Where do you stand?

[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!

[Jobin]

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

[Chris101]

Originally Posted by Jobin

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

Nah. Let 'em go ... cheap.

[kutitta]

Originally Posted by Chris101

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[Nikos72]

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

[Tijmendal]

Originally Posted by kxl

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]

Originally Posted by Messsucherkamera

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

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")