Reading mode: Light Dark

Film vs Digital - Is film really better?

Go to last post
mamallama said:
Overrank said:
mamallama said:
Overrank said:
Donald B said:
Overrank said:
Donald B said:
The Davinator said:
PhotoFactor said:
The market has had a choice, and we can see the results.
Click to expand...
The market has nothing to do with quality or artistic merit. Nothing. It has to do with convenience.
Click to expand...
well try and shoot this 50 shot stack with film :-)

Don

Click to expand...
Is that because of the sensor (I.e. film / digital) or because of the focus / drive of the camera? There are film backs that do 250 shots and there are film cameras that shoot more FPS than most digital cameras
Click to expand...
I want to see someone try to merge the stack using film :-) to get 2mm dof :-0

Don
Click to expand...
But how much of that is to do with the sensor and how much with advances in software, lenses etc in the -20 years since the last serious film camera was designed ?
Click to expand...
And what is the reason it has been that long since the last serious film camera was designed?
Click to expand...
Market forces and the pursuit of profit. Not that that is relevant to the question.
Click to expand...
In so many ways, it really is. Think about it. What is the reason it has been a long time since the last serious steam locomotive was designed?
Click to expand...
12 years - more recent than the F6

Loading…

en.m.wikipedia.org
 
Phil A Martin said:
WiltshireMoonraker59 said:
It's a bit like the analogue versus digital battle between vinyl records and CD's,
Click to expand...
Yes except it is CD that is dying through the emergence of downloads and vinyl is continuing on it's dogged path.
Phil A Martin said:
it's looking through rose tinted glasses or just yet another "on trend" thing that is current. I started off with film, taking mostly slides because slides gave me a much more realistic image, photo prints were always disappointing to me, though that was probably more due to high street processing. Would I go back to film? NO WAY! I absolutely love digital, it gives me so much more control over all my images and is so much more versatile than film, just take off those rose tinted glasses and embrace the digital age 😉
Click to expand...
You see you are talking from a very limited experience of film, you appear to have done no self printing and only used slide film, so yes there are many distinct advantages for you in the move to digital whereas for me, I began printing my own photographs very early in my photographic career and rapidly moved to medium format. Now for colour, I'm perfectly happy with digital, all the advantages far outweigh the inconvenience of colour film and with both formats, the end result was an image made of dye on a resin coated paper. So no advantage for film in this case, if anything the access to fine art matt papers is a distinct advantage however with the black an white image, it's a different story. I've yet to see a convincing black and white print from a digital file, that can surpass the quality of a fine quality toned silver gelatine print on fibre based photographic paper. Not in the subtlety of the highlights nor of the smooth gradations of the mid tones and for me, in this instance, film still has the upper hand. Plus the romance of having an archival image made up out of depositions of silver metal, instead of dyes or pigments.
Click to expand...
Carbon pigment is at least as archival as silver. There are plenty of books printed with carbon ink that are centuries old.

Don Cox
 
Overrank said:
mamallama said:
Overrank said:
mamallama said:
Overrank said:
Donald B said:
Overrank said:
Donald B said:
The Davinator said:
PhotoFactor said:
The market has had a choice, and we can see the results.
Click to expand...
The market has nothing to do with quality or artistic merit. Nothing. It has to do with convenience.
Click to expand...
well try and shoot this 50 shot stack with film :-)

Don

Click to expand...
Is that because of the sensor (I.e. film / digital) or because of the focus / drive of the camera? There are film backs that do 250 shots and there are film cameras that shoot more FPS than most digital cameras
Click to expand...
I want to see someone try to merge the stack using film :-) to get 2mm dof :-0

Don
Click to expand...
But how much of that is to do with the sensor and how much with advances in software, lenses etc in the -20 years since the last serious film camera was designed ?
Click to expand...
And what is the reason it has been that long since the last serious film camera was designed?
Click to expand...
Market forces and the pursuit of profit. Not that that is relevant to the question.
Click to expand...
In so many ways, it really is. Think about it. What is the reason it has been a long time since the last serious steam locomotive was designed?
Click to expand...
12 years - more recent than the F6

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNER_Peppercorn_Class_A1_60163_Tornado
Click to expand...
That is not a reason. Is that a serious steam locomotive?
 
Allan36 said:
It's an interesting question to me. I am planning to start shooting more film. Even though it's not "better". I like the tonality, the grain, even the scratches. Film does not show every skin pore in a portrait and does not need extensive retouching. It seems more authentic to me.
Click to expand...
Showing every pore is a problem with your choice of lens, rather than with digital as such. Look for a lens that is a bit soft, the opposite of a Sigma Art lens. Also, shoot at slower shutter speeds such as 1/60 or 1/30 to get a little motion blur. Film is generally slower than digital, so motion blur is more common.

But there's no arguing with someone who likes scratches. :-D
Allan36 said:
That is, of course, subjective. But I like film. It slows you down. It's a craft, not a computer skill.

I think the most important decision in photography is what give the photographer pleasure and what tools he uses to create his/her personal vision.

I often use 35mm film. It does NOT match a current digital camera in many ways. It's soft (lower resolution), it often has grain (more noise) and it's tones and color are different. When I want great sharpness or expect to enlarge the image, I have a 4x5 film camera.

I have not done tests, but my guess is that a high resolution Sony, Nikon, etc. is probably close in resolution to a 4x5 camera. But the pictures will be different. That's subjective. What works for the subject, photographer and viewer of the photograph.

Allan
Click to expand...
Isn't the point that high resolution is sometimes ideal for a particular image, and sometimes completely unsuitable ?

Don Cox
 
mamallama said:
Overrank said:
mamallama said:
Overrank said:
mamallama said:
Overrank said:
Donald B said:
Overrank said:
Donald B said:
The Davinator said:
PhotoFactor said:
The market has had a choice, and we can see the results.
Click to expand...
The market has nothing to do with quality or artistic merit. Nothing. It has to do with convenience.
Click to expand...
well try and shoot this 50 shot stack with film :-)

Don

Click to expand...
Is that because of the sensor (I.e. film / digital) or because of the focus / drive of the camera? There are film backs that do 250 shots and there are film cameras that shoot more FPS than most digital cameras
Click to expand...
I want to see someone try to merge the stack using film :-) to get 2mm dof :-0

Don
Click to expand...
But how much of that is to do with the sensor and how much with advances in software, lenses etc in the -20 years since the last serious film camera was designed ?
Click to expand...
And what is the reason it has been that long since the last serious film camera was designed?
Click to expand...
Market forces and the pursuit of profit. Not that that is relevant to the question.
Click to expand...
In so many ways, it really is. Think about it. What is the reason it has been a long time since the last serious steam locomotive was designed?
Click to expand...
12 years - more recent than the F6

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNER_Peppercorn_Class_A1_60163_Tornado
Click to expand...
That is not a reason. Is that a serious steam locomotive?
Click to expand...
“Construction was completed in 2008 and full certification of the locomotive was achieved in January 2009. Having been designed in compliance with modern safety and certification standards, Tornado has been conducting passenger services on the UK rail network and on mainline-connected heritage railways since 2008.”

“In 2017, Tornado became the first steam locomotive to officially reach 100 mph on British tracks for over 50 years.”

Plus it cost >£3 million, which is pretty serious money to me
 
Phil A Martin said:
I suspect that those dismissing film either didn't have experience of black and white printing or weren't very skilled at it.
Click to expand...
Or don't shoot b/w.

Arguing that film is better because it does b/w better *AND* only if you do your own darkroom work and learn to do it well translates to "film is not better" for most of us.
Clyde Butcher switched from film to digital years ago for color work, but still does (at least some) b/w with large format film cameras. That doesn't mean that film ever was or ever would be better for the many of us who shot the occasional roll of b/w and had it processed and printed by a local lab.

