Digital and/or Film

[Craig J]

I go on kicks that last a month of so with film and then go back to digital again. I also carry an inexpensive film camera (N75) and a cheap lens everywhere I go just in case something pops up. I take better care of my digital stuff and better lenses.

Craig

 

[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."

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:

Not to sound like a complete jack ass but given that I fall into that category I do not believe it's a moot point.

Where there is one there is always another. I garentee there is more than one person who shoots film and shoots digital rarely.

 

[terri]

Actually Battou, I fall into that category myself, so I appreciate your point.

However, I think what the OP was trying to say is that he already got what he wanted out of his poll...in this particular forum (Film). If he wanted to really pursue it, he'd put up something similar in the Digital forum and compare results. But...I begged him not to, so it's basically over. I think that's what he meant by "it's a moot point". No offense intended to any member of any category!

 

[jbylake]

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:

Not to sound like a complete jack ass but given that I fall into that category I do not believe it's a moot point.


J.:mrgreen:


Where there is one there is always another. I garentee there is more than one person who shoots film and shoots digital rarely.

I don't think you're an A$$....I think terri hit the nail on the head. It wasn't really about digital or film, but more or less trying to see what the film thread people were up too. That's all. When I said "moot", that wasn't directed at anyones opinion, It just basically meant that I could see the trend, for film people. Please don't take offense. Your opinions are as important as anyone else's. Just that this thread shows the trend, not what I expected, for film people. Other than that I'd say it's pretty much a dead thread and poll. It's all good.
J.:mrgreen:

 

[jbylake]

Well, it's over. I've got to say that I'm quite suprised. I thought that although this is a film forum, that the response would be overwhelmingly "digital and rarely film. Although the percentages don't particuarly show a significant difference, the number of votes do. I'm suprised at how many shoot film, either mostly, or always. Even in a film thread. Cool, and thanks for all for participating. I was only curious, and as I think I explained throughout the thread, it wasn't a Digital Vs. Thread Heavy Weight fight, but just checking out how the film thread visitors were doing.

Thanks again,

J.:mrgreen:

 

[apertureman]

After my purchase of the Nikon D90 I started getting more into photography, as expected. I started reading more and getting involved in forums and found talking about film, which got me curious.

So I bought a Nikon N75, worked incredibly well and was really fun to use. But... it's expensive. The film and processing really add up.

Well, I have to say that it's expensive either way you go: digital or film. Argue with me if you want, but read carefully as I illustrate a scenario:

1. You buy a pretty good DSLR, like Nikon D90 for about $1000 bucks. Chances are, you will keep shooting with that for a while..... that is until a newer, better, higher resolution DSLR comes out, which would cost you another couple of thousand bucks.

2. If you buy a film SLR with the similar capabilities as D90, say F100, $700. By capabilities I mean frames per second, 1/3 f-stop and shutter speed adjustments, etc. I bet you can use that camera for many, many years, because if you want something better, just wait to see what Kodak, Fuji and the like come out with next. Because your final image quality depends largely on the film you use.

I've been shooting with my Nikon FM10 manual film SLR for almost a year and so far only spent $300 or so on film and processing. Granted, I don't waste my shots, I am very careful and deliberate when making a decision to release the shutter, but that pushes me to be a better photographer.

 

[Buckster]

I've been shooting with my Nikon FM10 manual film SLR for almost a year

Not to be a nudge, but in your other thread/post today, you wrote:

I have been long desiring to pursue photography as a hobby and just got a Nikon FM10 film SLR on eBay to start me off.

Ummm...? Which is it?

...and so far only spent $300 or so on film and processing.

But in your other thread/post today, you wrote:

I do not have my own darkroom yet, and I don't know where to find a pro lab in my town, so what would you guys suggest for a lab? Is there a place I could send my exposed film to and then get the negs, slides, and even CD with digitized images back?

I have a pretty good one in my town, but in the last few years they have been increasingly catering to consumers and digital, and have completely discontinued their pro film sales.

Something's not jiving here between your two threads / posts.

 

[Actor]

2. If you buy a film SLR with the similar capabilities as D90, say F100, $700. By capabilities I mean frames per second, 1/3 f-stop and shutter speed adjustments, etc. I bet you can use that camera for many, many years, because if you want something better, just wait to see what Kodak, Fuji and the like come out with next. Because your final image quality depends largely on the film you use.

Nobody makes film SLRs these days. "Kodak, Fuji and the like" are not going to come out with any new film camera, ever again. If your buy a film SLR today it's going to be a used camera unless you find a new film SLR on some dealer's shelf that he has not sold yet. My Pentax has "all the capabilities as D90" and cost $400 fifteen years ago. Today it goes on eBay for $50 or less, which usually includes the lens.

