Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film > 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.

View Poll Results: Which has more sex appeal: film or digital?
Film has more sex appeal 240 95.24%
Digital has more sex appeal 12 4.76%
Voters: 252. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 05-20-2013   #41
paradoxbox
Registered User
 
paradoxbox is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 430
my rolleiflex gets a lot of attention from females, i'd have to say film. i've never once been chatted up by a girl when carrying a digital camera (ah, the epson r-d1 is an exception, but it looks like film)
__________________
Epson R-D1, Ricoh GRD III, Rollei TLR's, Lots of others
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-03-2013   #42
Shirley Creazzo
Registered User
 
Shirley Creazzo's Avatar
 
Shirley Creazzo is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: north of NYC
Posts: 334
Okay guys, can I come in now? I read every word of this thread hoping to find something conclusive on this titillating subject. First, tho' the memories are beginning to fade, I must admit I spent much of my youth - actually all of it - using film, [why do I get the feeling some of you are too young to remember when digital was not an option] I will say i was impressed with the rationality, and with the humor, of some of you, but lacking - from a woman's point of view - any clear cut winner as far as cameras go, I elected to base my decision on camera-users instead.
And here I must admit I read seakayaker's response about 3 times .................. okay, four. But just to be certain I may read it one more time.

Thanks for the amusement and the bemusement. Carry on men.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-10-2013   #43
Chris101
Lazy Lytro Shooter
 
Chris101's Avatar
 
Chris101 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirley Creazzo View Post
... why do I get the feeling some of you are too young to remember when digital was not an option ...
Many here, even among the young-uns, still think digital isn't an option.
__________________
101-365
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-26-2013   #44
shootar401
Unregistred User
 
shootar401 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NYC
Posts: 50
I've had more women comment on my Speed Graphic and TLR in one month than my 4 years of shooting digital.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-06-2013   #45
Contarama
Registered User
 
Contarama is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 730
28/3.5 Nikkor...cheapest lens there is...sexy? I don't know...looks pretty cool to me...I don't know about sexy though it is a little boy. Cheap digital Nikon...this guy would punch Terry Richardson in the face...twice...combination He is good on film too!

__________________
Art is the ability to make something...even if it is a big mess...
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-08-2013   #46
HLing
Registered User
 
HLing's Avatar
 
HLing is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 276
Film. A manual film camera is much more responsive and capable (in the right hands) in low light.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-08-2013   #47
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,463
Far as I'm concerned, the question is pure BS and uninteresting in the extreme.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-09-2013   #48
Kirbot
Registered User
 
Kirbot is offline
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 63
Far as I'm concerned, this is one of the most amusing and entertaining threads I've read on this forum yet.

Film, btw, is the answer.
Although I've met many a girl who didn't even take notice of a Hasselblad.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2013   #49
tsiklonaut
Registered User
 
tsiklonaut's Avatar
 
tsiklonaut is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Estonia
Posts: 896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
Far as I'm concerned, the question is pure BS and uninteresting in the extreme.

G
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirbot View Post
Far as I'm concerned, this is one of the most amusing and entertaining threads I've read on this forum yet.

Film, btw, is the answer.

Cheers guys!

Gotta love the extreme contrast of negative/depressive and positive/happy chappys with a sense of humor personalities in those forums. Makes it amusing indeed

I'm still somewhat surprised the imbalance is that big considering how much hype the digital gets these days while film is slowly diminishing. Now 95+/5-, looks like film is the clear dominanting answer indeed.
__________________
..:: 4nalog ::..
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-25-2013   #50
mansio
Registered User
 
mansio's Avatar
 
mansio is offline
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 98
hmm, i doubt this is the most uninteresting topic at all, seeing that he bothered to at least leave a message...

while digital cameras without a doubt are capable of taking great pictures, they are boring to take to the street, and canikons are especially boring for leisure uses.
__________________
Leica M5 + 35v1 50DR 90v1 summicron 135 tele-elmar
Ricoh GXR M module+EVF
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-26-2013   #51
TheFlyingCamera
Registered User
 
TheFlyingCamera is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 254
To me, the digital camera is a tool, the way a power sander or a circular saw is a tool. Great at doing what it is intended to do, but the nature of the tool is such that I don't find projects to do that require the tool; I get out the tool when I have a project that requires it. A film camera is like a cabinet-maker's grade Japanese hand saw or a fine hand-plane. I would invent projects just so I'd have an excuse to use the tool. I don't begrudge the power tool for existing - in fact I'm very happy to have it when I need a tool that does what it does. But when the tool that requires more of me will fit the task, I prefer that tool.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-11-2013   #52
helenhill
a Click in Time...
 
