Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Rangefinder Forum > Film vs Digital

Film vs Digital Discussions about the relative advantages and disadvantages of Film vs Digital are important as they can help us understand our choices as photographers. Each medium has strengths and weaknesses which can best be used in a given circumstance. While this makes for an interesting and useful discussion, DO NOT attack others who disagree with you. Forum rules are explained in the RFF FAQ linked at the top of each page.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

what really stops me from going digital
Old 10-10-2011   #1
sanmich
Registered User
 
sanmich's Avatar
 
sanmich is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,137
what really stops me from going digital

Lately, the scanning process have driven me crazy, and I was rethinking the reasons to stick with film (and sticking with film I am).

So...

Even if I was willing to move to digital...
I am not ready to give up on RF
I am not ready to give up on my fast primes for, say, a tri-elmar.
I am not ready to give up on a backup camera, and a second camera to be around with two lenses ready.

The price for this is... two M9, 14 K$.
I can't afford that, even one M9 is beyond reach and as I said, I would never be with only one camera.

In the SLR realm, I would definitely be content with a D700.

So I wonder: How many stick with film, because basically they stick with FF RF?
__________________
Michael

Gloire a qui n'ayant pas d'ideal sacro-saint se borne a ne pas trop emmerder ses voisins (Brassens)

My site
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-10-2011   #2
Moriturii
Unsui
 
Moriturii is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 659
Reason I use film is my very small lightweight full frame rangefinder camera that I can slip into my backpack easily. No alternatives for that in the digital realm except for M9 which I'll never buy. And I don't want to lug around a D700 camera either, I'd rather stop photographing. X100 is cool but I don't like or use 35mm lenses or FOV, strictly 50mm, what else? Nex7? Perhaps...
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-10-2011   #3
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,215
For me it would come down to not being able to use my OM-1 ... I don't have too much rangefinder lust these days!
__________________
---------------------------
zenfolio

flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-10-2011   #4
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
For me it would come down to not being able to use my OM-1 ... I don't have too much rangefinder lust these days!
So much truth in this! OM's are so pleasurable to use they actually keep me using film!
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-10-2011   #5
cosmonaut
Registered User
 
cosmonaut's Avatar
 
cosmonaut is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 1,203
Not me. With digital as it stands now it is no real benefit to be full frame. There are lots of cameras on the market that comes very close to ff quality. I shot film because I like doing it and with an enlarger my film pictures are sharper and better dynamic range than a scan. But I shoot digital because it is easier to shoot things like my daughters soocer games that would be costly and impossible with an RF. I use both.
__________________
Cosmo
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-10-2011   #6
Jamie123
Registered User
 
Jamie123 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,747
I don't use any Leicas and even though I imagine an M9 would be fun, I have no real desire to have one.

The reason I stick with film despite the hassle of scanning is simply that I cannot afford a digital solution that would satisfy me, namely some large sensor digital MF back. Until I can I'm 'stuck' using MF and LF film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-10-2011   #7
Vics
Registered User
 
Vics's Avatar
 
Vics is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 2,915
I've been shooting film for nearly sixty years, and I don't see any reason to switch. Also, I really don't like automatic exposure/focus. Remember the Maxxum scare of the '80s?
__________________
Vic
Leica M3, Contax IIIa, Rollei MX, Nikon F, FM, Minolta Maxxum.

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-10-2011   #8
thegman
Registered User
 
thegman is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 35
Posts: 3,760
For me it's a simple matter of preference. I like the results I get from film, and recreating the look with Photoshop etc. is just not for me. Instant gratification is not a thing for me, and I'm not fussy about full-frame/crops etc.

I don't move to digital because it does not appeal to me on any level, except maybe the low on-going cost, and compacts can get really tiny, waterproof etc. For photo trips when I'm going out with the express purpose of taking photos, I just don't see any advantage to digital.
__________________
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-10-2011   #9
pobe
Registered User
 
pobe's Avatar
 
pobe is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Age: 32
Posts: 212
I'd love to have an M9 but even if I did my M4 would probably get some regular exercise. I've fallen in love with the process of film and working in the darkroom. The tactility, the smells...

I've tried scanning as a substitute for contact sheets but it's not my cup of tea. Handy for sharing pictures online, but imho it doesn't compare to a traditional print.
__________________
tumblr
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-10-2011   #10
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
 
hipsterdufus's Avatar
 
hipsterdufus is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Ferndale, MI
Posts: 854
It's all about the cameras for me. I love vintage cameras. The only "vintage-style" (with direct shutter speed and aperture control) digital cameras that I know are the Digilux 2 (too expensive for 5mp and small sensor), X100 (no interchangeable lenses), RD-1 (would have to buy new lenses to deal with crop), M8 (too expensive/crop), and M9 (WAY too expensive).

