View Full Version : Do you Shoot Film or Digital?
CameraQuest
09-15-2010, 19:42
Do you shoot Film or Digital?
Vote one of the 4 choices which most closely fits your style.
Let's see what develops ..
Stephen
Colin Corneau
09-15-2010, 19:47
60% digital (because it pays for my home), 39% film (more if I had more time for my personal work), 1% talk about it because anything more is a waste of precious life and takes away from shooting.
Great minds think alike. ;)
see here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95219
gshybrid
09-15-2010, 19:53
hmmm... more time or shots. I shoot more shots with digital but I'm spending more time with my film cameras.
thomasw_
09-15-2010, 19:58
100% film.
Ditto. The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.
99% film (cameras) and 1% digital (cell-phones) ... :)
barnwulf
09-15-2010, 20:00
This is just like the other thread. 99% film and I do enjoy my M8 once in awhile. - Jim
BTMarcais
09-15-2010, 20:01
Almost completely film. Once in a while the DSLR comes out, but rarely.
I'd shoot more digi if someone wants to donate a m8/m9.... but I doubt that'll happen. :)
I'm pretty happy in the darkroom anyway.
-Brian
99% film (cameras) and 1% digital (cell-phones) ... :)
+1 .........
jan normandale
09-15-2010, 20:08
I'd say about 80 percent film and 20 percent digital. I use a digi P/S to sketch out my film shots. I find it's a less expensive way to determine if I've actually got a shot or not.
I'll usually keep the sketches that work then return with film. It actually saves me money, film and time. I also use it for snapshots for family and friends by email.
amateriat
09-15-2010, 20:09
Okay, I'll play: approximately 80% film; the balance is divvied up between my (borrowed) Olympus C-8080, my tiny-but-fun Casio EX-850, and the camera in my BlackBerry Curve. Thinking about a Samsung TL-500, or maybe that new Nikon P-7000, but I'm not getting any more "into" digital than that, if that.
- Barrett
shadowfox
09-15-2010, 20:15
Using film, promoting film, and serving film community (by offering darkroom printing services). Currently looking for an affordable 8x10 kit :D
Two film scanners, an Epson inkjet for making digital negatives (alternative and contact printing).
My 2 (only) digital cameras are the oh-so-versatile Olympus E-P2, and a super cheap Fuji S3 Pro (just so I can use Nikon AF glasses).
I'm all film. I own an inexpensive Lumix digital, but I almost never use it because I have to read the instructions first, because its been so long since I used it last time, and on and on. I suspect that I might shoot more digital if I could afford and justify the price of an M8 or M9, but thats never going to happen.
one year ago i was 100% film. now i am about 80% digital and maybe 20% film.
if kodachrome were still an option i would probably be about 50/50.
bob
80% film, 20% digital
My kid is too fast for film indoors hence the digital. But when I'm out its film camera baby!
coelacanth
09-15-2010, 20:44
For hobby, which I call "my photography," it's 100% film. That's the photos that I might print in darkroom and hang from wall or show to people "that's my photo" in my portfolio. All public exhibition and a few publications that I've taken part in were with film.
For work like occasional paid shoot, self-made stock photo for design job, any other design materials, I use digital. Also "for sale" shots are by digital.
All-n-all, If I combine them all, I have to choose "Mostly Film, Some Digital."
To answer the question posed by the thread (although twisting it a little), I shoot both film and digital.
In the past year, the M8 has become my walk-around camera. Accordingly the high percentage of shots I take are now digital. Vive la difference!
nikon_sam
09-15-2010, 20:52
All film all the time...I don't own one of them others cameras...
work is all digital, personal photos are almost all film.
Gregoryniss
09-15-2010, 20:54
I shot probably 80% digital, 20% now. It's the other way around when I don't have school. I just don't have the available time to develop+scan large quantities of film with full time school and 2 jobs. I love film more though :)
JonasYip
09-15-2010, 20:59
almost all digital, especially since the local lab that would handle 120 closed.
bwidjaja
09-15-2010, 21:02
Mostly film, but digital comes in handy especially with GH1 so I can use old glass and also take video of my newborn.
Question is not clear. I take more digital pictures but more film pictures actually wind up being printed. Also a 50/50 choice would have been nice so wishy washy people like me can play the middle. ;-)
photogdave
09-15-2010, 21:09
Mostly film shooting, digital workflow. Occasionally use a Pentax waterproof digi for fun summertime stuff!
I try out new digi cameras like the LX5, S90 etc. but get bored of them pretty fast.
wlewisiii
09-15-2010, 21:11
99.8% film (all film for the poll) and .2 digital (for sale ads only).
I do scan and use a digital print service right now but hope to wet print only soon.
I have more film cameras than digital cameras, so I shoot more film than digital. But I make way more digital exposures than I do film exposures, so am I shooting more film or more digital?
/
damien.murphy
09-15-2010, 21:34
I'm 100% b&w film, having converted from being all digital about 18 months ago. I love the process from capture to wet printing, and next week will see me putting the finishing touches on a dedicated b&w darkroom.
I do own a flatbed scanner for scanning prints and the odd negative, and can see possibly see myself shooting digitally for colour though. Finding an affordable and compact camera with a viewfinder and manual controls will decide how quickly the latter becomes a runner however.
Mostly digital for convenience, however I hope that will change as I just acquired M5. I still got full box of film in the freezer and all film developing equipment and the scanner.
It's all ready to go just need to find some time!!
Naumoski
09-16-2010, 00:28
It is not good ignoring completely both mediums.
Everything has its right place.
helenhill
09-16-2010, 04:22
100% film.
Me Tooooo..... But I thought You have an M9 Riccis
jsrockit
09-16-2010, 04:26
99% digital and 1% film
shadowfox
09-16-2010, 07:00
99% digital and 1% film
Just curious, what kind of shooting do you do in that 1%?
jsrockit
09-16-2010, 08:19
Just curious, what kind of shooting do you do in that 1%?
