Digital...or film?

[GoCubsGo]

Nothing beats film, nothing at all. You'll never love photography more until you've processed your own film. The best thing in the world is taking a photo on an 8x10 view camera and making a contact print with platinum (opposed to silver) on 100% rag paper. The tonality has yet to be reproduced with digital.

BUT, since I do not mind the costs associated with the process that is my cup of tea, it may not be yours.
I shoot both film and digital and I can say with confidence that my photos from film, mainly positives and b/w are better than my digital photos.

 

[beavo451]

This is a reply that I posted in another thread

Digital is just as, if not more, technical as film. With film, when you decide what film to use, you are choosing from a pool of films with specific characteristics. With digital, you are essentially "making" your own film when you are processing based on your decisions of saturation, color, ISO, white balance, etc. To get an even more solid grasp, you would look into specifics of how light behaves or how specific colors come together as opposed to "Velvia does this and Portra does that etc." Shooting half a roll, rewinding, and going back was a HUGE pain for me. I hated it and usually lost about a frame because I could never rewind it back to it's precise previous point. Digital photography is not any easier than film. It just requires a different understanding of the process than film.

Bottom line... Digital and film are two different mediums that accomplish similar things. No here is arguing paint vs. cameras. So why digital vs. film?

 

[cube]

I want a Nikon full-frame without horrible falloff, with sensor antishake (which wouldn't be an excuse to stop making VR lenses), and dust cleaning. It wouldn't need to be full-frame if there were APS-C lenses as wide as normal ones.

Until then, I'll keep shooting film.

 

[seenew]

This is a reply that I posted in another thread

Digital is just as, if not more, technical as film. With film, when you decide what film to use, you are choosing from a pool of films with specific characteristics. With digital, you are essentially "making" your own film when you are processing based on your decisions of saturation, color, ISO, white balance, etc. To get an even more solid grasp, you would look into specifics of how light behaves or how specific colors come together as opposed to "Velvia does this and Portra does that etc." Shooting half a roll, rewinding, and going back was a HUGE pain for me. I hated it and usually lost about a frame because I could never rewind it back to it's precise previous point. Digital photography is not any easier than film. It just requires a different understanding of the process than film.

Bottom line... Digital and film are two different mediums that accomplish similar things. No here is arguing paint vs. cameras. So why digital vs. film?

I like that.

 

[-hh]

Because sometimes the easy way is neither the most rewarding nor educational way.

There's pro's and con's to every choice. Some of them are worth making.

For example, when I'm in a rush, I'll let MS-Word create a webpage for me...because its "easy".

But when I have the time, I'll go back and hand-craft the HTML for that page. The benefits? Well, for anyone who now reads that page, the handcrafted HTML is 1/3rd to 1/4 the size of the 'bloaty' MS-Word conversion, so it requires less bandwidth - it now loads in a flash.

My reward is Simplicity and Elegance in design. Now where have we heard that before?

-hh

 

[snap58]

Nothing beats film, nothing at all. You'll never love photography more until you've processed your own film. The best thing in the world is taking a photo on an 8x10 view camera and making a contact print with platinum (opposed to silver) on 100% rag paper. The tonality has yet to be reproduced with digital.

BUT, since I do not mind the costs associated with the process that is my cup of tea, it may not be yours.
I shoot both film and digital and I can say with confidence that my photos from film, mainly positives and b/w are better than my digital photos.

I have never done the platinum prints (thought about it), just silver. Developed hundreds of rolls of BW film and always did my own printing. While I have gotten lazy these days with digital and now scan the BW film in and print from Photoshop, nothing I have done digital matches the quality of the fiber prints made in the basement hanging on my walls.

Someone who has never seen a print come to life in the development tray, but only in the LCD on the back of their camera, really is missing out.

 

[beavo451]

Someone who has never seen a print come to life in the development tray, but only in the LCD on the back of their camera, really is missing out.

There is always a counter argument. If you don't use on format, of course you are going to be "missing out". For some of us, like me, it is just not our thing. I have developed film and I did not think it was fun at all. As I have mentioned before, it is pointless to argue about which is "better" (like crop sensors vs. 35mm sensor and which is "better"). By your logic the same could be said for drawing vs. photographs. Somebody who has never seen a drawing come out of the paper from under your hand is really missing out...

 

[snap58]

There is always a counter argument. If you don't use on format, of course you are going to be "missing out". For some of us, like me, it is just not our thing. I have developed film and I did not think it was fun at all. As I have mentioned before, it is pointless to argue about which is "better" (like crop sensors vs. 35mm sensor and which is "better"). By your logic the same could be said for drawing vs. photographs. Somebody who has never seen a drawing come out of the paper from under your hand is really missing out...

Why would anyone discourage someone from learning something new, especially with the arts? I guess you do not teach or mentor much in your line of work?

They say a discussion is an exchange of knowledge, an argument is an exchange of ignorance, I hope this is a discussion. : )

I'm sorry you never had "that moment" at the developing tray,however I would still encourage anyone who has the opportunity to develop film and prints, to do it. While the day may be coming, I have yet to print a digital that I like as well as my old fiber BW Prints. But that just might be my difficulty with the digital medium. Do note, I am talking about B&W Prints.

As far as drawing, I would definitely encourage people to take drawing classes and learn to draw if they have the chance, I'm no artist but having taken some drawing classes in college (figure drawing actually, per my engineering advisor who was adamant about engineers being able to draw), everyone should at least take a couple classes, when words fail pull out the pad and paper, amazing form of communication. : )

 

[beavo451]

Why would anyone discourage someone from learning something new, especially with the arts? I guess you do not teach or mentor much in your line of work?

I am not discouraging anybody from learning anything new. If you want to do film go all for it. What I am discouraging is the mindset of using film because it is "better", which has been implied in several posts in this thread. I encourage the use of film as a different media with different strengths and weaknesses.

 

[snap58]

I am not discouraging anybody from learning anything new. If you want to do film go all for it. What I am discouraging is the mindset of using film because it is "better", which has been implied in several posts in this thread. I encourage the use of film as a different media with different strengths and weaknesses.

Then we're cool. : )

 

[imnotatfault]

I have a Nikon N80 (film) and a D50 (digital) and use both often.

For my final color photography course, I found it much easier to get the results I was looking for by shooting film and scanning the negatives I wanted to print with an Epson film scanner.

The color you get from film is just unmistakably different, and depending upon your desired effect, it can help or hinder your work.

If you're a true photography enthusiast, I would say go both, but in the short term, whichever suits your immediate needs should be your first camera. For me, that was film, but yours may be digital.

And trust me, as tedious as developing and printing yourself can be, it is a great asset once you start working in a digital studio. I wouldn't trade my analog photo training for anything.

 

[Bocheememon]

And trust me, as tedious as developing and printing yourself can be, it is a great asset once you start working in a digital studio. I wouldn't trade my analog photo training for anything.

Well said! Learning the basics of burning, dodging, exposure, overlay, etc all can be translated into the language of digital editors like Photoshop! Just having the experience of the darkroom allows you to look at your digital images and immediately just know exactly how to retouch the photo. I found this to be a boon for workflow! After hours in the darkroom and spending time getting prints to get right, I find myself being able to maximize time on digital photos because of the film-base training I have had.

 

[shecky]

I encourage the use of film as a different media with different strengths and weaknesses.

this is very true.

i use a lot of film and a lot of digital both as a hobby and professionally in my work. while neither is "better" they are different. saying "film is dead" only goes to show the ignorance people have to things they know nothing about. these are often the same people who think "print is dead" and should be ignored.

digital is great primarily because the workflow is extremely clean and once the photo is taken, fairly predictable. digital is also much cheaper per exposure (after an initial startup investment) and as such, a great way to learn how photography works. comparing 35mm film to equivalent 35mm digital (all the normal DSLR's 99.9% of the population has) digital is easier, cheaper and faster to deal with on a day to day basis, and the high MP cameras like the Canon 1DS Mk II that i have used can make large prints.

film is absolutely unmatched when it comes to art photography, medium- and large-format photography, and experimental photography (which is what i mostly use film for.) i can get things out of film that digital can simply not accomplish without a lot of photoshop fakery and digital deadness from a lot of processing.

for day to day pics of the kids, landscapes, etc.. digital is a great choice. for more extreme photography i think film has a tremendous amount to offer.

also for medium format, you should look at a seagull camera on B+H - inexpensive way to get into a real (not toy) medium format camera for not a ton of money.

 

[imnotatfault]

And also, if you decide to go digital and in a (semi-)professional setting, what really helped me with retouching in Photoshop was the use of a Wacom tablet, which makes dodging/burning/spotting/etc. much simpler and if you get one that's pressure sensitive, well all the more useful.

 

[Mavimao]

To Seenew: I am 54 000 dollars in debt from student loans. I feel your pain.

Enjoy yourself in college while you can. I understand that right now you might think that the 35mm body won't serve you much use, but I can tell you that you can find a really cheap Minolta on ebay built 30 years ago and it will probably take better pictures than it did when it was built (due to advances in film chemistry). And, if film continues to make advances, it will STILL take great pictures 30 years from now. The problem with digital is that there is always something better coming out every year, and your DSLR feels antiquated.

HOWEVER, I do acknowledge film's strengths already mentioned on this forum, so I won't repeat them. But you never know, you may find that 35mm SLR to come in handy quite a bit.

 

[spicyapple]

I shoot both film and digital and I can say with confidence that my photos from film, mainly positives and b/w are better than my digital photos.

You might want to follow up your statement with the make and model of your digital camera.

 

[ChrisA]

I recently developed a big interest in photography, and I'm getting my first camera soon. The only thing is that I'm not sure which format to go with. Yes, I know digital is the future, but I can actually get a nice Canon SLR for a nice price, too:....

Digital i the way to go if you want to learn about photography. You get very quick feedback but you run the risk of simply making a "billion" non-thoughtful snapshots and depending a luck to get a decent image. While with film you might think about each shot. So it goes both ways. Even today in beginning photo clases they still make the students use black and white ilm
D
on't let them tell you that digital is cheaper. You cam spend $1200 on a DSLR body and it will be obsolite in 3 to 4 years and you wil want to replace it. The average consummer only shots a couple hundred shots per year at that rate it costs about a beck an image to shoot digital. So make sure you REALLY are going to shoot thousands of images per year. On the other hand very nice film bodies are avaliable for about $100. When you work out the cost per image film is competitive if you scan the negatives.

Unless you are willing to spend mid four digit prices for a digital camera, film still has the bast image quality. For someone who shoots land scapes film with it's beter dynamioc range and detail is still a "win"

One idea is to get both. You can buy a digital camera body and some lenese and that add a film body to the set for very little added cost and then you will have both. Just watch which lenses you buy. SOme of ther newer canon and nikon lenses don't cover the 35mm frame.

Now for a more exotic option that I preffer: Use a digital SLR for most of your work but when you ant to shoot film for for the 4x5 format. 4x5 equipment is no more expensive than 35mm and while the film itself cost more per frame, you shot so few frames that it does not matter. I doubt many amatuers would shoot 200 frames of 4x5 per year, it's likely to be under 100. and then you scan the negative or transparency in to a 100MP file.
You can make 40 inch wide prints at 300 dpi.

 

[seenew]

To Seenew: I am 54 000 dollars in debt from student loans. I feel your pain.

Enjoy yourself in college while you can. I understand that right now you might think that the 35mm body won't serve you much use, but I can tell you that you can find a really cheap Minolta on ebay built 30 years ago and it will probably take better pictures than it did when it was built (due to advances in film chemistry). And, if film continues to make advances, it will STILL take great pictures 30 years from now. The problem with digital is that there is always something better coming out every year, and your DSLR feels antiquated.

HOWEVER, I do acknowledge film's strengths already mentioned on this forum, so I won't repeat them. But you never know, you may find that 35mm SLR to come in handy quite a bit.

I'll be getting some kind of Canon body to go with my EF lenses, I suppose. Anyone have any suggestions? Automatically I was thinking Rebel, since I already had a digital one, but I know literally nothing in this department.

 

[Fuzzy Orange]

So it looks like the replies are split between film and digital. Right now, it would either be the EOS 3 or the Nikon D80. I know I am going to be doing work in Photoshop, so if I went film, I would have to buy a scanner. Is there anythhing film can do that Photoshop can't?

 

[Mavimao]

Is there anything film can do that Photoshop can't?

You're asking the wrong question. Although we can go on and on and on and on and on about film's large latitude, film's silky smooth edges, digital's convenience; it's ultimately not a matter of what film can do that photoshop can't - it's a state of mind, a philosophy of art that differs between film and digital. It's all been repeated ad naseum on this thread and I don't wish to repeat it, but let me sum it up this way: just because photoshop can do a lot, doesn't mean it's "better". it's just different.

Totally.

 

[imnotatfault]

so if I went film, I would have to buy a scanner.

I used my university's. Free of charge.

 

[snap58]

I'll be getting some kind of Canon body to go with my EF lenses, I suppose. Anyone have any suggestions? Automatically I was thinking Rebel, since I already had a digital one, but I know literally nothing in this department.

The Rebel K2 or T2 are good starters. The K2 is about $135 body only new, and has all the automatic plus manual control, it would be a good choice. The T2 has better auto focus and faster top shutter, it may be worth the extra $50 IMO, but you have to decide that.

 

[hassiman]

Film Dead? For amatures yes, Pro's...no.

One still can not equal the results of s MF chrome with a digital camera... not even a Leaf back. For many high dollar pros the digital back is great as they can bill the $32,000 a good MF back costs in a day of shooting and they can show a NYC art director a setup in Arruba... but even they will slap the film back on if they need the utmost quality. In 2-3 years I believe that detectors will be available and AFFORDABLE that will equal and surpass the resolution of a MF with fine grain film but that has not yet happened. I have actually held a huge detector array made up of 4 joined 2.5 inch high resolution CMOS detectors. It is now being used on large telescopes so I know they exist... but they are VERY expensive.

In theory, when the technology exists, one should be able to cram the resloving power of an 8X10 view camera into a 35X24MM chip... and said chip will have an unlimited dynamic range... everything from black to hot white... Of course the optics will have to be superb.

But not yet.

I am hoping that someone comes up with a good way to insure clean detectors on interchangable lens cameras....

 

[Mavimao]

In theory, when the technology exists, one should be able to cram the resloving power of an 8X10 view camera into a 35X24MM chip... and said chip will have an unlimited dynamic range... everything from black to hot white... Of course the optics will have to be superb.

But not yet.

I am hoping that someone comes up with a good way to insure clean detectors on interchangable lens cameras....

But if that happens, what excuses will we film lovers have left?!

 

[milozauckerman]

Aren't all 35mm film SLRs full-frame?

I think a little part of my soul just withered and died. (kidding)

Film or digital depends entirely on what you want to do with it. If this is a vacation and family holidays and fun camera, go for a good digital body and a couple of primes. (Me no likey zoom.) You can upload and view as you go and output however you'd like.

I've got a digital that I don't use as often as I'd like (a Nikon D70). Viewfinder's dark, don't like the 1.5x crop factor, don't like the lack of fast, high-quality primes, and the autofocus isn't spectacular compared to even a six year old Canon Elan 7e - which is, coincidentally the best SLR I ever used in terms of features and noise. Well-balanced, feels good in the hand, quiet.

But I've got no darkroom, so the solution for me is to get deeper into the digital realm. I'm probably going to sell my Leica M7 soon (keeping a Bessa R2A) in order to finance a Canon 5d. That gets me the digital equivalent of my old Elan 7.

I'll always keep one foot in the film world though - I can't shoot square in digital, and I can't use my view camera and I can't shoot pinhole Polaroids.