Where do you stand?

[FrankS]

So let's kick off this new forum with a poll: Where do you stand?

[nonot]

Sure, I'll take film's side on this one.

[kxl]

I find myself straddling the line... I like digital for color, film for B&W.

[DanP]

I would say I stand on both.

Its kind of late at night, but I am willing to spare another hour with a bowl of popcorn to enjoy the show. :D

Cheers,
Dan.

[digitalintrigue]

strictly digilog.

[thomasw_]

Hey Frank, I think I am 99.9% film. A very strong preference for film. But I have no ax to grind against digital; it is just not the look for me. Accordingly I will use film, develop it myself and wet print, until it is no longer feasible to do so.

[FrankS]

You and me both, Thomas!

[maddoc]

Hybrid ... 99% film (1% is the occasional Iphone shot) but all printing is digital (after scanning the film). I still have my enlarger and some other parts needed but no space / time to set it up ... :o

[davidtth]

slide for serious work, neg for casual shot, 10-20% digital for simply snap shot ...

[barnwulf]

Yes, about 99% film but I do enjoy my M8 once in awhile! - jim

[Riccis]

Film only for both personal and paid work.

[nikon_sam]

All my film cameras take film...guess I'm 100% film user...

[wlewisiii]

I shoot almost all film but process it, right now, mostly via a scanner. However, I intend to start using a public dark room soon and doing real printing again.

I have a fairly nice p&s digital - a Canon A590IS - but I really only use it for "for sale" ads.

[damien.murphy]

100% film (b&w), which may change as I would like to shoot colour at times too. The availability of an affordable and compact digital camera with both a viewfinder and manual controls will decide when that becomes a reality. I see myself being 80% film, and 20% digital then.

[Doug]

I've been nearly all digital the past couple of years, but I'm feeling the urge to get out the medium-format gear and start reducing the stash of film aging in the fridge... :)

[Keith]

Film for me and occasionally for money ... digital for money!

My D700 along with Zeiss glass is changing that balance slightly though ... more so than my M8 ever did!

[Ezzie]

Digital mostly, but having more and more fun with film (again)

[thegman]

I totally see why people shoot digital, nothing against it, in some circumstances I found myself thinking " a big fast DSLR would have been better here". But as someone who grew up with computers and digital, film is interesting, and there is a "look" often which is pleasing to the eye.

I love how you can change out the "sensor" every 10 shots (on my Mamiya) and put in one tuned for amazing colour, infrared, extreme resolution, or whatever you want.

A lot can be achieved in Photoshop of course, but not everything, and I use computers enough as it is.

[Brian Sweeney]

Shot my first roll of film in 1962 and made my first digital image in 1981. I have not shot a roll of film for work since 1990, scientific and technical photography.

I've used film for personal work for the most part up until last year when Kodak folded its film processing service. Since then, picked up an M8 and a pair of EP2's, shoot 75% digital and 25% film.

[Guaranteed]

Both film and digital here and equally terrible at both, as long as I'm having fun though it doesn't matter to me. After all, it's just a hobby for me.

[rbiemer]

I'll be out standing in my field while y'all go down this road...
Rob

[Fraser]

Digital for work and now I have the M8, M2 days are numbered!

[tlitody]

So let's kick off this new forum with a poll: Where do you stand?

Where I get the best composition:p

[johnnygulliver]

mostly M8 for convenience, speed and quality, MP and film for quality too and colour (digital doesn't do reds) plus Nikon Coolscan 9000 and fun. I do like the M8 though, I have to say.

[chris000]

All film but printing digital printing. Mainly because I prefer the look of the results I get from scanned film - but also I own 3 very good film cameras, I not planning to throw them in the bin until I have to and I hope I never have to.

[sepiareverb]

I just recently gave up on color film because wet-printing it here (in my darkroom) has gotten too iffy: the materials I was using are discontinued and the replacements were available inconsistently, then discontinued. This was Endura in sheets and any of the Mono Chemistries. My last boxes of paper went bad while waiting for the backordered chemistry to get here- so I had paper but no chems, then chems but paper that was no good. Too frustrating, so I packed it in.

I do scan film, but it is one of my least favorite things to do. Too time consuming, especially when the all digital workflow produces prints that I like better. I've got a big backlog of negatives left to scan that I'm nibbling away at. I do prefer the results I get from the scanned film and the Epson 3880 to anything I got on Endura.

All my B&W is film exclusively.

[DNG]

Mostly Digital, immediate cost, mostly.

[Stuart John]

I shoot mostly digital with a little bit of film mixed in but I do have periods where I may shoot all film.

[GinoE]

Mostly digital, and with film only digital printing. I like the look of both, they each have their place and purpose.

[gb hill]

!00% film. Nothing against digital, just like using the gear I have. Just not ready to put it on the shelf just yet!

[systemlayers]

Digital for action work, macro and micro work (especially beyond 1:1 work ) and events. And color mostly although I love analogue color and would like to process it sometime.
Film increasingly for pleasure even though I don't have the right equipment just yet. I shoot it mainly for the better equipment and philosophy one is forced to take.
I'm only a year in on photography and film is a great learning tool.

[DNG]

Update:
maybe 60/40 D/F now that I develop my own Film.

[nolasafari]

I shoot digital most of the time, but due to this forum I started shooting film again. My son and i developed a couple of rolls last week, it was fun.

[noimmunity]

Color mostly digital, now, except when I'm backpacking, I use color slide film.
For black and white it's film. And now that I'm developing/scanning myself, using motion picture filmstock, the cost isn't as much of an issue, and I can't indulge the urge to try new things out as I please.

[timor]

I find myself straddling the line... I like digital for color, film for B&W.Me too, just ... I shoot almost no color, OK. family pics. Like to do things by myself (no computer). I guess I am the one lucky to have simple, but permanent darkroom at home.

[clayne]

200% film. I print in the darkroom.

I enjoy my time away from the computer and continual electronic bombardment that I already receive on a daily basis.

The darkroom is peace and solace with zero distractions.

[jnoir]

About 90% of my shoots are film. Digital SLR for backup when travelling abroad.

[itai]

Film and Digital are both amazing.
I find my dig cam better at artificial, mixed light.
Film might be better at daylight.
Still learning both mediums,
I just rediscovered film, and it teaches me stuff.
Love photography!

[rbsinto]

Film. Colour slide film.

[dave lackey]

Film and digital...it all depends on the task at hand. I get different results from each and it is a matter of matching the proper equipment to the task.

That said, I hope to be doing more and more film for the foreseeable decades and much less time on the computer for anything. I would rather be a photographer than a computer nerd.:p

Now, ask me which is better:


F I L M !!! Because I enjoy it more and the results are worth it.:)

[chrismoret]

To be honest ?...Got back to film because I couldn't affort/justify a M9. But now I'm settled in again., would not miss it for the world!:cool:

[Jamie Pillers]

Assuming the fuji X100 matches up with the hype, I'll soon be 100% digital. Its taken some serious engineering to get me to this place. I've tried digital a few times over the past 4 years since discovering RFF. I've wanted to pull away from film because of the incompatibility with my income (getting down to zero these days), time availability for trips to film processor and scanning (having a nine-yr. old kid around the house puts a serious dent in discretionary time for photo stuff).

Up till now, two things have made it difficult for me to make the switch to digital:
1) lack of significant sensor dynamic range in a reasonably priced camera, and
2) lack of a camera with a large sensor and small rangefinder-like body with an optical viewfinder.

The Nikon D7000 satisfies #1 and the Fuji X100 will hopefully satisfy #2. At that point, I will have come nearly full circle from when this 'transition' journey began for me. When I first came to RFF I owned a Nikon F3 and a Hexar AF... analog twins of my new kit??

[saintotto]

i go both ways! not a fan of the 'either or' debate. films is unique in look and feel but man the stuff you can do in low light with digital is just incredible! film can't touch that. here's a interresting read though by doug muennez

http://dougmenuez.com/2009/04/10/the-zen-of-film-vs-digital-gratification/

cheers
otto
http://www.ottoschulzephotographers.com/blog

[hteasley]

Years in digital was bliss, but it was an ignorant bliss... I'm shooting a bunch of film now, but shoot a lot more digital, simply because hard disk space is cheap, and I'm much more willing to do daring experiments with digital.

[dtcls100]

Just ordered about $850 worth of film -- 120, 220, 35mm in both BW (100 and 400 ASA), color negative and color slide films (Astia, Velvia 50). Should keep me set for a couple of years. I see stocks of many films at Freestyle and B&H are getting low and wanted to make sure to get some rolls while many of them are still pretty inexpensive (less than $3.00 a roll).

