I was hardcore film bfore i had to get my Canon 10d for school, and now i cannot be without the digital wonder. What do you use and would you consider switching or switching back? btw, i still use film when i need those really vibrant colors, digital hasn't done that for me yet.
They are different ways to take an image. No one is better or worse. If you need a quick one, go on digital. Film is more versalite, because it can be digitalized in many different formats
Yo, I have only used digital (not counting those disposable cameras I used to use) because I try not to use gelatin-anything. So I guess digital for me! Me, the Flea
I have both and attend to continue using both. But only time will tell. I do not like to do a lot post shooting editing. So far digital require more work and time a on my part. Also, my BWs seem to better and easier on film.
Both film and digital have great strengths and weaknesses. The strongest photographers will be those who understand both mediums, and know how to take advantage of the strengths of both. Good photography has always been about the photographer, not the equipment. Right now I am only offering film photography to my customers. I believe that in two years I'll be able to buy a DSLR at the same price points as a 35mm FSLR with similar features costs now. Then I'll start offering digital photography as well. But that won't mean that I'll pack up my film cameras; I'll just use the best equipment for the job. For my own work I'll continue using MF and LF film in vintage cameras, and developing and printing it myself in my darkroom. That's what turns my crank. But it's easy to recognize the increased profit potential from digital. Interestingly, as many of the local pros do a 100% switch-over to digital, my business has increased. It turns out that there is still a demand for film photography and traditional processes, and now I'm one of the last enlargers standing. The local arts center has started to offer digital photography courses, and they are very, very popular, but the film courses still fill up to max capacity each session. It's a wonderful time to be a photographer who will embrace both. I can see that reasonably priced, high quality digital photography is just around the corner. And since many folks are abandoning film, the used film camera market is flooded, and I'm finally able to afford all the high quality film gear I've always wanted. I'm hoping that someday there will be a LF digital back that fits in a Graflok back camera. Then I will have the best of both worlds in one camera system.
I completely agree. I'm a complete amateur but I have used both film and digital. For me, digital has more postives then it does negatives, so I'm willing to live with the negatives of digital because on average it works better for me.
I caught the pun earlier It all depends on the application. For snapshots, sports, portraits, etc digital rules the roost. For landscapes, you can't beat transparency film. Digital's weak point is the ability to capture highlight detail as good as film.
Some pros and cons that I notice when working with the different media... I often hear mentioned that the speed of turn around of digital vs. film is sort of an illusion, because often the time spent in Adobe PS and getting an inkjet print just right can equal the time spent in the darkroom. One thing I notice, as a father of a toddler, is that even if it does take just as much time, I can get up and walk away from the computer without it really affecting the work I'm doing and already done. Once I get going in the darkroom, I have to stay there until the work is done, or it'll probably be ruined. I can sit down at the computer and mess around if I have an extra 15 minutes; if I want to go into the darkroom I need at least two hours of free time. On the other hand, I'm attracted to the idea that every print I make in the darkroom is unique; subtle variations occur upon every printing. Some people wouldn't like this, but I'm sort of put off by the precise accuracy of the digital printing process. Environmentally, traditional darkroom work uses a lot of water, which always makes me feel guilty. On the other hand I'm not filling the landfills with toxic batteries with my old, mechanical cameras. Speaking of batteries, a friend of mine has been able to work with a LF digital back that he says is easily as good as LF film. Unfortunately it requires a transformer/battery pack that weighs as much as two large car batteries. You aren't back packing that baby up a mountain. And battery technology is not moving anywhere near as rapidly as computer/digital technology. With a digital camera I can see if I got the pic at the moment of the shot, and share proofs very quickly. I can take 500+ shots vs. 36 shots (or 12, 8, or 1 in some of my older cams) before I need to change media. With a film camera I can change the "sensor" at will, and I can even use products from different manufacturers. A bad roll of film is temporary; dead pixels are forever.
Lol. I didn't notice that until you mentioned it. It's been awhile since I've gotten back into photography and completely forgot "negative" is a photography term.
i started on digital and now im playing with film from what i've experienced so far (for my liking) .. b&w looks better with film because of the nice details in the shadows, the grain and the great tonal range for color, digital looks better to me because its "cleaner" ... for the past month or so, whenever i do a shoot professionally or personally .. i use both (have both cams around my neck and use them simultaneously) but im moving closer to liking b&w better than color
