Eric T
Well-known
I mostly shoot digital. But I enjoy developing film and the price of many spectacular film cameras is incredibly low. But if I really need an image and I need it fast, I always use digital.
You are asking a question of everyone else that you really should be answering yourself. I know why I should and do use film cameras, but my reasons likely wouldn't have any relevance for you, so I have no idea whether you should or not. Only you know the answer to that.
. . . do you crank your car to start it in the morning . . . .
For travel photography, digital.
For experimentation and for "working the subject" from many different angles and approaches, digital.
For visiting a place to "experience" it in a more mindful way, film.
For attending an event where I want to interact with folks and take their photograph, film - medium format: funky TLR, Folder, or Fuji 6x9.
For attending an event where I want to take candid photographs, film (35mm film camera).
Joe
. . . For situations where there will be great swings in light levels during the day, . . .
Quite. There is no such thing as 'the best camera', but quite often, there is 'the best camera for the job'. Only three things stop us using 'the best camera for the job': ignorance, laziness, and inability to afford 'the best camera for the job'. Choose any one, or any combination of the three.I'm no romantic when it comes to film. I have many cameras (and had even more), but the one I enjoy shooting with most of all just happens to be a film camera. Variety is nice, and I shoot both film and digital, but at the end of the day, why not just simply shoot the camera you enjoy most and that gives you the results you need.
Just to make sure… I don't mean this to be a digital vs film thing, I feel they both have their place.
One area of use I've gone very digital and don't feel I have a problem with is the 'family snap-shots' or 'for others' as as poster 'still hunter' says. The Leica D-LUX 4 was a revelation in its compact take every where and not worry about size, image quality, and ease to use. The getting it on the computer, viewing images and sending to family/friends, it just 'works'.
As for my personal more 'art-thought' camera use. One problem I've identified is 'time'. Besides the new digital M-series compared to the film cameras, maybe the biggest change in photography in the past few years in my personal life has been my young sons. One needs TIME to get out and 'do it', and that is one thing I've had less of. Can I fit film into my [changed] time schedule?
Thanks for any thoughts
Will there even be jpegs in 50 years?
My parents and grand parents have boxes of negatives and prints. 60 to 70 years old! Where will my family snap shots from digital cameras be in 70 years?
Not being able to change ISO in the field, limited (and at the same time forced) to 36 shots, dealing with labs and scratched negatives, spending hours in front of the PC with scanning, dust removal, color correction to achieve half-decent results ... looks like film has become a pain in the rear.
There is no reason why software companies should all conspire to make a certain file format unreadable. Never happened before.
Probably saved forever on servers and backup servers and backup servers or backup servers in the www. Times change.
Of course, if you want to hand over boxes with prints, no one keeps you from having digital pictures printed.
The awesome thing with digital is, even if your home burns down, flickr will be still up and running.
Not being able to change ISO in the field, limited (and at the same time forced) to 36 shots, dealing with labs and scratched negatives, spending hours in front of the PC with scanning, dust removal, color correction to achieve half-decent results ... looks like film has become a pain in the rear.