Digital or film?
Discussion
I think its the fact that digital camera's are just more flexible than a film camera, its not to say that taking pictures on a film camera is old hat but most, if not all the professional photographers use digital, plus with the software you can bring the best features out of the picture or do adjustments/touchups which you wouldnt be able to do with a film camera.
TheAngryDog said:
What are peoples preference? I have a digital camera (that I rarely use, I'm just not a photographer!) but I am intrigued about film camera's. Are they really old hat these days?
It's still photography (pun not intended), just the recording medium has changed and the way the image is processed. I shot my last frame of film in 2004 but can quite understand the fascination some folk have with steam photography and the clinking of alchemist potions as they conjure up images in darkened rooms.I would agree with all the above really.
I kind of bypassed the whole film thing as digital photography was already big by the time I was in my late teens.
About 2 years ago I fell for the romantic allure of film photography and decided I really needed a professional film camera so bought a Nikon F5 and mated it with an 80-200 f2.8 and a 50mm.
I shot about 10 rolls of film and had them processed to CD... And by that point I realized that digital was simply far better for my needs. No processing, no buying media, cheaper, more flexible, better editing options.
I sold the F5
I kind of bypassed the whole film thing as digital photography was already big by the time I was in my late teens.
About 2 years ago I fell for the romantic allure of film photography and decided I really needed a professional film camera so bought a Nikon F5 and mated it with an 80-200 f2.8 and a 50mm.
I shot about 10 rolls of film and had them processed to CD... And by that point I realized that digital was simply far better for my needs. No processing, no buying media, cheaper, more flexible, better editing options.
I sold the F5
I'll throw my two penniworth in. I think it really is down to what "floats your boat" and what you get out of photography. I shoot both digital (Olympus m4/3) and film (Leica) and, yes, the Olympus is fantastically versatile and the IS allows me to shoot at ridiculously low hand-held speeds, producing wonderfully crisp noise-free images at high ISO. Ok, it isn't a pro set-up but, compared to the cameras that were around 10-15 years ago, it's a leap forward in technology in such a small package. That, combined with the accessibility of being able to manipulate a digital image to a level that is unreachable with film processing, gives compelling reasons why you should choose digital over film. But.......and, for me, this is a BUT......there is just something about shooting film with a fully manual, mechanical, camera.....spending time setting the camera up for a scene....composing your shot......pressing the shutter.....resisting the temptation not to mistakenly look at the back of the camera, especially after shooting digital for so long!......repeat 36 times....winding your film back.....sending it off for processing, not knowing whether you've got some decent shots at all.....unwrapping your returned negatives, and holding them up to the light to see if the shots have come out.....at this point, I revert to the modern world and digitally scan them in.....my own personal darkroom......my heart skips a beat when that shot I took a couple of weeks ago finally reveals itself beautifully on my iMac and I crack a big smile......and it was all worth it........like I say, it "floats my boat" more than digital......keep shooting ladies & gents!
I read this post, which I can empathise with in some ways and I still keep meaning to do something with my old analogue kit and remaining stock of films ....
..... and then in the links for the articles and ads at the bottom of the page was a headline to the effect that 350 Million images are uploaded to Facebook every day.
The world could not afford that if processing was still analogue even if the technology existed to make the uploading easy. Yes I know it's a moot point because Facebook would not exist in the same form either, but ......
..... and then in the links for the articles and ads at the bottom of the page was a headline to the effect that 350 Million images are uploaded to Facebook every day.
The world could not afford that if processing was still analogue even if the technology existed to make the uploading easy. Yes I know it's a moot point because Facebook would not exist in the same form either, but ......
LongQ said:
..... and then in the links for the articles and ads at the bottom of the page was a headline to the effect that 350 Million images are uploaded to Facebook every day.
The world could not afford that if processing was still analogue even if the technology existed to make the uploading easy. Yes I know it's a moot point because Facebook would not exist in the same form either, but ......
At a more fundamental level, if it was film people wouldn't take nearly that many photos to start with.The world could not afford that if processing was still analogue even if the technology existed to make the uploading easy. Yes I know it's a moot point because Facebook would not exist in the same form either, but ......
Imagine seeing someone loading a roll of 35mm film into their iPhone 6...
Simpo Two said:
LongQ said:
..... and then in the links for the articles and ads at the bottom of the page was a headline to the effect that 350 Million images are uploaded to Facebook every day.
The world could not afford that if processing was still analogue even if the technology existed to make the uploading easy. Yes I know it's a moot point because Facebook would not exist in the same form either, but ......
At a more fundamental level, if it was film people wouldn't take nearly that many photos to start with.The world could not afford that if processing was still analogue even if the technology existed to make the uploading easy. Yes I know it's a moot point because Facebook would not exist in the same form either, but ......
Imagine seeing someone loading a roll of 35mm film into their iPhone 6...
It's one of my pet hates about the digital age, up there with not needing to understand mathematics now I have a spreadsheet or speeling with a word processor.
Giving my age away here but I grew up using film. From an Ectra 12 when I was about 9, fully manual Mamiya SLR in my teens, Dynax SLR in my twenties....
