Film v Digital

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...

robhooley167 said:
Or do what most people in F&C do, shoot with both...
Click to expand...

+1

Lots of digital and film shooters here, and who enjoy both. It is a hobby and the cameras are tools for that hobby, and it just happens that some of them are superb bits of engineering as well :thumbs:

fabs said:
Film cameras are so cheap because the vast majority prefer digital. :p
Click to expand...

I know this was in jest, but just a slightly serious comment on this for a second - there was a thread in Talk Equipment about a Nikon D70 for sale on MPB Photographic, and at the price it was going for, a clean Nikon FE2/FM2/F/F2/F3/F4 would all go for more than that :thumbs:

(again just to reiterate I know it was a jokey comment, seen too many threads on other fora which have descended into anarchy based on stuff like this!)
 
fabs said:
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:
Click to expand...


There are no wedding calamity threads or business bum poking threads in digital, so yawl bring your superiority complex here and make it that way.
 
robhooley167 said:
Or do what most people in F&C do, shoot with both...
Click to expand...

Indeed. :thumbs:

freecom2 said:
I know this was in jest, but just a slightly serious comment on this for a second - there was a thread in Talk Equipment about a Nikon D70 for sale on MPB Photographic, and at the price it was going for, a clean Nikon FE2/FM2/F/F2/F3/F4 would all go for more than that :thumbs:

(again just to reiterate I know it was a jokey comment, seen too many threads on other fora which have descended into anarchy based on stuff like this!)
Click to expand...

In the same way as a classic car will fetch more than a 10 year old Vauxhall Astra. But yes, it was in jest.
 
"Anyway, this thread was started by a film user in the film section"
If you read the opening post again, you will see that just isn't true. What I am saying is I want the similar quality photos with my digital as I used to get with my old stolen film camera, but I would imagine there's just too many variables. I was then and am now pretty much a guesser when it
comes to taking photos.I know a little about AV and TV modes but that's about it. I don't even know what numbers to look for in the led of the viewfinder which denote slow and fast shutter speed.But there have been many interesting posts by people who have forgotten more than I'll ever know about photography. Plenty of good-humoured posts too. I'll keep guessing and try pick up a few tips along the way.
 
Last edited:
****Joking aside, why does it have to be film V digital? ****

If we run out of things to talk about...why not :)
 
ab2012 said:
"Anyway, this thread was started by a film user in the film section"
If you read the opening post again, you will see that just isn't true. What I am saying is I want the similar quality photos with my digital as I used to get with my old stolen film camera, but I would imagine there's just too many variables. I was then and am now pretty much a guesser when it
comes to taking photos.I know a little about AV and TV modes but that's about it. I don't even know what numbers to look for in the led of the viewfinder which denote slow and fast shutter speed.But there have been many interesting posts by people who have forgotten more than I'll ever know about photography. Plenty of good-humoured posts too. I'll keep guessing and try pick up a few tips along the way.
Click to expand...

I was joking, hence the laughing smilie?
 
I just want good photos, regardless of film or digital. But memories of my old camera prompted the topic and I'm glad I did. All I want now is someone referring me to the basics section? :)
Cheers everyone.Very interesting.Anyone in or near Peterborough willing to give some tips, please pm me. Now then, those numbers for slow shutter speed and how do I get ISO up for evening at the same time.
I'm good at drawing though :)
 
ab2012 said:
I just want good photos, regardless of film or digital. But memories of my old camera prompted the topic and I'm glad I did. All I want now is someone referring me to the basics section? :)
Cheers everyone.Very interesting.Anyone in or near Peterborough willing to give some tips, please pm me. Now then, those numbers for slow shutter speed and how do I get ISO up for evening at the same time.
I'm good at drawing though :)
Click to expand...

For wides to short teles, don't shoot handheld below 1/60th, if the camera says it'll be slower than 1/60th, up the iso or open the lens app till the shutter speed is faster than 1/60th..:)

or use a tripod
 
excalibur2 said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

ChrisR said:
Based on viewpoint, the left one is the Rolleiflex :love:. But you wrote:



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!
Click to expand...

Both correct!

What I meant by highlights/shadows is that the dynamic ranges of each medium are biased towards one end of the shadows/highlights scale - you can easily pull out two stops of shadow detail in a digital file, but you won't be able to get much from film. The converse is true - you have quite a bit of headroom for overexposure with film (slide film being a bit of an exception). People often say that film has a greater dynamic range but that isn't really true, it just compresses highlights better than digital.
 
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...

There very nearly was. Thom Hogan reckoned Nikon took the FM3D all the way to prototype, and possibly pre-production, before they decided to abandon it. I've no idea what it would have cost though.
 
Right, time to invoke Godwin's law...


Only someone as bad as Hitler would compare film and digital.

/thread
 
joxby said:
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
Click to expand...

the thing is - they don't

you can a digital file printed as a photo

and you can scan a film shot and create a digital file

they are just different ways of recording the light recieved at film/sensor

on the other point it ought to stand to reason that everything someone says is their opinion - and its my opinion that its errant rubbish to insist that film has a somehow mythical 'quality' that cannot be reproduced digitally, and its equally untrue to say that this supposed 'quality' is the only reason people still use film cameras.

If you want to think differently then thats fine, but it doesnt mean that I have (or anyone has) to agree with you , or that I they shouldnt state a contrary opinion
 
Last edited:
fabs said:
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:
Click to expand...

Indeed and the vast majority probably use both

For serious photography I currently have 2 DSLRS , 2 EOS Film SLRS , a mamiya 645 , and am currently looking at getting a 10x8 plate camera

for play time I have several digital compacts, including one modified for time lapse and one modified for IR, and a whole bunch of old film kit including an OM10, a holga pano, an olympus trip, and so on
 
Last edited:
ab2012 said:
"Anyway, this thread was started by a film user in the film section"
If you read the opening post again, you will see that just isn't true. What I am saying is I want the similar quality photos with my digital as I used to get with my old stolen film camera, but I would imagine there's just too many variables. I was then and am now pretty much a guesser when it
comes to taking photos.I know a little about AV and TV modes but that's about it. I don't even know what numbers to look for in the led of the viewfinder which denote slow and fast shutter speed.But there have been many interesting posts by people who have forgotten more than I'll ever know about photography. Plenty of good-humoured posts too. I'll keep guessing and try pick up a few tips along the way.
Click to expand...

you can pick up an old pentax film kit on ebay for peanuts

that aside if you improve your understanding of the skills your photos will improve regardless of what medium you are shooting on

(incidentally the numbers that denote shutter speed are the ones that show as 1,2,4,8,15,30,60,125,250,500,1000,2000,4000, 8000 (fractions of a second) when you turn the selector , the apperture numbers will go from f2.8 to f32. )
 
I love B&W film and the darkroom prints it provides

The fact people with digital are trying to replicate film says a lot.

That is all
 
FruitFlakes said:
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
Click to expand...


Hmmm.... but aren't we judging your scanner? What scanner was it?

I still use film. I still love film. I still love my Mamyia RB67. A decent scan from 6x7 with a Flextight scanner can still give medium format digital a run for it's money, and quite frankly, makes my D800 look utterly stupid in comparison.

Resolution aside, film has quality in itself. It's not perfect, and it;'s not linear.. but that is what makes it so good. The film itself as an artefact affects the aesthetic.

I have to laugh at "film" plug ins.... if you want a film look... why not just shoot on film instead of using the wrong tools in the first place?



[edit] No idea if the answer was given, but I reckon the left one is the film shot.. not down to quality or anything, but the viewpoint is lower as it would be when using a WLF camera.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Hmmm.... but aren't we judging your scanner? What scanner was it?

I still use film. I still love film. I still love my Mamyia RB67. A decent scan from 6x7 with a Flextight scanner can still give medium format digital a run for it's money, and quite frankly, makes my D800 look utterly stupid in comparison.

Resolution aside, film has quality in itself. It's not perfect, and it;'s not linear.. but that is what makes it so good. The film itself as an artefact affects the aesthetic.

I have to laugh at "film" plug ins.... if you want a film look... why not just shoot on film instead of using the wrong tools in the first place?



[edit] No idea if the answer was given, but I reckon the left one is the film shot.. not down to quality or anything, but the viewpoint is lower as it would be when using a WLF camera.
Click to expand...

Yes and no... The point of the comparison was to show that the tones from a scanned film shot look different from a digital shot processed to look like one. Big soft moose assumed that scanners acquire their images in a similar way to a camera sensor which clearly isn't the case both in terms of technology and in results (and I'm using a camera that's supposed to have less bayer interpolation involved). The scanner I used for this was an Epson V500 and I scanned in 16-bit greyscale - not really a Flextight but it's enough to demonstrate proof of concept. Luminous Landscape did a better test between a P45 back and a 4x5 drum scan and while the digital back was around the same in terms of resolution, you could tell there wasn't as much tonal separation, which would be hard to fix in post. However I will say that these plugins will get you most of the way there, and if you shot a colour chart with some b/w film and did the same with your digital set you could probably map out a particular tonal response for that emulsion - but you'll be wasting your time and you may as well shoot film!

As for using those plug ins, they often have tasteful, subtle conversions for both colour and b/w - I don't use them as substitutes for film, but rather as a starting point for my own digital processing.

Your comment about artefacts brings about another point though - in 20 years' time, will we be looking back at jpg compression and digital noise in a similar way? :lol: :bonk:
 
big soft moose said:
you can pick up an old pentax film kit on ebay for peanuts

that aside if you improve your understanding of the skills your photos will improve regardless of what medium you are shooting on

(incidentally the numbers that denote shutter speed are the ones that show as 1,2,4,8,15,30,60,125,250,500,1000,2000,4000, 8000 (fractions of a second) when you turn the selector , the apperture numbers will go from f2.8 to f32. )
Click to expand...
Thanks :)
 
Still not sure why the whole thing has to be seen as "adversarial" to be honest...

They happily co-reside in my camera bag - the EOS-3 and the 7D quite happily managing to "share glass" - at least the L red-striped ones ;)

And the whole "digital must mean machine gunning" whereas "film has to be steady and considered" is tripe (or certainly can be) as well - Last year and early this year I shot a bunch of still life images for the POTY... all of 'em were on Digital - not because I could shoot and shoot and shoot until I got it right - they were with studio flash and I used a lightmeter, and got it right before pressing the shutter. No - they were on digital because I had the 7D strapped to my laptop, and I was using the laptop screen to painstakingly compose the image exactly as I wanted it - much as I used to do in my studio shooting days on film - but with a 10x8" camera and ludicrously expensive sheets of E6 in the back... I could happily have then swapped the 7D for the Bronica and taken additional frames on film, but to be honest, most instances I was pressed for time, and had to dismantle the set so that I had a bed to sleep in that night! So, 2-3 frames of digital it was.
 
fabs said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm a stinky filmy and I have one! ;)
 
The thing I'm really interested in is the effect of the 3 different types of sensors: human, film and digital.

As I understand it, our eyes have two different types of sensors in them: cones that need a reasonable amount of light and do colour, and rods that are good in very low light but don't have colour (or vice versa!). And the mechanics of the eye (in terms of dither/movement) and the processing in the brain combine to give us a much uprated visual experience. So we see computationally and mechanically enhanced images over a huge dynamic range and field of view.

Film doesn't have any of these sensor, mechanical and computational advantages, but it does have grain that has a randomised nature. I think this means that some grains are more sensitive to light and some much less (being larger), so the response to light is non-linear. There is some response to very low light and still some response to quite high light.

Digital sensors in contrast are regular in nature and essentially linear. Below some level of light there is no signal and above some level of light there can be no more signal. In between you have this problem where most of the signal variation is in the brightest part, whereas our own perception is more log than linear.

The problem for us is that we have to look at the world through our own eyes (and subconscious brains) and have to try to work out how to replicate the closest experience through fundamentally different approaches. It's all these arguments about backlit subjects, grad denisty filters, HDR etc. It's why I got such a carp result photographing Tantallon Castle against the light.

Most of you lot are already good enough at this that it's second nature; I'm not. But I'm also interested in the differences between the sensor types, and what it means for taking a photo. Which is why I so appreciate this forum, and folks taking the time to explain things to their less experienced colleagues. Like Mark's and others' explanations of where detail can be recovered from differently sourced images.

Vive la difference.
 
Personally I shoot with whatever I think will give me the result that I want taking into account what I intend to photograph, weight and time constraints.

If neither are an issue for landscapes I will always use 6x7 medium format or preferably 4x5 large format. Not only for the results, but because I love having a physical negative / transparency as opposed to a NEF file. I enjoy using these sorts of cameras more and as it is just a hobby this is the most important thing to me.

For family events and night time photography etc I will always us a digital camera. It's horses for courses, but I will say that using digital resulted in me experimenting with using film and now using film has also helped me enjoy digital photography more (i.e. no more going out with the digital camera and coming back with 100 identical photos to sift through as it did when I first started out).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top