why do you shoot digital... film is so much better!

Film cameras get more expensive the more you use them due to the cost of film and developing it. Digital cameras get cheaper the more you use them due to not needing to buy anything else.
 
barratt1988 said:
Personally my point was no photographer has ever 'mastered' and type of photography. Where those such pictures taken in the time before digital?
Click to expand...

I don't think Joxby claimed to have 'mastered' digital, he just said it was what he learnt on and that it's easier than film. Bit of a leap to interpret that as him saying he mastered digital.
 
robhooley167 said:
As for Mr Cornish, I haven't got one of his books to hand, but I would find it incredibly unlikely that a bloke with a 5x4 and 8x10 camera uses a 6x6cm digiback on them and no film.
Click to expand...

According to 'a photographer at work' (the latest cornish book) that is pretty much what he increasingly does - he also uses an LX5 compact extensively to help frame shots.

that said both cornish and noton will be grown up enough to realise that this is a non argument - digital and film are both just tools, and the good craftsman uses whatever tool is right for the job , which changes with circumstance
 
Last edited:
Both film and digital have plus points, as well as minus.

Film, yes, a better picture when printed, in my opinion, but the fuss getting there! Yes, you can do it yourself, and I used too, because even I couldn't do what Boots excelled at and make skies pink! And there's nothing like seeing a B&W image appear before your eyes, albeit, they were strained due to a dim orange light!

Digital, well, I can process a RAW image in front of the computer with a coffee and a fag, without sweating my nuts off.

I like film, and I think those that started that way do produce better images in the main. Thats not to say there's much 'wrong' with those that have only worked with wiggly amps. Yes, that's an opinion, and yes its very subjective, but I enjoy either way of doing it.
 
I have not read the whole thing, but why oh why do you think that would make sense? Lab waste, harming the environment, mess, slow, unpredictable and less detailed. It is just like driving petrol cars these days...
 
Is lab waste more harmful to the environment than the production of PCBs for digital cameras ?
 
big soft moose said:
Is lab waste more harmful to the environment than the production of PCBs for digital cameras ?
Click to expand...
Valid and topical question. Who's going to do an audit?

... energy use of computer equipment compared to enlargers ...

... many factors.
 
Last edited:
droj said:
Valid and topical question. Who's going to do an audit?
Click to expand...

Volume will be relevant. I'd guess that a pre existing film camera with the best environmental clear up on low film volumes would be more environmentally friendly than a new digital that is replaced regularly and doesn't shoot much. One that does hundreds of thousands of shots before being binned would be a different matter.

I expect a digital will be much cleaner as cost per next shot is basically nil until it needs replacing.
 
Film is too clingy ... ;)


(Apologies if anyone did this one on pages 2 - 8 inclusive)







.
 
big soft moose said:
Is lab waste more harmful to the environment than the production of PCBs for digital cameras ?
Click to expand...

....I think that the real-world answer to such a question is that it depends on the methods of disposal for lab waste and the carbon footprint etc of PCB production.
 
daugirdas said:
I have not read the whole thing, but why oh why do you think that would make sense? Lab waste, harming the environment, mess, slow, unpredictable and less detailed. It is just like driving petrol cars these days...
Click to expand...

....Red flag to a red car driver with petrol in his veins!

In assessing the carbon footprint of a road vehicle in the real-world, you need to apply 'Dust-to-Dust'. That means literally from production of materials to complete disposal. The stats are based on an assumed 100,000 miles of active life for each vehicle.

If you think that hybrid cars like the Toyota Pious are top of the list, think again! Factor in battery production and disposal etc and it's waaay down on the list. Guess what's top of the list as having the best carbon footprint....

V8 Jeep! :banana: :thumbs:
 
James J said:
Film cameras get more expensive the more you use them due to the cost of film and developing it. Digital cameras get cheaper the more you use them due to not needing to buy anything else.
Click to expand...

NOT REALLY! See earlier post.

Teflon-Mike said:
All that digital has done is made it more convenient, and perhaps.. more 'accessible' ... the matter of 'cheapness' still being rather mute.

Digital ISN'T free photography... electric still costs money! May be 'cheaper', but I think a lot of that is that the costs are more 'transparent' as you don’t see them coming directly out of your pocket every time you have to buy a film or pay for processing.

As many have griped; modern Digital cameras are consumer electronics; built down to a price and a finite service life... some-where around five years 'normal' use. Fact that we can grumble apples and oranges comparison between ‘old’ film cameras and ‘new’ digital, is something of testimony to the fact that the product life of old film cameras was generally to a much higher standard; I still have thirty forty, fifty or more year old film cameras still in working order, still being used. I have chucked away half a dozen digital cameras in the last five years!

Cradle to grave; 'total costs', IF you added them all up, even the ones you DONT see, like the power being used when you are viewing the pics on face book; as well as replacing expensive lith-ion batteries, or later the camera they fit, Digital is NOT 'free' after buying the camera...

Film? Well, after buying and processing that, and getting a hard print in your hand? ACTUALLY viewing that, IS free photography!

And actually, commercially processed film prints? £1.50 at ASDA to get a roll of 36 Develop-Only. £5 for D&P, means the prints are £3.50 a set or just less than 10p each.

Three frames per sheet of A4 out of the computer-printer? Well, a set if inks for mine is near enough £30.... And I know for a FACT that I wont get , over 100 sheets of photo's from them at 'photo' settings, and that's without the cost of decent photo-paper to put it on!

Digital ONLY earns its keep and remains 'Cheap' IF it remains in the digital realm, delivered and viewed digitally. But even then, its not costless. JUST 'convenient'.
Click to expand...

Film? You SEE the costs coming out of your pocket, as you take pictures; but, once you have your negs, there need be no more cost.

Digital? Its electric. Its etherial, there is no tangible durable artifact; just code; code that demands you maintain it, or loose it; you dont SEE the costs as easily, but they are there, and they aren't insignificant.

It's not just the cost of the camera, however much that may be, but the computer, to load them onto and view them, store them, upload them, share them, and then the hard-drives or DVD's or whatever you use (or dont) to preserve them; and the energy ALL these devices draw.

And you dont get that much of an ecconomy of scale. More you shoot, more you have to manage; more devices you will end up buying to manage and store it all, more energy those devices are going to consume.

The costs are STILL THERE, and still mount up, the more you shoot; they are just, less 'tangiable'... more transparent, easier to forget, or ignore.
 
Teflon-Mike said:
NOT REALLY! See earlier post.

Film? You SEE the costs coming out of your pocket, as you take pictures; but, once you have your negs, there need be no more cost.

Digital? Its electric. Its etherial, there is no tangible durable artifact; just code; code that demands you maintain it, or loose it; you dont SEE the costs as easily, but they are there, and they aren't insignificant.

It's not just the cost of the camera, however much that may be, but the computer, to load them onto and view them, store them, upload them, share them, and then the hard-drives or DVD's or whatever you use (or dont) to preserve them; and the energy ALL these devices draw.

And you dont get that much of an ecconomy of scale. More you shoot, more you have to manage; more devices you will end up buying to manage and store it all, more energy those devices are going to consume.

The costs are STILL THERE, and still mount up, the more you shoot; they are just, less 'tangiable'... more transparent, easier to forget, or ignore.
Click to expand...

So if you shoot film you wont own a pc? A dvd player? You wont use any power in your home? If your going to get that picky about it start a debate on costs. Because my biggest cost is fuel to drive to locations.

I no the debate about the physical presents of film in your hand. And all that but I still thing digital gives better results. As for people who scan slides, thats just making life far more difficult
 
big soft moose said:
Is lab waste more harmful to the environment than the production of PCBs for digital cameras ?
Click to expand...

The main question is quantity of waste. No one is claiming digital is carbon neutral, but let's just consider let's say Canon 1-series with 200,000 on the clock. Just imagine what a pile of 200,000 negatives looks like, and all the chemicals needed to develop it. And then you have to put it on a scanner and do the regular digital treatment. I don't think we even need audit here, it is that obvious. Oh and the cost will be more than enough to buy a high end digital hasselblad.

RedRobin said:
....Red flag to a red car driver with petrol in his veins!

In assessing the carbon footprint of a road vehicle in the real-world, you need to apply 'Dust-to-Dust'. That means literally from production of materials to complete disposal. The stats are based on an assumed 100,000 miles of active life for each vehicle.

If you think that hybrid cars like the Toyota Pious are top of the list, think again! Factor in battery production and disposal etc and it's waaay down on the list. Guess what's top of the list as having the best carbon footprint....

V8 Jeep! :banana: :thumbs:
Click to expand...

OOOhhh don't go there :nono:. Prius is nothing me more than stinky petrol with extra expensive battery waste in it... great if you only ever sit in traffic jams.

Diesel, and new gen electric is what it is all about now :rules:
 
Last edited:
Teflon-Mike said:
NOT REALLY! See earlier post. Film? You SEE the costs coming out of your pocket, as you take pictures; but, once you have your negs, there need be no more cost. Digital? Its electric. Its etherial, there is no tangible durable artifact; just code; code that demands you maintain it, or loose it; you dont SEE the costs as easily, but they are there, and they aren't insignificant. It's not just the cost of the camera, however much that may be, but the computer, to load them onto and view them, store them, upload them, share them, and then the hard-drives or DVD's or whatever you use (or dont) to preserve them; and the energy ALL these devices draw. And you dont get that much of an ecconomy of scale. More you shoot, more you have to manage; more devices you will end up buying to manage and store it all, more energy those devices are going to consume. The costs are STILL THERE, and still mount up, the more you shoot; they are just, less 'tangiable'... more transparent, easier to forget, or ignore.
Click to expand...

