Since finding film is digital dead?

Probably 50-50 for me.

But for the enjoyable stuff it has to be film.
 
I have just spent 2-3 hours every night for over 2 weeks going through the 4500 ish photos that the 3 of us took in Canada....boring.

I spent about 3 hours in total scanning and pp'ing my film shots. I spent most of that time cloning out dust spots.....enjoyable. Why is that the case? its virtually the same process but I don't mind doing it for a film shot :thinking:

And if I'm honest there were only about 10 digital shots that I am happy with and about 4 film shots (out of 104 in total), a much better ratio.

But I was using the digi to record the holiday not produce arty farty stuff so is it fair to judge it in the same way?

Sorry I'm kind of using this thread to work through a thought process here i.e why do I prefer film?

I still don't know, I guess I just do. Now stop rambling Granty and go and make tea. :naughty:
 
My first 'Digital' pictures date back to about 1995. Scanned from prints, on a 486 PC.. took all bludy weekend to scan two packs of pics!

For me; then; still pretty new to more 'enthusiast' photography; I think I'd had an SLR five years; Digital DID seem like the future... the DISTANT future judging by how long it took to get a photo into bytes!

That was a pack of holiday snaps I'd taken at an OU summer-school for an IT course I was doing; pics were posted to the course' bulletin board... fore-runner of modern forums...

WOW! Well... apart from even longer delays from people trying to down-load them through 56K dial-up modems! (even though they were re-sized down to about 300K!)

Yup; instant and almost nil cost reproduction & distribution, better still, almost zero space.... well... err... potentially... I had to buy a bulk pack of 3.25" floppies to 'save' that set of photo's! (one per ruddy disc!) Took up more physical space than the two packets of prints... BUT... on the hard drive... a wopping 120Mb one! Almost instant access and retrieval; no more hunting through the albums on the shelves or the shoe-boxes under the bed for the ones that didn't make it to the album!

Nearly twenty years on?

Well, Facebook! All those snaps are now slowly making their way up there, where they can be viewed by the folks in them or interested in them.

As for the cameras? Well.... back in 2000 I decided that the Digital SLR's of the day were not showing so much promise, and they certainly weren't, to my mind, worth the money for the convenience... and that is a BIG part of the equation... convenience.

Having just taken a redundancy package and walked straight into another job, without a break in pay-cheque; my little treat to 'me' I decided was not going to be a new camera, film or digital; I splurged nearly £500 on a dedicated SCSI film scanner.....

So for me, its never been one of the other; its always been a means to an end; its the PICTURE that matters, and making pictures that have a reason... to be seen!

The physical nature of film and prints, is inherently limiting; they take up physical space; they have to be physically transported; handled, moved, touched... its a very 'tactile' medium... and that does have a certain tactile attraction, but it is not particularly convenient. Digital is.

So for the larger part, most of my photo's if they are to have any purpose, and be seen, are going to be digital. Especially as technology has started to catch up, and the media expanded, with broad-band now in almost every home, of not every-one's pocket! And viewing devices for people to access and see MY photo's 'on demand'!

Prints can still be nice, but, I have one photo of my kids on the mantlepiece... I have THOUSANDS of photo's on Facebook!

Does it matter all THAT much then what the primary capture medium is?

The viewing media will be decided by the subject and interest of the photo... is it one for facebook or photobucket? Or one for the wall?

OK... so cameras. For two decades, my first-line camera was an Olympus AX2 compact. For a 35mm camera it was tiny, easy to use, and took great pictures, and particularly good for candids... people didn't suspect you were pointing a camera at them!

2003 that was retired by a point & shoot digital compact, when they fell to under £100 for something with more than 1Mpix. For the job, it was 'adequete'. For more creative or challenging photo's I still had the Olympus OM's. To my mind, these are 'Fast-Foto' cameras.

Manual focus, zoom lenses, (I never got so far ahead, as to get into AF Film) the OM's though were superb work-horse cameras for their day, with a very good aperture priority metering system, that provided you remembered it was only an 'aid' to photo-taking, your assistant in exposure, not your master; would let you concentrate on framing and composition and getting the shots, not effing about with f-stops.

