Digital and/or Film

[jbylake]

Hmmm, another film/digital poll. :meh:

So far, so good - but I'm just popping in here to say that the second the tone goes flat in this thread, it will vanish.

That's o.k., wasn't trying to set the world ablaze. And I'm glad the responses didn't turn into a "what's better - digital or film". I was just kind of curious, and I really have to say that I'm totally suprised by the responses.

I actually thought "digital only" would be way out in front. The mix of responses really amazes me.

Thanks, for your reply,

J.:mrgreen:

 

[terri]

^^ I can appreciate the curiosity. No problem.

You would probably see a difference in replies if you posted the same poll in the digital forum. But - please don't.

You will find, of course, that what really matters (and it's all that matters) is what type camera best suits your own style of photography.

 

[jbylake]

I shoot digital cameras with my Winchester.

There's always one in every crowd....

 

[jbylake]

^^ I can appreciate the curiosity. No problem.

You would probably see a difference in replies if you posted the same poll in the digital forum. But - please don't.

You will find, of course, that what really matters (and it's all that matters) is what type camera best suits your own style of photography.

Oh, I agree. And like I said, it was purely out of curiosity. And no, I'll not repost anywhere.

J.:mrgreen:

 

[Nosedive4130]

Hello, I am new to relatively new to photography and shoot film only.

I would still like to get into Digital, but I feel that shooting film only will help me to concentrate my efforts into a much better understanding of photography in whole.

What is funny though, is that in selecting my gear, I am setting myself up for digital in the future (ie: compatible lenses). I also find myself always searching vigorously for more information about how I can convert my film to digital cheaply.

Even though I would like to convert to digital, it seems that the kind of shots that I like taking revolve more around film.

 

[Battou]

^^ I can appreciate the curiosity. No problem.

You would probably see a difference in replies if you posted the same poll in the digital forum. But - please don't.

You will find, of course, that what really matters (and it's all that matters) is what type camera best suits your own style of photography.

Hey terri, since you're here could you add an option to the poll: "I shoot film, and shoot digital rarely."

 

[phocus78]

Both

 

[jbylake]

^^ I can appreciate the curiosity. No problem.

You would probably see a difference in replies if you posted the same poll in the digital forum. But - please don't.

You will find, of course, that what really matters (and it's all that matters) is what type camera best suits your own style of photography.

Hey terri, since you're here could you add an option to the poll: "I shoot film, and shoot digital rarely."

At this point, I guess it's really a moot point. As Terri said, had I posted this in the digital section, the outcome would be totally different. That's why I posted in the film section. I knew many digital shooters also shoot film, but I really wanted to see what people who visit the film section are up to.

J.:mrgreen:

 

[cooltouch]

Hello, I am new to relatively new to photography and shoot film only.

I would still like to get into Digital, but I feel that shooting film only will help me to concentrate my efforts into a much better understanding of photography in whole.

What is funny though, is that in selecting my gear, I am setting myself up for digital in the future (ie: compatible lenses). I also find myself always searching vigorously for more information about how I can convert my film to digital cheaply.

Even though I would like to convert to digital, it seems that the kind of shots that I like taking revolve more around film.

It seems to me you're being quite pragmatic with your approach -- nothing wrong with that.

About converting film to digital cheaply, well it depends on what you mean by cheap. If you shoot in more than one format size, or think you will in the future, I'd recommend you pick up a good scanner, and my choice would be an Epson. Used or new, there are a number of different models that do a good job. Maybe not as good as a dedicated scanner like a Nikon Coolscan but they do a decent job, and aren't nearly as expensive. And then there's the software. Most folks use PhotoShop, it seems, but many folks (like me) can't or won't afford it. There are good alternatives, however: Paint Shop Pro, PS Elements, and even Gimp (which is free). But you'll want to have some sort of image editing software so you can perform at least basic image editing tasks.

Sorry if all this is old news for you. I don't know how far you are already into this, so I'm covering the basics, since that's always the best place to begin.

I believe there is a good reason why photography classes still require the use of film cameras that can be used in manual mode. It teaches the student to slow down and think. About exposure. About composition. About the light and the shadows it creates, etc., etc. Ironically, digital's biggest benefit is also its biggest problem, as I see it: the ease with which images are captured. Instant review of photos, which are regarded as being essentially without cost, enables the photographer to blaze away in the hopes of getting a few keepers. I realized the futility of this many years ago when I bought my first motor drive. Of course, the first thing I did was load the camera up with a 36 exposure roll of slide film and set the motor drive to Continuous. Went out looking for action, and found it at a go-cart track. I blazed away at those go-carts and was astounded at how quickly I burned through a roll of film. I recall thinking how such a habit could get really expensive. And when I got the slides back, I also recall being quite disappointed by the results. Out of that entire 36-exposure roll, I had maybe one keeper. So my theory of blazing away with the hopes of capturing the moment fizzled almost as soon as it began. Ever since then, when using a motorized camera, I almost never shoot more than one frame at a time. I would rather watch for that moment and capture it the instant it happens.

This habit has extended over to digital with me. Sure, I'll review a photo for focus or exposure and take another if need be, but I don't fire away, hoping that at least one photo works.

 

[jbylake]

Hello, I am new to relatively new to photography and shoot film only.

I would still like to get into Digital, but I feel that shooting film only will help me to concentrate my efforts into a much better understanding of photography in whole.

What is funny though, is that in selecting my gear, I am setting myself up for digital in the future (ie: compatible lenses). I also find myself always searching vigorously for more information about how I can convert my film to digital cheaply.

Even though I would like to convert to digital, it seems that the kind of shots that I like taking revolve more around film.

It seems to me you're being quite pragmatic with your approach -- nothing wrong with that.

About converting film to digital cheaply, well it depends on what you mean by cheap. If you shoot in more than one format size, or think you will in the future, I'd recommend you pick up a good scanner, and my choice would be an Epson. Used or new, there are a number of different models that do a good job. Maybe not as good as a dedicated scanner like a Nikon Coolscan but they do a decent job, and aren't nearly as expensive. And then there's the software. Most folks use PhotoShop, it seems, but many folks (like me) can't or won't afford it. There are good alternatives, however: Paint Shop Pro, PS Elements, and even Gimp (which is free). But you'll want to have some sort of image editing software so you can perform at least basic image editing tasks.

Sorry if all this is old news for you. I don't know how far you are already into this, so I'm covering the basics, since that's always the best place to begin.

I believe there is a good reason why photography classes still require the use of film cameras that can be used in manual mode. It teaches the student to slow down and think. About exposure. About composition. About the light and the shadows it creates, etc., etc. Ironically, digital's biggest benefit is also its biggest problem, as I see it: the ease with which images are captured. Instant review of photos, which are regarded as being essentially without cost, enables the photographer to blaze away in the hopes of getting a few keepers. I realized the futility of this many years ago when I bought my first motor drive. Of course, the first thing I did was load the camera up with a 36 exposure roll of slide film and set the motor drive to Continuous. Went out looking for action, and found it at a go-cart track. I blazed away at those go-carts and was astounded at how quickly I burned through a roll of film. I recall thinking how such a habit could get really expensive. And when I got the slides back, I also recall being quite disappointed by the results. Out of that entire 36-exposure roll, I had maybe one keeper. So my theory of blazing away with the hopes of capturing the moment fizzled almost as soon as it began. Ever since then, when using a motorized camera, I almost never shoot more than one frame at a time. I would rather watch for that moment and capture it the instant it happens.

This habit has extended over to digital with me. Sure, I'll review a photo for focus or exposure and take another if need be, but I don't fire away, hoping that at least one photo works.

Yep, I agree with most everything you've said. I have an Optitek scanner, so I'm not truly "analog" anymore.