It's just when I want to use an old camera like a Leica M or a boutique P&S... I don't care about the film aspect (most processing in NYC is horrible and my days in a wet darkroom are over), I care about those older cameras and how they are fun to use. Outside of that I use digital all the time for my "serious" work.
Me Tooooo..... But I thought You have an M9 Riccis
Emergency backup to film Ms :D
JayGannon
09-16-2010, 23:07
About 60% Digital 40% Film, Digi for color commercial work, Film for B&W personal and commercial work, and yes people still do pay for real B&W work. And appreciate the craft of a wet print.
Pastor Chris
09-19-2010, 10:17
I started with fm when that's all there was, moved to digital when kids arrived and most photography was centered around them. I have gotten back into to film exclusively for b&w. It seems to me, and my rank amateur opinions, that there is a quality to b&w film that is hard to replicate in digital. I have found that through using film, I am much more selective about what I shoot and hiw I shoot it.
Mostly Digital, better cost effective for me. But I do the Leica for a spin every now and then. My last outing was my Sons field trip at a local fire station. brought the CV 28mm f/1.9 ASPH and Fuji 200, I'll post a few in a week or two. I sent film out, than I scan them.
Mostly digital, but been thinking to do some film shooting.
Since I work as a photographer that's the reason. I have put my view camera's away until I get my darkroom finished, and was
happily shooting digital with a new found interest in color. Then I bought a couple of fixed focal length lenses and "rediscovered" the joy of actually getting closer or further away from my subject to frame it...pretty soon I was thinking I have never owned a rangefinder camera...then I bought a Contax G2...and, I am having a blast shooting Ektar 100 in it! The whole film "scene" is so tactile, and I can't wait to the darkroom done and get back under the darkcloth! But, the G2 has found a place in my heart, for sure!
noimmunity
09-22-2010, 18:47
Learning to soup my own negs has increased the percentage of film.
I'd shoot even more digital if there were a better-than-the-M8 digital platform available ($$$) to me for my M lenses.
Chris101
09-22-2010, 20:12
I would have answered 100% film six months ago, but now I find myself embroiled in a project that requires 100% (or so it seems at the moment) digital. Oh well, six months from now who knows, I might be painting.
jan normandale
09-23-2010, 09:40
100% film. Because this is real photography.
I have a bunch of high quality and precise camera systems which are phenomenal performers (and outperform any digital system available today), so I don't see any reason to sell any of them just to invest a fortune into a crump of plastic which is obsolete after 6 or 12 months.
Simple as that.
toyota, Just curious... what "high quality and precise camera systems" are you using?
Since about 2003-4 I've been shooting strictly digital. Then, a few weeks ago, I just had a notion to shoot b&w again. Digital conversions are good but not the same. Having a variety of film SLRs and a Kodak Retina IIIc and Minolta 7SII I decided to consider shooting some film again. It's been 30 years since I was in a darkroom but decided to sign up for a couple classes at the local community college where they have nice scanners and a good darkroom.
Haven't actually shot anything yet with the old stuff but I did get four rolls of 24 exp. Fuji 200 color film at Walmart for $6.50 and am thinking of getting some 400 too. It's dirt cheap compared to many of the online places and it's all fresh stock.
However, my real interest is shooting film b&w not color. While I think digital excels at color it doesn't excel at b&w. Still, shooting color film again might be kinda fun too.
All this is really an excuse for me to buy a Leica M3/2/4. ;)
jan normandale
09-29-2010, 20:19
Jan,
35mm: 2x Contax G2 systems with 16mm to 90mm, Nikon F4s 2x with 15mm to 600mm (only prime lenses), Fuji GW 690 III with 3.5/90mm and GSW 690 III with 5.6/65mm, Plaubel 69W ProShift Superwide with Schneider Super-Angulon 5.6/47mm, Arca Swiss F line monorail with Rodenstock lenses from 45mm to 240mm.
All lenses with either zero (Zeiss, Fuji, Schneider, Rodenstock) or only marginal distortion (Nikon), no or marginal (compared to digital) chromatic aberration.
And yes, I am prepared to deliver technical data for the resolution of film - even for 35mm - compared to digital :D
That's a pretty nice line up. We both have some overlap. I've a Contax but it's the G1 with the 28,35,45,90 ; Fuji BL G690 with 65, 100 180; LF Toyo A 65 - 210.
I'm purely amateur though I recall you shoot pro. Do you have any client issues shooting film and time taken for processing vs competition using digital workflows?
I'm mostly digital for work, film for fun. I work for newspapers, and film is too slow for the job du jour unfortunately.
sepiareverb
09-30-2010, 11:46
I voted based on my personal work- more film than digital there. Work work is all digital.
Hasn't film done well! I am quite surprised by the poll, but suspect lots of oppressed film users voted whereas all-digital-ninjas might have been less inclined to bother - you know, being full members of the new order.
Although I curse the darkroom when things dont go well, I still cannot get over the magic of hitting the lights and seeing a beautiful, gleaming print in the tray. Printing digital feels like waiting for passport booth photos to emerge :D
I use digital for happy snaps and to copy silver prints for the internet/digital usage.
I have been shooting a long-term project over several years on film and it has been seriously hard work, but I still get all tingly when I see the finished results. I will be thinking hard about digital cameras for serious use over th next few months tho.
meanstreetshooter
09-30-2010, 13:14
Still old school. No real desire to change.
kshapero
10-17-2010, 21:04
90% film, 8% Iphone4, 2% other digital.
Mostly digital rangefinders, then film cameras, then DSLRs, then digital p&s (~20 pictures a year), then cell phone cameras (~10 pictures a year).
I think I should add a film SLR and see if I will use it more than the DSLRs. Or perhaps LF and see if I think I can afford to use it more than the cell phones.