Convenience...... and since prices have fallen sufficiently, and performance increased sufficiently for it to be worth while, now; I have the Nikon D3200, to do the job the OM's used to. 'Fast-Foto', made faster being straight to pixels, as well as auto-bloomin-EVERYTHING!

For slightly more 'considered' photography; when I could afford to take my time; I have a Sigma MK1 M42 'Richoch' copy. Fully manual, metal shutter; coupled TTL meter... with a bag of primes; this is 'Slo-Foto'. Not as slow perhaps as a plate camera, or as limiting, having the versatility of interchangeable lenses, but, more 'considered'. More 'Tactile'.

Less convenience... more satisfaction... but still a photo at the end of the day.

So... horses for courses.

I have few pretensions about the artistic merit of my photo's. I'm not taking pictures for club exhibition or competition; agency sale, or commercial purposes. My photo's are for the most part for me and mine; memories; whatever interests me and may interest folk I know or who have similar interests.

I have lots of photo's of rock-bands; more of various motorsport; rallying, scrambling, trials riding, road-racing; Land-Rover or motorcyle rallys; shows, or other 'events'. Family parties. Holidays; Days out; museums; activities, and gawd knows what! A diverse and wide range of subjects and situations.

Some, probably a lot, suit 'fast-foto' cameras. Sure I could shoot a motorbike race with a 35mm fixed lens compact... but wouldn't get many frame filling action shots. That camera is better suited to candids and 'chance' scenes. Could use the Sigma. But, probably loose a lot of pictures faffing about swapping between primes and adjusting shutter settings. Scenario 'suits' fast photo camera, the OM.. but the Nikon offers even more 'convenience'.

Parties, Family events? Could rock up with the old OM's... bit of over-kill and rather obtrusive! The old XA2 would do the job rather well, but little digi-compact? Just as unobtrusive, just as slip in the pocket handy... and a lot more convenient shooting straight to pixels.

Motorbike Show? Subjects aren't likely to move; have all the time in the world to shoot them... though could be fighting for shoulder room... compact might be more appropriate then... but, if I have the time and the space, going slo-foto and using the Sigma and Ziess 50? Could get some rather nice shots... certainly be satisfying... BUT.... digital on Manual, maybe even the old primes on adapter mount? Could have a similar tactile experience... with convenience of the equivalent of a single chip in my pocket that is worth 300 films of any rating I might want!

Working through the scenario's; between Digital SLR and a compact; there's not a LOT that cant be done with them, or done better with a film camera, 'just' because it's film...

The 'enthusiasm' here of the novelty is rather like, twenty odd years ago; having come straight into 'enthusiast' photography, via 'fast-foto' SLR, I was introduced to antique 120 roll-film cameras, and ultimately to high-end Medium format..... the equipment demanding more diligence, a greater empathy, and a more considered aproach to photo-taking.... 'Slo-foto'.

Mentioned in a post earlier actually; I was loaned a Hassablad, once by a chap convinced he would 'convert' me to Medium Format... that the image quality would blow me away. Yup, it was pretty impressive, I have to admit, BUT, horses for courses. Not a camera I would lug to a race track or wave around at a party, and certainly be unlikely to get the same results with... great for studio work or very considered landscapes and other 'arty' pictures... but NOT the be all and end all of photography.

Horses for courses... and for me, thirty years of film? Sorry, but its no novelty!

Yeah, I still enjoy the tactile nature of the medium, particularly going 'slo-foto' with the Sigma, or perhaps pulling out the old bellows 120 press camera.... WHERE it may be 'appropriate'...

But it is JUST another avenue within the interest.

And... hmm... well.... that digi, with a 16Gb SD card, every film I might ever want, swappable frame by frame... that's a LOT of convenience.

Nice that I can still get film to run through either the 35mm or 120 cameras... but? I have watched the availability and choice SHRINK.

I have archive binders for slide, for black and white, for colour. In them the range of emulsions I have used has covered film speeds from 25ASA up to 1600ASA, with for some daft reason some obscure ratings, usually by Kodak... like 64 or 1000. Cheap, croatian 'bulk' I wound into my own cassettes, often pull or push processed in chemicals I could pick up from a shop on my way home from work.

