Digital v Film

[Denyerec]

Actually on-topic, careful when discussing "Digital" generically. All digital cameras behave differently, the Fuji S5 for example trying very hard to emulate film (And doing quite a good job compared to everyone else, IMO).
Also, in a film v digital debate, you have to be competing on some metric for the comparison to be, well, a comparison.

In the technical, digital has surpassed film in every metric I believe. Resolution, colour accuracy etc. Artistically? Well you can't put metrics on art, so the comparison becomes impossible. Talk of highlight shoulders, non-linearity, colour saturation, dynamic range... all of those issues can be handled with existing digital technologies (EG Fuji S5), but they are seldom brought together in one place at once. I am inwardly amused at how the digital market chases "Accurate colour" when Ektar, Velvia etc have been making a business out of "Pleasing". Sure, we now have Lightroom/Aperture, but I've yet to see anyone do a thoroughly convincing job of emulating emulsion. (Of course, that then sparks the whole 'should we imitate film, or evolve' discussion, but when you think about the human response to Kodakchrome and the response to a D300 OOC JPG, it's really a no brainer...)

 

[Chaz Photos]

One of the beauties of film is it can deal with multiple colour tones without throwing a hissy fit, whereas I find digital tries to bias toward one or the other, meaning your reds become washed out, your blues too strong, etc. Film just aces the colours. I've taken photos of sunsets/sunrises on a PnS film camera when I was barely a teenager, that I have never been able to match on digital.

Maybe that's because I'm a photografail, but I do think film gets the trueness of the light much closer than digital. It also seems to have better contrast ranges?

Come on how long havve you done film?
Kodak was reds
Fuji was Greens
Agfa was Blues
and then some of the other like 3m all had there own bias
There is so much talk about film v digital and I can not go along with a lot of what is said.
To me I will not go back to film I find digital so much better in many ways.
Learning on film was the best thing as you had to make most of your shots count digital make some lazy and just machine-gun shooting is so bad.

 

[david1701]

The main issue discussed here is preference. Film or Digital? Which do you prefer?

As hobbyists, we use the methods or technologies we feel most comfortable with or believe in the most, or simply whatever we can afford or what may be accessible.
As working photographers we select tools in a fairly similar way but they must meet a certain level of criteria to meet our clients requirements and the demands of the industry.
We need to survive as a business and the choice of tools plays a very important role in our investments.

I find the view that digital is a soulless process or so simple that even a monkey can achieve fantastic results is practically insignificant and extraneous.

It takes 'soul' to create technology. Technology itself has no 'soul', the soul, spirit or life etc is thankfully provided by the human element during use.

A robot, micro chip, camera sensor or program or whatever other bi product of technology, simply can't write literary master pieces nor can it produce anything else of significant artistic nature. The human element with photography, just like any other medium - is paramount.

Digital technology is only more efficient in terms of accessibility and procedure.

Is it 'easier' than film? Certainly is.

Will it make me a better photographer? Absolutely not.

It is arguable that you may learn a little quicker but all the graft in the mechanics, theory and practise of photography remains utterly the same.

what he said

 

[gingerjon]

All digital cameras behave differently,

That, to me, seems to be getting less and less true. For current cameras I think you could make a case that the Foveon (sp.?) sensor cameras produce a different result to other digital cameras but the differences between the rest are now pretty miniscule.

It's a real shame that the S5 didn't lead to an S6 as I agree that from what I saw that seemed to produce distinctive results.

 

[Nod]

Back in the days when I shot just film, I used to have to take 2 bodies on holiday - one that I kept loaded with ISO400 film and one with ISO100. I would come home after a fortnight with 10-15 rolls of exposed film, all of which needed D&P and the cost in film and D&P worked out at about £10 per 36 shots. Doesn't take too long for the original cost of a DSLR body to be saved in printing costs alone. Lenses for the film bodies I had then are still compatible with the digital bodies I use now so no extra expense caused by the switch. And the immediacy of digital means that I can take a shot in the bar and have a print for the subject within 10 minutes - pretty hard to do with conventional film and with the advantage over instant (Polaroid) prints that I could do more than one copy. Need to change ISO? Simple! A quick button press and a turn of a dial and there's 1600 or more if it's needed, without the need to shoot a whole roll to free up a body or the fiddle of a rewind.

 

[Nick Kon]

Am just about to get my first DSLR and get back into photography.My old 35mm SLR
doesnt get used much.
When digital cameras first came out I didnt think the quality was all that.Now they seem
to be so much better.I have little experience of digital pics apart from having taking many with my partners little compact.They are so convienient.Instant pics,as many as you want to get that perfect pic and it doesnt cost.In 35mm you just couldnt afford to do that.You can photoshop,crop,do this and that and everyone all of a sudden can become a great photographer.What more do you want.
Having said that,probably because I havent got into Digital yet,to me film is the real art of photography.As has been said many times photography is about painting with light and film is the perfect canvas.
Film is more of a test to see how good a photographer you are.You take limited shots because the average hobbiest cant afford to waste rolls and rolls of film.With digital Joe Blogs can take 100 shots just to get that perfect one,then mess around with it on his/her computer to make it look even better even if this is artificial.
Imagine a painter using a mouse and his computer to paint a 'digital picture'.This isnt true art and to some extent this is what digital photography is perhaps.
How do you replicate taking a gritty photojournalistic photo with high speed black and white film in low light and then developing and printing it yourself the 'old fashioned way'.
What about those fantastic and vibrant colours you get with slide film.
Like I said I have little experience of digital so maybe I will be converted.

 

[spaniel]

Each medium has it's place, it all comes down to personal preference and what you want out of your photography. I was brought up with film photography and feel totally at home in the darkroom, I do not feel at home sat in front of a computer (ok, thats what I'm doing now).

The other points worth raising are cost, there is no way I could keep up with the costs of a scanner, a printer, the inks, a computer capable of running all this kit, and the list goes on. On the other hand, all I need for my darkroom is chemicals and paper, the enlarger will go on for years, theres not much more I need (other than film). And most importantly, I can achieve very high quality work, my negatives will last a lifetime, as will my prints.

I'm semi retired now and the medium of photography I use has to be enjoyable, so its film for me.

 

[DrRusty]

Back in the early ninties I started learning to develop and print B&W film.

I recall numerous failures with the film camera (not least not actually loading the film correctly :bonk: ).

After leaving the school I had no access to the necessary equipment my motivation dropped (never saw much interest in putting the film into be developed especially as getting B&W developed cost more).

I almost choose A-Level photograph, but thought Maths, Physics and Chemistry was a better idea .

About 3 1/2 years ago I started working in my current job and a few days later I was passed a Nikon D70. Fortunately the company had started moving from film to digital about a year earlier as primarily 99% of my photograph is recording a factual representation of the subject.

If I had to use film (something my colleugues still did for another 2 yrs !!!) I would have always been nervous that something had gone wrong and I wouldn't have the necessary photos (generally of something that could not be replaced).

So digital wins as I can check that the photograph has been recorded, it is not under/over exposed and the worst case secenerio is that I take another.

I certainly think that it would be ashame if film disapeared completely for those who enjoy using it, but I just can't see any reason that I would consider using it again. I just now need to buy the "digital darkroom" and learn to use it.