Mix of film and digital (2010 update)

Mix of film and digital (2010 update)

  • 100% film

    Votes: 100 29.2%

  • 75% film and 25% digital

    Votes: 89 25.9%

  • 50%:50% film and digital

    Votes: 55 16.0%

  • 25% film and 75% digital

    Votes: 77 22.4%

  • 100% digital

    Votes: 22 6.4%
  • Total voters
    343
  • Poll closed .
30 film, 70% digital. I shoot film but scan my negatives. A friend let me borrow his M8 to shoot his wedding. I snapped 1200 photos in 4 days. I can't justify that amount of work with film.

For my own personal projects, I'll use film. I like to try different gear and film combos, and see what works. Lately it's been a Contax G2, 28/2.8 and Fuji 400H which made this:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4026/4409632545_2e07085e1d_b.jpg
 
bagdadchild said:
You want a Leica M9? Time to rethink!

Leica M9 vs film
Click to expand...

Which is awesome ... except when I want to shoot color, or shoot with lighting that requires ISO 800-3200, or when lighting is tricky and I don't want to exposure bracket or when I need it right now and don't have time to develop it myself, in which case, digital "wins". So what's the score, 1 for special film in a special developer and 4 for digital?

I'd like a Leica M9, but I'm not paying $7k for any digital camera unless it comes with a free car. I'm not a pro, I do this for fun. So I'm picking up film and scanning it all hoping that maybe in a decade I'll be able to reasonably afford a full frame digital rangefinder.

Yes, I'm planning to buy some of that film because it looks amazing ever since I heard of it at APUG. But that doesn't mean that film as a whole is better than digital. Both have strengths and weaknesses (such as the M9's inability to deal with wide lenses, part of the reason I'm here in rangefinder land in the first place) and people who can't see that really aren't seeing the forest for the trees.
 
Without being terribly scientific about it, I'm probably about 50-50 digital/film. Ironically, I have found that I'm more selective taking pictures with the digital camera because I don't have to worry about finishing the roll in order to have it developed. I'm also fortunate that there are a number of pro labs near my office that develop and print, and their prices are comparable to what I was paying ~10 years ago at mediocre retail labs (E6 processing is actually a lot cheaper), so from my perspective I haven't noticed inflation in film-related costs...yet.

Mike
 
Somewhere in 2006, I firmly decided that I would go digital only. So I loaded the last roll of film I had in the RF in order to be done with the whole stuff.. Got back the results, and thought 'Hey, these shots are quite good actually'.

I've repeatedly bought my 'last roll of film' ever since.. I just keep coming back to film over and over again for shots that are meant to last.

This year, I've shot about 25% on film, 75% digital..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom