Film or digital?

[o hey tyler]

I never understood why people try to mimic film when they could just save a lot of time and money shooting actual film.

How do you save time and money shooting film when it takes more time and money every time you shoot film? I hope you understand the lack of sense this makes.

 

[JAC526]

I don't understand why people compare the cost of film vs digital. They both cost money. Decide which one you like and do it. Or if you are fortunate enough do both.

Its simple.

 

[Chris R]

I never understood why people try to mimic film when they could just save a lot of time and money shooting actual film.

How do you save time and money shooting film when it takes more time and money every time you shoot film? I hope you understand the lack of sense this makes.

I'm saying you save time and money by shooting film if your goal is to achieve the look of film... Lets say you shoot weddings and you enjoy "the look" of film and always attempt to make your photos appear as though they were shot analog... As a digital shooter you need to: shoot, transfer, load all your images into software + plugins, and potentially spend countless hours post processing all of your photos just to "look" like film. As a analog shooter you need to: shoot, drop off at the lab, and a few days later you have your "film look."

I'll still go ahead and say that my 35mm film shooting is way cheaper than digital. I say this because 35mm cameras are dirt cheap and I can "pay as I shoot" with them. With a DSLR you need to fork out all your money up front... My 35mm camera investment was under $200 and I spend about $150 a year on film/processing... That means I could shoot film for over a decade and still not have spent as much money as I would have buying a full frame DSLR body.

 

[Chris R]

Sure. $5 PayPal

1, 5, 9, 10 film.

Actually, I'm going to take sides and say it's simply impossible to tell. Anyone that claims they can tell the difference when both are in a digital format is lying. There are just way too many variables and the digital has a clear advantage as it's in it's "native" world.

 

[o hey tyler]

I'm saying you save time and money by shooting film if your goal is to achieve the look of film... Lets say you shoot weddings and you enjoy "the look" of film and always attempt to make your photos appear as though they were shot analog... As a digital shooter you need to: shoot, transfer, load all your images into software + plugins, and potentially spend countless hours post processing all of your photos just to "look" like film. As a analog shooter you need to: shoot, drop off at the lab, and a few days later you have your "film look."

I can shoot digital and have film emulation done the same day, and for no additional cost other than the price of the software. You shoot 15 rolls of film, plus processing fees, and the software has paid for itself. How is that not faster and less expensive?

I'll still go ahead and say that my 35mm film shooting is way cheaper than digital. I say this because 35mm cameras are dirt cheap and I can "pay as I shoot" with them. With a DSLR you need to fork out all your money up front... My 35mm camera investment was under $200 and I spend about $150 a year on film/processing... That means I could shoot film for over a decade and still not have spent as much money as I would have buying a full frame DSLR body.

Not really, you could easily have paid for a used canon 5D and a 50/1.4 for 6 years of just film cost. 4 years it you factor in equipment. My 5D is 6 years old and still going strong.

 

[JAC526]

Once again...who cares?

Those who like shooting film don't do it primarily because its cheaper.

They do it because they like it.

Why are you trying to justify the cost of your equipment?

 

[o hey tyler]

Once again...who cares?

Those who like shooting film don't do it primarily because its cheaper.

They do it because they like it.

Why are you trying to justify the cost of your equipment?

Why do you dislike discussion?

 

[JAC526]

I don't like discussion that has no point.

You paid money for your gear that happens to be digital. Someone else paid money for their gear that happens to be film.

What is the point? And who does photography for the sole purpose of being cheap?

The discussion makes no sense to me.

 

[bhop]

FWIW, I like shooting film just because.. I realize it costs me more in the long run, but it's worth it to me. I just spent around $60 on film today that sure won't last a year... It's easier for me because once I develop and scan my film (myself), it already looks how I want it to look. It's more enjoyable to have a book full of negatives than a hard drive full of thumbnails. Plus I like the feel in my hand of old manual cameras. Nobody makes a manual digital camera except Leica, and I can't afford an M9. There are probably more reasons, but those are enough.

Some people like digital more, nothing wrong with that either.. who cares really, how an image is made if it's a good image?

and as far as the original images.. I can't tell..

 

[Chris R]

what I'm trying to say if that if you're a photographer that likes the look of film, there is no point to not shoot film. There are always exceptions here but generally speaking to achieve a digital photo that has a film-like appearance you need a camera, computer, software, time. To achieve the authentic appearance of film you simply need a film camera and a lab (or do it yourself with minimal investment/time).

Basically what I'm saying is why "fake the funk" when you can get the real deal so easily/cheaply?

 

[o hey tyler]

Basically what I'm saying is why "fake the funk" when you can get the real deal so easily/cheaply?

Because its not as easy or fast and is more costly in the long run to shoot film as I have pointed out?

 

[amolitor]

I'm not sure I even believe in "the look of film", whatever that would even be. Film and digital certainly FAIL in distinctive ways, but when the failure modes don't figure, there's just not enough different to tell.

Yes, yes, I know, the tonal curve, the toe, the mid-tones, blah blah blah. The variations between films (wide) and the variations in the way you handle a digital file (insanely wide) overlap more than they differ.

I shoot film because I have a darkroom, I know how to use it, and I enjoy getting my fingers wet.

 

[gsgary]

Because its not as easy or fast and is more costly in the long run to shoot film as I have pointed out?

I can have a roll of 35mm ready to scan in less than 30 minutes of getting home, my M4 will never need upgrading because it is out of date nor will my C330 i can see myself going total film in the next year

 

[gsgary]

Because its not as easy or fast and is more costly in the long run to shoot film as I have pointed out?

Get a bulk loader and it can be less than £2 a roll if you have friends that keep giving you film that is a bit out of date it costs next to nothing, i'm becoming disillusioned with throw away digital in the end you have nothing physical

 

[o hey tyler]

I can have a roll of 35mm ready to scan in less than 30 minutes of getting home, my M4 will never need upgrading because it is out of date nor will my C330 i can see myself going total film in the next year

It takes you a minute per exposure to get your film ready to scan, where it takes 3 minutes for all the shots with digital. There is nothing faster about film.