Yes, you can adapt vintage lenses to some digital cameras, but there are too many compromises (ergonomics, crop factor, etc.) for me to bother. The only compromise-free camera that would do is the M9. And I just can't justify that cost. But that's okay; I just do photography for fun anyway. Maybe by the time film dies, an M9 will be within my reach. Until then, I'm having fun with film.
__________________
-Eric K.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-10-2011   #11
SteveM(PA)
Poser
 
SteveM(PA)'s Avatar
 
SteveM(PA) is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: East Coventry, Pa.
Age: 45
Posts: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipsterdufus View Post
It's all about the cameras for me. I love vintage cameras. The only "vintage-style" (with direct shutter speed and aperture control) digital cameras that I know are the Digilux 2 (too expensive for 5mp and small sensor), X100 (no interchangeable lenses), RD-1 (would have to buy new lenses to deal with crop), M8 (too expensive/crop), and M9 (WAY too expensive).

Yes, you can adapt vintage lenses to some digital cameras, but there are too many compromises (ergonomics, crop factor, etc.) for me to bother. The only compromise-free camera that would do is the M9. And I just can't justify that cost. But that's okay; I just do photography for fun anyway. Maybe by the time film dies, an M9 will be within my reach. Until then, I'm having fun with film.
Yeah man. Old cameras are fun. Pure and simple. (Does anybody remember laughter? ) The more expensive the camera, the more I feel that I have to justify the cost through taking a good picture. But more often when I'm asking for nothing from an old camera, I tend to get something. Relatively.
__________________
-Steve
my gallery
my flickr
Olympus XA, Fed 3B, Zorki 4K, Leica IIIf rdst, Nikon S, Sony RX100, OM1, Rebel T3 (with OM glass)
"The cup of tea on arrival at a country house is a thing which, as a rule, I particularly enjoy. I like the crackling logs, the shaded lights, the scent of buttered toast, the general atmosphere of leisured cosiness."
-P. G. Wodehouse
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-10-2011   #12
Ben Z
Registered User
 
Ben Z is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipsterdufus View Post
It's all about the cameras for me. I love vintage cameras.
It's refreshing to hear someone say that unashamed, without feeling the need to concoct all sorts of excuses like the "look" of film is better or some convoluted economic argument.
I do miss using the vintage cameras. I do not miss film.
__________________
MY GALLERY
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-10-2011   #13
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 41
Posts: 14,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Z View Post
I do miss using the vintage cameras. I do not miss film.
Yeah, me too. If anyone ever figures out how to drop digital sensors in old cameras, the market will make Leica lens prices look stagnant.

I love the digital process and love that I can do the whole process in my home. A color darkroom in a studio apartment can be done, but it has more compromises than its digital counterpart.

I had to splurge and buy a M9 to be truly happy in digital rangefinder land. However, I'll never spend $7,000 on a camera again... so I'm hoping we continue to get rangefinder like cameras with dedicated knobs and optical VFs. The X100 is a good start.

Last edited by jsrockit : 10-10-2011 at 10:26.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-11-2011   #14
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Z View Post
It's refreshing to hear someone say that unashamed, without feeling the need to concoct all sorts of excuses like the "look" of film is better or some convoluted economic argument.
I do miss using the vintage cameras. I do not miss film.
I assume that you are not implying that all who do *like* the look of film is saying so because they feel the need to make up something.

Did I assume correctly?
__________________
Have a good light,
Will


  Reply With Quote

Old 10-30-2011   #15
Teuthida
-
 
Teuthida is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Z View Post
It's refreshing to hear someone say that unashamed, without feeling the need to concoct all sorts of excuses like the "look" of film is better or some convoluted economic argument.
I do miss using the vintage cameras. I do not miss film.

Fair enough. But In 20 years, when you can't retreive a single digital file you've ever taken between 2005 and 2020, you'll be missing film a lot.

This is the digital elephant in the room. Archival permanence. begatives will be there long after you are dead. Digutal files? I seruously doubt your current files will be retreivable in 10 years ( absent herioc constant viglence on your part) let alone in 50.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-03-2011   #16
emasterphoto
Registered User
 
emasterphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teuthida View Post
Fair enough. But In 20 years, when you can't retreive a single digital file you've ever taken between 2005 and 2020, you'll be missing film a lot.

This is the digital elephant in the room. Archival permanence. begatives will be there long after you are dead. Digutal files? I seruously doubt your current files will be retreivable in 10 years ( absent herioc constant viglence on your part) let alone in 50.
Why do you keep harping on this when it's total BS?
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-07-2011   #17
Martti K.
Ethnologist
 
Martti K.'s Avatar
 
Martti K. is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Finland
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by emasterphoto View Post
Why do you keep harping on this when it's total BS?
It's not total bull****, but as well not the whole truth either I think. One can preserve his digital documents if he converts them to newer formats from time to time. At the same time digital documents does bring some major problems to archives and museums. And for future historians. Digital documents does not last as long as paper (or papyrus, stone, wood etc) documents if not taken proper care of. It's much more propable that a 100 year old photograph is still in somewhat good condition than a 100 years old flash memory. It might well be that our grandchildren doesn't even have the faintest idea what a usb stick is. Even if it worked they have no idea that it may contain priceless pictures about their grandparents. I think it's rather sad if this happened to them. I'm glad I have found some old pictures of my ancestors. Past and roots are not important to everyone, but for some they are of very great importance.

PhD Istvan Kecskemeti, development director of Finnish national archives, has discussed much about this kind of problems (for example in his doctoral thesis From papyrus to megabytes: Conservation management of archival and photographic collections). I haven't read his thesis, but I know some of his thoughts from lectures of museology. One of them is a light, obviously not dead serious remark that digital document last for five years or eternity depending on which comes first.

Last edited by Martti K. : 11-07-2011 at 01:46.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-02-2012   #18
thomasw_
Registered User
 
thomasw_'s Avatar
 
thomasw_ is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Fort Langley, BC
Age: 49
Posts: 1,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Z
It's refreshing to hear someone say that unashamed, without feeling the need to concoct all sorts of excuses like the "look" of film is better.....
this is incorrect. a statement of motive such as this example is that of a preference or an explanation. an excuse is a "reason put forward for concealing the real reason for an act or to justify a fault." neither part of this disjunction applies with regard to a statement of preference for using film over digital capture, unless you wish to make the ludicrous claim that there is a moral flaw in one having an aesthetic preference for the rendering of film.
__________________
f l i c k r
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-10-2011   #19
Austerby
Registered User
 
Austerby's Avatar
 
Austerby is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Fircombe
Posts: 963
I have an M8 but I'm thinking of selling it. My NEX-3 enables me to use fast glass on a digital and whilst you lose the form factor of the lens there's a lot of lens character retained. Digital is useful and can be fun but I've no intention of stopping using film.

I have too much kit at the moment but am definitely contemplating a move to a combination of M3 and Zeiss Ikon for my 35mm, my NEX for the digital (and I may upgrade from the 3), plus my Hasselblad and Agfa 6x9 folder for my MF needs.
__________________
Austerby
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-10-2011   #20
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 20,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanmich View Post
Lately, the scanning process have driven me crazy, and I was rethinking the reasons to stick with film (and sticking with film I am).

So...

Even if I was willing to move to digital...
I am not ready to give up on RF
I am not ready to give up on my fast primes for, say, a tri-elmar.
I am not ready to give up on a backup camera, and a second camera to be around with two lenses ready.

The price for this is... two M9, 14 K$.
I can't afford that, even one M9 is beyond reach and as I said, I would never be with only one camera.

In the SLR realm, I would definitely be content with a D700.

So I wonder: How many stick with film, because basically they stick with FF RF?
Well, I live without a second M9, purely because I can't afford it, so I carry an M8 as a backup. Sure, the M9 is vastly more convenient, but the key word is backup: I have to use it only if the M9 packs up, or to give it a little exercise occasionally. I seem to have less trouble with changing lenses than some on this forum.

Besides, I cheat. My wife carries one film M as a main camera and a second as a backup. Sometimes I use her 'backup' camera as a second body, and sometimes she uses mine...

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Now even more free photography information on www.rogerandfrances.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-10-2011   #21
paulfish4570
Registered User
 
paulfish4570's Avatar
 
paulfish4570 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: On the Locust Fork of the Warrior River, Alabama
Age: 63
Posts: 9,718
because of space and plumbing, i am stuck with a hybrid print process. that is a key reason i am looking at buying a "prosumer" grade fixed lens digital cam, mostly for color snapshots, and reminder subject shots for MF to be shot at another time.
__________________
i show what i see ...
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-10-2011   #22
maddoc
... likes film.
 
maddoc's Avatar
 
maddoc is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 調布市
Age: 48
Posts: 6,791
Is there any affordable FF 6x6 TLR available ? If no, I continue using film.
__________________
- Gabor

flickr
pBase
blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-10-2011   #23
alexnotalex
Registered User
 
alexnotalex is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 447
I've started developing my own BW film, and strangely, with the scanning workflow, I feel like i've gone more digital. And after the jpegs, curves, luminosity, cleaning dust and sharpening, I feel very very far from when I loaded the Tri-X and shut the back. Hmmm.
__________________
burning reflected light onto chemical film. It's real
M3 + Rigid Summicron, Nikon D40 and an iphone for that digital look. my Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-10-2011   #24
andredossantos
Registered User
 
andredossantos is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 36
Posts: 1,422
I recently sold off my digital kit because I decided that I love color film, especially slides, and I want to shoot as much as I can before it either becomes too expensive or disappears. Secondary to that, yes, my preference is to use a "FF" Leica RF for 35mm film (along with my Rolleiflex for which there is no equivalent in digital that I could ever possibly afford).

Ill have plenty of time to shoot digital in the future.
__________________

Website

Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-10-2011   #25
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 46
Posts: 3,989
M8/8.2 is absolutely workable. I don't think M9 is an absolute must for a digital jump off. I miss the corners and flaws of my lenses sometimes. Certainly not often enough to spill the extra shells for a camera that has output so very similar to one costing 1/3 the price. I suggest searching photos of both the M8 and M9 printed or on screen. If you think you can tell the difference than go for an M9. If you can't, why spend all the extra dough?
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 21:15.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.