...I agree with the post above about the thrill of getting the photos back from the lab and seeing the results. I wonder how much I have not spent on processing since going digital? The minus point is so few images actually get printed now and you can't see the reaction of family and friends when they look at images on Flickr, etc.
...I agree with the post above about the thrill of getting the photos back from the lab and seeing the results. I wonder how much I have not spent on processing since going digital? The minus point is so few images actually get printed now and you can't see the reaction of family and friends when they look at images on Flickr, etc.
Morbid said:
Giving my age away here but I grew up using film. From an Ectra 12 when I was about 9, fully manual Mamiya SLR in my teens, Dynax SLR in my twenties....
...I agree with the post above about the thrill of getting the photos back from the lab and seeing the results. I wonder how much I have not spent on processing since going digital? The minus point is so few images actually get printed now and you can't see the reaction of family and friends when they look at images on Flickr, etc.
< also grew up with film, developing mine in the 70s/80s, but I still print a lot of mine, in book form (via an online print on demand). Paper will have it's day again. Wet film will remain niche, I'm afraid. Far too expensive....I agree with the post above about the thrill of getting the photos back from the lab and seeing the results. I wonder how much I have not spent on processing since going digital? The minus point is so few images actually get printed now and you can't see the reaction of family and friends when they look at images on Flickr, etc.
MOTORVATOR said:
It's one of my pet hates about the digital age, up there with not needing to understand mathematics now I have a spreadsheet or speeling with a word processor.
It's a conundrum isn't it - people are more 'empowered' but can be more ignorant at the same time...We don't need to know any facts because we can look them up on Wikipedia. We don't need to know how to get anywhere because we have satnav. We don't need to know how to spell because we have spell-checkers and we don't need to know arithmetic because we have calculators.
Bizarrely the one thing we all do now, which was once for secretaries only, is type. Nobody else typed anything until at least 1990!
Simpo Two said:
LongQ said:
..... and then in the links for the articles and ads at the bottom of the page was a headline to the effect that 350 Million images are uploaded to Facebook every day.
The world could not afford that if processing was still analogue even if the technology existed to make the uploading easy. Yes I know it's a moot point because Facebook would not exist in the same form either, but ......
At a more fundamental level, if it was film people wouldn't take nearly that many photos to start with.The world could not afford that if processing was still analogue even if the technology existed to make the uploading easy. Yes I know it's a moot point because Facebook would not exist in the same form either, but ......
Imagine seeing someone loading a roll of 35mm film into their iPhone 6...
Morbid said:
Giving my age away here but I grew up using film. From an Ectra 12 when I was about 9, fully manual Mamiya SLR in my teens, Dynax SLR in my twenties....
...I agree with the post above about the thrill of getting the photos back from the lab and seeing the results. I wonder how much I have not spent on processing since going digital? The minus point is so few images actually get printed now and you can't see the reaction of family and friends when they look at images on Flickr, etc.
Or not getting the results back from the lab .... always a risk. Probably more so these days given the way the mail seems to be dealt with....I agree with the post above about the thrill of getting the photos back from the lab and seeing the results. I wonder how much I have not spent on processing since going digital? The minus point is so few images actually get printed now and you can't see the reaction of family and friends when they look at images on Flickr, etc.
Some years back, before I went fully digital, I discovered the processing centres offered by local supermarkets and that they could scan the images to digital (though not especially high resolution of course) as part of their one hour service. Better, if one skipped the prints and went for scan to CD only it didn't cost much. In fact for quite a while if you asked for multiple films to be scanned to a single CD, for "convenience" they only charged for 1 disk since there were no other options available when putting the transaction through the till. 99p, usually. Not bad for processing 11 films.
On the other hand one ran the risk of the quality of the operators (some good, some much less so), the age of the chemicals and so the results they produced and, too often, some sort of crud or a damaged machine that left wide scratches along the entire length of the film.
Then there was the fun of trying to get a rather averagely processed frame from a "cooking" film stock digitised with a level of quality that avoided superb film grain detail but still looked OK when printed larger than 6x4.
So I bought a refurbished consumer end DSLR (I had a load of old analogue manual lenses so nothing fancy was required) and discover how competent it could be and what RAW processing could offer. And that was pretty much that.
Thereafter things rapidly became somewhat more expensive but nothing like as expensive as it would have been to pursue an analogue path.
Strangely we were talking about this very subject over Christmas, my Greatgrandpa was an RAF air reconnaissance photographer between the wars and a war correspondent during WW2 for Picture Post magazine until it closed.
I'm currently selling my Canon 400d with a shutter count just short of 40k!
With just over 2000 images stored in the Getty archive we reckon that even with a photographic career of 30 odd years, Great Grandpa probably didn't reach a shutter count of 10k let alone 40k on one camera.
Not only but also, based on a 36exp film @£3.99 and processing to 6x4 @ £3.99 (I think that's how much it used to cost me c1999-2001?) My 40,000 images would have cost about £8,800!!!
