[design219]

If so, why, and what do you shoot?

What opinions do you have about digital vs. film?

[MallyMal]

Yeah, a lot of folks still shoot on film because film still has a greater dynamic range than most digital cams(including the RED).

However, I do understand where you are coming from. I have an HVX200 and love the image quality.

Wait, are talking still or motion? I typed the above and realized that you may be talking about still photography and not motion film like I originally thought.

[iranfromthezoo]

when I was in college I had to take a film photography class. First Semester was B&W and the second was color. I fell in love with it quickly and have a lot of my prints still in my portfolio. I've gone and created my own dark room.

I honestly love film. I think the idea is that every college student has photoshop and likes to call what they do "art" but I like the idea of knowing that with film I did everything manually to manipulate image. Of course I wouldn't use film photography when I do my graphic work just because of ease of use but there is just something "original" about using film.

I use a Nikon FM10 by the way. My DSLR is an Olympus E-410 and my point and shoot is an Olympus SP-500uz. I love them all and the quality is great from all and I love how both my SLR's are small and easy to hold.

[starman]

I grew up on film, and had access to darkrooms through high school and college. However, it's just not practical anymore. I've since given up on it and went to digital. Canon EOS-20D.

[mitchell_pgh]

35mm film vs. Digital, Digital wins... hands down.

Large format: different story... there are still areas where film can beat out digital, but if you want consistency... digital is more consistent.

[chris v]

No. Next question?


Seriously, I hope it doesn't become a lost art, (like hand-lettering) or get to the point where it's no longer made, like flash bulbs. But yeah, I got sick of sending my Kodachrome off in the mail for weeks at a time, and just praying that it would return.

I made the digital leap a little over a year ago and got a Nikon D50, and absolutely love the thing. I know it's not the highest-end camera out there, but it cleans the floor with my old Pentax K-1000, I'm sorry to say. Plus I love that I can have a picture edited and on Flickr within 5 minutes of taking it. 'Tis the march of progress.

Edit: 2 gb card that holds 250+ RAW files, vs. 36 shots of film, then stop to change rolls... I am OVER it.

[KeriVit]

I like both.

We went out last weekend and shot some cemetery stuff. The black and white is still phenomenaql on the 35mm film. But the eas and immediacy of the digital is great.

Unfortunately, my digi cam is 2 or 3 years old and tho the res is fine- the 1.3 inch viewfinder is... well, ya... you get it.


KV
GoPats

[mitchell_pgh]

I taught b&w at a college, and I think it's a VERY valuable think to know... you understand the mechanics of the camera, even if much of it is automated.

[design219]

I started taking photos in 1976 and started shooting professionally in 1979. I used to love working with film, pushing and pulling it to get the most from the medium. I was a little slow making the switch to digital, but now, I wouldn't go back. The only film equipment I've kept is one 35mm body and my 4x5 studio camera, which is getting almost no use anymore.

I agree that the experience with film and darkroom work is a great background for working in the digital workflow.

[iMOTOR]

For motion picture work, most of the ads we shoot are still on super-16 and occasionally 3-perf 35mm. I've been using the Kodak Vision 2 stocks, but will probably be switching to Vision 3 soon.

For the still photography I do personally, digital has replaced film for color stuff, but not for b&w. I still prefer medium and large format b&w film over digital.

[red rocket]

The key consideration for me is, film forces you to think more about what and how you shoot, which is basically why I never took any snapshots on film, or home movies on cine, just artsy stuff. Digital has changed some of that, I now photograph and video‑film things to an extent I never would have considered on celluloid. Not a bad thing, I kind of enjoy it, if not as much as all the manual, chemical stuff.

That said, if I wanted to create something with proper artistic ambition, I'd still use one of my 35mm/medium format/Lomos/pinhole cameras or my Super‑8 and 16mm movie cameras. Gonna have to set up my own darkroom some day, the equipment has gotten so cheap lately, I don't think there's a point in having some lab do my developing and enlarging, anymore.

[PaperNotes]

It's going to be a while before consumer or prosumer digital beats film on quality and control unless you use a very expensive professional digital camera like a Hasselblad. The latest Hasselblad's are absolutely amazing to work with in terms on how large the sensor is and how much detail they can capture with a good lens.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

The key consideration for me is, film forces you to think more about what and how you shoot,

Precisely why if you look at family albums and paparazzi photos (meaning, quick takes) from years ago they almost always look professional because there was more prep and cost involved. People were more careful. Nowadays it is so cheap and easy to take a photo that out of hundreds of shots maybe two or three have any real quality or lasting appeal about them.

[design219]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

The key consideration for me is, film forces you to think more about what and how you shoot

Yes, a good point. I know I benefited from years with film. When you have such a cost involved, it does make you get the most out of it. I still shoot with digital like it is film, but I have to admit to getting a bit lazy sometime. I haven't used a strobe meter in a long time. But then again, I haven't had to shoot polaroid tests shots in a long time either.

I wonder about today who start with digital. Is there any learning advantage to the immediate feedback you get?

[SirCastor]

At film school, we weren't allowed to shoot on anything other than film until our Junior year.
I appreciate it though. It forces you to respect what you're doing because every time you roll you are spending money, and a lot of it. You gain a responsibility for what you're doing, and you learn to take care of everything before hand, instead of wasting people's time on set.

[glideslope]

Film was still a relevant media until the Nikon D3. My points would be the same as in this link/D3 review.

N�RFOTO Bj�rn R�rslett

[peeb]

I have just switched over, and my big worry for family snaps and things is permanence. I have negatives and prints from 20 years ago - but I have lost countless discs and computers over the years.

[abbaZaba]

I don't think anyone in the world shoots film anymore.

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I have just switched over, and my big worry for family snaps and things is permanence. I have negatives and prints from 20 years ago - but I have lost countless discs and computers over the years.

You stop doing that as soon as you have something sizable you need to save.

Do you listen to mp3s? I imagine you've taken some measures to insure not loosing your collection, and copy things over when you get a new computer. Same deal with the photos.

Haven't lost a photo since the we got a digital in 2002.

[peeb]

Well, I do, in fact, keep all my cds, and rip them to mp3 - I don't buy digital downloads. But, yes, I guess you're right. Right now I am printing out (professionally) the photos I really want to keep. Plus I have Time Machine and a periodic backup in different physical locations.

[osiris]

Film what? Movies or stills?

Movies = film. Digital formats are too contrasty, film is softer +has more range. 35mm, 70mm Kodak stocks, Fuji for those kinky days. Digital media will catch up someday... For small Indy films DV works okay with the right lenses and frame rates.

Pictures - I prefer the look of film, but for convenience use digital. A Canon 7.0 mp from Japan.

[peeb]

From Japan? Say it's not true!

[osiris]

Originally Posted by peeb 

From Japan? Say it's not true!

It's not true!

Really, it is from Shinjuku.

[Chongo]

I have a Minolta Htsi+ that takes great photos. I bought an external flash and a 300mm zoom. Then I bought a Minolta DiMAGE Z, 3.2 Mp and 10x optical zoom. It was the only prosumer camera at that time with a hot shoe. It has the equivalent zoom as my 35mm with the 300mm lens on and with the external flash it also take great pictures. I was told with a 10x or better optical zoom, anything over 3Mp is over kill, unless you are going to print posters.

If I were still using my 35mm camera I could never afford to develop all the pictured I take. I dump them on my Mac, and use them for slide shows on the DVDs I make for of party's weddings etc. I shot some video and photos at my FIL family reunion and made a DVD and website. They were going to hire a photographer just to take pictures. I took photos and made them a DVD for what they were going to pay ($20 per DVD)
Pagnucco Family Reunion 2007

[mydog8mymac]

I still shoot film. Many magazines still require it (transparencies mostly). I did a shoot for Metropolitan Home last year and they wanted medium format transparencies.
Film grain is like the brushstrokes of a painting, very beautiful and still appreciated in the fine art world.
I do love my Nikon D-100 for it's immediacy. I can't wait to get my hands on a D-3!

[Daniel Bayer]

I shoot full time professionally, not weddings either.

I use both. Digital has not / will not ever replace film for me. The workflow, the results are different.

Of course people shoot film.

[JoshuaZ]

Pictures = Digital. I do a lot of underwater stuff these days and like to take a lot of pictures.

