Where do you stand?

Where do you stand?

  • 80-100% digital

    Votes: 142 18.0%

  • 80-100% film

    Votes: 281 35.6%

  • both film and digital

    Votes: 286 36.2%

  • hybred: film with digital printing

    Votes: 80 10.1%
  • Total voters
    789
Fluctuates for me I find, so film and digital, but can be heavily skewed in favour of one or the other at times. Film for the pleasure of shooting and the results, digital for the convenience of a digital file, and am learning to invest the time in my post-processing to get the results I want. Film for b&w and digital for colour make a good combination I imagine, although for me I get bored of developing film and scanning it.
 
Taking pics, I'm 100% film.
If you discount using a loupe for viewing the negs, I'm 100% digital i.e. scanning/posting.
 
I shoot almost only digital since 2008, but I've used film for many years.

I do use DxO FilmPack to get the film look on some of my shots. It has a very nice selection of films and is, IMHO, the more accurate.

I do pick up my old Nikon from time to time to shoot a roll or two.
 
I seem to swing backwards and forwards between the two. I can't see myself giving up film but digital is getting steadily better with a really interesting range of cameras available currently. I bought an SLR I've always lusted after a few weeks ago ... an OM-3. Two weeks later I followed that up by getting an OMD ... oh dear, so confusing! :p
 
Since I have the M9 I didn't put a single film in a camera. My wife uses her M6 as we don't have a second M9 ...yet.
 
I'm in the "both film and digital" category, with a digital DSLR, and various cameras for film (RF, SLR, and some medium and large format cameras).
 
I like the convenience of digital and the batteryless freedom that film cameras offer. If only the laws of physics were circumvented and the need to to charge cameras, smartphones, 'pads, & 'pods twice daily becomes obsolete.
 
Chris101 said:
11 months ago when I last visited this thread I was 80-100% film. Today I am 80-100% digital. I wonder where I will be a year from now?
Click to expand...

I evidently voted and never commented. Now I'm lost. I would guess about a year ago, I'd be the same as Chris here. Lately, the project I'm working has called for film, digital just didn't work, and the only reason that they may run 50/50 is because digital is used to check light and to record reminders for later.

As to expense, around 55 to 80 cents per photo, that seems really reasonable to me. (Since I bulk load and use Diafine often, it may even be a little less.).

(If my math is correct, it is actually around 25 cents per photo. That to me is cheap. Especially since I'm looking at another digital camera--my fifth one since 2001 because nowadays you upgrade cameras instead of using the newest film--for about $2500.00. $2500 is a lot of film and I'll have to replace it in another three or four years.)
 
kxl said:
I find myself straddling the line... I like digital for color, film for B&W.
Click to expand...

As much as I love films like Ektar (especially) and the colors they produce, this is true for me too. Mostly because I can develop B&W myself (and print myself now that I have access to a darkroom).

B&W film has something special to it, something I have less with most color films. I love Kodak Ektar and Portra, but am not too big a fan of most (not all) other color films. A lot of color film is very similar to digital, which isn't all that exciting for me.
 
I love both cause both have pro's and con's. What I also do is digital processing of scanned analog prints to either restore damaged prints or to create new artwork.

Cheers!
 
Digital for my commercial work. I prefer film for my autonomous work but love my X100 too. And I've done quite a lot with my iPhone. The dslr usually only gets picked up for commercial work (which for me is mostly interior and architecture). I have no bond with that thing.

I hope to be able to shoot film for my commercial work in the future too.. don't like shooting portraits digitally. Don't do a lot of commercial portraiture at the moment, and would never want to do the 'cheap and fast linkedin portrait' stuff.

For architecture and interior I'll probably stick to digital for a while, architects tend to hire me for a job they want done yesterday every once in a while because suddenly they need it for a presentation, hadn't gotten around to asking me before yet, and I can't see myself getting it done on film then. I suppose that's the main problem with most everyday commercial work nowadays; people expect it asap.
 
I voted 80% film. What I do the the DSLR is not photography but documenting. (Occasionally my wife reminds my "would do some documentation also, please")
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom