Opinions please...

[railman44]

I became very interested in the digital world when it wasn’t really fashionable. A 3.2 mega-pixel camera was unheard of unless money was no object. It almost seems that any digital camera now under 4 MP is inferior. Back then an SLR digital camera price was in the stratosphere. It seems to me most folks today are making the leap to digital photography. Well, being the contrarian (sp) that I am, I’m going back to film. Yeah, I still use my digital camera but something seemed to be missing. I’m finding great deals on very high quality 35mm cameras and accessories on eBay. I’m assuming these are coming from people that have made the “leap” to digital. In my 60 years on this earth I’ve found most everything to be cyclic. I’ll admit digital is here to stay and it will continue to improve as time moves on. I just find it very difficult to admit film is dead. Am I nuts in this assumption?

 

[ksmattfish]

Not at all.

I started with digital in the mid 90's. I just bought a Hasselblad (film camera with a 6cmx6cm neg) instead of a Canon D10. The way I figure, I can get 7200x7200 (51.8 mega pixels) scans from the neg with my crappy home scanner compared to the 4992 x 3328 (16 point something megapixels) image size of the EOS-1Ds Mark II. And with professional lab scanning I should be able to get 18000x18000 scans (that's 324 mega pixels :twisted: ). I'm not even going to start doing the math on my 4"x5" cameras. Film is only dead to those who don't know how to dream big

 

[Walt]

I just bought a Hasselblad (film camera with a 6cmx6cm neg)

Mmmmmm, Hasselblad! :mrgreen:

 

[AIRIC]

From a lab/store perspective I see people spending hundreds more on cameras and getting inferior prints. The average digital prints I see are terrible compared to having us print images from film. I have seen a few people convert back to film. One of the big problems is most people do not know how to adjust a photo in PS befoer they print it.

Eric

 

[Jovian]

I'm with you on that one...people see digital as capture...and that's it. They don't realize that just as film has so much effort that goes into the picture after capture, so does digital. I see people every day taking awesome potential for great images, and throwing it away on horrible prints. It's sad.

 

[jadin]

Film is only dead to those who don't know how to dream big

You compensating for something? :twisted:

I kid, I kid.

I love my digital. It's a mere 5 megapixels, but the quality is insane. I've gone on photo shoots with friends, and send them the results when I get home, when I ask to see their photos, they won't even show me. We'll take photos of the same thing, in the same spot, but they aren't happy with the quality of their film. But it's not the best camera, and I'm pretty sure they aren't picky about their film quality. I'm sure the glass isn't the greatest either.

As far as most people are concerned, I'd agree with the comments that they don't fine-tune their photos before printing. As well as the fact they will wind up saving and printing stuff they normally wouldn't. For myself up until I temporarily lost my hard drive and therefore was low on disk space, I wouldn't even delete photos that I will never use, are horrible quality, blurry (over/under)exposed whatever. Why? Dunno. But I find it hard to.

Those who work in printing shops, wouldn't you consider most of the photos you see as "snapshots"? Digital AND film?

 

[Canon Fan]

I agree also. I am actually doing the same thing sort of. Last week I bought a Canon AE-1 and an AE-1P with some lenses to go back to shooting more film. Also looking at an EOS 1v. I do think the digital revolution is affording some great deals on film stuff now.

 

[GregF422]

Personally, i like film has over digital. If i were to go digital, it would have to be equipment that has the same control and response/effect that film does. Basicly, it'd have to be film reults with out the film. Right now, the kind of features and equpment that i would require are still in the 4-digit price tag range, and as a 19 year old college student, WAY out of my reach.
I do LOVE the digital revolution though, it makes great film cameras dirt cheap. Less than a year ago, i got a AE-1P, with an original 50mm lens, a cheap flash, and a 200mm lens with shipping for less than $125 on E-bay. I spent about $75 to have it cleaned, adjusted, and brought from like new to top notch condition. The best price i'd seen around town in local camera shops for a used AE-1P was $150 for just the body and $200 with the lens. So i think i made out pretty good.

Digital is great for some people, but i will never give up my film.

 

[rangefinder]

I think digital will eventually replace film entirely, though not for many years to come. Digital is getting better, quality and price, for the average consumer. I think that the big push for no film will come as a result of environmental issues.

We have seen indications of this already. Our shops went from large and medium format for portraits and 35 mm for other events to totally digital. One of the reasons cited for this was disposing of the chemistry for our B&W and color processors. We were told the biggest concern was putting heavy metal (SILVER) back into the ground. I don't undertand the concern here - silver comes out of the ground and is put into our dental fillings. But I'm a photographer not a scientist.

For the average consumer digital offers a conviennence and novelty that film doesn't - instant gratification in seeing the picture immediately. This will be obvious at the next office Christmas party. Snap the picture, turn the camera around, watch people say ooh, ahh and laugh a bit. You didn't/couldn't do that with film. After the party download and get to the prints whenever. A lot more conviennent than taking to the processing lab and coming up with a few bucks for processing later.

The serious amatuer and pro save the oohs and ahhs until after post processing.

Digital still lacks the depth of film. But I'm sure that is being worked on. Once that depth problem is overcome I think the prices on "pro gear" will go up and then a renewed push on enviromental issues to phase film out completely.

Of course there are new environmental issues to be concerned with but I've not heard them voiced much. In the government one of the big issues is recycling toner cartridges. But I have not heard as loud a voice for recycling inkjet catridges, or dye-sub ribbons and cartridges, or dye-thermal transfer donor paper. Maybe this is because these wastes are not being poured down the drains. But I imagine a lot of these wastes are going to the local landfill.

In the meantime some good deals on film gear, new and used, to take advantage of. I'll be keeping my film gear. I don't think it will become obsolete anytime soon, at least with the serious amatuers and pros.

 

[JPPLAY]

In my bag there will be both film and digital. Most likely I will be shooting B&W with my film camera and the rest of my photography with my digital. The beaty of digital is that you can take many more pictures then film so it starts to pay back the cost of the camera.

 

[GerryDavid]

And as far as I know, most pro's digitize thier images to touch them up, so with starting with digital, its one less step in the process. Thats the one of the 2 main reasons I went digital, I hated scanning for hours on end. The other was that I could save alot of money in film and developing.

The main 3 drawbacks to digital I think are:
1. with medium and large format, you can make larger/shaper prints
2. film can be faster than digital for taking many pics in a row, etc.
3. film has more latitude, which is the main drawback for me. I hear the fuji pro 3 will take 2 pictures, one for shadows, one for highlights, and merge them to give it virtually more latatude, but that could be a rumor.

 

[geofflaw]

I am lucky enough to have both digital and film cameras and continue to use both although I use the digital more and more now.

The big issue is, what is the final use of the picture? If a print or many prints are required then film is still the best choice but, if you are going to use the picture in the computer, either for a website or for desktop publishing then starting with a digital image is a lot better than scanning a print. Even if you can achieve the same number of pixels, the density is just not there. It's like trying to make slides by photographing prints.

These days most of my pictures are destined for the computer one way or another so I pick up the digital.

I have a big dilemma coming up this week, I have to take class photos at the school where I work. Each student gets a print, so that's 20 or so prints of each picture and also the pictures are printed in the school magazine.

As I see it I have three choices, the way I have worked up 'til now is to shoot film and scan the prints for the magazine but I can tell the difference and am usually disappointed with the scans.

I could shoot digital and get the local lab to print from digital but I'm not sure what the quality would be like and also have grave concerns about the longevity, after all a school photo is something you want to keep and look back at in the years to come.

The third choice is to shoot both but I'm sure I will then not be happy if the best photo is in the wrong format.

I just thought of a fourth choice and that is to buy a film scanner, anyone had any experience, good or bad, with these.

Any opinions?

 

[airgunr]

I recently decided to upgrade my SLR to something more up to date as well as having autofocusing (my eyes are getting worse). I was using a Canon AE-1 and was missing a lot of pictures because I couldn't focus quickly enough.

The final straw for me came in Rome at the Colosium (sp?). They have guys dressed up as Gladiators and you can get your picture taken with them, usual tourist type of stuff. Well, when we were standing around checking everyting out I spoted one of them in an archway of the Colosium talking on his cell phone and checking his PDA. Now that looked like a GREAT shot. Problem was I couldn't focus fast enough to get it and lost the shot. Right there I decided to get a auto focus.

I was very torn between the DSLR's and 35mm. I ended up going with a 35mm and a good scanner (Nikon Coolscann 5000 ED). I now feel I have the best of both worlds. I can get great high quality scanns of my slides and negatives and slides when I want but enjoy "hard copy" of my pictures as well.

I did get the wife a 5 megapixel Sony DCS-V1 for X'mas last year and she loves it. I use it sometimes but still prefer the 35mm. The problem with her's is she takes a lot of shots but hardly ever gets anything printed out. Does a lot of "Chimping" on it though.... She also doesn't use the computer at all so I have to download and print anything she wants. Not that it's bad, just she doesn't want to do it and rarely edits anything other than imediately after she takes a shot.

I don't think film is dead, far from it. I don't have anything against the digital format but I am seeing a lot of people talking about switching back to film after using digital for awhile. Both have their place. I think if I was a "Pro" I would be more inclined to go Digital just to keep up but I shoot for my own enjoyment.

By the time film is phased out completely I am sure I will be long in the ground (and subsequently won't really care much... )

 

[ksmattfish]

I was using a Canon AE-1 and was missing a lot of pictures because I couldn't focus quickly enough.

I have had the opposite experience. I was missing low light shots because I was relying on the AF, and it just wasn't able to focus quickly in low light. I've now gone to all manual focus for my wedding photography, and I'm not having much problem at all (admittedly my eyes are still doing pretty good). I find the focus assist features (split prism and beaded focus ring) of the Nikon FM2n and the Pentax 67II to work wonderfully in low light.

With the vintage cameras I use I've come to rely mostly on the zone focusing method. Zone focusing is knowing your DOF, anticipating where the subject is going to be, and then pre-setting the camera focus accordingly. It won't work for all subjects, or styles of photography, but it actually works very well in many situations.

 

[ksmattfish]

I plan on using both digital and film. I love working on my own BW in my darkroom, and I know I'd enjoy working on my own color from a DSLR. But everytime I psych myself up to plunk down $1500 on a fancy smancy DSLR, I read some horror story at photo.net about malfunctioning digital cameras, and then I decide to wait a little longer 'til the bugs are worked out.

I know it'll never be perfect, it's just taking me a while to wrap my heart and mind around the concept that I'm going to have to completely upgrade my digital camera system every 3 years to keep up with top-o-the-line image quality. I'll get there, but until then yer gonna have to pry my Rolleiflex from my cold, dead fingers....