"Why don’t you just go digital?"

[BobYIL]

Sean Bonner is "a Los Angeles based entrepreneur, journalist, activist and enthusiast" holding an interesting view about not switching to digital:


http://blog.seanbonner.com/2012/05/0...st-go-digital/

[FrankS]

For me, the key words in his post are investment, process, and gear.

[Lauffray]

I've had this question a million times. Frankly I don't think digital will replace film entirely, less commonly used film will be discontinued, it will be rare, but there will still be a following.
Did vinyl die after the compact disc ? Did TV kill the radio ? Did the internet kill printed books ?

[Keith]

There was a link posted to this in another thread recently.

His reasoning is all emotive and not really based on anything factual ... but it is just a blog!

[seanbonner]

I posted it when I wrote it, but thanks for linking again!

Originally Posted by Keith

His reasoning is all emotive and not really based on anything factual ... but it is just a blog!

What kind of facts are you looking for? It's a questions of opinion to begin with, seems like an opinion based answer is what's called for.

[Lauffray]

Well for some people it is a matter of technical quality ie, image definition, detail resolution, high ISO, color fidelity etc, for that you need facts
but I agree, it's only his opinion in this case

[Keith]

Originally Posted by seanbonner

I posted it when I wrote it, but thanks for linking again!




What kind of facts are you looking for? It's a questions of opinion to begin with, seems like an opinion based answer is what's called for.

Well there are no facts I guess ... and when it does get down to facts it's usually some insane logic based on the savings an M9 can make over X number of rolls of film and scanning over a given period!

What I was saying is that the choice to stay with film is seldom based on anything other than the love of film itself.

[FrankS]

If one were totally rational about things, digital would prevail over film, but artistic endeavors are not totally rational.

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by seanbonner

I posted it when I wrote it, but thanks for linking again!

My apologies for causing double posting. Actually I have been lead to your post at another forum by a friend who shares the same view about film with me and I found it very interesting.

[John Bragg]

I fully agree with that blog. I was showing a good friend some prints recently and he asked why not go digital? I told him that it was not an option for me as my photos are the result of a process that I have spent a lifetime evolving and perfecting and although I now scan my negatives I still have more control and versatility up my sleeve by going through analogue developing. My photos are treasured by me. I can't say the same for the very few that I have originated purely digitally. I also have no need to spend ages chimping over a screen during the taking process. I recently attended a baptism and of the photos I took, all were keepers. Rare for me but even more remarkable when I consider that I was using an Olympus MJU-II which I purchased from ebay for a mere £6. It was small and discrete but the resulting photos are priceless and I have the option of scanning them or making an archival silver print. I just wouldn't get the same overall pleasure from a digital camera, and moreover it just isn't "me" .....

[seanbonner]

Originally Posted by BobYIL

My apologies for causing double posting. Actually I have been lead to your post at another forum by a friend who shares the same view about film with me and I found it very interesting.

Oh I'm not upset at all. Link to my articles all you want!

[BobYIL]

It indeed was interesting for me. When I shoot film something urges me to regard each and every one of the frames with the thrifty attitude of a painter in front of his canvas, for he knows that changing his canvas ten times a day would not make him a better painter. I know that it would be what I'm going to "place" in that specific frame would count rather than what will happen with the rest of the film.

The discipline turned into ability to hit the target with one bullet makes a sniper, rather than a machine gun with a bundle of ammunition belts handed to him.

The convenience of being able to click 1.000 shots a day with the cost of charging a battery is one thing; to achieve a talent of being able to end up with one keeper out of every 10 shots is another thing.

Using both film and digital, I think film urges me to be more aware, more "minding" of the consequences..

Just my two cents..

[Harry Lime]

1) I really like the way Tri-X looks and shoots.
2) I like the imperfection of film.
3) Dynamic range of film in daylight, in particular the way it handles highlights.
4) They don't make a full frame DSLR the size of a F2/F3
5) I can't afford two M9 (M10?) bodies
6) Archival qualities of film


But I will probably get the upcoming Nikon full frame D600, simply because I need a good DSLR for certain work and the Leica M10 will be way out of my pricerange.

[kingqueenknave]

I don't find myself taking more pictures when shooting with my M9-P instead of my MP, M7 or M2. It's not like sorting through a ton of digital images of the same thing is fun or convenient. The philosophy remains the same for me... get it right the first time despite the medium! I learned on film, and I have to say I'm not missing processing the 30-50 rolls I was shooting per month when I was operating with a strictly analog workflow. I still love and shoot film, just not as much as I once did.

[f16sunshine]

While trying to explain why I shoot film to a friend the other night.
She listened intently in a noisy bar over a couple drinks and then replied...

" So like the difference between Facebook friends vs real friends or fake boobs vs real boobs?"

It was hard to not laugh even though I use digital as well as film.
Do we think film is more "real"?

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by f16sunshine

While trying to explain why I shoot film to a friend the other night.
She listened intently in a noisy bar over a couple drinks and then replied...

" So like the difference between Facebook friends vs real friends or fake boobs vs real boobs?"

It was hard to not laugh even though I use digital as well as film.
Do we think film is more "real"?

Yup! Look at your negatives under a microscope, you will see silver, not pixels! (Silver makes money )

[Trius]

Originally Posted by f16sunshine

While trying to explain why I shoot film to a friend the other night.
She listened intently in a noisy bar over a couple drinks and then replied...

" So like the difference between Facebook friends vs real friends or fake boobs vs real boobs?"

It was hard to not laugh even though I use digital as well as film.
Do we think film is more "real"?

Well, if one regards photos produced by film as "real" and digital somehow not real then they are, indeed, real while digital is not. It's all about one's process. I'm not sure I will ever come to terms with digital, but that's just me. Those who have no long term experience or investment with film will see things quite differently. It's all good.

[bhop73]

I think my reasons for still shooting, and preferring, film are similar.

[oftheherd]

Originally Posted by Trius

Well, if one regards photos produced by film as "real" and digital somehow not real then they are, indeed, real while digital is not. It's all about one's process. I'm not sure I will ever come to terms with digital, but that's just me. Those who have no long term experience or investment with film will see things quite differently. It's all good.

Yep, it's all good. I have considered going digital. My wife wants me to buy a "good" digital like someone has that she knows. I haven't even thought of a print over 8x10 in many years. But I still think film gives better results. I still like the 'process' and I have a big investment in film gear. Actually, I should say investments; not only in gear, but emotionally.

I do have a digital P&S, 6 MP, and I do sometimes carry it and use it. But I still remember some of the prints I have gotten with film, and it's hard to give up.

Just me of course.

[nebraska]

I have been doing photography for almost sixty years. During these decades I have heard almost all of the arguments - pro and con - when something new was introduced from build-in light meters to auto focus and what not. My motto has always been: use what YOU find useful. What matters is the picture, not the tool. I have been jealous too often of an artist when I admired a picture and recognized it as a work of art. I couldn't have cared less what camera or recording medium (film or digital) was used. It is the vision/interpretation that is in front of you that matters - Your response. A camera is nothing more than a tool to capture that special moment or scene. Happy shooting.

[EdwardKaraa]

What I like most about film is it's analog quality. It is very much like an oil painting, while digital is like computer graphics. Digital is superior but I prefer film for its imperfections.

[Robert Lai]

I pretty much agree with everything that Sean wrote - down to his choice of an M7 (though mine is in chrome).

I like the physical nature of film. I like handling it, looking at it to see what the image is, projecting it (if a slide), and filing it. Its real, physical existence vs a virtual electronic record which could get lost or deleted it a major attraction of film for me.

I also happen to like film cameras. Simple, straightforward designs. No menus in any of my film cameras.

[Sparrow]

Bloody submenus mostly ...

[thegman]

At the moment, for me, shooting film is about the camera more than the process. You simply cannot buy digital cameras which are anywhere near as pleasant to use as film cameras. The M9 is probably pretty close, but there is the still the menus, not to mention the cost. I'm sometimes embarrassed by how much I spend on kit, but all together it costs less than half a M9.

Digital is tempting though, cameras with EVFs take away any issues with back-focus or other calibration issues. 35mm Ektar 100, if processed perfectly and scanned perfectly has been shown to outresolves a Canon 5D MkII. But of course, the Canon brings it A game every day, and does not need top end processing and scanning, it just does it.

There is a place for both, and even if I shot 100% digital, I'd still cheer on everyone who chose to shoot film.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by thegman

At the moment, for me, shooting film is about the camera more than the process. You simply cannot buy digital cameras which are anywhere near as pleasant to use as film cameras. The M9 is probably pretty close, but there is the still the menus, not to mention the cost. I'm sometimes embarrassed by how much I spend on kit, but all together it costs less than half a M9.

Digital is tempting though, cameras with EVFs take away any issues with back-focus or other calibration issues. 35mm Ektar 100, if processed perfectly and scanned perfectly has been shown to outresolves a Canon 5D MkII. But of course, the Canon brings it A game every day, and does not need top end processing and scanning, it just does it.

There is a place for both, and even if I shot 100% digital, I'd still cheer on everyone who chose to shoot film.

You've never used an RD-1 then?