film or digital and age

[Adanac]

That's my sense too.

Perhaps the increased digital chatter is because of timing - Photokina, fall in the Northern Hemisphere, product announcements from Leica and others. Or maybe there are more photographers in transition at present than normal (? what's normal) ... dunno.

[Drago]

23 and film. it's so much interesting that way and the price point is really nice bonus too. no way i could afford the digital things i'd like

[Katie]

I'm 39 and shoot about 80% film

[Cold]

Originally Posted by zuiko85

If this poll represents a typical cross section of members then it's results are surprising to me. In every single age group film use is higher than digital use.

I wonder if, perhaps there really are, among RFF subscribers more predominately digital users but they are not voting on the poll.

I'm 63 and use film at least 90% of the time.

More likely, the nature of the selection set (members here) is biased toward film due to the very nature of the site.

[Roger Hicks]

'Principally' is the deal breaker. 'Principally' for what? Business or pleasure?

Cheers,

R.

[denizg7]

if there was an affordable digital rangefinder with an m mount and and a decent sensor i would mostly likely have used digital

[nighstar]

27 and at the moment i shoot more digital than film, but the digital:film ratio changes all the time.

[Thomas78]

Im 33 and use film at about 90% of my images.

I like classic cameras (from 1930s - 1980s), the look of film and developing b&w. (But I don't do Lomography nor I have or would like to have a Holga.)

And for me, I get as much joy form "playing" with my cameras than from the pictures I take. A digital camera doesn't give me this kind of joy. (At least not a fully automatic DSLR or a "better" P&S. - I have not yet tried a M8 or M9)

I think that this forum and its members are not representative for the public and that you would find over 90% digital camera users
on (e.g.) a Canon or Nikon camera forum.

[dct]

Originally Posted by Adanac

That result doesn't surprise me one bit. This is a rangefinder camera forum after all, and there are far more film rangefinders out there than digital Ms. Apparently a goodly number of film rangefinders are still working.

Then again, surely the digital respondents include plenty of non-rangefinder cameras. Or do they?

Agreed. But what still does suprise me is the noticeable greater ratio of film vs digital usage in the mid-aged and younger members. I would have bet the best film ratio will be in the 50+ segment... Any thoughts?

[Paddy C]

Originally Posted by dct

Agreed. But what still does suprise me is the noticeable greater ratio of film vs digital usage in the mid-aged and younger members. I would have bet the best film ratio will be in the 50+ segment... Any thoughts?

I gather what you mean is that you are surprised film usage is not higher amongst the 50+ segment?

If so I think it is understandable:
1. eyesight deterioration leads to autofocus
2. grandchildren/family are digital and the need to share images quickly is a consideration
3. they've logged a lot of film time and may be tired of it/looking for a different experience at this point

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Paddy C

I gather what you mean is that you are surprised film usage is not higher amongst the 50+ segment?

If so I think it is understandable:
1. eyesight deterioration leads to autofocus
2. grandchildren/family are digital and the need to share images quickly is a consideration
3. they've logged a lot of film time and may be tired of it/looking for a different experience at this point

4. May understand that photography is photography and not let the medium get in the way of what matters... photos.

[photomoof]

I wonder how many of the film users on the RFF are really hybrid digital users -- those who convert their film to digital and never actually print from the film?

[Calzone]

Originally Posted by photomoof

I wonder how many of the film users on the RFF are really hybrid digital users -- those who convert their film to digital and never actually print from the film?

Fred,

I seem to annoy people by shooting lots and lots of film for wet printing, but since I don't have a darkroom to wet print developing 50-60 rolls of film a month is about as far as it goes.

First off I want to print big, and decades ago I use to be a good printer, but seeing my negatives on a light table is enough for me for now. Also scanning is not for me. I'd rather wait until I have a darkroom and print my prints then as an artist. Specifically I make my negatives a bit too dense for scanning anyway, because I want that added shadow detail and I want to print big.

Currently I have ordered a Monochrome... but I will still shoot a lot of film...Already looking into making digital negatives for contact printing... Anyways I like the blacks on a wet print...

Cal

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Calzone

I'd rather wait until I have a darkroom and print my prints then as an artist.

Cal, are you saying that if you make prints from an inkjet, you are not an artist?

Anyways I like the blacks on a wet print...

But you haven't tried any alternatives yet...

[DNG]

Originally Posted by photomoof

I wonder how many of the film users on the RFF are really hybrid digital users -- those who convert their film to digital and never actually print from the film?

I am a Digital User Mostly (E-M5)... I also shoot film a few times a month and I am also printing 2-4 11x14s a month from my Street Photography.. some Digital, some scanned Film to prints. And printed by MPIX on "True B&W" paper. To place on my "Photo Wall"

[louisbrown08]

18, using digital for most of my 'work' photography e.g. events, weddings etc. as it calls for it, but for all my personal projects and work its all film, just how i like it.

[DNG]

Originally Posted by photomoof

I wonder how many of the film users on the RFF are really hybrid digital users -- those who convert their film to digital and never actually print from the film?

Originally Posted by Calzone

Fred,

I seem to annoy people by shooting lots and lots of film for wet printing, but since I don't have a darkroom to wet print developing 50-60 rolls of film a month is about as far as it goes.

First off I want to print big, and decades ago I use to be a good printer, but seeing my negatives on a light table is enough for me for now. Also scanning is not for me. I'd rather wait until I have a darkroom and print my prints then as an artist. Specifically I make my negatives a bit too dense for scanning anyway, because I want that added shadow detail and I want to print big.

Currently I have ordered a Monochrome... but I will still shoot a lot of film...Already looking into making digital negatives for contact printing... Anyways I like the blacks on a wet print...

Cal

Cal,
To many great photographers have 1000's of unprinted negatives... go get started, and you'll be pleased that years from now, your family to come (future Gen), will have wonderful photographs to look at and think about you. That will inspire many more than storing negatives that no one will print or look at when you are gone. People look at prints in the long run.
That is why I started making 2-4 prints a month, then I buy a cheap frame and hang it up a few inches apart from other printed photographs. I intend to archive my files on a 100+ year DVD in all their forms. From RAW/JPG/Final JPG for printing. With a working copy of the RAW software on the DVD.

[Colin G.]

29; only film. Thinking of going digital with something on offer from Fuji.

[Red Rock Bill]

I'm 69 and shoot a lot of digital photographs...however I'll be working on a color film pinhole project in NYC the latter part of Oct...so I'd have to say I use what is appropriate for the project.....regards,Bill

[ramosa]

i first shot film exclusively (back in the day) and then digital exclusively for more than 10 years. but recently i have been experimenting with film again ... a return of sorts, but i still have two digital cameras, as well. i'm not sure what will come of this experimentation, but i'm glad to have the opportunity.

[Keith]

I sometimes wonder what impression film makes on someone young ... a child of the digital age!

Seeing a negative come out of a developing tank is almost a religious experience for many of us ... how does someone in their twenties or younger perceive it when they see it for the first time?

[denizg7]

Originally Posted by Keith

I sometimes wonder what impression film makes on someone young ... a child of the digital age!

Seeing a negative come out of a developing tank is almost a religious experience for many of us ... how does someone in their twenties or younger perceive it when they see it for the first time?

Keith I always had high respects for the elderly, when I was growing up i would listen to my grand father and my great uncle's war stories , and I always believed history was a reoccurring cycle and therefor it was the wisest thing to do listen up and don't do the same mistakes.

I see film as a reminder of the gold age where there was something reminiscent about the way it glowed to me. Then I remembered all the history I read about all the pictures from my great grandfather's and my grandfather's photographs that were archived in their navy chest.

I think using film reminds us symbolically where we came from , and how it started first for only the fortunate , before the kodak brownies , and it reminds us that we don't need the new features of digital cameras, faster zooming , faster auto focusing , but rather we have to return to our traditional values and what made them great in the first place. Most importantly less materialism.

[c.poulton]

46 and exclusively a film shooter.

OK, I've been tempted by the 'digital siren call', especially with the release of the Leica MM, however the closer I look, the more I realise that I just don't like the 'look' of digital.

Also, I've been taking photographs for over 32 years with film and I'm so used to it that I just don't want to learn a new digital workflow. Unfortunately I had to give up my darkroom when I moved house years ago and would love to build another one some day, but for now I have got used to scanning my negs.

I also enjoy using 'old' film cameras - I get a great buzz out of going out with an old mechanical camera and capturing images every bit as good as any taken with the latest whizz-bang dSLR.

That's not to say I won't ever own a digital camera in my life time - the look of digital (especially with the leica MM for example) is getting more film like so my view is slowly changing......

But, for now, I am a film guy, through and through!

[nighstar]

Originally Posted by Keith

I sometimes wonder what impression film makes on someone young ... a child of the digital age!

Seeing a negative come out of a developing tank is almost a religious experience for many of us ... how does someone in their twenties or younger perceive it when they see it for the first time?

i'm 27, but my first cameras (although just cheap P&Ss) used film + Polaroid was very much around when i grew up, so film was never something entirely new to me. developing film myself, however, didn't happen until very recently and i have to say it is magical bringing your negatives to life with your own hands.

[kossi008]

Originally Posted by FrankS

Sure, there is likely a positive correlation between an older age and higher film use ...

Funny thing is, it seems exactly the other way around here on RFF... go figure...