Video = film. My mini DV camera still works super great. No reason to upgrade.

Though I do use my digital camera to shoot decent video underwater. Gotta love big and cheap SD cards.

YouTube - Diving Poor Knights Island, New Zealand

[OreoCookie]

Not anymore. My film days are over, also because of costs and time. I would like to have all my pictures on my computer, so even if I shoot on film, there'd be a need to scan them -- and that costs time and money (for a good film scanner).

Regarding quality, I'm not so sure whether film has an edge for the casual user or even ambitious amateurs. AFAIK film has a dynamic range of about 10 EV (some sources even claim 12), modern digital cameras reach 8.5-9.5 EV, the kind of dynamic range (Fuji S5 Pro) reaches 11.8 EV. Digibacks that cost as much as a car have a dynamic range of 12 EV as well. Negativ films tend to have a higher dynamic range than slide films.
So now you might think, films have an edge? Well, first of all, most pictures you'll take have a used dynamic range of 5-8 EV. How do you get your images into the computer now? Well, you scan them. It's clear that slide film (which has a smaller dynamic range) is easier to handle, otherwise you'll spend some time fixing the color of the film. Obviously you're limited by the dynamic range of the scanner and more expensive scanners tend to work slower.

So only under few conditions you'll need those 1-2 extra EV in dynamic range and it will be very difficult to actually make good use of this extra dynamic range.

Then there is noise. Back in the days when Nikon didn't have a full-frame sensor, some Canon aficionados were claiming that the noise of non-FF cameras was somehow `unacceptable'.
I've shot this picture a few years ago with my Nikon F80; I've used Ilford FP4 Plus (ISO 125), a bw film with a very good reputation (not saying, it's the best, but I love shooting with it). It was scanned with a professional film scanner at 16 megapixels.

As you can see from the crop, it's rather grainy

I've had this one printed in 50x80 cm^2 and it's now hanging in my parents' living room. I love film grain

So while film is not bad, it's increasingly expensive to shoot on film. I saw 1 GB SD cards on sale for 7 € the other day (~$11). Other than that, I still might be using my father's Zeiss Ikon Contessa LK

[red rocket]

↑ Nice photo, Cookie. If you upload that at a larger size, I'd use it as a desktop picture.

[OreoCookie]

Your wish is my command.

I've actually given them an edited version where I've edited a slight amount of sepia and increased the contrast a little. I wanted to post the original, though, for the sake of discussion

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

Film was still a relevant media until the Nikon D3. My points would be the same as in this link/D3 review.

N�RFOTO Bj�rn R�rslett

MY EYES!!

[Daniel Bayer]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

So while film is not bad, it's increasingly expensive to shoot on film.

One of the rewards of being successful at photography is being able to afford the things that matter most to you. For me, that would be time and film.

Don't get me wrong, I shoot over 250,000 digital images a year, but it is not "Cheaper" for everyone by any means. I find I spend more time on the computer than I want to when dealing with big jobs...it's not that I hate the computer, it's just that I don't like what it is doing to society in general, it has really disconnected people from the real tactile world and in return, a lot of folks care less about it.

But honestly, shooting black and white film is fairly cheap. And even though I do scan it here and there, I tend to print it traditionally as most high end fine art buyers don't care to spend the same amount of money on a digitally derived print than they do a hand done one. I for one, can't say I blame them.

And all this talk about dynamic range. A great photographer had plenty in film. Now there is so much of it in digital that amateur photos often look flat and boring.

I'll take the incredible and yet constrained range of Kodachrome over digital any day...but that's because I see that way, in that range of great chromatic tonal distribution. And while were on the subject of Kodachrome, clearly something that will always blow the doors off of digital, google it and look at a special project I am doing with the entire world.

Yes indeed, digital is great, but it has not brought great photography to the masses. By and large, I just see a whole lot more mediocrity out there.

Film more expensive? The film industry does not think so...

According to "The Digital Dilemma," a report recently released by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, digital film storage costs $12,510 per year, compared with $1,059 for celluloid. More dramatically, source materials -- those out-takes and audio recordings that often make up bonus content for special edition products -- cost 429 times as much to store, a whopping $208,500 per year for digital materials vs. $486 for film.

Film is not cheap, it is priceless. This computer life a lot seem to spend most of their time in, dime a dozen as it errodes away your chance at having a real life.

My FTP is done, it is snowing outside, I am taking my 500 C/M and some Techpan and going "o u t s i d e" to shoot some photos...

[design219]

Your Kodachrome project looks ambitious, and I wish you luck with it. I use to love Kodachrome and used it for may years, but as you say, I really think its days are numbered.

Kodachrome is a beautiful film, but a nasty product environmentally. But then again, so are many enjoyable things in this world.

[harbinger75]

What's this "film" you speak of?

[voodoo]

Kodachrome is just one type of color film. It happens to be a very rare type, expensive, but good. Possibly the best color film available.

I still use film, but I also use digital. I prefer film.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Kodachrome is just one type of color film. It happens to be a very rare type, expensive, but good. Possibly the best color film available.

The advantage of Kodachrome is permanence. Kept properly, it'll retain color for 50+ years. E6 process slide film starts to go south at 10-15 years. I shot Kodachrome for this reason for a long time, but got to where I hated its red bias, and I much prefer Fuji Velvia now, if I were to shoot film. I've got a good slide scanner, and I think I can finish scanning the rest of my slides before the newest of them start to degrade.

[okto]

Someone earlier said their D50 mops the floor with their K1000, and I have one question: at what?
It doesn't meter any better, if you know what you're doing.
It doesn't have better image quality than, say, Fuji's current color film.
It has an inferior viewfinder (the viewfinder is actually its worst feature).
It doesn't react as quickly and has to boot when you turn it on.
It has pain-in-the-ass white balance to fuss with.


All it does, as all digital cameras everywhere do, is provide instant gratification and think for you. If you know what you're doing, digital provides no other advantage than speed, and that only if you don't edit your images after you upload them and print them on a top-end printer. Given a processed negative and a ready-to-go DNG file, I'll have an 11x14 print done in a wet lab before you have one out of the printer. And my equipment costs less and is future-proof.


Digital is good for two groups of photogs: working PJs and amateurs that like the camera to think for them. Digital is seen as the magic bullet because you never have to fuss with media, but the cash outlay is outrageous, and you enter the tech upgrade cycle. My K1000 from the 70s makes better pictures now than it did when it was new by a huge margin, due to massive leaps in film tech. It's unlikely that in 30 years your D50 will make any images at all.

None of this is to say your D50 is crap, it's a great camera; but it isn't better at making images than your K1000. It just makes them differently.

You determine the quality of images that come out, the camera is just there to record them.

[design219]

Originally Posted by okto 

Digital is good for two groups of photogs: working PJs and amateurs that like the camera to think for them.

So, how much have you worked with digital cameras?

I disagree, and I have been shooting professionally since 1979.

[powerbook867]

wow..lumping all digital shooters into two categories seems a bit extreme. Yes if you have a DSLR and you shoot only with the big green square and buy glass to show off to your friends, yeah, I guess you might be on target w/ the amateur side of the house.. PJ's...maybe... I am not a photojournalist so I can't give an opinion..

I have never shot film. I have no urge to shoot film. My 40D does an outstanding job at all ISO's and I am picky about the glass I buy balancing both price and quality. Been shooting for about 5 years now...sports, landscape, portrait. If I would have shot film, I would have never gotten any work (since it is still a hobby but one I do make enough money to support gear purchases..) and the jobs I pick up tend to be next day turn around and demand digital.

I have a lot of friends with extremely professional portfolios that would disagree with you statement regarding digital. Most of the Camera manufacturers would disagree as well.

[Eug]

Some people will say: "Film makes you think about the pictures you take."

That's bull.

I'd say that most people who don't think about digital pix they take also didn't think about film pix they took. ie. Most of their pix suck regardless of what medium they use. The difference though is now they can take 100X more pictures, so one or two of them will actually be usable.

P.S. Back in the day I always found it amusing that some of the same people who ranted against digital would have no problem using polaroids for testing.

Originally Posted by okto

My K1000 from the 70s makes better pictures now than it did when it was new by a huge margin, due to massive leaps in film tech. It's unlikely that in 30 years your D50 will make any images at all.

Who cares? I hope that in 30 years I will be using something far better than the D50.

I like antique gear too. My personal fave I own is my Yashica Mat-124G. But I'd like to think that camera tech has advanced just a little bit since then...

[design219]

I was slow to go digital, assuming it could not compete with film. That's why I question okto about how much he has used digital. I have to believe his opinion is from one side of the fence.

[Chongo]

something I shot yesterday with my Dimage Z1

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Some people will say: "Film makes you think about the pictures you take."

That's bull.

I'd say that most people who don't think about digital pix they take also didn't think about film pix they took. ie. Most of their pix suck regardless of what medium they use. The difference though is now they can take 100X more pictures, so one or two of them will actually be usable.

P.S. Back in the day I always found it amusing that some of the same people who ranted against digital would have no problem using polaroids for testing.



Who cares? I hope that in 30 years I will be using something far better than the D50.

I like antique gear too. My personal fave I own is my Yashica Mat-124G. But I'd like to think that camera tech has advanced just a little bit since then...

I use to have one of those. I sold it on ebay.

[iMOTOR]

Originally Posted by Eug 

P.S. Back in the day I always found it amusing that some of the same people who ranted against digital would have no problem using polaroids for testing.

That's because digital sucked back in the day. I remember in '99 the only digital even remotely close to medium format was a three shot leaf back that had to tethered to a PowerMac.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Eug 

P.S. Back in the day I always found it amusing that some of the same people who ranted against digital would have no problem using polaroids for testing.

Huh? This makes perfect sense to me.

I think if you tried to convince these people that polaroids is what they should use as their production format, they would rant against that idea in exactly the same manner.

[Eug]

The argument was that the instant gratification of digital removes the reason to think... yet they are more than willing to use the instant gratification of polaroids.

I'm just a weak amateur of course, but I personally think it some ways it's easier to learn with digital than with film, unless you have unlimited money and time.

Yeah, I learned to develop my own B/W film, but I destroyed a few sinks doing so, and it cost me a fortune as a student. Even developing just a few rolls of film was enough to seriously affect my budget if I had it developed professionally. And if I didn't, it would take forever... and kill my sink. Now a student can take 300 shots digitally in one sitting, with various different settings and it costs basically nothing, once you have the camera. (Flash memory is cheap as borscht now.) It's quite nice to be able to compare all the various options all at once so quickly.

Digital is simply a tool, just as film is simply a tool. Digital just makes things potentially much faster, including learning.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Eug 

The argument was that the instant gratification of digital removes the reason to think... yet they are more than willing to use the instant gratification of polaroids.

Running a test sort of implies you are thinking about it, right?

Don't get me wrong. Making a value judgement of a tool based not on the tool itself but on how someone can choose to use it is totally cockeyed, but it also seems to me that the idea of running a test first (even if you get instantaneous results) is pretty much the opposite of instant gratification.

IOW, yes those people are being retarded, but they are not displaying their retardation through inconsistency, which is what it seemed to me you were saying.

[design219]

The Polaroid comment is just weird. When you shoot professionally, the bottom line is getting it right. Polaroid was a great tool for checking light balance and composition, which can be a tricky thing with a highly tilted and shifted 4x5 view camera (viewing upside down and under a dark cloth).

The earlier comment about the first digital backs not being that great are dead on, but the technology is much, much better now.

Originally Posted by Eug 

I personally think it some ways it's easier to learn with digital than with film, unless you have unlimited money and time.

That is an excellent observation. It used to be much harder to get into professional photography because of the investment in materials it took to learn the craft well. I started very, very young using my dad's equipment. I started shooting professionally in high school for a local newspaper, which allowed me to get a lot of experience without the expense.

I think people starting into photography today don't have the worries of not being 100% sure until you have you developed image.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Now a student can take 300 shots digitally in one sitting, with various different settings and it costs basically nothing, once you have the camera. (Flash memory is cheap as borscht now.) It's quite nice to be able to compare all the various options all at once so quickly.

Yep - agreed - digital has improved the images I have because I can now shoot so many - I still only keep perhaps 10% of what I shoot, but shooting 300 a day rather than 24-50 a day means the likelihood of a couple of really good ones is much higher - the ability to practice constantly for free is pretty important to amateurs.