Dave Wilkinson
10-18-2010, 01:19
As digital has-and is-improving in leaps and bounds, and film is in its 'death throws', it became an easy ( if in some ways regretable ) decision!
100% film because I have so much cash tied up in film & cameras I can't afford to go digital!;)
Bike Tourist
10-31-2010, 10:54
For me the war is over and digital won. The lower costs and greater convenience of digital blossomed just in time for my retirement.
dave lackey
10-31-2010, 13:34
I don't get it...why is it always "one or the other"? Why not both?:confused:
I voted mostly film, some digital. But even a few years ago it was the opposite.
Gravitating back toward film again.. There's something about the pictures that I can't seem to get with a digital camera. It's not that film is superior, it's got its flaws, but I just like it better for people pictures. Maybe it's because it reminds me of shooting with a clunker SLR in the seventies..
mathomas
11-30-2010, 18:42
Lately, if I do a "photo walkabout", that is, for "art", I use film (Fuji 690 or M2). If I'm shooting around friends/family, it's generally digital (M8 / DLUX4 / etc).
But I have to admit over the last 10+ years, it's been mostly digital.
The question may well have been:
Of those earning a living from photography, does anyone shoot film, and if so, what % and what is the subject matter. <2% at a guess
Most working photograhers have left film in the gutter. I don't know any who still have film cameras even (some landscape photographers not withstanding). This is a niche market, even more so RF film cameras.
Film is for personal projects only; clients aren't interested in waiting a week to see results!
dave lackey
12-03-2010, 03:36
The question may well have been:
Of those earning a living from photography, does anyone shoot film, and if so, what % and what is the subject matter. <2% at a guess
Most working photograhers have left film in the gutter. I don't know any who still have film cameras even (some landscape photographers not withstanding). This is a niche market, even more so RF film cameras.
Film is for personal projects only; clients aren't interested in waiting a week to see results!
A week? What kind of lab takes a week? My mom and pop shop only takes an hour!:) Takes me that long to batch process all the digital images I shoot and I hate computer work, I would much rather be making images.
JayGannon
12-03-2010, 04:55
The question may well have been:
Of those earning a living from photography, does anyone shoot film, and if so, what % and what is the subject matter. <2% at a guess
Most working photograhers have left film in the gutter. I don't know any who still have film cameras even (some landscape photographers not withstanding). This is a niche market, even more so RF film cameras.
Film is for personal projects only; clients aren't interested in waiting a week to see results!
Yes, between 20-30% depending on the year, would still be film work and about half of that figure would be specific requests from the client for film. And almost all of the specific request clients would also go for wet prints also (Not by me).
But totally agree that its a niche market. But if your waiting a week for your film your with the wrong lab, even out in the back end of nowhere I can have prints back in 24 hours for the client to edit from.
The point being that the client / art director wants to view the result, either tethered to the laptop or on the back of the camera.
Then they can then decide if it's a good image and so we can move on to the next shot.
Once the shoot is complete, back to the office, off load, PP and by 2am you have a gallery of images live and a DVD ready for the client. Job done. Next.
Ergo: film in this commercial context is dead and buried.
JayGannon
12-03-2010, 15:11
Yes if you work in that commercial space its dead, but really that just shows your working either in product advertising (1 day shoot) or with junior/asshole Art Directors, your art director should trust you to deliver the image by whatever means you feel suits the shoot and in your own style. And even in this day and age there are very few commercial 24h deadlines, 7 days is far more common to allow the image to go to retouch etc.
This is obviously something that can only be achieved in certain areas and when your AD trusts you though.
My point is film is only dead and buried in certain contexts for certain photographers, I'm not going to go shoot Paris Fashion Week on 100% film because I wont make any money, but I'll certainly shoot a few rolls and I will sell at least 1/2 images that were film based to the monthly's and to mags on longer lead times.
Suit the tool to the job should be every photographers mantra, if you job suits digital shoot digital, if the job suits film shoot film.
Recently the only time I shot digital was for 2 street photography workshops I attended, digital was required. The rest of the time I enjoy shooting mostly B&W film, 135 and 120 in various vintage cameras.
dtcls100
12-04-2010, 01:17
Film for all the important stuff; love the camera feel and look of photos taken with Mamiya 6 and Olympus OM. Use digital P&S for snapshots to send to other folks, although starting to use film for this also.
All clients, be they magazines or advertising want results, and digital gives them that; they can see instantly what they’re getting. Shoot. Move on to the next shot. Maximum £$£, minimum hassle in the time given.
There is no luxury of weeks of lead-in times and as for shooting some fashion show in film and some on digital at the same shoot (ergo different cameras and lenses required!?!) , that seems quite potty, why split your post production up like that and incur extra expense and extra effort and extra time when you are already committed to sitting in front of your PC anyhow; do it in one hit surely. Your approach to me makes absolutely no logical, commercial sense at all, do the shoot, PP, get the images to the client. Move onto the next job.
This is what digital offers the working photographer trying to shoot as many jobs as possible and satisfy the client; film never, ever, comes into the equation.
Edward C. Zimmermann
12-06-2010, 23:38
The poll is defective as it does not distinguish between digital photography--- the complete cycle from capture to physical print--- and capture. It does not distinguish between use of a modern cellphone--- these include image capture functionality (the average smartphone these days includes 5 Mpixel and already 12 Mpixel and even larger sensors are becoming mainstream)--- and a dedicated digital camera. It does not distinguish between images captured for the moment and those intended to survive it.
Cellphone capture is useful (and commonly being used) for copying pin-board notices, blackboards, barcodes, book covers and for creating quick snapshots for use in the telephone's directory or social networking. Is this "shooting"? These applications have nothing to do with film and are relatively new--- albeit I do know several people who used Minox cameras as students to copy the blackboard.
