Film v Digital

ab2012

ab2012

Suspended / Banned
Messages
667
Name
alan
Edit My Images
Yes
Back in the mid/ late 80s I had a Pentax auto focus camera which took really nice photos, better than my digital. The colours just seemed different, softer, difficult to describe. Anyone experienced disappointmant with digital as opposed to film? I was burgled and the Pentax was no more.:'(
Or was it Nikon.Memory fades.
 
I was never disappointed by digital, I was WOW'd by film...:D
 
I always think the colours on film are more life-like. But that might just be wishful thinking :D
 
A digi shooter that shoots for money.

That's got film Antichrist written all over it.

But ya never can tell, film gets inside you and makes you talk funnay...
 
Not me, I cannot be arsed getting images of a card, let alone mess with floppy plastic stuff and funny flavoured watery things

Move on people, or we will be painting next..........
 
Painting is good.

Sculpture is good.

Film is good.

Digital sensors are good.

I love it all.

If you can't be assed - move on. :)
 
I shoot it cos I'm moody and autistic.....





artistic...:nuts:
 
:lol:

I spent 45 minutes this morning arranging cornflakes into a visually appealing composition.

That's not normal - thank god.
 
Its normal for somebody that cares.

y'see, its already working for you, 6 months ago you'da chucked em all up in the air and then photoshopped em in to nice compo....:lol:
 
I have to admit I like dials and levers not menus and buttons so just using film cameras feels better to me. Must be my age.

If I feel more comfortable with the process then I take better pictures.

I like my Fuji x100 though, feels more like a proper camera.
 
Using a digital camera is big time cheating as you take 100 shots of a subject and pick the one you want.
 
excalibur2 said:
Using a digital camera is big time cheating as you take 100 shots of a subject and pick the one you want.
Click to expand...

Sarcasm, I hope?

People that shoot film professionally probably shoot a roll or two or even more, and then pick the shot they want. Digital offers instant feedback, but then you can get a polaroid back for hassleblads too - pro shooters would shoot on that to get the exposure before going to the 'real' roll of film

I shoot digital and film, both have their place for me - and will for a long time to come :)
 
Some great replies.Very funny. Happy New Year. My film photos just seemed softer and the colours ....I just can't explain it.
Obviously not doing digital right.
 
I suspect it's got a lot to do with the fact that film colour processing was usually done by other (professional) people - if even a humble minilab was driven right, it was capable of stunning results, whereas nowadays it's generally "down to us" - I miss the days I'd do a wedding, drop off a dozen films to my processor, and leave them to it - pop in on thursday to pick a set of beautifully optimised and printed photos........job done!:D
 
of course there are services that will do that with RAW files - for a price.

At the end of the day though theres not that much real difference, any look that can be acheived with film can also be achieved with digitial with the correct processing, and most worthwhile effects that can be achieved digitally can also be acheived in the darkroom

in principal all digital has done is to make 'darkroom' techniques accessible to the masses.

I shot predominantly digital , but shoot film sometimes because i like using old cameras (and also because i cant afford a digital back for the mamiya)
 
Sounds simple, yet its only your opinion, I'm afraid that bus can't fly but your entitled to ride it if you wish.
Digital looks synthetic, you can process digital to look like film but then it looks like synthetic film.
Nobody who loves film and see's it for what it is, shoots it because they like mech cameras.
 
Hmm, I actually have a good comparison between medium format film and digital processed to look like film. It'll be interesting to see if people can tell. I'll post it up when I'm on my other computer.
 
joxby said:
Digital looks synthetic, you can process digital to look like film but then it looks like synthetic film.
Nobody who loves film and see's it for what it is, shoots it because they like mech cameras.
Click to expand...

i'm sorry but thats rubbish - both digital and film record the original light and either can be processed to any appearance that you wish.

much of the 'originality' of film which can't be duplicated on a computer screen comes from the printing process , and this is equally possible if you chose to print a digital file as a photograph (or have it done as its not really practical to do at home) rather than as inkjet or dyesub

equally when a film shot is scanned the scanner has essentially taken a digital photo of the film photo and thus displayed on a computer screen is indistinguisable from a photo of similar quality (and the same processing) taken with a digital camera.

People who love film / film cameras do so for a myriad of different reasons, including liking the mechanical cameras, liking the constraints of being limited to x number of shots, nostalgia, liking the effect it creates (which although it could be duplicated digitally they may not wish to do so), for the challenge etc
 
For me the love of mech cameras does have a bit to do with it. Taking picture wise I am never happier than when I have an old manual focus Nikon in my hand. I just love the way that it handles & the thought that I have to put into the process.

Digital has its place but I much prefer the film workflow. Knowing that I need to pick my shots carefully & not blaze away. Having a print or a slide in my hand compared to a file that never leaves my hard drive is a big bonus. I also like the variety I can get from using different film stock & nothing I have shot in digital for me compares to the look of FP4, Ektar or Portra 160 (the last two may be down to only having a D3000 I accept).

Yes you can play with photoshop to your hearts content to get the look that you want but for me sitting in front of a PC for hours manipulating images would sap my will to live. I limit my photoshop antics to just cropping images. Stuff that could be done in a darkroom.
 
FruitFlakes said:
Hmm, I actually have a good comparison between medium format film and digital processed to look like film. It'll be interesting to see if people can tell. I'll post it up when I'm on my other computer.
Click to expand...

as per my post above that will actually be a comparrison between two digital files - one resulting from a scan of photo paper and one from direct light capture.

for a really fair test it would be necessary to print the direct digital file as a photo then scan it and post the two scans - I'd virtually guarantee that there'd be no visible difference
 
Film vs digital... I put a roll of film and a memory card into a ring and let them duke it out. Neither made a move on the other, it seems they get along just fine.
 
big soft moose said:
i'm sorry but thats rubbish
Click to expand...


You should be, its MY opinion, and yours is yours, nothing you say on an internet forum can change it, I'm quite comfortable with what I've seen and done shaping my opinions, I disagree entirely with virtually everything you think, but I wouldn't call it rubbish.
The two cannot be compared because they produce two different things/End
 
I shoot film because I like the cameras. If there was a digital camera with the simplicity and degree of control of a Minolta X300 or Nikon FE2 within reach of my budget, I'd snap it right up!
 
Ash. said:
Sarcasm, I hope?

People that shoot film professionally probably shoot a roll or two or even more, and then pick the shot they want. Digital offers instant feedback, but then you can get a polaroid back for hassleblads too - pro shooters would shoot on that to get the exposure before going to the 'real' roll of film

I shoot digital and film, both have their place for me - and will for a long time to come :)
Click to expand...

A bit over the top but you get the basic idea with Joe public machine gunning with a digital camera ;) In fact some digital cameras are so good you can take a video and pick individual shots for display.

"The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare." :lol:
 
Film is a lot more fun for me with the process of learning how to use old cameras, developing a roll, etc.. However I'll always rely on digital for quick turnaround (like work) as I find film a much slower process..
 
mustanir said:
I shoot film because I like the cameras. If there was a digital camera with the simplicity and degree of control of a Minolta X300 or Nikon FE2 within reach of my budget, I'd snap it right up!
Click to expand...


That's interesting, because it doesn't matter how many cogs there are in it, even though I love cameras with cogs, if it doesn't shoot film, its useless...
The idea that peeps could shoot any type of camera, film or digital, for the pleasure of doing it only, and not for the product, is an odd concept, but there's nowt as queer as folk..as they say.
 
big soft moose said:
as per my post above that will actually be a comparrison between two digital files - one resulting from a scan of photo paper and one from direct light capture.

for a really fair test it would be necessary to print the direct digital file as a photo then scan it and post the two scans - I'd virtually guarantee that there'd be no visible difference
Click to expand...

You can never really compare the two like that though - both have drastically different workflows - digital is usually RGB, CYMK, and LAB, whereas film doesn't really occupy a colour gamut when not moved into a digital workflow. However there is a difference between a scanned negative and a digital file simply because of bayer interpolation - scanners are unfiltered and capture RGB separately, so they will capture a greater range of tones (within the RGB colour space) compared to a digital camera. You also have the differences in how each medium handles light - digital has better shadows whereas film renders highlights much more elegantly. I think the only way to compare the two would be to keep the imaging chain for both workflows as 'pure' as possible - for film that would be optical printing with a skilled printer, and for digital it would be processing with a calibrated top of the line monitor and then printed with a top of the line printer that can output the full gamut. And I have a feeling that even then it'll all boil down to personal preference. :lol:

Anyway, for a bit of fun, here are the shots I took a few months ago. One is from a Rolleiflex loaded with Tri-X @ 1250, the other is from my X-Pro 1 with a VSCO Tri-X preset applied to it:

JQAt4.jpg
 
The left photo has better tones and bokeh, the right more soot and whitewash...but confusingly if just judged on grain only then I would say the right was tri-X. So being a film user would say the left is film, so surprise me :)
 
Last edited:
Based on viewpoint, the left one is the Rolleiflex :love:. But you wrote:

digital has better shadows whereas film renders highlights much more elegantly
Click to expand...

whereas in fact there's more in the subject's dark hair in the left frame than the right, while the right gives a bit more in the lighter regions of her face (above the brow). But since I suspect I'm both a Rolleiflex AND Fuji fanboi, I don't care!
 
Of course, this whole thread is pulling our chain. Never mind

a) us filmies can change our sensors at will. You want a Monochrom sensor in your M9, that'll be many £K. :thumbsdown: For us, it'll be a few £. :thumbs: :lol:

b) most of our sensors have (different) non-linear sensors. Those Curves you apply? We get them for nowt. :geek:

c) our cameras are dirt cheap (except for the really expensive ones of course, which are SOOO much better than most digital stuff, and see also a and b):cuckoo:

d) our cameras have knobs and dials rather than menus. This is a Good Thing. See also Fuji X-Series above.:suspect:

e) we are what we are and we like what we like. If you don't like it/us, go and digitalise somewhere else! :razz:
 
Oh fiddle sticks. They are both fun. When I go out shooting with digital I go out looking for shots that I know I can have a good play with in Lightroom. I enjoy manipulating digital photographs. It's fun. When I go out shooting film its a different kind of fun. I love loading film, I love the SLAP of the shutter, I love having excellent lenses of the quality I will never be able to afford for my dslr, I love the unpredictability of using a new film, I love pushing, I love pulling and now that I have started devving at home I look forward to finishing a roll even more.
 
norters said:
Oh fiddle sticks. They are both fun. When I go out shooting with digital I go out looking for shots that I know I can have a good play with in Lightroom. I enjoy manipulating digital photographs. It's fun. When I go out shooting film its a different kind of fun. I love loading film, I love the SLAP of the shutter, I love having excellent lenses of the quality I will never be able to afford for my dslr, I love the unpredictability of using a new film, I love pushing, I love pulling and now that I have started devving at home I look forward to finishing a roll even more.
Click to expand...

What he said!
 
norters said:
Oh fiddle sticks. They are both fun. When I go out shooting with digital I go out looking for shots that I know I can have a good play with in Lightroom. I enjoy manipulating digital photographs. It's fun. When I go out shooting film its a different kind of fun. I love loading film, I love the SLAP of the shutter, I love having excellent lenses of the quality I will never be able to afford for my dslr, I love the unpredictability of using a new film, I love pushing, I love pulling and now that I have started devving at home I look forward to finishing a roll even more.
Click to expand...


Amen. Well said!
 
ChrisR said:
Of course, this whole thread is pulling our chain. Never mind

a) us filmies can change our sensors at will. You want a Monochrom sensor in your M9, that'll be many £K. :thumbsdown: For us, it'll be a few £. :thumbs: :lol:
Click to expand...

Given the minuscule percentage of digital users who have an M9, probably best to find a better comparison. Digital users can have B&W at no extra cost.

ChrisR said:
b) most of our sensors have (different) non-linear sensors. Those Curves you apply? We get them for nowt. :geek:
Click to expand...

Curves we can get for nowt as well ;)

ChrisR said:
c) our cameras are dirt cheap (except for the really expensive ones of course, which are SOOO much better than most digital stuff, and see also a and b):cuckoo:
Click to expand...

Film cameras are so cheap because the vast majority prefer digital. :p

ChrisR said:
d) our cameras have knobs and dials rather than menus. This is a Good Thing. See also Fuji X-Series above.:suspect:
Click to expand...

Digital cameras have knobs and dials as well. ;)

ChrisR said:
e) we are what we are and we like what we like. If you don't like it/us, go and digitalise somewhere else! :razz:
Click to expand...

Are we not all photographers? Anyway, this thread was started by a film user in the film section. :lol:


Joking aside, why does it have to be film V digital? If you want to use film, use film. If you want to use digital, then use digital. :shrug:
 
Or do what most people in F&C do, shoot with both...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top