Of course, this purchase gives away my preference between film and digital, as well my collection of cameras:

Digital: Canon Elph 800

Film: 4 Mamiya 6 (w/2 50mm, w/1 75mm, w/1 150mm), 3 OM-4T, 1 OM-4 (w/upgraded circuit), 3 OM-2n, 1 OM-1n, 2 OM-1 MD, plus Zuiko 21mm f.2.0, 24mm shift f3.5, 24mm f2.8, 28mm f2.0, 35mm f2.0, 50mm f2.0 macro, 50mm f3.5 macro, 50mm f1.8 MIJ, 90mm f2.0 macro, 100mm f2.0, 35-80 f2.8, 75-150 f4.0, Tamron SP 17mm f3.5, Tamron SP 80-200 f2.8, Tamron SP 35-80 f2.8, Vivitar Series 1 28-90 f2.8, Vivitar Series 1 70-210 f3.5, Vivitar Series 1 70-210 f2.8-4.0, Vivitar Series 1 90mm f2.5 w/1:1 adapter ("Bokina"), bunch of Olympus motor drives, flash units, macro tubes, etc.

[Neare]

Just ordered about $850 worth of film

This is a beautiful moment :o

[jky]

100% digital here - mainly because of time.

[SixFlags]

100% Film now
3 Months ago I tried out a Lumix LX-5 compact as an allrounder but I wasn't that much convinced. Its not that the camera was bad it was just that in the end I thought the money for the digital is better spent on rolls of film, in terms of value and fun.

[River Dog]

I take photos for fun, as a passion - not to turn out 100's of images commercially. I don't shoot enough for cost to be a major issue and I process all my own mono and colour films (35mm and MF). So I have sold most of my digital gear to buy more interesting film cameras.

My simplest answer is that I now have a full-frame compact that cost me £25, the Olympus RC.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5136/5426523352_d8b1990b33_b.jpg
Olympus RC, Neopan Acros 100

[c.poulton]

If it wasn't for the iPhone Hipstamatic app (just a bit of fun really), I would be 100% film...

[ElectroWNED]

I recently bought a GRDIII to supplement my Olympus XA, but cannot convince myself that I like the digital images enough to keep the camera. Yes, they are nice, but something about film still has a hold on me. Digital is too clean, almost sterile compared to that warm analog feeling of film. Or to take it further-- digital is for the recording of what happened in a point in time, while film makes everything appear as art.

In music, it would be like comparing Boards of Canada's analog sound to something like Autechre's mostly computer generated effects-- this might not mean much to the older crowd here, but if you know the two artists, I think you'll understand.

[_larky]

All digital, 100%, nothing else.

If I could process film without having to do the hippy hippy shake and I could find a scanner that wasn't hugely expensive and incredibly slow, I'd maybe shoot some film.

[n5jrn]

Both. I like film because it lets me use classic mechanical cameras, and I enjoy using working antiques. Also, I find film SLRs to be superior to digital SLRs for hiking and taking macro photos of plants (classic, manual-focus film SLRs and their lenses are smaller and lighter than DSLRs, and manual-focus SLRs have brighter viewfinders for easier manual focusing than autofocus SLRs).

But compact digital cameras like my DMC-LX3 pack so much functionality into a small package that you just can't beat them for a compact, carry-with-you-all-the-time, camera.

[Archiver]

Digital for the most part, although I use perhaps 3-5 rolls of film a year, depending on where I am and what I'm doing. When my M9 was being fixed early this year, I shot about five rolls with the M7. Still haven't developed three black and whites that I have vowed to do myself for the first time.

Every time I think about shooting more film, I think about how much control and quality I get with my M9 and even my GXR. So my film cameras become toys for fondling and the occasional shot, and my digital cameras get all the work.

[hatidua]

From 2004-2010 I was 100% digital. Then, about six months ago, I decided to switch directions slightly from the 100% commercial work I'd been doing.

On a lark, I had a handful of 300mb drum scans made from ten year old 6x7 B&W negatives back in January...while I'd not expected that endeavor to have the impact it did, since February of this year, I've bought a Mamiya 7ii system and an RZ system to include multiple bodies/backs/lenses. In spite of the decline in analog equipment pricing, I've spent far more in getting back into film than a top-of-the-line FF digital system setup would have cost (which I already own).