I could walk into Jessops or Berol Hortons in Coventry on a Saturday, and the shelves would be arrayed with different printing papers; Different sizes, different grades, different brands; colour or black and white; even Cibachrome. Film? From three in a pack cheapo colour print, through to super-slow slide, or high-speed black and white, from at least five or six brands... and THEN there was what was in the fridge; 30m rolls, 15m rolls. In different speed ratings, and emulsions, colour, black and white, or slide. And the chemicals to process them; similarly from different brands, in different recipes, different forms, powder, concentrate, ready-mixed; individual bottles, to process 'kits', in different volumes. They were an Aladdin's cave, I could spend hours sifting through the shelves in! And that was without looking in the glass-fronts, trying to find interesting OM or M42 fit bits of glass!

Those shops aren't there any more; or if they are, they don't have the same range of stock; if ANY to support film.

Sad to admit it, but it IS an obsolete medium to invest in.

And THAT has to colour perception. These days, you can pick up high end, manual focus film cameras, for relative peanuts. Due to the obsolescence, the inconvenience and the running costs; proffessional level full-frame 35mm cameras, that had list prices in the thousands, quarter of a century or more ago, might be procured for double digits! 1/3 the price of a contemprary entry level DSLR.

A lot of people then, sampling film cameras are sampling 'the best', and comparing it to the 'cheapest'... Be like buying a 1965 E-Type Jaguar... because its old and cheap and doesn't have ABS brakes.... and comparing it to a Kia!

Easy then to be 'impressed' by film, if you have in your hand an old Nikon, Cannon or Olympus or Richoc, and feel the weight, and solidity and precise mechanical engineering, and look at photo's taken through high grade glass....

Pick up an old Practika.... or worse a Chinon! I think those things were actually made by Airfix!... You'd probably be slightly less impressed! Those cheap and cheerful 35mm cameras, though were the mainstay of the market; as four Digit Nikons & Cannon DSLR's are now, and so invaluable, even when film wasn't obsolete, most have probably found their way to land-fill by now... not collectors cabinets!

I mean, my Nikon D3200, entry-level DSLR probably cost as much this Christmas in 'Mars-bar' pro-rata reckoning of inflation, as much as a Praktika ML would have in 1985..... if I had been using one of them for the last 30 years, rather than OM's, then, believe me, where the OM's are packed neatly on a shelf in plastic bags, since I got the Nikon.... a Praktika would have been in the bin before I had tidied up the wrapping paper after opening up the Nikon box!

Bottom line is... there's no Digital vs Film... there's film... there's digital. Both have their place. Both have their own attractions, pro's and cons, and there's a place for most things, (perhaps not Chinons though:LOL:), in photography; its a matter of appreciating what and where its appropriate, and enjoying thing for what they are.
 
Teflon-Mike said:
I mean, my Nikon D3200, entry-level DSLR probably cost as much this Christmas in 'Mars-bar' pro-rata reckoning of inflation, as much as a Praktika ML would have in 1985.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly.

I too have a D3200 which I paid £289 for (not quite new). I can't believe that ten years ago I paid £1300 for a D100.


Steve.
 
Mike,

I'll read your post over the coming days hahaha!

I had a funny turn last night. Before bed I'd just rearranged my set of Olympus OM bodies on display, found a nice lens to put on ebay and thought I should shoot DSLR and MF lenses this weekend. We'll see.


Teflon-Mike said:
My first 'Digital' pictures date back to about 1995. Scanned from prints, on a 486 PC.. took all bludy weekend to scan two packs of pics!

For me; then; still pretty new to more 'enthusiast' photography; I think I'd had an SLR five years; Digital DID seem like the future... the DISTANT future judging by how long it took to get a photo into bytes!

That was a pack of holiday snaps I'd taken at an OU summer-school for an IT course I was doing; pics were posted to the course' bulletin board... fore-runner of modern forums...

WOW! Well... apart from even longer delays from people trying to down-load them through 56K dial-up modems! (even though they were re-sized down to about 300K!)

Yup; instant and almost nil cost reproduction & distribution, better still, almost zero space.... well... err... potentially... I had to buy a bulk pack of 3.25" floppies to 'save' that set of photo's! (one per ruddy disc!) Took up more physical space than the two packets of prints... BUT... on the hard drive... a wopping 120Mb one! Almost instant access and retrieval; no more hunting through the albums on the shelves or the shoe-boxes under the bed for the ones that didn't make it to the album!

Nearly twenty years on?

Well, Facebook! All those snaps are now slowly making their way up there, where they can be viewed by the folks in them or interested in them.

As for the cameras? Well.... back in 2000 I decided that the Digital SLR's of the day were not showing so much promise, and they certainly weren't, to my mind, worth the money for the convenience... and that is a BIG part of the equation... convenience.

Having just taken a redundancy package and walked straight into another job, without a break in pay-cheque; my little treat to 'me' I decided was not going to be a new camera, film or digital; I splurged nearly £500 on a dedicated SCSI film scanner.....

So for me, its never been one of the other; its always been a means to an end; its the PICTURE that matters, and making pictures that have a reason... to be seen!

The physical nature of film and prints, is inherently limiting; they take up physical space; they have to be physically transported; handled, moved, touched... its a very 'tactile' medium... and that does have a certain tactile attraction, but it is not particularly convenient. Digital is.

So for the larger part, most of my photo's if they are to have any purpose, and be seen, are going to be digital. Especially as technology has started to catch up, and the media expanded, with broad-band now in almost every home, of not every-one's pocket! And viewing devices for people to access and see MY photo's 'on demand'!

Prints can still be nice, but, I have one photo of my kids on the mantlepiece... I have THOUSANDS of photo's on Facebook!

Does it matter all THAT much then what the primary capture medium is?

The viewing media will be decided by the subject and interest of the photo... is it one for facebook or photobucket? Or one for the wall?

OK... so cameras. For two decades, my first-line camera was an Olympus AX2 compact. For a 35mm camera it was tiny, easy to use, and took great pictures, and particularly good for candids... people didn't suspect you were pointing a camera at them!

2003 that was retired by a point & shoot digital compact, when they fell to under £100 for something with more than 1Mpix. For the job, it was 'adequete'. For more creative or challenging photo's I still had the Olympus OM's. To my mind, these are 'Fast-Foto' cameras.

Manual focus, zoom lenses, (I never got so far ahead, as to get into AF Film) the OM's though were superb work-horse cameras for their day, with a very good aperture priority metering system, that provided you remembered it was only an 'aid' to photo-taking, your assistant in exposure, not your master; would let you concentrate on framing and composition and getting the shots, not effing about with f-stops.

Convenience...... and since prices have fallen sufficiently, and performance increased sufficiently for it to be worth while, now; I have the Nikon D3200, to do the job the OM's used to. 'Fast-Foto', made faster being straight to pixels, as well as auto-bloomin-EVERYTHING!

For slightly more 'considered' photography; when I could afford to take my time; I have a Sigma MK1 M42 'Richoch' copy. Fully manual, metal shutter; coupled TTL meter... with a bag of primes; this is 'Slo-Foto'. Not as slow perhaps as a plate camera, or as limiting, having the versatility of interchangeable lenses, but, more 'considered'. More 'Tactile'.

Less convenience... more satisfaction... but still a photo at the end of the day.

So... horses for courses.

I have few pretensions about the artistic merit of my photo's. I'm not taking pictures for club exhibition or competition; agency sale, or commercial purposes. My photo's are for the most part for me and mine; memories; whatever interests me and may interest folk I know or who have similar interests.

I have lots of photo's of rock-bands; more of various motorsport; rallying, scrambling, trials riding, road-racing; Land-Rover or motorcyle rallys; shows, or other 'events'. Family parties. Holidays; Days out; museums; activities, and gawd knows what! A diverse and wide range of subjects and situations.

Some, probably a lot, suit 'fast-foto' cameras. Sure I could shoot a motorbike race with a 35mm fixed lens compact... but wouldn't get many frame filling action shots. That camera is better suited to candids and 'chance' scenes. Could use the Sigma. But, probably loose a lot of pictures faffing about swapping between primes and adjusting shutter settings. Scenario 'suits' fast photo camera, the OM.. but the Nikon offers even more 'convenience'.

Parties, Family events? Could rock up with the old OM's... bit of over-kill and rather obtrusive! The old XA2 would do the job rather well, but little digi-compact? Just as unobtrusive, just as slip in the pocket handy... and a lot more convenient shooting straight to pixels.

Motorbike Show? Subjects aren't likely to move; have all the time in the world to shoot them... though could be fighting for shoulder room... compact might be more appropriate then... but, if I have the time and the space, going slo-foto and using the Sigma and Ziess 50? Could get some rather nice shots... certainly be satisfying... BUT.... digital on Manual, maybe even the old primes on adapter mount? Could have a similar tactile experience... with convenience of the equivalent of a single chip in my pocket that is worth 300 films of any rating I might want!

Working through the scenario's; between Digital SLR and a compact; there's not a LOT that cant be done with them, or done better with a film camera, 'just' because it's film...

The 'enthusiasm' here of the novelty is rather like, twenty odd years ago; having come straight into 'enthusiast' photography, via 'fast-foto' SLR, I was introduced to antique 120 roll-film cameras, and ultimately to high-end Medium format..... the equipment demanding more diligence, a greater empathy, and a more considered aproach to photo-taking.... 'Slo-foto'.

Mentioned in a post earlier actually; I was loaned a Hassablad, once by a chap convinced he would 'convert' me to Medium Format... that the image quality would blow me away. Yup, it was pretty impressive, I have to admit, BUT, horses for courses. Not a camera I would lug to a race track or wave around at a party, and certainly be unlikely to get the same results with... great for studio work or very considered landscapes and other 'arty' pictures... but NOT the be all and end all of photography.

Horses for courses... and for me, thirty years of film? Sorry, but its no novelty!

Yeah, I still enjoy the tactile nature of the medium, particularly going 'slo-foto' with the Sigma, or perhaps pulling out the old bellows 120 press camera.... WHERE it may be 'appropriate'...

But it is JUST another avenue within the interest.

And... hmm... well.... that digi, with a 16Gb SD card, every film I might ever want, swappable frame by frame... that's a LOT of convenience.

Nice that I can still get film to run through either the 35mm or 120 cameras... but? I have watched the availability and choice SHRINK.

I have archive binders for slide, for black and white, for colour. In them the range of emulsions I have used has covered film speeds from 25ASA up to 1600ASA, with for some daft reason some obscure ratings, usually by Kodak... like 64 or 1000. Cheap, croatian 'bulk' I wound into my own cassettes, often pull or push processed in chemicals I could pick up from a shop on my way home from work.

I could walk into Jessops or Berol Hortons in Coventry on a Saturday, and the shelves would be arrayed with different printing papers; Different sizes, different grades, different brands; colour or black and white; even Cibachrome. Film? From three in a pack cheapo colour print, through to super-slow slide, or high-speed black and white, from at least five or six brands... and THEN there was what was in the fridge; 30m rolls, 15m rolls. In different speed ratings, and emulsions, colour, black and white, or slide. And the chemicals to process them; similarly from different brands, in different recipes, different forms, powder, concentrate, ready-mixed; individual bottles, to process 'kits', in different volumes. They were an Aladdin's cave, I could spend hours sifting through the shelves in! And that was without looking in the glass-fronts, trying to find interesting OM or M42 fit bits of glass!

Those shops aren't there any more; or if they are, they don't have the same range of stock; if ANY to support film.

Sad to admit it, but it IS an obsolete medium to invest in.

And THAT has to colour perception. These days, you can pick up high end, manual focus film cameras, for relative peanuts. Due to the obsolescence, the inconvenience and the running costs; proffessional level full-frame 35mm cameras, that had list prices in the thousands, quarter of a century or more ago, might be procured for double digits! 1/3 the price of a contemprary entry level DSLR.

A lot of people then, sampling film cameras are sampling 'the best', and comparing it to the 'cheapest'... Be like buying a 1965 E-Type Jaguar... because its old and cheap and doesn't have ABS brakes.... and comparing it to a Kia!

Easy then to be 'impressed' by film, if you have in your hand an old Nikon, Cannon or Olympus or Richoc, and feel the weight, and solidity and precise mechanical engineering, and look at photo's taken through high grade glass....

Pick up an old Practika.... or worse a Chinon! I think those things were actually made by Airfix!... You'd probably be slightly less impressed! Those cheap and cheerful 35mm cameras, though were the mainstay of the market; as four Digit Nikons & Cannon DSLR's are now, and so invaluable, even when film wasn't obsolete, most have probably found their way to land-fill by now... not collectors cabinets!

