Film vs Digital

Marino said:
Because if it the title was “differences between film and digital” nobody would care:LOL:

We need drama not objectivity
Click to expand...
Ha! I think it’s just some you tuber trying to gain traction!
 
Brazo said:
Ha! I think it’s just some you tuber trying to gain traction!
Click to expand...

He's been on YouTube for years and has over 200,000 subscribers so, while more traction probably isn't a bad thing (is there some sort of benefit to hitting a quarter million maybe?), he's not some upstart or anything. I've watched his channel from the beginning and like his content. He has a self-deprecating, sardonic style that I enjoy.

I think the title of this video may be clickbaity in a tongue in cheak way to some extent.

On the subject at hand, I personally shoot mostly film because I enjoy it more than shooting digital. On that very subjective basis, film is better for me. Looking at it objectively, there are advantages and disadvantages to both (although I think digital probably has a lot more advantages). Just use whichever suits your needs, whether they be professional, artistic, financial or whatever. I'm happy that there is choice to be had.
 
FishyFish said:
On the subject at hand, I personally shoot mostly film because I enjoy it more than shooting digital. On that very subjective basis, film is better for me. Looking at it objectively, there are advantages and disadvantages to both (although I think digital probably has a lot more advantages). Just use whichever suits your needs, whether they be professional, artistic, financial or whatever. I'm happy that there is choice to be had.
Click to expand...
:agree: 100%
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I never wound a camera while looking through the viewfinder, apart from 120 single and twin lens reflexes but they were down at waist level level.. ;)
Click to expand...

Neither did I but the meter on the FM is switched on by having the wind on lever slightly out - just enough to poke you in the forehead (or nostril!) if in portrait orientation.
 
Nod said:
Neither did I but the meter on the FM is switched on by having the wind on lever slightly out - just enough to poke you in the forehead (or nostril!) if in portrait orientation.
Click to expand...
I knew there was a reason why I used a handheld meter, even with my TTL cameras! ;)
 
Well I'm not starting a tit for tat shots on film and digi.....but on the desktop startup pic in win 11 of sea birds on a rock on the sea shore...h'mm either there is something wrong with my monitor or the sand and sea behind the rock is a wierd funny colour, I'm not an expert on digi but have read about highlights being bleached out and this looks like a known digi problem in this case or............
 
excalibur2 said:
Well I'm not starting a tit for tat shots on film and digi.....but on the desktop startup pic in win 11 of sea birds on a rock on the sea shore...h'mm either there is something wrong with my monitor or the sand and sea behind the rock is a wierd funny colour, I'm not an expert on digi but have read about highlights being bleached out and this looks like a known digi problem in this case or............
Click to expand...


...... or it's just the general quality and IQ of the Windows wallpapers ;)
 
Anyone remotely interested and hasn't seen it then just use file explorere, go to users, then the folder that's in your name, then the folder "AppData" and it's quicker to do a search for d8887b9c416a2808cb90edf0f17145c7b2b0268827dfae5f7b7e5a39a26f07d6 once revealed click on the 1.7mb file and then you are given a choice what to use to open it......h'mm for me only firefox and VLC media player works.....after all that it could be a crappy wallpaper :D
 
I am completely committed to digital, simple because of cost, easy of use, freedom bto take as many photos as my memory cards can support.

Back in 2005 I went to Russia and used 5 rolls of 36 exposure rolls of film.
It cost me £55 to get them developed, and then only about 20-25 photos were a good standard.
After that holiday I lost interest in film and photography until I purchased a ddlr Canon D450 in 2008, and I have never looked back !
 
Tysonator said:
I am completely committed to digital, simple because of cost, easy of use, freedom bto take as many photos as my memory cards can support.

Back in 2005 I went to Russia and used 5 rolls of 36 exposure rolls of film.
It cost me £55 to get them developed, and then only about 20-25 photos were a good standard.
After that holiday I lost interest in film and photography until I purchased a ddlr Canon D450 in 2008, and I have never looked back !
Click to expand...
H'mm I'm not sure of 2005 but Tesco and Asda started doing in house dev and scan to dvd plus small contact print of shots all in a folder for £3 for up to 36shots...the problem was finding a good T and A with a good operator that e.g. didn't leave dust spots on shots....well I found one and all my best shots seemed to be done by them, when T and A closed and am now using say filmdev and they don't seem to be as good quality wise, but then I always used to use Fuji superior 200 ISO but ran out ages ago and am using up old stuff in the freezer and could be the reason why.
 
Tysonator said:
I am completely committed to digital, simple because of cost, easy of use, freedom bto take as many photos as my memory cards can support.

Back in 2005 I went to Russia and used 5 rolls of 36 exposure rolls of film.
It cost me £55 to get them developed, and then only about 20-25 photos were a good standard.
After that holiday I lost interest in film and photography until I purchased a ddlr Canon D450 in 2008, and I have never looked back !
Click to expand...
God that’s expensive. I recently paid £36 for 3 b&w and one colour including scanning…
.
.
No matter what, there’s no doubt digi is waaay cheaper.
 
Last edited:
It's the developing (b&w and colour) that's the best part of film photography.

Why give your films to someone else to develop to their standard and not yours?
 
I don’t see what would change if i gave it to a lab or did it my self. Results are the same to me.
It’s just a matter of circumstances, i sometimes develop my b&w but can’t be bothered to develop colour.
 
Sky said:
It's the developing (b&w and colour) that's the best part of film photography.

Why give your films to someone else to develop to their standard and not yours?
Click to expand...
I agree on the BnW however c41 goes off too quickly for the amount I would shoot it, I dont want to risk chems maybe or maybe not working. There has been a resurgence of colour labs and they are really competitive, Analogue films in shoreditch does a dev for £3.50! I cant match that price even at home unless I was to shoot rolls and rolls and rolls and then the cost benefit goes out the window due to colour film prices


To other points, someone starting today, £ for £ digital is miles cheaper over the life of the camera, a much large up front cost but soon break even on a per shot basis with excellent open source ediiting tools

My opinion from the video that film is subjective and is a like a memory I get, I think that may not be true for people growing up now. They have never seen or did not grow up with film and so for them in the future, the nostalgic memory pictures may come from the old digital cameras we used or even the first smartphones

Shoot whatever you want and have fun
 
Last edited by a moderator:
acrobatic_Citron said:
£ for £ digital is miles cheaper over the life of the camera, a much large up front cost
Click to expand...
Sometimes, not even that. I once found a Fujifilm SL300 bridge camera in a charity shop for £5...

...now that's what I cheap photography! ;)

Fuji SL300 camera E-PL5 P6160002.JPG
 
Marino said:
No matter what, there’s no doubt digi is waaay cheaper.
Click to expand...

Off on a tangent, apologies..

My current camera is a Nikon F90X that cost me 50£. A DSLR of comparable class would cost today north of 2000£.

No, 4000£+ for a Nikon Z8 is not an "investment". You are throwing away your money on something that, you'll be convinced, it'll be utterly obsolete within 3 years max. You will never get those thousands back. Actually let's not fool ourselves: you'll spend that sum again on a Z15II.

But back to film. I shoot mostly black and white film. A roll of perfectly good black and white film costs me 5£ max, often 4£. Less than that if I bulk buy from Czech Republic.

Development kit/chemistry costs peanuts.

Scanning can be done with a 200£ expense (dedicated 35mm film scanner) to acceptable standards.

Anyone who can afford the occasional pint, regular packet of fags or a dinner out, or a gym or Netflix membership can afford the above. A pint of ale has hit 6£ at Teviot (Edinburgh Uni). I'm sure it's more than that down South.

Do you have other hobbies? Decent tyres for your gravel bike cost 70£/pair. A Nintendo Switch costs 300£. Games are around the 60£ mark.

I think film photography doesn't only mean large darkrooms, tons of kit, overpriced Kodak film and expensive cameras, especially if one is into B/W photography.

Film photography is not especially expensive compared to other hobbies. In fact, it can be quite cheap really.
 
Last edited:
trypdal said:
My current camera is a Nikon F90X that cost me 50£. A DSLR of comparable class would cost today north of 2000£.
Click to expand...
A second hand digital SLR built to the same standard as the F90X could certainly be bought for around £50 today, (MW Classic are currently offering a D80 body for £49)
trypdal said:
No, 4000£+ for a Nikon Z8 is not an "investment".
Click to expand...
How do you get from a second hand F90 to a top of the range mirrorless camera? That's just a silly comparison.
trypdal said:
But back to film. I shoot mostly black and white film. A roll of perfectly good black and white film costs me 5£ max, often 4£. Less than that if I bulk buy from Czech Republic.
Click to expand...
£5 would buy me the electricity to record many thousands of digital images, so film is clearly far more expensive.
trypdal said:
Scanning can be done with a 200£ expense (dedicated 35mm film scanner) to acceptable standards.
Click to expand...
Hey! My £49 D80 needs no scanning - so that's not a good argument.
trypdal said:
Film photography is not especially expensive compared to other hobbies. In fact, it can be quite cheap really.
Click to expand...
It's far more expensive than taking pictures with digital!

There are any number of non-financial arguments for favouring film over digital but there's no financial argument that causes film to come out cheaper than digital, at least on the level you've chosen.
 
excalibur2 said:
H'mm I'm not sure of 2005 but Tesco and Asda started doing in house dev and scan to dvd plus small contact print of shots all in a folder for £3 for up to 36shots...the problem was finding a good T and A with a good operator that e.g. didn't leave dust spots on shots....well I found one and all my best shots seemed to be done by them, when T and A closed and am now using say filmdev and they don't seem to be as good quality wise, but then I always used to use Fuji superior 200 ISO but ran out ages ago and am using up old stuff in the freezer and could be the reason why.
Click to expand...
If I remember rightly it was Boots, though I am sure my local Tesco did not do film development, and the other high street shop i would have been around in my home town would be Snappy Snaps !
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
A second hand digital SLR built to the same standard as the F90X could certainly be bought for around £50 today, (MW Classic are currently offering a D80 body for £49)

How do you get from a second hand F90 to a top of the range mirrorless camera? That's just a silly comparison.

£5 would buy me the electricity to record many thousands of digital images, so film is clearly far more expensive.

Hey! My £49 D80 needs no scanning - so that's not a good argument.

It's far more expensive than taking pictures with digital!

There are any number of non-financial arguments for favouring film over digital but there's no financial argument that causes film to come out cheaper than digital, at least on the level you've chosen.
Click to expand...

If you think an F90x matches a D80 in features, ergonomics, general build quality etc, then I think we cannot really agree on anything.

I think it's impossible to argue with you, but you should go and check what an F4 or F5 or even better, a Rolleicord Vb, a Minolta Autocord etc cost and then come back to discuss what the digital equivalent (which often doesn't even exists) would cost you.

Enjoy your hobbies!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sky
trypdal said:
I think it's impossible to argue with you, but you should go and check what an F4 or F5 or even better, a Rolleicord Vb, a Minolta Autocord
Click to expand...
A Rolleiflex 3.5f and a Tele Rollei were my work cameras when I did local press work and weddings during the 1970s. I used a pair of F4s in the early 1990s as fun cameras.
What is it that you think I failed to learn from that experience? :tumbleweed:
 
trypdal said:
If you think an F90x matches a D80 in features, ergonomics, general build quality etc, then I think we cannot really agree on anything.

I think it's impossible to argue with you, but you should go and check what an F4 or F5 or even better, a Rolleicord Vb, a Minolta Autocord etc cost and then come back to discuss what the digital equivalent (which often doesn't even exists) would cost you.

Enjoy your hobbies!
Click to expand...
How about a D800? £600 second hand, all the features of the F90x spec wise ( including build quality, magnesium, I believe handling is a bit too subjective here), and a native sensor that can print 20x16 at 300dpi, I'd argue a D3 would be equivalent but Id be limited on print size potentially

You make very valid points but on equivalence, i.e you have to shoot colour film to compare fairly I still believe digital wins, no arguing just a Monday afternoon discussion avoiding work and yeah we probably agree to disagree like I do with many ppl on this forum ha

No doubt though if you shoot 1/2 rolls a month and pick up a slr off fleebay you can have the time of your life for less than a pint or two!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you're prepared to go over to the dark side, Canon's Eos 1Ds II is tough as old boots and you can pick one up for under £200, if you're lucky.

Of course, it's a bit larger than some other dSLR bodies...

Canon Eos 1Ds II Nikon D5100 TZ7 1020261.jpg
 
trypdal said:
If you think an F90x matches a D80 in features, ergonomics, general build quality etc, then I think we cannot really agree on anything.

I think it's impossible to argue with you, but you should go and check what an F4 or F5 or even better, a Rolleicord Vb, a Minolta Autocord etc cost and then come back to discuss what the digital equivalent (which often doesn't even exists) would cost you.

Enjoy your hobbies!
Click to expand...
..and there is the argument about the resolution of 35mm film (50mp?) compared to digi, but the problem is getting every detail off film and grain. A few years ago there was a 35mm B/W film (with special dev) that would probably knock spots off today's digi for crops erm but the problem was it was a ridiculous low ISO and something like 5
 
acrobatic_Citron said:
You make very valid points but on equivalence, i.e you have to shoot colour film to compare fairly I still believe digital wins, no arguing just a Monday afternoon discussion avoiding work and yeah we probably agree to disagree like I do with many ppl on this forum ha
Click to expand...

:) no worries. As stated, I went off on a tangent in the sense that I wasn't attempting to build a point by point argument to prove that "film wins" when it comes to cost per picture; I was merely suggesting it is very possible to do film photography on a very reasonable budget.

As such, I disagree with those who say shooting film is not a proposition because "it's too expensive" in absolute terms.

In my use case, it is cheap enough for me, and it provides me with results and a process that I enjoy far, far more than if I had decided to do photography spending a similar budget on a fully digital process + equipment.
 
Last edited:
trypdal said:
As such, I disagree with those who say shooting film is not a proposition because "it's too expensive" in absolute terms.
Click to expand...
Me too. Maybe that's the case for the vast majority but for folks who upgrade their digital camera every 1-2 years, it's less clear cut. I costed it out a couple of years ago when I moved to shoot film exclusively. I shot 100-120 rolls/year, home developed, home scanned, bulk rolled (35mm) and even with the camera(s), it was comparable to the digital I had been doing (Canon 50D - Fuji X-E1 - Fuji X-T1 - Fuji X-T2). Film cameras have a very low depreciation vs the eye watering losses one makes on digital cameras. It depends how deep you want to go of course, and there will always be outlying cases, but it's not a simple a is cheaper than b. Medium/Large format, and the quality you can get from it on film surpasses digital semi-medium format in terms of cost. 6x17 allows me to do panoramas others can only do by cropping their image.
 
Harlequin565 said:
Film cameras have a very low depreciation vs the eye watering losses one makes on digital cameras.
Click to expand...
We can, of course, take advantage of that by always buying used equipment. Professional level digital cameras have shown a tendency to depreciate fast and this 1Ds II was bought for around 10% of its new price. It was trouble free for the four years I kept it...

Camera Canon 1Ds II on tripod Sony DSC-R1 07088.jpg

Depreciation on digital cameras has, in fact, slowed somewhat in recent years, so bargains like the Canon above are less common but can still be found, if you take your time and know what you're looking for.
 
Digital cameras and smartphones have had one negative effect on the photography profession: The newspapers and tv stations are encouraging people to send their shots in, which can get used for a lot less than the cost of shots from professionals. High Street photo shops are offering customers baby and child portraits taken on DSLRs by staff who: A) Have no photography qualifications, and B) Are probably just getting standard shop wages. Photobooths can now send portraits directly to the passport office and probably DVSA too. Weddings are increasingly being shot by "Uncle Fred with the good camera". It must be hard now to be a professional photographer.

I am glad that I am only an enthusiastic photograph taker and I only have to satisfy myself. I shoot mainly film, but don't have a darkroom, so I develop and scan. I also take digital shots with a camera and a phone. My methods satisfy most of my needs. Whether film or digital is best is down to what makes you happy. The truth is that they are both best to the people shooting with whichever they want.
 
Last edited:
acrobatic_Citron said:
Exactly, you are in drum scan territory which is super expensive
Click to expand...
Even with drum scanning the reason 35mm film cannot compete with digi for crops is chemistry on common films, AFAIK you can fiddle the shot with software on a digi camera but can't fiddle the chemistry...therefore by logic a shot on film would be more of a true representation of a scene.......than digi.
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
We can, of course, take advantage of that by always buying used equipment. Professional level digital cameras have shown a tendency to depreciate fast and this 1Ds II was bought for around 10% of its new price. It was trouble free for the four years I kept it...

View attachment 398407

Depreciation on digital cameras has, in fact, slowed somewhat in recent years, so bargains like the Canon above are less common but can still be found, if you take your time and know what you're looking for.
Click to expand...

I bought my Sony A7 used in 2014/15 for about £560 iirc They seem to sell now for around £420-440 according to a very quick Google.

£130 for 8 years use (and still going) sounds quite a bargain to me.
 
excalibur2 said:
Even with drum scanning the reason 35mm film cannot compete with digi for crops is chemistry on common films, AFAIK you can fiddle the shot with software on a digi camera but can't fiddle the chemistry...therefore by logic a shot on film would be more of a true representation of a scene.......than digi.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, however even back in the day film was "fiddled" to get the desired print the artist wanted, dodging, burning, part of Richard Avendons american west I read his assistants put lipstick all over the negative to ensure a bright white background. Also when you print colour you have 3 filters heads you can change so alot of digital manipulations are available also to film once you start printing, you can even do perspective corrections if you can move your enlarger head. I'm of the opinion digital colours are more true to life as well, you can always tell when something has been shot on grain not because of the grain but because of the colours
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: zx9
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top