I'm not going to rant onward about the benefit of one capture method over another but for what I want to do, the 'look' of grain from a MF piece of film is closer to what I'm after. 4x5 would be even better but in spite of years of running view cameras, I never managed to get to the point where I was oblivious to the equipment so I'm sticking with MF. That said, in terms of ongoing cost, shooting film takes a continual toll on the wallet in terms of film/processing costs that digital bypasses.

[_larky]

I too have suddenly gone back to film, from 100% digital. I could have bought an M8, but film has proved to me again that is has a certain something. I can't put my finger on it though.

[Chris101]

... I can't put my finger on it though.

And if you did, it would leave fingerprints.

[Hatch]

More and more film.
Digital is easy and can look OK

In the beginning I went crazy pixel peeping.
Then i just looked at the complete picture/ print and it clicked.

Film just looks so much better.

[europanorama]

I not really in digital-business, only own tiny digital compacts(for reasons). But i have a lot of analogue cams mostly 35mm. i am just digging them out again. have now-beside contax/yashica/zeiss also nikon. when the right cams are out i can easily get eighter nikon or canon or sony nex. zeiss can be mounted on canon and sony nex.
will dig out my rotapancams.
rumors say that kodak is working on a highlevel but affordable MF-scanner.
despite there business problems i am still believing in that important tool.
Its a pity sigma sd1 is so expensive. That would be the right digital tool. sigma will offer high-end lenses to match it better.

[HLing]

Totally drawn in by film at the moment.

[JoeV]

Where do I stand? Simple: behind the camera!

Actually, I use a micro-4/3 Lumix G1 for much of my street photography, and use large format cameras (press and handmade pinhole variety) for landscape and still-life work.

Less frequently I use 135-format rangefinders, and also film point-and-shoots.

~Joe

[pinkarmy]

i love film photography.
the smell of the chemicals in the air.
the photos i can put into an album.

i like rangefinder cameras for the beautiful made. i like toy cameras for the fun.

i don't mind digital for the convenience. the fancy effects.

i just can't stand people paying crazy money buying out great analogue lenses for their digital toy cameras.

[Snowbuzz]

i just can't stand people paying crazy money buying out great analogue lenses for their digital toy cameras.

Ah, ooooh. I'm one of those people. :o

[seakayaker1]

I am trying to get better at both, right now three film cameras and two digital.

. . . . . it is a nice problem to have.

[chrismoret]

To be honest ?...Got back to film because I couldn't affort/justify a M9. But now I'm settled in again., would not miss it for the world!:cool:

Have to reconsider this.

Got me a M9 last December (...went to a casino, inherited from a forgotten uncle, found suitcase of money next to the garbage...) But planning to keep on shooting film also. So 50/50 would be it for me now.

[mdarnton]

I'm shooting on film, then "scanning" with my Nikon D300 copy rig. To me it's the best of both worlds, and the D300 is there for the purely commercial work where it's more appropriate. I don't find B&W developing painful, but grew to hate the printing darkroom after too many years doing it for $$$, so the hybrid approach is ideal for me. I didn't check "hybrid" because it doesn't really seem to describe how I feel about it, even though I do use the computer at the end.

[kossi008]

I checked "both" because I have phases. Right now I should have checked "80-100% digital", but in about a month or two, I'll go back to 100% analog b/w, until the next phase comes over me...

[pvdhaar]

It's about 50/50 for me.. And that's back from almost 100% digital.

What pulls me more and more back to film, is that it makes me feel more relaxed.

When shooting digital I'm constantly checking the rear LCD, optimizing the settings, and trying to re-create a shot a hundred times. That sure does interrupt the flow..

With film a shot is a shot, and I'm immediately ready to go on to the next one..

[Doug]

Peter, that makes sense, and good logic. But just because that review screen is there doesn't mean you have to look at it! Mine is turned off. I operate the same way with digital as I did with film, though I feel more willing to explore the subject a bit more with another shot or two. Even with digital, my attention is concentrated on the subject rather than the gear...

[Chrisrw]

As far as actual quantity of shots, digital. That's because I way overshoot with my G12. I can always retake shots, play with settings and get immediate feedback. Because I just got into photography last March with the G12, this technique has been a great learning tool. It has the manual settings I like. On the other-hand because of the style of the G12, I became intrigued with rangefinders and film cameras in general. I have since acquired a Rollei 35, Canonet QL17Giii, OM-1nMD and last week a Bessa R2. I LOVE shooting film and started developing my own. I only shoot B&W with film, most digital I convert to B&W. I would say I spend more time shooting film. I love the feel and sound of the mechanical cameras. I love the intention I have when carrying my film camera. I shoot and then move on. I am still learning so much about film and developing that I'll probably spend most of my time doing that for now. Digital is going nowhere and so I'd like to take advantage of film while its still viable.

[Beixat]

I use tri-x at 1250 and hope not to change but have to admit to a magnetic dragging towards a foveon powered dp2merill.

[paradoxbox]

i'm another person who started in digital and gradually moved into film. i'm 26.

i have a DSLR and an Epson R-D1, but i rarely use my d70s dslr anymore. i love the r-d1 but it has the crop factor and it's also battery dependent and full of electronics which makes me worry.

when it rains hard, or when i want a smaller / lighter camera, or when i need a very silent camera, i have my film cameras to back me up.

i have an epson r2400 printer which is fantastic but making prints the old fashioned way on an enlarger is really rewarding and after calculating the costs, i think the analog way of printing is cheaper. definitely save money on black ink compared to digital printing.

[J.S.]

Just film for me.

My web site: judithsteiner.com

[efix]

I'll take the best of both, please! I love digital for the convenience, and film for the analog sensation.

I love my M8, the wonderful files it outputs, the all-manual opration, the excellent lenses, the look and feel of the body. I love my Micro Four Thirds bodies, for their small form factor and the possibility to adapt all kinds of lenses. I love digital for the instant satsfaction, for the fact that I can take a picture, check it on the screen, and retake it if necessary.

I love film for the fact that I don't know how the picture will turn out. I love to load a roll of film into an analog camera. I love to avance the film after taking a shot, and to rewind it when the roll is full. I love to wait until it is processed, to scan it afterwards and to be surprised by the results. I love that film comes in so many different flavors.

For me, it's not about film OR digital. It's definitely BOTH. The only question is when to go for which - and that mostly depends on my mood :-)

[hometext]

thanks I also like that

[hometext]

that's right way for your life.

[Chris101]

11 months ago when I last visited this thread I was 80-100% film. Today I am 80-100% digital. I wonder where I will be a year from now?

[Doug]

You could be 100% digital, Chris... that's what happened with me anyway. For the past two years I've been all-digital. For the two years prior to that I started at 0% and quickly went up to about 60% digital, then gradually quit using film.

A bit sad, really, as I really like my film gear, and miss the time in the darkroom. But ultimately I'm glad to be rid of the print spotting by brush, and later on the film scans. Lightroom has replaced the darkroom... and now I spot sensor dust!

[Ntran1986]

I voted for 80-100% digital by accident. Mouse slipped. I use film for my projects, and the GF1 is strictly for shots with friends and family. Rarely do I want to compose on a screen.

[zpuskas]

I haven't made a post here in some time.
I'm reluctant to say I'm 100% digital now because I no longer have access to a wet darkroom. I didn't do any photography for about 4 years. Yes, I miss film. I miss the smell of stop bath and fixer.
However, digital has rekindled my interest in photography and that is good. I guess I'll stick with digital.

[clayne]

Film for life.

[damien.murphy]

Fluctuates for me I find, so film and digital, but can be heavily skewed in favour of one or the other at times. Film for the pleasure of shooting and the results, digital for the convenience of a digital file, and am learning to invest the time in my post-processing to get the results I want. Film for b&w and digital for colour make a good combination I imagine, although for me I get bored of developing film and scanning it.

[DougFord]

Taking pics, I'm 100% film.
If you discount using a loupe for viewing the negs, I'm 100% digital i.e. scanning/posting.

[Manuphoto]

I shoot almost only digital since 2008, but I've used film for many years.

I do use DxO FilmPack to get the film look on some of my shots. It has a very nice selection of films and is, IMHO, the more accurate.

I do pick up my old Nikon from time to time to shoot a roll or two.

[Keith]

I seem to swing backwards and forwards between the two. I can't see myself giving up film but digital is getting steadily better with a really interesting range of cameras available currently. I bought an SLR I've always lusted after a few weeks ago ... an OM-3. Two weeks later I followed that up by getting an OMD ... oh dear, so confusing! :p

[Jobin]

Can someone convince me to keep my film cameras? k thanks

[Chris101]

Can someone convince me to keep my film cameras? k thanks

Nah. Let 'em go ... cheap.

[kutitta]

Nah. Let 'em go ... cheap.

I second Chris!

[icebear]

Since I have the M9 I didn't put a single film in a camera. My wife uses her M6 as we don't have a second M9 ...yet.

[Xavier C]

I'm in the "both film and digital" category, with a digital DSLR, and various cameras for film (RF, SLR, and some medium and large format cameras).

[funkydog]

I like the convenience of digital and the batteryless freedom that film cameras offer. If only the laws of physics were circumvented and the need to to charge cameras, smartphones, 'pads, & 'pods twice daily becomes obsolete.

[zephyrusrain]

80~100% digital. Too poor for film.

[jwc57]

11 months ago when I last visited this thread I was 80-100% film. Today I am 80-100% digital. I wonder where I will be a year from now?

I evidently voted and never commented. Now I'm lost. I would guess about a year ago, I'd be the same as Chris here. Lately, the project I'm working has called for film, digital just didn't work, and the only reason that they may run 50/50 is because digital is used to check light and to record reminders for later.

As to expense, around 55 to 80 cents per photo, that seems really reasonable to me. (Since I bulk load and use Diafine often, it may even be a little less.).

(If my math is correct, it is actually around 25 cents per photo. That to me is cheap. Especially since I'm looking at another digital camera--my fifth one since 2001 because nowadays you upgrade cameras instead of using the newest film--for about $2500.00. $2500 is a lot of film and I'll have to replace it in another three or four years.)

[Messsucherkamera]

All my cameras are film cameras - I don't own even one digital camera and I couldn't be happier. :D

[Nikos72]

I have both film and digital cameras. I shoot more in digital due to being lazy, but I love film more!

[Tijmendal]

I find myself straddling the line... I like digital for color, film for B&W.

As much as I love films like Ektar (especially) and the colors they produce, this is true for me too. Mostly because I can develop B&W myself (and print myself now that I have access to a darkroom).

B&W film has something special to it, something I have less with most color films. I love Kodak Ektar and Portra, but am not too big a fan of most (not all) other color films. A lot of color film is very similar to digital, which isn't all that exciting for me.

[jkrumsick]

All my cameras are film cameras - I don't own even one digital camera and I couldn't be happier. :D

I have to have digital for making videos but otherwise I am 100% film stills! Woo hoo!

[Quaffit]

I love both cause both have pro's and con's. What I also do is digital processing of scanned analog prints to either restore damaged prints or to create new artwork.

Cheers!

[falleri]

Digital for my commercial work. I prefer film for my autonomous work but love my X100 too. And I've done quite a lot with my iPhone. The dslr usually only gets picked up for commercial work (which for me is mostly interior and architecture). I have no bond with that thing.

I hope to be able to shoot film for my commercial work in the future too.. don't like shooting portraits digitally. Don't do a lot of commercial portraiture at the moment, and would never want to do the 'cheap and fast linkedin portrait' stuff.

For architecture and interior I'll probably stick to digital for a while, architects tend to hire me for a job they want done yesterday every once in a while because suddenly they need it for a presentation, hadn't gotten around to asking me before yet, and I can't see myself getting it done on film then. I suppose that's the main problem with most everyday commercial work nowadays; people expect it asap.

[jschrader]

I voted 80% film. What I do the the DSLR is not photography but documenting. (Occasionally my wife reminds my "would do some documentation also, please")

[tunalegs]

I honestly cannot think of a good reason to use a digital camera, except when the end goal is to post a photo on the internet.

[Roger Hicks]

I honestly cannot think of a good reason to use a digital camera, except when the end goal is to post a photo on the internet.
Or illustrations for magazine articles/books. Yesterday I shot 5 pics for a magazine. Before digital I'd have had to load slide film; shoot; process; mount; wait 'til the post office opened again; mail originals (heavily insured)...

Cheers,

R.

[oneF]

Digital cameras are nothing more ,or less, than a tool and there will always the 'right' tool for any given job. I shoot digital for commercial work and film for my own, I've shot for many years with film in commercial situations and digital is certainly faster and convenient but for the pictures I want to look at for a while then for me it has to be film.

