Two Questions

[Larry Cloetta]

Struggling to answer the first question because there are so many differences between film and digital photography that I can’t pick the “biggest” difference. Two entirely different disciplines, like watercolor and oils. Different results and different processes. “But, but the framing, the composition, the lighting.” Yes that’s the same, as it would be for watercolor and oils, but it’s about the only thing that’s the same. Sometimes the sought for end result would dictate one over the other, sometimes the perceived personal pleasure of the process might dictate one over the other. I’ve never been able to decide what the biggest difference is so I just quit worrying about it and just do both, because I enjoy both at different times, in different situations. Personally, and it’s nothing more than personally.

Second question: Film or digital I pretty much do same number of exposures for either, so never been an issue. 3 shot bracket being the most exorbitant use of either I generally do, either way. The personal time cost of sitting in front of a computer screen staring at multiple almost identical digital images is more likely to cause depression than paying for an extra frame of film, so burst mode has never been much of a temptation outside of sports photography, where I’d use it for film as well anyway.

Film vs. digital. Whatever makes you happy, that’s the best for you, and if it’s the best for you, then it’s the best. And if you can’t tell the difference between a digital photo and a film photo, there’s nothing to be gained by arguing with people who can. And vice versa.

 

[das]

I have been trying to extract myself from the 21st-century culture of buy, briefly use, dispose. No new cars. No new digital cameras. Nothing that is a product of planned obsolescence. While we cannot escape computers and mobile phones from reaching the end of their product & software support cycles, there are some things that we can re-use as long as they can be repaired. Many scholars have noted that it is better for the environment to use something already made as long as possible rather than buy something new, that must be manufactured, materials mined and refined, parts and finished product transported around the world, electrical power to run those operations, etc., at great cost to our present and future.

Digital first interested me because its high ISO values could take reasonably good photos in indoor available light, something that would have required a very fast lens or very fast film to accomplish. Digital still is pretty good for this purpose. However, every single digital camera I had either broke or fell into obsolescence, at an expense of hundreds, thousands of dollars of depreciation. After 3-4 years, I could not give good digital point-and-shoots away for free as mobile phones became normal people's preferred way of taking photos. What a waste.

While digital photography technology has levelled off somewhat in recent years, the next "breakthrough" will cause many to scramble for the newest iPhone or 80mp mirrorless sensor.

Thus, to answer your first question, the difference between film and digital is that film cameras are as obsolete as they are ever going to get. As long as film is made, film cameras will have value. Certain of them also represent some highpoints of 20th century human craftsmanship and ingenuity. For working pros, digital is 100% the way to go. For casual shooters, in my opinion, it doesn't matter what medium you use.

To your second question, a photographer mentor once gave me some advice: Don't take a picture unless you would pay $5 for it. While certainly not a "hard and fast" rule, that philosophy has kept me from "overshooting" and really helps me to think more deeply about why I am taking a certain picture and what I want it to be.

 

[JeffS7444]

With film, I took far fewer photos indoors or after dark, much less ones of my meals. ISO 100 color flm indoors? Not so hot without a tripod, and maybe additional lighting. And since color temperature of artificial lighting was such a fuss, most of what I did shoot indoors was with black and white film. But when I did get a good available-light photo indoors or after dusk, it felt like I had accomplished something special.

I also spent a lot more time not actually photographing, so much as doing grunt work like loading film holders or mixing chemicals.

 

[narsuitus]

I purchased dozens of manual/mechanical cameras which needed CLA at least.

I have owned and used the following manual/mechanical film cameras:
Nikon F SLR (owned two)
Nikon F2 SLR (owned seven)
Leica M1
Leica M6 rangefinder
Mamiya C3 TLR
Mamiya C22 TLR
Mamiya C220 TLR
Fuji 6x7cm rangefinder
Fuji 6x9cm rangefinder
RB67 SLR (owned two)
Fuji ST705 SLR (owned two)
Pentax Spotmatic SLR (owned four)
Graflex 4X5 inch press camera
Calumet 4x5 inch mono-rail view camera

All have needed very little to no repair work. One Nikon F2 dropped from waist-level height onto a concrete floor and continued working for a couple of weeks before it stopped working.

I have owned and used the following automatic/electronic digital cameras:
Vivitar Vivicam 3615 Digital Camera 2.1mp point & shoot
Hewlett Packard Photosmart M425 5mp point & shoot
Canon PowerShot G5 compact (owned 2)
Canon PowerShot G11 compact (owned 1)
Canon PowerShot G15 compact (owned 2)
Olympus E-P1 micro 4/3
Olympus E-P3 micro 4/3
Fuji S5 SLR (Fuji modified Nikon D200 SLR) (owned 3)
Fuji X-Pro1 mirrorless (owned 3)
Fuji X-Pro2 mirrorless (owned 1)
Leica M10 rangefinder (owned 2) (one black and one chrome)

Too many have needed repair work. The two point & shoot cameras broke and were not worth repairing. One Canon G5 dropped from waist-level height onto a carpeted floor and immediately stopped working. Replaced the G5 instead of repairing it. Both Olympus micro 4/3 cameras broke too many times. Both my Leica M10 bodies broke too many times. The black M10 broke so many times that Leica told the dealer to refund my money. The chrome M10 broke when it was out of warranty and will cost me $2,000 to repair.

Therefore, based on my experiences, automatic/electronic digital cameras have not been as reliable for me as manual/mechanical film cameras.

 

[BillBingham2]

.....
So, a couple of years ago I got a divorce from film photography. It was amicable. We still respect each other, we have fond memories..... My life is digital.

All the best,
Mike

I keep trying to leave, but there's several things I want to do, but haven't had the time or the cash simultaneously.


To answer the questions...

1) For me the biggest difference is cost, speed and ease of seeing what I shoot. Going through ups and deep downs over the past 15+ years has taken it's toll on being able to spend money or time on photography. Digital has allowed me to keep my finger into it. Not as deep as I'd like, but at least they are in it.

2) While I may shoot four or six frames of an image, I don't think that puts me into the Spray and Pray (SaP) category. They are never from the same angle or cropping. That night I edit out the zero, one or if I'm lucky two keepers and free up the other bytes for the next day. While I may capture an image quickly, the next frame is much more thought through (cropping, critical moment, expressions). Used to be SaPers would mostly be limited to 36 exposures, 1/2GB cards allows just about anyone (IHMO) with the cash and a bit of knowledge to capture something useable. Horse is out of the barn, down the road.....on this one.

B2 (;->

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Shadows and highlights. Digital is better with preserving shadow detail, film is better at preserving highlights.

 

[Darthfeeble]

Bill, I think you have described the difference between a Photographer and a snapshooter. The largest SD card I own is 16 GB, and I've yet to fill one with the single exeption of a trip to Kruger National Park in So. Africa. I shoot an Epson R-D1 and never filled the 2 GB cards that it uses. I've returned to film and find that a 36 exp roll is quite the bother to fill up so I order 24s. Even my Fuji 645 is difficult to fill in one shoot for me. I learned to shoot on film and that might be the difference. Street shooters probably are more prone to the type of shooting you mention, it's a necessity there I suppose.

 

[Bill Clark]

Film you gotta know at the outset what you’ve got in your mind for the photograph you’re gonna make, then know how use your creative skills to make the photograph without knowing the results instantly. Self doubt by the photographer would usually be satisfied with a Polaroid back to serve as a test, just to be sure.

With digital, you instantly know what you’ve got. Some take the machine gun approach, thinking something is bound to turn out. They lack the training and understanding of the basics and, for some, could care less.

The way you can become better at the game and not overshoot is know what you want to accomplish and formulate a game plan to achieve your desired results.

 

[35photo]

There are no digital or film photographers…. just photographers!! Stop with the silly divide.

 

[Pál_K]

This thread contains some very articulate, eloquent, well thought-out responses.

For me, the biggest difference is that the process of using film cameras is fun.

One thing I’ve realized is that a digital camera is more than just a camera: it contains elements of a film manufacturing plant and a darkroom. With a film camera, all the camera does is make the exposure. Before even releasing the shutter, your choice of film defines the parameters of what your image can look like. Once the film is exposed, your choice of developer and paper defines the parameters of what the final image can look like. With a digital camera, all of these are selectable, which accounts for the all the menu options and the 500-page virtual manual.

 

[farlymac]

1) With digital I don't need to take as many notes, most of the necessary information is included in the file. Plus I can take a photo of a street sign or business sign to reference later on.

2) I still mainly shoot like there is a roll of film in the camera. But every once in a while I will allow myself to explore all the possibilities of the scene because, well, I can. It's nice to have that option.

PF

 

[Oscuro]

Surety of Exposure

Surety of Exposure

Caro Bill,


Both darling husband and I shoot less now that we are almost exclusively digital.



Why? It is simply because we shoot colour and we can see if we are getting what we thing we are thinking for the exposure. No more bracketing for insurance.



