Digital V Film or Film V Digital

goldie

goldie

Suspended / Banned
Messages
28
Name
goldie
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Guys I need your opinion on this subject.... Digital or Film, Film or Digital
Am doing a presentation at Uni next week about the pros and cons of both meduims... i would like to know what you think, and your views on which one is best and why.... thanks i know you wont let me down :D
 
goldie said:
Hi Guys I need your opinion on this subject.... Digital or Film, Film or Digital
Am doing a presentation at Uni next week about the pros and cons of both meduims... i would like to know what you think, and your views on which one is best and why.... thanks i know you wont let me down :D
Click to expand...

having used both...i wouldnt use film again as an amateur snapper

cost and time to get results are the downside...quality was good...but you had to get the right labs to do the processing

now with digital its shoot to your hearts content...edit/delete...pp and get someone to print them if you arent inclined to..

you can send digital stuff internet wise and right away..almost minutes after the shot...

storage is easier as well

i wish more were interested in film though..i have a 35 slr and 4 lenses for sale which i cant even get any interest on
 
mrcrow said:
having used both...i wouldnt use film again as an amateur snapper

cost and time to get results are the downside...quality was good...but you had to get the right labs to do the processing

now with digital its shoot to your hearts content...edit/delete...pp and get someone to print them if you arent inclined to..

you can send digital stuff internet wise and right away..almost minutes after the shot...

storage is easier as well

i wish more were interested in film though..i have a 35 slr and 4 lenses for sale which i cant even get any interest on
Click to expand...

That mirrors my experience and views also.
When I did film I always wanted to shoot more pics than I could afford film and processing for so that was a big constraint. Shoot to my hearts content now.
 
Sounds more like you want us to do your homework for you ;).

But anyway, your answer to this question lies in your own research and analysis. If I were you I would get hold of an old film camera, a digital and photograph the same subjects. Print both images and write a detailed report of your findings. Findings can be anything like dynamic range, color, sharpness, grain, contrast, feel, etc,... Once you start writing about it you will come to a conclusion on your findings. This will give you a better insight as to why some people are still using film.

I shoot both mediums. Why, because some subjects look better in Reala 100 or Provia 100F or Ilford Delta 100 and some look better in full digital color. Its up to you to figure that out. Thats the point of the presentation.
 
You might want to ask this in the film section of the forum as well... sure you will get plenty of replies!

I think a lot depends on the film used when comparing as well, a £1 cheapo film v a decent slide or B&W etc.. just like comparing camera sensors I suppose.

I would say Digital for work and film for pleasure :-)

Also,

Then you have medium/large format... it's a big question when you step back and look at it!
 
Many pro's still use film alongside digital capture, for me nothing beats the benefits of af speed, fast aperture zooms, high iso, instant preview and image control via RAW capture that high end digi cameras give for wedding work. On the other hand for landscape work I prefer the square (6x6) format and the panoramic format, without cropping the former and stitching the latter neither of these formats are "off the shelf" digi options so for me and many others it's just a case of picking a tool that suits you and using it.
Neither are best, just different tools for the same job.
 
The costs for film can vary massively. A roll of HP5 from Chesham Cameras is £7 - same roll from Silverprint is under £3.50 and it's cheaper again from 7dayshop. Processing ... cheap if you do it yourself or @£10 for processing and scanning (with a week's wait if you do it via Ilford Lab).

So if you're looking at it in terms of pennies then it adds up against the single outlay for digital kit.

I've just had my first roll back of colour film - everything else has been b/w before now. I was disappointed that I let myself down composition-wise but the colours ... blinkin' 'eck ... it would take hours of post-processing (which I just find tedious) to get even close to that in digital. And that was with Superia 400. If I put Velvia in my head would probably explode.

But I could take virtually none of the sports shots I do if I was using film. But that's more straightforward recording what was there.

Having said all that, I also love taking pics with my 3.2MP cameraphone.

Horses for courses but in my entirely subjective opinion using film gives you a better understanding of the mental process of photography and helps you become a better photographer in terms of seeing the shot before you even put the camera to your eye.
 
I did a physics project on the differences, there is loads of info on the web you just need to search for it....
 
thanks guys your opinions have been very helpfull :clap:
 
gingerjon said:
So if you're looking at it in terms of pennies then it adds up against the single outlay for digital kit.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But that's if you are buying new. The second hand film market (35mm) is flooded with top of the range cameras. I recently picked up a Nikon F5 in like new condition for $379 (US). Last week I picked up an F100 date back for $349 (US). You can grab lower end SLR's for much much less. A used Nikon F80 will set you back around $30. Couple this with a cheap Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AFD which can be anywhere as low as $100 you have a very capable setup. The additional pennies in which buying a dSLR system can then be put aside for chemicals, film, equipment, scanner, etc,... For $1000 you can pick up 50 rolls of Ilford Delta 100, the above kit and still have change left over. Digital kit is not always a single outlay. Extra storage, backup hardware, software (particularly upgrades) come into play as well. This gets expensive. A software upgrade, generally $100, can buy you 10 - 15 rolls of film. I think the main issue is time, immediate results and the safety net of digital that the masses are accustomed to rather than the joy of developing, waiting for your results and praying to god you have done everything right. The fear of no safety net is what drives the sale of film down.

A friend of mine picked up a Canon film camera a few years ago, put a roll of film through it and hated the results. His main complaint was that he couldn't see the results and adjust the settings. Plain and simple. Needless to say he gave me the kit and bought a dSLR. Purely on the basis that it provides instant results. (As a Nikon man I sold the camera and gave him the money.)

It really boils down to subject matter. As stated, if you shoot a lot of sports then digital is probably the way to go these days. It depends solely on the individual using the medium that suits him/her best. We all strive to achieve the best results with what we have.
 
I agree with you king_buru, I bought a Mamiya c330 for £100 and it beats the socks off my 40d and l lens's. In terms of sharpness and colour, especially when it comes to dynamic range, I don't think digital can beat film in that respect at the moment anyway.

I started off digital and then moved to shooting film, if I started using film I would maybe appreciate digital more. When I use film I slow down and think about all the aspects which go into getting an image. It is rare I will shoot more than 12 images but with digital it can be a lot more than that :)
 
Sticking with the subject of cost. Look how many threads there are on people switching sides or upgrading to the latest digital kit. It might have been the same when film was the only option but nowadays you can be a top end film camera for sensible money and just live with it. Partly because you know you don't need to upgrade and partly because you're camera is never going to be made any more obsolete than it already is.

The money spent upgrading digital bodies and lenses every couple of years certainly buys a lot of film and processing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top