Film or Digital

[amoney]

I have made a decision to move back to use film mostly.

One things that has drawn my attention back to film is it really does make you compose a much better quality photograph, and the depth and color just seems to be better.

I have 99.9% confidence in my Nikon film camera, it nailed the shot every time with the correct exposer, with digital, well now you really need to reshoot or post process in Adobe, and if it was a one time shot... blast that digital blure.

The gradification of instant review is nice, digital has that and that is the sole reason for the want of digital. But quality wise, film just performs better. With film you need not worry about white balance. Florecent, incandecence, natural lighting.

[ewhalen]

I have made a decision to move back to use film mostly.

One things that has drawn my attention back to film is it really does make you compose a much better quality photograph, and the depth and color just seems to be better.

I have 99.9% confidence in my Nikon film camera, it nailed the shot every time with the correct exposer, with digital, well now you really need to reshoot or post process in Adobe, and if it was a one time shot... blast that digital blure.

The gradification of instant review is nice, digital has that and that is the sole reason for the want of digital. But quality wise, film just performs better. With film you need not worry about white balance. Florecent, incandecence, natural lighting.

Everything you said is wrong.

Film does not make you compose your shots better, nor does it expose differently. Film also has white ballance...most film is WB for sunlight....and I bet you didn't know that you need to "post process" your film shots too.

[rolleijoe]

So What about you?
Film or digital?

Film ONLY!

Digital is not photography. Sounds like you pretty much
summed it up in your original post for yourself.

Film only.
Zeiss glass only.

Doesn't get any simpler/easier than that.

[ewhalen]

So What about you?
Film or digital?

Film ONLY!

Digital is not photography. Sounds like you pretty much
summed it up in your original post for yourself.

Film only.
Zeiss glass only.

Doesn't get any simpler/easier than that.

Than why are you on this site?

[teiladay]

Film was nice for me back in the 80's, but I don't see myself really shooting film again unless somehow in a pinch. I've noticed better photos with digital (Nikon D2hs) as the prints come back better looking, more crisp, etc..

At an event, we shoot several thousand frames and will literally give 1.5 or more thousand to the client (large events). There is no way I'd want to do that with film! We'd be out $300 or more in good film alone if it wasn't for digital. . . and thats before figuring in the cost of prints. Now how fast can you scan 2,000 slides... THEN edit them. $1,500 or more we'd spend on a film scanner- I'd rather use that money towards another lens, camera body, camera maintenance, etc..

Film? No thanks, we go straight to the editing process after importing about 300 RAW photos at a time into ACR (Photoshop). Using two systems, we can have typically 600 photos or more at our fingertips while editing.

That said, I don't think one is "better" over the other. It simply comes down to what works best for the individual and or business.

Cordially

Teila K. Day

[teiladay]

I have made a decision to move back to use film mostly.

One things that has drawn my attention back to film is it really does make you compose a much better quality photograph, and the depth and color just seems to be better.

I have 99.9% confidence in my Nikon film camera, it nailed the shot every time with the correct exposer, with digital, well now you really need to reshoot or post process in Adobe, and if it was a one time shot... blast that digital blure.

The gradification of instant review is nice, digital has that and that is the sole reason for the want of digital. But quality wise, film just performs better. With film you need not worry about white balance. Florecent, incandecence, natural lighting.

1. ((chuckle)) so what specific "digital" camera(s) that you've actually used, are you comparing to your film body?

2. Why on earth do you think you'd have to reshoot or post process digital because of "exposure"? Post processing digital is just like post processing film... some get it correct right out of the camera, and others either have to correct, or *want* to enhance their photos either in the traditional or digital darkroom. Do you think dodging and burning came from the digital era post processing?

3. With film you have to worry about white balance in MORE detail than you do with digital. Furthermore, with film I'd like to know what you do when you have film loaded for tungsten lighting, then move to a different lighting scenario part way through the roll of film? What about film speeds... I'd like to know what you do with the 800 iso film in your camera from shooting the night before, when the next morning your shooting on the beach at 1:30pm... What do YOU do then???

I find using a pro digital camera faster, very accurate, and a far better business tool than film. I also for the record find the results more pleasing when we get the prints back.

Very Cordially

Teila K. Day

[teiladay]

Film was nice for me back in the 80's, but I don't see myself really shooting film again unless somehow in a pinch. I've noticed better photos with digital (Nikon D2hs) as the prints come back better looking, more crisp, etc..

