Anyone gone back to film?

[peterjshearer]

Anyone else out there thinks that digital is not all its cracked up to be?

More time spent in avoiding highlight burn-out, editing etc for a quality that just does'nt match good all film? - and how many of us view/look at our shoots like we used to, or are they kept at the risk to computer gremlins and viruses.

Market forces dictate that I use digital for weddings and protraits but when I want a good quality result from my 'leisure' shooting I'm finding the film camera is back in the bag.

 

[lazarus219]

Ive been shooting digital, but will be buying a new nikon SLR in the near future ( a couple of months) and can't wait!

 

[Ihaveaquestion]

I havent bought a digital SLR yet But Im spending too much money on film and developing film.

I want to go Digital as soon as I can.

Although I love my rebel and the pictures I get from it. I want to experiment with settings and be able to get immediate results with out waiting days and spending money on test shots and what not.

 

[LittleMan]

Read this article.

http://www.imx.nl/

:thumbup:

 

[photogoddess]

Some of us never stopped using film. I see the need for both digital and film and continue to use both on a regular basis. I haven't shot a wedding on digital yet. Always MF for those but digital definitely has a place. Even with it's latitude problems. :mrgreen:

 

[terri]

I personally have no need for digital. I need negatives or slides to do the kind of stuff I like to do, so film has always been where it's at for me. :heart:

 

[Bosscat]

Seriously considering it.

Sick of how long it takes to edit pictures in Photoshop.

With prints, I can have something to start the burn barrel with in next to no time.

I am convinced the digital is just a marketing ploy.

Long live slide film,

 

[Seveneer]

Well, I've used digital (10D) for the last 2 years but have recently got fed up with the wide variance available through photoshop. I found myself learning a new technique and then using it to a greater or lesser degree on all my photos. It got to the point where I was enjoying the photoshop manipulation more than the photography. :blushing:

So, I have recently gone back to film and have opened up a colour dark room in my spare room. I haven't abandonned digital though. There's room in my hobby for both film and digital.

I use mf film for playing around with my studio strobes, 35 mm for wandering around with and digital for motorsports. Although, if I had to rely on postal processing I would only use digital.

I think there are pro's and cons for both film and digital and I try to choose the camera according to the photo I want to take.

/Phil.

 

[Jeff Canes]

I prefer film for B&W and for other special effect films, but digital for color and sports [font=&quot]
[/font]

 

[peterjshearer]

So I'm not the only one leaning back towards film, I have no intension of opening up the film vs digital debate. Just curious if theres anyone out there like myself who has been using digital for some time with advanced knowledge of both digital cameras and photoshop but just don't believe its all what its made out to be. And yes I also think the marketing by manufacturers is unbelieveable. Why would a family only printing 6x4s need 8mp??? Digital has its place in my photography, but I'm finding its place is reducing and film replacing it !

 

[lazarus219]

I think digital works fine, but i still think film is where the best photos come from, not all about quality either,

I used to use photoshop and extensively modify images- i dont do that any more because that ruins the essence of photogrpahy (unless fixing a snapshot)

I used to just snap frames off and then check on the viewfinder- i think this is digitals main problem- photo's are less carefully thought out and composed, because you can just check it straight away,
I always try to use minimal frames,

Basically im doing all the 'disadvantages' of film, so why do that with digital when i can get a film camera that feels as good as the photos it can take?