That's the good news/bad news of the rise of digital. The good news is that you can get great film cameras for next to nothing. The bad news is that the great film camera you paid $400 for 15 years ago is worth next to nothing.

 

[skieur]

I think that one element that gets into the mix is the person's comfort level with computers and working with graphic images. Those that are comfortable in this area found the transition to digital easier and were able to produce better results faster using postprocessing than those without computer knowledge/skills in the area of images.

skieur

 

[den9]

it might help if you posted this in a general forum, since strictly digital shooters probably wont visit this section

 

[jbylake]

it might help if you posted this in a general forum, since strictly digital shooters probably wont visit this section

I think I mentioned earlier in this post that I was looking at what people who visit the film section are up too....that's why it wasn't posted in the digital only sections, or general sections.

J. :mrgreen:

 

[apertureman]

Not to be a nudge, but in your other thread/post today, you wrote... Ummm...? Which is it?

It's the first one, sorry. I bought my FM10 last October on eBay, but didn't start using it until January of this year.

"...and so far only spent $300 or so on film and processing..." But in your other thread/post today, you wrote: "I do not have my own darkroom yet, and I don't know where to find a pro lab in my town, so what would you guys suggest for a lab? Is there a place I could send my exposed film to and then get the negs, slides, and even CD with digitized images back? I have a pretty good one in my town, but in the last few years they have been increasingly catering to consumers and digital, and have completely discontinued their pro film sales." Something's not jiving here between your two threads / posts.

That is true. I do not have my own darkroom and a PRO LAB in my town, at least I couldn't find it. The one I use to process my film at is a consumer photo center.

Since we're back on the thread that I posted about the processing labs, could you suggest a pro lab where I could send my film to?

Thank you.

 

[apertureman]

"Kodak, Fuji and the like" are not going to come out with any new film camera, ever again.

I didn't say they were ever coming out with another camera. I was talking about their films.

Today it goes on eBay for $50 or less, which usually includes the lens.

That only reinforces my point. It's also expensive to go digital, because even pro-sumer digs cost way more than next to nothing. However, if Kodak ever comes out with a finest grain film yet on the market, you don't need to upgrade your equipment. But if Canon makes a camera that has 5 megapixels more than its predecessor, you have to buy a whole new camera if you want to reap the rewards.

Oh... and one last newslash: Nikon still makes their FM10's and F6's, you can buy them new at a retail price! That would be stupid, of course, but that's beside the point.

 

[apertureman]

I think that one element that gets into the mix is the person's comfort level with computers and working with graphic images. Those that are comfortable in this area found the transition to digital easier and were able to produce better results faster using postprocessing than those without computer knowledge/skills in the area of images.

skieur

That's not necessarily the case. I am a graphic designer and very comfortable working with different operating systems and various applications on those systems. I am quite at home with computers, but somehow, it just takes the fun out of photography for me if I'd ever gone all digital.

There is not much anticipation to find out how your pictures turned out. You don't necessarily have to see how film "sees" because digital sensor has a whole different dynamic range. It's just more interesting for me what you can do and achieve with film. Digital is just plain predictable. It doesn't sharpen my photography skills the way film does.

So, unless we're talking about Medium and Large Format systems, I think it's more a preference and convenience issue, rather than quality nowadays. Digital is catching up in a certain sense and taking over the market, but it will never be the same as film.

 

[Actor]

"Kodak, Fuji and the like" are not going to come out with any new film camera, ever again.

I didn't say they were ever coming out with another camera. I was talking about their films (you know the stuff you load into the camera body you already have).

Ok. I misunderstood what you were saying. But with Kodak frequently discontinuing emulsions, Kodachrome being the latest victim, I doubt there will be many coming out parties in the future, Ektar 100 notwithstanding.

Today it goes on eBay for $50 or less, which usually includes the lens.

That only reinforces my point. It's also expensive to go digital, because even pro-sumer digs cost way more than next to nothing. However, if Kodak ever comes out with a finest grain film yet on the market, you don't need to upgrade your equipment. But if Canon makes a camera that has 5 megapixels more than its predecessor, you have to buy a whole new camera if you want to reap the rewards.

They'd have to temp me with a two stop improvement. I would not trade a 6 Megapixel for a 12. I'd wait for a 24 at least.

Oh... and one last newslash: Nikon still makes their FM10's and F6's, you can buy them new at a retail price! That would be stupid, of course, but that's beside the point.

You're right. Freestyle still has the FM10 and maybe the F6 in their catalog.