Film v Digital

OMG, another bloody Pepper in here... :D

Welcome :thumbs:
 
Film wins in so many ways. There just is something about it that so far digital just doesn't have. Having said that, I'll never go back to it. I lost the feeling of novelty in waiting for negs to come back from the lab or even developing them myself some years ago. I freely admit to being seduced by the immediacy of digital too.

Like everything it's relative, If you look at large format stuff I'd be amazed if anyone could possibly deny the sheer quality that's it gives. But digital has got to the stage that it's advantages outweigh the disadvantages that shooting with film has. In the majority of cases it's good enough, NOT the best, but good enough for the purpose in hand.

I'm afraid the future is digital, like it or not.
 
Bill Roberts said:
Film wins in so many ways. There just is something about it that so far digital just doesn't have. Having said that, I'll never go back to it. I lost the feeling of novelty in waiting for negs to come back from the lab or even developing them myself some years ago. I freely admit to being seduced by the immediacy of digital too.

Like everything it's relative, If you look at large format stuff I'd be amazed if anyone could possibly deny the sheer quality that's it gives. But digital has got to the stage that it's advantages outweigh the disadvantages that shooting with film has. In the majority of cases it's good enough, NOT the best, but good enough for the purpose in hand.

I'm afraid the future is digital, like it or not.
Click to expand...


erm strange post........you could use a film camera now and again.
 
Oy there's nowt wrong with us Peppers u know!

I like both, I love the immediacy of digital but LOVE the wait whilst the films being sent off for developing (am using colour at the moment) I love remember to take the time to check everything before taking the actual photograph, and not just having to think of the composition.

I hope there will always be a place for both types of photography, both have skills which I am still learning and loving.
 
excalibur2 said:
erm strange post........you could use a film camera now and again.
Click to expand...
Agreed - there's nothing in the rules to say you can't mix and match. I'll happily use digital for stuff that I need to see straight away, or need to know i've got in the bag before I leave, or for long exposure shots, macro work, pretty much anything that the immediacy of digital helps with.

If i'm going out for a day with the express intention of getting a certain shot in the bag, I'll probably take both the 450D and the EOS3 along. That way, If i've Velvia loaded in the EOS3, I can shoot BnW's on the 450D, then when I change rolls to FP4, I can shoot the colour stuff on the digital. No different to if I'd taken 2 film bodies along.

And occasionally I'll just stick something like the Voigtlander Perkeo and a roll of HP5+ in my pocket and get MF quality shots from a package similar in size to a Canon G11. Plus - with one small box of chemicals etc, I can process BnW, E6 or C41 at home, and have the films souped and scanned the same night as they were shot - not a great deal slower than digital :shrug:

To be honest, for me, the processing is another, equally pleasurable part of the photography process - i'm studiously avoiding spending any time in a proper wet darkroom for printing, as I know i'd REALLY want to build my own if i did try. As this would necessitate moving to a larger home, this is one step that is just a bit too expensive :lol:
 
I rather like the idea of becoming a niche photographer... sounds a bit naughty too :lol:
 
TheBigYin said:
Agreed - there's nothing in the rules to say you can't mix and match. I'll happily use digital for stuff that I need to see straight away, or need to know i've got in the bag before I leave, or for long exposure shots, macro work, pretty much anything that the immediacy of digital helps with.

If i'm going out for a day with the express intention of getting a certain shot in the bag, I'll probably take both the 450D and the EOS3 along. That way, If i've Velvia loaded in the EOS3, I can shoot BnW's on the 450D, then when I change rolls to FP4, I can shoot the colour stuff on the digital. No different to if I'd taken 2 film bodies along.
Click to expand...

This is so true. I was out shooting waterfalls the other day and used the digi to grab a few test shots that have come out all right, I then moved in with with my EOS 5 & velvia to hopefully get "the shot". Will tell you when I get it developed. All I know is that I spent a lot more time checking and preparing with the film than digi, I really enjoyed that and was so much more careful before I pressed the shutter!
 
Rob.Richards said:
This is so true. I was out shooting waterfalls the other day and used the digi to grab a few test shots that have come out all right, I then moved in with with my EOS 5 & velvia to hopefully get "the shot". Will tell you when I get it developed. All I know is that I spent a lot more time checking and preparing with the film than digi, I really enjoyed that and was so much more careful before I pressed the shutter!
Click to expand...

Perfect example there Rob - using digital as a kind of "Polaroid Back" for the film shot. Great if you're doing the "blurred water" thing say, can bang off a couple of frames on the digital until you get just enough blur, then try the film shot.:thumbs:
 
I'm not technically knowledgeable but...
here's a photo of someone I knew in 1970s
taken with a Canon A1 - 35mm slide - prob Ektachrome 64 - then digitally scanned in 2009

it has an "undefinable" quality i dont get with my D40
still have the A1 - time to look at film again ...?
..
showphoto.php
[/url][/IMG]
..
 
TheBigYin said:
Perfect example there Rob - using digital as a kind of "Polaroid Back" for the film shot. Great if you're doing the "blurred water" thing say, can bang off a couple of frames on the digital until you get just enough blur, then try the film shot.:thumbs:
Click to expand...

I do that loads when playing the strobist :p

film rocks but paid work as to be digi for the editing controllability reliability and turnaround
 
****time to look at film again***

Well you could play with medium format and at least say "been there, done it". After taking about 5 shots with my Sony DSC P92 in 6 months, I can say it.
 
Yardbent said:
it has an "undefinable" quality i dont get with my D40
2125.jpg
Click to expand...

Well, that just about sums it up! I think we all agree digital is faster easier and smarter, and yet we all also agree that film has an elemental difference that while hard to define can be almost instantly recognised. It is that elemental difference that makes me keep using and processing, and it is also the faster/easier/smarter arguement that keeps the Ixus, the 10D, the 400D and the D70 in the bag as well!

Arthur

PS - I took above piccie and adjusted WB and colour and so on to get the tones right and technically it was fine. Looked like ***** though and had none of the appeal of the original. Go figure!


split.jpg
 
I was doing a shoot this weekend for an album cover.

I had my D700 with 24-70 in one hand, and my F4s with 90mm on in the other, loaded with ilford B&W.

I love both, and both have advantages and disadvantages, although I can say without a shadow of a doubt continue to both shoot digital and film until the day they stop making film (which I hope never happens).

In fact, most of the time my clients prefer the wonderful silver gelatin prints than the shots I show them on screen ;)
 
I still own and use a Nikon F5 and sometimes shoot with it alongside my D3, the F5 is used for b&w when the need arises.
 
david1701 said:
film rocks but paid work as to be digi for the editing controllability reliability and turnaround
Click to expand...

Words out my mouth taken ;)

Digi is just sooo a necessary evil in this day and age when time is something no one seems to have. If film was as instant and easily process-able as digi, I'd use film all the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top