OK. So I'm converted...

[Riverman]

For color at least. I've shot film since 1998. The joy of darkroom work was the thing that first got me hooked on photography. Since 2007 I started to shoot medium and large format and also began to shoot much more color. I also started and loved color darkroom work.

Earlier this month I finally got my hands on a dslr. Having a range of Nikon lenses for my film system, I went for a D700. I decided the time was right for me to explore digital. I work long hours and hardly ever seem to find enough time to shoot, let alone print in the darkroom or scan at home. The convenience of digital was too hard to resist.

Tonight, I'm looking at an 11x14 print straight from an in camera jpeg. A low light dawn shot. Handheld at f2, iso 800. OH MY! The print is incredible. Just how I saw the scene. Don't get me wrong. I could have captured the same scene nicely on Portra 400. But if I had, the chances are, the neg would still be sitting in a file waiting for me to do something with it, whether scan or print. With my digi shot, it took just two minutes to upload it to a decent online lab doing digi c types.

The speed and versatility of digital, in particular for color makes me doubt tonight that I'll ever shoot much 35mm color again. I never thought I'd say that. For such a long time I have been evangelical about film, in particular color, which I perceive to be most under threat.

Honestly, I'm glad I learned color on film. I only know what I'm doing with color in PS due to my color darkroom time and that was a fun way to learn. I can still enjoy the darkroom but I really think it's just for b&w for me now. I even think my D700 is going to displace color for me in large format. I hate to say that because there's nothing like looking at an LF chrome on the light table. But as I say, tonight looking at this print, I've had my conversion moment. The advantages of digital color are indisputable.

 

[jesse1dog]

Yes - came to the same conclusion too.
Not only the convenience but also the time factor. I can go out, take 2 or 3 shots and have results on the computer in a couple of minutes. I don't have to wait to finish a film. I uploaded some results to a photo lab for 10"x8" prints on Tuesday morning. This morning, Thursday, I have the results back. And I'm very pleased. Cost of each print £0.99, and that didn't take into account the 20% off discount voucher that I cashed in at the same time. I couldn't do better prints, and the cost is pretty minimal.
For me at my age, it's a 'no-brainer'.

jesse

 

[leica M2 fan]

I'm sorry to say that I agree with both of you. Film, film, film for me was my mantra but now am totally into the D700 for color. I still will do B&W with my film cameras just to keep me going though.

 

[Riverman]

As Jesse noted, the speed is the great thing. No waiting for the end of the roll. Never having the wrong speed film loaded for the given light. I know there's a world of digital post processing to explore. But right now I'm getting kicks from in camera jpegs. The cost is also a winner. Color film materials are pricey, as is color darkroom hire. It also costs time that I don't have.

I'm also glad to be free of the torture of scanning! (apart from the backlog I have to work through).

 

[Leica0Series]

The convenience all comes on the front end ... storing those images for the next two decades across multiple hard drives is the sticky part for digital. I recently dug out some old negatives to scan and send to a friend, shot in 1983 ... just walked to my binder, opened it up, found the shots, scanned them and off they went. Finding old digital stuff from just a few years ago takes longer.

With that said, I shoot more digital than film, too.

 

[DrTebi]

I am starting to sound like an old record, but...

... for projection digital is still not on par with an "analog" slide show. Most affordable digital projectors cannot do more than HD (2 megapixels). The right projector, especially medium format, can give you way more detail than that. Some argue that our eyes won't notice all that much detail from a certain distance, but call me crazy, I like to sit about seven feet away from my 8x8 foot screen, and I love it 🙂

 

[Riverman]

I'm conscious of having to adopt a new system for archiving/backing up. Also appreciate the advantages of slide for projection. I've lived with film for a long time but for me, right now, digital is just what I need. The one occasion where I may still shoot color 135 is on long hike/backpacking trips where my Nikon FM weighs nothing compared with the D700. But being so impressed with the prints I'm getting from digital files there's a chance I might even pick up a cheap, light dx dslr for trips into hills and mountains.

 

[ajuk]

One of the reasons I still use colour film is the convenience of having images coming back from the lab with no further work needed doing to them, no tedious RAW adjustments, at least when I use a pro lab, but I suppose that doesn't help if you do colour darkroom.

 

[Filmnut]

I tend to shoot digital (Nikon D-90) for colour too, and B&W film for B&W prints. Like many others, I've been seduced by the speed and convience of digital.
E-6 processing is harder to get done, but I still love the look of tranparencies, esp. medium or large format.
Keith

 

[Riverman]

Just picking up this thread 6 months into working with digital. For color, I'm totally sold. I make 16x20 prints from the D700 which to my eye compare with similar sized prints from 6x6 colour neg. I've sold my Mamiya 6 - while optically the dslr can't match it, it still comes bloody close and the d700 is so versatile compared to medium format.

Having shot tons of c41 in 35mm, 120 and 4x5 and printed it all in the darkroom I'm just stunned at the prints a good dslr can deliver. It totally eclipses 35mm and up to 16x20 compares favourably with 120 and even 4x5. Plus the dslr can grab shots that the 4x5 can't.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sbk21/sets/72157630058818297/

I decried digital for such a long time without ever trying it. I'm now so glad
to have dipped my toe in the water. I'm still shooting film but only 35mm black and white. (for b&w i doubt i'll ever quit on film but already toying around with raw files i can see massive creative potential in digital b&w)

If you're a colour film shooter waiting to try digital, give it a go, make some prints and enjoy.

 

[Trius]

" while optically the dslr can't match it, it still comes bloody close" ... remind me again why I'm supposed to switch to digital? Versatility? I'm 63 and shoot 4x5 as well as miniature formats. I work slow. Your prints eclipse even 4x5? Really?

I don't grab shots on 4x5, that's not the purpose of 4x5. Tell me about the tilt, swing and shift of your D700.

 

[Riverman]

" while optically the dslr can't match it, it still comes bloody close" ... remind me again why I'm supposed to switch to digital? Versatility? I'm 63 and shoot 4x5 as well as miniature formats. I work slow. Your prints eclipse even 4x5? Really?

I don't grab shots on 4x5, that's not the purpose of 4x5. Tell me about the tilt, swing and shift of your D700.

The color prints certainly eclipse the quality obtainable from a color 35mm enlargement and no, they clearly don't eclipse 4x5 but the quality is good enough for the type of photography that interests me.

You're not supposed to 'switch' to digital but hey don't be afraid to give it a try. If you've spent any time enlarging color negs in the darkroom you'll immediately perceive the advantages of digital over color roll film.

As an aside, I'd be surprised if many jobbing architectural photographers aren't doing a portion of their work with dslrs and pc lenses these days. For them up to a given enlargement size, there's probably little point in shooting 4x5.

Ultimately, the image matters more than the medium or the camera and I'm beginning to appreciate (after being a long time film luddite - which it rather sounds you are too) that I can shoot knock out images with or without film.

 

[sevo]

I am starting to sound like an old record, but...

... for projection digital is still not on par with an "analog" slide show. Most affordable digital projectors cannot do more than HD (2 megapixels).

Even the non-affordable ones can't. No projector maker has so far targeted projection resolutions or quality significantly upwards of 35mm cine (around 18x22mm anamorphic, third generation print, with the inherent limitations covered up by motion) - a original slide on a ebay projector does absolutely blast away anything you can do with any current theatre grade digital projector, no matter how much money you sink into the latter. And we aren't even talking of medium or large format projection there.

 

[Athiril]

Once I compared well colour balanced Portra 400 side by side with my dSLR images of the same setup and exposure, it was just game over for me, I barely ever pull out my dSLR anymore apart from using it as a sophisticated meter. I wouldn't care if I got more sharpness out of a digital camera, the overall image quality was more important than sharpness to me.

If I am shooting anything that I am taking seriously or semi-seriously I will shoot film, or personal work, film. If I need a shot of some stuff to quickly stick up online, that's generally when I pull out the dSLR, or if the light drops too far, and want to get a last few shots in when not on a tripod (almost exclusively shoot medium format, rarely touch 35mm).

If I get asked to do another wedding again, I won't hesitate to rent a 35mm dSLR for it instead however. Managed to pull a few off with the RB67, all I can say is PITA. I'd at least use a 645 with winder or modern pro level 35mm body if I had to stick with film for a wedding.

The color prints certainly eclipse the quality obtainable from a color 35mm enlargement and no, they clearly don't eclipse 4x5 but the quality is good enough for the type of photography that interests me.

