film vs digital

[DIRT]

this is also a dangerous topic, there is some potential violence here. HAHAHA

 

[tr0gd0o0r]

Ksmatt: I can tell you, I have a digital slr but I am still a film nazi. I use the DSLR for stock photos and random snapping but when I really want to play...The film comes out. there is just a great feeling in having a tangible negative, its...its...magical. and I love the darkroom, its fun to manually effect the outcome of a photograph.

I second this. I enjoy my digital camera for all my practical work, but i just can't leave my new found yashica 124. As a matter of fact, i'm about ot start a new project with (and its even in color)

(granted, some free film thrown my way helped that decision just a little)

 

[Rob]

It might be hard to believe, but I honestly haven't seen a good print enlargement from a digital camera yet. Compared with that, I've seen literally thousands of talented, well-produced, home-made B&W enlargements - bought them with hard-earned cash and hung them on my wall as something great to look at.

It won't be long before the techno-boffins get there and we'll be seeing large-format equivilent resolution mobile phone cameras which can accurately render depth-of-field and handle edges without putting a purple halo around them! It won't stop them being virtually the sole preserve of drunken teenagers taking pictures of their mates dropping their pants of course...

I do look forward to proper improvement in digital compact, SLR or rangefinder cameras to the point where I feel happy investing a moderate sum of money in them. A camera designed for using where big buttons and dials control things, not some crappy interface and scroll wheel with a display you can't read except indoors!

So my answer is film only... until they make a digital camera which I like and feel happy spending some cash on.

 

[Daniel]

It might be hard to believe, but I honestly haven't seen a good print enlargement from a digital camera yet.

Open your eyes and you shall see.

What size of enlargement and what digital cameras are you talking about? I'm willing to bet a huge amount of money that you are not able to tell the difference between an 11"x17" print of a 20d and any film camera out there. You can go even up to twice of that with the 20d, you won't tell the difference, not talking of a 1ds or digital backs for MF bodies.

 

[santino]

11x17 def. no difference but what about billboards

 

[Christie Photo]

I have to shoot digital. I can't afford not to.

Since I live and work just a bit too far from "the city" (Chicago) to make the drive, I found myself shooting on Monday, overnighting the film to the lab, getting the film back on Wednesday, returning the edits back to the lab overnight for scans at $15.00 each, and finally receiving the scans on the following Monday.

So... with digital capture, I have instantly what I used to wait a WEEK to get, paying FOUR FedEx charges PLUS the cost of the film, processing ($1/sheet), scans, and polaroid proofs.

I LOVE film, but I have to shoot digital.

 

[ksmattfish]

I'm willing to bet a huge amount of money that you are not able to tell the difference between an 11"x17" print of a 20d and any film camera out there.

I'll do a shoot out anyday with my Speed Graphic vs a MkII 1Ds. If you can't tell the difference, you're blind.

 

[deb]

Wow, I guess I'm bi-camera.

I still love the feel and sound of a solid 35mm film camera, but I also love the convenience of digital.

I haven't made it to a dslr yet (I'm using Minolta 7i and 7hi s) as It would take quite a bit to replace three digital bodies and so far these are more than adequate.

I was drooling over the Minolta 7d, but I'm still waiting to take the plunge.

I don't have my own darkroom, as I do very little black and white. I do think that film is far better for b/w prints because digitally going from color to b/w really loses something. There is also the element of respect that goes to any photographer shooting b/w film and capturing a stunning image. It takes a lot more skill, luck and money to do it on film.

 

[Daniel]

I'll do a shoot out anyday with my Speed Graphic vs a MkII 1Ds. If you can't tell the difference, you're blind.

As I said, what size of prints are we talking about?

 

[terri34 6]

I think digital has enormous allure for those of you who need to shoot color, be it for stock imagess, weddings, etc. How can you argue with not having to pay the costs in time and printing? :thumbup: I've seen some digital portraits that have blown me away.

I simply have no pressing need for digital. I enjoy alternative techniques and old-style darkroom processes like my bromoil printmaking. I have to have slide film or a negative to get to where I'm taking my image if I decide I'm going to manipulate it. And if I'm not, nothing still beats the thrill of pulling a beautiful silver gelatin print still dripping from the fix and being able to say, Wow. :blushing:

But this is just how *I* like to express myself artistically, and film is The Way that cannot be substituted.

 

[KevinR]

This looks to have inspired a film vs. digital discussion sort of. People have their reasons. To each their own.

But to me, film really relates to the artisan in me. I want to work with my hands. And that doesn't mean moving a mouse.

I have a bread bakery near me that makes everything by hand and cooks the bread in an Italian made wood burning oven. They have a starter for their bread that is decades old. Now, is it better than the chain down the street that gets their bread dough made up and cooks it in a steel oven? In my mind, yes, because of the hands on approach taken by the baker. Is both making money. Yes. So who is doing it better? Who knows. But I know who I am buying from. Give me the artisan every time.

 

[deb]

Kevin, I think too few share your appreciation for true arts and crafts.

I'm in the Smoky Mountains, and there is a great booming tourist trade here.

There are supposedly enough "artists and craftsmen" to have a special "arts and crafts" community. There are a few potters, a few painters, a clock shop that restores antique clocks, and more junk importers than you can shake a stick at.

It's refreshing to see your appreciation of "arts and crafts" as opposed to the constant merchandising of junk!

 

[Daniel]

This looks to have inspired a film vs. digital discussion sort of. People have their reasons. To each their own.

Usually I stay away from that kind of discussions. I'm not saying that digital is better than film, but I do not believe that anyone here would see the difference in the of me mentioned print sizes between a digital and a film print.

 

[Christie Photo]

...Speed Graphic vs a MkII 1Ds. If you can't tell the difference, you're blind.

hehehe... I know, I know, Matt.

It is a bit painful for me (at least at first is was) to deliver digital prints to my portrait customers. I felt a bit like I was doing a "bait and switch" scam. I mean, there is was... right there in front of us all! And, the customers were so pleased! I wanted to scream, snatch back the prints, beg forgiveness, and do the whole job over. But not one of my customers could see it!

I guess I was my own greatest fan, or something like that. Turns out what my customer perceive as "quality" is quite a bit different than my own perception.

I do admit that in recent years, things have come a LONG way in digital printing.

But I have to agree with you... if you can't tell, you're missing out on something.

 

[SLOShooter]

I shoot both. I still feel that my B&W shots, are better when done on film, something about them just looks hotter.