Why I shoot digital Locked

Started Jan 24, 2014 | Discussions
This thread is locked.
Leonard Migliore
Leonard Migliore Forum Pro • Posts: 15,576
Re: sure you can

canonagain123 wrote:

brianric wrote:

carl english wrote:

Agree with OP apart from the ISO, you could vary ISO with film, just meant a bit more work in Dark room.

Could you work with different ISO on the same roll of film?

but only if you process the film yourself. see my other post: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52975629

of course you'll process the film yourself if you want the most out of it, but since this isn't obvious to soem people it seems fair to mention it.

I would never cut a roll of film so I could process different parts of it differently. It makes more sense to just rewind and put in another roll. Less opportunity for disaster in the darkroom.

Another issue is that I always settled on a particular developer and processing time for whatever films I was using so I would not, for example, push Pan X to ASA 400. If I needed such a high ASA, I'd rewind the Pan X and put in a roll of the hated Tri-X.

This is, of course, not a problem with large format.

-- hide signature --

Leonard Migliore

 Leonard Migliore's gear list:Leonard Migliore's gear list
Canon PowerShot G12 Sony RX100 III Nikon D300 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +12 more
radimus Regular Member • Posts: 281
Re: sure you can

canonagain123 wrote:

brianric wrote:

carl english wrote:

Agree with OP apart from the ISO, you could vary ISO with film, just meant a bit more work in Dark room.

Could you work with different ISO on the same roll of film?

but only if you process the film yourself. see my other post: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52975629

of course you'll process the film yourself if you want the most out of it, but since this isn't obvious to soem people it seems fair to mention it.

Because of the wide exposure latitude with C-41 process films you could change the ISO, or adjust the exposure compensation, plus or minus 2 stops and still get a good image without any changes to the processing.  I used to do this a lot with the C-41 black & white films, but the color films handled it quite well too.

DenWil
DenWil Veteran Member • Posts: 3,311
Horses for courses.

brianric wrote:

I shoot digital exclusively since 2003 because:

I can go out on an all day event and vary my ISO. I would have to change film to do that.

I don't shoot all day. I shoot in the best four hours of the day and I only shoot ASA 100. No grain. Always 120. Since the mid 1980s.

50% of the time I'm shooting at ISO 1600 or higher. Back in the day shooting film it was Tri-X film at ASA 400. Way to much grain for my taste.

Never having a dark room, digital freed me from having someone else deciding what to crop. I remember using Lustre Color in Canton Mass, and I was given two cropping masks to use on 35mm, and I thing up to seven to choose on 6x7. Digital allows me to specify exactly what I want.

I control every aspect of my work from shoot to delivery. I have processed my own B&W for over a quarter century.  I have a lab process my E-6 and it is hand delivered.  I print my own work, scan my own work edit my own work.  Isn't that what a photographer does? I have never had film lost in the mail in over 25 years of doing business.

First time I printed a 20x30 print was from a picture taken by a Canon 20D, an 8 MP camera. I was totally blown away at how sharp and lack of grain in the picture. I rarely printed larger than 8x10 using 35mm film because of the grain. If I knew I needed larger prints using film I would use my Koni-Omegas or my C330F.

It was a royal PIA if I need to shoot just two or three photos using film, and either wait until I finish the roll, or have the film developed wasting the unused portion to get the pictures that I needed. I now can show up to take team photos at the school I shoot sports for, and get the photos to the school within an hour after I get home.

Three frames is a bit unrealistic.  If all I really need is three frames  so be it.  If that is really all the client needed it will not affect the price of the shoot.  I also don't charge more for four rolls than 1, for the record. I am done when I am done. Fixed price for the job.

With digital, I can send all the shots I took to the organization I shoot for, and allow them to decide which ones to use, and do whatever cropping they decide to use. If necessary I can send my digital “negative” out, as I shoot raw, if the organization wants further control.

No longer having to mail out film or negatives to be processed, being at the mercy of the USPS and worrying if my film/negatives got lost.

Easier to find a picture taken years ago. I file my digital files by year, organization, event, and date. So if the American Cancer Society is looking for a picture taken at the 2010 Pennsville NJ Relay for Life, I can quickly find the file. Would take forever to go through 300 negatives.

Easier to backup and store digital files versus negatives. I have every digital file shot and kept as keepers since 2003. I can't say the same of my negatives/slides taken since mid 1960ies.

Easier to share my pictures using digital. I'm a volunteer event photographer for several local charities and a volunteer sports photographer for a local Christian grammar school. I end up sending anywhere from 5 to 40 dvds out of an event for whatever the organization I shoot for wants. I can send out my files using Wetransfer.com to those organizations that are computer literate and need the files ASAP, as they are on a tight deadline to do a news article of the event.

Most of my clients don't want prints. A photo show dvd using ProShow Producer works for them, plus a photo book from My Producer is all they need.

For prints that the organizations do need, I can upload my file(s) to whoever I want to get printed, and either have the company I have to make the prints ship direct to the organization or to me for personal delivery.

IMHO, digital has surpassed film in 35mm and medium format.

An opinion you are entitled  to. Delusional,  but you are entitled to it.

I can shoot an event without having to change film. It was a royal pia shooting with 120 film when shooting events.

I don't have to add a motor drive to the camera when shooting digital.

I've never had a motor drive. I don't shoot events. I don't shoot for free. Man working here. In film, since 1985.

I'm not a great photographer. I shoot events. Digital allows me to shoot many more pictures than I shoot with film, and keep the ones that I want the client to see, especially when shooting sports.

I can easily edit my picture using Photoshop by shooting digital. Spent countless time editing team photos on a charity event removing an unwanted beer can. Made me a better photographer now because I now look for those unwanted objects and remove before taking the shot. For those objects I can't remove, like a telephone pole, I can edit it out of the file.

No longer have to buy film for a specific color temperature, or use filters to offset if I'm using daylight color film indoors without flash. Love the ability to correct my white balance in Photoshop by shooting raw.

There are many more reasons why I shoot digital. One thing I can definitely say I will never shoot film again, and haven't since 2003.

I can easily edit  some major problem that might arise in Photoshop as well.  I control my  color temp... and pretty much every other aspect of my images.   I cannot imagine shooting at the whim of others - this light this location this time of day these people-... you are probably better off sticking with digital.  It is definitely more snap oriented. It was made for people like you.  Lucky you. I am a professional photographer with complete editorial control and  film is a fantastic medium to work in. Still. Lucky me.

The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 20,087
Re: good luck!

canonagain123 wrote:

carl english wrote:

did mention this on previous post, you could change ISO with film.

only if you process the film yourself. Good luck shooting ASA 400 film and changing to 3200 in the middle of the film and to 800 for the last 4 images and going to a lab (especially today) and telling them to cut the film in the middle and before the 4 last images and develop the second part 6 minutes longer and the last part for 2 minutes longer.

Portra 400......100 to 3200 on e same roll, no problem.  So when you say good luck, is this just an opinion, or is it experience?  I ask because when it comes to film on this forum, opinion runs high, and experience is virtually nil.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +16 more
carl english
carl english Veteran Member • Posts: 9,182
Re: good luck!

Dave Luttmann wrote:

canonagain123 wrote:

carl english wrote:

did mention this on previous post, you could change ISO with film.

only if you process the film yourself. Good luck shooting ASA 400 film and changing to 3200 in the middle of the film and to 800 for the last 4 images and going to a lab (especially today) and telling them to cut the film in the middle and before the 4 last images and develop the second part 6 minutes longer and the last part for 2 minutes longer.

Portra 400......100 to 3200 on e same roll, no problem. So when you say good luck, is this just an opinion, or is it experience? I ask because when it comes to film on this forum, opinion runs high, and experience is virtually nil.

Ilfords XP1/2 was actually processed as colour film C-41 and was useful at Football matches when light was fading, you simply upped the ISO.

 carl english's gear list:carl english's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Panasonic FZ1000 +1 more
(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 1,324
Re: good luck!

Dave Luttmann wrote:

canonagain123 wrote:

carl english wrote:

did mention this on previous post, you could change ISO with film.

only if you process the film yourself. Good luck shooting ASA 400 film and changing to 3200 in the middle of the film and to 800 for the last 4 images and going to a lab (especially today) and telling them to cut the film in the middle and before the 4 last images and develop the second part 6 minutes longer and the last part for 2 minutes longer.

Portra 400......100 to 3200 on e same roll, no problem. So when you say good luck, is this just an opinion, or is it experience? I ask because when it comes to film on this forum, opinion runs high, and experience is virtually nil.

Good luck getting any store today to process it correctly is what I said if you read my other message... if you process it yourself it's no problem, like I said. Please read with more care.

The only way I know of processing different ASAs on the same roll is push/pull processing. As far as I know there's no other way. And if you're push processing then you develop like I said above because the pushed ASA pictures are underexposed which means they need to be developed longer to get the correct exposure.

(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 1,324
I have to agree

DenWil wrote:

I am a professional donkey with complete editorial control of the messages I post and the internet is a fantastic medium to work in. Still. Lucky me.

...agree that many film shooters really seem to be bitter old men! Bitter and pompous. Really, no matter what you shoot, it doesn't make you so much better you can look down on everyone else.

I like film and I like digital. I like them for different reasons and use them for different purposes, just like I use different lenses for different purposes. This "I'm a professional and I use a flat field lens, you snapshooter with your curved field lenses go back to the sandbox to play with the other kids" is just sad. Come on, get a grip.

carl english
carl english Veteran Member • Posts: 9,182
Re: good luck!

canonagain123 wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

canonagain123 wrote:

carl english wrote:

did mention this on previous post, you could change ISO with film.

only if you process the film yourself. Good luck shooting ASA 400 film and changing to 3200 in the middle of the film and to 800 for the last 4 images and going to a lab (especially today) and telling them to cut the film in the middle and before the 4 last images and develop the second part 6 minutes longer and the last part for 2 minutes longer.

Portra 400......100 to 3200 on e same roll, no problem. So when you say good luck, is this just an opinion, or is it experience? I ask because when it comes to film on this forum, opinion runs high, and experience is virtually nil.

Good luck getting any store today to process it correctly is what I said if you read my other message... if you process it yourself it's no problem, like I said. Please read with more care.

The only way I know of processing different ASAs on the same roll is push/pull processing. As far as I know there's no other way. And if you're push processing then you develop like I said above because the pushed ASA pictures are underexposed which means they need to be developed longer to get the correct exposure.

The whole point of using XP was simply to get an image for the press, quality was not really an issue. My processor was also a good photographer.

 carl english's gear list:carl english's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Panasonic FZ1000 +1 more
JP Scherrer
JP Scherrer Forum Pro • Posts: 10,513
@ DenWil ! How can you be so presomptuous ?

....reading your post, it seems that the fact of shooting only FILM, only between 10 AM and 4 PM, and only at ISO 100 makes you a better photographer, getting better results than a "digital shooter" ?

I thought it was understood by now that the quality of an image depends much more on the photographers's skills than on the tools he uses !?!

If you are a bad film photographer, you won't magically become a good one by shooting digital, and vice-versa !

BTW, I wonder what you are doing on DPReview..... you should not even have a computer: it's so "new fashion" !

J-P.

 JP Scherrer's gear list:JP Scherrer's gear list
Nikon 1 V1 Nikon 1 J1 Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +9 more
(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 5,400
Re: good luck!

Dave Luttmann wrote:

canonagain123 wrote:

carl english wrote:

did mention this on previous post, you could change ISO with film.

only if you process the film yourself. Good luck shooting ASA 400 film and changing to 3200 in the middle of the film and to 800 for the last 4 images and going to a lab (especially today) and telling them to cut the film in the middle and before the 4 last images and develop the second part 6 minutes longer and the last part for 2 minutes longer.

Portra 400......100 to 3200 on e same roll, no problem. So when you say good luck, is this just an opinion, or is it experience? I ask because when it comes to film on this forum, opinion runs high, and experience is virtually nil.

I'd like to see that enlarged, with three stops of underexposure at 3200. Pretty flat and grainy, is my guess. Later Kodak C-41 negative films relied on overlapping dye clouds to minimize grain. Underexposure largely eliminated that advantage.

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 5,400
Re: good luck!

carl english wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

canonagain123 wrote:

carl english wrote:

did mention this on previous post, you could change ISO with film.

only if you process the film yourself. Good luck shooting ASA 400 film and changing to 3200 in the middle of the film and to 800 for the last 4 images and going to a lab (especially today) and telling them to cut the film in the middle and before the 4 last images and develop the second part 6 minutes longer and the last part for 2 minutes longer.

Portra 400......100 to 3200 on e same roll, no problem. So when you say good luck, is this just an opinion, or is it experience? I ask because when it comes to film on this forum, opinion runs high, and experience is virtually nil.

Ilfords XP1/2 was actually processed as colour film C-41 and was useful at Football matches when light was fading, you simply upped the ISO.

I shot those films quite a bit.  The IQ was better at the rated speeds. Three stops under wasn't very good. There was increased grain and a lack of punch.

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 5,400
Re: good luck!

carl english wrote:

canonagain123 wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

canonagain123 wrote:

carl english wrote:

did mention this on previous post, you could change ISO with film.

only if you process the film yourself. Good luck shooting ASA 400 film and changing to 3200 in the middle of the film and to 800 for the last 4 images and going to a lab (especially today) and telling them to cut the film in the middle and before the 4 last images and develop the second part 6 minutes longer and the last part for 2 minutes longer.

Portra 400......100 to 3200 on e same roll, no problem. So when you say good luck, is this just an opinion, or is it experience? I ask because when it comes to film on this forum, opinion runs high, and experience is virtually nil.

Good luck getting any store today to process it correctly is what I said if you read my other message... if you process it yourself it's no problem, like I said. Please read with more care.

The only way I know of processing different ASAs on the same roll is push/pull processing. As far as I know there's no other way. And if you're push processing then you develop like I said above because the pushed ASA pictures are underexposed which means they need to be developed longer to get the correct exposure.

The whole point of using XP was simply to get an image for the press, quality was not really an issue. My processor was also a good photographer.

But isn't quality an issue in this thread? XP underexposed three stops, side-by-side with FF digital ISO 3200 B&W raw conversions from a good DSLR? I don't think so.

The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 20,087
Re: good luck!

canonagain123 wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

canonagain123 wrote:

carl english wrote:

did mention this on previous post, you could change ISO with film.

only if you process the film yourself. Good luck shooting ASA 400 film and changing to 3200 in the middle of the film and to 800 for the last 4 images and going to a lab (especially today) and telling them to cut the film in the middle and before the 4 last images and develop the second part 6 minutes longer and the last part for 2 minutes longer.

Portra 400......100 to 3200 on e same roll, no problem. So when you say good luck, is this just an opinion, or is it experience? I ask because when it comes to film on this forum, opinion runs high, and experience is virtually nil.

Good luck getting any store today to process it correctly is what I said if you read my other message... if you process it yourself it's no problem, like I said. Please read with more care.

The only way I know of processing different ASAs on the same roll is push/pull processing. As far as I know there's no other way. And if you're push processing then you develop like I said above because the pushed ASA pictures are underexposed which means they need to be developed longer to get the correct exposure.

Portra 400 with a 1 stop push results in great results from 400 to 3200 on the same roll. Many labs have no problem with this. I know about pushing film quite well thanks....been doing it for decades. Heres a link to two photographers who have tested it extensively. I have many other samples if you are interested.

You not knowing something doesn't mean many of us do.

http://www.twinlenslife.com/2010/12/in-bleak-midwinter-new-kodak-portra400.html

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +16 more
The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 20,087
Re: good luck!

Lightpath48 wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

canonagain123 wrote:

carl english wrote:

did mention this on previous post, you could change ISO with film.

only if you process the film yourself. Good luck shooting ASA 400 film and changing to 3200 in the middle of the film and to 800 for the last 4 images and going to a lab (especially today) and telling them to cut the film in the middle and before the 4 last images and develop the second part 6 minutes longer and the last part for 2 minutes longer.

Portra 400......100 to 3200 on e same roll, no problem. So when you say good luck, is this just an opinion, or is it experience? I ask because when it comes to film on this forum, opinion runs high, and experience is virtually nil.

I'd like to see that enlarged, with three stops of underexposure at 3200. Pretty flat and grainy, is my guess. Later Kodak C-41 negative films relied on overlapping dye clouds to minimize grain. Underexposure largely eliminated that advantage.

Portra handles it just fine. I've produced 12x18 prints for wedding albums rated at 1600 with no issue. Modern films are very good in this regard. Here's a test

http://www.twinlenslife.com/2010/12/in-bleak-midwinter-new-kodak-portra400.html

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +16 more
(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 947
Re: agreed

I couldn't do my job without a digital camera. incredibly convenient and technically first class. I can do things with it that I couldn't do 20 years in my wildest dreams (wifi downlink from my tethered helium lifting balloon for one..)

But sometimes I like to get down and salty in the darkroom with my view camera. It's a solid beast from the 192o's of brass and mahogany and a ground glass screen with a head cloth. Great fun and 5"x7" negs that produced a stonking quality image. However it is fun. Using it all day for work assuredly wouldn't be great..humping it around and cutting sheet film in the dark.

There are a couple of quite aggressive threads running Film vs Digital, driven by one particular forum member who appears to have an agenda. I don't know why?

Film and digital are actually complimentary. I simply don't see political correctness in forcing the use / acceptance of one media over another.

(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 947
Re: Next up ... why I drive a horseless carriage ... <nt>

Dennis wrote:

-- hide signature --

My wife is a fine horsewoman. Loves riding! She's also not a bad carriage driver either.

The upside of her riding to me..apart from me enjoying her enjoying her sport, are her superb thighs and bottom!

Thus even a horse & carriage has value in 2014!

trueview Regular Member • Posts: 180
Re: Why I shoot digital

As a still dedicated film shooter (see my replies in the threads that probably inspired yours), I can only agree with your arguments. I have been using digital along with film precisely for these reasons.

I can actually add a couple more.

For color printing, the digital workflow, wether from a scanned film or a digital shot, allows for more color correction than the analog process, and it also allows for using more attractive paper bases than the regular RA4. Less true for BW where in my personal opinion fiber base prints still hold an advantage.

When travelling and taking several flights, you don't have to go into lengthy negociations with security agents to avoid having your films run through the X-ray machine.

It is great on the current generation of digital cameras to be able to occasionnally shoot a video. I have added a good quality mic and a backscreen loupe to my 5Diii system for this purpose.

On the other hand :

Shooting many more shots with digital : I try to avoid taht by all means, because I have little patience for tedious editing. In other words I try to have the same conservative approach wether I shoot film or digital.

Easier to find a shot taken years ago : not so sure. I try and using the same filing technique for both film and digital, by dates. I also do a quick scan of much of my films, to keep an easily searchable, tag based, record of them, along with my digital shots. Works pretty good.

brianric wrote:

Photography has been a hobby of mine since the mid 1960ies. First SLR was a Nikkormat, then the legendary Nikon FTN. Over the years I've shot with Canon and Minoltas SLRs, Koni-Omega and Omegaflex 6x7, Mamiya C330F, Minolta APS, and more digital cameras than I can remember. My first digital camera was a HP C20. I was a delta tester for HP, which meant I was given the camera for free to use, and submit reports to HP on the use of the camera. When the testing phase was over, the camera was mine to keep. I first started digitizing my pictures in 1989 for my newsletter of my charity bicycle rides by scanning in the pictures I took of the event by scanning the printed pictures. I switched completely over to digital in 2003, when the resolution on digital cameras was good enough for my use, and allowed me to skip the scanning part to digitized my pictures.

I shoot digital exclusively since 2003 because:

I can go out on an all day event and vary my ISO. I would have to change film to do that.

50% of the time I'm shooting at ISO 1600 or higher. Back in the day shooting film it was Tri-X film at ASA 400. Way to much grain for my taste.

Never having a dark room, digital freed me from having someone else deciding what to crop. I remember using Lustre Color in Canton Mass, and I was given two cropping masks to use on 35mm, and I thing up to seven to choose on 6x7. Digital allows me to specify exactly what I want.

First time I printed a 20x30 print was from a picture taken by a Canon 20D, an 8 MP camera. I was totally blown away at how sharp and lack of grain in the picture. I rarely printed larger than 8x10 using 35mm film because of the grain. If I knew I needed larger prints using film I would use my Koni-Omegas or my C330F.

It was a royal PIA if I need to shoot just two or three photos using film, and either wait until I finish the roll, or have the film developed wasting the unused portion to get the pictures that I needed. I now can show up to take team photos at the school I shoot sports for, and get the photos to the school within an hour after I get home.

With digital, I can send all the shots I took to the organization I shoot for, and allow them to decide which ones to use, and do whatever cropping they decide to use. If necessary I can send my digital “negative” out, as I shoot raw, if the organization wants further control.

No longer having to mail out film or negatives to be processed, being at the mercy of the USPS and worrying if my film/negatives got lost.

Easier to find a picture taken years ago. I file my digital files by year, organization, event, and date. So if the American Cancer Society is looking for a picture taken at the 2010 Pennsville NJ Relay for Life, I can quickly find the file. Would take forever to go through 300 negatives.

Easier to backup and store digital files versus negatives. I have every digital file shot and kept as keepers since 2003. I can't say the same of my negatives/slides taken since mid 1960ies.

Easier to share my pictures using digital. I'm a volunteer event photographer for several local charities and a volunteer sports photographer for a local Christian grammar school. I end up sending anywhere from 5 to 40 dvds out of an event for whatever the organization I shoot for wants. I can send out my files using Wetransfer.com to those organizations that are computer literate and need the files ASAP, as they are on a tight deadline to do a news article of the event.

