Film vs. Digital SLR

[lasershot]

Digtial is great. Film I'd have to say is on its way out because Digtial is cheaper to use and the pictures higher quailty.

Also, if your a beginner, its useful to have digtial so you can know RIGHT away if you need to take the shot again.

 

[newrmdmike]

lasershot, read whats been said above about misinforming!

the highest quality cameras i know of are film. sheet film in holders created for arial photographs from bombers, in a new lightbox with a custom built lens.

there are certain points where digital outdoes film in certain ways and visa versa, but its not something you can throw a blanket statement over.

 

[JIP]

Just when you think you've read all the "Canon vs. Nikon" or "Film vs. SLR" threads you can stand, another one comes along. And just when you think you'll NEVER contribute to another one, you end up contributing to it like a foolish lemming.

I think film is a PITA compared to digital, but...

1) I like it for B&W photography.
2) I still like making my own prints. Being in a darkroom is like being in heaven for me. It satisfies both sides of my brain... the technical geek side and the artisitic side, all at once.
2.1) Photoshop sucks compared to the darkroom
2.2) Photoshop allows people to make good pictures by "cheating" IMO.
3) I prefer film for low-light photos, like starry skies. Digital sensors get way too noisy way too fast.
4) My camera equipment makes my wife horny, so there's no way I'm getting rid of any of it. The film camera still has its uses.

Well another mis-informed statement of opinion put across as fact. I want to know how exactly is PS "cheating" but the darkroom with dodging and burning and contrast filters and cropping etc. etc........ is not "cheating". I used to be a diehard film guy but now I see you can do the same things with digital some even better and have more control. And I repeat again check out some of the work in the magazine I linked to in my first post on this thread here I will post it again http://www.bandwmag.com/ . Oh yeah film cameras do look good on my shelves so I guess they have their uses.

 

[Alpha]

Digtial is great. Film I'd have to say is on its way out because Digtial is cheaper to use and the pictures higher quailty.

Also, if your a beginner, its useful to have digtial so you can know RIGHT away if you need to take the shot again.

​

 

[Iron Flatline]

LOL @ Max Bloom O RLY.

lasershot, I don't mean to flame, I just get a kick out of the Owl... haven't seen it in a while. Look, I'm a huge fan of digital photography, but digital is NOT qualitatively better than film. It can match it, but I does not out-perform it yet.

... but I really like switching from ISO 100 to 400 and back to 100 in a few shots...

LOL, or for us Leica users: 160 to 320 to 640 and back down to 160. But I don't mean to confuse the owners of Japanese cameras... Life is hard enough on them.

 

[skieur]

color is better from film?!?!?!! in what terms?

not accuracy.

skieur your making blanket statements..

Well, of course I am, but according to labs again, PopPhoto, 42 bit colour from film far surpasses 8 bit jpegs or 12 bit raw files. My experience using both, confirms it.

skieur

 

[Alpha]

C41 certainly does have a wider exposure range than most digital cameras.

 

[skieur]

skieur, please, a lot of this is just flat-out wrong. It's perfectly fine to have a preference, but please don't give advice unless you're sure, the goal is to be helpful.

Well, if you read it that I was giving advice, then it you obviously read the rest wrong as well. Try reading it with less emotion and yes I am sure. :mrgreen:

skieur

 

[Mike_E]

SanctuS,

If you are still reading this thread there is one important thing that hasn't been touched on much and that is that unless you develop and print your own film in your own darkroom, you are 99% likely to have your prints made digitally. In the end it does not matter what you use to bring the image to the lab because they will treat it all the same anyway.

If you want grain you can put it in and if you don't you can take it out. You can push film and digital alike.

If the process pf photography is what moves you then stick with film. If the image is what is important then use whatever you have at hand.

mike

 

[DSLR noob]

My film camera I inherited a few months, sadly.... has seen no use. Well I went through 3 rolls of 36 exposure film..... but I haven't developed anything.
Digital is just SO much more convenient.

 

[newrmdmike]

i know latitude is better on c-41 films, max is right, but in terms of color accuracy digital is more accurate. otherwise people would still use film to create archives of paintings. you can put in a color chart and correct colors much more accurately than with film . . . unless there is something i'm missing.


back to the posters original questions:
i think film is great to learn on . . . you can't fall right in to all the digital bad habits of "fix it in photoshop" and "lets see if i got that shot" every time you take a photo.

if your not sure photography is going to be for you why don't you learn the basics on a film slr, and pay close attention to what your doing. that way you haven't invested as much. if in a few months you still really love it, start saving, and buy a dslr. you can get film slrs for so cheap . . . like a canon ae-1 and 50mm lens for 12 bucks at a garage sale. . . so thats probobly what i would do.

i think for all practical purposes 2 is fiction. whoever put up that "study" on 8x10's, i'd like a link to it!

 

[newrmdmike]

skieur if you've had better color accuracy with film over digital, its just that your lab does a better job managing color than you . . . assuming you print your digital stuff. and if not . . . they don't spend the same time on it, or you mean something else by "accuracy"

 

[skieur]

skieur if you've had better color accuracy with film over digital, its just that your lab does a better job managing color than you . . . assuming you print your digital stuff. and if not . . . they don't spend the same time on it, or you mean something else by "accuracy"

You certainly do not have a good handle on the technology, newrmdmike. There is an interesting 388 page book out on Colour Correction For Digital Photographers that goes through extensive workarounds and postprocessing with the objective of improving the colour accuracy of digital photos. It is nowhere near that of film, especially in scenes with great contrast and range and under or overexposure. Popular Photography in one of their lab reports indicated that print film had a latitude in fstops of 4 or more and considerably greater than digital photography.

And by the way to be clear, since you are assuming otherwise, I do not prefer film. I use both and find both useful.

skieur

 

[skieur]

i know latitude is better on c-41 films, max is right, but in terms of color accuracy digital is more accurate. otherwise people would still use film to create archives of paintings. you can put in a color chart and correct colors much more accurately than with film . . . unless there is something i'm missing.!

Having been there and done that, people use digital to create archives of paintings, simply because it is easier to store the images in databases on computers than in temperature controlled film depositories. The process of colour correction may be easier, but getting it accurate is more of a challenge.

skieur

 

[newrmdmike]

well so everyone knows, i had a job archiving paintings for the states public institutions. (universities)

and . . . look in rangefinder, one month they had a article about a guy who archives huge wall murals and things for museums. he had trollies, exact lighting, and was using a digital back.

accuracy isn't that big of a problem . . . you just use a color chart.

i don't really understand what your arguing about - are you saying you think film is really more accurate? because if you are i know lots of working pro's, professors, and other shooters on this site who would think your wrong. Lets see some documentation on what it is your saying.