why do you shoot digital... film is so much better!
- Thread starter donut
- Start date
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
so 300 shots per hour , 5 shots per minuite , seriously ?
Major Eazy
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,150
- Name
- John 'Jack'
- Edit My Images
- No
That's like asking Star Trek or Star Wars?
Film is better than digital.
Digital is better than film.
Star Trek is better than Star Wars
Star Wars is better than Star Trek
For me, I like both. I like both Star Trek and Star Wars.
So I like both film and digital.
What matters is about picking up a camera and do some photography, never mind what's inside the camera, be it film or CCD.
As long as there is still film to buy and print, I will carry on shooting with my good old Minolta X-700 while I also shoot with my Nikon D200. I won't favour one over the other.
Even if film is better than digital, people still would scan their prints into digital format anyway.
Both fiim and digital have their own pros and cons, it's just a trade off, but only one thing wins over the pros and cons of film or digital is enjoying taking photos.
Film is better than digital.
Digital is better than film.
Star Trek is better than Star Wars
Star Wars is better than Star Trek
For me, I like both. I like both Star Trek and Star Wars.
So I like both film and digital.
What matters is about picking up a camera and do some photography, never mind what's inside the camera, be it film or CCD.
As long as there is still film to buy and print, I will carry on shooting with my good old Minolta X-700 while I also shoot with my Nikon D200. I won't favour one over the other.
Even if film is better than digital, people still would scan their prints into digital format anyway.
Both fiim and digital have their own pros and cons, it's just a trade off, but only one thing wins over the pros and cons of film or digital is enjoying taking photos.
alan t
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 35
- Edit My Images
- No
Yep that is with a second shooter as well .
Why do I feel I'm justifying myself ?
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Its up to you how you shoot, but 3000 shots is a hell of a lot for a wedding over a ten hour day - how many shots do you provide in the finished package ?
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
alan t
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 35
- Edit My Images
- No
All depends on the package ordered but when they go for an "all inclusive" package they usually get around 600 which granted is a hell of a lot of images but I've found a growing demand for the natural shots of the guests arriving and candid shots of the day seperate from the set up posed shots for albums etc
alan t
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 35
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm only an amateur so it's not comparing like with like, but I don't even get close to shooting 3000 photos in a year on film.
Can you even imagine the cost on film steve that would be s staggering amount.
The biggest problem is people expect all this these days even on an hours family shoot I'm taking 150 to 300 shots
Steve
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,685
- Name
- .... Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Totally agree Alan,
Client expectations have changed so you can't offer the 60 or so film photos that was the norm when I got married in the 1980s.
And shooting the volume required by a 2013 customer would exclude film I imagine, as the photographer would have to charge a premium to cover the cost of film and developing making it uncompetitive.
pamplemoose
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 98
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'd be interested in seeing some figures around average age of photographers who prefer film and the average age of those who prefer digital.
- Messages
- 2,432
- Name
- Rob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm 60 and wouldn't use film if you gave me a camera and a lifetimes supply of the stuff, does that help ?
alan t
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 35
- Edit My Images
- No
You have hit the nail bang on the head steve, even in the 9 yrs from my wedding day its totaly different.
But it does allow you to experiment with various lighting and settings and to make a simply stunning shot that you really couldn't risk trying on film.
If you use off camera flash you need to take a good few shots just to get your shutter speeds and exposure levels and flash positions perfect.
OP
donut
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,088
- Edit My Images
- No
which of course you cant do with film so you have to have a pretty good idea of what you are doing in the first place
Just dug out our wedding album and proofs - The photographer met my wife at her house in the morning, went to the church and then followed us to the reception, but left after the formal shots, so not an all day job.
We had 60 odd B&W proofs to select from and ended up with 22 in an album. Total cost of the shoot, including album was £320
We only paid £50 up front as a deposit, the balance when we got the album 2 months or so after the wedding.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 18,695
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm only an amateur so it's not comparing like with like, but I don't even get close to shooting 3000 photos in a year on film.
You are missing out big time on this one. Over 2 weeks in US I must have shot about 10,000 and about 2,000 are marketable (this is not to say the are 5*, no, but good enough).
Oh, and you don't like the sound of 1D 10fps?
as many or as little as needed. Choice is good
, when there is no choice usually there is trouble coming.Digital is not slow dragged and painful. We don't have to wind every frame, change a roll, and pull out a meter for every frame. Oh and you can't change ISO without binning a film, can you?
Now I like this
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
as many or as little as needed. Choice is good
Digital is not slow dragged and painful. We don't have to wind every frame, change a roll, and pull out a meter for every frame. Oh and you can't change ISO without binning a film, can you?:
Well i can - because i'm shooting digital
My point was that 3000 in a day is a hell of a lot for a 10 hour wedding even for a digital shooter - that much choice isnt good when you have to process 3000 raws
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
Steve
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,685
- Name
- .... Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Why am I missing out on not taking thousands of photos a day?
I'm an amateur and this is a hobby so I'm not interested in marketable results.
And no, I don't do any photography that needs even 10 frames per minute let alone 10fps.
And if by sound you mean the physical noise of a motor drive, well I prefer the mighty wallop of my Hassy shutter or the discreet barely discernable click on my Leica depending on mood.
Last edited:
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Or use one of those magical 'light meter' gadgets.
The digital world is different, it has different expectations regarding what and how much we shoot. But we don't deserve the label 'photographer' if we're unable to deliver a product with the right tools. Whether film or digital.
It might take a 'learned on digital' photographer some training, but the principles of photography, light, composition or posing haven't changed, so they should be able to shoot on film if required.
I could shoot on film, my phone, a csc or a dslr, the results would be different because each of those tools has different strengths. But they'd all give me a set of photographs. I can't comprehend how insular some people are about their chosen technology. Get a grip folks it's still photography - making pictures by manipulating light.
TheBigYin
Moderator
- Messages
- 16,982
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
glad someone gets it
TheBigYin
Moderator
- Messages
- 16,982
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
No some of them get hijacked by people waffling on about Jaffa Cakes
(mmmm Jaffa Cakes...
)
Steve
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,685
- Name
- .... Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Just wait until someone asks for advice on what setting to use for shooting their first wedding for £50.
TheBigYin
Moderator
- Messages
- 16,982
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Just wait until someone asks for advice on what setting to use for shooting their first wedding for £50.
It's P - that stands for Perfesshanul, Innit!
( better add the
otherwise I'll get accused of Trolling )
alan t
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 35
- Edit My Images
- No
Best post of the day
I used film many years ago and I would never go back it's impossible to compete in todays market using film, on the same way plumbers have to use plastic pipe and fittings over copper .
Strange comparison but true
alan t
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 35
- Edit My Images
- No
It's P - that stands for Perfesshanul, Innit!
( better add the
Correction this is best post of the day, well its made me laugh the most
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No some of them get hijacked by people waffling on about Jaffa Cakes
(mmmm Jaffa Cakes...
no we don't mention those anymore - some posters can't handle the orangeyness
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
come to that medium format photographers could use a polaroid back for instant feedback
TheBigYin
Moderator
- Messages
- 16,982
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
For me, Polaroid backs were more for studio stuff or for something that you could hand to the Client's "creative director" who was hovering around in the background being a nuisance... Outside, half the time, the light would have changed between taking the polaroid frame and it actually being "cooked"
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
Just wait until someone asks for advice on what setting to use for shooting their first wedding for £50.
I'll tell them for £47.49
Steve.
Best post of the day
I used film many years ago and I would never go back it's impossible to compete in todays market using film, on the same way plumbers have to use plastic pipe and fittings over copper .
Strange comparison but true
Funny you saying that. I just had a plumber here at lunch in his late fifties, who said the skill has gone right out of plumbing and bemoaning all the plastic pipes snapping together saying almost anyone could do it now.
alan t
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 35
- Edit My Images
- No
Point proved
but those plumbers choosing to buy a cheap version of pipe and put it together badly will still call themselves plumbers lol
Teflon-Mike
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,076
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Is it?
And why cant I do that with film?
If I wanted to get super-skinny with Halide, I can get film for under a quid a roll, in the box or off the reel & hand-loaded. Then I'd get an E6 or C41 Chemistry set and dig out the dev-tank, and kitchen sink process it. Would work out at less than £1.50 per roll, film and process.
I dont HAVE to print any of them. I could preview in the neg, to decide which, if any I wanted to make prints from, or I could run off a single 8x10 contact strip, or heaven forbid... scan to digital to preview. Before cherry-picking shots to print.
However, ASDA will do the same thing for £1.50, and saves a bit of work, and a lot of mess. They also do a full D&P of 36 exposure film for just under a fiver. Works out at about 10p a print, if you get the full set done. At 30p a re-print... unless you are only cherry-picking one in five or ten to print... its as cheap to get the full set.
But again, if I was so intent on saving money; I could dig out the enlarger and the Pattison Orbital and make my own prints, in colour, as well as B&W in the bath-room, and for the same money, either make more, or make-them bigger.
But, raises a suggestion... if less than one in ten of your pictures is worth printing.... why are you taking them?........ Which is rhetorical... because you don't view in hard copy; you 'print to screen'...
But THAT does offer suggestion; with film, its 'extra' effort to make halide picture digital for electronic display... we tend only to 'cherry-pick' the better ones to scan and share.... another layer of conscious thought required.
In digital, as its so easy and convenient, to store and share in the digital domain.. and harder to make a hard copy... and so few digital pictures DO get printed.... how much of what is shot in digital, WOULDN'T get taken, wouldn't get stored, wouldn't get published IF it was a little more effort to do so?
Meanwhile, I was never saying that Digital might be more expensive than Film, or that you use SO much electricity maintaining digital photo's as its hugely significant.
What I said was Digital is NOT FREE.
Digital cameras do use electricity; and more than we care to aknowledge, turning on a PC to look at pictures. And the costs DONT stop at the camera; you do need to recognise that you need the other periferals to store and view and share your photo's.
You shoot film, its pay as you go, you see the costs as they occur.
Digital? You pay upfront and only THINK it's free... comes as a shock when all of a sudden your lap-top starts playing up, because the hard drive is full, and you have to shell out another £80 for an external to stick your snaps on.... which is good for a little while longer, until that's full... and then when some calamity strikes you realise you have no 'back-up' and you have to 'double-up' to make some!
Costs are there, just more transparent and not so up-front out of your pocket, here and now, as film is.
All hobbys have the inclination to consume as much money and time as they can; usually more than you can afford to give them....
Analogy of cars... people might moan about the ecconomy of thier car, and the price of petrol... but, as long as they have money in thier pocket, wont stop them using it.
Average car does around 12,000 miles a year, 1000 miles a month. Average 'commute' is aprox 8 miles. 80 miles a week, about 4000 miles a year, 1/3 of the annual miles the car does, of 'essential' travel. Add domestic chores; the weekly shopping; trips to the dentists or whatever; only half the average cars annual mileage is actually 'useful' travel. About half of it is just because its there and its convenient.
MOST people, who moan about the cost or petrol, could actually save more money, not by down-sizing the car, or finding one with better mpg figures, but SIMPLY thinking twice before they jump in the car to go to the gym or pop to the pie-shop! Typically 1/4 of the average drivers fuel spend is unnecessary, and they could slash the fuel bill at a stroke, just by thinking a little about whether they really need or want to go somewhere. Thats a far bigger saving than is likely to be found by buying a more 'ecconomical' car... which ironically, is likely not to actually generate any significant saving; as by compensating psycology... not costing 'so-much'.. likely to get used even MORE for unessential travel, and driver will still drive to the money in thier pocket!
Most people live to the limit of thier means... give or take... more take, than give when credit cards are so easy to have!
Hobby's are the same; and you will tend to take as many photo's as you can afford.....
Neatly linking simile with subject....
Digital ISN'T 'Free'.. you dont have to buy film, no, but there is plenty of other stuff you still need to buy, and it costs just as much to get out and about and take photo's whatever you shoot, and your hobby can STILL consume as much time, money and patience of nearest & dearest as it can....
At least with Film, pay-as-you-go, seeing the cash come out of your pocket, its a little easier to keep a track of, and paying as you go, your not so likely to end up in that sort of situation where 'kidding yourself' its free... when you're hard drive is full, and giving the cricket clicks of imminent death, you don't have to find best part of £100 or so, to get a new drive to make a back-up toot-sweet, or risk loosing the product of everything you have spent till that point, kidding yourself there's no more costs!
Like I said, there isn't a lot of difference, apart from convenience. Everything folk are saying Digital can do Better... is for the most part either wrong or splitting hairs. Digital cameras have evolved from Film cameras, as remarked on in the "Is this the end for DSLR?" thread, between DSLR and CSC's; most, if not all of what modern digital cameras 'do' is actually trying to mimic the way film-cameras worked!
Consequently there is little 'capability' they have that wasn't available in some way, shape or form in Film. Only difference is they deliver electric digits, not silver crystals.
Beyond that? Down to how much convenience you want, and how much you are prepared to spend.
If kidding yourself 'Digital is Free' is what you have to do to justify it to yourself, or those with financial over-sight.. well... no matter how much you may want it to be true, and how hard you might want to believe it... like the flat earth philosphy, repetition doesn't make it so!
But of it helps you take photo's? What the heck... BUT... delusion and denial is rarely creative; and while you might like to think 'because its free I can take SO many pictures.... ' a little thought, which film often prompts, by way of those little reminders when you have to open your wallet or shift an advance lever.... CAN do so much to make the most of the photo's you take, and get pictures WORTH taking.
End of the day a picture is worth a thousand words... and talk is cheap, so I could end this post on the suggestion, if you dont value your photo's go digital, its cheap; if you do, use film, its costs, but its worth it. But bottom line is neither is a whole truth; and what matters is that pictures get taken, and pictures get looked at... and their 'worth' is in the enjoyement they give.
Film and Diogital can deliver a lot more 'value' than either cost... but they still cost; but Film makes you more aware of it, and more likely to make the most of what you SEE to be spending.
joxby
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,782
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
If you are shooting weddings on digital, you're just doing what you have to do, you have a brief that you have to comply with, digital is the only way to fulfil that brief.
If customers demand stupid quantities of photos of their weddings, you only have digital to blame for that, they only want it cos they know you can do it and they want their moneys worth...lol
I have a brief, like most people it says I must shoot what the hell I like shooting within the bounds of my budget, or find something else to do..
If customers demand stupid quantities of photos of their weddings, you only have digital to blame for that, they only want it cos they know you can do it and they want their moneys worth...lol
I have a brief, like most people it says I must shoot what the hell I like shooting within the bounds of my budget, or find something else to do..
barratt1988
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,013
- Name
- Phill
- Edit My Images
- No
I cant believe your gettin uptight about costs to the extent your using the power consumed by your pc as a way to prove film better. Do you sit at home staring at the tv scared to turn it on.
Digital is cheaper. Why? Because most people have a pc and a hard drive so you arent buying that just because you have brought a dslr.
Film is more time consuming and costs more. And yes digital cameras cost more but if youve had your film gear for some time you will have paid alot for it when you got it.
Digital is cheaper. Why? Because most people have a pc and a hard drive so you arent buying that just because you have brought a dslr.
Film is more time consuming and costs more. And yes digital cameras cost more but if youve had your film gear for some time you will have paid alot for it when you got it.
pamplemoose
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 98
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What absolute nonsense. How is it harder to make a hard copy of an image? It would take less than a minute from walking in my front door to having a hard copy of a digital image if I wanted to print straight out of camera. Failing that 10 minutes tops in post processing and then uploaded to whoever I want it printing by if I want something special doing.
All of which is your highly subjective opinion. The skill of the photographer has a far higher impact on an image than what medium was used.
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
I know we have debated this before but I wonder if it is because people demand it.
Do wedding photographers give customers 100s of images now because that is what is expected or do customers expect 100s of images because that is all everyone offers?
Steve.