The core of the issue: is digital capture being used as a substitution or replacement for film capture?
I don't own a dedicated "digital camera". My "digital camera" is my phone. I use the camera. But not as a replacement. I don't even believe in using digital for snapshots as I see them as artifacts intended to survive the moment. The value of snapshots, I feel, is derived through the passing of time and not solely in its own time. Do I shoot "all film"? What does "shoot" mean? Is pressing the camera button on my phone (it making a click and capturing an image) to be counted the same as pressing the shutter on one of my cameras and capturing an image to film?
All clients, be they magazines or advertising want results, and digital gives them that; they can see instantly what they’re getting. Shoot. Move on to the next shot. Maximum £$£, minimum hassle in the time given.
There is no luxury of weeks of lead-in times and as for shooting some fashion show in film and some on digital at the same shoot (ergo different cameras and lenses required!?!) , that seems quite potty, why split your post production up like that and incur extra expense and extra effort and extra time when you are already committed to sitting in front of your PC anyhow; do it in one hit surely. Your approach to me makes absolutely no logical, commercial sense at all, do the shoot, PP, get the images to the client. Move onto the next job.
This is what digital offers the working photographer trying to shoot as many jobs as possible and satisfy the client; film never, ever, comes into the equation.
Absolutely agree with your points on digital and $$$. But if you shoot film for one, you shouldn't need to ever sit in front of a computer screen. If you shoot film just to scan it then you're not getting enough out of the film itself.
But I think what you're saying is about the commercial side of photography. I think what you'll find with those who shoot film is that they are far more interested about doing photography itself because they see it as a lifestyle and love the very nature of it. And hey, if they get ever get paid to do what they love then it makes them a little more happy. But film shooters tend to always put the quality of their work over the amount of money they will make out of it.
I only shoot film UNLESS I am asked to provide the results immediately. Last night for example I shot a high profile event, however the people who were requesting the shots wanted them immediately after the event finished and didn't care about any sort of retouching or editing etc. So I borrowed a digital and did the job, simple. They're happy so I'm happy.
However, as a film photographer - I don't consider those photos I took last night to represent my photographic style. It was a job and I got very little pleasure from it. That is why I shoot film because unlike digital, using film I love everything about what I do, the process and the result.
Each to their own though, I honestly never started photography with the hope that I would make any money.
Mostly digital, film is hard to find (your favourite type that is), hard to develop (i use labs and they screw your work mostly) and needs a budget, and then the effort to scan. Digital is easier and comes in handy now especially tha tI am living between 2 cities and a full time job. Although film and film cameras do make me feel alive.
Bluedog2212
12-09-2010, 05:09
I have shot film since WWII, so my comfort level is there. I do some scanning and digital printing, and I own digital equipment, but don't use it much. My work is almost all b/w, with an eye to exhibition print shows.
If I answered last year, it would have been all digital...
Now it's more film, less digital
JayGannon
12-09-2010, 07:17
This is what digital offers the working photographer trying to shoot as many jobs as possible and satisfy the client; film never, ever, comes into the equation.
Tell that to the people who shoot Vanity Fair, GQ, Rolling Stone and many other magazines on film.
Just sold my last digital camera, good riddance. I feel better already!
TareqPhoto
12-31-2010, 19:29
99% digital, 1% film, maybe i will increase that to about 10% film but not sure yet.
Sold my Leica M8 two weeks ago, and now shoot mostly film.
Last year I intended to just make a little experiment back to film (never shot "seriously" film, only analog vacation snaps in the 80s), and I was stunned that a $25 analog camera can capture such beautiful pictures.
Got a bit of GAS and eventually discovered medium format, and projecting medium format slides. Now there is no turning back for me anymore. I use digital for those moments when I need an image right away, but for my mostly historical, landscape, and cityscape photography I turn to analog.
When I recently browsed my M8 photos, I also realized that my photography really improved since I moved to film. With digital it's much too tempting for me to just shoot and shoot... with film photography I care much more about each shot, composition, lighting etc.
I don't doubt that by now there are some great digital cameras out there, and many talented photographers that get the best out of these. But for myself, having an old and cool looking "metal brick" in my hand with no menus to configure or batteries to worry about, I feel much more comfortable.
Last but not least, I do not print photographs often, and find that it makes much more sense to shoot slides and project them. The "HD" barrier of 2 megapixels resolution on my screen makes me wonder why I would want a 14 megapixel camera... sure, I have to go through a lot more trouble until I get my medium format slides projected at 8x8 feet, but the outcome is fascinating and to me that whole process is part of the "art" in photography.
Just my two cents.
3rdtrick
01-03-2011, 04:52
I really like the idea of playing with all the old film cameras. It is just awesome what you can pick up for a few bucks. I see how much fun KR is having shooting different film cameras. Unfortunately I have lost my film workflow to the instant gratification of digital. My work schedule does not help either as I do not have the time to spend sorting and scanning negatives. I still have film cameras and hope to someday get back into film but now I am strictly digital...
Pete
dave lackey
01-03-2011, 04:56
I really like the idea of playing with all the old film cameras. It is just awesome what you can pick up for a few bucks. I see how much fun KR is having shooting different film cameras. Unfortunately I have lost my film workflow to the instant gratification of digital. My work schedule does not help either as I do not have the time to spend sorting and scanning negatives. I still have film cameras and hope to someday get back into film but now I am strictly digital...
Pete
You know, digital is not instant when you have to sort and Photoshop, etc., so I don't understand why folks don't just drop off their film like the good old days for developing, ask for a CD and pick it up an hour later. Besides that, what's up with NOT printing? Photos not good enough? Only like spending yet MORE time on the computer?:rolleyes:
I spend way too much time on forums these days so screw PS. I used to spend 12 hours a day in computer design work but that was solved when I was involuntarily retired two years ago. So, how do I shoot film and spend less time? Get the shot right the first time. Let my buddy develop and scan at his lab. I would rather be a photographer.
Besides that, what's up with NOT printing? Photos not good enough? Only like spending yet MORE time on the computer?:rolleyes:
Well, the reason that I don't print much is because I am still remodelling my house and thus cannot hang any pictures yet :)
I also got tired of inkjet printers, and my laser printer is great for anything but printing photos. So this means it would be a bit of extra effort for me to get good prints. I tried my local lab, they do nice developing, but I was not crazy about their prints.
I will just wait until my walls are done and then put some effort and time into great prints from another local lab. Nothing against prints... just my personal thing that currently projecting slides is much easier for me, and they come out 8x8 feet... which I would probably not print very often!
Guaranteed
01-04-2011, 08:20
You know, digital is not instant when you have to sort and Photoshop, etc., so I don't understand why folks don't just drop off their film like the good old days for developing, ask for a CD and pick it up an hour later. Besides that, what's up with NOT printing? Photos not good enough? Only like spending yet MORE time on the computer?:rolleyes:
While I do enjoy shooting film(just started this past summer) to get anything other than C41 done means an hour drive each way. I really wish it wasn't so as I'd like to try out other films, city life just isn't for me. I did the mailer thing once but it took almost a month to get my prints back and no CD. :(
3rdtrick
01-05-2011, 14:31
Dave,
I have tried a few labs locally but none give a good Hi Res scan. I could send it out but I do not want to wait. I usually have my laptop with me and my digital processing is often done while I am waiting for my GF shopping in the mall... Lightroom has really spoiled me and I use PS only for special photos. When I retire (the years go by quickly), I just may go back to film like you but now digital fits my lifestyle.
Pete
brandonmsweet
02-03-2011, 10:30
100% film, and then some more
Today I took some of my film gear for part exchange, watching the guy hold it and test it, load it with a cheap film and take a few shots... well, put it this way I still have it. :) I just couldn't sell it, and tomorrow I'm taking it out loaded with Kodachrome, even though I'll never be able to get it processed!
Still buying an X100 though :)
leica M2 fan
02-10-2011, 11:29
My shooting was just the opposite last year but now is going toward the digital side. But I really feel alive when I'm shooting B&W film.
I've had a realisation, I don't like to process film in the winter. And so I shoot digital. In the summer, I really enjoy processing film standing in a sun spot by the window, so I shoot film.
Maybe I should just save it all up for summer :)
Chris101
02-10-2011, 15:55
Today I took some of my film gear for part exchange, watching the guy hold it and test it, load it with a cheap film and take a few shots... well, put it this way I still have it. :) I just couldn't sell it, and tomorrow I'm taking it out loaded with Kodachrome, even though I'll never be able to get it processed!
Still buying an X100 though :)
Process your Kodachrome with regular black and white chemistry. It'll come out a bit flat, but that'll be good for scanning.
Regrettably, I am using film less and less. And only in 120 and 4x5. I betrayed my Leicas completely...
Since the start of 2011, 80% of my shooting is film...
A year ago, 90% film. Today, 90% digital. Why? Digital is so convenient. Having said this, I am getting deep cravings to do a lot more film.
50 -50 since my Olympus gave up on me on a trip to Australia in the Autumn.
It forced me to buy a digital 5010. I still have 15 films left to use on my Trip and my OM 10.
mangie
overtoom
03-20-2011, 15:08
First of all I'd like to say hi to all. Nice forum..;)
My photography began during my time in Africa (1996-2003) and there I shot slides only. But back in Switzerland, I have started to shoot weddings and soon changed to digital which I still do. BUT, I just received my first Leica (used M7) and still wait for a rather old Mamiya 220 to get back into film and slides. Its all very exiting right now...;)
I really like the idea of playing with all the old film cameras. It is just awesome what you can pick up for a few bucks...
Beeing only a hobby photographer, I'm not under delivery pressure from any clients.
Perhaps this is one reason because I can afford the time doing my shots mostly on film and waiting a day for the processing. Or even 3 days if it will be sent to a specialized lab.
For а first survey I like the lab scans a lot. After many tries I did find a lab doing also the scan job very well. Few of them go (with minimal post processing) to my gallery. And for even less of them I go back to the lab and print some good quality copies (from the film master, not the scan!).
I would guess 80 % film is my game.
rogerzilla
05-29-2011, 12:59
Digital killed photography for me for many years. Having built up a sizeable SLR outfit (Minolta) that was suddenly unsupported and worthless because none of the manual focus lenses worked on any digital body, I couldn't face starting again.
Digicams give awful results with their infinite DOF and have a "still video" quality, regardless of the resolution or colour accuracy. DSLRs have the same DOF problem unless they're full-frame and I'm not going to buy anything that expensive that will be obsolete that quickly.
I think film is reaching some form of stability. Kodak may stop making it (they seem to have stopped caring) but Fuji seem to be more firmly behind it and there is new stuff coming out of Eastern Europe. Look at vinyl records for an analogy; they're come back very strongly in the last decade. It's just sad that you can't get some of the wacky emulsions that used to be around; Konica SRG3200, HIE, EIR and Technical Pan. I can keep going indefinitely on Reala and Acros though.
Well, last time this poll came around I shot about 50/50 digital to film. Now it's more like 80/20 digital to film (I'm in love with my Ricoh because it's the only digital camera I've tried that gets out of my way and lets me shoot).
gekopaca
06-16-2011, 01:02
What's the difference?
Shooting is shooting, then the remainder is only technology…
Who cares about technology?
Only expression is important!
Chris101
06-17-2011, 01:05
What's the difference?
Shooting is shooting, then the remainder is only technology…
Who cares about technology?
Only expression is important!
Process is an important part of expression.
Exactly. For example, my patented processing technique (which is easily the worst ever devised) gives my negatives character. I can get yellow colours out of Acros 100 souped in Rodinal. ??
