film vs digital

ShutteredEye · May 11, 2005

tr0gd0o0r said:
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)

Yep.

darich · May 11, 2005

Ant said:
Just me using only digital so far then.

Pure digital here too!

mrsid99 · May 11, 2005

Using both Digital & Film although mostly digital, (Canon & Nikon to boot!)
That may change because the film side is luring me into MF.

panocho · May 11, 2005

ksmattfish said:
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.

Do it! Can't wait to see the results!

Me, I'm fully film. Well... I must confess I do have a digital point&shot, but (at least the way I use it) I wouldn't consider it an alternative to film, so there is no need to decide which one. If I'm out to do photography, just film (I'm with you, Kevin, about the artisan) If I just want to record some images with no photographish approach at all (and I don't mean "artistic" -just photography) then digital

ksmattfish · May 11, 2005

panocho said:
Do it! Can't wait to see the results!

We already did: the first TPF print exchange. Several digital converts said that 8x10 inkjet prints from digital were indistinguishable from 8x10 optical prints from film, even medium and large format film. When the prints were exchanged, and they had my prints and I had their prints, there was a noticable difference between my BW prints (from medium format film) printed in a traditional manner, and the BW inkjet prints from a DSLR. There were some excuses about not being able to get the right inks or papers.

It doesn't matter what you use as long as it makes you happy. Digital is going to make me very happy in it's own special way. The only people who lose out are those who insist that it has to be one or the other. I expect that by using both I will be able to offer my clients what best suits their needs.

Daniel · May 12, 2005

ksmattfish said:
We already did: the first TPF print exchange. Several digital converts said that 8x10 inkjet prints from digital were indistinguishable from 8x10 optical prints from film, even medium and large format film. When the prints were exchanged, and they had my prints and I had their prints, there was a noticable difference between my BW prints (from medium format film) printed in a traditional manner, and the BW inkjet prints from a DSLR. There were some excuses about not being able to get the right inks or papers.

What you are seeing there is the difference in the print technology, thats all. What I do not believe is that when I present to you 2 prints, one made with a digicam, one with a filmcam, without telling which is which, you will not be able to tell which of them is the digital one and which of them is the film one. I'm not saying that you won't spot a difference between them, as the print process is different.

ksmattfish said:
The only people who lose out are those who insist that it has to be one or the other.

Now here I totally aggree with you

.

LaFoto · May 12, 2005

When I first came here on 1 Feb of last year, I was still an "only film and nothing but film"-person. And I do admit: I love my Canon EOS 500N and the things I can do with the lenses. I can be more creative (if I am that, in the first place?) with the SLR, and I like that.

However, once I got a taste of the "instant gratification" that a digital camera can offer (first testing it for night photography, where it seemed way too long to wait for any uncertain results for two or more days), I got hooked. At the time, I only had a borrowed digital camera, no good one, either. But when I had to hand that one back, I bought myself my own on the same day. Wouldn't want to be without it any longer.

Now there is a clear difference: photos that I want to present here on this very board are better digital - despite the fact that my newest scanner is again better than its predecessor, I am still fairly unhappy with the scan results (and scanning negatives with that one has turned out to be ONE BIG disappointment!). Photos to HAVE (in hand) - and maybe to enlarge, though rarely, and never billboard-size (Santino

), are better on film and as prints.

DarkEyes · May 12, 2005

The majority of the time I use my digital camera, but every now and then I'll be shooting something and a voice in my head says: "Dude: Film would just capture this so much better", so I'll try to get hold of my dads Film SLR.

At the moment I'm running the photo-processing lab at the supermarket were I work. With good maintainence and technique, I can achieve great results (no scratches, fingerprints or foriegn particles) when running films through. Of course it has it's limits, but I can then scan the Negatives to my computer for further processing.

I can definitelt see the day when digital imaging will reign supreme, but for now it still has some weaknessess were film does not.

airgunr · May 12, 2005

I use film 90% of the time. Every once in awhile I'll grab the wife's digital.

deb · May 12, 2005

Darkeyes, I have to differ with your assessment that film has no weaknesses. The weaknesses are just different than the weaknesses of digital capture.

Until the camera can see a scene and account for the differences in light, shadow and color temperature the way that the human eye can both mediums will have "weaknesses". Talent or skill comes into play when a photographer is able to overcome those weaknesses or use those weaknesses to express something.

It's like any other choice........there are tradeoffs!

ksmattfish · May 12, 2005

Well, I should have a 20D in a few weeks. I'm looking forward to image quality that rivals medium and large format film, but I won't be holding my breath.

danalec99 · May 12, 2005

ksmattfish said:
Well, I should have a 20D in a few weeks.

:cheer:

peter/c · May 13, 2005

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

It Depends on the quality of Printer thats used to produce it, after all, any system is only as good as it's 'weakest link'.I have a 20D and Epson R800 printer and quite experienced Photographers have commented on quality of My prints..Not necessarilly the capture itself though!
Peter.

Digital Matt · May 13, 2005

I voted both. I'm using both. I don't care if digital prints look like film or not. I think my digital prints look sharp, colorful, with well resolved detail, and I enjoy viewing them, and other people do as well. So many factors come into play when talking about print quality, from film OR digital. The photo itself, and it's inherant qualities of sharpness, color, and contrast, len used, camera/film, processing, and paper. Once it goes into a mat and frame, behind glass, many of the nuances that seperate the two are lost anyway.