Why Film v Digital

[nickdemarco]

OK, I am still a bit of a novice, but I find it hard to understand why people take such entrenched positions in this "debate"

I used to use film many years ago. Gradually I dumbed down from fully manual, then automatic SLRs and developing/printing my pictures to a little Olympus pocket compact film camera - for conveneince. I wnet digital a few years ago with an almost identical Olympus pocket compact digital camera which served me well.

Then last year I realised I wanted to take photographs again, to be creative, not just to take snaps. I went through a couple of cameras and a lot of money until I finally bought the Canon 5D and a few very nice lenses. I am delighted with the equipment I have and the 5D is about all I want in a camera. But discovering real photography again got me re-interested in film. I started experimenting with film SLRs again and then, more recently, collecting and trying to use old film cameras.

I have found the expereince very fullfilling. I realise what is both romantic and inspiring (as well as sometimes practical) about film. But I love my 5D and manipulating photos on the internet too. If I could only keep one camera it would be my 5D. And yet I get a buzz from going out with an old 1950's russian leica rangefinder copy and light meter in my coat pocet and taking black and white photos of objects or things I would otherwise ignore.

I think, or at leats hope, going back to film, using a fixed lens, being more sparing with my shots and having to learn more, particularly with manual cameras, about exposures, will help develop my photographic skills. I hope it will lead to both better film and digital results. But regardless of that, it is something I really enjoy to experiment with.

For me there should be no film v digital. They both have great strengths and some weaknesses. Advocates of both sides of the debate are right, but usually over polemical. If you can have the opportunity to use and experiment with both it can only be a good thing. I just hope that digital doesn't kill the film star.

[jdepould]

I shoot both, the thing I like about digital is the instant feedback, I can tell right away if I totally blew a shot, that isn't possible with film. Makes learning easier I think.

[lucianob]

diferent things

RG
http://www.triangulocolor.com.ar

[seanmckinney]

Using digital, a Canon 350D, and the prices of compatable long lenses made me look at ebayed lenses and then I saw the price of ebay lenses for my minolta x700.
Compared to what they were when I bought my X700 they are a snip so now I use both film and digital.

If I wanted to take a photograph I'd try to shoot it on slide film, if I want a snap shot Id use the digital.
Slide and normal photographic flim work out at between 20 and 30 pence per shot for me and that's just for developing. Digital shots are for 'free' and, as has said, you can get a good idea of whether the shot worked or not immediately, which I do find useful.

That said I am fairly confident my negatives will out last me, the question is will images stored digitally out last me? I have even had 5 or 6 rolls of exposed film developed 15 to 20 years after it was shot, all but one produced passable results and most were actually quite good. I have been going through my dad's stuff of late and have negatives from the 30's and 40' that look like I'd get good images off them, could I say the same for digital images? I havent a clue!

[adz929]

I still shoot both too, I love my Yashica FX-7 and I'm currently looking for a nice Yashica Mat124G.

[poltergeistgone]

I enjoy my time spent in the darkroom, experimenting and trying out new things. Not every great image is created with photoshop, and its sad that in the digital age that its assumed to be that way.

[jdepould]

I enjoy my time spent in the darkroom, experimenting and trying out new things. Not every great image is created with photoshop, and its sad that in the digital age that its assumed to be that way.

I don't think that's necessarily true. I do use PS, but most of the time I try to make my editing "transparent." Much like any good darkroom editing, I'd rather the viewer not think about how I may have manipulated an image. I do the same with my dodging/burning/spotting. The "digital art" created in Photoshop that transcends photography is (I think) a completely separate genre that deserves its own separate consideration, the same way painting isn't lumped in with photography or sculpture.

[mad_monte1]

Digital is like ' Photography Crack". I have a 5D, do note cards, sell local prints, but still love old school film. I can't beat my images I am with my Cheapy Canon K2 body, Ilford's Delta 100 B/W film and a red filter. Much better than my 5D shooting RAW, then converted. Film still Rocks....

[johnfalky]

For photoshoots I often use an ancient Olympus Stylus with a broken flash. Kodak Gold 24-exposure print film is also used. Sam's club developes the film within an hour and puts the data in small files on a CD. The end result is a somewhat grainy image with some distinct characteristics including light falloff in the corners from the camera's lens and a set of interesting images that can be uploaded as a distinct batch. While I'm a heavy digital shooter now, this actually makes film fun to use.

[bruce46]

I have recently purchased a slightly used Rebel T2, a film camera. The reason I chose it over the compact digital camera is because I want to learn to shoot properly well since I am a newbie.

[gilp]

This whole FILM vs Digital was relevant in the early stages of digital...as digital showed so many weaknesses (especially in more demanding situations like darkness and extreme weather). Today, there is no longer a reason to discuss/argue as to what is "better"... it's purely a question of comfort and taste.


our studio converted to digital quite early, and today, I can't even imagine a situation that would warrant film.


The only place where film is still king is in the Long exposure field (10 minutes and up) since the electronics of a digital camera (what ever the model) tend to not function to well after a few minutes of activation.

[madlights]

Many landscape photographers are shooting with digital backs, many film shooters are only "shooting" with film, getting drum scanned in and then processing with total digital, since almost everything large is printed and processed digitally. A friend of mine who is a pro, is doing what pro's often do, trying to save money...thinking of his profit margin. Shooting film in his expensive Canon film bodies, and then processing digital...he's soon going all digital. Each I think has a somewhat different look...I haven't quite seen digital equal the look of analog black and white. Digital has a very "clean" almost "thin" look to some people...much as music has in sound when digitally recorded. Of course like music the higher the resolution, the less this is. I don't know...seriously think there are strengths to both...I think everything in the world has strength and weakness...and there are workarounds for a lot of it. I do think one strength of film today is what has been mentioned, the learning end...where the photographer doesn't learn to depend totally on the camera to make the decisions...I think a good manual film camera is a good learning tool. It teaches care in setting up shots, and the hows and whys. One thing I've found with digital is that it inspires me to use more of a machine gun approach. I shoot 10+ times more than ever in film...and while it CAN give you more good shots, it can lead to carelessness in casual shooting. One of the fun things I do sometimes is go out with my Old Ziess Ikon Contessamat with a fixed lens and where you have to guess the subjects distance...it has a lightmeter that needs no battery, and 4 speed shutter with full range of stops. The lens has excellent color and sharpness though, so can see every mistake I make clearly . it's really fun to do...and it teaches a person "honesty"

[bruce46]

Quite honestly, at this stage of my level, I don't want to play with the images on the computer to alter whatever deficiencies there are. I just want them to look as they are as I took them. Right now, I'm learning about exposure which is the most important thing in order to get a good image. I will try to apply what I learned the next time I have the inclination to shoot.

[gilp]

Quite honestly, at this stage of my level, I don't want to play with the images on the computer to alter whatever deficiencies there are. I just want them to look as they are as I took them. Right now, I'm learning about exposure which is the most important thing in order to get a good image. I will try to apply what I learned the next time I have the inclination to shoot.

all good, but that is as relevant to digital as it is to film.

[wolfeye]

all good, but that is as relevant to digital as it is to film.

It matters less with digital than with film, especially slide film. With digital you can alter things on the computer and if you shoot raw, exposure is one of the least of your concerns - get it in the general vicinity of "correct" and you can fix nearly any exposure gaff PP. True though, that if you get exposure right in digital there is no need for PP.

With negative film there's more lattitude but lost highlights are lost highlights.

With slide film, what you exposed for is what you get. There is no room for error. I think it's a great tool to help you learn where to meter, how to meter, and when to override the camera's metering.