from one view to another.

[Lensmeister]

Right here I go .. soapbox out.

7 months ago (BDC - Before digital camera) I was a convicted film man. I was a little careful as to the world of digital and I never thought about ditals as being more than a pro use or a compact. The foolhary mode of "It'll never be a meduim for the masses" was a mindset I had ... then I went to a local game and a bloke I I have knwn for ages said .... "look at my spanking (steady) new DSLR!" I did ... thought 'flash devil' or words to that effect.

So I saved and traded and begged and got my 350D.

Now I say bye bye film.

Why ... well the other week i realised that the game I just left I had taken over 180 photos ....... with a film camera I uwsed to make 36 shots last a whole game ... 90 minutes ..... amazing. Now I shoot away and i choose the best ones.

so now Film HA! .....

Not really I still love my EOS 10 and when I can afford to repair it I will ....

Just something for those special retro moments.

thanks for listeningto my drivel ! ! !

 

[LaFoto]

Well, when I joined this forum on 1 September 2004, I was an all-film-only woman, too. Everything I did photographywise involved buying enough film, exposing it, taking it to the drugstore and then it was like Christmas: a two to four day wait for the pics to come back. Have they come out? Did it work?

Experiments like night photography were unheard of in my all-film days. I just didn't dare trying that out ... or spending an awful lot of money on pro films with very high iso, which I would not get anywhere round here, anyway. Not then, and least of all now.

Then I was allowed to borrow the old, bulky but digital camera of Sabine's former swim club (that was when they still liked me and wanted me to work for them as a coach on the deck and all that, but things then somehow changed...). That was the first time I ever had anything digital in hands. And it fascinated me. My very first night shots were taken with that camera.

It never let go of my SLR - that digital camera just could not beat it. But then I had that little fall-out with the people from the swim club, I stopped working there and therefore had to hand back that camera, of course.

By the time, I was so well used to ALSO having a digital camera, I no longer wanted to be without one. So on the day I handed back the club camera, I bought myself the Powershot A95 (Feb. 2005).

As my combined birthday/Christmas present, Andreas gave me the 350D.
For the trip to the States I brought four cameras! The Powershot, the 350D, my good old EOS500N (SLR) and the Leica.

Did I ever shoot film?
Four photos with the Leica.
All else was taken digitally.

But I still want to keep believing in film!
And I'd just LOVE to learn darkroom!
Yes.
As well!

 

[thebeginning]

i'm pretty sick of the whole film vs. digital thing, mostly because of individuals on either side complaining about how 'their side' is so much better, without knowing anything of the other 'side'. Personally, as far as quality goes, i think 35mm film is pointless now. plain and simple. If you want to shoot film, shoot medium or large format, as the quality of 35mm isn't a big enough jump (and is actually not even a jump at all in some cases) to dismiss dSLRs.

workflow is a different story. some people love developing and printing their own [black and white] film, like me. however, some (again, like me) love using photoshop and tweaking their digital images. to me, there are places for some 35mm shooters still there as far as workflow goes. rangefinders are a blast to use, for instance, and totally kill point and shoot digitals. that's more personal opinion.


side note: lafoto, when did you get a leica?!

 

[JohnMF]

i think thebegining makes an important point that some people enjoy the process of developing and i suppose that's what matters the most. A hobby has to be enjoyable (that's if it is a hobby).

 

[Torus34]

"7 months ago . . . I was a convicted film man."

Now, I had heard that the Digitalistas were growing in number, but I never suspected that it would reach the point where they would prosecute a user of film! Thus far, out here in the Colonies, we can still use film legally.

"And all that mighty heart is lying still!"

 

[LaFoto]

Oh Torus, you are funny.
Poor Lensmeister, convicted...

But hey, I don't see this as yet another discussion of film vs digital, but much rather as a report about some sort of transition, where - and that has been clearly stated - the new digital photography is still not totally excluding the "old" film photography. But that even in the life of one and the same photographer the two can play their part. So this is not a "one vs the other" thread but a "one complements the other"-thread (to my mind).

And I have had the Leica since about November? Or January?
It is my dad's camera, but has been in my sister's possession for years, but she no longer uses it and I was curious as to rangefinder photography, so I asked her if I could have it, so now I have it here with me for an undefined period of time. That's how .

 

[Torus34]

Ganz gut, LaFoto. I must agree with your position. To me, it's never film vs. digital, or vs. any other technique for that matter. While I prefer to work in B&W for aesthetic reasons, my sole interest is the final print that I hang on the wall. I make pictures for my own satisfaction. The gear I use to get there is of no great consequence as long as it does the job.

 

['Daniel']

i'm pretty sick of the whole film vs. digital thing, mostly because of individuals on either side complaining about how 'their side' is so much better, without knowing anything of the other 'side'. Personally, as far as quality goes, i think 35mm film is pointless now. plain and simple. If you want to shoot film, shoot medium or large format, as the quality of 35mm isn't a big enough jump (and is actually not even a jump at all in some cases) to dismiss dSLRs.

side note: lafoto, when did you get a leica?!

i disagree. I think you are confusing quality with resolution. A 6x6 negative of Tri-X is not better quality than 35mm tri-X just has a high resolution.

Digital SLRs (not medium format DSLRs) whilst now are coming up to being able to compete with the resolution of 35mm they still as far as I have seen lack the quality. I think digital has a way to go to get the same feel as film and it may even be impossible.

With regards tot he whole film vs digital. It's a pointless argument in my eyes. Like comparing CDs and Records.

 

[KevinR]

As a brand new dslr owner, I have to say. They are all tools. You use any of them right, you get a nice product. I switched to digital to earn money. The niche(yes film is now a niche) market for film shooters is very small. I will continue to use my darkroom, but that will be for pleasure now.

 

[thebeginning]

i disagree. I think you are confusing quality with resolution. A 6x6 negative of Tri-X is not better quality than 35mm tri-X just has a high resolution.

Digital SLRs (not medium format DSLRs) whilst now are coming up to being able to compete with the resolution of 35mm they still as far as I have seen lack the quality. I think digital has a way to go to get the same feel as film and it may even be impossible.

With regards tot he whole film vs digital. It's a pointless argument in my eyes. Like comparing CDs and Records.

well i disagree as well, CDs are better

But about the quality...you are right that it is composed of many factors. I'm assuming you mean image quality. For 'image quality' i believe there are a handful of things that are important, like color accuracy and gamut, resolution, grain/noise, and shadow/highlight details. This is where i find your statement (that 35mm will always have better 'quality' than digital) a bit misguided. First off, i have shot quite a bit of film of several types, brands, and speeds. I know what it looks like. Second, i have also shot quite a bit of digital and know what the looks like, even in direct comparison (similar or near-identical shots from each). I know for a fact that film has higher achievable resolution than 1.6x cropped dSLRs, for instance. I also know that digital has a closer color accuracy than film, but you have to work with it a bit more to get the 'feel' of certain film types. It is difficult if not impossible to achieve the color gamut of 35mm slides, but that does not cover all 'quality'. I find it annoying that people bash digital sensors because you dont get that great 'velvia' look right out of the camera. Some consider digital to be more difficult because you actually have to work to get it to look the way you want in that sense. Following that belief, it would be easy to assume slide shooters are almost lazy (I do not). Anways, there are some more things about the two types that are debatable. Digital achieves better shadow detail than slide film, but does not capture as much highlights as slides do. However, while shadow and highlight capability is pretty much split, noise and grain is almost always better in digital. Plain and simple. people can argue about the all day long, but side by side, when comparing an unedited scanned slide with an 'unedited' RAW digital file, you will almost NEVER find that the slide has less grain or noise. Digital captures cleaner images than film. enough said.

Now, these pros and cons can be taken both ways, it just depends on what you shoot or how you like to work with images, like I said before. I agree that you can't just have a straight comparison, as they are both great in their own ways. If you like film better, and you can get better results with film, then use film. If you like digital better, and can get better results with it, then use digital. IMO, that's what it boils down to.

 

[Lensmeister]

But hey, I don't see this as yet another discussion of film vs digital, but much rather as a report about some sort of transition, where - and that has been clearly stated - the new digital photography is still not totally excluding the "old" film photography. But that even in the life of one and the same photographer the two can play their part. So this is not a "one vs the other" thread but a "one complements the other"-thread (to my mind).

This is how I wanted the post to be ... I still love my film kit, but use my digital more now. If I cold have the film kit repaired before I go off to the USA I would so I have that something extra.

I posted to tell other how the transition was for me.

 

[LaFoto]

Yes, that is just how I saw it and my reply is only just MY report on MY transition... and we two just like both, don't we :hugs: ?

 

[Lensmeister]

yup

Same wavelength.

:hail: :hail: :hugs:

 

[thebeginning]

This is how I wanted the post to be ... I still love my film kit, but use my digital more now. If I cold have the film kit repaired before I go off to the USA I would so I have that something extra.

I posted to tell other how the transition was for me.

yeah i got a little carried away, sorry about that :blushing:

 

[Lensmeister]

Yay ... no problemo mate ....

I kinda realised after rereading my own initial post it did sound like a film v digital war thread ......

Typical me ...... Not thinkin before typing ......

No harm mate