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

barratt1988 said:
It doesnt matter what you shoot a poor composition will ruin and format.

I agree film is more difficult but to be honest ive never used the green box mode so ive no idea what its like. I look at my digital shots and get a good feeling from them and am sure many people do. I wouldnt get a better feeling if it where shot on film.

If you want to make things 'difficult' then only shoot primes, blindfolded and on one leg. Then youll get a real nice feeling from your shots hahaha
Click to expand...

You ever tried it?
 
barratt1988 said:
If you want to make things 'difficult' then only shoot primes, blindfolded and on one leg. Then youll get a real nice feeling from your shots hahaha
Click to expand...

I only own primes for my film cameras...don't really think that makes it any more difficult

I have a paralysed left foot, but it can support weight so doesn't really count as one legged.

Blinfolded....now you're being silly :)
 
robhooley167 said:
Who doesn't enjoy a challenge?
Click to expand...

....:lol:

It rather depends on the difficulty and tedium of the challenge! I certainly don't seek challenges.

Do I want to spend hours in a photographic darkroom with the smell of chemicals? - Not anymore, I've been there and done that.

I have been taking photos for well over 50 years and, as said before, have professionally Art Directed specialist photographers (some of them very famous) using ALL the formats, both film and digital.

As far as I'm concerned, the bottom line is the final image and it being suitable for where it's to be seen (from an online thumbnail to an onstreet hoarding).

All photography is very simple - Amount of light balanced with time of exposure plus human creative input. Sometimes I enjoy having the OPTION of point-and-shoot to grab the shot rather than not have the shot at all.

Based on my extensive experience, for my own photography I have absolutely no hesitation in choosing digital rather than film. I embrace the aids which digital offers me. But each to their own.

How come none of you old film buffs here haven't mentioned platinum prints?
 
barratt1988 said:
It doesnt matter what you shoot a poor composition will ruin and format.
Click to expand...

So what makes you think I don't spend time on my compositions? Believe me, when each press of the shutter costs a quid you pay attention to these things.
 
Last edited:
RedRobin said:
....:lol:

It rather depends on the difficulty and tedium of the challenge! I certainly don't seek challenges.

Do I want to spend hours in a photographic darkroom with the smell of chemicals? - Not anymore, I've been there and done that.

I have been taking photos for well over 50 years and, as said before, have professionally Art Directed specialist photographers (some of them very famous) using ALL the formats, both film and digital.

As far as I'm concerned, the bottom line is the final image and it being suitable for where it's to be seen (from an online thumbnail to an onstreet hoarding).

All photography is very simple - Amount of light balanced with time of exposure plus human creative input. Sometimes I enjoy having the OPTION of point-and-shoot to grab the shot rather than not have the shot at all.

Based on my extensive experience, for my own photography I have absolutely no hesitation in choosing digital rather than film. I embrace the aids which digital offers me. But each to their own.

How come none of you old film buffs here haven't mentioned platinum prints?
Click to expand...

*clap* *clap* very nice give youself a goldfish

I could make life more of a challenge I could cycle to the peak district (bout 40miles away) or I could drive. For me cycling wouldnt make the experience any more rewarding... but hey for some it could?
 
PMN said:
So what makes you think I don't spend time on my compositions? Believe me, when each press of the shutter costs a quid you pay attention to these things.
Click to expand...

My point wasnt directed at yourself it was that it doesnt matter what format your using unless the fundimentals are in place then its going to result in crap anyways... but you have just shot yourself in the foot a little as youve pointed out film is costly
 
barratt1988 said:
My point wasnt directed at yourself it was that it doesnt matter what format your using unless the fundimentals are in place then its going to result in crap anyways... but you have just shot yourself in the foot a little as youve pointed out film is costly
Click to expand...

How on Earth have I shot myself in the foot? The 8 grand's worth of digital equipment I have was vastly more expensive than I've EVER spent shooting film.

As for composition, that's a basic photographic skill. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the format you're shooting.
 
RedRobin said:
....I think that some people perversely enjoy making things harder to obtain!
Click to expand...
I it is the process of acquisition that is providing pleasure, in as or greater measure than the artifact at the end? Its not 'perverse'...
I mean, its womans' shoes, scenario;
They can spend all day, picking just the right pair, and after looking at every pair in every shop in town, STILL come back and buy the first pair they tried on in the third shop!
Bloke? In try, buy. Job done. Because it's the shoes that matter to them, NOT the process of picking them.

RedRobin said:
Film and digital are merely two different media resulting in us expressing ourselves via pictures. One isn't 'better' than the other - One suits different people 'better' than the other.
Click to expand...
I think I have stressed that point more than a little.

RedRobin said:
Hypothetically, if digital, in the more advanced state it currently is, had been an option alongside film at the beginning of photography, I wonder which you would have chosen.
Click to expand...

Well, Digital was in the pioneering stage as I started to get 'in' to photography; I recognised the potential early on; the first digitised images I made were in 1996. Same images were the first I digitally transmitted, via dial-up, to OU IT bulletin board! One photo per night, roughly!

There is no 'Choice' between systems; they do different things, with over-lap, and I have tried to blend the best of both or use what's appropriate; and when in 2000 I had the windfall of a respectable redundancy package and a job to walk straight into; rather than treating myself to an about to become obsolete new film camera, or over-priced and under-performing new Digital, bought a Neg-Scanner!

srichards said:
Technology is magic too. For those of us used to waiting an age for a film to come back as prints being able to plug a camera into a computer and see the images straight away was amazing. Then you could instantly email them half way round the world to friends or family. Still magic :)
Click to expand...

I beg to differ... the 'idea' was certainly quite amazing, at the beginning.... but I was there.... and it took a LONG time for it to actually happen... I actually quipped "Technology.... it'll save a lot of time..... Eventually" as I watched the interminable egg-timer! Dial up connection... one photo per night, hoping the connection wouldn't time out! Scanners, on 486PC's... took about an hour to scan one frame! And heaven help you if you wanted to turn it through 90 degrees!

And now? When every kid has a mobile 'phone in their pocket and the O/H's iphone is bonging every five minutes when one of the kids puts something up on facebook via instagram! Its every-day, 'ordinary'... its like an electric light! Once upon a time idea of flicking a switch to illuminate a room, rather than having to light candles with the revolutionary 'safety' match, might have been 'Magic'... but not these days! It's just taken for granted. Like, when you press the shutter button; you're gonna get a picture; and when you click the 'upload' tab... it's going to appear in cyber-space.

Pulling a strip of slides from a dev-tank.... that's NOT mundane; that's never been an 'every-day' occurance; a normality... it still holds it's 'Magic'.
 
Teflon-Mike said:
Pulling a strip of slides from a dev-tank.... that's NOT mundane; that's never been an 'every-day' occurance; a normality... it still holds it's 'Magic'.
Click to expand...

Totally agree Mike. I never get bored of that magical moment when an image slowly appears in the developing tray.
 
PMN said:
How on Earth have I shot myself in the foot? The 8 grand's worth of digital equipment I have was vastly more expensive than I've EVER spent shooting film.

As for composition, that's a basic photographic skill. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the format you're shooting.
Click to expand...

Thats only because film is old and gear is cheap. Go back to when top end film bodies where new and youd have spend a fortune.
 
barratt1988 said:
Thats only because film is old and gear is cheap. Go back to when top end film bodies where new and youd have spend a fortune.
Click to expand...

But I like many others purchased our top end film bodies and gear when it was cheap as it was being discarded by the pros.

My Hasselblad and three good lenses and other goodies for it cost me half of what I paid for my D800E. And I reckon in 20 years the Hassy will still be going strong, but I doubt the D800E will.
 
Steve said:
But I like many others purchased our top end film bodies and gear when it was cheap as it was being discarded by the pros.

My Hasselblad and three good lenses and other goodies for it cost me half of what I paid for my D800E. And I reckon in 20 years the Hassy will still be going strong, but I doubt the D800E will.
Click to expand...

So in years to come when film is long gone will digital be better than the next format because d4s will be 30quid on ebay
 
RedRobin said:
How come none of you old film buffs here haven't mentioned platinum prints?
Click to expand...
Because:-
1/ I'm not OLD!
2/ I'm not a 'film' buff... that would be Barry Norman

Meanwhile, appreciation of halide, does not preclude an appreciation of Digital.

Appreciation of halide can, however, provide a lot of insight into just how little real advantage digital actually has over anything else; as well as its many disadvantages.

There's no right or wrong answer; there's no right or wrong medium; no 'better'........ just different.

What is probably most revealing in this thread though is how many film shooters, with experience of digital, most admitting to owning more £-worth of digital kit than film; are vaunting their appreciation of film; in the face of so many digital shooters, with no film equipment and little or no experience of film, supported by a few zealot converts, who either because they have utterly bought the hype, or who have invested too much in it to admit any different; doggedly insisting that JUST because its modern; just because it's 'the norm' that it HAS to be better, or it wouldn't have 'replaced' film... news for you... it hasn't 'replaced' film.

Film still has a lot to offer, and can happily sit BESIDES digital. There need not be any 'choice'!
 
barratt1988 said:
Thats only because film is old and gear is cheap. Go back to when top end film bodies where new and youd have spend a fortune.
Click to expand...

I never did. Most expensive camera I ever bought, until this year, was in 2003, when I paid just under £100 for a 1.3Mp digital compact kit.

When Film was all there was, my front-line camera was a 'top end' Olympus OM4.

I NEVER spent big money on photographic equipment until Digital came along. My first scanner cost three times what I paid for my enlarger; and THEN I quickly discovered I needed to spend as much again, either for one of these fangled 'Zip' Super-Floppy's I could get more than one photo on, or more still on the (then) as yet unproven technology of a writable CD drive!

A fool and his money are soon parted. And any hobby will consume as much time and money and space as you can give it, and still beg for more....

But nothing has been so eager as Digital to keep us returning to the retailers!
 
Last edited:
PMN said:
How is that in any way even vaguely relevant to the present time? You're inventing non-existant points here.
Click to expand...

How? Steve makes a point of cost of his gear. If brought new the cost of film would be relative to that of digital but cost per print is alot more. Come on read up before to start saying what is and isnt relevant.
 
barratt1988 said:
How? Steve makes a point of cost of his gear. If brought new the cost of film would be relative to that of digital but cost per print is alot more. Come on read up before to start saying what is and isnt relevant.
Click to expand...

But as I said, the fact is most of us purchased our high end film gear second hand, so not sure why the cost of it as new in 1970/80 for the example of my Hassy is relevant?

If it had been the 15k price of a new digi Hassy I wouldn't have purchased it, but was happy to invest 1k in it second hand.
 
barratt1988 said:
How? Steve makes a point of cost of his gear. If brought new the cost of film would be relative to that of digital but cost per print is alot more. Come on read up before to start saying what is and isnt relevant.
Click to expand...

High end stuff is always expensive regardless of the format. I could find a medium format film body that costs way more than a basic Canon 1100D if I wanted to but the point is it doesn't have to be like that. You said I'd shot myself in the foot by saying it costs around a quid per frame to shoot medium format, I'm saying that's nonsense because the vast majority of people who shoot digital and film will still have spent more on digital gear than analogue.
 
Last edited:
To me Digital is magical too im able to do things that I never could with film:)
it's amazing how good even entry level digital gear is now I think some people don't realise how lucky we are now gear wise

But as already said it doesn't matter what you use as long as you enjoy doing it:)
 
LCPete said:
it's amazing how good even entry level digital gear is now I think some people don't realise how lucky we are now gear wise
Click to expand...

It really is amazing how good entry level gear is these days, and I think you're absolutely right that there's perhaps a slight tendency to take that quality for granted. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't specifically love analogue or digital, I just love photography. :)
 
RedRobin said:
....
As far as I'm concerned, the bottom line is the final image and it being suitable for where it's to be seen (from an online thumbnail to an onstreet hoarding).

QUOTE]

its not for me , i quite enjoy the journey as well as the destination :)
Click to expand...
 
.
 
Last edited:
donutagain said:
RedRobin said:
....
As far as I'm concerned, the bottom line is the final image and it being suitable for where it's to be seen (from an online thumbnail to an onstreet hoarding).

QUOTE]

its not for me , i quite enjoy the journey as well as the destination :)
Click to expand...

....When it comes to driving I often enjoy the journey more than the destination.

But in the context of this thread, I much prefer the journey through the digital world than through the world of using film.

Most intelligent people here have posted that neither is 'better' than the other but that they are merely different media and offer different enjoyments to different people.

As far as I'm concerned, further discussion is a waste of time, so I'll bid you all farewell from this thread. :)
Click to expand...
 
So film is better then...glad we got that one sorted. :)
 
RedRobin said:
Most people ( who use both film and digital ) have posted that neither is 'better' than the other but that they are merely different media and offer different enjoyments to different people.
Click to expand...

just corrected that for you Rob :D

( but you wont see it because you're outta here )
 
someone will only open a "Why don't people shoot Polaroids, they're much better than film or dijikal" :lol:

(don't even think about it BTW, unless you fancy a couple of days on the naughty step)
 
TheBigYin said:
someone will only open a "Why don't people shoot Polaroids, they're much better than film or dijikal" :lol:

(don't even think about it BTW, unless you fancy a couple of days on the naughty step)
Click to expand...

now would we do that Mark ???? :naughty:
 
Close it ??

I think this post deserves closer scrutiny, or maybe even its own thread....:lol:
barratt1988 said:
Would you prefer a high quality one of a kind picture from digital or a good shot from film?
Click to expand...

And nobody's posted a pie chart yet, we needs a pie chart to discover the portions of wrongness, rightness and don't give a ****ness of the above comment..:D
 
joxby said:
Close it ??

I think this post deserves closer scrutiny, or maybe even its own thread....:lol:


And nobody's posted a pie chart yet, we needs a pie chart to discover the portions of wrongness, rightness and don't give a ****ness of the above comment..:D
Click to expand...

 
Last edited:
joxby said:
Close it ??

I think this post deserves closer scrutiny, or maybe even its own thread....:lol:


And nobody's posted a pie chart yet, we needs a pie chart to discover the portions of wrongness, rightness and don't give a ****ness of the above comment..:D
Click to expand...

yes...and I also want some meaningless statistics with a standard deviation and all that other gubbins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top