It reminds me of the vinyl fans who insist vinyl sounds better, but have pristine vinyl, top of the line needles and turntables, when, for most of us, digital music sounds better than record ever did the way we played them.

The "is film better" question suggests that a person shooting a modern digital camera might be considering a switch to (or augmentation with) film for the sake of some quality they may be missing, and the qualifications become crucial. Are they thinking a used 35mm camera ? Medium format ? View camera ? Color or b/w ? Are they willing to put years of learning how to print well ?

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
lilBuddha said:
Phil A Martin said:
lilBuddha said:
Phil A Martin said:
lilBuddha said:
Phil A Martin said:
lilBuddha said:
Phil A Martin said:
WiltshireMoonraker59 said:
It's a bit like the analogue versus digital battle between vinyl records and CD's,
Click to expand...
Yes except it is CD that is dying through the emergence of downloads and vinyl is continuing on it's dogged path.
Click to expand...
The CD is dying because it is a format of convenience that is no longer convenient. Vinyl continues because it is a format of nostalgia.
lilBuddha said:
lilBuddha said:
it's looking through rose tinted glasses or just yet another "on trend" thing that is current. I started off with film, taking mostly slides because slides gave me a much more realistic image, photo prints were always disappointing to me, though that was probably more due to high street processing. Would I go back to film? NO WAY! I absolutely love digital, it gives me so much more control over all my images and is so much more versatile than film, just take off those rose tinted glasses and embrace the digital age 😉
Click to expand...
You see you are talking from a very limited experience of film, you appear to have done no self printing and only used slide film, so yes there are many distinct advantages for you in the move to digital whereas for me, I began printing my own photographs very early in my photographic career and rapidly moved to medium format. Now for colour, I'm perfectly happy with digital, all the advantages far outweigh the inconvenience of colour film and with both formats, the end result was an image made of dye on a resin coated paper. So no advantage for film in this case, if anything the access to fine art matt papers is a distinct advantage however with the black an white image, it's a different story. I've yet to see a convincing black and white print from a digital file, that can surpass the quality of a fine quality toned silver gelatine print on fibre based photographic paper. Not in the subtlety of the highlights nor of the smooth gradations of the mid tones and for me, in this instance, film still has the upper hand. Plus the romance of having an archival image made up out of depositions of silver metal, instead of dyes or pigments.
Click to expand...
Whist I'm not denying the potential of your other points, ISTM you last sentence sums up most of the argument for the vast majority of people in the argument.
Click to expand...
Silver prints simply have qualities that are hard to replicate with digital printing. Of course this doesn't matter to those who only publish and view images on line but to those of us who understand and appreciate the fine toned silver print, it still does.
Click to expand...
My final medium is print,* and mainly has always been, so I am not speaking from complete ignorance. Silver prints from digital sources are a thing, so I'd be interested to see a head-to-head comparison.

*Although, NFTs are intriguing
Click to expand...
So would I but say you had the choice of owning an original ceramic pot or a digitally scanned and perfect 3D print of the same. Which would you prefer?
Click to expand...
Your analogy is not accurate, though. A silver print from a digital source uses projected light to expose the paper, one is getting a real silver print, not a digital replica.
Click to expand...
I think my analogy is perfectly accurate and more accurate that discussions about eggs and omelette.
Click to expand...
The eggs and omelette part of that discussion is more about how one views the process, accurate is a little trickier there.

Film records reflected light.

Negatives/positives are processed.

The film is projected onto the silver gelatin paper.

A digital sensor records reflected light.

The RAW information is processed.

The digital file is projected onto silver gelatin paper.

The same steps, with minor variation, both producing original work

Scanning an object and 3D printing it and making a ceramic pot are completely different processes.
Click to expand...
Yes exactly, one is a hand made process, the other an electro mechanical process. Case proven.
 
Overrank said:
mamallama said:
Overrank said:
Donald B said:
Overrank said:
Donald B said:
The Davinator said:
PhotoFactor said:
The market has had a choice, and we can see the results.
Click to expand...
The market has nothing to do with quality or artistic merit. Nothing. It has to do with convenience.
Click to expand...
well try and shoot this 50 shot stack with film :-)

Don

Click to expand...
Is that because of the sensor (I.e. film / digital) or because of the focus / drive of the camera? There are film backs that do 250 shots and there are film cameras that shoot more FPS than most digital cameras
Click to expand...
I want to see someone try to merge the stack using film :-) to get 2mm dof :-0

Don
Click to expand...
But how much of that is to do with the sensor and how much with advances in software, lenses etc in the -20 years since the last serious film camera was designed ?
Click to expand...
And what is the reason it has been that long since the last serious film camera was designed?
Click to expand...
Market forces and the pursuit of profit. Not that that is relevant to the question.
Click to expand...
The second I see some people talk about market forces or what sells better, I know that they no longer understand what it is to create photographic art. What is top seller in the market is irrelevant to quality or obtaining the look one wants. Cell phones photos outnumber real camera photos by thousands to one...using their market sales force, it must be the highest quality. As we know it is the lowest, we also know the market spoke for convenience.
 
Last edited:
Dennis said:
Phil A Martin said:
I suspect that those dismissing film either didn't have experience of black and white printing or weren't very skilled at it.
Click to expand...
Or don't shoot b/w.

Arguing that film is better because it does b/w better *AND* only if you do your own darkroom work and learn to do it well translates to "film is not better" for most of us.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing that film is better and it's certainly not in all circumstances but what I am saying is that film has certain qualities which are valuable and that hand made silver gelatine fine prints have a look that is difficult if not impossible to reproduce with digital photography. I'm arguing for people to simply accept this and learn to appreciate the qualities of the silver print and not to get into a slanging match where they feel the need to absolutely denigrate film, in order to justify their love for digital photography. There really is no reason to be dogmatic about this and no reason why people cannot appreciate both formats and that is all.
Dennis said:
Clyde Butcher switched from film to digital years ago for color work, but still does (at least some) b/w with large format film cameras. That doesn't mean that film ever was or ever would be better for the many of us who shot the occasional roll of b/w and had it processed and printed by a local lab.

It reminds me of the vinyl fans who insist vinyl sounds better, but have pristine vinyl, top of the line needles and turntables, when, for most of us, digital music sounds better than record ever did the way we played them.

The "is film better" question suggests that a person shooting a modern digital camera might be considering a switch to (or augmentation with) film for the sake of some quality they may be missing, and the qualifications become crucial. Are they thinking a used 35mm camera ? Medium format ? View camera ? Color or b/w ? Are they willing to put years of learning how to print well ?

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
 
Autonerd said:
FingerPainter said:
Start by searching for prices of used gear, and you'll fined that you cannot get the film kit you listed for the price you stated
Click to expand...
I can't? That's funny, because I did.

Aaron
Autonerd said:
Let's assume 40 cents per image to cover cost of film and processing.
Click to expand...
Why would we assume that? Try under 15 cents per, which is about what I pay for bulk-rolled, home-developed B&W. (And that's for Ilford film. With Ultrafine XTreme - great stuff, BTW -- it's closer to 10 cents per image.)
Autonerd said:
That's 6,100 images. That's rather less than what I take in an active month.
Click to expand...
And how many are keepers?
Click to expand...
We have to remember that many people take 67 duck lip selfies at every bathroom visit. If one is burning through multi thousands of shots a month...it is no longer about craft...it is spray and pray with little to no thought. I often find more keeps on a couple of rolls of film than people shooting 2000 shots that weekend as though the high number is a badge of honour.
 
Last edited:
Phil A Martin said:
Dennis said:
Phil A Martin said:
I suspect that those dismissing film either didn't have experience of black and white printing or weren't very skilled at it.
Click to expand...
Or don't shoot b/w.

Arguing that film is better because it does b/w better *AND* only if you do your own darkroom work and learn to do it well translates to "film is not better" for most of us.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing that film is better and it's certainly not in all circumstances but what I am saying is that film has certain qualities which are valuable and that hand made silver gelatine fine prints have a look that is difficult if not impossible to reproduce with digital photography. I'm arguing for people to simply accept this and learn to appreciate the qualities of the silver print and not to get into a slanging match where they feel the need to absolutely denigrate film, in order to justify their love for digital photography. There really is no reason to be dogmatic about this and no reason why people cannot appreciate both formats and that is all.
Click to expand...
Well said!
 
Guy Parsons said:
Papa48 said:
In 2012 I took my film camera loaded with Kodak Ektar 100 and my six megapixel digital camera set at ISO 100 out on a day trip to my favorite landscapes. I shot at identical Aperture, shutter speed and focal length. I sent the film and jpegs to the same lab for printing. The results were so close that I never bought another roll of film. For me, that was “case closed”.
Click to expand...
Back before then in the era of 6MP DSLRs I was heavily involved in camera clubs and large competitions seeing many thousands of prints during that time of transitions from film to digital. Many scanned film and many digital A3 prints.

At one national (Australian) competition I saw one A3 print that stood out from all the rest that would have been from the 6MP DSLRs or scanned film. The author was present so I asked him "which camera?" and it turned out to be some all-in-one 8MP Minolta camera (DiMAGE A2 with 1/2.3" sensor).
Click to expand...
Guy, the Minolta DiMAGE A2 had a 2/3 sensor (6.6 mm X 8.8 mm, 11mm diagonal) which has twice the area of a 1/2.3 sensor.
Guy Parsons said:
So for me 8MP was the deciding point that digital was better than film after my previous efforts of battling with 3MP and 5MP cameras for up to 8x10 prints. That would have been in 2004 I guess. I had given up film in late 2002 anyway.
Click to expand...
 
Phil A Martin said:
Dennis said:
Phil A Martin said:
I suspect that those dismissing film either didn't have experience of black and white printing or weren't very skilled at it.
Click to expand...
Or don't shoot b/w.

Arguing that film is better because it does b/w better *AND* only if you do your own darkroom work and learn to do it well translates to "film is not better" for most of us.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing that film is better and it's certainly not in all circumstances but what I am saying is that film has certain qualities which are valuable and that hand made silver gelatine fine prints have a look that is difficult if not impossible to reproduce with digital photography. I'm arguing for people to simply accept this and learn to appreciate the qualities of the silver print and not to get into a slanging match where they feel the need to absolutely denigrate film, in order to justify their love for digital photography. There really is no reason to be dogmatic about this and no reason why people cannot appreciate both formats and that is all.
Phil A Martin said:
Clyde Butcher switched from film to digital years ago for color work, but still does (at least some) b/w with large format film cameras. That doesn't mean that film ever was or ever would be better for the many of us who shot the occasional roll of b/w and had it processed and printed by a local lab.

It reminds me of the vinyl fans who insist vinyl sounds better, but have pristine vinyl, top of the line needles and turntables, when, for most of us, digital music sounds better than record ever did the way we played them.

The "is film better" question suggests that a person shooting a modern digital camera might be considering a switch to (or augmentation with) film for the sake of some quality they may be missing, and the qualifications become crucial. Are they thinking a used 35mm camera ? Medium format ? View camera ? Color or b/w ? Are they willing to put years of learning how to print well ?

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That is what I never understood here. There are many ways of creating photographs...just like any art form. Yet, it seems some understand so little of art that they are almost threatened that there are other ways than digital to create it. I remember over the years here when film threads came up, how many people would post things like “die film, die,” and “can’t wait til films dies.” Really? They couldn’t wait. They hadn’t used film in years, but they sit there, in great anticipation of it passing. It would be like going into an art gallery with sketches, oil paintings, watercolour paintings, etc, and making the statement “die watercolour, die.” People would look at you like you are crazy and ignorant...and rightfully so.

For me, film is better for creating the look I want in many cases. That is it.
 
Last edited:
Phil A Martin said:
and that hand made silver gelatine fine prints have a look that is difficult if not impossible to reproduce with digital photography.
Click to expand...
Never mind platinum and other printing techniques ...
Phil A Martin said:
I'm arguing for people to simply accept this and learn to appreciate the qualities of the silver print and not to get into a slanging match where they feel the need to absolutely denigrate film,
Click to expand...
Agreed. There's just usually a disconnect in these arguments between what people are arguing about (where one person thinks that the other person's claims are broader or narrower than they are). Specifics would go a long way toward cutting down on some of the debate (though I suspect you're right about learning appreciation for fine prints - I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some photography fans have had little to no exposure to good prints made in a darkroom).

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
Dennis said:
Phil A Martin said:
I suspect that those dismissing film either didn't have experience of black and white printing or weren't very skilled at it.
Click to expand...
Or don't shoot b/w.

Arguing that film is better because it does b/w better *AND* only if you do your own darkroom work and learn to do it well translates to "film is not better" for most of us.

Clyde Butcher switched from film to digital years ago for color work, but still does (at least some) b/w with large format film cameras. That doesn't mean that film ever was or ever would be better for the many of us who shot the occasional roll of b/w and had it processed and printed by a local lab.

It reminds me of the vinyl fans who insist vinyl sounds better, but have pristine vinyl, top of the line needles and turntables, when, for most of us, digital music sounds better than record ever did the way we played them.

The "is film better" question suggests that a person shooting a modern digital camera might be considering a switch to (or augmentation with) film for the sake of some quality they may be missing, and the qualifications become crucial. Are they thinking a used 35mm camera ? Medium format ? View camera ? Color or b/w ? Are they willing to put years of learning how to print well ?

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
Clyde switched from a lot of film work to digital because of his advancing age, and the stroke he had. He has always stated quite clearly that for his large prints, nothing beats the large format cameras.
 
The Davinator said:
Phil A Martin said:
Dennis said:
Phil A Martin said:
I suspect that those dismissing film either didn't have experience of black and white printing or weren't very skilled at it.
Click to expand...
Or don't shoot b/w.

Arguing that film is better because it does b/w better *AND* only if you do your own darkroom work and learn to do it well translates to "film is not better" for most of us.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing that film is better and it's certainly not in all circumstances but what I am saying is that film has certain qualities which are valuable and that hand made silver gelatine fine prints have a look that is difficult if not impossible to reproduce with digital photography. I'm arguing for people to simply accept this and learn to appreciate the qualities of the silver print and not to get into a slanging match where they feel the need to absolutely denigrate film, in order to justify their love for digital photography. There really is no reason to be dogmatic about this and no reason why people cannot appreciate both formats and that is all.
The Davinator said:
Clyde Butcher switched from film to digital years ago for color work, but still does (at least some) b/w with large format film cameras. That doesn't mean that film ever was or ever would be better for the many of us who shot the occasional roll of b/w and had it processed and printed by a local lab.

It reminds me of the vinyl fans who insist vinyl sounds better, but have pristine vinyl, top of the line needles and turntables, when, for most of us, digital music sounds better than record ever did the way we played them.

The "is film better" question suggests that a person shooting a modern digital camera might be considering a switch to (or augmentation with) film for the sake of some quality they may be missing, and the qualifications become crucial. Are they thinking a used 35mm camera ? Medium format ? View camera ? Color or b/w ? Are they willing to put years of learning how to print well ?

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That is what I never understood here. There are many ways of creating photographs...just like any art form. Yet, it seems some understand so little of art that they are almost threatened that there are other ways than digital to create it. I remember over the years here when film threads came up, how many people would post things like “die film, die,” and “can’t wait til films dies.” Really? They couldn’t wait. They hadn’t used film in years, but they sit there, in great anticipation of it passing. It would be like going into an art gallery with sketches, oil paintings, watercolour paintings, etc, and making the statement “die watercolour, die.” People would look at you like you are crazy and ignorant...and rightfully so.
Click to expand...
This is a bit of a strawman, at least on this thread.
The Davinator said:
For me, film is better for creating the look I want in many cases. That is it.
Click to expand...
 
