View Full Version : Film vs Digital
which is better and why?
:D
Film, because it's a little bit different, which is very welcome in this increasingly homogeneous world, where everyone copies everyone else, everything looks the same and conformity is seen as desirable.
kossi008
09-16-2010, 03:32
BOTH are better. For different reasons.
That said, I don't do commercial work and shoot 99% film.
Because it's better for *me*. :D
keepright
09-16-2010, 03:44
Yes.
Because.
Film has soul.... But I still love both :)
Chris101
09-16-2010, 07:25
Digital is "better", so I shoot film in order to be worse.
newsgrunt
09-16-2010, 12:10
couldn't live/ work without either
lorenzo1910
09-16-2010, 12:13
I don't know why but I don't have any feelings for digital (...and I have two DSLR that are collecting dust on the shelf...)
This morning I was taking picture with a meterless Belomo Vilia...
Film, digital...they are almost same! Run out of film, cells or memory in the mid of wood or ocean and what? You can't quickly get either! That way, photography is about planning not gear.
Photography is a hobby for me, a means of expression. I like to think about the pictures I'm making.
Digital is fine for making snapshots.
I really don't care if film is "better" or not. I just cannot find the Zen I am seeking when I use a digital camera.
I can make a nice print from film but I have not seen digital prints (b&w) that attract me. I do enjoy using both film amd digital however.
Chris101
09-17-2010, 23:56
I use film when I need it's properties - the silver based chemistry for toning and preservation, the luster and appearance of a fiber print, the ease of influencing the print by what I do to make it and ultimately, the world of happy surprises provided by using a delayed process with physical materials. I think the bounds of physical reality provide as much structure to photography, as do the edges of the picture.
I use digital when I want it's advantages - the depth and clarity of the fine detail, the rich natural (or not) colors and the incredible boost to free form thinking that the immediacy of digital provides. Digital is capable of removing the boundaries of chemical photography, while adding others, giving rise to my oft repeated opinion that digital photography and film photography are two different media. Or at least dissimilar enough that they serve different needs.
Roger Hicks
09-18-2010, 00:31
Photography is a hobby for me, a means of expression. I like to think about the pictures I'm making.
Digital is fine for making snapshots.
I really don't care if film is "better" or not. I just cannot find the Zen I am seeking when I use a digital camera.
Quite a lot of professionals also like to think about their pictures, which often rise somewhat above the level of 'snapshots'.
As others have said, each is 'best' for a particular application or set of applications.
Cheers,
R.
This new forum heading is brilliant.
Armoured
09-19-2010, 05:19
I shoot film because I enjoy using film cameras, I enjoy the process, and it's a hobby so I can do whatever I want as long as I enjoy it. I also think I see a difference - but not always in favour of film.
BUT: digital camera buff friend was over and he was simply raving about the prints I'd had made (from scans, BTW). Notable is that he loves my medium format stuff, and this time he was raving about 35mm shots - up 'til then his line had been that since medium format negs are so huge, it made sense there was a quality difference. But that digital was clearly 'better' for 35mm/APS size. He was clearly surprised these ones he like were from film.
I usually demur from these discussions - I just reiterate I enjoy fiddling and taking pictures with my film cameras. Period. (I also use digital a lot too, or at least I carry the camera and my wife takes it to make pictures, then gives it back to me to carry).
No particular lesson in this: film still looks good and it looks different.
Bravin Neff
09-19-2010, 16:17
I love film. Long live film.
Hands down digital is better from a learning point of view (if you're really serious about learning and are paying attention). The instant feedback digital capture provides can train you on so many aspects of photography that film capture forces you to use much more time.
Stuart John
09-22-2010, 05:18
I did shoot film for years before digital. I've done color hand enlargements myself from 35mm and MF. I had a B&W darkroom for years and still set it up from time to time to make prints. I've printed thousands of rolls of color neg on konica labs while I worked as a cruiship photographer. I can't say digital is bad by any means for me I found a DSLR and an inkjet can usually give me a print as good and often better than I would make from a 35mm color neg and an old minilab assuming the digital image is exposed well and not clipping. The DSLR and the injet offers more control than the old analog minilabs so there is the potenial to make selective adjustments hence better prints. Color neg can tolerate a lot of abuse when it come to over exposure and even bullet proof neg can be printed they just need a longer printing time. With hand enlarging it is possible to make selective adjustments but most people don't have a color darkroom at home. I am quite happy with either but use more digital than film these days.
I like film. But I cannot differentiate between digital and film on the web and even with normal prints. The post processing of digital has become quite sophisticated... When it comes to shooting I prefer digital because I can shoot with complete peace of mind and as many as i wanted to shoot as people did when film was cheap and abundant... But I hate digital post-processing, because there is almost an infinite number of ways that one could post-process a single raw file and that throws me off, because my taste keeps changing, also I simply lack the skills for post processing and patience. But i also don't really care about learning the post processing skill because then i'm a post-processor rather than a photographer. While with film, I love development and even I don't mind the scanning, but at the same time I feel guilty about using so much water and all the chemicals. Not to mention the amount of time it takes.
so basically there is no easy answer.
dtcls100
09-25-2010, 16:22
Both film and digital definitely have their place and uses. However, what I like least about digital is its tendency to blow out highlights very easily. I also think that colors are rendered more accurately and attractively on well processed film. Overall, I prefer film.
Sheesh! I am still on color vs black & white.
But seriously, the best of both worlds, for my drudders, is film scanned to make digital prints. Hard to argue with the archival properties of film and improvements to scanning hardware/software means you simply make a new scan. I don't worry about meticulously maintained complex folder structures, mega drive redundant storage, or hard-drive crashes.
Just pop the film in the scanner and go again. Plus mixing chemicals in the sink late at night is quite a lot of fun.
From my vantage point, both are wonderful.
Gene
jockscott1
09-27-2010, 17:38
I use both ie Contax G1 with 45mm and Canon 40d with Voightlander 20mm and in Australia with our harsh sunlight I find that when photographing flowers or foilage digital seems to block more than film, for that reason I think that film will still be used for a long time to come and of course prints are here forever (how many prints are taken off digital? and you do need memory cards/dvd,s and computer with expensive programs, etc which crash,(wish I had never got into this dog chasing tail syndrome) of digital!
I'm new to fotography. But i'm old enough not to raised with digitalphotography. I
had some thought about cameras. but i noticed that i was wrong.
Digital cameras:
batterydependend
damageable
You can make zillions of pictures, so u shot like crazy. in the end, only a few are good, and you print them months and years later.
But: The battery of my canon Ixus lasts so long, its amazing. now i got myself a polaroid Pogo instantprinter for digital cameras and mobile phones. the pictures fits good in my journal, and its the size of a 2,5" Harddrive. i very happy with it, fits exactly my needs.
chemicalfilm cameras:
solid, build like a tank
all mechanical, if it brokes you can repair it by yourself
no need for a battery.
But: i have a voigtländer. A rangefinders from the 70s a, build like a tank. but from one second to the other is doesnt work. and without the knowledge i cant repair it, is useless. and most of the rangefinders needs the mercurybatteries, without they have only limited function.
So nothing is so clear as it seems. But i use both, digital Cameras for quick prints with the pogo for my journal and chemical film with my agfa optima for more "artistic" stuff. both have their right to live
Got bored and just picked a thread so I could write something...
Apart from my own personal reasons, and not being professional, shooting film is way cheaper...
sc_rufctr
01-22-2011, 07:25
Got bored and just picked a thread so I could write something...
Apart from my own personal reasons, and not being professional, shooting film is way cheaper...
It is way cheaper in the long run...
People think digital is free... Well until you want to print one print anyways, but what people forget is that you only have a digital file on a computer.
That file has to be stored correctly. That means some sort of external backup... Hard drive or tapes... Whatever. The choice is yours. But be warned they are all electronic devices that WILL fail one day.
It may not be for many years but believe me they are more likely to fail than not fail.
Recently there was massive flooding in Queensland Australia.
Thousands of homes were flooded. Once the flood waters receded most of the houses were filled with mud.
How many external hard drives, PCs and laptops were destroyed? Who knows? Lots I'm guessing.
So how many digital photos were destroyed along with them?
I don't mean to trivialize the event because lots of people perished in the floods so the loss of some digital photos isn't the most important issue.
But I will say many film negatives would have survived the flooding.
Sure they would be soaked but a good cleaning and most of them would be fine to re scan on that brand new scanner paid for by the insurance company.
This may seem like an extreme example but these people, like a lot of people never though that something like this could happen to them.
Bushfire and the loss of my house and contents is my biggest fear...
So what can I do about it? Fire proof filing cabinet? That's something I need to think about :cool:
It is way cheaper in the long run...
People think digital is free... Well until you want to print one print anyways, but what people forget is that you only have a digital file on a computer.
That file has to be stored correctly. That means some sort of external backup... Hard drive or tapes... Whatever. The choice is yours. But be warned they are all electronic devices that WILL fail one day.
It may not be for many years but believe me they are more likely to fail than not fail.
Recently there was massive flooding in Queensland Australia.
Thousands of homes were flooded. Once the flood waters receded most of the houses were filled with mud.
How many external hard drives, PCs and laptops were destroyed? Who knows? Lots I'm guessing.
So how many digital photos were destroyed along with them?
I don't mean to trivialize the event because lots of people perished in the floods so the loss of some digital photos isn't the most important issue.
But I will say many film negatives would have survived the flooding.
Sure they would be soaked but a good cleaning and most of them would be fine to re scan on that brand new scanner paid for by the insurance company.
This may seem like an extreme example but these people, like a lot of people never though that something like this could happen to them.
Bushfire and the loss of my house and contents is my biggest fear...
So what can I do about it? Fire proof filing cabinet? That's something I need to think about :cool:
thats so true. thats what i'm very afraid with. i live in south germany. thank god, i cant thing of a more safe place on earth than here. i have never seen a big disaster, except of some storms. i always seen the big thunderstorms, eartquakes, hurricanes ect. in other parts of the world, i 'm glad not to have this here. but you never know what will come! and losing all of my photos on my harddrive is one of my biggest fears. due to my moves i newer have printed much of my photos. and harddrives have a limited lifetime, like CDs and DVDs. So i make regulary backups to an other harddrive. and i will make more prints!
which is better and why?
:D
That would be a lot easier to answer if you defined "better".
Chris101
01-26-2011, 12:06
That would be a lot easier to answer if you defined "better".
Definition of better is a personal choice.
sc_rufctr
01-27-2011, 01:49
"Better" to me means more enjoyable or fun. Also Better quality or Better made.
The one thing that keeps me with film is the "look" of film.
I know you can "shop" a digital photo into something that looks like film but it's not real. And real is always "Better".
I don't even "shop" my film scans. But that's a whole different thread.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.