"Why don’t you just go digital?"

[EdwardKaraa]

What I like most about film is it's analog quality. It is very much like an oil painting, while digital is like computer graphics. Digital is superior but I prefer film for its imperfections.

 

[Robert Lai]

I pretty much agree with everything that Sean wrote - down to his choice of an M7 (though mine is in chrome).

I like the physical nature of film. I like handling it, looking at it to see what the image is, projecting it (if a slide), and filing it. Its real, physical existence vs a virtual electronic record which could get lost or deleted it a major attraction of film for me.

I also happen to like film cameras. Simple, straightforward designs. No menus in any of my film cameras.

 

[Sparrow]

Bloody submenus mostly ...

 

[thegman]

At the moment, for me, shooting film is about the camera more than the process. You simply cannot buy digital cameras which are anywhere near as pleasant to use as film cameras. The M9 is probably pretty close, but there is the still the menus, not to mention the cost. I'm sometimes embarrassed by how much I spend on kit, but all together it costs less than half a M9.

Digital is tempting though, cameras with EVFs take away any issues with back-focus or other calibration issues. 35mm Ektar 100, if processed perfectly and scanned perfectly has been shown to outresolves a Canon 5D MkII. But of course, the Canon brings it A game every day, and does not need top end processing and scanning, it just does it.

There is a place for both, and even if I shot 100% digital, I'd still cheer on everyone who chose to shoot film.

 

[Keith]

At the moment, for me, shooting film is about the camera more than the process. You simply cannot buy digital cameras which are anywhere near as pleasant to use as film cameras. The M9 is probably pretty close, but there is the still the menus, not to mention the cost. I'm sometimes embarrassed by how much I spend on kit, but all together it costs less than half a M9.

Digital is tempting though, cameras with EVFs take away any issues with back-focus or other calibration issues. 35mm Ektar 100, if processed perfectly and scanned perfectly has been shown to outresolves a Canon 5D MkII. But of course, the Canon brings it A game every day, and does not need top end processing and scanning, it just does it.

There is a place for both, and even if I shot 100% digital, I'd still cheer on everyone who chose to shoot film.

You've never used an RD-1 then? 🙂

 

[Frontman]

I have been carrying my new X-Pro since I bought it a couple of months ago. I have shot a lot with it, and I am really pleased with the camera. But when I went out for the weekend, I left the X-Pro at home, and packed my Rolleiflex and Nikon S3 into my bag. As much as like the X-Pro, it still doesn't appeal to my mechanical nature as much as my old film cameras do.

 

[raid]

Keith,
I have never used an RD-1. In a nutshell, is it "as good as film"?

 

[rayfoxlee]

Like many, I have both digital and analogue, but there is no doubt that for me film has a special quality, not least being the tactile issue of being able to handle the film - as well as the storage. I have just gone through my parent-in-law's photo files going back 60+ years and there are priceless memories there - some faded, some scratched, but all with a real connect to the past. Irreplaceable

Ray

 

[Keith]

Keith,
I have never used an RD-1. In a nutshell, is it "as good as film"?

Absolutely Raid if you're talking about the user experience itself.

With the LCD reversed there is nothing that distinguishes it from being a film camera ... it just feels like a slightly heavier Bessa and is virtrually the same to operate. 🙂

 

[peterm1]

I just find that the convenience of digital outweighs all else. I have to admit I habitually post process my images so there is convenience in that sense too. I now shoot much more than I ever did with film and my images have improved as a result. But at the end of the day its really down to personal preference.

 

[maddoc]

While trying to explain why I shoot film to a friend the other night.
She listened intently in a noisy bar over a couple drinks and then replied...

" So like the difference between Facebook friends vs real friends or fake boobs vs real boobs?"

It was hard to not laugh even though I use digital as well as film.
Do we think film is more "real"?

A "fake boobs vs real boobs" thread, nice !! 😱😀

 

[Jockos]

As a OT note: many PJs traveling to locations where they can't get their Digital camera and laptop batteries charged - because there is no power, are going back to film cameras for these assignments.

Sounds crazy. How many rolls of film do you need to replace the capacity of one 5D mk II battery? You can leave the camera on for months or you could take a few thousand pictures before it's drained.
And I bet it's easier to find a power generator than a darkroom in the jungle too.

 

[Trius]

Sounds crazy. How many rolls of film do you need to replace the capacity of one 5D mk II battery? You can leave the camera on for months or you could take a few thousand pictures before it's drained.
And I bet it's easier to find a power generator than a darkroom in the jungle too.

I think it actually has more to do with lack of telecom (ability to upload,) lack of enough power to keep a laptop charged and the relative safety of film. By the latter I mean that one can more easily and securely mail film back to the agency, lab, etc., without it being intercepted by Internet monitoring. Maybe John Densky can comment and clarify.