I mean, my Nikon D3200, entry-level DSLR probably cost as much this Christmas in 'Mars-bar' pro-rata reckoning of inflation, as much as a Praktika ML would have in 1985..... if I had been using one of them for the last 30 years, rather than OM's, then, believe me, where the OM's are packed neatly on a shelf in plastic bags, since I got the Nikon.... a Praktika would have been in the bin before I had tidied up the wrapping paper after opening up the Nikon box!

Bottom line is... there's no Digital vs Film... there's film... there's digital. Both have their place. Both have their own attractions, pro's and cons, and there's a place for most things, (perhaps not Chinons though:LOL:), in photography; its a matter of appreciating what and where its appropriate, and enjoying thing for what they are.
Click to expand...
 
I'll wait until Mike's response comes out in paperback before I read it!!!

I swing wildly between my use of film and digital. The first half of last year I barely used my DSLR, just used my Fuji X10 compact and film. Since then though, my film SLR's have barely been used, and my DSLR has taken some hammer.

Sometimes the convenience of a DSLR is, well, more convenient. Much of my photography these days is of my young daughter, and often goes on Facebook for the family to see. In those circumstances, film isn't my preferred medium, as a fast moving toddler in mixed light, often indoors, is easy for a Nikon D700. If I miss focus, or miss the target, I just delete and move on without having to pay for it.

However, I do enjoy using film for everything else, primarily my industrial stuff. I just don't have much time currently to indulge in wandering round old mills and abandoned quarries:(
 
Do yourself a favour and take at least a few of the youngling on film it's got a pretty good back up mechanism inherent in the system. I would have lost six months of the oldest had i not been playing with film at the same time as the dslr.
 
Digital does allow you to take far more shots than film, for most people anyway. Is this a good thing or not? I think, on balance, it's probably good. It can encourage you to spray and pray, hoping some good images will come out of it, but it also speeds up the learning process for beginners and experimenters, and you don't actually have to do this. You can be just as conservative with digital as film, if you prefer to. I don't take thousands, or even hundreds, of photographs as a rule; but I do like the feeling of knowing that I'm not going to run out of film if I have an opportunity that's unlikely to come up again.

Another thing crossed my mind when I was reading this thread. We only had about half a dozen photographs of us together before we were married, taken at Sinoia in Rhodesia in 1976. The processors ruined the film when I got home, which in was Hong Kong at the time, and gave me a replacement but obviously didn't offer to pay for two air tickets so that we could go back! That wouldn't have happened with digital, because I'd have a backup of the files.

I'll carry on using digital for travel, and film for the sheer pleasure of using my old mechanical SLRs.
 
I use both for travel, digital for speed (and low light past ISO1600), film for leisure, and various other uses.

They both have their place, I have shots I am content with from both mediums - my DSLR definitely doesn't get as much use as it should, but at the same time I can never understand how people end up with 200,000 actuations on a body after 2 years!
 
skysh4rk said:
The accumulation of thousands of photos is one of the reasons why I don't enjoy digital as much. I end up running around taking any and every shot numerous times.

With my film cameras, I find the shot that I want, take it, and then move on. A few days later I have a dozen or so unique shots from a roll of 120 that I'm more likely to print.

That said, I acknowledge that the flexibility for shooting thousands of photographs would be more important to me if I were shooting more sport, were getting paid, or had a deadline.
Click to expand...

Sectionate said:
This is what I am hoping that using film will teach me take control of!
Click to expand...

This is not so much a difference between Digital & Film as Slo-Foto & Fast-Foto, Nature of the subject, the photographer's approach, and level of discipline.

I have just found a 'cash' of negs from a Rock-Gig I shot in 1992..... on film.

The 'set' had been uploaded to FB a year or so back; I'd found the B&W's and Slides & When I found a couple of sheets of Print... thought that was the lot... about 120 frames, of which approx 80 were worth showing... maybe four of five 'good' ones.

When I got the Nikon at Christmas, was invited to a gig at Coalville. Thought it would be a nice chance to put it through its paces; so took it along and shot a set. Came home with 240 frames.....

