PDA

View Full Version : Coming back from Digital?


HuubL
10-24-2007, 00:53
I guess the older members here used to shoot film before the dawn of digital. Perhaps young ones started digital and went film to see what all the fuzz was about.

I started with film back in the late sixties, went all digital in 2002 and then returned to film about three years ago. I'm now shooting digital and film about 80/20 and guess that will remain so for the coming years.

A lot of reading for the correct choice. I see I entered the wrong choice myself and there doesn't seem to be a way to fix that :(

ChrisN
10-24-2007, 01:33
I swing backwards and forwards - sometimes I just want good images with the least effort, so I grab the digital SLR with the good Pentax lenses. Other times I want to be more involved in the whole process, or just take the time to enjoy using a simpler camera. Last Sunday, for the first time in several years, I had a day out specifically devoted to photography with just a single camera body (the M4) and a single type of film. I did take three lenses, but used the 35 for about 90% of the photos. In one way it was very liberating, but I'd still like to repeat the outing with each of the other cameras I own!

Bobfrance
10-24-2007, 01:53
I own a Digital SLR and have used one in connection with my job over many years. However I never use it for my own photography.
Personally I don't enter competitions or exhibit (apart from posting to the gallery here). I just enjoy doing photography, and for me, film is integral to that enjoyment.
I can't quite put my finger on the reason, but shooting digital loses something for me, both at the time of doing it and afterwards when examining the shots.

YMMV.

Bob.

kshapero
10-24-2007, 03:00
Always shot film, but I keep telling myself that digital is so convenient, etc. Now and then I will go out with my Nikon D70s and can't wait to get back to film.

Keith
10-24-2007, 03:10
I should have developed my first roll of film before I bought an M8 .... then I wouldn't have a $6000.00 dollar camera sitting in the cupboard! :(

Avotius
10-24-2007, 03:47
I do really shoot a lot more digital then I do film, and I really hope that I can incorporate a M8 or its competition sometime in the future. Lately I have been shooting my DSLR more and found it to be almost intolerable in low light situations where I could have easily focused my bessa. As nice as it is to have that iso 3200 and 50 1.4 canon stuff for low light, it still seems as if im missing a lot of pictures because of the highly inaccurate focusing and what not. For instance in 3 recent rolls of film, with my bessa and zeiss 50 I had 2 photos that were out of focus do to my error, compared to some 100 slr shots I took today with a 17-40 and a 5d which came back with about 30% off focus on a lens that shouldn't have this problem.

sem
10-24-2007, 03:48
I like both! It is a question of situation. Makro with dslr and people with film. A lot more fun is film. The hole process is more exciting and the camera forces to build a picture!

sem

wallace
10-24-2007, 04:28
for colour I use digital (Olymus 5050), for b/W analog (various mf and 35mm cams).
I'm still not satisfied with the greytone scale of the digital process.
And I don't like to store my pictures on hard drives or DVDs which
have to be copied every now and then!

mfogiel
10-24-2007, 04:31
For me there are two variables: B&W versus colour and high resolution versus average resolution.
In the realm of anything which is not the very best MF digital, or even scanning back, film beats digital in B&W, and larger format film beats digital in definition.

Therefore, for anything which is not average definition colour work, like portraiture or grab shots of your family, while the auntie celebrates her 80th birthday, film is still a winner.

Moreover, it is still a winner in terms of the portability/to quality ratio, especially because of what the rangefinders can do, which is why we are here in the first place.

patrickhh
10-24-2007, 04:59
I started with a DSLR and went to film later. Now my film/digital ratio is like fifty/fifty. Funny thing is, that I'm shooting much less images with the DSLR, since I also shoot film. On tours where I used to shoot 100-200 pictures, I shoot 10-20 now. It's like film shooting had taught me how to forego an "average" picture, instead of firing the shutter all the time and relying on "trial and error"
;)

Bill58
10-24-2007, 05:12
I often get some astonishing good/ easy/ fast/ cheap results (and a few miserable blurred ones too) in color from my 5 yr. old Fuji 2800/ 2 MP zoom, but it's just not as much fun as my film RF stuff--esp. B&W. I hate to fiddle w/ the batteries, handheld meter, film loading/ unloading, etc but there's some kind of magic with the whole process.

Someday, I'll find a good low light, very W/A compact digital that duplicates B&W film. but it isn't out there yet.

djonesii
10-24-2007, 05:28
I have started my first foray into film ...... this coming weekend! Bessa-R + CV 21 and leica 90/f4 "user" and russian 50/2.5 on the way!

I have lived in the Nikon DSLR world for almost 3 years, and snapped litteraly 10 of thousands of photos ...... of those, about 50 merited 8X10's, and in the mid 100s have made it to the web .... My keeper rate has been going up, I am slowly learning both the craft and the art ..... I hope for film to help this process!

Dave

Finder
10-24-2007, 05:36
A process is a process. The choice is personal (and technical arguments are simply are justifications in hindsight of personal choice). I choose the process I use because I like it.

HuubL
10-24-2007, 05:40
I started with a DSLR and went to film later. Now my film/digital ratio is like fifty/fifty. Funny thing is, that I'm shooting much less images with the DSLR, since I also shoot film. On tours where I used to shoot 100-200 pictures, I shoot 10-20 now. It's like film shooting had taught me how to forego an "average" picture, instead of firing the shutter all the time and relying on "trial and error"
;)

That's funny you mention this. When shooting digital I shoot more than when shooting film. However, not much more, like 1000 during a three week vacation at most. Shooting film for years has made me careful to "not spoil" frames and there seems to be a "repressor" built into me that prohibits me shooting endless numbers of images of the same subject. OTOH, the instant feedback of digital has definitely made me a better photographer.

literiter
10-24-2007, 05:41
The Wife and I share a Coolpix 995. This camera allows me a certain axcess to the web. We are considering upgrading soon to a similar camera.

I know one fellow, a popular wedding and portrait photographer who will shoot digital but insists his client have film as well for important events. He reports now that he is hired for this and has done some weddings exclusively in film. (his helper shoots the thing in digital.) His clients want permanence.

The local news photographers use only digital and completely scoff at the idea of film. We are blessed with some remarkably good images from these people.

Many years ago, when the earth was young, and digital was only a figment in the mind of a tortured soul, I shot professionally. The last work I did was slide tape productions, where slide projectors were used in the presentation, syncronised with sound using audio tape. These productions could be fantastic things visually. (Now when I see similar stuff done using video projectors, and their pathetic rendering of an image I'm saddened.) I still have all my slides.

To me the advent of digital has presented a population with a way to build marvelous sand castles. Even the tools seem to have a best before date. In ten years the much coveted M8 won't fetch the kind of coin my old M2 will now.

Film is the medium that best expresses permanence.

jbf
10-24-2007, 05:54
I started with digital... yet after a few years using digital I realized that I didnt really "get it". My photos sucked and lacked emotion or any deeper meaning.

Then I learned how to shoot/develop/print my own photographs using traditional film and darkroom.


I've been hooked ever since.


Now I shoot completely in film and only digital for dumb stupid things that have no value to me. Otherwise I'm completely switched back to film.

This coming from someone who is a self-proclaimed super savy computer user.


Maybe its because all I do day in and day out is work on a digital computer creating digital illusions of real world environments.

(I'm a visual effects artist who creates computer generated environments... so yeah...)

varjag
10-24-2007, 06:15
It's been mostly the ease of getting the good BW which dragged me back to film.

That said I do enjoy the difference in the process. With film and a simple mechanical camera, it feels more like a hike through the wilderness than like a car trip.

Bobfrance
10-24-2007, 06:16
(I'm a visual effects artist who creates computer generated environments... so yeah...)
Like you JBF I also alter and re-touch images as part of my job. I think because of this I value the honesty of film.

I have lived in the Nikon DSLR world for almost 3 years, and snapped litteraly 10 of thousands of photos ...... of those, about 50 merited 8X10's, and in the mid 100s have made it to the web .... My keeper rate has been going up, I am slowly learning both the craft and the art ..... I hope for film to help this process!

With film I find the fact that the shot has to be right from the outset does help focus my mind. I also find the more expensive the film the higher my hit-rate. I get far more good shots when shooting Medium format than with 35mm.

I'm afraid I'm no perfectionist and the quality arguments between film and digital mean little to me. ;)

NickTrop
10-24-2007, 06:19
On my wrist right now is a spring-wound watch. An old Timex with a new band. In my drawer are several "digital" watches that need batteries...

My last car was a manual transmission car (this one isn't because it wasn't an option) My next car will have a manual transmission...

I have a digital - a "big zoom" compact. An "old" (by digital terms) Panasonic Lumix FZ1v2. I use it sometimes. It's - in a very real sense, more "outdated" than my 45 year old folder, my classic SLR and RFs...

Back to my watch. Bought it on eBay for around $20, serviced. Nothin' fancy. It's a later model, a pie plate kinda cool in a Spartan kinda way.

- It has character
- It tells time
- It's battery independent
- It's interesting, people comment on it.
- There's craftmanship behind it, it was made largely by human
hands, not stamped out by machines.
- The mechanical engineering/clockworks behind it are fascinating

- It's "elegant" in its simplicity.

I see nothing interesting about digital watches. They're functional. Tell time, that's it. The batteries are a pain in the arse to change - need to take a trip to the store, make sure I buy the right one, futz with the back... For $10 for a new one it hardly seems worth it. They all have the same "movement" stamped out by the gazillion in some assembly line in Asia.

No personality whatsoever.

Apart from adornments, each one is the same, with nothing to distinguish them, really...

From where I sit, digital watches were a boom - initially, for the manufacturer. No more labor that had to be paid, they took something that was a mechanical marvel that people became "attached" to, something elegant, something with personality, something made with human hands, something that didn't require batteries being dumped in a landfill, something you wore for years, which became a "part of you", something with tactile enjoyment...

Something that had celebrated manufacturers -

Gruen
Omega
Timex
Rolex

Each with many offerings, each having its own "personality"...

Digital came along and "commoditized" everything. And in the process, sucked the soul out of watches. Now they're cheap, souless, battery dependent, personality-less, commodity items to be discarded and replaced every couple years.

The "thrill" of dad giving you your first watch on your birthday is gone...

Both digital and spring-wound tell time...

I appreciate the fact that when my watch runs down, I simply have to set the time and wind it. I "enjoy" the tactile nature of winding a watch. Don't ask me why...

I've been wearing this watch every day, might buy another. I love it for its timelessness...

Film cameras vs. Digital

Nick

rogue_designer
10-24-2007, 06:21
I started with film 18 years ago - mostly large format. Went through a dSLR period briefly, tho I still occasionally brought out the 4x5. Found a good deal on a Rolleiflex a few years ago, then followed up with the Canon P, and brought my F1N's back out of the closet.

I now only take out the digital for event gigs (hundreds of "grip-n-grins") or headshot sessions. Or if I just need to document something and email/post it.

Everything else is film - I'd guess 90% - especially client work (mostly 120 and 4x5). For myself it's almost exclusively 35mm bw.

NickTrop
10-24-2007, 06:37
Back to manual transmission...

I prefer these - it forces me to think. I enjoy shifting gears and having complete control of the vehicle. It makes the vehicle an extension of me that I have complete control over... It makes the process of driving more engaging. It is a very real skill one must learn. You should learn, if you want to "really" know how to drive, IMO.

Why bother with a manual if the automatic is gonna throw it in the same gear you would 90% of the time? If you're asking this question you're missing the point.

If your car had an option of giving you both automatic and manual, what would you use?
Probably automatic "most of the time"... even though I prefer manual. Don't ask me why. I guess because "path of least resistance" trumps "thinking" when the option is available... even though shifting is more fun and engaging. So, I'd rather the option not be available at all.

Twisted logic, I know.

Manual clutches are "fixable" at reasonable costs, unlike automatics which often cause people to "pitch" the car when it goes...

Even though automatic transmissions have been around for decades and decades, manual transmissions are still made for people who are really "into" driving, and want the best performance and control from their vehicle. You can still get them easily, even though the overwhelming majority of people drive automatic.

film vs. digital...

Nick

NB23
10-24-2007, 06:53
I dislike digital.
Sure, it's invaluable for my wedding business and all that, but B&W film is King!

kevin m
10-24-2007, 07:00
Gotta use both. I was shooting 100% film until two years ago, but, honestly, Canon's 5D can do things no color film emulsion can duplicate. It's not even close.

I keep my film bodies for B&W, where film still has a certain 'something' that I can't quite duplicate with digital capture, and for the pleasure of using a rangefinder.

I'd love to use a digital rangefinder, but I'm not paying $5k-plus for a cropped sensor camera with mediocre high iso performance.

wgerrard
10-24-2007, 07:13
After shooting a fair amount of film in my younger days, I recently came back to photography, i.e., not just film or not just digital, but simply takin' pictures at all.

I picked up an RF and a DSLR. Now, I find myself using the DSLR simply because I paid for it and need to assuage the feelings of guilt that bubble up if I leave the thing on the shelf.

Contrary to what seems to be the typical experience, I fuss about with the DSLR as much as I do with the RF, maybe more. After all, there is more to fuss with. If you shoot digital in manual or aperture-priority mode, as I do, then setting up a shot is pretty much the same in both cameras. I do not find myself shooting that much more with digital versus film. And, if I use the DSLR in all its automated glory, then I'm using it as I would a point and shoot, and the results are about the same, ignoring the contributions of the lens I've attached.

I'm finding that I want to learn more about film than I do digital. E.g., I am more interested in learning the characteristics of diferent kinds of film than I am in learning the characteristics of my DSLR's different ISO settings. I'm also rather tempted to dip my toes into B&W with a homebrew darkroom. I've shot digital B&W and it left me flat.

I've also concluded that I will not fly with the DSLR kit or carry its bag on my shoulder all day. Takes the fun out of everything.

I have to agree, though, that a DSLR is a great feedback tool. The fast turnaround on images and the inclusion of EXIF data are great tools if you pay attention. I have to be much more disciplined and patient to accomplish
the same thing in film.

So, here I am thinking about selling the DSLR kit, and even maybe the RF kit, so I can move up a notch in RF use. More realistically, I might sell the DSLR and pick up a good used SLR kit. I'm thinking F3HP or OM-TI4.

Anyone else thinking the same thing? Has anyone else already done that?

Jarle Aasland
10-24-2007, 08:14
The F3 is a fine camera, although it's never been my favourite. You can get a pretty nice body for next to nothing these days. Personally, I'd rather get a Nikon FE2 (or FM2). In my opinion, the FE/FM series cameras are the best film bodies ever made.

Jarle

model337
10-24-2007, 08:16
i left photography for a number of years. digital brought me back in: gave me a chance to "remember" the functions of the camera, to experiment with technique. but ultimately i outgrew it. i realized that my DSLR was also fostering the potential to develop bad habits... to become a lazy photographer that let his camera do all the thinking for me. i'm trying to break out of that, so i switched back to film.

i also have never been very satisfied with the quality of digital images. i'm pretty good at RAW manipulation so it's not like i can't coax a good image out of my DSLR, but at high ISOs and expecially with B&W photography, i could never get the kind of image quality i was seeing in the film equivalent.

i've only owned my Zeiss Ikon for 3 weeks but i'm already seeing (and photographing) the world through a completely different mindset. the results are great. i'm still adjusting to some of the differences but i'm absolutely convinced that film was the right choice for me.

literiter
10-24-2007, 08:23
When I shoot B&W film I am able to use my home darkroom and with care I can produce pretty good sharp nicely toned stuff. ( Well my Mommy liked it! )

The problem comes when taking my color film to the lab. I've noticed a big reduction of the quality I get from some of the best labs. They do not work directly from my negs or transparencies but scan, then print. I have had a slide done in Cibachrome about 20 years ago and compared it with a print from a lab done this spring from the same slide and have noticed a significant difference in sharpness. No lab in my area can do a straight print it is all scan then print. Digital.

I am wondering. Is it possible that the apparent improvement in the quality of the product from digital cameras results from the printing processes available to us?

.JL.
10-24-2007, 08:29
I am in the "I've never left film, but now shoot mostly (>80%) digital" bunch. "80%" digital doesn't mean 80% of my output comes from digital. The marginal cost of shooting digital is so low that I shoot a lot more frames just to experiment different ways. I am learning new things that I can apply to film.

christo
10-24-2007, 08:31
Back to manual transmission...

I prefer these - it forces me to think. I enjoy shifting gears and having complete control of the vehicle. It makes the vehicle an extension of me that I have complete control over... It makes the process of driving more engaging. It is a very real skill one must learn. You should learn, if you want to "really" know how to drive, IMO.

Why bother with a manual if the automatic is gonna throw it in the same gear you would 90% of the time? If you're asking this question you're missing the point.

If your car had an option of giving you both automatic and manual, what would you use?
Probably automatic "most of the time"... even though I prefer manual. Don't ask me why. I guess because "path of least resistance" trumps "thinking" when the option is available... even though shifting is more fun and engaging. So, I'd rather the option not be available at all.

Twisted logic, I know.

Manual clutches are "fixable" at reasonable costs, unlike automatics which often cause people to "pitch" the car when it goes...

Even though automatic transmissions have been around for decades and decades, manual transmissions are still made for people who are really "into" driving, and want the best performance and control from their vehicle. You can still get them easily, even though the overwhelming majority of people drive automatic.

film vs. digital...

Nick

I have an automatic transmission in my car so I can drive with my knee to re-load
my M with film but I do use a French press to make coffee.

petronius
10-24-2007, 08:33
Some years ago I shot digital exclusively for one year. The reasons to go back to film were : I missed the differences between the many camera-types (I can live with one woman, but not with one camera!), the mechanics, the sound of the shutter, the smell of the lab.

.JL.
10-24-2007, 08:35
The problem comes when taking my color film to the lab. I've noticed a big reduction of the quality I get from some of the best labs. They do not work directly from my negs or transparencies but scan, then print. I have had a slide done in Cibachrome about 20 years ago and compared it with a print from a lab done this spring from the same slide and have noticed a significant difference in sharpness. No lab in my area can do a straight print it is all scan then print. Digital.

I agree word for word about the deteriorating quality of colour film results, mostly because how the labs function these days. I used to get excellent results from the most ordinary mini labs. Nowadays I cannot even get good results from scanning (at home) colour films that came back from pro labs; I reckon they've changed development process as well, not just the printing part.

BillBingham2
10-24-2007, 09:24
An interesting parallel watches, spot on IMHO, but lets look at it from a slightly angle perhaps.

The basic function of a watch can be well served by a mechanical solution, as can a camera. The challenge comes in when you add the drive to sell more year over year. There is a mindset that you always need the latest and greatest, the most features per square inch, more is better. For me at least, more is not better, more is often worse.

When you start cramming watches full of more functions that you find on a TV you often loose sight of what it is there for. But the challenge is, how do you keep selling more year over year. How much is too much and how do you develop a watch that interests the largest market possible?

DSLRs all seem to have more features and computing power per square inch than you find stars in the sky on a clear night in Delavan, WI.

But I am about to take the plunge into DSLR land. Mind you, I am not getting rid of all my film SLRs, but I am cutting back. Same for the RFs, down to one M and one Bessa. All of the historical stuff stays, but that’s not in the user rotation.

I am going with a D300 in a few months and going to use only old AI (or AIs) lenses on her. I will control the shutter speed and aperture just like I do on my F2A, but will capture the image electronically. No autofocus, I’m not even going to do Aperture or Shutter Priority, el Manual everything. I get to step up and have both center weighted (what I cut my teeth on) as well as spot metering available to me. I will have to get a KatzEye focusing screen in her (do wish they could do a P screen). I am basically ignoring TONS of fancy features that could do stuff for me.

I could get even more primitive and go with a D40X (or E410 which is tempting) but without any real linkages, it’s stop down metering. A deal breaker as I was spoiled with growing up on a Nikkormat FTn and some great glass. It’s interesting how that is my edge, where I draw the line of acceptable automation (auto return aperture, built in meter), others draw it elsewhere (e.g. Auto Exposure, Auto Focus).

One of my two perfect digital cameras would be a Bessa L with a 12MP ccd (1.5 factor for lenses) that captured raw images as fast as I could advance the shutter. Let me throw what ever lens on it I want, I do the finder, oh and AAA batteries please. It’s small, quiet and fast.

I’m hoping the D300 is the other perfect digital. I have to purchase another prime to complete my system but most of it’s already there.

What’s driving me is cost. Funds are tight and spending an additional $700 per year on film and processing could better be put towards college, paying off bills. I hope it will remove an issue that keeps me from shoot and sharing more.

B2 (;->

literiter
10-24-2007, 09:45
I agree word for word about the deteriorating quality of colour film results, mostly because how the labs function these days. I used to get excellent results from the most ordinary mini labs. Nowadays I cannot even get good results from scanning (at home) colour films that came back from pro labs; I reckon they've changed development process as well, not just the printing part.

I think you may be right. The general concensus these days makes one think that digital is a big improvement over film, in terms of quality. It may be the decline in the quality of the film printing processes rather than just the excellence of the digital image.

When I project a transparency, that I've had printed, I notice that the image is sharper when projected than when printed. As well the color is far better with greater tonal range. (This is an Eiki slide projector, I won't even discuss a projected digital image.)

There may be an arguement that would mitigate this opinion.

I have a feeling that film may not have been quite surpassed yet in terms of overall quality, just the processing. The last roll of Fujichrome I shot in the mountains with my M4-P projected on a 5 x 6 foot screen so beautifully that it made me realize digital could not come close to this.
I can't seem to get a decent 11 x 14 inch print from my lab.

(Rant, rant, rant, rant, etc. )

Solinar
10-24-2007, 10:47
B/W with film - Digital for color.

BillBingham2
10-24-2007, 10:58
I think that some of your problem is that the resolution of the projectors are nowhere near what we have cameras for these days. If you have a sharp lens on a old style projector (not always the case) you can see some magical images on the screens.

It's an intersting niche that perhaps some manufacture might look at.

B2 (;->

literiter
10-24-2007, 10:59
B/W with film - Digital for color.

Yep! Seems to be.

MartinP
10-24-2007, 11:10
I have never tried a DSLR, but I do have a 3MP digital point-and-shoot which gets brought out for parties as it has an inbuilt flash. My poll answer was "I tried digital but ...". I work all day on a computer already and don't see the need to throw away all my film gear and then spend thousands on new printing stuff.

I am slightly puzzled by the people going to film who pick initially, and only, 35mm. Why not use rollfilm, or 4"x5", this will make your photography more satisfyingly deliberate and give way higher quality - giving that "something extra" which many are apparently looking for from film.

ruben
10-24-2007, 11:58
I haven't even entered the Auto Focus stage of film, and now kindly excuse me since I am rushing to snap a dynosaur just passing through.

Cheers,
Ruben

model337
10-24-2007, 12:28
I am slightly puzzled by the people going to film who pick initially, and only, 35mm. Why not use rollfilm, or 4"x5", this will make your photography more satisfyingly deliberate and give way higher quality - giving that "something extra" which many are apparently looking for from film.

street photography

(speaking only for myself, of course)

shadowfox
10-24-2007, 12:33
Film is now liberated (I wish I am the one who came up with this saying, but I read it somewhere).

Only photographers who cherish film *do film* now. Those who hated it, had moved on to digital and never looked back.

I came from digital with zero knowledge, appreciation, and skill. Film Photography taught and gave me all that. So now, even when I am shooting digital, I can't wait to shoot another roll of film.

Digital is for documentary, convenience, and "must have" shots, like every family member in front of the Statue of Liberty -kind of shots.

Vics
10-24-2007, 12:54
My reverse from techno-photography started earlier than digital imaging. I had bought a Minolta Maxxum system in the '80s and shot a lot of mid-tone subjects with Kodachrome starting in '84 or thereabouts. I found that I tapered off and by '91 wasn't doing anythin with my camera. Then I inheirited my brother's old Nikon F, shot a couple of rolls of Tri-x and was HOOKED (again). Long story short, over the intervening time I have dumped as much of the "auto-" part of photography as I can. I've bought and used most of the giants of the industry in the '50s. Now I'm down to just a Leica M and a 50 'cron and Tri-x, Sunny 16, and FB paper. I used to HATE the darkroom, but now I relish the chances to get in there! The only digital photos I do now are for my job and for the occaisional online auction. Interesting thread!
Vic

DougK
10-24-2007, 13:29
Film is now liberated (I wish I am the one who came up with this saying, but I read it somewhere).

Only photographers who cherish film *do film* now. Those who hated it, had moved on to digital and never looked back.

I came from digital with zero knowledge, appreciation, and skill. Film Photography taught and gave me all that. So now, even when I am shooting digital, I can't wait to shoot another roll of film.
I started photography with film cameras and just couldn't get the hang of anything, then I bought a digital camera. Because the feedback loop between action and result was so much faster than the turnaround between shooting and picking up developed film, I was able to see in real-time what those textbooks were trying to tell me about things like how aperture affects depth of field, how shutter speed works to blur motion, and so on. I was also able to eliminate lab error or adjustments made during the printing process from what I was intentionally doing when I pressed the shutter release. Now I move between formats with no issues.
Digital is for documentary, convenience, and "must have" shots, like every family member in front of the Statue of Liberty -kind of shots.
EDIT: I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree with you. I'm not willing to say you can't or shouldn't try to do fine art photos with a digital camera. It's just another way to record an image, like Ektachrome or Velvia or XP2.

wgerrard
10-24-2007, 16:29
Now that I think about it, it's the post-processing part of digital that I really don't enjoy. Sure, if you wanna use the web, you've got to scan and process your film shots. But, with digital, if you don't post-process, you've got squat. With film, you've still got pictures.

I don't enjoy post-processing. I don't mind it, but it isn't up there with shooting or looking at the images when they're back from the lab. It's just a chore.

As I implied earlier, I take pictures for the fun of it. Right now, learning about film is enjoyable. Learning about digital is work.

kuzano
10-24-2007, 22:08
Have shot film for years. Since I am a computer consultant, I thought I should get into Digital. I also teach computer classes at a community college and have taught digital photo classes for about four years. (camera features/selection etc). I still shoot film for the most part.

Digital is convenient where actual image quality is a lesser concern. I can certainly see professionals switching for faster turn around on product. However, I see most of the professionals I know begrudging the whole post processing thing. I truly dislike post processing, even though I am quite computer literate. I've done some photoshop work and the program bores me and certainly lengthens the process of creating a quality image that can match film right out of the camera. Part of the reason for that is that I prefer to shoot 6X4.5 and 6X9. I have a number of old folder cameras, and I can achieve better images with a nicely functioning 1950's folder than I can with my 8 Mp DSLR and much time in photoshop.

Sorry, but I'm staying with film, since I do not plan to generate income with my photography. I'll just stay current enough with digital to continue to teach people to use it. That way I will be assured they will never create images as good as I can with a film camera. (kidding a bit, maybe not)

amateriat
10-24-2007, 23:06
(I can live with one woman, but not with one camera!) Now, that's a quote for the ages.

I suppose that, had I remained faithful to and happy with SLRs, I might have been tempted by the digital juggernaut. But I bolted to RFs and stuck with film...mostly. I inherited a 2001-era Olympus digital p/s just about a year ago. Only gets used for stuff I generally wouldn't bother loading up my film-burners for, so it's worked out...except, of course, for those instances where it was the only camera on my person when a Really Great Image emerges before my eyes, and I would curse its "mere" 2.1 megapixels.

Sooo...I did some wandering on the 'Bay, where I found something a bit more up-to-date, and, hopefully, smaller, than that blasted Olympus. I found my answer in a mostly-gently-used Casio Exilim EX-Z850, with four times the resolution (8.1MP), much-smaller form-factor (slightly smaller than a pack of unfiltered Luckys, which is amusing to this non-smoker), has an optical viewfinder (which I insist on, although I do like this camera's bright 2.5" LCD), minimal lag time, and manual exposure control and focus options. I've only had the camera in my possession for a handful of hours, but I love how something so tiny does so many nice things so well. I've maintained for a while that to love (and generally prefer) film doesn't mean hating digital outright. In fact, I've been of the mind that the real action in the digital camera world isn't with the megabuck dSLRs of the day, but with the more humble compacts and sub-compacts of more-ambitious design. High-end digitals are huge, ponderous, and crazy-pricy. At the present state of the art, I wouldn't dream of ditching my Hexars for any of them. (Having mostly sworn off SLRs of any persuasion, that wasn't exactly a tough decision.) But...as a companion to my kit (even my Ricoh GR1), my new Casio is damned near essential, and does about 95% of what I need a digicam to do for me. And it easily fits in a pocket. My main problem now is not falling asleep while reading the crazy-thick Owner's Manual. :rolleyes:



- Barrett

shadowfox
10-25-2007, 08:30
EDIT: I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree with you. I'm not willing to say you can't or shouldn't try to do fine art photos with a digital camera. It's just another way to record an image, like Ektachrome or Velvia or XP2.

Doug, my bad, I forgot to attach "For me" in front of my statement of what digital are used for.

It's not a general statement for everyone. Sorry :o

DougK
10-25-2007, 10:03
No worries, Will, I was pretty sure that's what you meant, but I wanted to clarify the point a bit.

RayPA
10-25-2007, 14:54
What's really suffered for me is my SLR usage. I am quite happy that I have a DSLR to take over the chores of my SLR. It is pure heaven not to have to scan rolls of motor-driven (and non-motor driven) sports photos, family group photos, etc. Barring the choice of application, I find that I don't really give much thought to whether I'm shooting film or digital. I don't see one as darker side or evil, anymore (if I ever did).

Anyway, I answered 80-20 in favor of film. Lately, that's about right.

:)

Nando
10-25-2007, 19:15
I like the digital medium but I hate digital and most electronic film cameras. I shoot film with mechanical cameras and scan the negatives to a digital file.

CuS
10-25-2007, 19:17
I am a recent photonut (about 8 years now) and started off with an SLR (Canon AE-1).

I never really got my head around film (f-stop, exposure, shutter speed -aargh) so i moved onto various Canon P&S models until my first Canon DSLR about 2 years ago.

I've invested pretty heavily is good glass (damn those "L" lenses) and upgraded my DSLR body.

I have found myself shooting more and more in aperture priority mode and converting many of my color digital images to B&W.

By this time, the "instant gratification" of my DSLR had enabled me to finally understand and love the whole "f-stop, exposure, shutter speed" mantra.

But here was the thing: Although i could get some really nice B&W images via digital conversion, I began to feel that all of that manipulation led me farther and farther away from what the image really meant to me.

Let's face it, photography is about a moment of frozen time. After all, you can only freeze and thaw a chicken so many times before it is inedible, right?

I have always felt that B&W via film was far superior to any digital B&W and I have become really hooked on rangfinders (God bless my Yashica GSN, although I now have bad GAS for a Bessa R3M). And those efke films - awesome!

I blame it on B&W!

PHOTOEIL
10-25-2007, 23:49
To me, and of course this item can only be answered the very personal way, it is like choosing between 35 mm - and roll-film format (eventually 4"x5").
The M5 is absolutely a true marvel but I make the best pictures with the Hasselblad, why I do not know.
Professionally, I 'have' (!), for about 60%, to shoot digital!
But, it happens all the time, when it comes to demanding situations, the pictures, when originally shot digital, have to be shot over again on slide-film! This happens in about 20% of the digitally shot pictures, the editor is asking to do it over again but on film, when time and the item allows us to do so of course.
And yes, it is much better, not only technically (digital is not that bad at all!), but the 'contents' and tenor of the image is certainly richer!
So when speed is important and the demands of 'contents' are low, digital will do.
When it comes to higher standards, on ANNY level, it is definitely 'film' (even 35 mm slide-film)!
On film, I shoot 90% colour slides and 10% B&W negatives.
On digital, all is in colour, I do not like digital B&W, it gives me a feeling of paint that would not (never) dry and sticks all the time.
But, again, this is very, very, very, personal!

PetarDima
10-26-2007, 11:36
This pool is pain for me :bang:
I shoot 80% digital - because I must - it's cheaper. Maybe, with Pentax K100D + pancake lenses or Sigma DP1 that could be the way to go ... but ...
B&W film will be in my dreams. If someone would ask me what would I do if I were
rich the answer will be:
kilometers of Ilford HP5+ , chemistry and wide ZM lenses :rolleyes:

jairy hunter
10-26-2007, 11:43
I am a recent photonut (about 8 years now) and started off with an SLR (Canon AE-1).

I never really got my head around film (f-stop, exposure, shutter speed -aargh) so i moved onto various Canon P&S models until my first Canon DSLR about 2 years ago.

I've invested pretty heavily is good glass (damn those "L" lenses) and upgraded my DSLR body.

I have found myself shooting more and more in aperture priority mode and converting many of my color digital images to B&W.

By this time, the "instant gratification" of my DSLR had enabled me to finally understand and love the whole "f-stop, exposure, shutter speed" mantra.

But here was the thing: Although i could get some really nice B&W images via digital conversion, I began to feel that all of that manipulation led me farther and farther away from what the image really meant to me.

Let's face it, photography is about a moment of frozen time. After all, you can only freeze and thaw a chicken so many times before it is inedible, right?

I have always felt that B&W via film was far superior to any digital B&W and I have become really hooked on rangfinders (God bless my Yashica GSN, although I now have bad GAS for a Bessa R3M). And those efke films - awesome!

I blame it on B&W!

Oh. My. Gosh.

I could've written this post! Right down to the AE-1.

I, too, have become conflicted about all the manipulation done in post-processing, and I really try to avoid doing a bunch to the film shots I've got scanned. To me it kinda defeats the purpose of going "back" to an analog method only to torque it up to something totally different that what it originally was ('course you do end up scanning the negs, though, and putting them on a computer in almost all cases--no doubt this changes it in some ways).

I floated this sentiment on the board a while back and most of the responses were of the "don't worry about it--do what you have to do" to make the image meet your vision/art or whatever. I guess I decided to try to get as close to my "vision" from the get-go when taking a pic (i.e. not "letting myself" or not having to do so much post processing).

I'm trying to wean off the zoom lenses and "see" things through primes again.

Didier
10-26-2007, 12:43
When I see my old film prints I sometimes would like to go back to film. They look different, and I like their look. But the conveniences of digital shooting - immediate picture output, changing ISO from picture to picture, just to mention two - keep me off going back, especially when I notice the 50 or 100 exposed but still unsouped rolls in my fridge... But I bought a ten-pack of Kodak BW400CN yesterday, so the hope isn't dead!
Didier

anandi
10-26-2007, 12:43
This is where I am (see title). For 10 years I pretty much exclusively shot with a Yashica T5. I'd flirted with a Minox but I was a film guy. First kid arrives I decide I don't need a moving box of negatives to sort through when I'm 60. The 4MP Canon G2 is great, but slow. Even today I'd probably be reasonably happy if it wasn't for the lack of responsiveness. I find a Yashica GT in a thrift store a few years later. It literally called to me. Kind of like the ring that Frodo wore. I rediscovered firm, then RFs then SLRs and most importantly BW film. But then I get really tired of scanning and touching up. And now I have a moving box of negatives. So I pickup a DSLR - it's a Pentax so I can shoot lovely old mechanical glass, stop down metering. I got one AF lens, but it's not the same. This blend of old and new is pretty good. Let's see where it goes from here.

moonwrack
10-26-2007, 15:16
I shoot both. Digital capture has a wide variety of applications. Film scores in the matters of archival permanence, dynamic range and, for black-and-white, uniqueness. Every conventionally-produced silver-based print is slightly different and so unique in a way that digital can not be. (Mono prints make ideal presents for family and friends because they bear the unique stamp of whoever produced them).

pvdhaar
10-30-2007, 07:38
About a year ago, I had some rolls of film printed with truely atrocious results. That triggered me to go DLSR exclusively for a while. I was fed up with the lack of control I have over how well the labs do their work. So digital vs. film: 1-0.

6 months later, I dug out the RF to finish off those last couple of rolls that were still in the fridge, more or less to be done with film forever. But it was such a delight to take that RF along, and some of the prints were so nice, that I thought; 'hey, this film thing wasn't so bad after after all'. So then film vs. digital became a draw..

And just the other day I wanted to shoot a couple of things with the dslr + flash, but the combination would only work half heartedly; AF-assist woudn't light, flash would copy aperture incorrectly etc.etc.. Despite all battery indicators showing full, and having a film slr and older flash at hand to try diagnose the problems I remained lost for more than a day. I fiddled with custom settings on flash and camera before deciding to recharge all batteries anyway (yep, another day lost), and miraculously got everything working again.. However, by that time I had already shot what I needed with the M4.. So, film wins over digital by Knock-Out..

I'll probably never be 100% film, but I've a feeling it's going to be pretty close to that..

LOOP
11-01-2007, 08:15
I began with films in 1968, ...So I know what is the pleasure given:
- the vast majority of old argentic cameras not only 6x6 let you see what you are doing with good clear finder , digital camera don't;
- with argentic, waiting longer for the pictures is part of the pleasure even when you are disappointed with what you have done;
- shooting digital is quick , like speeddating quick but non lasting pleasure...
- but you can afford shooting digital without thinking too much and getting average results;
- if you want good results with digital you have to kow a lot about computers and and, for me it is one of the major bad points, you sit longer in front of a computer.
PLEASURE IS ARGENTIC !

otaku
11-01-2007, 15:59
I grew up with my parents shooting film and they occassionally let me loose with cameras (mostly kodak disposables haha) or their olympus cameras (stylus 80 among others)

they bought me my first camera in 2003/4 which was an olympus stylus 400 digital about a year ago I picked up a canon sd500.

I now actually sell cameras for a living (all digitial) but have recently acquired and am shooting with a leica minilux and loving it from what I hear/have seen film cameras while not necessarily as cheap/convenient give better quality photos have better glass and even just build quality. I'd say I prefer film.

Tuolumne
11-02-2007, 08:49
"Revenue in the consumer digital business increased 1.3% to $1.12 billion as stronger-than-expected sales of digital cameras and retail print-making kiosks were offset by declines in photofinishing. Film revenue declined 18% to $488 million, led by a 32% drop in U.S. sales."

/T
[Also posted in "How long does film have?"]

LOOP
11-02-2007, 09:53
I mean :phography is in danger !!!:eek: :eek:

In the near future:

- in less than 10 years, camera on mobile phone will be as good for current use as a canon 350 D, 80% of the population will be satisfied with this;
- film will stay as an Art for a minority , medium format 10 % and
- only the professional reporters will use the big cameras Nikon D3 etc ...less than 10%.

The point now, is to define why and how photography will be developing as an Art ...and attract young people to be involved ...:)

I happen to go with a folding camera in touristic places and pepole are looking at me like being "very strange". Even at the airport I have more and more difficulties because the people inspecting do not know if it is dangerous or not !!!!:bang: :bang:

jbf
11-02-2007, 10:19
I mean :phography is in danger !!!:eek: :eek:

In the near future:

- in less than 10 years, camera on mobile phone will be as good for current use as a canon 350 D, 80% of the population will be satisfied with this;
- film will stay as an Art for a minority , medium format 10 % and
- only the professional reporters will use the big cameras Nikon D3 etc ...less than 10%.



Things brings up an incredibly interesting idea...

That more and more individuals will be using cell phones over DSLR's, etc.

However I think this is not entirely true. Just as you have now, there is a stron gmarket for Point and Shoot cameras. I think that it is this market which will ultimately be taken over by the "cell phone camera" users.

The reason why most people buy SLR's is because of the flexibility and adaptability that the cameras give them. They can have better optics, better sensors, better image quality and handling over point and shoots. This is something that I think will remain constant no matter what happens with digital point and shoots.

What Im saying is that there has always been the point and shoot users and the more semi-amateaure users who prefer using a DSLR (even if they dont know what they are doing).

So i think what we'll see is a continuous update to teh DSLR in the area of size, usability, compactness, etc... but ultimately the real money maker is going to be the P&S cameras (whether it be in the form of camera phones or what we see now as point and shoot compacts)

Dogman
11-02-2007, 10:36
About 8 years ago I had a film scanner and I was scanning all my transparencies and negatives and printing with ink. It didn't take long to become bored with the process. I bought new darkroom equipment, packed away the scanner and went back to chemicals. It's not as easy to do but there is no comparison in personal satisfaction.

Bought a Canon DSLR a few months ago along with a wide angle zoom. I had some time off so I decided to learn enough about digital to do all I need to do with it. It's pretty simple, really. Now I have the capacity to do digitally the same thing I can do with film.

So what?

About the same time I bought the DSLR, I came into possession of several Kiev rangefinders. So I had a lot of new toys to play with during the same time period. Guess what I've used the most? Yep--my $60 Kievs get more use than the $1600+ digital camera and lens I bought. Seems to me that anything important enough to take a picture of is important enough to do the best way I can do it.

So I'm now in possession of a nice digital camera and I'm looking for a reason to use it.

nightfly
11-02-2007, 12:22
Things brings up an incredibly interesting idea...

The reason why most people buy SLR's is because of the flexibility and adaptability that the cameras give them. They can have better optics, better sensors, better image quality and handling over point and shoots. This is something that I think will remain constant no matter what happens with digital point and shoots.


I think many people use DSLRs because they want to feel like a pro. Quality wise, the amount of mega pixels doesn't matter because most people never print their pictures and if they do it's probably on 5 x 7 or 4 x 6. At those sizes a point and shoot from 5 years ago is probably more than enough pixels.

It also explains why there doesn't seem to be any pressure to reduce the size of these things: pros use big honking cameras. Why else would people buy giant zooms so they could step way back to take a picture of 4 people that easily could have been shot closer with a fast fixed lens?

Sure there are lots of people who buy DSLRs for the improved image quality but I bet they are in the minority. It's more a perception of value and a status thing and like automobiles, the bigger the better. And I agree it will remain so as point and shoots go away in favor of camera phones.

The most interesting form of digital camera to me at least, were those so called pro-sumer models, the Canon G3s, the Oly 5050s etc from a few years back that had the swivel screens and lots of manual controls and decently fast lenses that have been sort of phased out (with the exception of the G9) so everyone can sell their DSLRs. The big things now seem to be outrageous zoom ranges and image stabilization (to make up for the slow lenses).

Really the live view flip out screen of these models was something really different and an interesting way that cameras could have evolved but since many people came to share their pictures by actually passing the camera around, the screens grew really large (look at the latest point and shoots) became fixed on the camera's back and the viewfinder itself because superfluous and basically vanished.

The DSLR is basically the same as the last generation of film SLRs with a sensor on the back. Most people probably never outgrow the crappy kit zoom but if they do, these companies have a ton of lenses to sell them with virtually no more investment.

OOF
11-21-2007, 03:27
I use DSLR for urban landscape, architecture, etc. And on the other hand I use film rangefinder camera for street photography. Each kind of camera fits extremely good in respective niches.

dazedgonebye
11-21-2007, 07:17
I'm 80/20 film to digital now having gone from film to digital and back to film.
I think that will swing around to 20/80 when the right digital RF comes along. I see a digital RF as my every day shooter with medium format film in use for landscapes and pinhole work.

I lust for a M8...just not $5000 worth. I imagine a M9 will induce enough lust to overcome its price.

caila77
11-25-2007, 03:49
I love to develop BW films and slides both 24x36 or 120, so I love analogic cameras and films. I' use digital point and shot only for take few pictures. I think that photography is, for me obviously, "drawing with light", and I hate to correct my pictures with photoshop.

sjw617
11-26-2007, 18:21
- in less than 10 years, camera on mobile phone will be as good for current use as a canon 350 D, 80% of the population will be satisfied with this

They will not be that good (optics) nor would they have to be. Phone manufacturers do not have an interest in good cameras, but that may change.

edho
11-26-2007, 21:14
I tried DSLR for 1/2 a year and suddenly fell in love with rangefinder. Then I sold my DSLR and return to film photography. Now I only keep a GR digital for travel and daily life photos, and shoot film most of the time when I am out on the street alone to do my photography.

mike goldberg
11-26-2007, 22:05
It's around 50/50 for me. Digital is convenient and what I use for colour. As for enjoyment in B/W, it's film with favorite RF cameras, and the film is developed at home.

minoltist7
11-27-2007, 00:28
I was previously "digital child" but year ago converted to b/w film religion.
Now I shoot 80% film, ~ 20% digital

CuS
11-27-2007, 15:48
I was previously "digital child" but year ago converted to b/w film religion.
Now I shoot 80% film, ~ 20% digital

I am a proud B&W film fundamentalist!;)

gudlagoba
11-28-2007, 16:24
I usually stay away from anything that even remotely resembles digital vs film but I have the urge to relate a recent experience so please, don't be too harsh on me... :o

After a few years of waiting on the sidelines, I bought a Digital SLR last Saturday (Nov, 24th). And I returned it on Nov 27th. I went to digital for 3 days and I am happy to be back!

I always felt unqualified to comment on digital vs film but after trying out a DSLR, I know exactly what I was "missing".

We had the annual Santa parade last weekend and I took the DSLR along. The first shock was the weight and bulk of the Pentax K100D (which claims to be one of the smallest and lightest DSLRs available). Worrying about battery drain in the cold, squinting through that pitiful viewfinder, waiting for camera to come to life after it automatically turns off and the flat looking pictures that have to be massaged in the image editor to look halfway decent. It was all too much for me. Granted I got an entry level DSLR but most of these issues will apply to even the high-end models.

I am a software professional and I know I can learn the process but it just felt like such a waste of time. My Bessa and Kievs and heck even my Pentax Spotmatics are light, compact, always ready to take the shot, and produce excellent results.

When the sky finally falls on my head and C41 will no longer be processed in Canada, I will revisit the final frontier...

Please, this is only my personal and probably ignorant opinion! I am not against digital, I have a nice little point and shoot digicam, it fits in my shirt pocket, and helps me document my camera repairs and take casual snaps.

Thank you for letting me vent and I hope I haven't upset anyone.

Gaspar
11-30-2007, 04:04
I started out with digital and D50 a year ago. Nice camera and great for sport and action. I felt I wasn't learning much though.

I got an om-10 and then a om -4ti and fell in love with film photography.

Two weeks ago I got the bessa R and am delighted with it.

With regards to film slrs I was comparing the size of my om-4ti with the bessa r and I could swear is only 5% larger. So if you like you cameras portable get an olympus om camera.

Terao
11-30-2007, 05:26
Film for B&W, digital for colour (in general). Snapshooting B&W with my cellphone as well :)

kjoosten
11-30-2007, 06:34
The thing that brought me back to film was the quality of scans I get out of my CoolScan.

A darkroom was out of the question for me, but I demand the freedom to crop and adjust tonality of prints. I tend to shoot only B&W film, lab develop (for now), do the HDR scanning thing and unleash PS as the digital enlarger. One more generation of B&W inkjet printers should complete the picture. Right now I ship out the digital files for printing.

MickH
11-30-2007, 06:59
Well, I'm just making a return visit to Film after several years as a point-and-shoot digital photographer.

I hung-up my film SLR probably 20ish years ago when lack of funds and the demands of fatherhood prevented me from devoting the time to photography that I used to.

I initially went point & click on 35mm, for family snapshots, then moved on to the same thing in digital format, with firstly a Fuji Finepix 2800, then more recently a Sony P200. Both of these can turn out half decent pictures, but are cr*p in low light and two out of three shots are out of focus. I never seemed to have this problem with the older film point and shoots although the last film camera I bought (a Leica C1) similarly struggled indoors. Maybe it's the fact they are all "zooms".

Now I've made the bold decision to return to film. Enough of this Automatic Tomfoolery I will now tell the camera what to do rather than the other way round! I still have my old Olympus OM knocking around somewhere, but I'm set on buying a RF, probably the Bessa R4M which looks good at the price.

For me the digi-cams will still be an option for family and holiday snaps, but my film cameras will be for photography.

Sorry, I know that sounds a bit "pseudy", but I can't express it any other way.

rbsinto
11-30-2007, 09:25
Digital? I heard the rumour that they make cameras that don't use film, but I've been unable to confirm them. I started out with 35mm colour slide back in 1977, and I've never had any desire to switch formats or go over to the Dark Side.
I'm underwhelmed by digital for any number of reasons, and so, for the forseeable future, I'll stick with what I know and love.

dannynono
11-30-2007, 09:54
I came back to film with the arrival of my baby girl. Nearly all of the images of my first 2 are on film (ciroflex tlr, Etrsi, ikonta) and I couldn't see going all digital with the new little one. Picked up a couple ciroflexs, not totally happy with their condition, picked up a C220 (very happy, and as luck woul dhave it got a good deal on a M6. Baby girl and wife are very happy with the camera choices (baby likes digital too though).

Leighgion
12-19-2007, 15:14
I seem to be a freak statistic in that I grew up in the film era but, while I was familiar with film being tied to photography and my father for a time did his own darkroom work, I never really got into photography in those years. Thusly, when digital cameras became mass market items, it was still a kind of revolution to me even though I couldn't exactly move "away" from film since I'd never really been there. I don't think shooting one roll twenty years ago counts for much. I basically started photography in digital and have recently started to shoot film, but as the poll options are limited, I still say I've recently gone "back" to film.

Far as I've experienced, I seem to be the least emotionally attached to each platform.

I got into photography because digital promised me one up front investment, and then unlimited practice with no recurring cost per shot and no waiting to see my stuff. It delivered that and that convenience continues to be the reason it remains my primary way of shooting. My Nikon D40 DSLR addressed all the major complaints I had about my first digital, a Coolpix 995, and it shares lenses with my Nikon film bodies.

I decided to start shooting film because I frankly wanted the resolving power and dynamic range it has to offer. Being forced to shoot in multiples of 24 or 36 (for 135 anyway, I'm not yet to medium format) before I can then pay to wait to get my negatives developed and then having to scan them up is something I tolerant for the sake of that. At the moment, I'm not doing any home developing or darkroom printing. The former may change soon, the later less likely so, but again it'll be a matter of something I put up with for the sake of the results. I have no romantic notions about the chemical process vs the electronic one.

I admit, shooting film does give me a certain kind of amusement that digital doesn't, but I chalk that up to the same personality trait that makes me enjoy explaining to people that my leather jacket is actually a woman's jacket. Imp of the perverse likes screwing with people's expectations and nowadays, they expect you to be shooting digital.

Aziz
12-20-2007, 05:35
I had a brief moment with film over 10 years ago in High School, but have been shooting digital SLRs for quite a while. I just recently picked up an R4A and a 28mm to use for my street photography (the 5D is just too noticible and loud).

I just got back my first rolls of film and am very humbled. The majority of my shot's were underexposed (sent it out to get developed) and the framing was off. I guess not being able to chimp and not having a 100% accurate frame brings my photograhy down a few notches. No worries though, I'll learn to use this tool with practice. I do find myself taking the RF everywhere, while my DSLR patiently waits at home till needed for something special.

DavidH
12-20-2007, 08:08
Mostly film...

I use digital for long lens wildlife work and for macro. But most of my shooting is documentary and in the realms of 21 to 100mm lens...and for that: digital sucks. Having to check EVERY damn shot to make sure crucial parts arent blown out...constant compromises...

So it's Fuji neg film for me. When they make a decent digital slr that copes with 10 stops of light then I'll wave goodbye to film. Until then...

AshenLight
12-20-2007, 09:11
I shoot some (<5%) digital for the convenience, but for the most part I shoot film and either process and print it myself if its B&W or just get the negatives developed locally for color film and dumped on CD so I can print digitally at home.

GeneW
12-20-2007, 16:17
I like B&W film and manual film cameras so I still shoot a lot of film. I also embrace digital and have come to like it very much indeed. I now shoot about 80% digital and 20% film.

Gene

Steve Bellayr
12-20-2007, 16:47
Perfect use for a digital: You are taking something apart and may not put it together for several weeks. Photograph its deconstruction and put it on the computer. When you are finished reconstruction delete.

Paul_C
01-08-2008, 19:17
I shot film years ago without taking photography seriously until jumping back in with the digital revolution. Later I picked up an old TLR just for a different way to shoot.

I now have various film cameras - a few TLRs, an SLR that shares a mount with my DSLR, some old Brownies, a couple Polaroids, and my latest acquisition - an R3A; but I can't really say I shoot more film than digital, or vice versa, or even that I shoot the two equally. It just depends on what I feel like shooting with when I walk out the door that day.

iamzip
01-08-2008, 20:33
Since 11th grade ('92) my main camera was a Canon A-1. Then in about '03-'04 my wife got a digital olympus point & shoot, and my film usage dropped off significantly until (I can actually give a date) July 15, 2005, when I believe I shot my last roll of film and never even got it developed (I still have it, what do you think it would look like now?). I won't bore you with the whole story as to why I'm starting to use film again, but part of it has to do with my discovery of a wonderful little anachronism called a Holga.

The thing about film vs. digital is that it is so expensive to get a good camera with a good, large sensor, whereas you can pick up a really nice used film camera (or even a decent new one) for far less, and get really nice shots. And medium format? Forget about it! You can get an inexpensive used MF camera and get picture quality that many high end digitals can't even touch!

I think digital is great too, it allows you to take hundreds of shots without even thinking about it, you can experiment all you want without eating up film (or time developing), and you can instantly change things you can't on a film camera like ISO. I think the real answer is to use both - remember, they're tools for us to use, so rather than argue about which is better, why not use both to make things better for ourselves?

Oh, and of course it allows us to lust after even more gear!

myoptic3
01-08-2008, 21:27
Always an interesting topic! I feel humbled to admit that my first girl magnet car was a lowly '66 Mustang w/ a tiny 289 v8 and 4 on the floor. But I put a 4.63 gear in the rear, and 2 holleys on a cross ram w/ a big solid lifter Cobra cam (probably bored everyone now) and it would scoot down the 1/4 mile pretty good.

Oh. Film vs digital. Love the digital for ebay product pics and the snapshot thing. Had a D50 w/ an 85 1.8 that took really great color shots, but couldn't make a good B&W shot in a million years. For B&W it's film baby. I had thought it would be digital for color, but I am beginning to play w/ different films, and good luck getting a digital file to look like Agfa. I don't like the digital cameras either. Plastic crap. And as someone else said on here, $100 buys you a Pentax Spotmatic or Canon AE 1 w/ a tack sharp fast 50 lens that will make images as good or better than a $5000 digital wonder. It just won't take the same type of pics, as the rapid AF and big buffer of a good DSLR can capture action as it happens.

I am sure things will change in the future, but for those of us who like well made and wonderfully crafted cameras, it's hard to beat the old technology. It's the same w/ cars. These new cars are smooth, reliable, and safe, but boring. Give me the old 1950 Ford sedan that I can actually fix under the shade tree instead of having to take the Banal Wizzard Coupe de Ville III to the dealer and have them stick a probe up the tailpipe (ouch!) and hook it up to a computer, only to be told they can't fix anything, they have to replace stuff.

ItsReallyDarren
01-12-2008, 19:24
I started with a dSLR but only because I got into photography a few recent years ago. Since then I found some old film gear laying around and gave it shot. Now I shoot with film whenever I have the luxury of taking my time and digital when I need a picture at that very moment.

BNF
01-13-2008, 01:47
Back to c75% transparencies and prints after spending the past 4 years exclusively digital.

I'm a hobbyist so I don't have the finanacial pressure to "get the shot" - but digital is great in iffy conditions when you want to capture something. I know if I've got it a second or two after releasing the shutter. (And I still haven't found a try great lowlight, M sized performer - though my Fuji 6500FD is a good start.) Digital is also great for "email postcards". But, the postcard idea has led to lots of uncomposed, snapshot like images.

After cleaning out my storage room, finding boxes of slides and viewing them with a good projector and lens on my nearly 8 feet high walls..... NOTHING for me compares to carefully composed, accurately exposed, properly projected and large size slides. The impact is immense and having fewer images, IMO, creates more value.

Dave Wilkinson
01-13-2008, 03:19
Although not really wanting to join the endless, and tiresome film V digital debates,- this is my situation,- when I took early retirement a couple of years ago, I bought a Fuji S3 pro. dslr and three prime lenses, a big heavy but exellent camera, that has given some great pictures (IMO!). After much thought I have just sold this outfit, - while I can still get a decent price for it, the reason being,-as I look through my albums and print folders etc., the most pleasing pictures, to me, and others, have come from the Nikkormat FT2, that has been in my bag for over thirty years, somehow the rendition is 'nicer', colors more subtle, and mono 100% better!!. I tend to travel light, these days, and a small rangefinder with a couple of lenses is my ideal companion. For the amount of shooting I do, the processing is not a big issue for color, and I still enjoy fooling around with various b+w films and developers. If I was still in the same situation as ten years ago, shooting a few weddings, portraits etc. - the Fuji dslr would be no.1 tool.

Dave :)

usagisakana
01-13-2008, 05:54
I started shooting digital, now trying my hand at film.. planning to shoot equal amounts, as they both have their positives and negatives. I see them not as opposing mediums but complementary.

BNF
01-13-2008, 08:21
When one can shoot 100 images of a child on a slide playing (with no financial cost) simply by holding down he shutter release....

Compared to two or three shots that one needed to compose or plan for...

Sure, there may be 25 keepers out of the 100. (And I acknowledge that there may also be the "best one" too, simply by the ease and percentages.)

I don't care to be a professional photographer. I don't care to be a fine artist. I create images because I want to remember a moment in the closest way that I see it. (This is why I find macro work sooooo tiring, or studio work so often artificial.)

I make these images for myself to view first, for my family second, and sometimes I share them with friends as well. But, my motivation is to capture where I was, what I saw, and how I felt - to remember.

My shooting workflow with digital could be the same as film - but the instant reward and the penalty free ability to shoot my subject 10, 20, 30 times more is too tempting. I am weak and use the digital medium as a crutch. There is no reason that I couldn't get nearly the same results with digital. It is simply, preference and the natural handicap of a roll of film vs 16GB card.

This ability to shoot so many images reminds me of video. I've owned two video camera in my life, the last one a DV that has seen maybe 3 or 4 hours of tape in 7 years or so. Video, like my shooting with "freeflow, shutter happy" digital, does not help me to remember an event. I think I see in steps, like an old out of synch projected movie, as opposed to a smoothly moving world.

I fully underscore my comment. I shoot to remember and account times my life. The one or two images from an evening or event are more valuable to me than a flowing documentary like video or 250 images cranked out by my DSLR.

---

It's not film vs digital for me. It's being forced to slow down, create less that gives me more.

mike goldberg
03-10-2008, 00:26
Tho' I haven't developed a roll of film in around 3 months, I am NOT totally abandoning film. There's color print film and B/W C41 to be used in several favorite, vintage film cameras. From the various posts above, many of us seem to be "switch hitters." GeneW and a Jerusalem friend helped me to integrate digital & film work, so there's no need for "either-or."

Doug
03-10-2008, 00:52
I shoot mostly film. And in my brief time with digital, I find no difference in the way I shoot the two media. One considered shot at a time. No continuous shooting. I don't want to have to process and sort through umpteen hundred shots later. Aiming for quality over quantity of photos whether film or digital. I'm shooting RAW, using the optical viewfinder, with the LCD turned off; no chimping. I'm not a pro, so I have the luxury of just waiting until later to look at my "take" on the computer, like a scanned roll of film.

kshapero
03-10-2008, 03:17
I use digital when I shot an event as a favor for a friend or sometimes just to learn by seeing instant results. But for true joy I still love shooting film.

williams473
03-10-2008, 06:21
I've tried the DSLRs and loved then for family snaphots, but found for fine art work film is still it for me - including film images of my family. It's a matter of process - with digital the process of seeing is cheapened for me - when I know I can blast off a basically unlimited number of frames, I find I stop thinking about WHY I'm shooting something. That's fine for newspaper work where all you're trying to get is the event - a good action shot of a sport or a decent images of talking heads etc. - but I find in art photography, that if your mind is allowed to take a vacation while you're working, the images you have to choose from may not be a strong as you would have liked. Although I'll give that shooting is generally intutive, so maybe it doesn't matter as much as I think.

I did a series of night landscapes in color on a DSLR that I could not have done conventionally, so digital has its uses.

Terao
03-10-2008, 06:35
Just packed for a week away and all my digital gear is staying on the shelf. Have a lod of interesting film to shoot (Kodachrome, expired RSX, SPUR process Agfa Copex, new Velvia) and three interesting film bodies (R4M, GA645, GR1v) to play with. Looking forward to full frame and using my lenses as they were intended (VC12mm, Zeiss 25, VC 40mm, Canon 50mm f/1.2, Jupiter 9). Can't wait! (although I'll have to for the Kodachromes ;) )

teo
03-12-2008, 03:19
I like film for hobby photography, but shoot 1's and 0's for work and casual snaps.

Damaso
03-12-2008, 09:25
After shooting nearly all digital for three years I am back to mostly shooting film. THere are many days when I go out to do a shoot and the digital slr stays at home. Now when I can afford an M8/M9 I will get one...

aparat
03-12-2008, 11:03
I have never really left film, though I now use a DSLR for family snapshots (just easier that way), and for everything else I use film. I just love working with film.
aparat

dshugar
03-12-2008, 19:55
I was sort of sad when I bought my DSLR and never used my film SLR again. I sold it soon afterwards but just recently 'rediscovered' shooting with film, pretty much coincident with discovering this forum! I suppose buying a rangefinder helped, too.

sonyleica
03-12-2008, 19:56
Hi, do you guys develop your films at home or let it developed on street labs. I am really interested in jumping to film, but I am not sure if I will be happy with the results. I don't have the darkroom skills, although I am planning to master it in the future. But in the meantime, I guess I will rely on streetlab to process films and this is my doubt, considering the IQ variability issues.

bigdood
03-12-2008, 20:51
My dSLR has driven me back to film. I rediscovered the enjoyment I get out of snappin' photos and am getting more into retro and 'toy' cameras and leaving the digital back most of the time these days. Currently saving up to get the goods to start processing my own film at home.

Chris101
03-13-2008, 02:19
Hi, do you guys develop your films at home or let it developed on street labs. I am really interested in jumping to film, but I am not sure if I will be happy with the results. I don't have the darkroom skills, although I am planning to master it in the future. But in the meantime, I guess I will rely on streetlab to process films and this is my doubt, considering the IQ variability issues.If you shoot B&W, you don't really need any skills, darkroom or otherwise. It takes about $50 worth of equipment and chemicals, and you can do it in a well lit bathroom, except for loading the film onto the reels. For that step, a closet or changing bag is fine.

And then you'll need a scanner, although I've heard about people shooting the negatives with a digital camera instead.

semrich
03-13-2008, 02:37
I started into photography as a hobby 2 years ago with a digital P&S then went to digital rangefinders. With the lenses I have it was an easy decision to go to film. Now I develop and scan my film and enjoy shooting film and the look of it more than digital.

ruben
03-21-2008, 19:13
Very recently a highly talented digital/analogue tech, aged by his early thirties, announced me he is done with digital. The reason ? When mooving to a new house and packaging their stuff he and his wife noticed they have albums of two of their elder kids, but no album from their youngest one.

"The reason ?" he told me, "all the pics of my youngest kid are inside the computer. Therefore I took out the batteries from my digital cameras, put them back in their packages, and no more digital shooting. Back to film!"

I kept thinking about his attitude. Although he is very much aware he can have prints from digital cameras, in his mind it is more cumbersome for some reason. And in his mind too, prints are associated to film. He prefers to deliver the canister to the lab and get back 36 pics rather than starting downloading, selecting, editing, etc.


Cheers,
Ruben

los
03-21-2008, 19:58
i really enjoy my canon rangefinder glass. if i could use it on a full frame digital body, i would not shoot film anymore. i print 12x18, and the little canon 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 do an outstanding job.

Athos6
03-23-2008, 18:50
I sold all my film gear to get a D200, then I got a Nokkormat ftn, "just for fun." Well now I have a M2 and an F3. I'm thinking I'll use the D200 for landscapes and events and the film cameras for street shooting.

Chris101
03-23-2008, 19:55
I sold all my film gear to get a D200, then I got a Nokkormat ftn, "just for fun." Well now I have a M2 and an F3. I'm thinking I'll use the D200 for landscapes and events and the film cameras for street shooting.A DSLR also makes a great light meter!

srichmond
04-07-2008, 02:49
Chris - you're totally right about a DSLR being a great light meter. I must admit, I've "checked" before. I do feel guilty though! lol

I got into photography about 3 years before digital cameras became popular. So I'm lucky I picked up all the darkroom skills and skills associated with manual focus & manual exposure SLRs. Being a student, and not having a lot of money meant that the attraction of digital was great - you could shoot loads and never have to worry about the development costs. I went out and bought DLSRs, lenses, everything. Was great.

HOWEVER - this year, I got back into film again, after getting an M6. I love B&W photography, and there's no better way to do it than with film. The thought and time that goes into each exposure cannot be compared with the time that goes into digital. For me, this is much more rewarding.

It's more a state of mind, than anything else, I think. Equally great results can be acheived with digital, but I confess to liking the process of film more. I also like the film "look". Digital has a clinical look, and can be easily spotted, I think. This is very subjective - I know!

Film also means you can use really fantastic cameras like the Lecia M, and justify the expense because they don't really get out of date, like digital cameras. Again, very subjective.

Jan Van Laethem
04-24-2008, 09:26
I've tried digital, but found it's not for me

For me it is not so much a matter of film versus digital, but more a matter of simplicity versus complexity. I started out as a kid borrowing my father’s or mother’s cameras, but when my interest grew and money became more readily available, I bought the best AF camera my money could buy at that time. I thought I needed the best AF and metering system available, but soon found out that I didn’t. Landscapes were done with the AF turned off using the depth-of-field scale on the lens, macro again with AF turned off and low light and backlight shots proved to turn out better when I metered with a handheld meter than when I left the camera’s matrix metering determine the exposure. As a result of this, I reverted to manual cameras: FM3a, then a second hand F3HP, both of which I use almost exclusively now. It seems like I’m going backwards in time, as I am now more and more interested in classic SLRs and rangefinders. I love the simplicity of manual cameras: aperture, shutter speed, a bright viewfinder and a responsive shutter are all I need to take a picture. Granted, I could use a DSLR or digital RF and turn off the AF, but I prefer manual film cameras.

About six months ago I tried a friend’s D200 and although the shots came out nice, I just couldn’t get to grips with it. Every time I wanted to change one of the manual lenses I brought with me on the shoot, I had to dial in the lenses’ data, which I found extremely annoying. I now have a CD full of shots that I have looked at twice. I haven’t even printed one image. On the other hand, I find that holding a strip of slide film or black and white negative film up to the light is very rewarding. There is something direct and final about a film image, something that a digital file could never contain.

I think I will be using film for as long as I can. Maybe the ever escalating film and processing costs may eventually force me to reconsider, but I’m holding on for now.

Steve Bellayr
04-27-2008, 16:46
You might find this interesting. I was at a wedding this weekend & spoke with the photographer. She had a 2 crew members shooting. All were shooting digital. 2 dslr & one digital camera. They would shoot a 1000 photos not knowing what they would get. But, when they shot the portraits in private -- that they knew would be blown up -- they used a film Bronica S & scanned the negatives. She felt that the digitals were good for the grab shots if you didn't know how they would come out or if they would sell but for the important stuff a large film format was the best. We ended the conversation with her advising me not to ever sell my film cameras.

charjohncarter
04-27-2008, 17:02
I know a 'wedding photographer' that recently had to pull his Pentax 645 out of retirement for a job, the family of the bride insisted on slides, scanned and printed. The funny thing was these people were not photo people, they had seen some of his slides on a web page.

I jumped on digital when it started, (Sony Mavica-the first one $900 down the drain), and I kept trying. First, I thought the color is OK, but I'll conquer this B&W conversion thing. After about 14 months I loaded my RF and SLRs with B&W film. Now, I'm just not happy with digital color, So it is back to C-41 and Slides.

Kodak Porta160vs:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2028/2446380549_9492018b85.jpg?v=1209333598

colyn
04-27-2008, 17:50
I shoot both. Never left film nor will I.

charjohncarter
04-27-2008, 20:05
Digital color to me looks plastic toy like. Also, the variety of different color 'looks' from the many film choices, I find really adds to the mystic of a photo. The more you try to make digital color look like film color the worse it looks, at least that is the way I feel about it. Add that to the narrow dynamic range of digital (and slide film) , the color balance problems, and it just doesn't do it for me. Digital color is here to stay, but to me it is like looking at a TV set, (maybe that will change).

JLANTZ
04-27-2008, 20:35
I like cameras, period. I like taking pictures. period. What I use is what I feel like using at the time. I like mixing things. Like M42 lenses on my Canon digital SLR's. Like scanning large format negatives on my scanner. Digital is lazy and a lot of times I feel like being lazy. When I want to challenge myself I grab one of my rangefinders and load some B&W in and go shooting. Like this weekend. Loaded up my Zorki 3 and a Jupiter 8 lens and some HP5 36 exp film. Went shooting at a local farmer's market. Could not figure out why I was up past 45 shots on a 36 exp roll though........ guess I will find out when I develop the roll this week. Luckily I had my Canon XTI as a backup.

Looks Like I shoot both, one verified, the other with hope and faith.

Jess

kuzano
04-27-2008, 21:35
Digital color to me looks plastic toy like. Also, the variety of different color 'looks' from the many film choices, I find really adds to the mystic of a photo. The more you try to make digital color look like film color the worse it looks, at least that is the way I feel about it. Add that to the narrow dynamic range of digital (and slide film) , the color balance problems, and it just doesn't do it for me. Digital color is here to stay, but to me it is like looking at a TV set, (maybe that will change).

I've been shooting film for 40 years. I shoot some digital now... at least enough to add it to my roster of community ed classes at the local college.

I agree with you on the new look in imaging that digital offers. I would say it's a new media and should be embraced as such. Attempts to make digital look like film are futile and unnecessary.

If one likes the look of film, then shoot film. I still like film.

If one likes the look of digital, shoot digital and be happy with the new results.

The real issue with film vs digital is not in image quality. It's in trying to make digital an exact replacement of film.

To add to that, it offers the same disadvantage that artists have always been faced with in working in two mediums and trying to be excellent at both.

Choose one or the other and focus, so to speak. It will take a rare person who can master both productively.

kuzano
04-27-2008, 21:44
Just curious what it is specifically that you don't like about digital color. Not film vs digital. Just digital specifically.

But when you've been looking at the results of various emulsions of film for decades, you know instinctively when you are looking at an image that is not film based. I'm not willing to say that if someone manipulated an image in Photoshop for some hours, using all the plug-ins and addons available from various sources, that they could not fool me on the final results. But processed film print vs. an image slightly tweaked in Photoshop, I believe I could still see the difference.

literiter
04-28-2008, 07:58
A while ago, a friend of mine who is a devout film user, like myself was approached by a sincere young woman who asked him how he could justify using film in the "digital age". All that stuff going down the drain etc.

His answer was appropriate, I thought: "Because I've got the stuff." "No one has to make it again." "When digital cameras are made, something has to be going down the drain too, then all the computers, and all the printers and ink etc."

This is part of why I like to stay with film, I think. I've got all the stuff, and I've had some of it pretty well for 50+ years. Digital could be an improvement over film, but certainly not a big enough improvement yet for me to justify switching.

I find digital worthy. Indeed I've seen some remarkable images coming from the medium. But I won't have it.

edho
05-11-2008, 08:57
Shooting with film makes me press the shutter less, and be more picky to what I shoot. I like it that way.

literiter
05-11-2008, 10:25
Shooting with film makes me press the shutter less, and be more picky to what I shoot. I like it that way.

Yeah! This too. I don't want a lot of files, just a few good negs.

Trawlerman
06-19-2008, 09:54
I shoot a mixture of both.

I started out at 14 years old with a Praktica BCA (AE only) and later BC1 (fully manual). Later on I went with a PK-mount camera and have had one ever since. I got my first Pentax dSLR in 2006 and have really learned a lot from it and it has allowed my 135 stuff improve too as it allows me to experiment much more and see instant results.

I guess my dSLR (a Pentax K10d) suits me for most applications and is better suited to my telephoto shots of shipping which most people know me for. I often shoot >500mm and sometimes more. My RFs cannot stand upto that sort of shooting. The 135 RFs are better suited to streetshooting and general photos of the town.

I use my camera's to suit the occasion. No one camera is the best at any particular area. Also part of the reason I like my RFs is the coolness/unusualness factor and historical interest. Call me vain but I just plain like cameras of all types.

Henk
06-19-2008, 11:46
Tried digital, tried to keep an open mind.
Conclusion : Digital is dead, long live Film.

Marketeers out there, here is a challange for you :
Get film back on nr 1 !

Thanks to the industry for still producing all of these wonderful analog
products. Keep up the good work.

Carlo
06-30-2008, 04:26
I use digital (Leica Digilux 3, and I hate the lens I have) like a notepad, to make a quick shot of something I want to go back later and take a real picture on film, with different formats from 35mm to 8x10" depending on the project. I dislike digital in total, as the whole process (or most part of it) is dictated by the camera-firmware/pc-software/printer-firmware. Also, nothing comes close to a good silver gelatine print ob fiber-base paper.


I just purchased a pre-war Contax II with the pre-war collapsible f2/50mm and I'm looking for a 85mm for it. Probably, after CLA now ongoing, this will become my "notepad" camera and I'll drop digital completely.

giellaleafapmu
07-04-2008, 12:43
Not all possibilities are listed. I never stopped shotting film but I now shot a lot (about 50%) digital (and, yep, if something is important and colour it is digital) but still use a lof of film (and most of the fun is there).

GLF

bottley1
09-23-2008, 13:18
face it, film is almost as dead as the dodo. I just went into my local photofinisher today, and he said his demand is now almost exclusively prints from digital, with one or two c-41 films a week. This is from a throughput of several hundred c-41 films per week just a couple of years ago. Whilst I was there his lovely assistant was stuffing a colour neg film into a scanner, and getting in a right mess. The writing is certainly on the wall for film.

craygc
10-02-2008, 08:49
You can argue this til the cows come home, but...

Obviously the world is dominated by digital and that isn't going to change. Information available tends to suggest a degree of stabilisation of the film/ digital ratio these days, as well as a reasonable supply of film types being maintained, if not newly introduced.

Processing is probably the bigger issue moving forward with transparencies suffering more so than C41s. Traditional b&w should be something you do yourself - so stop complaining on that point :) Personally, my biggest issue is developer availability. I prefer XTOL exclusively and I find its not always readily available across Asia - and never in Singapore. But this is something I can live with picking up in travel or as mail order.

Stop worrying, film is surviving and will for the foreseeable future...

italy74
10-02-2008, 08:56
1974-11/2002
- 35mm yashica p/s
- polaroid

11/2002-02/2005
- Pentax MZ-60QD

02/2005-03/2005
- Pentax *ist: the worst camera I've ever had, it wasn't for me at all.

03/2005 - 09/2005
- Nikon F80

Till here = 100% film

09/2005 - 05/2006
- Nikon D70s

100% digital

05/2006 - up to now
- Nikon D200, PLUS

- 09/2006 - 10/2007: Nikon F80s (2/3 digital - 1/3 film)
- 10/2007 - up to now: Nikon F6 (1/3 digital - 2/3 film)

Rayt
10-07-2008, 20:40
I just traded my M8 and some other stuff for a really nice Hasselblad SWA from 1956. I like that old lens look - low contrast, subtle and smooth tones.

kev.yong
10-07-2008, 21:10
I moved to DSLR about 5 years ago. Now shooting film again as I find I am converting most of my photos to BW and not shooting as prolifically anymore.

Shooting film gives me the benefit of smaller cheaper cameras. Also very fun.
Still undecided about image quality especially with BW converters like Nik Silver efex which give me a very close match to film output especially for 35mm stuff. I prefer shooting with a digital SLR but it's the output quality that counts.

Film also allows me medium format which has definite benefits over digital 35mm.

kuzano
10-16-2008, 16:31
face it, film is almost as dead as the dodo. I just went into my local photofinisher today, and he said his demand is now almost exclusively prints from digital, with one or two c-41 films a week. This is from a throughput of several hundred c-41 films per week just a couple of years ago. Whilst I was there his lovely assistant was stuffing a colour neg film into a scanner, and getting in a right mess. The writing is certainly on the wall for film.

OK and your photofinishers.

But keep a film camera handy. We're not far away from the Big Blast and when the EMP pulse takes out all the satellites and computers.... It's film baby, and that's all she wrote!!

All the people who express the film is dead mantra don't take into consideration all those parts of the world where digital is not convenient. Comes from a perception that everybody lives in the big city and everyone has a computer.

Not at all.

Films here for the duration and will likely be a viable counterpart to digital forever.

kuzano
10-16-2008, 16:54
I teach digital camera classes, but I make just as much money buying and selling Film cameras on eBay.

I don't tell my students that I pretty much only shoot film, except for the digital pics for my eBay listings. One little P&S.

I shoot many formats of film from 110 and half frame(incidentally 110 is almost exactly the same aspect ratio and frame size as the 4/3rds sensor Olys and Panasonics), 35mm, MF and 4X5.

I pretty much dislike the output of digital being so obvious, and the whole post processing system, but teaching it pays well.

And digital is much better for the economy. We must keep selling people up and up and up every 6 months on new advances and technology. Digital cameras are the second biggest way to roll dollars through the economy after Microsoft and personal computers, now that the housing bubble has burst.

So, I've been doing my part for the economy, selling a product I really consider rubbish as long as it gets people to spend money over and over for the same thing, in quarterly or semi-annual cycles.

I make a killing on digital and computers, but I prefer film. I hoard film cameras and I sell some of them on eBay, but I have a vast inventory for when the digital wears off or goes bust and film cameras are in great demand. The rampup time for camera manufacturers will take a few years.

Yes on Film.

Fred Burton
10-16-2008, 17:38
Wow, kuzano. That's a bit cynical.

kuzano
10-16-2008, 18:30
Wow, kuzano. That's a bit cynical.

But hey, life is good for the most part.

Faintandfuzzy
11-18-2008, 07:51
I've been having fun with my rangefinder for a while. And now I just picked up an old Minolta X700 with 28, 35, 50 and 135 lenses for cheap! Same camera I used in high school.

Been a blast. Dying to get some Ektar100.

Mcpengy
11-18-2008, 09:26
Well, by any sensible measure, I never really shot film. Started taking photos a few years ago with a digital P+S, upgraded, then bought a DSLR about 6 months ago. It was interesting, and fun for a while, but I was worrying about gear, worrying about getting the shot perfectly, re-taking time and again, then having to spend ages staring at a screen to decide which one was better. Not many were good, out of a LOT of photos.

Picked up a Leica CL a couple of weeks ago, had a blast using it, getting to know it, and got my first film back today! I'm seeing how it goes, but I don't even think of the DSLR already, and it might just get sold one day.

Film's just... better!

ccliffordd
12-12-2008, 20:55
I switched to digital for a couple of years but have come back to film now almost exclusively. I still use the digital for selling stuff on ebay, etc.

After buying a nice nikon DSLR set-up, it was less than a year that my equipment was obsolete. I love the fact that my Leica and Canon A-1 will never be any more obsolete than they are today. As long as film is still being made, I can make awesome photos.

Another reason I went back to film is for its simplicity. Focus, Aperture, and Shutter Speed. I really got tired of drilling down thru so many menus to check/change all the different settings on the digital camera. I like computers and am very proficient with them, but do not enjoy the post processing or organizing of photos on the computer. And I cannot stand a digitally altered photograph. If someone has a wrinkle or blemish then I want it in the picture.

Lastly, just like everyone says, when using film, I naturally take fewer pictures but they always seem to be better ones.

This is when: Less is More.....

PS:
I also did the same thing with Electric vs. Acoustic Guitar. I went electric for a while but now pretty much just play Acoustic. It is just simpler and that suits me better.

Don't get me wrong, I am not bashing Digital Cameras or Electric Guitars. I own both and am not planning on selling either one, I am just not playing with them as much as the others. :)

Tuolumne
12-15-2008, 08:48
Having found the perfect digital camera, the Panasonic G1, I find myself returning to film. Perhaps it was just the quest that held me enthralled. Don't get me wrong: I shoot plenty of digital with my R-D1 and G1. But when time and cost are not an issue, I prefer the simplicity of film and the beauty of the old film cameras.

/T

Migracer
12-15-2008, 09:40
I shoot more film than ever and even more digital. The film I use for my "art" the digital for work.

Migracer
01-03-2009, 05:36
OK and your photofinishers.

But keep a film camera handy. We're not far away from the Big Blast and when the EMP pulse takes out all the satellites and computers.... It's film baby, and that's all she wrote!!

All the people who express the film is dead mantra don't take into consideration all those parts of the world where digital is not convenient. Comes from a perception that everybody lives in the big city and everyone has a computer.

Not at all.

Films here for the duration and will likely be a viable counterpart to digital forever.

The third world is jumping directly past the wired telephones to cells, from no cameras to digital and from oxen to solid state operated farm implements.

The EMP BLAST will also destroy anything that is effected by Xrays!

Since kuzano is hording film cameras, I will corner the market on; No.2 pencils, spiral notebooks, bottles and corks.:)

Tuolumne
01-06-2009, 20:53
Having found the perfect digital camera, the Panasonic G1, I find myself returning to film. Perhaps it was just the quest that held me enthralled. Don't get me wrong: I shoot plenty of digital with my R-D1 and G1. But when time and cost are not an issue, I prefer the simplicity of film and the beauty of the old film cameras.

/T

Having spent a long day with the G1, I'm now back to digital. That G1 rocks! Around and around she goes, and where she stops, nobody knows.

/T

peripatetic
01-09-2009, 16:39
Spent 15 years shooting a little film on SLR never made much real progress. No darkroom access, hate photo clubs, living in small houses, moving a lot....

Yes I know many great photographers have survived worse, but it was just a barrier I never really got past.

Then got a DSLR and burned through around 20000 exposures in 2 years. Learned a LOT. I really did need to take 300+ shots of squirrels in the park, and I learned a great deal from the experience, not least of which is that squirrels are not the greatest photographic subjects. :P

Then tried the M8 but didn't like it. So took a chance on a Zeiss Ikon and love it. So now I shoot 50-50. For colour my 5D totally blows away the colour films I've tried, but I very much like BW film.

The difference in price between a Zeiss Ikon and an M8 pays for a LOT of film processing.

But even with BW, it's not really so much that I prefer the output from film, I'd be happy enough if I could get the same output from a rangefinder as I get from my 5D from something that didn't cost me £4000 + lenses. But when I have my Ikon in my hands I have a smile on my face and joy in my heart; that has never happened with an SLR digital or otherwise. If they made a digital Ikon that felt the same I would get one for sure.

So to end my midnight ramblings (I haven't had much sleep this week) I shoot film because my favourite camera happens to need it in order to make images.

l.mar
01-25-2009, 05:38
Umm . . . whatever is available and whatever works? Having a single digital P & S and a bunch of film cameras (and at least an unexposed frame or two of film around), the outcome is fairly predictable! On the other hand, there's always the 1.2 mp cellphone camera, when there's nothing else handy. All of them are just boxes to collect light and images.

Brian Levy
03-21-2009, 18:41
I picked up a little pocket digital and keep it in the pocket to replace the Minox ML that I used for years but finally went to the happy camera heaven. The digital serves its purpose but not nearly as good as the ML.

I use a Leica 35mm and a Bronica ETRS but finally broke down and picked up an Olympus E-520 dslr with the 2 kit lenses. Digital has come a long way but is still missing that something that good film and lens combos have. Yes, good color, good detail, good contrast, etc. but seems stripped of something. Leaves me thnking of listening to a classical performance on a record and a CD. The digital seems to be stripped of some of the emption.

Hence, I take the digital out for times where I want more than just a quick shot and less than a shoot, maybe 10% of all my shooting. Also, that grab shot when some animal decided to occupy the back yard as the camera is sitting closer than the fim cameras.

redpony
03-25-2009, 15:27
Digital got me excited about photography again after a ten year hiatus. It wasn't only the convenience of digital, but also the excitement of online galleries and discussion forums, and the wealth of knowledge about photography available online.

It was this basic appreciation of photography that I rediscovered online that led me back to shooting film.

Lilserenity
04-19-2009, 01:55
It was this basic appreciation of photography that I rediscovered online that led me back to shooting film.

Actually that's a superb point. I've not switched to digital and I'm not likely to, I enjoy film too much and apart from somehow winning the lottery and being able to afford an M8 (which I still don't like much over my M2) -- it's not happening any time soon. And then I'd also have to start not liking the developing and printing process... Anyway I digress.

One thing that the web and the internet in general is brought together people with similar interests over a geographically diverse space. NOw that might sound like "that's a bit obvious, duh!" But that's a really special thing easily taken for granted, I still get out with local photography groups, help out here and there and so forth, but the web is a great way to be social about what can sometimes be a very private and slightly introvert passion for some.

The web for all its ills, is a massive massive boon to any photographer and its one digital technology that I have a great deal of admiration and use for.

hovis
04-19-2009, 10:23
I started out with film in the 80's and switched to digital around 1999 due to clients wanting digital files. I'll shoot digital for work, (advertising, editorial, corporate), but I recently picked up a few Leica M's because I missed the process of analog photography and the mechanics of the older cameras. I always liked Hasselblad, Leicas and Nikons and will use them for personal work and possibly for a few commercial assignments. To me digital kinda lacks soul but I do like the fact that I know right away that I have the shot my client needs. That is the one thing I like best about digital.

merciless49
04-20-2010, 22:05
I actually wanted to do all digital, all the time, starting around 2004. That was the year I bought my first digital camera, the Canon PowerShot S50. It is a point and shoot, not too much in terms of manual control, but the results were decent for me at the time.

However, I always had a Nikon F3 which was given to me by my dad. Never had much of a chance to play with it, so I shot maybe one roll through it for the 4-5 years I owned it. But then, not having enough money (still a starving student), I didn't want to invest about $1000 in a DSLR, so I started to try and learn how to use the F3. Since it only cost me less than $100 to get lots of film and develop from Costco (back around 2006) that was my route. Never looked back since, even though the F3 is now a backup to the M3, and the M3 is used in conjunction with the Fuji GL690.

All in all, I'm still looking into venturing back into digital for the convenience and certain advantages that format offers, but I just can't seem to let go of film yet.

edodo
04-21-2010, 02:38
Digital is good for fashion and portraiture where you can snap as much as you want and select the most natural/coolest shots!

Film is good for emotion and where you want to picture what reality really is!

chrishayton
04-21-2010, 03:29
I started with Canon DSLR which ive had a few of. playing with film but not really doing muich. Then bought a M4-P and a scanner and shot all film for a year. Just bought an M8 after selling all my Canon stuff and can see me shooting 70/30 digital/film as its alot cheaper to shoot colour. (b+w only in film camera from now on) though this may even out after the novelty of a digital m calms down

sjw617
04-21-2010, 04:29
Interesting that about 75% of the people responding use digital. A higher percentage than I would have thought from some of the 'discussions' in threads here.

Steve

Doug
04-22-2010, 19:04
In regards to digital, I started in March 1996 with a Kodak DC-50, $990, which I expected to use in documenting maintenance issues at work. Didn't work out that way, as its first exposure was by my wife in Nov 99 documenting ideas in fabric patterns. Ah, well, she was happy for a while with its 0.4 Mp resolution, 768x512, as I was clearly not into digital at the time! I am now, though... :D

andydg
04-22-2010, 19:30
Started photography over 20 years ago with film and now I'm back again. In between having used several different digital cameras and way too many lenses, found it was too easy to loose focus and just press the trigger. On shooting random images and buying more gear than I really needed.

I felt out of touch and careless to the point of not caring if the capture did not turn out. Letting the camera think for me, became too lazy.

With my current RF I am forced to take my time, frame, focus, set aperture, shutter speed, and capture. Not having instant feedback took a bit to get used to. Now I eagerly review the negatives when they come back in a day or two from development.

My wife today commented, "So you're shooting with that old thing again?" I had to smile and say, "Yes dear, absolutely I would not want it any other way.":)

hipsterdufus
04-23-2010, 06:19
One thing that killed digital for me is the crop factor. I love OOF areas in my pictures and even though I have a digital SLR, I just can't seem to get the OOF areas as easily. That, and I got sick of monkeying around with all of the extra controls on digital SLRs (white balance, AF vs. MF, reviewing pictures after they're shot). Basically, I love the simplicity of film, so I went back to it. It is what I shoot when I want the picture to "mean something". Digital is what I shoot when I want something to be "good enough".

kehng
04-23-2010, 06:30
i love both but my M8 is a helluva lot more fun with colour on LR and PS for me. I did shoot some photos at my sister's wedding in B&W on my M7 (when my M8 somehow managed to find dust all over it's sensor) recently and was amazed all over again with how fantastic those shots turned out. If I had my own darkroom or could afford to have all my files scanned at high res at processing I would probably use film more. It looks better for some things but is less convenient.

johannielscom
04-23-2010, 06:45
Digital, I did Fuji S1 pro, Fuji S3 pro, Nikon D300, Leica M8.

Regret selling that D300 kit to finance the M8, I got crazy using those IR-cut filters and kept loving the M3 more, shutter and winding transport beat an M8 hands down.

Sold the M8.

A roll of B&W film I can develop in 20 minutes, scanning takes about 40 more.

I import my scans into Lightroom and series-finish them when I can, or use Photoshop to tweak individual files.

Easy as pie.

Selling the M8 got me a classic M6 0.85, a 1943 Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5, a Voigtlander Bessa RF with Color-Heliar and a busload of 135 and 120 film. Oh, and a 1938 Leica IIIa with SCNOO winder and Canon 28/3.5.

A week from now, I will be shooting a 1964 Nikon F with Nikkor 50/1.4.

Who needs digital when you can have all that fun? :cool:

Bill58
04-23-2010, 06:47
It will be interesting to see if the mfgrs. of digital cameras can EVER restore the utter simplicity and control, without hassle, you have w/ film.

Keith
04-23-2010, 06:58
It will be interesting to see if the mfgrs. of digital cameras can EVER restore the utter simplicity and control, without hassle, you have w/ film.


Well they pretty well have with the M9 ... shame about the price!

hipsterdufus
04-23-2010, 07:11
Well they pretty well have with the M9 ... shame about the price!
That is what killed it for me. I have to think long and hard about purchasing a $200 lens. A $7000 body is just not even fathomable. I'm sure that someday, digital will reach that level of simplicity, ease, and affordability that we all desire. But I don't see it happening for a very long time.

johannielscom
04-23-2010, 07:16
A winding lever to cock a non-clonking shutter, and I'm in. Getting all of it in a body the size of an M6 and I'd sell a kidney to get me one.

Until then, I burn film.

Mcary
04-23-2010, 07:59
Last summer after shooting almost 100% digital for the prior 4-5 years I decided to give rangefinder photography a try and picked up an M4-2 and 50mm lens. Maybe I didn't put enough effort or heart into but I've come to realize the simple fact that 35mm film photography just isn't for me. On the positive side I've found a renewed love of medium format photography. So I've pretty much decided that I'll be selling my Leica kit and the remainder of my Canon DSLR kit in the upcoming weeks and months and just concentrate on shooting medium format for now.

robbiefritz
04-23-2010, 08:07
I have recently returned to some film for a couple of reasons. Four years ago, I purchased a used Nikon DSLR, a D50. I have been using it almost exclusively since.
Over the past year, I have dusted off my Canon A1 and Rollei 35S for B&W work. After my Dad passed, I inherited his Rolleiflex TLR and darkroom equipment which, the latter, I haven't used in over 30 years.
I will be doing some shooting with the TLR this weekend and hope to have the darkroom setup within the next month. There is something to be said for the hands on developing and printing of images.

kossi008
04-23-2010, 23:01
There's no option for me in the poll:

I keep switching between film and digital. Film accounts for maybe 70-80% of my pictures, but I hardly ever do film/digital in parallel: I have phases, with the winters leaning towards digital...

tanel
04-23-2010, 23:06
I started out with film, tried digital and now going back to film 100%.
Digital is fine and with the development of the sensors it get's even better, I'm sure. But for me- the right place for a photograph is on paper first, then on lsd screen. Not the other way around.
Besides, the digital camera bodies I would like to shoot with cost way more than I could afford.
So, I'm 100% film shooter.

ed1234
04-23-2010, 23:11
I started off with the FE2, then switched to the Lumix G1 last year, and at the same time got the CL with a 5cm/1.5, 35/2 and a vc15. The G1 was sold, used it for less than 6 months. I want some lighter gears, that's why I stop using the FE2. And sold the G1 because 80% of the function on it is pretty much useless for me, I just need the shutter, apeture, and meter. And the picture is just too sharp for me as well.

emraphoto
04-23-2010, 23:18
"lsd screen"?

i gotta get me one of those.

tanel
04-23-2010, 23:25
i mean.. lcd.. sorry!
what was i thinking..

emraphoto
04-23-2010, 23:28
damn, i was hoping such a thing existed!

Chris101
04-23-2010, 23:38
"lsd screen"?

i gotta get me one of those.

It's so much more intense that way!

emasterphoto
04-23-2010, 23:51
I came back to film recently for a project I'm working on. I have some 35mm RF's now, and I enjoy shooting them for many reasons, but for the majority of my shooting I'll stick with my D3. It's simply on another level and provides quality, flexibilty, responsiveness, and spontaneity that I've never found in film. That said, I still want an F3HP at some point.

imokruok
04-23-2010, 23:55
Shot my first roll of Super 8 ever tonight. It was E6, so I pulled it out of the cartridge and developed it loose in a daylight tank with the Kodak 6-step bath. Cool stuff! I could definitely see myself shooting some of this on vacation, although for more important rolls, I would let a lab do it. The stuff is still hanging in my shower and I have no idea how it will spool...

Steveh
04-27-2010, 05:55
I'm torn on this one - I started back in photograpy with digital in 2004 after a 20 year hiatus, but have got more and more into film and film cameras, 35mm and medium format since. What troubles me is that, if I'm honest, I think my photos were better and more interesting before I started mucking about with developing film, buying/selling film cameras, spending too much time on RFF etc. I love film and film cameras but I think they may have put my actual photographic creativity into reverse. Does anyone else have this or is it just me?

Bike Tourist
04-27-2010, 09:51
This is a kind of "so what?" post, similar to "Just waiting for the Mail". Something extremely important only to the bearer of the news. Yet, who else would you tell or what other forum would you post to?

I have shipped a beautiful D700 and four lenses to my favorite dealer. In return he has agreed to ship to me an M6TTL and a 35/1.4 pre-ASPH. No digital remain, except for my iPhone 3Gs, which ain't too bad under ideal circumstances.

Why I have done this has nothing to do with photo gear and everything to do with my turning a corner and deciding not to seek fame and especially fortune through the lens of a camera. I will simply take some pictures to please myself and not worry about the world.

So, what better instrument to thumb my photographic nose at the imaging world than a Leica? I know not another. I'll spare you the "Just Waiting for the Mail" but . . .

I'M JUST WAITING FOR THE MAIL!

Doug
04-27-2010, 19:04
I too have taken multi-year breaks from photography, and each time it took a while to get "back in the groove" creatively. It takes concentration and practice to regain that photographic vision. Keep at it, with a critical eye, and I'll bet you get better at it!
I'm torn on this one - I started back in photograpy with digital in 2004 after a 20 year hiatus, but have got more and more into film and film cameras, 35mm and medium format since. What troubles me is that, if I'm honest, I think my photos were better and more interesting before I started mucking about with developing film, buying/selling film cameras, spending too much time on RFF etc. I love film and film cameras but I think they may have put my actual photographic creativity into reverse. Does anyone else have this or is it just me?

Doug
04-27-2010, 19:07
So, what better instrument to thumb my photographic nose at the imaging world than a Leica? I know not another. I'll spare you the "Just Waiting for the Mail" but . . .
Good luck and happy trails with your new direction, Dick!

wblanchard
06-19-2010, 11:29
I recently retired my 5D Mark II and L glass, so I could get back to film and shooting with my ZI and Nokton 40 lens. Digital was too expensive for me. Always upgrading bodies each year, and I was always trying to get the look of my film shots from years ago. Sadly, I was one of those people that bought into the rumor that film was dead. Now I have a mini-fridge loaded with film for a life time it seems! I just have my D-Lux 4 for digital 20% of the time, the rest is all film once again.

semilog
06-19-2010, 12:08
Film and digital. I like both.

The results from a DSLR are in almost any technical sense superior, but art (even small-a art) is not, in my opinion, a technological arms race. I prefer the act of photography with my M6 to any digital I've ever used, I enjoy developing B&W film, and the results that I obtain with that setup are better than satisfactory for my purposes.

Bottom line is that both processes are a lot of fun. I have three or four years worth of black and white film stockpiled in my freezer, and if at that point it's not practical to continue with film, I'll happily transition to exclusively digital. It would make me sad to not use the M6 anymore, though. That camera is like an old friend. We've been through a lot together.

PetarDima
06-21-2010, 00:01
hello RFF friends. 99% I shoot digital* fujifilm S 6500 fd ... but my problems are different. for 100 Euros I got for myself Olympus OM 1n + 50mm f1.8 + 28mm f3.5. Man, it's so quiet! I'm still thinking about going wider, but it's very hard( + expensive) in this part of Europe to find 21mm lens( I'm not counting E Bay ). Leica M still in my mind, and Minolta CLE looks like best non- Leica Rf body( I'm not counting ZI, it,s new it should pass test of time) - at least, to my mind.

Chris101
06-21-2010, 00:24
...
I'M JUST WAITING FOR THE MAIL!

Lou Reed, right?

Ted2001
06-26-2010, 06:02
I loved my Nikon F3HPs, I loved my Contax G2s and now I love my Nikon D90. Each in it's own way has proven a perfect system for me. I'd still be shooting with the G2s if slide film was less expensive and more convenient. In about a year and a half my less than $1000 Nikon body shot the equivalent of $6,000 film and processing. I am very happy with the results I've achieved with each system and love the low incremental cost and immediacy of digital. I'm just very happy to be back taking pictures and I have digital to thank for that. Long live film for others...

semilog
06-26-2010, 08:47
I'm just very happy to be back taking pictures and I have digital to thank for that.

That's what matters. Digital got me back into it. But I love film, and for black and white, the films, chemistry, and amount of information and advice available have never been better.

I'm currently at about 60:40 film:digital. It's a golden age for film users, especially in B&W: fabulous media that is still not expensive ($3/roll developed for Legacy Pro, ~$4/roll developed for bulk-loaded TMAX400), cheap cameras that are still in super shape... but this situation will not last forever, and I want to do good work in this medium while it is still inexpensive and straightforward to do so.

Digital is going nowhere but cheaper-better-faster-smaller for the foreseeable future. I don't really feel that I'm missing anything by de-emphasizing it for a couple or a few more years.

hausen
07-12-2010, 20:42
I have been a bit conflicted about the film or digital argument as well. About 5 years ago I shifted house and downsized into an apartment and thereby lost my darkroom. Went to digital with a Nikon DSLR and found myself playing more golf than taking photos. This was brought home to me when I didn't take my Nikon on a trip to Europe from NZ. Kit was to big and I didn't like the look of the shots I was getting anyway. So I thought the best compromise was a M8 but while I loved the size there was to many compromises in a camera that was NZ$5k for the body only. Then after a couple of M bodies I looked at the 120 RF pages on this site and loved what I saw. So now I am shooting with a Fuji Ga645 and have a Mamiya 6 coming and am loving the experience of shooting again. I went out on my scooter over the weekend for about 3 hours and only shot 1 roll of film and loved every minute of it, even though it is winter here and freezing. Developed it myself and then sent it to be scanned by a lab down the road and next day I have 15 shots to play with. If I spent the same time with my 7d DSLR I would have at least 100 shots to work through in PS. I can't sit still for that long so I would still have 85 shots that I couldn't be bothered working through. Must have at least 2000 digital shots that I haven't really looked at on my PC. I sit at a computer most of the day and don't want to do that at night. Have been looking to see if there are darkrooms for rent here in Auckland because I miss the nights with a bottle of red wine in my darkroom. So I think it is MF film for me with a bit of 35mm RF and use my 7d for Macro a close up only.

alexnotalex
08-03-2010, 05:45
I love digital for low light and wiggly kids, Nikon DX VR 55-200 lenses, and taking a hundred pics then deleting 99.

I shoot manual film for freedom from batteries, the extra mental stimulation, and the physical connection with the subject. You are collecting the actual pieces of light that are bounced off the subject onto the film and I find that cool. Also, the equipment is more affordable.

I'm not a good enough photographer to max out the possibilities of either format, so can't comment, I just enjoy...

In terms of keeper photos, i'm probably running more film than digital, but I love both formats for different reasons.

I also like watches, and cars, and have both. And 2 cats.

robbeiflex
08-03-2010, 14:02
For me, and probably others, an option is missing. I got started with digital then switched to about 50% film, perhaps more if you count keepers rather than times out shooting. Back? Back from what? ;-)

Rob

rizraz
08-03-2010, 14:45
For me, I started with film back in the late 80s, finally converted to digital in 2005. In 2010, after my trip to Bangkok, I ditched almost all my digital arsenal, except for the converted IR DSLR and one lens. Other than that..... honey, I'm home.

maggieo
08-03-2010, 20:51
This post from my blog (http://mediawench.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/bang-bang/) fits nicely into this discussion, I think.

NickTrop
09-20-2010, 13:16
Lou Reed, right?

$26 dollars in my hand... Up to Lexington 125, feel sick and dirty more dead than a-li-hive!

Damn - whenever I think of that tune I can't get it out of my head. "Thanks" Chris :)

alexnotalex
09-20-2010, 13:56
I wonder if i'll get a fuji x100 and switch back...

Brian Sweeney
09-20-2010, 14:03
I had my Canon P out yesterday, with a 1953 J-3 on it.

The other one has the Nikkor 5cm f2 "Black Rim" aperture ring on it.

lenco12
09-24-2010, 18:22
I should have developed my first roll of film before I bought an M8 .... then I wouldn't have a $6000.00 dollar camera sitting in the cupboard! :(
I do really shoot a lot more digital then I do film, and I really hope that I can incorporate a M8 or its competition sometime in the future. Lately I have been shooting my DSLR more and found it to be almost intolerable in low light situations where I could have easily focused my bessa. As nice as it is to have that iso 3200 and 50 1.4 canon stuff for low light, it still seems as if im missing a lot of pictures because of the highly inaccurate focusing and what not. For instance in 3 recent rolls of film, with my bessa and zeiss 50 I had 2 photos that were out of focus do to my error, compared to some 100 slr shots I took today with a 17-40 and a 5d which came back with about 30% off focus on a lens that shouldn't have this problem.

____________________
watch movies online (http://moviesonlinefree.biz/)

x-ray
09-24-2010, 18:41
My personal work is 100% film and my commercial work is 99% digital. I started shooting film in the mid 50's and love the hands on process, the smell of the darkroom, the sounds of the darkroom and just like the process of running and printing. To me the reward is a B&W print that can't be matched with inkjet. I've yet to see an inkjet B&W that looks as rich and has the depth of a fine silver print. I now do a good bit of platinum printing form my LF negs and find it just as pleasurable as silver printing. Digital is associated with work and I have to separate my pleasure from work and this is how I do it. Nothing wrong with digital and I feel it produces stunning color and color prints and one day when I retire I most likely will feel different and start shooting color digital for enjoyment but B&W film / printing will never be replaced in my mind.

caila77
10-02-2010, 05:41
Actually I use digital for everyday shots (birthday, work.....). But film conserve an unforgettable charm....... that digital doesn't have