I don't use my home printer for photography, instead I have asda do that for me on the images I actually want printing. That's far cheaper than film is.
 
daugirdas said:
The main question is quantity of waste. No one is claiming digital is carbon neutral, but let's just consider let's say Canon 1-series with 200,000 on the clock. Just imagine what a pile of 200,000 negatives looks like, and all the chemicals needed to develop it. And then you have to put it on a scanner and do the regular digital treatment. I don't think we even need audit here, it is that obvious. Oh and the cost will be more than enough to buy a high end digital hasselblad.
Click to expand...

I actually laughed out loud at this. 200,000 photos!!!!!

I shoot film...not a machine gun
 
I don't buy into the idea that digital costs any more than film with regards to energy costs such as electricity.

You will be using a computer etc to do many other tasks besides just photography and so if you want to nit pick, you should calculate what proportion of your energy usage is applied to your photography. If you are happy to use your brain and time on such tedium then I feel sorry for you!

To be brutally honest I don't care two figs what energy I use to enjoy my photography or lifestyle. Nor do I care what anyone thinks of me as a consequence.
 
Last edited:
RedRobin said:
I don't buy into the idea that digital costs any more than film with regards to energy costs such as electricity.
Click to expand...


lol @ this thread...

As though there is anybody on Earth that doesn't shoot film because it uses more energy or that they're worried about the amount of chemicals that go down the plug ole....:lol:


Question for the thread, if film was half the cost of digital, gear and running costs, would you shoot it instead of digital ??
 
Steve said:
I actually laughed out loud at this. 200,000 photos!!!!!

I shoot film...not a machine gun
Click to expand...

This is what you have been missing out! It's a lot more fun, and you could imagine it is a machine gun :nuts: well sort of...

No, really, what is 2000/day? A wedding? Fairly normal.
 
barratt1988 said:
Reason I shoot digital... more flexibility. . Allows me to have the shots there and then... better results. Thats all that matters to me im not fussed about costs otherwise id have picked a cheaper hobby
Click to expand...

Better results? :D
 
bound to be 1 better in 2000....law of averages...:D
 
daugirdas said:
This is what you have been missing out! It's a lot more fun, and you could imagine it is a machine gun :nuts: well sort of...

No, really, what is 2000/day? A wedding? Fairly normal.
Click to expand...

wow...didn't realise 2000 a day was the norm for a digital wedding photographer. PP must take ages :o

Can't really compare that to film though. My wedding photographer took 5 rolls of 120 film at our wedding so that was 60 photographs for the day.

Can't imagine a film wedding photographer ever getting anywhere near 2,000 photos at a wedding.
 
I usually shoot about 800 and edit down to 300 or so - I can't imagine shooting 2000 at a wedding
 
Steve said:
wow...didn't realise 2000 a day was the norm for a digital wedding photographer. PP must take ages :o

Can't really compare that to film though. My wedding photographer took 5 rolls of 120 film at our wedding so that was 60 photographs for the day.

Can't imagine a film wedding photographer ever getting anywhere near 2,000 photos at a wedding.
Click to expand...

If my wedding photographer took 60 shots in total I would be suing them, unless every single one of those turned out to be literally award winning.

You have to consider many blinkies, and all the crap you take (and why not?!), and deliver great 300-600.
 
daugirdas said:
If my wedding photographer took 60 shots in total I would be suing them, unless every single one of those turned out to be literally award winning.

You have to consider many blinkies, and all the crap you take (and why not?!), and deliver great 300-600.
Click to expand...

Well I think the 60 we got was the norm for weddings in the pre digital age. I could be wrong, but I don't think film photographers using medium or large format were ever shooting in the hundreds.

And I'm quite happy with the resulting album from our 60.
 
One of the great things about being brought up with film (I now only shoot digital) is that the medium encouraged you to make every shot count and so you trained yourself to compose etc rather than take a scatter gun approach using fps bursts hoping that just one would hit the target.
 
daugirdas said:
If my wedding photographer took 60 shots in total I would be suing them, unless every single one of those turned out to be literally award winning.
Click to expand...

You are not going to know how many they took, just how many they delivered.

My wedding album has sixty pictures in it and that is more than enough.


Steve.
 
RedRobin said:
One of the great things about being brought up with film (I now only shoot digital) is that the medium encouraged you to make every shot count
Click to expand...

The instructions given to my father when he went out on his first wedding with ten glass plates - "make each one count".


Steve.
 
Every wedding without fail there will be some guest who feels the need to tell me "how easy i have it these days " and "I used to be a real tog" blah blah blah lol its usually the ones who open the conversation with the immortal line "what megapixel is your camera"
 
And in reply to earlier posts I usually average 2500 to 3000 shots on a typical wedding with a second shooter with me .
Why limit your shots and potentially lose a fantastic image when your only limitation is your memory ?
Granted its pain staking work going through that many RAW files and choosing your images to use but its just the way of the industry at the moment
 
3000 shots sounds like an awful lot. How long are you usually shooting?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top