Digital to Film: How was it for you?

K

koomber

Messages
143
Name
Two Dogs....
Edit My Images
Yes
Having recently joined the camera club (ie, having bought a camera that didn't come with a free mobile phone built in) by getting a D70s, I'm hooked and loving it.

My previous attempt with an old Chinon 35mm met with much failure (mostly due, I think to a poor understanding of photography, more than anything else). But since I've gone digital I feel that I can now afford to learn some of the basics.

However, I am seriously considering going back to film (I've got a few B&W films sitting round the house from my last attempt) and possibly even going for developing (I'm a Chemist and I work for a chemical company. I secretly hope that I'll get really into it and be able to find the chemicals in bulk from one of our suppliers for less lol).

There are 2 main things at the moment:

1) I am just wondering if there are any other people here who have gone through a similar process and what there reasons for it were. Are there any who have gone through the change and have regreted it?

2) My plan at the moment is to ditch the Chinon and buy a F90 or similar so that I can use it with my D70s will the lenses be largely compatible?

Thanks for any advice, and I'm sorry if I missed anything in the forum like this.
 
I ditched all my Nikon film gear when I went digital. I suppose it would be wrong to say I regretted it, as I was in love with the whole idea of digital from the very early days, when the technology wasn't really hacking it, and I changed to Canon anyway when I went digital.

I'm still loving digital, but I get something from film and the shooting process which I don't get from digital. To that end I've replaced the Nikon gear with a couple of 35mm bodies and a couple of medium format cameras.

I wouldn't forsake digital - it's far too convenient, but I think there are pleasures in shooting both mediums.
 
koomber said:
1) I am just wondering if there are any other people here who have gone through a similar process and what there reasons for it were. Are there any who have gone through the change and have regreted it?
Click to expand...

Yes I have. I am studying a C&G Level 2 course at night school and 3 weeks B&W film were mandatory. I got bitten by the bug - nothing can beat that feeling of pulling out the neg after fix and seeing an image. Oh and the soul of B&W film. Love it. Also I guess being stuck in front of a 'puter all day the developing for me is more creative than photoshopping.

However I now shoot both I wouldn't ditch digital or film.

I still do a lot of digital but every now and again I get the feeling to shoot a roll of B&W so I got and do it. I dev at home but scan the negs. Any good ones I'll print in the darkroom at college.

Without digital I don't I would have discovered film. My photography has improved because I have taken a lot of digi photos and learnt by my mistakes and review immediately after capture. My keeper rate now is a lot better and I can go back to film and get a few keepers per roll. Back in the day this didn't happen.

2) My plan at the moment is to ditch the Chinon and buy a F90 or similar so that I can use it with my D70s will the lenses be largely compatible?

Thanks for any advice, and I'm sorry if I missed anything in the forum like this.
Click to expand...

Not sure not a Nikon man - I took a similar approach and bought a Canon EOS film body that is compatible with a few of my Canon lenses.
 
I don't think I'd ditch the digital either :) I like te convenience and the tooling around with it in PS. I can kind of see what you mean about the film though.
I played around with my Zenit-E and some cheapo ISO400 about a year or so ago and got some funky looking results that I don't think I could have got with digital:
On_the_train_by_koomber1664.jpg


WTF_is_it_by_koomber1664.jpg


Hope I won't get in trouble for posting pics in this forum. These pics are one of the reason I'm thinking about going back to film

EDIT: I Tell a Lie! I just checked and I actually took both theose pics using another Chinon! How bizzare! Okay, so maybe it can take a decent picture. I still think I'll be better of switching to Nikon on the film...

The Zenit pics were pretty dire.
 
I have had film cameras from the age of ten (1974). In 2003 I wasted £1500 on a Nikon D100. After nine months I was fed up with it and started buying film cameras (I now have 35).

Thanks to digital, I have been able to get some great cameras which I could only dream about owning ten years ago.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
I have had film cameras from the age of ten (1974). In 2003 I wasted £1500 on a Nikon D100. After nine months I was fed up with it and started buying film cameras (I now have 35).

Thanks to digital, I have been able to get some great cameras which I could only dream about owning ten years ago.


Steve.
Click to expand...



Interesting, I may use your words a bit...:)

I have had film cameras from the age of 11 (1975). In 2004 I invested £1200 on a Nikon D100 - never looked back (y)

Film, chemicals, waiting, pah - wouldn't have one given :thumbsdown:

DD
 
i have been pretty muh 100% digital for 4 or 5 years and went back to college this year.

I'm now having much more fun with film and my digital isn't being used a great deal anymore, although i am shooting more MF and LF
 
DiddyDave said:
Film, chemicals, waiting
Click to expand...

I'm certain that I can process a black and white film and make a few good prints in less time than it would take processing digital files on the computer and printing them.

I really hate the idea of spending my own time sitting in front of a computer. I do enough of that at work. I'm there now and I'm writing this when I should be working!

We should all do what we personally want to do without worrying about what others are doing and without evangelising and trying to convert others (I'm not suggesting anyone is doing that here - try Photo.Net for that!).




Steve.
 
Looks like I've opened up a can of worms! To be honest I'm not surprised.

Just a quick aditional question, the pictures that I posted above and the sort of look that they have, is that down to the lens or the film or a bit of both?
 
koomber said:
Looks like I've opened up a can of worms! To be honest I'm not surprised.
Click to expand...

Nah not really. We're happy here in our little corner of TP bliss advocating the healthy merits of no sunlight, carcinogenic chemicals and being able to survive a full scale nuclear war and be able to photograph the aftermath.

Then DD comes in occasionally to depress us and remind us there is a digital revolution going on.
 
Steve Smith said:
I'm certain that I can process a black and white film and make a few good prints in less time than it would take processing digital files on the computer and printing them.

Steve.
Click to expand...

And I'm damn certain you can't m8 :nono:



There's no-one I suspect preaching in here - some love film, some love digital, some even shoot with Canon cameras I understand :wacky:

Each to their own, but for me, film now has nothing-at-all going for it, but I'm not going to think any less/more of you for using it

Now film in a Canon :nuts::nuts::nuts:

:D

DD
 
Freester said:
Nah not really. We're happy here in our little corner of TP bliss advocating the healthy merits of no sunlight, carcinogenic chemicals and being able to survive a full scale nuclear war and be able to photograph the aftermath.

Then DD comes in occasionally to depress us and remind us there is a digital revolution going on.
Click to expand...

:LOL::LOL::LOL:

DD
 
Not sure you'll be able to photograph after the nuclear war. Might be an issue with ghosting on the images...
Maybe it'll be okay if it's in a fridge. It worked for Indiana Jones, but he's tough as old boots.
 
DiddyDave said:
And I'm damn certain you can't m8 :nono:
Click to expand...

Let me rephrase that bit then:

I'm sure I can process a roll of 120 and make 12 prints quicker than I can digitally process 12 digital files and print them.

I'm sure you could do it as quick or quicker than me. Anyway, it's not a race!



Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Let me rephrase that bit then:

I'm sure I can process a roll of 120 and make 12 prints quicker than I can digitally process 12 digital files and print them.

I'm sure you could do it as quick or quicker than me. Anyway, it's not a race!



Steve.
Click to expand...


I always wanted an RB67 but could never quite afford it back then, now I just couldn't afford the time :(

Not 'time' in processing as such, but I'd have to send mine off as I haven't the space either and most of my clients want immediacy - in fact, so do I

DD
 
DiddyDave said:
most of my clients want immediacy - in fact, so do I
Click to expand...

Ah!! There's the difference. I don't have clients. I just photograph for myself.

How did these people manage before digital? Oh yes, they just had to wait! I sometimes wonder why they think they have to have their pictures now (or yesterday) just because they can.



Steve.
 
its funny ,, but that young DDave ,if you cut him open you'd find 0's and 1's ,,,,but he keeps putting his head in here just to say , hello ,,,( closet film wannabe :) )
 
Steve Smith said:
Ah!! There's the difference. I don't have clients. I just photograph for myself.

How did these people manage before digital? Oh yes, they just had to wait! I sometimes wonder why they think they have to have their pictures now (or yesterday) just because they can.



Steve.
Click to expand...



This is the problem with the new 'digital age' - as everything can be so quick on the internet, we all seem to want the same sort of speed in our lives too

Who hasn't tutted that the burger you ordered in McDonald's took 2 minutes; that that frozen curry took a staggering 8 mins to microwave; or that the lift you pressed for is 5 floors away and is taking ages to get to you

We're in a world now of 'speed-freaks' - where anything slow is old-fashioned; but anything slow & old-fashioned can be leisure (horses, sailing, etc.)

OMG - did it really take me almost a minute to type this :eek: Must try harder/faster !!!

:D

DD
 
B&W film still has the edge against digital for its dynamic range. Anyway its all down to the individual needs, if im shooting for myself i can afford to take as long or little as i like. If i was doing photography just for money side/client, i would want to spend as little time as possible.
 
blinkerz said:
If i was doing photography just for money side/client, i would want to spend as little time as possible.
Click to expand...

I agree. So in some cases I would use film.

My father was a wedding photographer from the mid 1950s to the late 1980s. He would send the film off for processing and receive back some proofs. These went into a proof album which went out to the couple and their families for ordering. The prints ordered were then produced by the same lab. Easy!

To me, that sure beats sitting in front of a computer for hours editing 100s of images.

Nowadays, brides seem to want 1000 - 3000 pictures.... all on a DVD.... to view as a slideshow at the reception. I wouldn't watch that even if it were my own wedding!

Why so many? I think I have about sixty prints in my wedding album. I can't imagine a reason why I would want any more.

I think if I ever went into the wedding photography business I would have to market it in an old fashioned style. Perhaps like my father's first wedding where he was sent out with ten glass plates and told not to waste any!


Steve.
 
The computer may run for many hours after a Wedding but I assure you I'm not sat at it :)

The modern style is to tell the story rather than just capture the attendees - you can't do that in only a few shots. My own Wedding album is rubbish compared to what we produce today. Per print digital imaging is way way faster, if overall an album takes longer to produce that's a 'systems' fault and one easy to fix

A proof album is boring and too tiny to be worth much IMO too, whereas seeing 300 images on a 40" telly brings it all back so much more

If you start with your 'new' old style - I'd be surprised if you got many bookings

"Pick 24 from 36 sir" that's what we got at the time - complete bllx :(

DD
 
:LOL:

What kind of wedding story could possibly take more than 60 images to convey.
Your gonna have to humour me cos I'm not married, only been to 2 weddings in my life and certainly am never gonna shoot one.
I know 300 is pretty standard.
If that's what the client wants, fair enough, but....why ?
Because they can ???
Why would anybody swap 300 files on a TV, for 60 real living breathing prints.

Bugger, I'd struggle to shoot 300 in a week on a holiday of a lifetime, never mind a one day party getting spannered.
 
I'm shooting my first digital wedding this Saturday. It will be interesting to see how many shots I take. :D
 
blinkerz said:
gets to the point where a video would be better...
Click to expand...



I'd love to see you guys as directors of a film biography

Shots... baby, schoolkid, one wedding shot, their baby, funeral - 30 seconds flat :LOL:

This is a pointless discussion so I'm off

:wave:

DD
 
CT said:
I'm shooting my first digital wedding this Saturday. It will be interesting to see how many shots I take. :D
Click to expand...


First :eek:

Oooo.......thousands I would think, couldn't blame you for that :)
 
LOL. I'm sure it wont be thousands. It will be interesting, me being an old wedding film shooter. Obviously I'll shoot quite a lot more I suspect, unless I get fed up and head for the bar early.:D
 
I learned to shoot on digital and to me it was the best way. I could change a setting then see the difference if any straight away. I was you could say "Classicly trained" at college using 35mm, MF and LF. I would not trade that for the world. Knowing how to used those systems and having only a few shots to get it right in some cases makes the difference between a good and great photographer. I would never have fell in love with MF and LF Transparencies. To me their is no medium better (y) But in the real world were the client wants their images asap digital is better their is no question.
 
You guys know I love film, but you know... the time it takes for developing and scanning does my head in sometimes :(

If I was really rich I'd just send my stuff away to a good processing house all the time - bugger the cost... I am certainly not rich, though :(

DD makes a depressing point indeed, but on the other side of the coin - there is no digital camera on earth that will give us the quality we've come to expect of medium and indeed large format. Seeing some of the LF shots on here (cough, Gandhi, cough) are enough to make me want to see if my 40D will blend... ;)

There are moments however, when I've just buggered up rolls of film by doing something stupid or spent an entire afternoon and evening cloning out dust and scratches that I long for the ease and acceptable quality of my digital camera:shrug:

There you have it...
 
I got into it for the true black and white experience. also there has never been a time when I've needed the photograph instantly.

Being a 'lomographer' first also helped a bit too :p

I have a dslr, but theres something really nice about using my russian rangefinder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top