Were the days of film camera's better?

[Lonnie1212]

Just watched a presentation on the comparison of the Nikon D7500 to the D7200. The presentation was excellent. But I feel like I am on technical overload sometimes. There can be so many details to digital photography. Please don't get me wrong. I love digital photography. But sometimes I feel like things were much easier back in the film camera days. When I see photographers discussing problems and advantages of digital cameras. I wonder if the manufacturers aren't viewing the discussion and planning the next step to get us to spend more money.

 

[Jeff15]

You may be right................

 

[Original katomi]

Whilst I am not a staff member I think. That film vs digital debates are a bit of a no no
So, I came from the days of film using upto 5mtrs a session
Read my tag line I am doing a lot of the things with digital that I dreamt of doing when using film
Hope this helps answer your question without getting smacked for getting into a film vs digital debate

 

[smoke665]

Better then what? Having started with film in the 60's and now exclusively digital, I can say that there advantages to both from an artistic standpoint, but for ease of use and expense, digital wins out.

 

[Ysarex]

I read your post at 8:30 while having my coffee.

It took me five minutes to reach over and grab my G7, set the camera up and click the shutter.

I took the raw file into C1 and processed it.

It is now 8:47 and I'm uploading the photo.......

That took a minute.

Please note that I took a photo that would push film technology to it's limits and likely past them and I have shared it globally. Does this answer your question?

Joe

 

[Soocom1]

Artistic expression is correct.
The issue with film is that it is analog, so its limitations are all within the realms of what is physically possible.

Digital is wholly electronic with physical components only.
That means that whatever path can be created on the electronic level, photography will follow course.

Because analog means limitations to size, development and the like, there was a refinement for high grade photography that required a well trained hand.
Digital is now mostly idiot proof with cell phones but with the trade off of image quality beyond a certain size. Ergo Med. and large format over that of the 1/1.3 sized (1/4 postage stam sized) sensors.


But whatever path the electrons go, so too can photography now.

 

[Tropicalmemories]

I moved from film to digital as soon as the sensors became capable of the dizzy heights of 2MP.

Being able to instantly see your image, then play about with it 5 minutes later is just amazing from a creative and convenience point of view.

In the later years of film the cameras developed an increasingly complex level of computer aided complexity - but as they all essentially had the same 'sensor' it was mostly marketing hype.

 

[limr]

*sigh*

This topic is not strictly verboten the way political posts are, but yes, they do get watched because they often devolve into acrimony. So play nice.

It's also a dead dead deader than dead horse.

There's no objective answer to the question, not without narrowing down clearly-defined criteria for what is "better." So far, it seems that "better" means "faster" or "more convenient." The OP talked about complexity of the technology, but again, does this mean that "less complex" is "better"?

Who knows, really? What we know is what we value and how we prioritize, so the evaluation of "better" becomes totally subjective and the question is moot.

 

[Derrel]

back in the film days taking and making and seeing pictures took money, money that I often didn't have. film was always an expensive consumable. developing and printing or proofing always used to cost money.

nowadays we have a digital cameras that in effect do the proofing and developing, and it is now possible to take hundreds of photos or even thousands of photos without spending $100 ,or $200, Or $300 on film alone, plus another $150-$300 on proofing.

years ago it was common to spend $150 on film and $300 on proofing for a wedding. Today? This is no longer a necessary and unavoidable expense, since we now use memory cards, Which are reusable, and we can see our images as positives on a range of devices. No more holding up negatives to a light source and trying to imagine what the final image might look like.

yes times have changed, and where we take and develop and use and look at and share photos has changed quite a bit over the past two decades. In my estimation pictures have become something different than what they used to be. The electronic image rather than the printed image has become the chief way to share photos. I could go on and on, and this is a very widespread and very real social phenomenon.

 

[webestang64]

The only down side that I see from digital is the post processing. With film, you shoot, film gets processed and printed and your done. Now you can spend hours upon hours post processing your digital files. I use an example from the lab I work at. A guy came in to get 300 photos printed, he said he spent 12 hours going through 4000 images, finding the ones he wanted and "post processing" them in Lightroom.
Of course you also can spend hours and hours in the darkroom but for 90% of film processed it's just printed and your done. At least at all the labs I've worked in over the years.

Oh and camera manufactures...!!??!!......they would sell you a dead pig as long as it took good photos.

 

[limr]

Oh and camera manufactures...!!??!!......they would sell you a dead pig as long as it took good photos.

The new Lomo Pinhole Pig?

 

[Original katomi]

Within the realms of playing nice.
I can do so much more of what I want to do with digital
As said above the cost factor is a big one, I can try out an idea/dream and not have to spend loads of cash
On something that is a flop
But this could go on and on hence my last post on this thread

 

[Derrel]

One thing that has changed is the number of simple a photo jobs that have disappeared in the digital age. In the 1980s and 1990s a person with decent skills could pick up all sorts of photography jobs and gigs. nowadays virtually everyone has access to a cell phone camera, and in most cases some type of digital camera which takes adequately good pictures. Back in the film days one really had to know what one was doing: today, that has changed and if you make a mistake with a digital camera, your mistake is evident immediately and you can re-shoot on the spot, and many situations can be resolved at the time of shooting, due to the instant feedback the digital camera gives you. the question "were things better back in the film days?"....on one hand yes. Back in the 1980s and 1990s being capable with the camera and lighting gear meant that there were a wide range of photography gigs available. Today with the tremendous explosion in the popularity of digital photography, and the vast loweringof the barriers to entry as far as prices and costs and prices of equipment goes, it is now possible for many, many more people to compete for far fewer dollars.

 

[Designer]

..I feel like I am on technical overload sometimes. There can be so many details to digital photography. Please don't get me wrong. I love digital photography. But sometimes I feel like things were much easier back in the film camera days.

As I recall; film photography had similar discussions, but within different technology. For instance; film brands and emulsion types and speeds (ASA), filters, developing chemicals and techniques, prints or transparencies, Print papers, and more. If someone wanted to be overwhelmed by technical discussion, he/she certainly could.

Instead of being overwhelmed by digital, just take it a small bite (see what I did there?) at a time.

 

[terri]

Whilst I am not a staff member I think. That film vs digital debates are a bit of a no no

You are absolutely correct. Here is the actual TPF guideline on the subject:
* No digital vs. film/traditional arguments or debates are allowed. We have separate forums where the virtues of both mediums are discussed. No provoking comments will be tolerated.

While there have thus far been no particularly provocative comments made, these kinds of discussions are rarely insightful at this stage, and just meander until someone tosses out something inflammatory.

The OP only joined TPF a few days ago, but did agree to abide by the rules and guidelines at the time of joining. Thread closed.