Is it film or digital?

[Rick58]

Anyone who has read my posts in the past knows I have way more year knotches in my film belt, then digital. In fact. I often feel myself being lured back into playing with film. But, the question in my mind always arises...If I'm going to take a negative, and scan it into pixels, then manipulate it in any of the software choices. Why bother? As much as I have the urge to dust off my film gear, I can never justify it in my mind...UNLESS...I'm would go full out, and reopen a darkroom. But even then, the print would need to be scanned to share, on this board for example. Any thoughts?

 

[runnah]

You're right, why bother. The extra work, expense and time does not justify the final product IMO.

p.s. I have my old A1 if you are interested.

 

[Rick58]

You're right, why bother. The extra work, expense and time does not justify the final product IMO.

p.s. I have my old A1 if you are interested.

Thanks, but my four F2's wouldn't like it.

 

[KenC]

Agree completely. I spent a lot of time the first 20 years or so that I was interested in photography developing film and making B&W, and even some color prints. The best thing about digital to me was that I didn't have to clear large blocks of time to set up equipment and clean up afterward, but I could just turn on my computer and scan a couple of negatives or work on an image for a little while, then shut down. I called it my "dry darkroom" for a while. I can't imagine going back to film - if I want that "film look" I can create it digitally.

 

[jake337]

I guess it depends on what Size of film and how you plan to scan it.


I think there would be a difference between 35mm scanned with a standard scanner and 8x10 with a drum scanner?

 

[runnah]

Not to mention that digital quality has surpassed film.

 

[Overread]

Last I checked film still had a bit of an edge with dynamic range over digital - also film tends to favour the whites with more detail (and the blacks with less - almost a reverse of digital).

Also whilst 35mm film vs digital might not give you much difference medium or other larger formats of film are still readily available and the cameras themselves much cheaper than they were in the past (and the digital equivalents are exceptionally expensive). Granted you will need to get yourself a very good scanner or have the negatives sent off to be scanned well so that you reap the reward of what you use, but it could easily provide the film love and nostalgia aspect of shooting with film whilst also providing you something different that your digital camera can't provide

 

[sm4him]

I concur. Unless you plan to print your photos (remember PRINTS?!? Actual "hard copy" photos that you could hang on the wall and hand to your friends, and put in albums? Yeah, what a concept!) it's going to end up being digital anyway, so FOR ME, it's just not a worthwhile venture.

There ARE some things I miss about my film days, but honestly I think most of it is just nostalgia rather than anything practical. Again, that's just for me--I can't speak for anyone else, and there are plenty of people who love to shoot film for reasons that I just don't really get into. Some love the darkroom process, for instance--personally, I probably couldn't really do darkroom processing very well anymore with my vision anyway.

The things I miss about film are more intangible--I miss the anticipation factor of not really KNOWING whether you got the shot or not until you saw it develop (or got the prints back if you sent them out). I kinda miss LOADING film into my camera, which is weird. I miss some of the different controls on the camera, like the little film rewind knob that you had to pull up and then turn.
In general--I miss the "idea" of film photography way more than I actually miss doing film photography.

What I *don't* miss far outweighs the nostalgia factor, for me:
I don't miss having to really watch what you shot because you only had 12 more exposures on the roll, and even if you had more film with you, it could be a bother to have to stop and unwind the roll in the camera, then get the new roll in and ready to go, and in the meantime, "the shot" you'd been waiting for would invariably happen while there was no film in your camera. Yeah, you can also run out of room on a memory card, but it's so fast to switch, and since I just make it a habit to always have plenty of cards with me, I have never experienced the "out of room" factor with my DSLR.

Even though I miss the "anticipation" of wondering what you'd gotten on film, truthfully I *love* the instant feedback of digital way more. Did I get what I was after? Just take a peek and see. Yes, sometimes what I like what I see on the display but later on the computer I see my focus was a little off--but generally speaking, I feel way more confident that I came close to what I was after.

I do not really miss the darkroom at all. I did like seeing a print "come to life", but I never really *loved* the darkroom process the way some do--the chemicals, that little red light... I was just not that big of a fan. I find PS way more enjoyable than the time I spent in the darkroom. For one thing, I love being able to take a single raw file, and in just a few minutes, I can "play" with it and try six different ways of processing it--I can take one file and create a color version, B&W, cropped two different ways, "ratified" (my term for applying all the fancy-schmancy filters and such), different wb's, ad infinitum.

