Discussion in 'Film Discussion and Q & A' started by tabernaclia, Sep 14, 2008.
What advantages does film have over, say, digital?
They have benifits each of their own, no one is superior to the other.
But we will start off with initial cost with differed payments. Equipment is inexpencive, film processing spreads overall price out over time.
Long exposures on low ISO film don't result in noisy pictures (eg.: hour-long exposures for star trails)
Digital is initially more expensive, but hugely more convenient than film.
Film does not require electricity to expose. Useful in areas where batteries are scarce. Also nice for all night exposures.
Print film has a lot of exposure latitude. Get the exposure within 2 stops and the lab will fix it.
I think you misspoke it is "Get the exposure within 2 stops and fix it in post" (where post = darkroom)
they each have a different look .
some folks like to sit at the computer to pp, others love the darkroom.
Darkroom work can be very satisfying.
I'm sorry, how is this different from what I posted?
Neg film has huge exposure latitude compared to slides or digital. I think it's the main reason people have a hard time making the transition from neg film to digital. The lab easily and quietly cleaned up sloppy exposure (a good lab should be able to handle a 2 stop over or under exposure) with print film. Then when the photog goes digital they find an exposure latitude much more like slide film, and their sloppy technique becomes troublesome. The lab wants to charge an extra fee to do the fixing, and even then it's not really fixed.
Try fixing a neg that's 2 stops over or under exposed, and then try the same thing with digital. The print from the neg is going to look a lot better, almost like there's no problem at all. The digital shot will have extremely noisy shadows or solid white highlights. With digital exposure accuracy is a must; with neg film it just needs to be in the ball park.
I gotta agree with all this. It's one reason I like shooting negative film, it's just more forgiving. Although, I think it makes me a little lazy. I picked up my d70 this weekend and it took me a while to get the exposure right without blown out highlights. Thank the maker for chimping..
Another reason is it's just more fun. (for me anyways) also, I don't like how 'clean' digital looks, but that's a personal preference. I realize that can be "fixed" with software, but why bother when I can get the look I want by just shooting it oldskool.
One more thing is the equipment. I can't afford professional level digital bodies, but I can afford professional level film bodies that have the similar large viewfinders, in-hand feel, and build quality as well as functions like metering systems and fast autofocus. Or if I want to shoot with older manual cameras, or my rangefinder, I have to use film (since again, I can't afford a Leica M8)
^ I agree.
Also, with film
- your camera doesn't become obsolete every 6 months
- no dusty sensor issues
- tons of terrific equipment available for peanuts
- beautiful cameras made of metal, chrome, wood and leather
- no concern over which "program/metering mode" to use
- bystanders who admire your eccentricity
screw forgiving. if you can get more lattitude why use it just for errors? Carpe diem!
As Bhop said it Those highlights. Film has better dynamic range. If you say shoot a bride and groom read ( brite white dress and dark black tux) in difficult light its tuff to get digital to not blow out the white and still get detail in the tux. Film will get both no problem.
Separate names with a comma.