Most of my clients don't want prints. A photo show dvd using ProShow Producer works for them, plus a photo book from My Producer is all they need.

For prints that the organizations do need, I can upload my file(s) to whoever I want to get printed, and either have the company I have to make the prints ship direct to the organization or to me for personal delivery.

IMHO, digital has surpassed film in 35mm and medium format.

I can shoot an event without having to change film. It was a royal pia shooting with 120 film when shooting events.

I don't have to add a motor drive to the camera when shooting digital.

I'm not a great photographer. I shoot events. Digital allows me to shoot many more pictures than I shoot with film, and keep the ones that I want the client to see, especially when shooting sports.

I can easily edit my picture using Photoshop by shooting digital. Spent countless time editing team photos on a charity event removing an unwanted beer can. Made me a better photographer now because I now look for those unwanted objects and remove before taking the shot. For those objects I can't remove, like a telephone pole, I can edit it out of the file.

No longer have to buy film for a specific color temperature, or use filters to offset if I'm using daylight color film indoors without flash. Love the ability to correct my white balance in Photoshop by shooting raw.

There are many more reasons why I shoot digital. One thing I can definitely say I will never shoot film again, and haven't since 2003.

The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 20,087
Re: Next up ... why I drive a horseless carriage ... <nt>

Dennis wrote:

-- hide signature --

I often see this ignorant comment here.  You must be right.  Everyone should stop drawing and painting because photography replaced it.  Sculptor....who needs it....get a 3D printer.  Piano!  Get with the times and buy a synthesizer.

Or, your analogy is simply childish and uninformed.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +16 more
jay bbe Regular Member • Posts: 116
Re: agreed

Jaberwok wrote:

I couldn't do my job without a digital camera. incredibly convenient and technically first class. I can do things with it that I couldn't do 20 years in my wildest dreams (wifi downlink from my tethered helium lifting balloon for one..)

But sometimes I like to get down and salty in the darkroom with my view camera. It's a solid beast from the 192o's of brass and mahogany and a ground glass screen with a head cloth. Great fun and 5"x7" negs that produced a stonking quality image. However it is fun. Using it all day for work assuredly wouldn't be great..humping it around and cutting sheet film in the dark.

There are a couple of quite aggressive threads running Film vs Digital, driven by one particular forum member who appears to have an agenda. I don't know why?

Film and digital are actually complimentary. I simply don't see political correctness in forcing the use / acceptance of one media over another.

As part of one my photography course modules I wanted to use large format but the department only had a few LF cameras students could borrow and I did not want to end up missing out so I paid for use of a fine art photographer's studio.  His 5x7 camera was a real beast from a similar era, likewise his enlarger, it was a challenging but fun experience.

Film and digital are indeed complimentary and photographers should feel free to use  whatever mediums they like without having to validate their choices.

 jay bbe's gear list:jay bbe's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 Olympus XZ-2 iHS Nikon D90 Nikon D750 Nikon D7200 +1 more
Raymond Cho Senior Member • Posts: 1,370
I use both

Sure, digital is way more flexible, way more modern, way more IQ, color accurate and modern yes. No doubt.

I use film b/c it is a hobby an I like to be more involved, than just refer to the LCD and Photoshop / LR it until I am happy with it. So I like the hands on approach, research, choose film, shoot it slowly carefully, wait for the results when it's at the lab. Employing grad filters, warming / cooling filters etc.

I just got into self processing b/w film, I just carry a 2nd body like a Nikon FM2 similar to the Olympus OM.

For a hobbyist it is a lot cheaper too. Instead of the fancy internal motor VR/IS nano coated lenses, lenses have gotten a lot more expensive, every new model gets more expensive, even the same stuff year after year can be more. For the amount of nice shots an amateur gets, is a $2,000 camera body worth it? Financially they could get a $100 film body with much cheaper lenses. Still money left over for film and lab / chemistry costs. To me there is a lot more feel with film. I've been to photography galleries but I preferred the film collection there ...

But sure for high ISO it is digital. I don't do much of that. Mainly off a tripod but when I do b/w I like the grainy look for the occasional street / travel photo. I use digital mainly for things like passports, family and friends where they need it on FB.

Mainly shooting Velvia slides and b/w film not the C41 stuff at all now, nor the b/w C41.  I do the DIY developing.  Looking at picking up a Hasselblad film body.

 Raymond Cho's gear list:Raymond Cho's gear list
Ricoh GR Nikon D70 Nikon D600 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +12 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads