Digital and Film surely?

[Senor Hound]

I'm all digital. I'm in photography for me, and I have this really bad problem with immediate gratification. Seeing instant results for me is so important that I can say I'd probably never have started photography if I had to use film.

When my images get to be of a better quality CONSISTENTLY, I'd LOVE to experiment with having my own darkroom, medium formats, etc... But for now, I'll stick to image sensors and megapixels.

 

[AndrewG]

Film only for me; two Nikon F3HP bodies (the best camera Nikon ever made IMO) one FM2N body and a few Nikkors and I'm in analog heaven shooting XP2.
Don't like plastic cameras!

 

[Rhys]

I have film and digital. I haven't used film since 2001 when I was in Salamanca. I just find so many advantages to digital for travelling and for business use.

If scanners had been cheaper, faster and better then I might have stuck with film. They weren't so I didn't.

Now I find the quality of digital is beyond the quality of what I could get from most consumer films. I can get a better quality 10x8 from digital at 400 ISO than from Ilford HP5 at the same size. I used to shoot HP5 exclusively.

Honestly though I did prefer my film bodies. If digital backs ever come into production for my FM then I would be sorely tempted. On the other hand I'm so spoilt by the light weight of my XT and my 30D as well as by the vast capacity of the memory cards that I fear it would remain solely a temptation.

I love my Nikon MF kit. I love what I can do with my Canon dSLR kit.

The real killer for me of the Nikons was the weight. Although not as robust, the Canons are so much lighter and that makes a huge difference - even though I prefer the collection of primes I have from Nikon as opposed to my collection of zooms that I have for Canon.

 

[whistule]

I'd be interested to know from those that use both when you use film and when you use digital.

For me (as examples)
If I was going to take a picture of a multicoloured tropical bird - and I was looking for something with excellent definition, detail and representative colours - I might use digital

If I was wanting to shoot a disued industrial building I'd use the grain and the higher contrast with the darker blacks of film

This is really only intended as a question for those that use both - ta

 

[usayit]

I use both... probably 60/40 digital and film.

Digital and Film both produce very different looks on print as well as a different experience from trip of shutter to print. I do this for enjoyment so it is easy for me to look at a scene and decide if I would enjoy shooting film or digital more. The decision is based on the look of film grain versus digital noise, the general overall look I am striving for, whether I intend to employ Photoshop techniques, if I personally feel like I need to slow down, leverage the speed/convenience of digital, etc.. At times, the enjoyment comes from shooting with an old camera with some film. The same decisions are also being weighed when I have a medium format camera with me as well.

If I were shooting for a professional job, I'd probably shoot 100% digital... the market requires it.

 

[Josh66]

For me (as examples)
If I was going to take a picture of a multicoloured tropical bird - and I was looking for something with excellent definition, detail and representative colours - I might use digital

If I was wanting to shoot a disued industrial building I'd use the grain and the higher contrast with the darker blacks of film

Sorta the same for me. But sometimes I'm just in a film kinda mood and use it regardless of the subject.

I always use film for black and white (I do shoot color film too though), digital B&W conversions never look as good as B&W film to me - but my photoshop skills are a little limited, so that's probably a factor too.

 

[saltface]

I use film, but I want a DSLR. If I could take five hour shots with digital, I'd ditch the film completely.

 

[K_Pugh]

I used to have a Nikon D70 which was great at the time but i just never got the results i was after (maybe i was just a noob).. but that's not to say digital isn't good or worth having.

I've recently taken the hobby back up (after just under 2 years out) and i've started with film as i've never seriously shot with film before.. i love it! i shoot B&W with a Nikon F50 and develop it myself, scan using an Epson all-in-one printer thingy with a film/slide scanner on it - the whole process is rewarding and i think film is a little more forgiving than digital as well.

I've also just bought 2 FED rangefinders that i plan on shooting B&W with as well.

I've been thinking about whether to go colour and develop C-41 but after much consideration i don't think it'd be as cost effective and i've decided to buy an other DSLR (probably a D70 again).

Film for B&W.
Digital for Colour.

 

[Joves]

Havent used film in years, since I lost 20 some years of negatives in a fire. I have my digitals saved on a seperate site so, even if I have a fire they are there for backup.

 

[Battou]

I have film and digital. I haven't used film since 2001 when I was in Salamanca. I just find so many advantages to digital for travelling and for business use.

OT...Out of curiousity, would that be Salamanca, Spain or Salamanca, New York?

 

[(Ghastly) Krueger]

Sorry for the late answer.

What are you trying to scan?

35mm negatives and prints

What are you scanning with?

At home an HP multifunctional (printer, scanner, fax) and several different "pro labs".

So far my own scans from the prints are better than the lab scans from the negatives.

 

[Battou]

Sorry for the late answer.



35mm negatives and prints




At home an HP multifunctional (printer, scanner, fax) and several different "pro labs".

So far my own scans from the prints are better than the lab scans from the negatives.

HP scanners are not good for this application....I know I used all in one for some time. Get a filmenabled scanner of your own and take the scanning of your negs into your own hands. By asking the lab techs to do it you are throwing yourself on the mercy of some mediumwage lab tech. what you are going to endup with is just the negs being run threw the machine on auto settings. I'll tell ya right now auto settings are seldom accurate. Not to mention You took the shot, You where there, you know what it's supposed to look like, no lab tech can say that .

I have gone into this numourous times about the difference between scanning ones own negitives VS having someone else doing it. I have a feeling that once you have scanned your own negitive for the first time you will be amased at just exactly how much more enjoyable film can be.


Later on tonight I will dig up some of my old comments on this and provide them here so you can read them.

 

[(Ghastly) Krueger]

Later on tonight I will dig up some of my old comments on this and provide them here so you can read them.

I'm convinced I would need a film scanner . I'ts just more convinient for me at this time to shoot digital because I'd have to purchase a new scanner and find a place to put it.

 

[JerryPH]

I started out all digital, but went some ways into film.

Honestly, I do not see the big issues. Film has its place... digital has it's place. I am not going to promote an air of snobbishness in either direction. Both mediums are simply fabulous.

That said, I prefer digital. Instant gratification has it's advantages. Had I started out with film, I think I would be perhaps 75-80% LESS educated than I am now. An immense amount of my personal edification has come in very little time... time that would be severely extended if I had to wait to print out each shot one roll at a time to see, evaluate and learn from the results.

I suppose that makes me a child of digital technology, but as someone that has the age of one from the film years... lol.

 

[whistule]

I guess I wasn't really asking which one you prefer - as that discussion goes on endlessly and never really gets anywhere - more which one you use when.