Film camera or a digital...?

[TonysTouch]

Digital can be a lot cheaper to learn with. For the most part, once you have the general equipment, your expenses stop. With film, it is going to cost you every time you finish a roll.

 

[timor]

I will never understood why "APUG" used the term "Analog" as opposed to Chemical. Analog cameras are electronic..

Me either .
Great pics, what lens is that ?

 

[timor]

Digital can be a lot cheaper to learn with. For the most part, once you have the general equipment, your expenses stop. With film, it is going to cost you every time you finish a roll.

It is maybe not the full truth. Nowadays fully usable slr with lenses may cost as much or as little as $100, for a roll of 400' of film I paid just yesterday $185, chemicals maybe $50 a year, paper is expensive, but the same or worst with digital printing. Basic dslr $500, better lens for it $1000, good computer $?, Photoshop $700, printer $? (around $800 ?) Inks $?. Cost of basic digital setup keeps me shooting film for 5 years, by that time all digital hardware is due for scrapping. I think more important in consideration is the convenience.

 

[ann]

I use both, my enlarger is 50 years old , still working and i have only had to replace a light bulb a few times, all my other darkroom equipment is working fine, with no upgrades.

The list of upgrades on the digital side, too large to type and the expense is huge.

Film people love the process, one doesn't do darkroom work to save money, it has a whole different rhythm and feel.

For some getting general digital equipment, the expense may stop but not for a serious worker.

This is one of those questions that doesn't have a specific answer, as both have value and both have draw backs.

 

[christop]

Former member of APUG and RFF. I've seen a lot of film vs digital debates. I will never understood why "APUG" used the term "Analog" as opposed to Chemical. Analog cameras are electronic.

The "analog" refers to the recording medium itself not being digital (and the electronics are still analog).

A camera maker could conceivably build a film camera that used digital electronics for the metering, auto-focus, shutter control, etc, but because film is an analog medium I would still call it an analog camera. Actually, many SLR's from as far back as the 80's DO have digital electronics, such as any Canon EOS SLR (the auto-focus system is digital).

 

[TonysTouch]

You can find used DSLR's for quite cheap. Plus, I was talking for learning not more advanced work. Used DSLR, with OEM editing program (or GIMP), the computer you currently have, and taking the photos to Walmart or Costco, (or not printing at all), and you can start learning photography for a couple hundred bucks or less.

 

[Alex_B]

If you have the time, I would try both. There are some things you will learn faster and cheaper with a digital, and the film camera will give you inspiration to think more before shooting and it is just lots of fun.

 

[BrianV]

I will never understood why "APUG" used the term "Analog" as opposed to Chemical. Analog cameras are electronic..

Me either .
Great pics, what lens is that ?

Thankyou,

Pentax 85/4.5 in M42 thread mount. On film- Fujica ST-801, first camera with LED meter display. On Digital, Olympus EP2.

(And- Film is not analog. It is a chemical medium. The only reason the term "analog" was applied was to separate it from digital. Vinyl records are analog)

 

[timor]

The "analog" refers to the recording medium itself not being digital (and the electronics are still analog).

On the funny side film is quite "digital". Particles of silver halides converts to silver or not, 0 or 1, there is nothing in between.

 

[BrianV]

Back to the original question- if you like the photographs that your father made with the camera, give it a try. There is sentimental value in using a camera that captured family memories over decades. Being able to use it again for that purpose, value-added.

 

[timor]

Pentax 85/4.5 in M42 thread mount. On film- Fujica ST-801, first camera with LED meter display. On Digital, Olympus EP2.

(And- Film is not analog. It is a chemical medium. The only reason the term "analog" was applied was to separate it from digital. Vinyl records are analog)

Oh, is that lens converted to M42 from K mount ?

 

[BrianV]

No- It was available only in M42 mount, Around 1970 or so. It was more popular for technical photography, can be used for UV through to IR. It has better color correction than the new Leica APO Summicron.

 

[christop]

The "analog" refers to the recording medium itself not being digital (and the electronics are still analog).

On the funny side film is quite "digital". Particles of silver halides converts to silver or not, 0 or 1, there is nothing in between.

If you want to go down that path, we could call everything digital because every particle of matter can be in one of a number of discrete energy states. Light is composed of "packets of energy", each of which is in a single energy state. Now my old AM radio is digital, my incandescent light bulbs are digital, and even my coffee table is digital!

(And- Film is not analog. It is a chemical medium. The only reason the term "analog" was applied was to separate it from digital. Vinyl records are analog)

I still disagree. Film is "analog" because it records (using chemical processes) an analog signal, defined by Wikipedia as "a signal that contains information using non-quantized variances in frequency and amplitude". Of course this definition works only if we ignore the quantized nature of tiny particles, otherwise we could say that film and vinyl records (and everything else in the universe) are "digital".

 

[Mully]

I think most people can agree that learning photography with an analog camera, isn't the most "practical" way to do it. You can't see what you get until you develop your film, and even that takes some practice until you get consistently good results. You won't get a good idea of how your aperture affects your depth of field and sharpness until after you've developed the film, and you must take good notes to be able to do that as well. It's much easier to learn these things with digital.

Now, film has its advances as well, as you focus on the basics. Making proper exposures, not spraying shots, but rather thinking about what "deserves" to be captured. A film only has room for 24-ish or 36-ish exposures.

Film is said to give just as sharp results as digital, although I have not pursued this very far. You're a bit limited in the post processing part with analog, it's not as easy as photoshop (though you're able to do very much in the darkroom, it takes time to learn).

I think shooting some analog would do many photographers some good, but at which stage to introduce it (pedagogically speaking), I'm not sure.

That's what I did wrong ....I got into photography way before digital ...should have waited for digital, would have been a whole lot easier.

 

[gsgary]

Film has soul, digital is like plastic