Would you sell your digital gear?

[gsgary]

To me digital is a pain in the ass.. mostly because it takes too much work to make it look like film. I think the things people are saying they hate about film are things I love about it. I like developing my film, it's relaxing. I like the surprises when I see a pic that I don't remember taking. I also can't afford a digital Leica so if I want to shoot a rangefinder, I have to use film.. *shrug

That said, I don't think i'd sell my digital cameras. I mean, my D300 hardly ever gets used. I literally haven't touched it in months, but I keep it around because sometimes I get asked to shoot events for my friend's car site and he wants a lot of shots of the race cars, although, I usually shoot a roll or two of film for myself through my F100. Also, sometimes I just need a quick shot to post online or something. I also use my X100 often when I get lazy or if the lighting isn't good.

Honestly, I've been a film die-hard for a long time, but lately i've been feeling lazy, or haven't had the time for scanning. The newer FX sensors look pretty good, if only I could afford a D4..

Dont do it

 

[unpopular]

Well, here is the thing. You will always have people that are hold outs. Look at the alternative methods. People are interested in tech that is from the 1800's. Dead for all practical purposes. But there are still hold outs even for ancient tech.

The most annoying thing about 95% of the alt process community is just that, they're just regurgitating old processes, not making any new improvements or discoveries. Filmies often have this conservative approach. The most intriguing thing to me about chemical photography is that anyone has access to the imaging systems. But people are so fascinated to replicate the old formula, they don't do anything new.

I have dozens of processes and experiments I'd like to do if I had a darkroom and lab. People who are fortunate to seem to be just squandering away their resources on tradition.

 

[jamesbjenkins]

You've never shot a film SLR, have you? Tell the truth. Shooting a film camera is a completely different experience than a DSLR. There's nothing mystical about it, but it's definitely more organic, minimalist and intimate than anything consumers are buying now.

Shooting film is different, but not for these herpderp, hippy dippy reasons!

Well, I'm about as far from hippy as is humanly possible.

And I'm pretty sure you can't refute my opinion. Sorry.

EDIT: Damn it! Seriously, I'm done with this thread. Stop dragging me back.

 

[unpopular]

What makes film inherently "intimate"? Does replacing a film back with a digital back somehow remove this intimacy? What if you covered up the back such that you couldn't tell?

Would you feel it in the shutter actuator? Is it the sound of the film rolling through the magazine that makes it intimate?

 

[panblue]

I don't speak for others but one thing i like is daylight/5600k response, regardless of the time of day an image is made. That is actually a look to an image that i like. You can adopt the same with digital or you can also use filters with film to move beyond it. I'm not interested in darkroom work at all. I am content with the basic tonality of a film type, how that typically gets run-off of a high street lab (normal colour or b&w, not chromogenic C41films)..and i'm happy with that .. max 10x8. For me is the vision/content of the image, subjectively; the light and shadow in a raw, sooc way.

Perhaps the intimacy is just being content with how a film renders a moment while appreciating equally that moment, rather than fussing over processing or capture flaws. This is why digital SOOC groups exist for hobby photographers.

What makes film inherently "intimate"?

 

[PhotoWrangler]

Now some of the zen photogs like the whole process wet darkroom and even the glass plate coating.

Hmmm... that's an interesting term - "zen photogs".

Maybe that's what I'm more in love with, the process instead of the technology. I've never thought about it like that before.

 

[unpopular]

I don't speak for others but one thing i like is daylight/5600k response, regardless of the time of day an image is made. That is actually a look to an image that i like. You can adopt the same with digital or you can also use filters with film to move beyond it.

The problem is that you have no idea what you're correcting to. Daylight film has a spectral sensitivity of 5600K - what is the spectral sensitivity of the sensor?

The scary thing is that the raw processor is doing all sorts of gnarly things to our images, things we wouldn't normally approve of at all. On my camera's daylight setting, the red data is pushed 1.5 EV. We wouldn't dream of pushing overall exposure by 1.5 EV on every single image, but this is exactly what raw processors do - on EVERY SINGLE image, by at least 0.5EV on at least one channel. I suspect that if we could make this correction optically, SNR would increase.

 

[pixmedic]

interesting words used to describe film photography. intentional, intimate, deliberate, organic....
maybe you think it is reserved for film users. I think you are just seeing two sides to the same coin.
you are describing a feeling that a photographer gets when they snap that shutter and freeze a moment in time forever. when they know they have captured something special, maybe even something once in a lifetime. A moment they can now go back and revisit time and time again and relive that feeling. And it doesn't matter what brand of camera they used...or what type of camera type used..or whether they are a professional or an amateur...
All that matters is that they have seen that moment, recognized that moment as something worth saving, captured that moment.....

and put it on facebook via instagram.

 

[unpopular]

is b/w film more intimate? is color slide film less so?

this intimacy thing is interesting!

 

[runnah]

What makes film inherently "intimate"? Does replacing a film back with a digital back somehow remove this intimacy? What if you covered up the back such that you couldn't tell?

Would you feel it in the shutter actuator? Is it the sound of the film rolling through the magazine that makes it intimate?

I take it you've never been on a long shoot before. Long hours, lonely nights you start looking at your film, it starts looking at you and the next thing you know it's over exposed...

 

[unpopular]

Oh, I've been there, watching the latent image forming ...

 

[terri]

I don't want a film vs digital debate to come out of this thread

Sorry, Chris, but on this forum it's unavoidable and that's why we don't allow them:

* No digital vs. traditional arguments or debates are allowed. We have separate forums where the virtues of both mediums are discussed. No provoking comments will be tolerated.

You asked a seemingly innocuous question, then everyone who has a negative opinion on FILM itself seems compelled to have their say. They don't directly answer your question, they just bash film users as Luddites, then further attach a negative connotation by association to being Zen, a hipster... :scratch: As if those are all derogatory terms by themselves, as well. Lots of posturing and ignorance inherent in that type of argument.

To those of you who have kept it civil even while disagreeing....my thanks.

I'll have to close this thread now...I do want everyone to remember that choosing what medium people want to use to create their images is a personal one, and why we cannot seem to respect each other's choices is beyond me. Some people don't mind a few hours sitting in front of the computer moving pixels around, some people don't mind a few hours in the darkroom moving light and chemistry around. In the end, we all agree it's the final product that matters. For those who enjoy the more tactile approach of film, it is part of the creative process and should be given the same respect as someone who is proficient in LR, PS, etc. Who cares? An image is made and processing must happen.

Everyone run along and play nice in the yard. :sillysmi: