Film SLR vs DSLR

[tecboy]

I'm currently taking a basic photography class and learn how to use film camera and processing. I noticed some camera stores are selling films and 35 mm cameras. What are the benefit of using film camera?

 

[bhop]

I'm currently taking a basic photography class and learn how to use film camera and processing. I noticed some camera stores are selling films and 35 mm cameras. What are the benefit of using film camera?

For me.. they're more fun.

Other than that, there's not a lot of real benefits these days. However, here are a few that I like. I do like that I get the "look" I want straight from the camera. I like being limited by amount of frames on a roll (so I think more about my shots), but that could be easily mimicked with a small memory card. My M6 cost about 1/3 the price of a digital M, so if I want to shoot with an M Leica, I have to shoot film.. can't afford a digital M. Cheaper full-frame. Exposure latitude is much higher with film.. compared to most digital cameras anyway.

 

[Overread]

Film cameras have a look and feel to the pictures that they produce which is hard to almost impossible to re-create faithfully with digital (at least not without hours editing and tweaking to get there). So there is a visual reason that many prefer film; though its a choice and style rather than an outright right or wrong.

Film also tends to have an edge with dynamic range and favours detail in the highlights over the blacks/darks - which is almost the opposite of digital. However this area is always under hot debate and change and as digital cameras get better and getter that divide is closing - 10 years ago it was very noticeable - today no so much.

Film can do medium and large formate photography for a fraction of the cost of just getting a larger format DSLR. Sensors are very expensive and the bigger they are the more expensive they become; with this in mind many (esp those not on high budgets) use film for larger formats since its cheaper to get into and the equipment still works to a very high quality.

Some people also grew up with film; lets not forget that many have had film for their whole lives and that digital is very new. As a result many simply prefer it - the workflow and the whole approach. I'd also argue that many older generation people often prefer and "understand" the chemical processes and methods far more than they feel they understand the digital methods of editing (even though both are doing very similar things).
Others just love those chemical smells and getting their hands wet working with the film.


In the end no single one is superior overall; each has its own place and much of the choice is experience and personal preference.

 

[dxqcanada]

I'd also argue that many older generation people often prefer and "understand" the chemical processes and methods far more than they feel they understand the digital methods of editing (even though both are doing very similar things).

Yeah, I have a problem with image processing using Photoshop. When I start processing my images I turn all the lights out and blacken out the screen ... that's when the problems start.

Some of us just like the feel of using silver halide material and physically bringing out the latent image to life.

Digital is very convenient and in many cases will yield better results.

 

[terri]

I'm currently taking a basic photography class and learn how to use film camera and processing. I noticed some camera stores are selling films and 35 mm cameras. What are the benefit of using film camera?

Let your instructor answer this for you, as well. All you'll get here is the usual film v digital debate noise, which isn't particularly helpful when you're trying to learn. While you're having fun learning the basics, chat it up with your instructor about it. Good luck!

 

[djacobox372]

Digital has a high entry cost but extremely low ongoing costs. Film has low entry costs (used film cameras are cheap), but high ongoing costs (film/development).

Years ago digital did have poor dynamic range compared to negative film, but I don't think that's true of the better DSLRS in this day and age--digital may be beating film in that area now as well. What does look better in film is what it looks like when it does blow out--digital just clips when it hits the limit--film reacts in a more organic way.

 

[tecboy]

I have to admit developing films is a lot of fun, but shooting a film camera is a pain.

 

[runnah]

It's an antiquated format that has been surpassed twice over by digital. The film look that people prattle on about is just the limitations of the format. The pros of film that I have heard the most are unquantifiable statements like "it just looks better" or "it has that film look". Digital is easier, cheaper and has the best image quality.

Yawn, but this has been done to death.

 

[TCampbell]

Digital has a high entry cost but extremely low ongoing costs. Film has low entry costs (used film cameras are cheap), but high ongoing costs (film/development).

Years ago digital did have poor dynamic range compared to negative film, but I don't think that's true of the better DSLRS in this day and age--digital may be beating film in that area now as well. What does look better in film is what it looks like when it does blow out--digital just clips when it hits the limit--film reacts in a more organic way.

^^ This

Not too many years ago, digital couldn't compete with film. Today... digital exceeds what you can do with film and you can see your results instantly. I've calculated (several times) the average costs to buy a single roll of film and have it processed and printed (unless you own your own darkroom). It's about $15 per roll (give or take). Think of this in terms of shooting the equivalent of 10 rolls of film (to do a single wedding, we used to "bring" about 30 rolls, but would typically shoot an average of 23 rolls per wedding.) So at my 23 roll average, the cost to buy and process the film and create proofs would be about $350 (that's JUST the cost of the film and processing... nevermind the cost of the camera and other gear.)

You can see how the cost of the film and processing would quickly add up to the point where you could have bought a fairly nice DSLR.

I disagree with all comments regarding the "look" of film. I've shot a lot of film (boxes and boxes and boxes). There's this fad going around about trying to produce what *I* think are horrible looking images... faded, bad vignetting, yellowed, lens flare... the sort of thing that, if it came out of my camera, I'd have been all over the lab for their poor work and would have tossed the images in the garbage (and or seriously needed to check out what went wrong with the camera gear or the imbecile operating the camera.) I can duplicate the "effect" in about 1 minute or less using my digital software (if it takes me 5 minutes it's because I stopped to have a coffee). To "duplicate" the effect with real film requires that I buy both film and chemicals, allow both to "expire" past the sell-by date, develop and print (with expired chemicals) and then leave the prints in a window exposed to the sun with no UV protection. Having worked for years in a studio with a front window full of prints, I can tell you that the sun is pretty good at aging the images. We refreshed them to prevent any "aged" images from being on display (not good for business). Today the "ruined" look of images seems to be the "in" thing. I do not use "instagram" -- having seen the first samples of images from my friends, all of which have that common "ruined" image "look" to them I realized immediately this software was NOT for me. Sorry for the rant. This is probably my one major pet peeve with photography. I guess every generation is entitled to do something so stupid that 20 years from now they'll look back and say "OMG, what WERE we thinking?" My generation did leisure suits, polyester shirts and bell-bottoms. 'nuff said.

If you have to do "film" for class, it's not bad for the educational value... to gain an appreciation for what went into it. But I don't recommend using film for regular use. I still have a few film cameras and I confess to having at least 10 rolls of film in my refrigerator. I wonder if I'll ever use it.

 

[TCampbell]

I have to admit developing films is a lot of fun, but shooting a film camera is a pain.

I'd have reversed that... I can shoot film like a muscle reflex... I don't even think about it. But I disliked the hassle of developing and printing. I didn't a permanent darkroom -- so processing was always a hassle. Frankly it was something that my friends and I would do after shooting enough rolls to make it worth our while (you wouldn't want to set everything up just to develop and process a single roll.) At the studio we didn't own a darkroom either (everything was in color and was sent out to pro labs for processing.)

 

[bhop]

I disagree with all comments regarding the "look" of film. I've shot a lot of film (boxes and boxes and boxes). There's this fad going around about trying to produce what *I* think are horrible looking images... faded, bad vignetting, yellowed, lens flare... the sort of thing that, if it came out of my camera, I'd have been all over the lab for their poor work and would have tossed the images in the garbage (and or seriously needed to check out what went wrong with the camera gear or the imbecile operating the camera.) I can duplicate the "effect" in about 1 minute or less using my digital software (if it takes me 5 minutes it's because I stopped to have a coffee). To "duplicate" the effect with real film requires that I buy both film and chemicals, allow both to "expire" past the sell-by date, develop and print (with expired chemicals) and then leave the prints in a window exposed to the sun with no UV protection. Having worked for years in a studio with a front window full of prints, I can tell you that the sun is pretty good at aging the images. We refreshed them to prevent any "aged" images from being on display (not good for business). Today the "ruined" look of images seems to be the "in" thing. I do not use "instagram" -- having seen the first samples of images from my friends, all of which have that common "ruined" image "look" to them I realized immediately this software was NOT for me. Sorry for the rant. This is probably my one major pet peeve with photography. I guess every generation is entitled to do something so stupid that 20 years from now they'll look back and say "OMG, what WERE we thinking?" My generation did leisure suits, polyester shirts and bell-bottoms. 'nuff said.

Since I was the first to mention the "look" of film, I'll respond by saying that I wasn't talking about the crap instagram-esque filters that people are mistaking for film. I mean the color, shadow, highlights.. I dunno.. when I shoot digital, it doesn't "look" the same as when I shoot film and scan it. Maybe you have amazing photoshop skills, but I have yet to find an easy way to make my d300 shots look like my f100 shots (for example).. I haven't used a FX dslr.. maybe they're different?

 

[runnah]

Tcampbell

I think what a lot of these people here are not realizing is that there is a huge difference between shooting film for fun and for work.

Sure it's fun to run through a few rolls and then spend a couple hrs playing around in a darkroom until that print is just right. But being in an actual production environment and having to deal with the processing of rolls upon rolls is a different kettle of fish.

Ask any working, high volume professional if they'd go back to film and they would fall over laughing.

 

[TCampbell]

Since I was the first to mention the "look" of film, I'll respond by saying that I wasn't talking about the crap instagram-esque filters that people are mistaking for film. I mean the color, shadow, highlights.. I dunno.. when I shoot digital, it doesn't "look" the same as when I shoot film and scan it. Maybe you have amazing photoshop skills, but I have yet to find an easy way to make my d300 shots look like my f100 shots (for example).. I haven't used a FX dslr.. maybe they're different?

Apologies... Instagram has made me a bit sensitive. Usually when people refer to that "film" look these days and I press them for details, I discover that they're trying to reproduce the look of film-gone-bad.

My full-frame bodies do have a different look to them than the APS-C bodies. But I mostly chalk that up to the sensor size and the fact that the sensors have better performance.

 

[Light Guru]

Digital cameras have made great advancements in resolution but they still cannot compact to a well exposed large format negative that has been drum scan.

However 99.99 percent of photographs do not need that much resolution and detail.

I have heard many people describe the analog photography to be more like crafting an image instead of just snapping pictures with a digital camera. Analog photography can have a more tangible feel to process because of the physical tasks one must preform.

In my opinion if you are going to shoot film you might as well shoot large format film especially if you want to do fine art landscapes.

Shooting large format forces you to slow down and put a lot more effort and thought into each image. The number of images you take will significantly drop but at the same time you will find you have a much higher percentage of images you are pleased with.

 

[bhop]

Tcampbell

I think what a lot of these people here are not realizing is that there is a huge difference between shooting film for fun and for work.

Sure it's fun to run through a few rolls and then spend a couple hrs playing around in a darkroom until that print is just right. But being in an actual production environment and having to deal with the processing of rolls upon rolls is a different kettle of fish.

Ask any working, high volume professional if they'd go back to film and they would fall over laughing.

If I were shooting for work, i'd choose digital without hesitation, but I always just assume when people ask about shooting film, it's for fun.