Film SLR vs DSLR

[peter27]

I think it depends a lot on what sort of person you are and where your expectations lie. If you like taking lots and lots of photos and are in a hurry for the results, then digital would seem sensible. However, if you prefer to take your time over things and value quality over quantity, film might be the direction you should go in.

 

[gsgary]

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.

+1

 

[gsgary]

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.

Bull****

 

[gsgary]

If you want to have fun and have shots with soul shoot film, if you want instant gratification take 100 shots to get 1 good one and have to upgrade every 2 years to keep up with the bull**** about MP and resolution get digital, i have almost given up on digital Leica M's are 10 times the fun

 

[runnah]

I think it depends a lot on what sort of person you are and where your expectations lie. If you like taking lots and lots of photos and are in a hurry for the results, then digital would seem sensible. However, if you prefer to take your time over things and value quality over quantity, film might be the direction you should go in.

It's hard the believe that one person could be so wrong.

Film is just a medium. Why do people continue to assign this mystical prominence to film. It's just a format, not a religious experience. Making sweeping assumptions about the character of an individual based upon the format they shoot clearly shows that you are ignorant and small minded.

 

[runnah]

If you want to have fun and have shots with soul shoot film, if you want instant gratification take 100 shots to get 1 good one and have to upgrade every 2 years to keep up with the bull**** about MP and resolution get digital, i have almost given up on digital Leica M's are 10 times the fun

So no one has taken a soulful photo with a digital camera? If I break out my old film camera and snap off a few rolls they will be oozing soul?

 

[gsgary]

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.

I know 3 wedding photographers that have gone back to film because of demand and are making more money because people are willing to pay

 

[peter27]

I think it depends a lot on what sort of person you are and where your expectations lie. If you like taking lots and lots of photos and are in a hurry for the results, then digital would seem sensible. However, if you prefer to take your time over things and value quality over quantity, film might be the direction you should go in.

It's hard the believe that one person could be so wrong.

Film is just a medium. Why do people continue to assign this mystical prominence to film. It's just a format, not a religious experience. Making sweeping assumptions about the character of an individual based upon the format they shoot clearly shows that you are ignorant and small minded.

Many people that advocate digital do so on the strength of its instant access to the results. Many people that champion film do so because it makes them think more about what they're doing, since they are limited to a small amount of exposures and getting these developed takes time. Most people will agree that photos taken using film have a certain quality (character - hence my choice of words in my original post) that digital images don't possess. That's not to suggest that they're necessarily better, just different. Questions of quantity versus quality and the tempo of the workflow are things that will influence people in their choice of digital or film.

I think it would be good if you take more time before responding, and think more about what you post. Drop the personal insults.

 

[runnah]

I think it depends a lot on what sort of person you are and where your expectations lie. If you like taking lots and lots of photos and are in a hurry for the results, then digital would seem sensible. However, if you prefer to take your time over things and value quality over quantity, film might be the direction you should go in.

It's hard the believe that one person could be so wrong.

Film is just a medium. Why do people continue to assign this mystical prominence to film. It's just a format, not a religious experience. Making sweeping assumptions about the character of an individual based upon the format they shoot clearly shows that you are ignorant and small minded.

Many people that advocate digital do so on the strength of its instant access to the results. Many people that champion film do so because it makes them think more about what they're doing, since they are limited to a small amount of exposures and getting these developed takes time. Most people will agree that photos taken using film have a certain quality (character - hence my choice of words in my original post) that digital images don't possess. That's not to suggest that they're necessarily better, just different. Questions of quantity versus quality and the tempo of the workflow are things that will influence people in their choice of digital or film.

I think it would be good if you take more time before responding, and think more about what you post. Drop the personal insults.

I believe it was you making absurd value judgments based on format, so I returned in kind. If I were to make sweeping statements like "film is for snobs" or "film is for people who can't take decent photos and rely too heavily on the supposed 'character' of film to cover up their lack of vision", that would be wrong of me. Generalizing an entire user group based on only assumptions on how they differ from your own is an improper way to come to a conclusion. What is your experience in both mediums?

 

[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.

I know 3 wedding photographers that have gone back to film because of demand and are making more money because people are willing to pay

So was it their personal choice or a market based decision? What would the photographer rather be shooting?

 

[mishele]

Runnah, I'm surprised you're not the one that started this thread! Lol

 

[runnah]

Runnah, I'm surprised you're not the one that started this thread! Lol

I know better, but at least I am winning.

 

[Sbuxo]

My whole portfolio is of film, but my favorite thing about shooting film is color balancing and printing (darkroom) by myself. However, unless you're a college/uni student with access to a darkroom lab, it's harder trying to find a quality place to develop/print. It's like a high, shooting, I personally get little butterflies when I take a certain frame and know it's going to be amazing. The rush to get it developed to print it, color balancing can be a pain but I like the process. However, I've started scanning my prints, and soon will be scanning negatives. Black and White is much easier, and you want to start there I'd suggest scanning the negatives and you'll have to use Photoshop instead of the darkroom, and you'll have a digital file I appreciate the amount of patience put into shooting film ^.^ I learned a lot from working with film and love the quality and character from using it. Not to say that I don't appreciate digital, which I do, but so much deception with digital now..

 

[skieur]

My mother shot colour film throughout her life and introduced me to semi-professional film work in my early teens. After shooting film for a decade or so, I got into television production and at the same time acquired one of the first digital still cameras: the Canon Xap shot at 600 by 400 pixels. I taught myself computer animation during the same period and made the transition to digital from film.

The advantages of digital are instant playback in the viewfinder or on the live view screen, no film-related development costs, and much more control over every aspect of both production, and post-production of the photographic images. Image quality of digital has also caught up and surpassed that of 35mm film.

 

[Josh66]

What are the benefit of using film camera?

You mean beside the fact that it is a film camera?



There is no way for me to answer this without sounding like a film snob, so I will just say upfront that I am indeed a film snob, lol.

I do shoot some digital, P&S mostly. DSLR only when I need something online quickly, or need it in color quickly.

I don't 'hate' digital or anything like that. I never really stopped shooting film - when I started shooting, that's all there was. I tried digital, loved it for a while, then the feeling sort of wore off. There's just something missing that I can't exactly put into words.

Film will always be "better" to me. That's not to say that I think digital is "bad" or anything, it's just not for me.


Generally, for X number of dollars, you can buy a more well made film camera than digital camera. IMO, they also tend to last longer. I have cameras that I use daily that are older than I am (I'm 31 right now). I only own one digital camera that is not broken in some way... I don't know, maybe I just have bad luck or something...