But.....I'd really not turn this into a Digital Vs. Analog thread. I think one of the mod's has already spoken to this.
Basically, I just wondered how many in the "Film" forum shoot which camera the most.....
It has already been brought up, that if I'd would have posted this in the "digital" forum the outcome of the poll, would be totally different. I agree, I mean it's just common sense. However, I am really suprised at the outcome, so far.
I'm a film guy myself, but digital, really is the future, and somewhat of the past of photography. (I'd say the last to die will be the medium and large format).
Anyway, thanks for your insight and reply, but this is basically a "yes or no" type question.

Thanks much,

J.:mrgreen:

 

[CSR Studio]

I don't shoot much 35 film, mainly digital.
Medium format I probably shoot 2/3 digital and 1/3 film.
Large format I shoot all film of course. I do shoot a lot of 4x5 for products and architecture, you just can't beat 4x5 for architecture.

 

[Randall Ellis]

I believe there is a good reason why photography classes still require the use of film cameras that can be used in manual mode. It teaches the student to slow down and think. About exposure. About composition. About the light and the shadows it creates, etc., etc.

That is indeed why we use film cameras to teach students in basic photo classes. I have found that students tend to move ahead well before they should when the ability to do so exists. Mandating the use of equipment that physically prevents them from doing that (at least for class work) which allows them the opportunity to, if they choose to open their minds enough, learn concepts that transcend mediums and apply to any camera, film or digital.

- Randy

 

[Randall Ellis]

I'm a film guy myself, but digital, really is the future, and somewhat of the past of photography. (I'd say the last to die will be the medium and large format)

Perhaps, at least to a certain extent, but it is unlikely that film will ever fully 'die' any more than glass plates, platinum printing, or even daguerreotypes, the first (well, one of two 'first') photographic methods, all of which are all still in use today. As each new technology arrives, it will usurp the position of 'the Future of...' and the previous technology will become a niche market - it's the way of technology in general, be it photography, video (I just bought a DVD player and now they tell me it's outdated?!?), cars, phones, or even toilets (have you seen the Envirolet composting toilet? A very cool idea!) For the mad scientist types (yours truly included) nothing is ever really dead. I use digital and film both as I don't believe that any one tool (any tool, not just cameras) is always the best choice for all situations. It is up to each of us to choose the right tool for our own needs, and to let others do the same free of ridicule if our decisions are not the same...

- Randy

 

[jbylake]

I'm a film guy myself, but digital, really is the future, and somewhat of the past of photography. (I'd say the last to die will be the medium and large format)

Perhaps, at least to a certain extent, but it is unlikely that film will ever fully 'die' any more than glass plates, platinum printing, or even daguerreotypes, the first (well, one of two 'first') photographic methods, all of which are all still in use today. As each new technology arrives, it will usurp the position of 'the Future of...' and the previous technology will become a niche market - it's the way of technology in general, be it photography, video (I just bought a DVD player and now they tell me it's outdated?!?), cars, phones, or even toilets (have you seen the Envirolet composting toilet? A very cool idea!) For the mad scientist types (yours truly included) nothing is ever really dead. I use digital and film both as I don't believe that any one tool (any tool, not just cameras) is always the best choice for all situations. It is up to each of us to choose the right tool for our own needs, and to let others do the same free of ridicule if our decisions are not the same...

- Randy

I hope you're right, and film lives on..but the market will determine that. I no longer have acsess to a darkroom, so I have to rely on either getting slides, or neg's processed. Then, scan them to digital...

I guess only time will tell...but you've got to take into consideration, the modern times. Some of the younger folks here have probably never used a film camera, unless it's one of those throw away's, in an "emergency", forgot the camera, what ever..some of them may take photo classes, either in college or high school, and get a taste for film, but for many, and their numbers increase daily, as we age, they will never shoot a film camera in their lives..

J.:mrgreen:

 

[Randall Ellis]

Have faith, friend Unless Jesse Tuck is kicking around somewhere under an assumed name there aren't too many people alive today who were doing daguerreotype, tintype, or even platinum printing when those were the hot new idea, but they are still very much alive...

Film is dead! Long live film!

- Randy