Torn between digital and 35mm

[zeppelin390]

I am soon to be purchasing my first 35mm camera in hopes of creating a good hobby for myself. I am quite interested in developing my own film as well.
I am not what you would call a patient person, would I be better off buying digital so that I may recieve instant gratification, or will all my fears subside as soon as I see my first picture slowly developing right before my eyes?

 

[MikeBcos]

Buy a digital, if you like photography then find a vintage 35mm and start with some black and white processing and printing, colour is very involved for a beginner.

 

[tirediron]

I agree with Mike; the world is far mrore geared toward digital now. IMO, your best bet will be to start digital, learn the basics, and then later on, have a bash at your own processing.

 

[dxqcanada]

There is nothing better than working with the image in a B+W darkroom.

Developing B+W roll film is sometimes a chore (sheet film was fun), but it was handy if I had to push/pull a roll that I just shot and the control I had with different developing solutions.

I used to have a darkroom in my apartment (oddly enough a previous tenant panted a room completely black, including the window ... our landlord thought it was an odd thing). It was great working with the enlarger and print development in the trays. I started using different paper types (ie fiber) and toning.

I miss those days.

 

[NATO]

This is from someone who works with photo developing equipment almost everyday, if you are not an overly patient person go with the digital. It is very easy to jack up the chems and throw them off. Especially if you are doing color. B&W isn't much of a cake walk either. Granted this is from someone who does it on an almost industrial basis, our QC may be much tighter than those for personal use. IMO it's an added expense and hassle.


Also check you local laws, you will probably have to buy and SRU or pay to have the chems processed in order to stay in compliance.

 

[saycheese76]

If you have easy economical access to a darkroom, you can get a great 35mm and a few lenses for well under $300. Have a crack at it. If you don't have an easy cheap close darkroom, go dig.

 

[jlykins]

I started out using a completely manual(besides the meter) 35mm and developing my own black and white stuff. I would say for someone just getting into photography, start with film. Hell start with a totally manual camera, shoot B&W and develop yourself. It's a whole lot of fun knowing that you are in controll of the final product from start to finish.

 

[ksmattfish]

There are numerous excellent 35mm SLRs available on Ebay for under $50. These days you can afford to try both. Depending on the brand you might even be able to use the same lenses on the FSLR and DSLR.

 

[jlykins]

This is a good point. Buy a digital that has compatible lenses with film... I should have thought of (and said) it earlier.

 

[patrickt]

I'm old so I started with film, of course. Zoom lenses didn't exist. I developed my B&W films and printed. I enjoyed myself.

Ten years ago I bought a little digital camera not for photography but for quick snapshots to send my kids over the internet. That went well for a few years. I'd take my film camera out to take photos and carry my little digital for snapshots.

The digital cameras got better and I noticed that I wasn't taking my film camera out much and then not at all.

I've gone digital now. The biggest reason is simply convenience. I don't do a lot of post-processing but what I do I find much easier than with film.

I joined a group of photo/tourists a few weeks ago and two were shooting film. We were taking pictures of some local Indians and I heard one guy say, "So many pictures and only three shots left." Ah, I remember those days.

There are legitimate reasons for some to stick with film. A friend does catalogue work and has a huge investment in medium format and all the related equipment. Great film and no reason to change. He did go digital for non-professional work. Two years ago I saw a young man shooting with a 4x5 sheet film bellows camera. I waited till he was packing up and we chatted. He did architectural shots for magazines. His camera did the job for him but traveling with it was a major hassle.

If I were starting now, I'd start with digital. Oh, and for what it's worth, I've never encountered the perfect camera or medium. All have required that I adapt in some way.

 

[ksmattfish]

I just looked at the completed listing on Ebay for Canon film Rebels. A few with loads of accessories are going for $100, but most bodies with a typical zoom are going for $20 - $50. You could get a used film Rebel, and a Canon refurbished Rebel XT for under $500. I'm sure it's the same with the entry level Nikon FSLRs. The only issue to watch out for is that APS format lenses, which are commonly sold for the DSLRs, won't work on the 35mm SLR.

Developing the film isn't difficult nor does it need expensive gear or a darkroom to do. Unfortunately the really fun part is printing, and it will require access to a darkroom (although the gear sure is cheap these days). Developing film without printing it is sort of like mixing up a bowl of cake batter and watching it sit. You know it's gonna be delicious, but there's still a major step to go.

 

[elemental]

I started out with a digital SLR system, and tried a modern film SLR and hated it. It was everything my digital was, but with the added hassle of processing film. It was a Nikon N75. Over the summer I was trying to score some old lenses for my digital body and "accidentally" won a fully manual SLR with a decent 50mm lens for $21. I figured I should try it to make sure it worked. Now I shoot more film than digital, and have two manual camera bodies (Ricoh KR-5 Super II, Pentax K1000) along with a few lenses and a broken rangefinder (don't ask).

I would say get a manual film SLR for $20-$40 (there are plenty) and the equipment to process your own black and white (~$40 to negatives, then you can either print or get it scanned). Buy something that will be compatible with digital down the road (Pentax is the hands-down winner for lens compatibility, some other manufacturers are pretty close), learn to use it (shoot some color too), then buy a digital body for your lenses. Not only will you know how to use a camera, you'll appreciate what it does. Last time I said this it didn't go over well, but I still think nothing teaches you to work a camera like one that forces you to learn how to do everything yourself. There's no room to be lazy with a K1000- no auto modes, no autofocus. You either lean how to use it or don't take pictures.

As for what I would recommend, I really do think Pentax has the best lens compatibility hands down. Ricoh SLRs used K-mount (Pentax) lenses, and are unbelievably inexpensive. I would look for a KR-5 in good condition- it won't cost much. If you get the digital fever, any Pentax digital body will take the lenses.

 

[Jon0807]

I started with film and it took me a long time to move to dSLR cause I wasn't happy with the quality I was seeing with prints and the high initial cost. But once I did I couldn't believe how much easier it made things. Tho there are things I miss about 35mm and I still think that the quality isn't the same unless you spend thousands of $$, I really don't see myself going back unless I want that sense of nostalgia.

In my opinion I think that digital makes it much easier and faster to learn. You have instant feedback of your photos and you can quickly make adjustments. With 35mm you had to wait for the film to get developed to see what mistakes you made and you have to make sure you kept track of your exposure for each shot. You could go through a dozen rolls of film before you made the right corrections. Also with digital changing ISO is as simple as a turn of the dial whereas with film it's more involved and you risk ruining photos you've taken already.

So I'd go with digital to learn and once you've refined your talents then go to film if you wish.

 

[Dionysus]

i wouldnt underestimate the work it takes to truly bring out the best from a digital picture as well. just because its digital doesnt mean that your results will always be "instant". There are some professionals I hear who slave over a single picture in photoshop sometimes for hours at a time, matching it to what they envisioned the picture to be.

Granted on a day to day basis, your average quick fixes to your RAW files will not be as labor intensive as developing film rolls, but at times, it still does require a lot of work in the digital world.

 

[zeppelin390]

is photoshopping a picture really a picture, or is it like an airbrushed playboy playmate in a magazine?