old amateur

[pocketshaver]

Well I used to dabble in film in the 90s. Mainly pinhole running 35mm film roll.

Looking at getting back into taking photos, mainly in woods and inside.

Is digital actually better then film in terms of anything other then instant results being on hand?

 

[Derrel]

Lower cost per-image, Extremely good quality at ISO 80-400; better, I would say, than film in terms of fine-grain-look at elevated ISO levels of 800-3200; there is NO film I have ever seen that is capable of the extreme ISO possible with modern digital at ISO 4,000-128,000. FF 42-50 MP digital at normal ISO levels (50-200) is as grain-free and detailed and as high-resolving as ASA 100 medium format ( 6x6,6x7, 6x8, 6x9 cm) IMO. Digital SLR cameras are now over two full decades into their development cycle, and are exceptional image-makers. Film is, in most cases, lagging behind in _technical_ metrics, like granularity, dynamic range, etc. Of course, film is a different medium, and it can create beautiful images. But...is CD audio the same as vinyl? or tape? No, it is not " the same", but vinyl and tape are still quite capable media for audio recordings.

Capture dynamic range in full-color is one are where digital has made tremendous strides within the past decade.

Digital images are easy to edit and print-out, without need of a darkroom, and need no "scanning" or other type of digitizing, and can be printed out off of a flash drive, memory card, or phone, at Walmart or RiteAid, or Walgreens.

 

[ac12]

The ONE place that film wins is, if you like working in a wet darkroom.
That was my escape from the real world.
But very very few people have a wet darkroom any more.

Personally, while I have and do shoot film, I would not want to go back to that era.
Digital has brought too many good things to give up.

BTW, HOW did you get pinholes in whatever ruined your film???
The ONLY time I had pinhole issues was with an ancient focal plane shutter that had pinholes in the curtain. And that camera was soon replaced.

 

[pocketshaver]

pinhole cameras RUNNNING on 35 mm film roles.

 

[pocketshaver]

You still have to print those pictures off if you actually want to see them. Still not cheap thing picture ink cartridges.

 

[Designer]

Is digital actually better then film in terms of anything other then instant results being on hand?

"Better" is relative. Cost per frame is less, which is my main reason for switching. Digital is much easier to edit and print. Not to mention cheaper.

The things you can do with a digital file will utterly amaze and astound you. If your interest is mainly realism, then no particular advantage to digital, but if you get into impressionistic effects, then digital has the advantage, mostly due to the ease of editing tricks.

Honestly, I can't think of a significant advantage of film over digital, considering that most advantages of image quality have more to do with the lens than with the capture medium.

 

[Derrel]

You still have to print those pictures off if you actually want to see them. Still not cheap thing picture ink cartridges.

No,printing out is not 100% necessary; as you know, digital images are easily seen on a phone, or computer/tablet screen. Seconds to minutes after having been snapped. And yes, inks cost money, and paper is not free.

 

[pocketshaver]

I don't use a tablet OR electric picture frame. Have no need for them before, and no faith in the companies making them.

Im old fashioned, I like to hold things in my hand. A physical thing is hard to debate about. But an easily modified digital thing on the other hand..

 

[Designer]

I don't use a tablet OR electric picture frame. Have no need for them before, and no faith in the companies making them.

Im old fashioned, I like to hold things in my hand. A physical thing is hard to debate about. But an easily modified digital thing on the other hand..

Do you print your photos on paper? I print some of my favorites, and frame them for hanging on the wall.

 

[pocketshaver]

print and binder. Issue is not everything is going to get printed.

But im just stuck between film needing to be sent out to out of state labs for developing versus having to get a better printer for digital camera.

 

[Derrel]

I have a 30 inch diagonal Apple cinema display, a 43 inch TV, and a 21-inch iMac, and two smart phones...I see they majority of my images on-screen, and have since 2001...yeah, prints are nice, but these days, screens are where _the majority_ of images are seen.

 

[snowbear]

If I want a print of a digital image, I just farm it out to Adorama pix.

 

[limr]

I don't use a tablet OR electric picture frame. Have no need for them before, and no faith in the companies making them.

Im old fashioned, I like to hold things in my hand. A physical thing is hard to debate about. But an easily modified digital thing on the other hand..

You can always use a hybrid method - shoot film and edit digitally.

Money can go to a good digital camera or to a good film scanner and some developing equipment so you don't have to rely on mail order.

"Better", as Designer mentioned, is relative. What do you want from a) the image, and b) the process? If you lean towards the tactile and 'old-fashioned' then there's still plenty of fun and potential in continuing to shoot film.

If you're looking for perfectly sharp, smooth images without having to develop or scan, then go for digital.

I personally prefer film for my own tastes, interests, and photographic priorities.

 

[pocketshaver]

my needs for a camera I believe are simple.

-outdoor photos mainly in woods
-indoor photos
-real black and white now and then

The yoshima E series seems to be closer to my needs if going with film, but no idea who can fix them.

 

[Designer]

my needs for a camera I believe are simple.

-outdoor photos mainly in woods
-indoor photos
-real black and white now and then

The yoshima E series seems to be closer to my needs if going with film, but no idea who can fix them.

Digital cameras always capture color unless you specifically order a camera with its color array removed. These are expensive, so for real B&W, go with film. Yes, one can emulate B&W in editing, but you wrote "real" B&W.