[airfrogusmc]

My professional work is now all digital and has been for some years. I shoot advertising/commercial work specializing in health care. Have been working in this field for 22 years now. Most of my work is used for ads, billboards, annual reports, some surgical procedures, etc. Still love film especially med and large format. I have been shooting all digital for my personal work now to for several years. I downsize my living arrangements some years back and no longer have the 500C/Ms or the darkroom and yes I do miss it at times.

The cameras I use are all just tools. A way for me to get my vision to a final stage.

[haring]

I take my digital when I go to work. I take my film when I take my kids and want to have extra love in their photos.... Film rules my heart!

[David Charlwood]

I honestly cannot think of a good reason to use a digital camera, except when the end goal is to post a photo on the internet.

100% Right!

[Cyriljay]

mostly M8 for convenience, speed and quality, MP and film for quality too and colour (digital doesn't do reds) plus Nikon Coolscan 9000 and fun. I do like the M8 though, I have to say.

I have a Hasselblad 6x6 and a X-pan 11 and a M6 and ....a M8 for two years. I Love My M8. Clean and fast results . Now -a-days I am archiving all my negatives and Love all my past works in the shoe boxes. I have recently bought a new lenses for Blad 6X6 and hoping to do more Negative shooting.:)

[Blaufeld]

100% Right!

100% wrong.

;)

I'm sorry, but even if I shoot also 35mm and medium format, you will never be able to convince me to abandon digital.
And no, I don' t shoot digital only to publish it on the net.

Cheers.

[europanorama]

Or illustrations for magazine articles/books. Yesterday I shot 5 pics for a magazine. Before digital I'd have had to load slide film; shoot; process; mount; wait 'til the post office opened again; mail originals (heavily insured)...

Cheers,

R.
And heavily be depressed when film was stolen or badly treated or destroyed. I will reactivate my jobo rotating machine. mainly for 70mm work or special film/developping or comfort b+w-rotations at normal temperatures.
At the end of this year history of optical quality in FF must be rewritten anyhow when zeiss will offer their HQ-lenses. we can already begin saving 3000 euros.. They will have MF-quality. Zeiss-in an interview in a german photo-magazine said they were forced not to offer best possible quality.
on the other hand:Ilford will offer delta 100 and hp5 plus on Unperforated 70mm film

[Saxtonlad]

I use both digital & film but I also use film and then scan. Already with my vote where I cannot vote for both options is inaccurate:)

[jon.oman]

Whatever is best for the project I'm working on.....

[Red Robin]

And if you did, it would leave fingerprints.
Chris, Film is my favored format. That said , I have yet to set up my own darkroom, and yes someone at CVS does at times, leave a print on my print! Ugh.:bang:

[Chris101]

Chris, Film is my favored format. That said , I have yet to set up my own darkroom, and yes someone at CVS does at times, leave a print on my print! Ugh.:bang:

Don't think for a minute that having your own darkroom will mean the end of film mistakes. I'm mishandled more film in my own space than I think I've ever entrusted to the labs. I have touched, mal-exposed and down right stepped on many good negatives. But sometimes that's the best part:
http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=95310&stc=1&d=1364969808

[noisycheese]

100% film here.

I just never found digital cameras and photography very interesting.

I enjoy the simplicity and reliability of film photography - and the process.

[Fraser]

I honestly cannot think of a good reason to use a digital camera, except when the end goal is to post a photo on the internet.

Except for speed, quality, cost, consistency and if you want to make any money as a photographer (fine art photography etc maybe).
I'm all for shooting film but you are 100% wrong, and unless you are wet printing and not scanning- which is a whole other issue in the digital v film debate.
I find shooting film fun but only because I know longer have to do it to make a living.

[sgtnikolaix]

I started off with digital, but have now moved 100% film as I simply like the look it gives much more, as I always felt digital was too 'cold' looking. I also feel that I don't rush shots because either way I have to wait and develop them and I know each frame costs money.

[jim sparx]

Film for me, Argus C3 (1957), Nikon 6006, Yashica GSN, made me (helped me) learn the basics of photography, f stops, speed, ASA, etc.
Digital starts out almost like a Brownie, (I also had one of those along with a Dick Tracy Detective camera when I was a kid) just point and shoot.
Now I like to mess around in manual to see what i get with my new GRD IV. So, its like learning photography again if you stay away from that auto thing.
I like both, and once in a while I'll load some B&W film just to pretend like I know what I'm doing. That's my fantasy.