Allan36 said:
It's an interesting question to me. I am planning to start shooting more film. Even though it's not "better". I like the tonality, the grain, even the scratches. Film does not show every skin pore in a portrait and does not need extensive retouching. It seems more authentic to me.

That is, of course, subjective. But I like film. It slows you down. It's a craft, not a computer skill.
Click to expand...
Skill in the digital darkroom is every bit the craft that skill in the darkroom is. Difficulty level doesn't change this.

There is no more art in making an image in the physical darkroom than the digital.
Allan36 said:
I think the most important decision in photography is what give the photographer pleasure and what tools he uses to create his/her personal vision.

I often use 35mm film. It does NOT match a current digital camera in many ways. It's soft (lower resolution), it often has grain (more noise) and it's tones and color are different. When I want great sharpness or expect to enlarge the image, I have a 4x5 film camera.

I have not done tests, but my guess is that a high resolution Sony, Nikon, etc. is probably close in resolution to a 4x5 camera. But the pictures will be different. That's subjective. What works for the subject, photographer and viewer of the photograph.

Allan
Click to expand...
 
lilBuddha said:
This is a bit of a strawman, at least on this thread.
Click to expand...
I can't argue with the film fans that b/w film is nice and b/w prints can be exceptionally good. But then this whole thread was opened with the vague:

"After having a discussion with an avid photographer friend who swears by film and he said you can always tell the difference between photos shot with film vs digital implying film was superior"

So I made my point about specifics versus generalities ... without getting specific, everyone is talking past each other.

If the OP was sincere and it wasn't a hit & run, then we have no idea whether the "avid photographer friend" is talking about b/w, large format, does excellent hand made darkroom prints or 4x6 prints at Walmart. We have no idea what he means when he says (if he really does say) you can "always" tell the difference between photos shot with film vs digital. On the surface of it, it's obviously wrong, but the devil is in details that we don't know.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
Autonerd said:
Aaron801 said:
I might blow a number of expensive sheets of photographic paper just to get one good print and even then that print still wouldn't be as fully realized for me as what I'm able to do with software. For me, the fact that I can really hone in on the details like that and that the prints can look so good make B&W photography with digital gear just about perfect.
Click to expand...
I think that's Phil's point, Aaron. You can get those results in the darkroom -- but it takes more time, patience, memory and skill than with software.
Click to expand...
Sort of. To be a true master of techniques in the physical darkroom does require more of those than to be a master of techniques in the digital darkroom. But this does not make the results inherently better. What make a master photographer goes beyond technique.
It's been years since I played in the darkroom said:
FingerPainter said:
Start by searching for prices of used gear, and you'll fined that you cannot get the film kit you listed for the price you stated
Click to expand...
I can't? That's funny, because I did.

Aaron
Autonerd said:
Let's assume 40 cents per image to cover cost of film and processing.
Click to expand...
Why would we assume that? Try under 15 cents per, which is about what I pay for bulk-rolled, home-developed B&W. (And that's for Ilford film. With Ultrafine XTreme - great stuff, BTW -- it's closer to 10 cents per image.)
Autonerd said:
That's 6,100 images. That's rather less than what I take in an active month.
Click to expand...
And how many are keepers?
Click to expand...
Ah, the old "Spray and Pray" fallacy. When I shoot a particular scene, I most often use the images from the first spot I have chosen. However, since shooting extra shots with digital incurs little cost, I will experiment a bit. And I am also more apt to explore and shoot things outside of my comfort zone to expand my abilities.

A number of alternate shots would be keepers if I'd never shot the first images. Indeed, I revisited older files and ended up using them as well.

And with experimentation, one learns. So whilst one mightn't use much of the early experiments, that doesn't make them wasted shots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top