Digital V's Film

ShakeyBlakey

hi, just wondering does anybody here still take pics with film?, and if so how do you think digital compares, I sometimes use a pentax 67 with fuji velvia because I think it will be a very long time till digital catches up. Just wondering because everybody seems 100% digital here..
Cheers
Mark
p.s. sorry to anybody i may have got off to a bad start with, but hopefully we can put it behind us now and discuss photography etc;)

Thirdfox

I shot film with my father's Seagull (Chinese Minolta) some time ago - then forgot to push the button on the bottom before winding the film

Rescued some of the shots but it was clear that having instant feedback was something I sorely missed as many were shot using too slow a shutter speed and blurring occurred.

But I love the massive viewfinder and split-prism focusing though

The cost of developing film is something that prevents me from shooting it too often. But having only 36 exposures is something that forces me to think creatively. So digital for everyday and film if I ever forget why I love photography.

deaddonkey

i shoot black and white film with a nikon fg-20, which i'm not too keen on for some reason, but the viewfinder is huge and bright and the controls actually make sense - the aperture is on the lens, shutter speed on the body, hardly any buttons.

and an olympus 35sp rangefinder which i looooove, it's small, light, easy to focus, the lens is sharp and it's a boatload of fun to use, it's kinda awkward cos the meter isn't coupled to the controls at all, so you gotta meter, get an EV value, enter it into the camera, then decide what combination of aperture and shutter speed you want for that EV, focus and shoot. but it's a lot of fun.

i have a digital SLR which mostly gathers dust, the viewfinder is dull and small, the controls are designed to be as irritating as is humanly possible (aperture controls off the lens? seriously, canon, why?) it's a pain, too many buttons, too much going on, and the kit lens is soft and can't be focused manually, and it's slow and cumbersome and i feel like a target carrying it around.

i also find film a lot more satisfying, the lack of instant gratification and the higher cost means you shoot less and i feel prouder of a good film shot than a good digital shot, there's something special about seeing your negs come out of the dark tank for the first time.

p.s. i sstarted on digital and went to film really fast after falling in love with HCB's street photography, i just prefer it, to me it's that simple.

deRanged

I've got a couple of film slrs and a holga. There's something really satisfying about the noise shooting film makes. I like that it forces me to slow down and think about what I'm doing rather than just snapping away.

On my to do list is to get a bronica or similar and start developing b&w.

Stephen

I really wish more dSLRs would use split-prism focusing screens. (I know you can perform warranty-voiding surgery to add one) My father has an ancient Canon film SLR from around 1980 and its viewfinder is the business. Really big and bright and so easy to focus with.

magicbastarder

are DSLR screens beattie screens?

ThOnda

I am film-only so far. I like film and if you have medium format camera, you know why you have it.
However I am going to be didjital soon, because film processing is expensive and I don't have full control of the whole process (scanning). And it takes very long time to get pictures.

King Kelly

Stephen wrote: »

.........has an ancient Canon film SLR from around 1980...............

......sometimes the posts here make me feel very old.....:(

Stephen

hehe

If its older than me then its ancient

Although its only marginally more ancient than me...

Calina

Stephen wrote: »

I really wish more dSLRs would use split-prism focusing screens. (I know you can perform warranty-voiding surgery to add one) My father has an ancient Canon film SLR from around 1980 and its viewfinder is the business. Really big and bright and so easy to focus with.

I'd like a split prism focussing screen as well. I used an Olympus OM10 for a very long time (it was my dad's) before going digital.

I like the softness of the film pictures and I intend to go and shoot the odd roll from time to time but to be honest, the volume of photographs which I take now makes film entirely impractical.

A handful of my film stuff is on my flickr. There's some more besides that but I haven't the time to separate it out.

Fajitas!

I enjoy shooting film, and have a good few different film cameras, from polaroid to 35 and large format, and pretty much unlimited access to an LF.

Most of my film stuff never ends up on t'internet. It's currently plastered across my wall in my bedroom. Most of it is experimentations in cross process, or shooting different B&W films - It's also a great reference for photoshop, but I find that it's just to slow to work with professionally - I like my instant feedback, and 24 hour turnarounds for events. I also like not having to be stuck in a darkroom (I remember in my portfolio course, doing over 100 finished prints in a day in the darkroom.

100 images in Lightroom can be on a private gallery online in an hour and a bit at most, and going to print straight after.

Obviously film still has it's uses, but they're just not always for me. I'll still enjoy throwing some through though.

shrekito

Up until the 1d mark iii came on the market I preferred film. I use 35mm and Medium Format. For my own use I shoot slide film almost exclusively. For weddings I used negative film. I never really got along with B&W film, indeed I prefer shooting in colour and converting the scanned film to B&W - much better than the real thing for me.

Film Equipment

Canon 1v plus assorted lenses
Nikon Manual FM3A with 45 mm pancake lens for when lightweight is best.
Contax 645AF (was once my dream camera)


I've just set up a completely digital wedding package abd I am using the 1d MK iii as the main camera and 40d as a backup see www.ProDigitalWedding.com - feedback welcomed!

I've found the 1D Mark III exceeds the capabilities of film cameras (at least at the 35mm scale) for the first time.

My biggest worry about the number of people buying Digital Cameras is that the old shoebox full of fotos that people would take out from time to time has now been replaced by a computer system - which all to commonly is not backed up. So in many cases all the eggs are in one basket ready toi get broke.

Recently, a friends mac was striuck by lightning -courtesy of Eircom and as a result he has lost some precious images that he never backed up - and he works in IT....!!

Michael

Hugh_C

I use both, dSLR, SLR 35mm x 2 and medium format (very lately). Film is what I grew up with but the immediacy of digital is very appealing. Although there's something approaching spiritualty making the weekly trip into Gunn's with a fresh neg ...

shrekito

Just a few random thoughts

For things like wedding photography/event/news photography digital is a must to compete in today's market - in the past people were prepared to wait for their Photographs for a couple of weeks or more after an event. Now, in the case of wedding photography they want to see them on the day. Plus it has reduced the cost of shooting these events as you can be more experimmental in your approach without significant additional costs.

The "cheap" instant feedback of a digital camera especially the histogram function is a great insurance facility for any pro on assignment as you know whether you have the shot or not.

In the past when taking photographs in less than ideal situations (regardless of exposure bracketing etc there has always been a nervous wait for the pro lab to deliver the package and the worry that they may destroy the film. Thankfully, in almost thirty years I have only lost a few films - worryingly almost 90% over the last 5 years!!

I think that oine of the problems with digital is that <most> images look good when they are small/low resolution as the technical flaws don't show up.

The great thing about film is that you have an instant backup once they are scanned/printed - which you can even store in another location without too much expense.

People often neglect the cost of storage of digital files in their simplistic calculation of costs of digital. Whilst I agree that there is no extra cost at the start mainting a collection of photographs digitally together with backups and off site storage is cheap but not cost free.


Finally, I think that there is room for both digital and film for a long time into the future!

I love looking at my landscapes projected from a medium format slide - their is currently no digital equivalent.


I'll stop rambling now!!

shrekito

Stephen wrote: »

I really wish more dSLRs would use split-prism focusing screens. (I know you can perform warranty-voiding surgery to add one) My father has an ancient Canon film SLR from around 1980 and its viewfinder is the business. Really big and bright and so easy to focus with.

In the 70's 80's this was the only way to go - generally a split image surrounded by a Microprism in the centre of the screen. For me they were a necessary evil of the time as they needed sufficient light to stop them blacking out and also made you concentrate too much on the centre of the picture - I was so happy when auto focus SLR's came on the market.

Most cameras of that era were supplied with a standard 50mm lens which was often very fast with f/1.7 f1.8 being common (and cheap) and f/2 being considered slow. Hence the viewfinders often appeared bright until you put that new f/4 lens on, when the split image would start to become unusable.

thefizz

ShakeyBlakey wrote: »

hi, just wondering does anybody here still take pics with film?, and if so how do you think digital compares, I sometimes use a pentax 67 with fuji velvia because I think it will be a very long time till digital catches up. Just wondering because everybody seems 100% digital here..
Cheers,
Mark

I only shoot film (mainly 6x7) and I have little idea how digital compares. It doesn't really matter to me which is "better" as I use film for the enjoyment of the process, although the archival qualities of film and fibre paper are important to me also.

Digital is great for a lot of things with its speed and convenience but I don't need either for my hobby.

I must say its great that this thread remained civilised. Well done boardies.

Peter

www.fpworkshops.com

elven

I used to shoot velvia and other slow rated colour slide film - 35mm - and looking back at those slides, the colour is fantastic. But there are quite a few reasons I now shoot digital:

1) Speed - the most obvious. Not a patient person, by nature, it used to drive me crazy having to wait to finish a whole roll before developing it. Then you have to physically drop it off and go back to pick it up, or spend an afternoon making a mess of your kitchen...

2) Adaptability - when you put a roll of velvia 50 or 1600 bw film in your camera, unless you want to faff about with winding it back in then taking it out and trying to remember what frame you got to for putting it back in again, you're committed to that film. These days I can theoretically go from low iso landscapes on a tripod, to high iso handheld low light shooting, without thinking twice. In practice I use it simply for changing light situations.

3) Expense - yes, yes, I've spent far far more on my digital gear than i did on processing. But that's because I was so precious about each roll, I would never shoot more than a few frames of a single subject. I shot about 1 film per month (unless i was at a wedding or on holiday in which case I'd maybe use 4-5 rolls) and had to make every shot count. Then, I get them developed and find that half aren't sharp, or I left exposure compensation on, or something. These days I can relax, work a subject from different angles (it's not a case of shooting enough pictures to get one decent one, more that the exercise of taking pictures of something helps me develop a viewpoint I wouldn't have had, just looking at it. It's a process of learning I suppose) and make sure that in the case of macro tiny depth of field with floowers waving about in the wind, i can have a better chance of at least one with the focus in the right place.

4) Processing - you shoot slide film, you press the button, it gets processed, and there's your finished product. I never got a cibachrome print but any of the regular prints i got from a lab of my slides, well, it didn't look like the same picture to me. The best prints were digital, from scans, heh. If there's no darkroom printing, there's no tweaking. Shooting is only half the process for me, and slides are a sort of anticlimax, and black and white has never really appealed. Now I get home with a memory card full of raw material that I can make what I want of it. I can go light and delicate, hard and contrasty, dark and moody. I can up the softness and grain, I can make it pop, I can bring focus on to different areas in the frame with masking techniques. It makes me feel like I really own the picture, and that I really worked for it.

5) Shareability - I was on a couple of forums when I shot film but it was a nightmare when everyone was talking about stuff they just shot but unless you could meet them face to face and see the prints, you'd have to wait weeks, usually, before it was online, if ever. Now as Al mentioned, I can take pictures at 3, and have them online by 5, without trying too hard. It's great fun on sunday nights, looking at my flickr contact page because I can see where they all were at the weekend!

6) Learning curve - I learned more about photography in 2 months with my new DSLR than I did on 35mm in 4-5 years, simply because I could afford to shoot a higher volume, experiment more, and get instant feedback.

On the other hand, digital is frustrating me because of a couple of things, mostly noise, and what happens to blown highlights. I have a bit of a love/hate thing with noise where I'm trying to accept it as a different kind of grain, but it just isn't as pretty. And blown highlights from the holga are glowy and beautiful. On digital, they are pretty ugh.

All personal experience. Could be totally different for anyone else. Now I like to use film for specific purposes, like the holga. Predictability can be an issue with digital!

ThOnda

Elven - thank you for summarizing reasons why I want digital camera. I agree with everything.

m_stan

Digital only, and for all the reasons that Elevn points out above. Plus, I'm really only learning - only have the DSLR around 18months if even, and digital is a great way to learn due to the instant feedback.

Maybe one day I'll go film after I've learned all the basics on digital, but right now I'm having far too much fun with my DSLR.