Film vs Digital

I would agree, it's horses for courses.

A large part of my love for film comes from the enjoyment of the mechanical feel of the cameras, so I prefer cameras that are metal not plastic. When digital came in I took a break as the style of digital cameras didn't appeal to me, but the looks (yes, I'm shallow) of the Olympus Pen E-PL7 got me back in, and eventually I got an adapter to use some of my old Zuiko OM lenses and that got me back into film. Lockdown probably played a part too as not only did I resurrect the 3 OMs I had, I've acquired a few more bodies and lenses.

For sheer enjoyment of being out and taking pictures of scenes that appeal to me, film is what I prefer, but if I'm taking pictures of passing ships to post on the ClydeMaritime website or birds and squirrels in the garden I reach for the digital Pen, with a 75-300mm zoom and image-stabilisation it does me nicely and I can quickly upload ship pictures to the website. So, if I need a quick result, digital is my go to, but if I want to savour the process then it's film.
 
film has a special place in my heart. Plus it makes you a better photographer(fact).
 
Watched it .... yesterday maybe..... The day before... I can't remember now :)

Anyway, I think he pretty much nails it imo.

I do like shooting some film, but I shoot much more digital from a volume point of view. I also enjoy the editing process of digital which for me swings two ways..... I have a 'Film' style profile I use in Lightroom which I use for most of my digital work as almost a 'one click' thing now I got the filters & shooting style pretty much where I want it. The other digital work is then full on editing for night skies/milky way stuff which is pretty involved but I still enjoy it. It saves me having to sit in front of the TV anyway :)

I have thought about trips & weekends away with just the film camera..... :) But I keep bottling it!! :ROFLMAO:
 
I spent far to long in my dark smelly darkroom, to have any nostalgia for film, when I shot professionally for our local theatre. How much money I wasted in wasted paper on those horrible Cibachrome prints, with that metallic look. Film: good riddance, I never want to go back there.

No, with the digital cameras we have today I explore a subject as much as I want, without worrying about film costs, processing multiple rolls of film. The quality of the output from my D850/Z7 is infinitely better than anything I could ever do with film. With HDR, I can stretch DR for inside architectural shots, in a way I could never do with film. The digital darkroom is much more pleasurable and the dodging and burning tools in Capture one, replicate perfectly what i used to do under the enlarger.

I did briefly have an attack of nostalgia after getting my D70, but I do not even think I developed the film I shot with a SH F100, before getting rid of it.

My Old Pentax Spotmatic is a happy relic of my youth. My two F801 bodies, I used for performing arts, are too battered and bruised to sell, but I cannot bear to throw them out. But I threw the film I had in the freezer, in the trash long ago.
 
I fluctuate between the two anyway. It always sounds daft to say one is better than the other. They are both excellent mediums, dependent on what you want.
 
Like Nigel I spent years paddling in developer, although I didnt mind the darkroom as such. Will I go back to film, no probably not, cant be arsed. Indeed I've been digging out my darkroom stuff with a view of getting rid of it last week.
Yes theres something about film that digital doesnt have, but I dont miss the smell of stop bath, or washing out the trays at the end of a session.
 
I got nothing against film. Still have some Provia 100 and some Illford HP 5 in the fridge. Only did a very small amount of developing and processing of film, folks had a darkroom but I never could afford one. Even still have a film camera, a Yashica 635. Haven't used it for some time. Hard around here to find a place to get the film developed. Got my first digital and got rid of the film stuff with the exception of the Yashica and a Nikon F5. Couldn't bring myself to sell the F5. Got it new not long before digital blew film out, paid about about $1600 for it and the day after digital showed up the F5 was only worth about $400! Got used the digital. I can see my picture's right after I snap the shutter, big plus if your no better than I am. Also got a computer and 8 1/2" printer when I got the digital camera. Not particularly well to do or maybe simply a tight wad but, With an inexpensive printer and inexpenssive computer I can do my own printing and saves me a lot of money over buying film and haveing it processed. On top of that you could show me two photo's, one from film and one digital and I couldn't tell you which is which! The digital camera's I've had were not full frame so to hear some tell it I could get better photo's by up grading and now, mirrorless! I doubt I'll ever go mirrorless. Shoot I don't even know much about the D7000 I have and I get photo's I like! Going mirrorless for me is a fools mission! Now wait a minute. maybe I do have mirrorless. Have had severaal point and shoot's and a panosonic I finally got to work with the help of a guy on here and those point and shoot's took photo's that blew up great. Maybe mirrorless is nothing more than a bigger DSLR with interchangleable len's! Just happen to think about that talking about this stuff here!
 
Marino said:
film has a special place in my heart. Plus it makes you a better photographer(fact).
Click to expand...


Sorry but I'd dispute that as a fact.

IF you're starting out now, the ability to shoot and instantly review on digital is a massively beneficial learning tool whereas back when I (and you) were learning, we had to wait a while (sometimes months!) until we had finished the roll and got it back from D&P, by which time we'd forgotten what settings we had used, what the light was like etc.. What film DID teach us (eventually!) was to get it as close to right in camera rather than relying on being able to tweak things in PP because getting it wrong was/is relatively expensive!
 
Well lets face it even the dyed-in-the-wall film user finds digi useful e.g. mobile phone...but for me digi cameras are too complicated and just can't be bothered to learn all what it can do and can be annoying with some cameras e.g. using my Nex 3 last year for a quick shot of something in the garden and couldn't use it without a black sheet over my head as I couldn't see the screen with the sun on it. :rolleyes:
 
Marino said:
film has a special place in my heart. Plus it makes you a better photographer(fact).
Click to expand...

I disagree, I can experiment and learn far more with free digital film compared to film. Also I have instant feedback if I want it.

I can cover my Architectural subjects in far greater depth with digital as 10 exposures cost me the same as 1000 exposures.

Let's not get started on the technical quality my Z7 produces compared to what my Nikon 801 was capable of.
 
I think it's true that a 10x8 film shot (well taken) will trump a Phase One in resolution and quality, but you can afford to take more alternate shots with the latter.....

IMHO: if it's the result that motivates you, digital wins most of the time; if it's the process, then it's film - unless (like Lee and some others) the digital process is preferred. If it's the artistic aspects - then it depends what you are aiming for, in genre and style etc. The bottom line is that it's a very personal and subjective decision as to which medium to use.
I'm heavily invested in both, and enjoy using all of the kit (whenever I can make time), so frankly it's a pointless debate, so wgaf what anyone else thinks, it's your own preference that matters.
 
...and costs for film ver digi :- well depends, say in the last 10 years, have you lost money continually upgrading your digi to the latest.
 
There's room in my life for both but tbh I very rarely use 35mm anymore much preferring the output from my digital FF Leica M9s. I do however love using my Bronica MF kit but again if I compare shots from my Bronica on say Provia 100F to the uotput from my Fujifilm GFX 50S the Fuji has better detail/DR/clarity/sharpness etc but I still love those 6x6 slides on the lightbox.
 
Like many/most of you, I shoot both film and digital. My film efforts are easily eclipsed by digital as regards quality and resolution, but for me the very act of driving a film camera, be it 35mm or medium format, is a more enjoyable experience. Possibly nostalgia comes into it. Rather like comparing classic cars with their more modern counterparts - the former are fun but can be hard work, on the other hand the latter are (generally) easier and more reliable. As photography is for me purely a hobby, I do it for enjoyment not penance, and as the mood takes me.
 
I love digital photography and the possibility of keeping a digital representation of my images that will never age or fade. I also love that I can keep a digital tagged record of my pictures on Flickr and the possibility of instantly sharing my images with my family who lives scattered around the globe.

So in this sense I love digital photography.

However, I love getting there via a film process. There are many reasons for this, for me. Here are some:

-I hate modern digital cameras. Too many buttons, too many displays, often large, clunky, poor battery duration, interaction happens via menus and often touch screens. The top end models which are not too ergonomically crippled are incredibly expensive. They do too much, and all the menus and options distract me from the real purpose. All the digital cameras I've had were sad simulacra of older film cameras. My old Nikon D300 was a heavier, slower, more complicated image making machine than my former F100. None of the additional functions made me a better photographer in any way whatsoever.

-I like film. I like to think about how to correctly expose it, develop it, scan it. I love these challenges. I don't have a darkroom by the way, as I'm not interested in printing. That's right: no enlargers, no trays, no paper. All I need to develop film is a dark bag and a Paterson daylight tank.

-I like the images I get by scanning film far, far more than the digital images I was getting with a Digicam. You see, digital camera fans, "quality" is a personal concept. The images I was getting with a Fujifilm X-T2 camera fitted with one of those crappy Xtrans sensors had terrible detail (widely known as painterly effect or worms, even in the out of camera jpegs). For me, a well scanned film image preserves all the characteristics that make film great: grain, smooth tonal gradation, colour grading that I enjoy. This is the "quality" I crave, not an 8K ultra mega hi Res fully hi dynamic range whatever from the last Sony Alpha XVIII.

By the way, of course I'm sure someone out there can fully simulate the film look with digital with a lot of PS tinkering. I could probably learn that, too.
But why would I? Film gives me a look I like, and I defined that look via exposure and dev control, with close to 0 time in front of a PC. Also, I don't want to go out there with an over-featured microcomputer. A 40 year old camera with a shutter button, aperture and shutter speed control does it for me.

So hybrid photography = win win for me.
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
...and costs for film ver digi :- well depends, say in the last 10 years, have you lost money continually upgrading your digi to the latest.
Click to expand...
I once worked out that I've spent the equivalent of four work years under red lights so I have some limited understanding of film... ;)

I've bought five new digital cameras since 1999. Four I still have and use, while the fifth I sold for about two thirds of what I paid, after getting several thousand images from it. All the other digital cameras I own(ed), were bought second hand and when sold, I broke even on or sometimes made a profit.

There's virtually no running costs for digital so my experience is that it's far cheaper than and a great deal more pleasurable than messing around with film, hence the 5:1 ratio of digital to film cameras in this picture:

My cameras DSC-R1 07075.jpg
 
trypdal said:
I love digital photography and the possibility of keeping a digital representation of my images that will never age or fade. I also love that I can keep a digital tagged record of my pictures on Flickr and the possibility of instantly sharing my images with my family who lives scattered around the globe.

So in this sense I love digital photography.

However, I love getting there via a film process. There are many reasons for this, for me. Here are some:

-I hate modern digital cameras. Too many buttons, too many displays, often large, clunky, poor batteries, interaction happens via menus and ofte touch screens. The top end models which are not too ergonomically crippled are incredibly expensive. They do too much, and all the menus and options distract me from the real purpose. All the digital cameras I've had were sad simulacra of older film cameras. My old Nikon D300 was a heavier, slower, more complicated image making machine than my former F100. None of the additional functions made me a better photographer in any way whatsoever.

-I like film. I like to think about how to correctly expose it, develop it, scan it. I love these challenges. I don't have a darkroom by the way, as I'm not interested in printing. That's right: no enlargers, no trays, no paper. All I need to develop film is a dark bag and a Paterson daylight tank.

-I like the images I get by scanning film far, far more than the digital images I was getting with a Digicam. You see, digital camera fans, "quality" is a personal concept. The images I was getting with a Fujifilm X-T2 camera endowed with one of those crappy Xtrans sensors had terrible detail (widely known as painterly effect or worms, even in the out of camera jpegs). For me, a well scanned film image preserves all the characteristics that make film great: grain, smooth tonal gradation, colour grading that I enjoy. This is the "quality" I crave, not an 8K ultra mega hi Res fully hi dynamic range whatever from the last Sony Alpha XVIII.

By the way, of course I'm sure someone out there can fully simulate the film look with digital with a lot of PS tinkering. I could probably learn that, too.
But why would I? Film gives me a look I like, and I defined that look via exposure and dev control, with close to 0 time in front of a PC. Also, I don't want to go out there with an over-featured microcomputer. A 40 year old camera with a shutter button, aperture and shutter speed control does it for me.

So hybrid photography = win win for me.
Click to expand...

I do try to produce my digital images in a non-digital way..... if that makes any sense whatsoever.... :ROFLMAO:

And I do like to take only one shot, correctly. Rather than firing off different exposures & settings of the same scene (excluding changing sunrise/set colours) hoping to pick one that's 'great' for what I want.

I still have my old A7 of 8/9 years now. I did upgrade to a A7Riii at the beginning of this year but that was really just for the eye-AF although there are some other nice features for getting exposure etc accurate. I do very much enjoy just taking the old A7 & Voigtlander 40/1.2 out though :)

So I guess I shoot like film with film, and almost like film on digital :)
 
Nod said:
Sorry but I'd dispute that as a fact.

IF you're starting out now, the ability to shoot and instantly review on digital is a massively beneficial learning tool whereas back when I (and you) were learning, we had to wait a while (sometimes months!) until we had finished the roll and got it back from D&P, by which time we'd forgotten what settings we had used, what the light was like etc..
Click to expand...
Do not take me seriously, it's not a fact (that film makes you a better photographer).
Everyone is different with different needs and likes.
But for me film did the trick.

Not sure why, but maybe it's the cost of film or the fact that i started with black and white film.
After shooting my first roll of film i immediately realised my photos are crap(not that they're any better nowdays:p).
Film just made me think twice before i took a picture, I've tried hard to restrict my self from taking crap photos, but with Digi it's so easy....
What film DID teach us (eventually!) was to get it as close to right in camera rather than relying on being able to tweak things in PP because getting it wrong was/is relatively expensive!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yep, true that.


NCV said:
Let's not get started on the technical quality my Z7 produces compared to what my Nikon 801 was capable of.
Click to expand...
Well that's what puts me off nowadays with Digi, it's way too good for my liking.
 
and film ver digi.....I would think most non beginner 35mm film users know the detailed quality compared to digi and with MF being cheap wouldn't bother with very large prints from 35mm, also most know to use the right lens so you don't need crops. And when you think of it showing shots, for posts, here with 1000px there is less of a difference (compared to digi). Anyway does anyone think Joe public (or relatives etc) would care looking at a nice jpg shot (or print) taken on film, and would rate plenty of my 35mm jpg shots as good as digi posted here.
 
If you want to challenge yourself, go out with a 1gb sd card and shoot in RAW, that should give you approximately 50’ish shots on a 12MP camera, and turn off the rear screen so you can’t chimp.
 
I think he summed it up pretty well considering his age. I think he must have spent a lot of time talking to some of us old farts about our experiences in addition to what he's obviously learned for himself.

I shoot both digital and film, but most definitely prefer film. I shoot some 35mm, but mostly MF and have just bought my first LF camera. I also like to develop and print mono and colour in my bathroom and kitchen.

Each has their merits as he outlined, so no sense repeating them here, but I have to say that I find digital cold and clinical. It gives great images, but gives no real positive feedback or feeling. I also agree that it is mostly suited to wildlife or sports photography where thousands of exposures are shot by the operator in an attempt to get one good image.
 
Film does teach you the basics, there is no doubt about that. I've never really progressed beyond that, and still find a lot of the features on digital cameras are largely redundant, personally speaking. Just stick a sensor in a Spotmatic camera and I think I'd be happy. I could do the rest.
 
I think that the real division here may be between those who simply want to record what they see in the easiest way and those who want to be able to say how hard it was to get that image onto the wall.

Neither side is better than the other and neither side should "look down on" the other. Just remember "different folks, different strokes" as these two young women are illustrating: one with a Pentax film camera and the other with a digital...

Girls photographing P1011478.JPG
 
I don't see a 'division' at all, I just see a difference. I think the two complement one another well.

I wouldn't want to give up either, but if push came to shove, digital would be the first to go if I had to choose.
 
Last edited:
Sky said:
I don't see a 'division' at all, I just see a difference. I think the two complement one another well.

I wouldn't want to give up either, but if push came to shove, digital would be the first to go if I had to choose.
Click to expand...
You have to be thick skinned in my family as they think it's laughable that I use a film camera, mind you I see some very good shots, from them, just using their mobile phones.
 
I've been out all day so it's interesting to see the discussion - along with mild relief that it didn't degenerate into a is better than b as almost everyone seems agreed that it's subjective.

My current project is being done on digital because the limitations would make film a massive headache. I'd prefer to do it on film, but ultimately, I'd prefer to do the project, rather than give up on it because I can't use the medium I want.

I don't think I've ever been able to articulate why I prefer film over digital and Jason has pretty much hit the nail on the head for me with his video.
 
I've followed this thread with some interest - and surprise given the OP and the title!

I do use a digital camera but I have to admit as a hobbyist looking for a photographic record rather than a photographer. Or at least, what I would call a photographer (and don't ask - I'm not opening THAT can of worms!).

lindsay said:
I think it's true that a 10x8 film shot (well taken) will trump a Phase One in resolution and quality, but you can afford to take more alternate shots with the latter.....
Click to expand...

And that very accurately expresses my opinion in the first clause, but as far as the second goes I'm not into alternate shots, except in the limited case of making two identical exposures in case of accident in processing etc. I "explore the scene" with my eyes and feet, and don't rely on finding the best arrangement post exposure hoping that I managed to be in the exactly correct position at the time for one of them.

AndrewFlannigan said:
I think that the real division here may be between those who simply want to record what they see in the easiest way and those who want to be able to say how hard it was to get that image onto the wall.
Click to expand...

Well, I'll admit I use film because I'm in the first camp there. Using film is the easiest way for me to record what I want to show (not necessarily what was objectively there) and present it in an acceptable to me print. With film, I know what I'll get when I release the shutter (hardware failure apart) with zero messing around in post processing. Exposure, develop, scan and I get the starting point I want for the print. No messing around with channel mixing and black and white conversions, and a tonal range and image quality that I've never achieved with digital. Others seem to manage it, but I can't with my current skill set. For me, it's too much like hard work. Much harder than loading film into and unloading from holders, developing and scanning. Those are all processes that don't require thought and just need time to carry out; digital requires a learning process with no guarantee that I can achieve the end result I want anyway, due to the inherent difference in the way the image is originally recorded.
 
StephenM said:
digital requires a learning process with no guarantee that I can achieve the end result I want anyway,
Click to expand...
We'll have to agree to disagree there.

I point the camera at the subject and when it shows what I want I just press the button. The only thing I have to do after that is drop the card into the reader and a few seconds later the image is on a disk or in a SSD and ready for use. If I want to adjust the image before using it, that takes 15-30 seconds, 60 at the outside. After many years of messing around with chemistry and enlargers and all the rest of it, I'm a very happy bunny.

Still, as the saying goes: different folks, different strokes. :beer:
 
I have to admit I struggle with how easy it is to get a "good" shot with digital (mirrorless) with the EVF/Screen I can see what is going to be recorded and get "the shot" every time, however, I am not satisfied with this ease of capture. I miss having to assess the light/compositioon to be able to get a shot I will be happy with. My Blog is full of mediocre easily made shots that took no consideration in the making and having soul searched myself as a result of this thread I am now thinking that I want to move away from the convenience of morrorless and test my photographic skills with either film or non mirrorless digital.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sky
When digital 'came in' I sold a large Bronica SQ-A outfit to buy into digital.
I enjoyed the instant results for a while but soon missed the sheer fun of developing film and making prints in my darkroom.
I am delighted to have restored my Medium Format outfit at a premium price due to people selling cheaply to buy digital.
I now still love using film am happy to enjoy my hobby of some 55 years.
I don't want autofocus - I can do that myself. I don't want autoexposure - I can do that too!
I have nothing against digital photography - I just prefer what I do.
Each to his Own Eh!
 
Topsy said:
I have to admit I struggle with how easy it is to get a "good" shot with digital (mirrorless) with the EVF/Screen I can see what is going to be recorded and get "the shot" every time, however, I am not satisfied with this ease of capture. I miss having to assess the light/compositioon to be able to get a shot I will be happy with. My Blog is full of mediocre easily made shots that took no consideration in th emaking and having soul searched myself as a resuult of this thread I am now thinking that I want to move away from the convenience of morrorless and test my photographic skills with either foilm of non mirrorless digital.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should be exploring the instant exposure feedback you get with mirrorless, to explore different and more difficult lighting situations. Maybe you need to compose in new ways. Try some other subject matter.

Mirrorless has opened just too many doors for my photography. IBIS makes hand held photography possible for me in places where tripods are banned. I can even use my shift lenses, using the viewfinder level. MZ7 gives amazing image quality at unimageable ISO levels, if I think back to film.

I do though prefer the D850 for tripod mounted photography, it is more button driven and more pleasant to use.

For me the important thing is the final image. How I get there, means I use the most convenient tool to get that image. For Architecture I use HDR almost as a default. I use live view even with my D850 to have a good idea of what I am doing and how I am exposing.

I really do not believe that going back to an earlier technology is the answer to the doubts you are having about your photography.
 
Topsy said:
I have to admit I struggle with how easy it is to get a "good" shot with digital (mirrorless) with the EVF/Screen I can see what is going to be recorded and get "the shot" every time, however, I am not satisfied with this ease of capture. I miss having to assess the light/compositioon to be able to get a shot I will be happy with. My Blog is full of mediocre easily made shots that took no consideration in the making and having soul searched myself as a result of this thread I am now thinking that I want to move away from the convenience of morrorless and test my photographic skills with either film or non mirrorless digital.
Click to expand...
Well I can't remember if you have used a film camera, but I always say to digi guys :- Try a film camera and if you don't like it you can always say "been there done it"...and these days you can get your money back selling the camera.
 
NCV said:
Maybe you should be exploring the instant exposure feedback you get with mirrorless, to explore different and more difficult lighting situations. Maybe you need to compose in new ways. Try some other subject matter.

Mirrorless has opened just too many doors for my photography. IBIS makes hand held photography possible for me in places where tripods are banned. I can even use my shift lenses, using the viewfinder level. MZ7 gives amazing image quality at unimageable ISO levels, if I think back to film.

I do though prefer the D850 for tripod mounted photography, it is more button driven and more pleasant to use.

For me the important thing is the final image. How I get there, means I use the most convenient tool to get that image. For Architecture I use HDR almost as a default. I use live view even with my D850 to have a good idea of what I am doing and how I am exposing.

I really do not believe that going back to an earlier technology is the answer to the doubts you are having about your photography.
Click to expand...

excalibur2 said:
Well I can't remember if you have used a film camera, but I always say to digi guys :- Try a film camera and if you don't like it you can always say "been there done it"...and these days you can get your money back selling the camera.
Click to expand...

Topsy shoots medium format film, medium format digital and I think apsc Fuji too.
 
LeeRatters said:
Topsy shoots medium format film, medium format digital and I think apsc Fuji too.
Click to expand...
You're correct Lee and FF Digital with Leica M9s so I have all the options. TBH I prefer the MF film and Leica M9s for enjoyable/thoughtful photography the digital MF is good when I have a particular photo in mind for the wall and the Fuji APSC is a kind of workhorse that I use for my scouting trips and often my blog but the point I was making in my earlier post was that when using the APSC mirrorless I have a tendency to snap away at things to record my trip I rarely give the shots a lot of attention because WYSIWYG with the EVF and that makes me lazy.
 
Topsy said:
...I rarely give the shots a lot of attention because WYSIWYG with the EVF and that makes me lazy.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt your word but neither do I understand how that makes you lazy.

My experience is that, less time processing and printing and far more time looking for and recording exactly the image I want, equals more images that please me and far fewer wasted pieces of film and paper.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
My experience is that, less time processing and printing and far more time looking for and recording exactly the image I want, equals more images that please me and far fewer wasted pieces of film and paper.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on this perhaps I should have said it makes me feel lazy.

Composing in the EVF and shooting handheld on auto ISO while wandering around just seems lazy to me but I do come back with 20-30 shots that I am happy to use either in my Blog or post here on the Forum in my Topsy's Dartmoor Rambles thread or other threads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top