At an event, we shoot several thousand frames and will literally give 1.5 or more thousand to the client (large events). There is no way I'd want to do that with film! We'd be out $300 or more in good film alone if it wasn't for digital. . . and thats before figuring in the cost of prints. Now how fast can you scan 2,000 slides... THEN edit them. $1,500 or more we'd spend on a film scanner- I'd rather use that money towards another lens, camera body, camera maintenance, etc..

Film? No thanks, we go straight to the editing process after importing about 300 RAW photos at a time into ACR (Photoshop). Using two systems, we can have typically 600 photos or more at our fingertips while editing.

That said, I don't think one is "better" over the other. It simply comes down to what works best for the individual and or business.

Cordially

Teila K. Day

[slentz]

I am very happy with digital photography....

Since I grew tired of 35 mm's lack of resolution I always
wanted a Pentax 67 but could never afford one.

Now, thanks to digital cameras, the 67 is a steal!!

[jellophoto]

Film is dead R.I.P.

Yes there will be a few diehards, but the rest of the world has, or is rapidly moving on. Film has served its purpose very well, as it opened up photography to many who would not otherwise have taken it up. However its time has come. Within a few short years from now it will simply be a curiosity.

The digital world offers many more possibilities, and the next generation of photographers, ie. those in school now, will not even bother to learn about film, other than alongside other recording media of the past in the history of photography class. At the end of the day it is only a means to capture the capture the image and a primitive one at that.

However every other aspect of photography, both technical and artistic remains as important as it ever did.

John

[nigelgray]

I think the comment "Film is Dead" is just ridiculous.

Some of the greatest photographers still use film. Look at "Magnum", I'm pretty sure everyone of them use film.

Digital has its purposes, but not for me.

I shoot for the "Central Florida Future" up in Orlando. It is the college paper for UCF. Every assignment I take my dslr and film cameras. I shoot both and guess what I decide to turn in to the publisher? My film photos.

Now in a pinch digital is better b/c I may not have time to get my film developed (luckily for me I have a local lab that does slide film). When I have a choice I shoot film over digital. I just like the look. I like how I can tweak my exposures to get a different colours and tones. I like grain NOT noise.

As for not being able to change film speed on the fly; well I have to say that is nice with digital, but I HAVE NEVER had that problem with film. I make it work.

Now when it comes to b/w photography, film all the way. And yes, I know there are plug-ins that replicate grain and do a damn good job at it. Try printing large photos with real and fake grain. You WILL see a difference.

I use both, but film always comes out on top.

Oh and the comment about digital being more crisp and making better prints than film is pure rubbish. I'll take slidefilm for quality any day.

[tuckeruk]

I'll say one thing mboimare, you haven't aged one bit!

[poltergeistgone]

Both I just realized, I always thought of myself as a die hard film person. Just didnt think that digital image quality compared to film. However I realized after going over my galleries that I had just as many digital shots as I did film.

[jackthrt3]

An example of comparing Film or Digital

http://www.pbase.com/marciocabral/digital_vs_film

[mesullivan]

Comparisons between film and digital can be tough to do because of a lot of factors. But realistically, digital vs scanned film is often digital sensor/processor vs digital sensor/proscessor.

As someone who averages 50 or more prints a month from digital and film (negs and slides, black/white and color) I find I can get good prints from both. If one is consistently better in all ways for you then you just have some more techniques to learn. That's part of the fun of photography, always learning. People are like fruit, when they stop growing, they begin to rot.

edit: I am in no way implying that one is "better" than the other. They both have their strong points and weak points. I use both and actually prefer film, but digital is so much quicker in getting an image you can print and if you just want to snap one and do something with it or post a quick shot on the web, you can't beat it.

[madsox]

Both, of course. They're both just different sets of tools for doing the same thing - making images.

That's how I see it, anyway.

And in the end, it's not the tool you use that matters, it's the result you get.

Now, for me, I'm going to shooting most of my originals on film (for very geekly reasons, and some art-snob reasons ) and then scanning the frames I like, doing my post-processing on the computer and printing the results there.

If I had space for a darkroom, I'd do both that and the digital processing, but I don't so I can't so I make do.

As an amateur, it's all for fun anyway, so why get hung up on arguing about what's better and who's right, who's wrong, why the chicken crossed the road...?

laters!
afm