You're not supposed to 'switch' to digital but hey don't be afraid to give it a try. If you've spent any time enlarging color negs in the darkroom you'll immediately perceive the advantages of digital over color roll film.

As an aside, I'd be surprised if many jobbing architectural photographers aren't doing a portion of their work with dslrs and pc lenses these days. For them up to a given enlargement size, there's probably little point in shooting 4x5.

Ultimately, the image matters more than the medium or the camera and I'm beginning to appreciate (after being a long time film luddite - which it rather sounds you are too) that I can shoot knock out images with or without film.

By quality, you mean luminance detail correct? It depends on the enlargement, if you're scanning, then likely so.

 

[sevo]

The color prints certainly eclipse the quality obtainable from a color 35mm enlargement

Maybe not in absolute terms of the highest achievable quality, but certainly regarding the quality you can get from an all-automatic print out of any consumer grade lab factory - digital shifted the possibility (and burden) of preprocessing to the photographer. Any decent lab can now be as good as a master printer, if you grow into a master preprocessor.

 

[btgc]

My $0.05 - after years of film-only, I've recently bought two APS-C cameras, DSLR and compact (both near obsolete, thus low cost above-average digital cameras for price of lowend though current compacts). Just to know what digital is all about 🙂 So I'm sitting on two benches at a time. One big plus is can shoot less expired film (did so to cut costs) and use FRESH ONLY, at least true for color negs, B&W is more forgiving.

What I know is I have freedom go either route to fulfill my needs for particular case. Even if I have spent money on digital, nothing keeps me from using good fresh film when I feel I have to and see benefits from doing so. I'll just shoot less expired C-41 and spend some time to get around with RAW conversion SW (neither of my digitals are great for .jpg) but I'm used to slow workflow. I do not give up on my core film cameras (especially those with specialty lenses), just some fully auto casual-FL film compacts will see more dust. For sure important and family stuff will be shot also on film. Digital is for speed and convenience.

I've made backup partition on second HDD to keep copies of picture files, too. True men do not do backups, like they do not shoot digital. I'm not real man, I'm still learning.

 

[Trius]

To be clear, I have nothing against digital per se, and I do shoot digital when the situation calls for it. When I start needing or wanting to do more digital capture, it will likely be a mirrorless m43 or APS-C camera.

But the OP (though an old post) caught my eye as it made what I felt were incorrect or irrelevant claims. I have never used a PC lens on a handheld camera and I know they are quite useful. But I doubt they completely replace all the capabilities of a view camera, at least as I understand the physics of full movements.

"Good enough" and what I may envision for a final printed image can be quite different.

I quite enjoy darkroom work, so what someone else considers as an advantage over "color roll film" may not be an advantage to me.

I work primarily in b&w (especially now that Kodachrome processing is gone) and especially for 4x5 I have not seen anything digital that I consider an advantage.

 

[Speedfreak]

Obviously, only people shooting medium or large format today praise the quality of film. 35mm seems to be "owned" by digital.

I can certainly say, I never managed to get a scan from a 35mm negative as clean and sharp as from a decent digital camera. I tried Coolscans, Plusteks, Reflectas.

 

[Aristophanes]

One of the reasons I still use colour film is the convenience of having images coming back from the lab with no further work needed doing to them, no tedious RAW adjustments, at least when I use a pro lab, but I suppose that doesn't help if you do colour darkroom.

Me too.

I love getting Ektar 100 colour prints in 4x6 back in an envelope. Always surprises, which with digital, one has to work at through pixel-level editing. They are sharp, fun, saturated, and different.

Sure, lots of misses and some unsatisfying results, but still worth it. It's the cost of film and processing that is now the major issue. Not quality.

 

[Trius]

Obviously, only people shooting medium or large format today praise the quality of film. 35mm seems to be "owned" by digital.

I can certainly say, I never managed to get a scan from a 35mm negative as clean and sharp as from a decent digital camera. I tried Coolscans, Plusteks, Reflectas.

Ha! I love Ektar 100, plus some other colour films, although you didn't specify colour. And for b&w, I prefer the rendering of film over having to introduce post processing of digital images to get the look I like. That's not to say I don't admire a lot of photos that were digital captures.

"Owned"? Nah.