Film SLR vs DSLR

[Jad]

You will learn much more about photography using film if you use a manual camera. The very act of determining exposure and camera settings will increase your knowledge of photography. With film you will not see your image pop up on an LCD screen so you will visualize more when making the exposure. You will probably use digital as your primary way to photograph during your lifetime but to capture images on film and develop them yourself is very satisfying. You will not be out burning endless pictures of the same thing as you do in digital because with film there is nothing worst than see your negatives with ten or twenty images all the same. You will work harder for good images with film because you will be disciplined to only make exposures that mean something because film cost time and money. Digital is the future and there is no changing that. Film will give you a discipline to visualize the scene that can easily get overlooked with digital. I worked with a large format camera for most of my life and the slow contemplative style of that is required of large format photography has moved into my digital work. It serves me well. Good luck with what you are doing and have fun with it.

 

[Gavjenks]

1) Cheaper up front for film, but ongoing cost and hassle
2) Being forced to limit yourself to the rolls of film you have on hand changes your shooting style, in what may be a beneficial way depending on who you are.
3) Slightly better dynamic range as mentioned
4) You can sit there and take photos of your stewardess as she tells you to turn off all electronic devices if you have a mechanical film camera =P

That's about all I can think of for 35mm SLRs...

the biggest advantage of film comes with medium and large format, though, which = vastly more resolution than DSLRs (roughly the equivalent of 30-80 or so megapixels?) if you are printing in some abnormal way where that might matter (like long skinny large wall mounted photos at 5:1 aspect ratio or something)

 

[Ysarex]

3) Slightly better dynamic range as mentioned

This is no longer true -- in fact the reverse is now true.

Joe

 

[Overread]

3) Slightly better dynamic range as mentioned

This is no longer true -- in fact the reverse is now true.

Joe

I'd argue that its still a debatable point, but that we are now at a point where you can't compare them generally and you have to start comparing specific films and sensors since there is variety in both as to the dynamic ranges (ergo we are not like in the past where film was generally clearly ahead of all/most digital).

 

[Ysarex]

3) Slightly better dynamic range as mentioned

This is no longer true -- in fact the reverse is now true.

Joe

I'd argue that its still a debatable point, but that we are now at a point where you can't compare them generally and you have to start comparing specific films and sensors since there is variety in both as to the dynamic ranges (ergo we are not like in the past where film was generally clearly ahead of all/most digital).

And I'd argue that the very best you can get from film is a little less than the very best you can get from digital. So I am comparing specific films and sensors -- the best both have to offer and in that case digital has nosed out ahead.

Joe

 

[Overread]

What specific film are you comparing to what specific digital sensor?

 

[Ysarex]

What specific film are you comparing to what specific digital sensor?

The dynamic range king in film is still a b&w negative medium ISO like Tri-X. Color neg like NPS160 is slightly less and color transparency is a whole lot less. We're talking a 10 to 11 stop capture range with those negative films. Now we have to immediately bring into the equation the issue of usability. You've got a Tri-X neg and have managed to grab 11 stops of dynamic range -- good luck making practical use of that in a darkroom.

Digital has been forging ahead from 12 bit A/D converters to now 14 bit A/D converters in DSLRs. Digital cameras with full frame sensors and 14 bit A/D converters now equal that same 10 to 11 stop capture range that negative films can deliver with one important qualification -- the data is much more accessible and usable via software. I'm talking about cameras like the Nikon D800E in this case. I know there's all kinds of qualifications and external factors involved in this issue but I can go on now to bring in the Hasselblad H4D and Phase One P65 both of which have 16 bit A/D converters and take it up another notch where film drops out of the race. I know I'm talking about $30,000 cameras and that adds a reality check. At the same time having 11 stops of data in a Tri-X neg and trying to burn that into a print through holes you've punched in a piece of cardboard that you're wiggling under an enlarger lens is also a reality check -- you won't succeed.

This issue often gets bogged down in differences between theory and practice. "You can't beat a sheet of large format b&w film." "Yep best choice for photographing a soccer match." "I'll shoot it in my 'speed' graphic which is hand-held large format!" And the silly factor ramps up from there.

Setting theory and sillyness aside modern digital cameras coupled with good software and a skillful photographer are more successful than film in dealing with high dynamic range subjects.

Joe

 

[Mike_E]

I shoot film for fun, digital for results. OK, there's more to it than that. I'm not really a golfer but I'd liken the difference to using the very best clubs I can get when I want to get the lowest score I can manage but I take an old set of clubs that I'm fond of if I'm just out to enjoy the course. In the same manner I would use power tools when building a house or an addition (been there done that -never again) but I'm more than likely to use hand tools to build a picture frame or a piece of furniture.

There are times that I use film because I can't get what I want with digital but that has to do with lenses and film (sensor) size. I have a D800 and some nice glass for it but you just can't get the same look from it as you can with a Schneider lens and a piece of 4X5 or most any medium format at a price I'd pay.

Why should a student learn film? Easy, the experience. If you've never had experience with a thing how can you know when it's appropriate to use it or not? How could you as a degreed photographer say that you are educated in the craft without at least a passing, hands on knowledge of a large portion of it's history? Have you ever met a master carpenter that couldn't use a handsaw?

oh well, my .02

carry on

 

[gsgary]

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

They were shooting both but only using digital for weddings but after first film wedding word got round

 

[Ysarex]

I shoot film for fun, digital for results. OK, there's more to it than that. I'm not really a golfer but I'd liken the difference to using the very best clubs I can get when I want to get the lowest score I can manage but I take an old set of clubs that I'm fond of if I'm just out to enjoy the course. In the same manner I would use power tools when building a house or an addition (been there done that -never again) but I'm more than likely to use hand tools to build a picture frame or a piece of furniture.

There are times that I use film because I can't get what I want with digital but that has to do with lenses and film (sensor) size. I have a D800 and some nice glass for it but you just can't get the same look from it as you can with a Schneider lens and a piece of 4X5 or most any medium format at a price I'd pay.

Why should a student learn film? Easy, the experience. If you've never had experience with a thing how can you know when it's appropriate to use it or not? How could you as a degreed photographer say that you are educated in the craft without at least a passing, hands on knowledge of a large portion of it's history? Have you ever met a master carpenter that couldn't use a handsaw?

oh well, my .02

carry on

Hi Mike,

You mean like this (Voigtlander 100mm f/4.5 Apo Lanthar shot on 120 roll):



I need to dig up some of my photos shot 4x5 with a 150mm f/2.8 Xenotar!

The problem with the experience argument is how far do you wind it back? Now I'm going to argue that anyone taking photos and relying on the crutch of a light meter isn't a "real" photographer. When I started in this business a Nikon F came without a light meter for us "real" photographers and with an optional light meter for the bleep bleep doctors and lawyers who weren't satisfied using an instamatic like all the other amateurs. That photo above -- there was no light meter in my Graflex.

Joe

 

[timor]

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?

There are no benefits, there is only a difference in satisfaction. What difference ? Compare shooting the gun yourself and shooting it on a video game or mastering the art of driving real NASCAR car versus mastering it virtually. Once you learn how to use a film camera and I mean all the way together with theory, with usage of external light meters like spot, with film development of different films and developers and basic printing, you will become a photographer. Then slr or dslr doesn't matter.

 

[timor]

View attachment 44926

Great picture Joe.

 

[Mike_E]

I shoot film for fun, digital for results. OK, there's more to it than that. I'm not really a golfer but I'd liken the difference to using the very best clubs I can get when I want to get the lowest score I can manage but I take an old set of clubs that I'm fond of if I'm just out to enjoy the course. In the same manner I would use power tools when building a house or an addition (been there done that -never again) but I'm more than likely to use hand tools to build a picture frame or a piece of furniture.

There are times that I use film because I can't get what I want with digital but that has to do with lenses and film (sensor) size. I have a D800 and some nice glass for it but you just can't get the same look from it as you can with a Schneider lens and a piece of 4X5 or most any medium format at a price I'd pay.

Why should a student learn film? Easy, the experience. If you've never had experience with a thing how can you know when it's appropriate to use it or not? How could you as a degreed photographer say that you are educated in the craft without at least a passing, hands on knowledge of a large portion of it's history? Have you ever met a master carpenter that couldn't use a handsaw?

oh well, my .02

carry on

Hi Mike,

You mean like this (Voigtlander 100mm f/4.5 Apo Lanthar shot on 120 roll):

View attachment 44926

I need to dig up some of my photos shot 4x5 with a 150mm f/2.8 Xenotar!

The problem with the experience argument is how far do you wind it back? Now I'm going to argue that anyone taking photos and relying on the crutch of a light meter isn't a "real" photographer. When I started in this business a Nikon F came without a light meter for us "real" photographers and with an optional light meter for the bleep bleep doctors and lawyers who weren't satisfied using an instamatic like all the other amateurs. That photo above -- there was no light meter in my Graflex.

Joe

There you go, nice shot!

As to how far, I don't know I'm not in charge of the curricula. I'd say film was far enough back for general purposes and everything else as an elective. I probably wouldn't subject anyone to mercury vapors unless they actually wanted to be there.

Being able to wing it without a light meter or with a broken one should be required to pass first year I'd think.

When it comes down to it they're all just tools but the crux of the biscuit (wow- I am old) is that if you're going to hang out a shingle with your schools name on it you should darn well live up to the name and title.

 

[Gavjenks]

Being able to wing it without a light meter or with a broken one should be required to pass first year I'd think.

Why?

This is the equivalent of requiring an engineering student to estimate the exact length of 17 meters with a piece of chalk on the ground within 2% error margins before being allowed to graduate. They'll probably never actually rely on that ability for any professional project, so why would the school require them to demonstrate it?

Light sensors are built into everything new, and if you're using something old without one, you can just carry a cheap digital camera with you that you already own as a light meter. So there's no real reason to ever go without, unless you're doing it for fun as an amusing challenge. Thus, why would a school require you to demonstrate an ability you'll never actually require?

 

[Mike_E]

Being able to wing it without a light meter or with a broken one should be required to pass first year I'd think.

Why?

This is the equivalent of requiring an engineering student to estimate the exact length of 17 meters with a piece of chalk on the ground within 2% error margins before being allowed to graduate. They'll probably never actually rely on that ability for any professional project, so why would the school require them to demonstrate it?

Light sensors are built into everything new, and if you're using something old without one, you can just carry a cheap digital camera with you that you already own as a light meter. So there's no real reason to ever go without, unless you're doing it for fun as an amusing challenge. Thus, why would a school require you to demonstrate an ability you'll never actually require?

Why?

OK, you're covering the Manic Mad Muffin revolt of 2017 downtown and someone hits you from behind with a pan of raw dough.

You're OK but groggy when they steal your extra camera and you reach out and trip the joker who is making off with the only lens you have left. He gets away but you still have the lens except the CPU contacts are broken so that it will neither autofocus nor meter and the LCD on the back is broken so badly that even though you can tell that the camera still works there is no useful information being shown on the back.

The radical chefs are bunched up in the shadows of a twenty-two story building but are making forays into the street against the sun which is about a clenched fist off of the horizon.

Your job, your career and a Pulitzer depend on your getting these shots so you fall back on what you learned in good old professor X's class about how to estimate exposure- except you blew it off thinking that you'd never need to know this and then you spend the rest of your career taking shots of used cars and third birthday parties.


Poor you.