 

[ray*j*gun]

I as talking to my son over the weekend, he is a computer toy designer. He wants to get into photography as a way to improve his overall artistic scope. Wants to do B&W. So, I told him you can either get a digital camera and spend ohhhhh many thousands of $ and maybe get good images or spend about $50. to $100. for a good Nikkormat (with a lens) etc and get great results using film. He thought I was kidding and it does sound like a joke.

 

[Jockos]

I don't know how much traveling you have done in the 3rd world. Generators aren't easy to find. Then you must worry about the output - usually 220 50Hz converting to your charging gear. Poor output will often fry your gear. Solar panels are popular, but can take a full day to charge one battery (and you're stuck waiting on site for the charge to complete). So with Laptop use (and you have to pack your laptop) and charging that battery too, it's a lot easier to use film cameras.

Film is shipped out, rarely processed on site.

What is your experience doing PJ in the field - for more than 14 days out, in the 3rd word.. North Africa as an example?

I have absolutely no experience of PJ whatsoever but...
If you can ship out your film, you should be able to ship out your CF-cards just as easily?
And if you can carry more than one roll of film, you should be able to carry more than one battery? For each roll of film you carry, you could just as easily carry one more spare battery, with the shooting power of 100 film rolls, at the same weight/size. They even come packaged in a environmental sealed container when you buy them!
And if you don't look at you film images before sending them out, then you shouldn't have to look at your digital files in a laptop before sending the CF either?
What I'm suggesting is that if you use the same workflow with digital as film, you could have hundred times more shooting power at the same size/weight with digital, and that's why I think it sounds crazy.

 

[johannielscom]

Sean Bonner is "a Los Angeles based entrepreneur, journalist, activist and enthusiast" holding an interesting view about not switching to digital:


http://blog.seanbonner.com/2012/05/08/why-dont-you-just-go-digital/

Marked that link since it exactly conveys what I think and feel about my film photography. Rare!

Thanks for posting, Bob!

 

[brbo]

RAM doesn't ship well with uncalibrated X-Ray machines.. film does better.

Any reliable source to back that up? I've never had any data corruption on any of my digital devices that use memory chips. Never heard/read any warning from device manufacturer of such danger. Even more, memory cards are marketed as x-ray resistant. Unlike film.

So, I'm confused. Is this "x-ray will destroy your memory card" a new or an old thing?

 

[brbo]

So, some ill-functioning 3rd world x-ray machines suddenly have the ability to destroy memory cards and at the same time suddenly loose the ability to fog film?

Exactly the opposite of all other x-ray machines used to scan package/bag contents?!

http://www.i3a.org/wp-content/uploads/docs/electronic_storage_media_test.pdf
http://www.i3a.org/wp-content/uploads/docs/i3afilmxraytestreport.pdf

Maybe some smart peeps should look at that 3rd world x-ray scanners and figure out how they manage not to fog film. 🙂


Edit: This is from Kingston's website:

6. Avoid U.S. Postal Service radiation scanning of mailed packages.
According to the CompactFlash Association, X-ray scanners at airports will not damage CompactFlash cards but radiation scanning by the U.S. Postal Service may damage them. 2 Because of this warning by the CompactFlash Association regarding mail irradiation by the U.S. Postal Service, it may be preferable to use a commercial service such as FedEx, UPS or other private carrier as an alternative to mailing Flash storage devices by U.S. mail.

vs. Fuji's take on the matter:

As of October 27th, the USPS has begun purchasing electron beam scanning
equipment for use in sterilizing mail and eliminating any possible exposure to
anthrax. This electron beam technology will fully expose undeveloped film as if it
were exposed to sunlight.

 

[btgc]

Poor output will often fry your gear.

Colleague recently fried his iphone using car adapted charger. No need to travel to North Africa for that 🙂

As of October 27th, the USPS has begun purchasing electron beam scanning
equipment for use in sterilizing mail and eliminating any possible exposure to
anthrax. This electron beam technology will fully expose undeveloped film as if it
were exposed to sunlight.

Does it means something to those buying film overseas on individual basis, I wonder?

 

[JoeV]

...The most popular field cameras (other than the use of film) are X100, X10, GX1, M9 and some small stuff like Canon S95/S100....

I'm not trying to dispute your credentials here, or the veracity of what you're saying, just trying to understand. So, aside from the M9, the other cameras you mention as alternatives to big Nikon/Canon DSLRs have only been out on the market for a year or less?

Is this a very recent phenomenon of using these types of alternative digital cameras? What did PJs do, say 5 years ago? DSLRs were still dominant in PJ work back then, right?

I don't understand the mention of the M9 as a more affordable camera to a Nikon/Canon DSLR in 3rd world situations. I'd rather lose a 5D and L-series lens to dust/havoc/whatever than an $8k rangefinder with $3k lens attached.

Actually, I don't understand your mentioning any of these cameras as alternatives in 3rd world situations, they're all digital, electronic, need battery chargers and laptop tethers, etc.

And no, I'm not a PJ, but that doesn't disqualify me from the discussion here.

-Joe