is digital is so seductive because it is so easy and I am using it more and more in preference to my film cameras.
Last edited:
P
Petroleum V. Nasby
Guest
The people who rail on against being cheated on eBay, computers that don't work, "soulessness" of digital photography are the exact same people who don't really understand them and are always going to be baffled, befuddled, angry, and unable to use the new tools.
They are the target audience for "high end audiophile" $5,000 AC power cords or $10,000 interconnects. Clueless doofi.
The more evolved, intelligent, tool-using mutations, such as myself, know how to use these wonderful new devices and take to them like ducks to water.
We like using film cameras too. We like ALL sorts of stuff.
We don't like the Government stealing all our money to nationalize banks, but that's a horse of different color.
Sure, digital is easier. So is indoor plumbing. So is urinating in a nice warm bathroom at night instead of walking outside in the freezing cold to use an outhouse.
They are the target audience for "high end audiophile" $5,000 AC power cords or $10,000 interconnects. Clueless doofi.
The more evolved, intelligent, tool-using mutations, such as myself, know how to use these wonderful new devices and take to them like ducks to water.
We like using film cameras too. We like ALL sorts of stuff.
We don't like the Government stealing all our money to nationalize banks, but that's a horse of different color.
Sure, digital is easier. So is indoor plumbing. So is urinating in a nice warm bathroom at night instead of walking outside in the freezing cold to use an outhouse.
thomasw_
Well-known
Nonsense that 1. chimping occurs which changes one's take on a scene? 2. that rapid fire blind composing occurs which changes one's take on composition? 3. that composing patience is lost when one 'composes' for the decisive moment and every other moment, too?
Accordingly, it doesn't seem that it is nonsense; far from it, Morris. There are other more challenging notions to explain that can be lost as well; such as, 'identifying with the subject'. Clearly these are but a few of the ways one's mental attitude to composition can be altered when shooting digital.
M
Morris
Guest
Only your #1, chimping, is a possibility not available to film photographers.
Your other points are equally possible with film or digital.
Myself, I only shoot RAW with the screen turned off.
mh2000
Well-known
for good b&w images I think film is easier and more reliable, even factoring in scanning my negatives.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Too many factors are being conflated here.
At the most basic level, as has already been said, "You press the button, we do the rest." This is equally true of film or digital.
At another level up, the camera you use is likely to affect the way you shoot. This includes the possibility (or otherwise) of chimping.
Move up another level, and it's a question of what you want. It's probably 'easier' to shoot colour in my M8, convert to mono (or use the mono option), do some Photoshop fiddling, and make an inkjet print. But I don't like the result as much, so it's easier to get a good print with the MP and HP5.
On the other hand, for a pack shot, it's a lot easier to shoot colour with a Nikon DSLR or even a Visoflex -- so that's what I do.
Cheers,
R.
At the most basic level, as has already been said, "You press the button, we do the rest." This is equally true of film or digital.
At another level up, the camera you use is likely to affect the way you shoot. This includes the possibility (or otherwise) of chimping.
Move up another level, and it's a question of what you want. It's probably 'easier' to shoot colour in my M8, convert to mono (or use the mono option), do some Photoshop fiddling, and make an inkjet print. But I don't like the result as much, so it's easier to get a good print with the MP and HP5.
On the other hand, for a pack shot, it's a lot easier to shoot colour with a Nikon DSLR or even a Visoflex -- so that's what I do.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited: