Film or Digital

[jackthrt3]

I miss using my 3 1/2 pound Nikon F3 even when I had the 300mm locked and loaded. It was always Kodachrome 64 then velvia 50.... Always keep a case of film for shooting. Controlling the speed and the amount of light holding my breath at 1/30 of a sec. and composing for that shot that will be the master of all my past exposures.
I miss seeing and understanding light the way I needed too so my shot would be +- 1/2 stop and finally became the enlargement. Six years have gone buy.
My Nikon coolscan for slides power switch is off and really when I shoot with a high end Nikon digital camera it's mostly just composing. Most of my photography is spent in Adobe Photoshop. So What about you?
Film or digital?

[wolfeye]

So What about you?
Film or digital?

I took a 20D and an EOS-1 on vacation last week. The result was 500 digital, 144 film pictures. Of the digital, maybe 1/2 are keepers. I took about a hundred shots of a beach and wave scenic, hoping to catch just the right moment. I shot only 2 frames of slide film for that scene.

I use both and will continue to do so.

Next week me and the Coolscan will be converting the slides to digital. I don't really do much else with slides. I just like having them as backups I never have to worry about losing on a hard drive of heaven forbid, the hard drive crashing.

[thazooo]

Both.
Though now days more digi than film. Processing is getting limited around here and anything other than C41 is a mail off. This includes the 'Pro' shop.
I continue to use film, like the appearance. I also shoot 120 B&W and can't match it with digi. I'll continue using both.

[mesullivan]

Both here and I agree, if it's not C-41 it's been a send off. I shoot mostly digital now, but, I miss the big viewfinder and "the look" of film sometimes when I am shooting digital. I think I will return to home developing of B&W as a cost savings once again. I plan to get a scanner though and send out for the prints. We will see how that goes. I will be shooting the local tour de cure this weekend and I plan to shoot it on film for several different reasons. I guess I will continue to use both as long as I can.

[raven4ns]

Hello,
I shoot film. I saw a comparison on a website, which I have forgotten the name of, between digital and film. The shots were of a piece of corduroy cloth taken with the same lens and the shots were from f2.8 or f4 through to f22 i think. The shots from both cameras were fine until about f8 then the digital started losing the fine detail, from f11 and above the loss was significant. If you are shooting portraits or grand landscapes etc. this wouldn't be particularly important. However, if you shoot intimate landscapes and macro often the details are a significant part of the image.
After I saw this I decided to stay with film. It would be interesting to see this kind of experiment repeated today with the current generation of sensors. In any event, my EOS3 and A2E work great and I have a 4000dpi scanner which serves me well. It's a little more cumbersome than digital and possibly more expensive but I can live with it. Plus I think it forces me to be a better photographer because of the cost. I shoot Ilford XP2 super for my black&white and Fuji print for my color. The Ilford allows me to have C41 processing for everything as it is a chromogenic film.

Tim

[mesullivan]

I found this http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... graphy.htm to explain the reasons for that better than anything else I have read. Film and digital both have their strong and weak points.

[raven4ns]

I found this http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... graphy.htm to explain the reasons for that better than anything else I have read. Film and digital both have their strong and weak points.

Thank you. This was the site I was alluding to and why I have decided to stay with film. Film is more cumbersome than digital but my photography isn't about shooting because it is easier. I would like to shoot digital because it is much easier to download my pics right into the computer or see where my shot is wrong and correct it immediately. However, because of what I shoot and how I shoot it isn't possible at this time. Maybe when sensors have improved and we don't lose the details then I will switch.

Tim

[mesullivan]

I recently had about 130 prints made. Most of them were 4 X 6 as they were just casual family photos. They were from digital files and digital files obtained by scanning B&W negatives, color negatives, and slides.

The differences were very very apparent even in the 4 X 6 prints. Since they were almost all shot on EOS bodies through the same lens by me, I know the difference was the recording media. I had been leaning more back to film for family stuff for it's permanence but at this point I am using digital mostly for my PAD and just quick "quality isn't paramount" shots.

It just strengthens my belief that both have their place and film is far from dead.

[chemicalbrophoto]

They are both great. Digital cameras are great and they are getting better they are just as better quality of photos as film. Except Digital cameras now the better ones like 5 megapizles and over have really good quality photos. With no dots or nothing. They will get better. Digital is the new cameras today and for the future. Film cameras are great. I love the old cameras film like from the 1930s. A photo is a photo it captures a moment in time.

[mesullivan]

I think what chemicalbro is trying to say is summed up much better here.
Film vs digital? read this http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/limits.html (the rabbit and owl thing will have you really LOL and
http://www.vividlight.com/articles/1513.htm

There is a place and reason for both. Digital is cost effective for some of us (I have 20,700 shutter actuations on my 14month old 350D and I don't know how many on film cameras and digital P&S cameras I've bought and sold in the last year) but not those that shoot just a little. But, cost is just one factor in the decision making process on what to use when.

[mboimare]

Both film and digital with a little preference for film (used with vintage camera type contaflex or Yashica Electro 35).
Maybe it's just my perception but I feel like my film shots are a lot deeper and carry a lot more emotions than my digital shots......or maybe not. However both are a lot of fun. I'm new on PBase so, any comments are wecolme. Thanks

http://www.pbase.com/mboimare

Mathieu

[starrman73]

Both film and digital with a little preference for film (used with vintage camera type contaflex or Yashica Electro 35).
Maybe it's just my perception but I feel like my film shots are a lot deeper and carry a lot more emotions than my digital shots......or maybe not. However both are a lot of fun. I'm new on PBase so, any comments are wecolme. Thanks

http://www.pbase.com/mboimare

Mathieu

I started shoot digital about six years ago and refused to use film. I have since gone back and started to mess around with it and to my suprise...I love it. The colors, depth, and (as someone mentioned earlier) emotion for whatever reason seems to me to come from film. It is way more work and cost more to get 36 shots but it has been quite fun and I will definately do more and more.

[macswenson]

i use my digital gear just because its of better quality than my film cameras, but i do still use the film gear for portraits for people that want to have negatives instead of a disc. Its fun to go back and use it, you get a different feeling, like that you only have 24 shots, and you need to compose them before you shoot, instead of taking 100 frames with digital.

[mboimare]

Everything that can take photos is fine for me!

[jackthrt3]

That tells it All!