My Grandma has plenty to say about digital/phone photography! Greatgrandpa was her father in law, her husband, my Grandpa was also a photographer in the RAF working with Canberra PR9's etc. She maintains that digital is ok but that the skill in photography is largely lost on people who can now snap happy without worrying about shutter speeds and apertures etc, simply editing their way to a decent image afterwards. Where as the guys working with film had to understand their trade to get the images they needed without the luxury of instant results and hours of post production! Bless her,
[Great Grandpa is Haywood Magee - http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/editorial/haywood-mag... ]
I'm currently selling my Canon 400d with a shutter count just short of 40k!
With just over 2000 images stored in the Getty archive we reckon that even with a photographic career of 30 odd years, Great Grandpa probably didn't reach a shutter count of 10k let alone 40k on one camera.
Not only but also, based on a 36exp film @£3.99 and processing to 6x4 @ £3.99 (I think that's how much it used to cost me c1999-2001?) My 40,000 images would have cost about £8,800!!!
My Grandma has plenty to say about digital/phone photography! Greatgrandpa was her father in law, her husband, my Grandpa was also a photographer in the RAF working with Canberra PR9's etc. She maintains that digital is ok but that the skill in photography is largely lost on people who can now snap happy without worrying about shutter speeds and apertures etc, simply editing their way to a decent image afterwards. Where as the guys working with film had to understand their trade to get the images they needed without the luxury of instant results and hours of post production! Bless her,
[Great Grandpa is Haywood Magee - http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/editorial/haywood-mag... ]
Edited by Banana Boy on Saturday 27th December 17:36
Like those pictures Banana Boy
On the subject of digital being easier than film, I dont think it is, more user friendly definately but you still have to apply the same principles to the photography, Appature, Shutter speed and your ISO is now switchable and not just reliant on the film you used.
Digital makes it more user friendly because you can have an auto setting that does the lot for you, or you can do it all yourself and see the results there and then.
I think if you are new into the digital world of photography and have never used film camera's then you have missed out on something special, it was always nice getting your pictures back from the developers and seeing how well you took them (or not), but there is still skill in taking pictures on any digital camera, be it a phone, bridge, DSLR etc, its just much more accessible.
On the subject of digital being easier than film, I dont think it is, more user friendly definately but you still have to apply the same principles to the photography, Appature, Shutter speed and your ISO is now switchable and not just reliant on the film you used.
Digital makes it more user friendly because you can have an auto setting that does the lot for you, or you can do it all yourself and see the results there and then.
I think if you are new into the digital world of photography and have never used film camera's then you have missed out on something special, it was always nice getting your pictures back from the developers and seeing how well you took them (or not), but there is still skill in taking pictures on any digital camera, be it a phone, bridge, DSLR etc, its just much more accessible.
tonyb1968 said:
Like those pictures Banana Boy
On the subject of digital being easier than film, I dont think it is, more user friendly definately but you still have to apply the same principles to the photography, Appature, Shutter speed and your ISO is now switchable and not just reliant on the film you used.
Digital makes it more user friendly because you can have an auto setting that does the lot for you, or you can do it all yourself and see the results there and then.
I think if you are new into the digital world of photography and have never used film camera's then you have missed out on something special, it was always nice getting your pictures back from the developers and seeing how well you took them (or not), but there is still skill in taking pictures on any digital camera, be it a phone, bridge, DSLR etc, its just much more accessible.
Cheers, we're very proud of Haywood and his work.On the subject of digital being easier than film, I dont think it is, more user friendly definately but you still have to apply the same principles to the photography, Appature, Shutter speed and your ISO is now switchable and not just reliant on the film you used.
Digital makes it more user friendly because you can have an auto setting that does the lot for you, or you can do it all yourself and see the results there and then.
I think if you are new into the digital world of photography and have never used film camera's then you have missed out on something special, it was always nice getting your pictures back from the developers and seeing how well you took them (or not), but there is still skill in taking pictures on any digital camera, be it a phone, bridge, DSLR etc, its just much more accessible.
I think you're right about digital babies missing out! I concider myself to be quite lucky having cut my teeth at the end of the film era before moving to digital, it forced you to look at the light meter and the subject. You had to use the info and your experience to set the camera up not fully knowing that what you've shot had worked until it was too late!
That said, the one thing that digital can't replace though is artistic flair, the 'eye' for a picture, the attention to detail. The photographic world is incredibly busy and over crowded but as with many of the recently more accessable industries, like music and entertainment, real talent will always shine brighter, last longer and be more relevant than the surrounding white noise! Photography after all, is an art form, not a science!
We are in a golden age of photo gear.
Cheap (compared to income) SLR's and a vast range of lenses and gear.
It seems the thing most missing is knowledge and understanding of what to do with it all..
Far easier to buy a new bit of kit than take time learning how to put it all to good use.
Cheap (compared to income) SLR's and a vast range of lenses and gear.
It seems the thing most missing is knowledge and understanding of what to do with it all..
Far easier to buy a new bit of kit than take time learning how to put it all to good use.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff