It's 2014, are you still using film?

[shortstop]

Exactly. Whether we use a lot or not we need to buy it and buy lot of it or we will lose it! That's a risk those going digital don't have to deal with.

if we buy less films to try the "thrill" to shoot in digital, will sell less film, the risk is that, just to satisfy a fashion, we fall into the trap and the films will no longer be produced. this is the law of the market. all camera manufacturers have an interest that the films are not sold, because they no longer produce film cameras. we do not fall into the trap of making autogoal, and if our way of photographing is the film, the only message we can send to producers is the purchase of films. it is a battle we have to fight to avoid the risk of not having more films.

 

[wakarimasen]

I'm trying digital a little more, and plan to upgrade my 1D Mark IIn to a Mark III. I've largely only used this camera for sport and sanctimoniously ignored it for everything else.

 

[Turtle]

Can you imagine is the wine producers went out of business?

 

[shortstop]

Can you imagine is the wine producers went out of business?

aaargh. send them a clear commercial message and let's drink wine! 😏

 

[BlackXList]

Low light is all digital, most other things should be film.

Although I have had a relative slump and not shot as much as I would have liked latley. (that's not film's fault though).

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

As I see it the cost of a digital camera and lens as good as my film stuff will cover the cost of a lot of film. Worse still, digital has a short life and so another replacement will be needed in a few years and so on and so on.

I like both film and digital but I am sticking to film for some shots and digital for some occasions. And film for B&W.

One side effect of using digital is that I can take one or two shots and print them afterwards, just like LF. It has resulted in me using more 24 exp. lengths of film than ever before.

Trouble is I like the film bodies and lenses when shooting, afterwards I like digital for getting the print quickly. Now if I could afford to dump all my film stuff and find a digital camera to replace them in every way I'd be tempted.

Regards, David

 

[VertovSvilova]

The question posed is: "It's 2014, are you still using film?"

Hmmm. That sounds to me like kind of a loaded question with some pretty strong implications. So film is something one will eventually be giving up? And it's something one is just hanging on to since they really don't know any better?

Why are you still using it? After all it's 2014 (um, is this some magic date that I'm missing here?)

And why are you still making your own bread and growing your own vegetables? Fool. It's 2014. Do you realize you can have that stuff immediately by just driving to the store and buying it. What? You're still driving with a manual transmission? Fool. Get an automatic, after all it's 2014.

Wait, it's now 2014 and you say you're still making photographs? What for? Everything has already been photographed. And probably more than once. Just download all the pics you want from Flickr. There's a landfill full of them.

 

[JChrome]

No need to ask this question. Do an RFF search for "film vs digital".

You'll get the exact same responses here. Why start another thread on it? Doesn't this conversation get boring?

Disclaimer: I haven't read all 8 pages of responses within this thread so if someone else mentioned the same thing I will accept being called a hypocrite for being critical of redundancy 😛

 

[Pioneer]

Hey...it did get 8 pages of responses...even yours.

 

[noisycheese]

Hey...it did get 8 pages of responses...even yours.

😀
😀😀
😀😀😀

Touché!!

 

[cosmonaut]

I think digital has come of age so to speak. Most upgrade out of want more than need. A good digital camera will last one a long time. If need be.

Hi,

As I see it the cost of a digital camera and lens as good as my film stuff will cover the cost of a lot of film. Worse still, digital has a short life and so another replacement will be needed in a few years and so on and so on.

I like both film and digital but I am sticking to film for some shots and digital for some occasions. And film for B&W.

One side effect of using digital is that I can take one or two shots and print them afterwards, just like LF. It has resulted in me using more 24 exp. lengths of film than ever before.

Trouble is I like the film bodies and lenses when shooting, afterwards I like digital for getting the print quickly. Now if I could afford to dump all my film stuff and find a digital camera to replace them in every way I'd be tempted.

Regards, David

 

[cosmonaut]

To answer the question. More this year than in the past due to a new Mamiya 645 Pro I picked up so maybe 25% film.

 

[noimmunity]

Since I sold my digital RF yet still have RF lenses, I'm shooting film again. I sold all my developing and scanning kit in frustration at the dust situation in Europe (and made quite a bit of money on the deal, especially the scanner which had tripled in price). But I might be revisiting that decision, now that I have a really awesome vacuum cleaner LOL !

 

[Kent]

Yes and I have started to shoot more on film again recently.
But still it's about 80 - 90% digital.

 

[Nathan King]

My photography is 100% film, and I couldn't be happier.

 

[DougJGreen]

I was referred to a story on the Nikon V3, which brought me back to this forum for the first time since 2003. Which is roughly the last time I seriously shot film.

 

[Rikard]

The poll should have been " It's 2014, are you still shooting mostly digital?".
Good film cameras are cheap, and film didn't die. Why anyone would chose to go 100% digital is beyond me.

 

[kdemas]

I have shot zero film so far in 2014. In fairness my job is keeping me from shooting anywhere near the volume if like.

Breaking out the F2 with eye level finder tomorrow to expose a little silver. Probably Double XX for fun.

 

[bluesun267]

99.9%

99.9%

Started on film, will end on film. This year was the first time I tried shooting digital for pleasure (ie, not for ebay). Got some 'decent' shots, but felt no love in it. It subverted my whole process, one developed over nearly 30 years. What it comes down to is camera handling, pre-visualization, and finally, a sense of value with each frame.

I work with young people who never touched a film camera who seem to be startled (in a good way) when shown what film pictures look like. Our eyesight is so inundated with digital imagery everywhere--a purely analog film image (both still and/or motion) is beginning to look almost abstract, painterly; even otherwordly. I see that as a positive change. The collective 'eye' is/has been re-trained for another kind of image. Not enough to make analog into "automatic art" but enough to distinguish it. I look forward to the increasing resolution, 'quality' and consequent perpetual obsolescence of digital cameras--each year further reinforces the primal, 'low-fi', photochemical image.

It is emotionally difficult to witness disappearance of certain films, and skyrocketing prices for good lenses (further proof digital shooters' belief in somehow capturing 'best of both worlds'.) Though it does prove Film is still the top, at least as far as the lofty human ideal of art goes, even for those shooting 100% digital.

(Prove me wrong about digital and stop putting that horribly flawed, non-computer-designed vintage glass on your M9s etc.)

 

[noisycheese]

I got my first digital camera two days ago, a Leica M 240. I still have my film Nikons as well as my M4-P and will continue to use them for specific projects where I want to use Tri-X.

As for allaround shooting and street photography, I will use the M 240.