helenhill's Avatar
 
helenhill is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New Yawk
Posts: 5,049
When I need Instant Gratification its Digi ...
For Pure Pleasure its Film...
__________________
Flickr.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-11-2013   #53
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,243
Digital is boring. Anyone can do it.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-12-2013   #54
Chris101
Lazy Lytro Shooter
 
Chris101's Avatar
 
Chris101 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by helenhill View Post
When I need Instant Gratification its Digi ...
For Pure Pleasure its Film...
But Helen, isn't there some pleasure to instant grat?
__________________
101-365
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-12-2013   #55
helenhill
a Click in Time...
 
helenhill's Avatar
 
helenhill is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New Yawk
Posts: 5,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris101 View Post
But Helen, isn't there some pleasure to instant grat?
Yes I suppose
Like everything ever fleeting
__________________
Flickr.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2013   #56
Novembersierra
Venice, ITA
 
Novembersierra is offline
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by unixrevolution View Post
A film shooter is interested in the process, and doesn't mind taking a long time and go through a lot of effort, because the result is as important as the process and the love that went into it.

The digital shooter is most interested in achieving the best result at a minimum of cost, time, and inconvenience.

Extrapolate these two preferences into the qualities that you consider to be essential to a good lover, and you see my point

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
To me, the digital camera is a tool, the way a power sander or a circular saw is a tool. Great at doing what it is intended to do, but the nature of the tool is such that I don't find projects to do that require the tool; I get out the tool when I have a project that requires it. A film camera is like a cabinet-maker's grade Japanese hand saw or a fine hand-plane. I would invent projects just so I'd have an excuse to use the tool. I don't begrudge the power tool for existing - in fact I'm very happy to have it when I need a tool that does what it does. But when the tool that requires more of me will fit the task, I prefer that tool.
I'll repeat this to the next people that asks me why 'I still bother with film and stuff'
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #57
CactusJuice
Registered User
 
CactusJuice is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 34
Not this digital shooter. I shoot a lot of digital and I frequently spend HOURS on a single subject just getting a shot "right". And that doesn't include the hours I spend processing the RAW files lol On the other hand, when I was taking photography in college I only used film. And I could easily spend the better part of my weekend shooting, processing and printing a couple rolls of film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-05-2013   #58
Kent
Finally at home...
 
Kent's Avatar
 
Kent is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 46
Posts: 1,549
Yes, why is shooting with a digital camera automatically connected to shooting at high burst rate, no matter what, and simply picking the "best" shot afterwards?

What needs more brain cells? Composing an image with your digital camera and post-processing the RAW file with sophisticated software or snapping away with an auto-all film camera and then having the roll developed in a mini lab with the regular 9x13cm print?

What? You know this comparison the other way around?
See? You can turn everything around!

It all depends on the photographer!!

As far as sex-appeal is concerned, I am am convinced that it has nothing to do with the medium that is used (reason see above), it is the camera that is sexy (or not) and the photographer that feels it (or not).

My old Praktica M42 SLR? NOT sexy, sorry.
My old Nikon F? Pretty sexy.
My Nikon F65? Not really sexy.
My old Ricoh S-3? Oh yes, she's sexy!

My Canon EOS 5D? Good, but not sexy at all.
My Leica M8? Hrrrrrr, sexy, very much so!
My Nikon D3100? Great little cam, but not sexy, I'm afraid.
My Fuji X-E1? Hot, hot, hot! Probably the peak of sexiness.

You know what I mean?
__________________
Cheers, Kent
_______
Main Cams: Nikon, Leica, Fuji, Olympus, Pentax, Panasonic, Canon
Main Lenses: Nikkor, Leica, Voigtländer, Fuji, Sigma, Pentax, Tamron, Samyang etc.
Click me...
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-05-2013   #59
helenhill
a Click in Time...
 
helenhill's Avatar
 
helenhill is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New Yawk
Posts: 5,049
Good perspective there Kent...some valid points indeed !
__________________
Flickr.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2013   #60
mansio
Registered User
 
mansio's Avatar
 
mansio is offline
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 98
i rather have two film bodies with different film speed than a digital body

until i am familiar with shooting again i have to keep a digital with me though, instant feedback helps teaching an old dog new tricks. though i rather have film
__________________
Leica M5 + 35v1 50DR 90v1 summicron 135 tele-elmar
Ricoh GXR M module+EVF
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-08-2013   #61
dtcls100
Registered User
 
dtcls100 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 367
Definitely film. Over the last 6-7 years, I get regularly approached by people intrigued by the film cameras I use (Olympus OM, Mamiya 6, Olympus 35SP, Contax T2). Never get that response while having a Canon dslr in hand, which I regard as being about as much fun to use as a calculator.

Just this past weekend, I was at a friend's wedding and decided to take some photos with an Olympus OM-4Ti with Motor Drive 2, OM Zuiko 35-80mm f2.8, T32 and Bounce Grip 2 setup. Quite a few guests asked and commented about the equipment, with some saying that they were thinking about getting back into film photography and liked the look of film images better. Even the professional wedding photographer came over and asked me about the equipment, saying it was beautiful and of a different build quality than digital equipment. The wedding photographer even asked if he could take a few pics with my equipment! I of course agreed. He then added that he preferred film himself, but used digital professionally to ensure he got the shot and because clients expect digital these days.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2013   #62
kram
Registered User
 
kram's Avatar
 
kram is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: South Wales, UK
Posts: 394
Digital is incredibly sexy for a lot of people, look at those camera sales. However, the sexiness goes off like an opened bottle of developer when the camera company issues the next model.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=1701'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-17-2013   #63
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,785
You should have seen the teenage girl (14-15?) peering at my Leica M today in the supermarket! If I were into "grooming" young girls... Of course I said nothing: didn't even make eye contact. But maybe it's just the normal, healthy curiosity of being young and noticing something you've not seem before.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2013   #64
LChanyungco
Registered User
 
LChanyungco's Avatar
 
LChanyungco is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Berlin
Posts: 611
This disturbs me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
You should have seen the teenage girl (14-15?) peering at my Leica M today in the supermarket! If I were into "grooming" young girls... Of course I said nothing: didn't even make eye contact. But maybe it's just the normal, healthy curiosity of being young and noticing something you've not seem before.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2013   #65
Photo_Smith
Registered User
 
Photo_Smith's Avatar
 
Photo_Smith is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,482
Why? A member of the younger generation notices an old (sorry Roger) guy with a camera that looks old.
I think this shows the young are interested.
I have a similar tale, in the summer I shot some images of an artist friend for his publicity, we went to the pub afterwards and a young student was eying my Rolleiflex.
She came to have a chat and a look because she'd never had the chance to handle one–she owned a Pentacon Six.
None of this should disturb anyone the young are just interested, we had a nice exchange and chat-no harm done.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2013   #66
LChanyungco
Registered User
 
LChanyungco's Avatar
 
LChanyungco is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Berlin
Posts: 611
"Which has more sex appeal: film or digital?"
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2013   #67
Photo_Smith
Registered User
 
Photo_Smith's Avatar
 
Photo_Smith is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,482
You're a truly strange person then, because there are lots of things that disturb me, but the description of sexy applied to inanimate objects doesn't need the sexual act–possibly it has something to do with the English language.

Also to quote another persons post and then say 'this disturbs me' isn't good forum manners if you are replying to the OP.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-20-2013   #68
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Photo_Smith View Post
You're a truly strange person then, because there are lots of things that disturb me, but the description of sexy applied to inanimate objects doesn't need the sexual act–possibly it has something to do with the English language.

Also to quote another persons post and then say 'this disturbs me' isn't good forum manners if you are replying to the OP.
The reply was so terminally weird that I couldn't even figure it out. The last person who was as fascinated by one of my Leicas -- who couldn't take his eyes off it -- was a man in his 40s or 50s, a few months ago, but of course, it was socially permissible for me to talk to him, and even to hand the camera to him to play with. It was also a rather different setting, a vide-greniers (village wide yard sale) where conversation flows rather more freely than in supermarkets. It's really a bit sad that I couldn't talk to this young girl because of the social taboos -- or rather, that even I am forced to assume that I wouldn't talk to her because of the social taboos unless I had nefarious designs. Did she know about Leicas? Did she recognize an M? I'll never know.

Actually, I'd say that any man who doesn't notice a pretty girl is the one who has something wrong with him. It's what you do about it that matters. At my age, and happily married for 31 years, the answer should be "nothing" (except perhaps smile).

I also ride a 1000cc motorcycle and drive a 1972 Land Rover Series III and I get about as many admiring glances for both of those as I did in my early 30s -- which leads me to suspect that as you say, it's the Leica, the BMW and the Land Rover that get the admiring glances, rather than my increasingly elderly self.

Then again, when I was about 20, I heard from a friend of a friend of speculation about the "gorgeous bird" ("bird" = girl" in the slang of the 60s and early 70s) in the passenger seat of my Triumph TR3. She was my mother, in her 40s! A classic sports car changes people's expectations. Maybe Leicas, BMWs and Land Rover 88s do too. Then again I suspect that 88 inches would get any woman's attention, at any age. Note to those unfamiliar with Series Land Rovers: "88" and "109" refer to the wheelbase of Land Rovers.

EDIT: Frances says, "If you leave me in the Land Rover, I get admiring glances too. From young men (I tend not to notice the young women as much, for the same reason Roger notices fewer of the young men). And when I carry a nicely worn black Nikon F, I fear that increasingly, it's the F they're looking at."

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-20-2013   #69
LChanyungco
Registered User
 
LChanyungco's Avatar
 
LChanyungco is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Berlin
Posts: 611
i just thought it was very odd to mention a 14-15 year old girl peering at your camera in a thread concerning sex appeal...
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-20-2013   #70
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by LChanyungco View Post
i just thought it was very odd to mention a 14-15 year old girl peering at your camera in a thread concerning sex appeal...
Why?

Would it have been different if she'd been 20? If I'd not mentioned her age? If I'd just said "young lady"?

The point is she was peering at the camera. It had happened that day. It was still fresh in my memory. What on earth is odd about that?

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2013   #71
Soeren
Registered User
 
Soeren is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Naestved, Denmark
Posts: 397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Why?

Would it have been different if she'd been 20? If I'd not mentioned her age? If I'd just said "young lady"?

The point is she was peering at the camera. It had happened that day. It was still fresh in my memory. What on earth is odd about that?

Cheers,

R.
We are not alowed to make guesses and then mention the girls age if they are underage. Didn't you know Roger Its one of the latest acts against p...........
__________________
Søren

  Reply With Quote

Old 11-28-2013   #72
Soeren
Registered User
 
Soeren is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Naestved, Denmark
Posts: 397
Quote:
Originally Posted by LChanyungco View Post
i just thought it was very odd to mention a 14-15 year old girl peering at your camera in a thread concerning sex appeal...
I think in all respect that you are seeing ghosts or at least taking thread title to seriously. threads tend to go off topic rather fast from time to time and this one goes in the direction "What gives you the most attention Film or Digital"
Cars, Cameras and Clothes can have sex appeal and draw attention to you for a lot of other different reasons.
Best regards
__________________
Søren

  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2013   #73
tsiklonaut
Registered User
 
tsiklonaut's Avatar
 
tsiklonaut is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Estonia
Posts: 896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soeren View Post
I think in all respect that you are seeing ghosts or at least taking thread title to seriously. threads tend to go off topic rather fast from time to time and this one goes in the direction.
Amen. Some people absolutely miss a sense of humor - I wish they can buy it from a shop.

Keep it light guys with no pun intended
__________________
..:: 4nalog ::..
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2014   #74
shortstop
Registered User
 
shortstop's Avatar
 
shortstop is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 524
Any doubt?

image-3880992957.jpg
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2014   #75
Spanik
Registered User
 
Spanik is offline
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,318
Quote:
Any doubt?
Now that would have me looking whatever camera she held

Can't say the film camera gives me more sex appeal. I only get accosted by old geezers when I'm out with one. Never well endowed curvaceous young ladies.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-28-2014   #76
xxloverxx
Shoot.
 
xxloverxx is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 607
Speaking purely with relation to the cameras that I use (fully mechanical), I'd say that film's got the most sex appeal:

Without batteries, it recharges as fast as your hands can move.
The pushing, pulling, twisting etc. of a well-machined rewind (k)nob.
The smoothness of the lube in pre-AF lenses and the push-pull zoom.

I'm sure I'll think of more humour of this genre sometime soon…
__________________
http://hugopoon.smugmug.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2014   #77
Soeren
Registered User
 
Soeren is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Naestved, Denmark
Posts: 397
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortstop View Post
Any doubt?

Attachment 98868
Oh man she really makes that camera look sexy.... erh see ......... ahem you know.....
ah forget it
__________________
Søren

  Reply With Quote

Old 05-21-2014   #78
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxloverxx View Post
. . . it recharges as fast as your hands can move.…
Oh, boy. How old are you?

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-05-2014   #79
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 49
Posts: 5,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Oh, boy. How old are you?

Cheers,

R.
Memory failing you RH ?
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Film gets attention
Old 08-29-2014   #80
easyrider
Photo addict
 
easyrider is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 477
Film gets attention

A while back I took my 1950s f3.5 Rolleifllex MX out for an airing and some shooting on the Toronto waterfront. People stropped to chat -- either to wax nostalgically or to ask what kind of camera that was.
I sometimes see people with 35mm film cameras but they seem to go unnoticed since many resemble digitals.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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 15:16.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.