I'm scanning in a load of negs from my Contax G1 days, all out of focus (poor thing's autofocus was crap really) but they look 10x niver than my pin sharp digital SLR shots. They have a real ballsy feel to them.
noeyedear
08-11-2011, 01:37
Film is just lovely, I am shooting it nearly 100% for myself unfortunately my clients want and need digital and that is 95% of what I shoot.
If I had a day job and photography was only a hobby, I can't see a reason to shoot digital.
Kevin. (http://www.treewithoutabird.com)
rhl-oregon
08-11-2011, 22:06
Canon PS then m43 got me back into photography after a long layoff. Now I have mostly film cameras, and some days shoot nothing but film (and so support our longtime local developer business for negs and CDs).The percentage is still probably weighted 60/40 digital if only b/c I pack a GRD III whenever I leave the house. But my first Leica arrives (+ a Canon P) this week, and I'll devote lots of time to what they have to teach.
bobby_novatron
08-17-2011, 12:56
90% film, 10% digital. I love the look of film.
dave lackey
08-17-2011, 13:59
Film 100% of the time now. Really not missing the digital world.:)
Large files and processing would require a major cost in upgrading to a new computer, software and archival equipment. As a full-time photographer these days, I don't have to worry about fast turnaround as documentaries are ready when I say they are ready.:p Sure a lot less stress!
Reckon I will keep on truckin' with the Leica M and R bodies and my old Dell computer for a long time.;)
seakayaker1
08-17-2011, 21:41
Last film camera I owned went belly up in the late '90s. Been using digital for the past decade.
Recently went to a Photo workshop with 20 people doing street photography and a few people brought a film camera with them. One person only shot with a film camera the whole weekend. It certainly peaked an interest to go shoot some film once again.
. . . . . so I bought a used M7 and put through a half dozen rolls of film and loved the experience. Then a sudden GAS attack when the local camera shop salesman let me know they just got in a new Black MP.
Not giving up digital at all and do hope to get a nice balance between the two going forward.
Chris101
08-18-2011, 04:22
Last film camera I owned went belly up in the late '90s. Been using digital for the past decade.
Recently went to a Photo workshop with 20 people doing street photography and a few people brought a film camera with them. One person only shot with a film camera the whole weekend. It certainly peaked an interest to go shoot some film once again.
. . . . . so I bought a used M7 and put through a half dozen rolls of film and loved the experience. Then a sudden GAS attack when the local camera shop salesman let me know they just got in a new Black MP.
Not giving up digital at all and do hope to get a nice balance between the two going forward.
Dan, you are doomed. I'm gonna shoot some digital later this evening. It will be the first time in ever so long, and the photographs are not even for me.
More digital than film, now. Until about 12 months ago I could safely say I was shooting more film than digital. The problem was, over the past few years I haven't been shooting much of anything except for a few short projects and the usual family stuff.
Now I am shooting a lot, taking the time to do so, but mostly in digital. The X100 has a lot to do with that, since it's always with me and is the first *digital* camera I've owned that I can carry around all of the time that also happens offer creative controls and produce excellent images. More to the point the X100 doesn't come with a darkroom time out penalty at the end of the day/week or dozens of rolls of 120 Tri X and HP5 not getting processed in a timely manner.
Maybe my increased activity will translate to doing more film down the road, maybe not. I have assigned myself a post-renovation project -- do a series of portraits for family and close friends over the fall and winter, and that project I'm going to do on film, jury out on the output format. I rather hope that I'll find some happy balance where working in one medium reinforces a desire to work in the other.
steelheart
10-09-2011, 11:50
With digital, you just exchange one set of problems to be solved for another. I like the set pf problems that film presents.
With film, I never have to worry about hard drive failures. I store my negs and slides and they are there - even 20 years after I made them.
Digital produces quicker results than film based photography - there's no denying that. Alot of people have to have that instant gratification these days. That is a big part of why digital is so popular with the masses.
Film based images produce better quality fine prints without the texture-less plastic appearance found in digital based images. This article ( http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/why-we-love-film.htm ) details many of the reasons that film is preferred by many and why film is experiencing a resurgence in popularity.
David Vestal had this to say about technology: "Compensating for lack of skill with technology is progress towards mediocrity. As technology advances, craftsmanship recedes. As technology increases our possibilities, we use them less resourcefully. The one thing we've gained is spontaneity, which is useless without perception."
kokoshawnuff
10-23-2011, 10:56
since I'm not a pro I primarily use film rangefinders because its just what I enjoy. I am however the resident photographer for my work and my father's business, so I will often use a macro lens on a DSLR...it's just what's easier. So for my hobby shooting it's 95/5 film, and for the rare time I need to take photos for pay it's 95/5 digital.
Any time I go ou to take photographs it's with film.
The only digi shots I tend to take are a snapshot in each location so Incan go back and review the EXIF data later for time and date etc when I'm doing my records.
Usually I use the log feature in the light meter app in my iPhone. Takes a snapshot along with a run down of time and date etc.
I generally have a pocket digi with me when at work or out and about, and of course the iPhone, so I end up taking snapshots with digi and those moments when you dint care how good it is, just catch that rare shot you stumbled on while it's there...
Just made the switch to 100% film plus occasional IPhone snaps.
Right now my shooting is pretty evenly split between my Canon EOS 7D and my Canon F-1N, both of which I love immensely.
Andy
I do use digital, but mostly for recordkeeping purposes. I use film 5 to 1 over digital. No magic to it. At some point I will probably have to move over but right now I like the results I get with film better then what I have been able to get with digital.
Clive Alex
12-23-2011, 14:18
I've been shooting digital for the last couple of years, but I've returned to film as I desperately missed working from a slide or neg, something I could get hold of. I find them better for long term archival too, I've got so many friends who have lost digital images through corrupt or lost data.
Both. About equally lately, as I'm not shooting so much right now.
jsolanzo
01-24-2012, 18:43
Canon A1 and Leica M2, digital got boring to me. Sorry, not bashing on digital or anything. JMHO
I used to shoot film because there was no digital (back in the day) then I got a Nikon D70 that was my first time to be impressed with digital. Now I shoot with a Leica M8 and a Canon 1DsmkII. I still shoot a bit of film but I have recently been very drawn towards getting myself an old Leica M2/3/4 at some point to revive the passion. There is definitely something sexy about running a roll of film through a camera.. I do miss it.
For photo's I want to enjoy film, photo's for the net or a documentation (model building, taking stuff apart) digital.
I shoot entirely digital, using canon professional equipment. I love the freedom and versatility that digital gives.
digital because I'm a poor student and wouldn't be able to afford the costs of film. someday when I have money I'll go film Leica.
bruce1007
03-18-2012, 21:36
I shoot digital for friends, but film for myself.
Since I wrote on this page in the fall of 2011, I've more or less succumbed to digital entirely. This was an unexpected outcome... I've maintained a darkroom in my office or home for near 30 years. I'm thinking seriously about reclaiming the space and using it for something else unless one of my growing kids expresses a serious interest in analogue photograph making. To be honest, I'm ok if they don't.
90% film for me and when I want to be cheap and quick I shoot digi (mostly volunteer work).
I had a bit of a rage quit earlier on today, after having two bad rolls come back from the lab. It made me think really hard about why I like film, and I can't name a legitimate reason. It burns a hole in your pocket, getting cheap film doesn't really count, your still spending $5+ to take 36 pictures, add all those pictures you've shot in the pat week or two up, add developing, the cost to get them scanned, or the cost of your scanner, then think, your repeating this process weekly (on average). The money you've probably spent over the years on film and developing, imagine it, you could of bought an M9 by now probably!
Oh well, rant over. Here's one image I managed to save from a dud roll from today, enjoy:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7217/7001318480_914c3433fc_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/68671874@N05/7001318480/)
Photo_Smith
05-24-2012, 04:29
I voted mostly film some digital. To the guys who say stupid things like 'the war is over-digital won' I say grow up. There is no war just personal preference.
Lots of professionals have gone digital for speed and ease of use.
About eight years ago I went 100% digital and then realised that the pressure on both time and the client constantly wanting to shave margins was meaning I was working more hours for less money.
I'm back using film for the main and now people actually seek me out because I shoot film, and I can charge a premium for that.
Now I prefer to earn more and pick my jobs, I'll leave the £250 for a wedding and DVD to the hoards–I'm not interested in that market.
steveniphoto
05-24-2012, 17:40
mostly film, some digital.. it seems like most people shoot both not one or the other.
Last year it was 99% digital (Nikon D700). Now that I have a 44-inch fine art printer, I'm 100% film. Digital just doesn't stand up when you're printing 44-inch x 60-inch prints.
I rarely shoot digital nowadays. And when I do, most of the time it's with my iPhone. The feel of film just suits me way better.
John E Earley
08-13-2012, 15:37
For photo's I want to enjoy film, photo's for the net or a documentation (model building, taking stuff apart) digital.
This is similar to my experience.
I document at work with a digital but for personal photo's, I use a mix of digital and film. It varies all the time with differing amounts of one or the other depending what I'm doing. Right now I am much more into film since I recently purchased some nice film equipment. That could change at any time.
I would really like to begin a long term project but have not decided yet what it will be.
kraj8995
08-17-2012, 01:45
Mostly Digital rather than films.
I shoot both. I just bought a NEX-7 but this weekend I bought a used Contax T2, and did I ever have fun with it shooting in the streets of Seattle Sunday.
When we went on our vacation in Europe last spring I brought along both a digital camera and a film camera. I used up all my memory card space and used up my battery, -that ended my digital camera shooting. It seemed like every tourist convenience shop had lots of film, both Kodak and Fujifilm and I didn't have to worry about batteries. My advise, if your going to take a vacation and use digital, you had better take a film camera for back up.;);)
Paul Jenkin
09-19-2012, 01:05
All it's likely to prove is that we tend to have a "preference" one way or the other. As of today (19/09) only 30% are either one or the other. Personally, I have never understood the need to nail my colours 100% to just one mast as there's a lot of fun to be had shooting both mediums. My preference (not that it's important) is film.
My concern is that, as with vinyl records, we will reach a tipping point where newbies won't have a clue what film is, what it's benefits and drawbacks are and, therefore, they'll have no reason to try it and see if they like it.
Mostly digital, but plenty of film. It depends on the mood I am in.
sometime film sometime digital
but mostly film for this year
All digital. I gave my film cameras to my son >5 years ago.
Lately I'm about equal on both in terms of number of exposures.
With film cameras, once the film is developed, the rest of the rendering process is all digital.
I got myself a used Alpha 900 a while ago. I have maybe used it 5 times now because I always grab a film camera instead. I bought the digital for studio and portraiture and for family events. There where not many lately so that may be the reason…anyhow, even my new Minolta Rangefinder excites me more and I cannot wait to shoot it :)
Ronald M
10-28-2012, 04:57
My M8 is a year old, My M9 is is 30 days. The M9 is fabulous, the M8 almost fabulous , but I just could not get along with it until I got the Whi Bal card and set up some custom settings. Don`t like the crop factor either. But the images are superb.
More and more digital now.
I'm shooting so little right now, it's about the same for both.
miguelruizjimenez
11-19-2012, 17:52
I started with a digital camera (Nikon D90), but I sold it with the lens for a Leica M6... Now, I shot 90% film (Leica Mp and summilux 50 LA) and 10% with a leica x1 (great camera!)
-doomed-
11-19-2012, 19:37
Digital these days. I still like to use film when I get the chance.
Weasel_Loader
11-20-2012, 09:49
Just got rid of my OM-D and seriously considered a M8.2, but worried about reliability problems. Got a X-E1 now and very happy with it. Just got a Leica M6 TTL yesterday. Couldn't pass up the deal as I've been really wanting to try film again and process at home. I have a rental CV 50mm f/1.1 on the way for a 5 days. I plan on shooting 2 rolls of B&W T-Max 100 and 2 rolls of Portra 160. Can't wait.
FrankHoltion
12-04-2012, 06:52
Most of us perfomr the tasks in digital way because it has become almost the requirement of the work other wise i personally still miss and like films.
I shoot and I collect. Shooting comes first. Digital wins.
I shot film 1960-2000, then digital found a place and gradually digital has pushed film out of the picture to the extent that film is primarily shot for keeping vintage items (including some barely vintage) in shape, their clocks wound, etc. I shoot large negative occasionally, at least in party to remind me why I shot a fair amount of large format in that first decade.
Why not more film now? In terms of absolutely straight photography, the only real hitch is processing, i.e. I have to either farm out processing or do it myself. I prefer the latter if it's B&W. But for physical reasons, I just don't feel like setting up a darkroom again for printing.
So in the end, everything gets digitized. I maintain a library of items from the 60s digitized which collects some royalties most years. Digital is essentially a requirement now.
That extends to large negative, up to 5x7 now. I have the ability to scan 8x10 if I can ever convince the other half to let me bring a monster in the house.
I like the merger of film and digital, especially really old film. Spot once, get it right, keep printing.
I all but lived in a darkroom for 20 years when I wasn't shooting. I applaud those who shoot film but in the end, it's about what I see and how I can get that done.
If I was doing a lot more film and silver work, I'd be a lot more upset than most at the scaling back of the non-standard BW papers and irritated about how very few majors are involved in Photo chemicals. I hope we can manage to keep enough so I can indulge myself with film.
jparriott
12-31-2012, 13:31
I have a bunch of film cameras and keep them all loaded. The IIIf, Ikon, and TC-1 get the most use, primarily as street cameras. I shoot 3-5 roles a month.
I, too, pay for developing and scan -- and realize that I'm missing out on much of the process and losing a lot of control. It's lazy, and maybe one day I'll bring home a tank and chemicals from Freestyle. But truth? I think one of the things that got me back into film was the ease of scanning and doing post digitally.
My day to day camera is an M9 and I love it. But the look of film is unique.
Stopped to take pictueres for nearly 10years :eek:
Digital brought me back to fotografie and to film to because i had a my equipment which couldn´t be used digital (Canon FD)
Than GAS got me and the Internet gave me the possibility to get all the stuff I dreamed from when I was young!
Now I got the most beautifull cams ever and shot digital only for pics I need quick.
Because I hve never more the space for a darkroom I shot hybrid but hope to find a way to get a darkroom in the future.
Mainly digital, but my heart is film photography.
Film, digital on phone - never printed off one from my current phone in the last 9 months. print of lots from mine own phone- because the phone function had packed up and it was going in the WEE bin.
I voted all film, but there is a rare occasion once in a while that I do use my DSLRs. For the past 6-7 months, though, each time I've used digital was for a backup in case I messed up the film or for additional shots so I don't waste film.
brennanphotoguy
02-13-2013, 11:48
80% film wedding photographer here
Digital for convenience. Film for everything else. Everything about shooting film is precisely why I take joy in photography.
swifty63
03-26-2013, 00:17
Because I only shoot for my own satisfaction (or dissatisfaction as the case may be), I can afford the luxury of all film. Now it's also all B&W, I develop and print my own as well. I have a dSLR collecting dust, only used it on one trip. It can produce nice pictures, but I don't like being on the computer. For work related documentation I use digital, but I don't count that as "photography".
seagrove
03-30-2013, 06:31
While I just voted "mostly digital, some film", I am seriously considering going all film now that I now longer am working for a newspaper. I am looking to do some self-assignments to keep my hand in but really think I might prefer film over digital. I can always go back and scan my film but, at some point in time, I have a feeling my digital files will be render unusable either by technology advances or failures. Plus I just love pulling 35mm film out of the can and seeing the images for the first time!:D
Weasel_Loader
03-30-2013, 08:50
My experiment with the Leica M6 didn't last long. Really, really loved the M6, but I just missed too many shots with it.
Also having experimented with small format digital cameras, I went back to my trusty D700 for my digital work, but I also picked up a minty Nikon F5 so that I could use all my nice lenses. Love the photos so far, but yes, the size can be a pain in the rear.
I've thought about a Contax G2 for travel, but might even re-consider a Leica RF. Perhaps the M7 this time.
Film has me hooked right now. Yes, it is quite expensive when you factor in quality film, processing, scanning, and printing. Digital does give you so much more flexibility, but the fun just isn't there like film.
I use film only,
well with a Nikon FM3a and a Leica MP can't do anything else.
I'm down now to my last 3 rolls of fuji Reala 100 asa film
the 2 unused are in bottom of the fridge - expire date
was Jan 2012.
Not sure what to do next - as the available choice of film
to buy in Dublin is very very limited indeed.
I never buy film online - and 100 asa is gone!!
johnwolf
04-26-2013, 10:17
I've been all digital for ten years, after 25 years of film. I just bought an M4-P and 35mm lens, thinking I'll revisit film. But I'm really having a hard time getting into it. Sometimes we like the IDEA of something more than the reality of it, and this might be one of those cases for me.
However, lately I've been scanning and printing old filmstrips and really appreciating the difference. I think of it this way: my digital inkjet prints look like they're ON the surface of the paper, while my inkjet prints from film look like they are IN the paper. The depth, richness, and especially the lovely whites of film are so appealing. What to do....
John
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.