- Messages
- 1
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hi, I'm eager to learn about photography and was just wanting to know pro's and con's of a film and digital camera?
Thanks
Thanks
Pro's and con's of using a digital camera and a 35mm film camera
- Thread starter chris01070908070
- Start date
- Messages
- 5,993
- Name
- Darren
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well digital gives you instant feedback. Once you've got the kit it costs nothing more to shoot, so it encourages experimentation. And of course it gives you the darkroom side if you have a computer.
Film slows down the shooting process somewhat and requires far more attention to detail. If that way of learning appeals to you, film has a lot to offer.
Film slows down the shooting process somewhat and requires far more attention to detail. If that way of learning appeals to you, film has a lot to offer.
- Messages
- 387
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hi Chris,
Ill see if i can break it down without writing an essay..
With Film, you need to think about each photo, you need to ensure you have all the settings correct before taking the shot, you also need to ensure that you have the correct film for the type of shots you are taking whether it be daylight, night time, sports, nature, colour, B/W etc, there are different films for each type. Then once you have used up your roll you have to get it developed, you can either go to a chemist/supermarket to do this or you can do it yourself (if you have the equipement.
With Digital, you dont need to think to much about the shots, you are not limited to how many shots you can take before the film runs out and you dont have use a specific film for each style of shots. you can set this in camera and unlike film, you dont have to worry about getting your roll developed only to find over/underxposed images, blurry images etc, as you can take a shot and instantly see the results and then adjust the settings if needed.
So basically, using digital is much quicker and convienient and cheaper in the longrun. You also have the ability to "process" the files in photoshop which give you even more creativity with your images.
Some people prefer film, some prefer digital..
Ill see if i can break it down without writing an essay..
With Film, you need to think about each photo, you need to ensure you have all the settings correct before taking the shot, you also need to ensure that you have the correct film for the type of shots you are taking whether it be daylight, night time, sports, nature, colour, B/W etc, there are different films for each type. Then once you have used up your roll you have to get it developed, you can either go to a chemist/supermarket to do this or you can do it yourself (if you have the equipement.
With Digital, you dont need to think to much about the shots, you are not limited to how many shots you can take before the film runs out and you dont have use a specific film for each style of shots. you can set this in camera and unlike film, you dont have to worry about getting your roll developed only to find over/underxposed images, blurry images etc, as you can take a shot and instantly see the results and then adjust the settings if needed.
So basically, using digital is much quicker and convienient and cheaper in the longrun. You also have the ability to "process" the files in photoshop which give you even more creativity with your images.
Some people prefer film, some prefer digital..
- Messages
- 64
- Name
- Andy Smith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Doesn't do any harm at all - but it's a bit pointless Digital makes photography so much more creative because trial and error costs nothing and people learn from mistakes. Digital can more than equal the resolution of film now so as far as I can see there's not much argument for film at all.
Anyone want to buy my EOS 10s by the way?
Digital makes photography so much more creative because trial and error costs nothing and people learn from mistakes. Digital can more than equal the resolution of film now so as far as I can see there's not much argument for film at all.Anyone want to buy my EOS 10s by the way?
- Messages
- 64
- Name
- Andy Smith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Resolution constitutes a part of overall quality but it is the thing most peoploe used in argument for film until the last couple of years which is why I mentioned it. There are certainly other aspects to consider but I am yet to be convinced that film as any real advantages unles you want to mess with the negs and processing stage.
I could argue the opposite of this point, saying how film requires you to be more creative in the construction of your shot, due to how you've only got usually 24 chances to get it right, film photography is very rewarding when you can produce some straight out of the camera imagery.Doesn't do any harm at all - but it's a bit pointless
Digital I'd say is the way to go though, we may be saturated with digital imagery every single day, but there is still a huge gap in quality, using digital does allow you to shoot more, but this also means you've got to be vigilant and be able to critique yourself better. I only keep about 1 out of 30 images on average.
The choice is yours, I wouldn't knock film but then again I'd prefer being able to share photos through digital anyday.
Dizzledazzle, I agree to some extent with your argument about film versus digital, but I still think where time allows it is good discipline to work in digital the same way I would with film, i.e. think about the shot. There is nothing more demoralising I think than wading through lots of snaps to find a decent shot. As someone who has come back into photography, (digital), I find my non-film experienced teenage kids very snap happy with their compacts and some of the results are very poor, basic composition for one.
My message for what it is worth is think before you shoot!
End of lecture (totally unqualified to lecture)
Regards
Mark
My message for what it is worth is think before you shoot!
End of lecture (totally unqualified to lecture)
Regards
Mark
- Messages
- 2,620
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ditto.
I've never used film SLRs, only compacts, but a good shot is still a good shot and a rubbish one is still rubbish... even if someone goes around, calls it art and sells it for big bucks. I can only remember one such case, but I think it's still valid.
With digital, it seems to be cheaper, but getting a good shot under various conditions not by chance still requires either some level of knowledge of photography practices or a good eye and knowing your camera.
- Messages
- 1,676
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have both an Olympus E500 (digital SLR) and Olympus OM-1 (fully manual film 35mm).
Both take fantastic pictures.
There is somthing very satisfying about taking a great shot with a film camera, and because like mine it is totaly manual (apart from a light meter) it forces you to learn exactly what to do. Hence the great feeling when you get it right! knowing it was you, not a CPU!
With Digital SLR it is very easy to fall into the trap of not getting it bob on first time because you don't have to, you can do it again and again (depending how many batteries you have!).
Hope that makes some kind of sense! :bonk:
Don't get me wrong though folks, i love both formats!!!
Both take fantastic pictures.
There is somthing very satisfying about taking a great shot with a film camera, and because like mine it is totaly manual (apart from a light meter) it forces you to learn exactly what to do. Hence the great feeling when you get it right! knowing it was you, not a CPU!
With Digital SLR it is very easy to fall into the trap of not getting it bob on first time because you don't have to, you can do it again and again (depending how many batteries you have!).
Hope that makes some kind of sense! :bonk:
Don't get me wrong though folks, i love both formats!!!
- Messages
- 8,758
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
Doesn't do any harm at all - but it's a bit pointless
Anyone want to buy my EOS 10s by the way?
Trial and error does cost nothing, but people don't learn as well as they could when there is nothing to lose, if there is one thing I've learned about film its that it concentrates the mind on an objective.
I guarentee, you would learn much more about taking pictures in your first 5 rolls of all manual film, than your first 120 frames of digital.
Dslr's match only 35mm film.
Film is limited only by the quality of the scan, digital is just...limited.
- Messages
- 173
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- No
Cost was the main thing for me. As I was starting out I could use the developing facilities at college. Then after that it became too costly for me to get the films developed to see the results of my experimentation & development (no pun intended). I put the camera down for about 4 years until this summer when I could finally afford to get a DSLR. Now I'm back on the learning curve and getting back into it.
- Messages
- 832
- Edit My Images
- Yes
At the moment I still making the occasional effort to use my film bodies but as digital gets better I'm finding it increasingly difficult to justify the effort.
- Messages
- 64
- Name
- Andy Smith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Perhaps the main advantage of digital then is that we can keep control of the whole process. Whether it's a good picture or not is not the point. The point nis, unles you develope your own film, you have to trust a lab to do it the way you want. With digital you shoot and then process. You are in control of the whole thing - and so you can therefore be more creative than with film because you might choose to process an image after shooting - which would not be possible unles you have your own (true) dark room.
And I still have an EOS 10 to sell
And I still have an EOS 10 to sell
- Messages
- 387
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yep, totally agree, i was just giving the brief differences between the two, when im out specifically to take photos i do spend time on getting each shot right, if im out on a general walkabout and happen to have my camera, i can shoot a hundred photos without having to worry about changing film etc.
- Messages
- 8,758
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
I wouldn't bother doing it if you feel you need to justify effort.
I want to do it, because I'm bored to death with digital, if theres any effort to be made, its right there, grabbing the digital bag....voices in my head say its convenient..:bonk:
- Messages
- 387
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Im deffo on the lookout for a decent 35mm film SLR, i totally agree that you will probably learn alot of more faster with film than with digital although i do feel that the photographer has alot more control with Digital and getting the results instantly is always a huge advantage rather than having to wait.
- Messages
- 8,758
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
You can get a 35mm Nikon body for virtually nothing comparatively speaking, and use all your Nikon glass on it except DX lenses, aaaand get it developed easily.
Personally, I've only ever shot one roll of 35mm, on a Yashica GSN rangefinder, I bought it cos its a beautifull camera and cheap as chips, but I was allready heavily into M/F and the camera collection got out of hand, ended up letting it go, still need to thin things out a bit:|
I tend to forget the convenience of digital, because I shoot M/F, I think 35mm is THE convenient format, no doubt L/F shooters think everything is convenient except L/F.
Theres something about film that you either see or you dont, film has personality, character, charm, its not about sharp uber colour accuracy or anything else, I dont have the vocabulary to explain the thing of the thing.
I like film cameras, the mechanical qualities, the resistance in buttons dials and switches, the clunck whirrs and ticks.
Just winding film on is:shrug:beaut.
Everything feels tank like, allthough it isn't.
I like the discipline of manual exposure, using a lightmeter, bracketing, choosing settings, tripods, shutter release cables....but most of all....waist level finders, oh I forgot M/F wide lenses are fabulous to look at, hold and fiddle with.
So for me digital cannot compete, because convenience isn't even a consideration.
I went out today and shot some B/W on a camera with virtually no settings...cloudy or err sunny...lullz, it shoots at 1/30th thats it, and it was the most fun I've had with a camera for a while, not worrying about exposure/focus/angle of the dangle was refreshing, so there is something to convenience.
I'm going to develope them when I've drunk this pot of tea, and when I pull the negs off the roll, I'll be astounded, as usual, even if they're crap
*edit* I've thought about it, the thing of the thing, digital is so....synthetic, its like the difference between tinned spam and honey roast ham on the bone, one is so perfectly formed, but bland, souless, the other has fat, hard roasted bits and baked honey, you know its bad but you want it.
sorry, thats as close as I can get...
Personally, I've only ever shot one roll of 35mm, on a Yashica GSN rangefinder, I bought it cos its a beautifull camera and cheap as chips, but I was allready heavily into M/F and the camera collection got out of hand, ended up letting it go, still need to thin things out a bit:|
I tend to forget the convenience of digital, because I shoot M/F, I think 35mm is THE convenient format, no doubt L/F shooters think everything is convenient except L/F.
Theres something about film that you either see or you dont, film has personality, character, charm, its not about sharp uber colour accuracy or anything else, I dont have the vocabulary to explain the thing of the thing.
I like film cameras, the mechanical qualities, the resistance in buttons dials and switches, the clunck whirrs and ticks.
Just winding film on is:shrug:beaut.
Everything feels tank like, allthough it isn't.
I like the discipline of manual exposure, using a lightmeter, bracketing, choosing settings, tripods, shutter release cables....but most of all....waist level finders, oh I forgot M/F wide lenses are fabulous to look at, hold and fiddle with.
So for me digital cannot compete, because convenience isn't even a consideration.
I went out today and shot some B/W on a camera with virtually no settings...cloudy or err sunny...lullz, it shoots at 1/30th thats it, and it was the most fun I've had with a camera for a while, not worrying about exposure/focus/angle of the dangle was refreshing, so there is something to convenience.
I'm going to develope them when I've drunk this pot of tea, and when I pull the negs off the roll, I'll be astounded, as usual, even if they're crap
*edit* I've thought about it, the thing of the thing, digital is so....synthetic, its like the difference between tinned spam and honey roast ham on the bone, one is so perfectly formed, but bland, souless, the other has fat, hard roasted bits and baked honey, you know its bad but you want it.
sorry, thats as close as I can get...
- Messages
- 1,676
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You can get a 35mm Nikon body for virtually nothing comparatively speaking, and use all your Nikon glass on it except DX lenses, aaaand get it developed easily.
Personally, I've only ever shot one roll of 35mm, on a Yashica GSN rangefinder, I bought it cos its a beautifull camera and cheap as chips, but I was allready heavily into M/F and the camera collection got out of hand, ended up letting it go, still need to thin things out a bit:|
I tend to forget the convenience of digital, because I shoot M/F, I think 35mm is THE convenient format, no doubt L/F shooters think everything is convenient except L/F.
Theres something about film that you either see or you dont, film has personality, character, charm, its not about sharp uber colour accuracy or anything else, I dont have the vocabulary to explain the thing of the thing.
I like film cameras, the mechanical qualities, the resistance in buttons dials and switches, the clunck whirrs and ticks.
Just winding film on is:shrug:beaut.
Everything feels tank like, allthough it isn't.
I like the discipline of manual exposure, using a lightmeter, bracketing, choosing settings, tripods, shutter release cables....but most of all....waist level finders, oh I forgot M/F wide lenses are fabulous to look at, hold and fiddle with.
So for me digital cannot compete, because convenience isn't even a consideration.
I went out today and shot some B/W on a camera with virtually no settings...cloudy or err sunny...lullz, it shoots at 1/30th thats it, and it was the most fun I've had with a camera for a while, not worrying about exposure/focus/angle of the dangle was refreshing, so there is something to convenience.
I'm going to develope them when I've drunk this pot of tea, and when I pull the negs off the roll, I'll be astounded, as usual, even if they're crap
*edit* I've thought about it, the thing of the thing, digital is so....synthetic, its like the difference between tinned spam and honey roast ham on the bone, one is so perfectly formed, but bland, souless, the other has fat, hard roasted bits and baked honey, you know its bad but you want it.
sorry, thats as close as I can get...
There is def somthing to be said about a good solid metal mechanically engineered bit of kit, thats clunks and clicks with minimal electronics etc.. so nice to use, or maybe thats the engineer in me?
Film can be cheap, and you can get it developed (no prints) for £1.50.