So, yeah--on an emotional level, I miss film.
On a practical level, not so much.

 

[jake337]

Not to mention that digital quality has surpassed film.

See for me it is not the quality.


It is the physical size of the medium and the complete control over your focal plane with movements.

Take a 4x5 view camera for example. You can get the magnification/compression of a 300mm lens with a FOV of a, roughly, 90mm lens on 35mm = awesome.


Even more drastic is a 900mm lens on 8x10 has a, roughly, equivalent FOV to a 135mm lens with 35mm.





I'm still saving for a Sinar P2...

 

[Rick58]

I guess it depends on what Size of film and how you plan to scan it.


I think there would be a difference between 35mm scanned with a standard scanner and 8x10 with a drum scanner?

To be honest, my B&W was always reserved for MF and LF. While I had everything I needed for 35mm in the DR, the images were just to small when there were better choices...IMO
Which leads to yet another area: Price, $2.00 for a sheet of 4x5 is not in my hobby budget. 120 is still manageable, but even that, without a DR, each roll needs to be sent to the lab and returned, just to be scanned and processed.
Kind'a getting off track a little (it’s my thread, so I'm aloud ), I mentioned not working with 35 in the DR due to the image size and alternatives. Now, unless you go full frame, the "Negative" is even smaller. Just rambling...

 

[jake337]

I guess it depends on what Size of film and how you plan to scan it.


I think there would be a difference between 35mm scanned with a standard scanner and 8x10 with a drum scanner?

To be honest, my B&W was always reserved for MF and LF. While I had everything I needed for 35mm in the DR, the images were just to small when there was better choices...IMO
Which leads to yet another area: Price $2.00 for a sheet of 4x5 is not in my hobby budget? 120 is still manageable, but even that, without a DR, each roll needs to be sent to the lab and returned, just to be scanned and processed.
Kind'a getting off track a little (it’s my thread, so I'm aloud ), I mentioned not working with 35 in the DR due to the image size and alternatives. Now, unless you go full frame, the "Negative" is even smaller. Just rambling...

You could always just keep it on a budget. I only allow myself two rolls of 35mm film a month. Everything else is digital. I save the film for those special occasions.

 

[Rick58]

Not to mention that digital quality has surpassed film.

Ouch....that's a BIG can of worms. You think C&C methods got out of control...

 

[Rick58]

I guess it depends on what Size of film and how you plan to scan it.


I think there would be a difference between 35mm scanned with a standard scanner and 8x10 with a drum scanner?

To be honest, my B&W was always reserved for MF and LF. While I had everything I needed for 35mm in the DR, the images were just to small when there was better choices...IMO
Which leads to yet another area: Price $2.00 for a sheet of 4x5 is not in my hobby budget? 120 is still manageable, but even that, without a DR, each roll needs to be sent to the lab and returned, just to be scanned and processed.
Kind'a getting off track a little (it’s my thread, so I'm aloud ), I mentioned not working with 35 in the DR due to the image size and alternatives. Now, unless you go full frame, the "Negative" is even smaller. Just rambling...

You could always just keep it on a budget. I only allow myself two rolls of 35mm film a month. Everything else is digital. I save the film for those special occasions.

That's a good thought. I know you'll be more careful before pressing the shutter...on second thought, is that a good practice :scratch:

 

[runnah]

Not to mention that digital quality has surpassed film.

Ouch....that's a BIG can of worms. You think C&C methods got out of control...

I stand by my statements!

But we all know it is true...

 

[jake337]

To be honest, my B&W was always reserved for MF and LF. While I had everything I needed for 35mm in the DR, the images were just to small when there was better choices...IMO
Which leads to yet another area: Price $2.00 for a sheet of 4x5 is not in my hobby budget? 120 is still manageable, but even that, without a DR, each roll needs to be sent to the lab and returned, just to be scanned and processed.
Kind'a getting off track a little (it’s my thread, so I'm aloud ), I mentioned not working with 35 in the DR due to the image size and alternatives. Now, unless you go full frame, the "Negative" is even smaller. Just rambling...

You could always just keep it on a budget. I only allow myself two rolls of 35mm film a month. Everything else is digital. I save the film for those special occasions.

That's a good thought. I know you'll be more careful before pressing the shutter...on second thought, is that a good practice :scratch:

I've noticed I've slowed down with my digital alot since picking up the FM2. The only time I use higher FPS is if my son is running around or if I'm shooting wide open.