We used to shoot transparency film and if light was changing fast often many more than "one stop up and one stop down"! Some times two or three. Regatta shot during storm was the biggest trouble: four up and four down in half-stops. Nine frames! Four "shots" each roll! It was enough to drive one back to black and white! No more.



After that, perhaps high ISO. We can shoot in "available darkness" and still stop motion mostly.


Ciao!
Mme. O.

 

[Michael Markey]

Sorry Bill but I think you’re either making generalizations or I’m some kind of weirdo outlier. Personally I’ve never given a thought to ‘burst mode’ or continuous shooting, and I like to think that I give just as much thought to shooting digital as I do film or even glass plates (I’d be interested to know where you got the idea that shooting digital requires less thought and that we’re all just blindly blasting away). I guess if I could say there is one ‘advantage’ of shooting digital it’s the instant feedback, and if you have to make adjustments you can do them right away and assess the differences in real time. This is particularly important if you’re shooting a job or you’re visiting a place that you may not easily be able to come back to and reshoot. Turnaround time might be another advantage as David mentioned above. And speaking of shooting jobs, if I DIDN’T think as much when shooting with my digital cameras on a job, I would definitely screw up that job and would definitely lose the client. So thinking and planning ahead are essential, no matter what camera I’m using.

And here’s another thing, which is a personal pet peeve and somewhat related: I don’t ever ever call myself a ‘digital photographer’, or even a ‘film photographer’ or a whatever photographer depending upon the particular camera I happen to grab that day, and despite what some of the camera clubs that I know like to cut us up into all these little neat categories. Maybe professionally I will call myself a ‘commercial photographer’ but that’s about the only exception. Personally I’m just a photographer - to me the recording media doesn’t matter, though I do have my preferences. I still have to think about light, composition, content and the moment, no matter what the image recording material is. But that’s just me.

Sorry if that’s not necessarily answering your two questions, but I hope it’s of some value.

I`d agree with that .
I`m stuck with me whatever medium I`m using .
Ok I may favour the faster turn around which digital affords but other than that ...

 

[Richard G]

1. The wonderful exposure flexibility of colour negative film: open two stops for the bottles behind the dimly lit bar and still have detail in the bright incandescent lights overhead in the foreground.
2. Shoot Raw large files and think of the editing time and the eventual storage woes. And remember that the first or maybe the second are often the best shots.

 

[jsrockit]

Shadows and highlights. Digital is better with preserving shadow detail, film is better at preserving highlights.

Good one….

 

[bullterrier]

The big difference is that with digital I can shoot much more!

 

[ellisson]

Overshooting is merely a venial sin, if a sin at all.

Come across some really interesting light, a remarkable scene or event, a breathtaking landscape or cityscape, musicians or dancers performing, etc....whether film or digital, I'll overshoot as much as the ideas based on changing light, action, or different angles of view occur to me at the time. To be differentiated from brainless, thoughtless burst mode. It is easier and more efficient to do this with digital when the light is challenging, quickly changing, and the action is fast. Depends on the kind of shooting you do.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

I guess I really have two questions. (1) What do you think is the biggest difference between film and digital photography. (2) Is there any way to overcome overshooting when you don’t have to pay for film?

Question (1) is difficult for me to answer as all of my film cameras are fully manual, or at least that's the only way I use them, and that is a much different experience than using an automated camera, film or digital. I enjoy the close-to-the-metal experience of shooting a manual focus, manual exposure setting, manual advance camera. Some of my film cameras have internal light meters to help me decide on exposure settings, but it's me focusing the lens with my eye and physically setting the aperture and shutter speed. I find this much more satisfying. I don't get distracted trying to force the camera's automatic settings to do what I want them to. This has to do with the manual nature of the cameras though, not the medium on which the images are captured. I think a Leica M10 would give me the manual camera experience I enjoy in a digital camera, whereas an automated film camera like, say, a Nikon F5 would likely leave me cold for all of the same reasons my D7000 does.

I do think the knowledge that pressing the shutter button on my film cameras is causing light to physically change the film it is exposing matters. It's like the difference between going to a target range and firing real bullets versus playing a shoot-'em-up video game. Both are fun, but it isn't the same experience. To me, shooting with a digital camera feels like playing a video game about photography. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

 

[xayraa33]

Less dust marks on digital but I prefer film when photography is a hobby and not a way to make a living from.

 

[agentlossing]

Less dust marks on digital but I prefer film when photography is a hobby and not a way to make a living from.

Unless you have a Ricoh GR... hahah.