Ha... That's Digital... stick it on continuous, fire away.... twice the number of pics.... pick the best... 60 made it to FB, maybe half a dozen 'goodn's'

Yeah...... I have just scanned about another six pages/films worth of 'lost' shots from that gig in 1993! Another 200 frames or so! (I THINK that has to be the lot!)

And as I burrow into the halide archive, I'm catching myself out with this more and more often.... finding pages of negs to add to a set; some of them are PRETTY big, and often as big or bigger than similar sets shot on Digital in the last ten years!

On Film SLR, I ran two bodies, both with winders; one loaded with B&W the other with Slide or CP, then the compact as back-up & for grabs.

"Machine Gunning"... was just as possible then, as now. Wasn't as common; Fewer people had cameras, fewer still 'fancy; cameras, even fewer so keen to have two or three of them, and mounted on motor-drives!

Ah... where's my rose tinted spex.... or even, my Zodiac Mindwarp X-Ray-Spex....lol!

Looking back at some of those Rock-Gigs I shot in the 90's; small venue's, college bands.... There weren't THAT many places to go see live music back then; we had to hunt them out. Big Bands played Stadiums; pubs had duke-boxes... Oh how things have changed! 'The 'Grape-Vine'... how often did we find out about a gig from some-one at college coming in with a fly-poster torn from a notice-board! Or turning up 'on spec' at the 'Tic-Toc' to see IF they would open the doors, and if they did, whether a band would turn up!

Dont REALLY want to say this... but THANK-YOU, Simon Cowell... you may have made Top of the Pops an instrument of torture..... and The X-factor possibly ought to be banned under the Human Rights act and the Geniva Convention..... BUT.... all the Rock-Wannabees, trying to show-case thier 'Tallent'... drive past my local now, and instead of a Banner advertising big screen SKY TV for the 'big match'... there's now a chalk-board, advertising three nights of live music! And Facebook! Dont have to 'hope' some-one is going to rush in with a fly-poster, I get 'invites' from venues and bands and other folk! I actually have CHOICE of who to strain my ears this weekend!

Back to cameras.... where was I? Oh yes... weren't many around; and certainly a lot less so 'keen'.

Those rare college gigs in the '90's. Some of the groupies mught have a 110 instamatic in thier hand-bag, for when they went autograph hunting. But you didn't see many with cameras. Might have been one other SLR in the room.

Think that the most cameras I ever saw at one Gig, was when Girlschool played Milton-Keynes Poly.... The camera club turned up.... there were four lads at the front with college Pentax K1000's on tripods in front of the stage, looking rather appauled, I was 'hand-holding'...

Go down my local, these days; there's a couple of lads pointing DSLR's at the 'stage'; two or three girls pointing zoom compacts at them, and a dozen of more camera-phones being waved around..... the music AND photography is SO much more accessible these days....

Those camera-club lads at Milton-Keynes; Pentax's on Tripods; one asked how I could expect to get sharp shots hand-holding; I said I was using fast film... he said he was too.. they had bought a 15m length of Ilford 400 for the evening! I was shooting Fuji 1600, pushed to 3200!

The kit I had in my bag, was, pretty impressive. I had film, and lots of it. And fast. VERY fast. This let me use zooms, probably a stop or two slower on aperture than the nifty-fiftys on the Camera-Club Pentax's; also meant my focusing didn't have to be 'so' critical, as I had some more DoF, and I could frame tight on subject, where even from front of stage, a 50 was pretty much framing the whole stage. And with winders, I could machine gun, and take lots of pics 'on spec'.

This way of working, back then, was not impossible, just uncommon, and expensive. But it IS the way people commonly work NOW, because the entry level DSLR of today, puts, for a couple of hundred quid, every gadget and gizmo and every roll of film I had in my camera bag back then, in the palm of your hand. Geez! Even a cheap compact puts a lot of it there!

Now, when I did a photo-course; we were set challenges, and one of them was to head out, 'Old-School' with a roll of slow B&W, one lens, and no meter, so we had to slow down, and think about and plan our shots, and assess them fully.

It is a discipline, and not a bad one. But the lesson is to aquire that level of THOUGHT and planning, and attension to detail, and to apply that to ALL photography; it's not supposed to teach you that the only photography worth doing is 'slow-foto'! Unfortunately, though that is what many people take away from it.

The concervatism, inherent in film photography; the disipline required, to over come the challenges posed by the ecconomics of cost per frame; manual by the impediment of fixed film speed per roll; by the more tedius manual processes of manual frame advance, manual focus and manual setting selection, and often manual metering, and possibly, more limited framing curtecy of fixed focal length prime lenses or limited range, slow aperture zooms....

Present challenges... and I would say, present challenges 'sooner' than with a Digital Camera, buit I suppose, it would be better to say, challenges that are more demanding to over come, requiring more thought and effort than just pressing a button to change a setting!

A lot of the enthusiasm from folk discovering film, is fired as much by imagination and horizons being opened up, facing these more demanding challenges and HAVING to think more carefully about how to do stuff to over come them.

But the 'true' lesson remains; that degree of thought and level of discipline can be applied to ALL photography.

And within ALL photography, back to what I was saying before; there's no Film vs Digital argument; There is film and there is digital; there's slo-foto and there is fast-foto, and there are many ways to skin a cat; its about using what is APROPRIATE for the situation & subject.

And to remember it is ONLY a means to an end... what counts at the end of the day, is the PHOTO... not really how you got it.
 
Sure, use what's most appropriate for the situation, depending what you have available.

I don't find the spray and pray criticism of digital photography very compelling. You could do this in the film days with a motor drive, and Nikon offered a 250 exposure back, but most people didn't have this sort of gear and couldn't afford the film either. Just about every DSLR has motor drive built in and film costs aren't an issue, but you don't have to use it indiscriminately. You can treat the DSLR like a film SLR if you want to, and even tell yourself you only have 24 or 36 exposures before you have to 'reload'. I don't do this, but I hardly ever use continuous mode either. It's not necessary, or even useful, for most of what I do.

Pros do what is necessary to get the shots they need. Amateurs have the luxury of being able to do as they please, whether it's necessary or not.
 
Two different tools for two different purposes, I use digi for when i don't want to carry much with me or if i need high ISO and I use film for when i want to try something different or for the quality of shooting 6x7 or 6x9 slide.
 
I was bitten with the photography bug after doing a course in college, it's been downhill since there. Film is my proper passion, but for some environments (weddings, low light, underwater!) digital has its merits, and to not use the digital cameras I have would be ridiculous. Film always seems like the more exciting option though, as you never know what you're going to get. Especially with my ropey skill level :D
 
I started off with digital, eventually got into film photography via a Mamiya RB67 and now have settled on 4x5 and 8x10 large format. Since shooting large format, I've bought and sold two D700s, a D90 and an Fuji X-Pro 1. I have a Sony RX100 just so I have some kind of point and shoot with me for those occasions but that's it for digital.

If I'm going out specifically to take photographs, I simply can't imagine using anything other than large format now. Like Woodsy says above, what's the point of using anything else? Obviously, this doesn't go for everyone!

But it's not even about the unbeatable quality of large format, for me it's the whole process of shooting with large format and film. I love every step of the journey. I've started contact printing 8x10 negatives and I find it hard to believe you can better an 8x10 contact print (unless, of course, it's an 11x14 contact print!). It is a beautiful thing.

Film and large format has changed the way I take photographs entirely. When I press the shutter release, I know exactly what I'm going to get when I get home to develop it. It might not always work as an image but the negative I develop will be exactly how I visualised it when I was capturing the image.

It's also narrowed down the kind of subject I now shoot and I don't see this as a bad thing. I capture images I'm really, genuinely interested looking at.
 
If I am ever out and about taking photographs for pleasure I will always take either the RB67 or preferably my 4x5 because of the types of photos I like to take, with the digital as a back up. For family type photos however digital is very convenient and useful but I still prefer a nice 6x6 on Tri-x or Portra whenever possible.

Nothing wrong with digital at all but, to me anyway, using it is nowhere as enjoyable as film.
 
Teflon-Mike said:
And to remember it is ONLY a means to an end... what counts at the end of the day, is the PHOTO... not really how you got it.
Click to expand...

Nonsense!

I do photography for my own enjoyment so I do every stage of the process the way I want to do it. i.e. the way I prefer to do it.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Nonsense!

I do photography for my own enjoyment so I do every stage of the process the way I want to do it. i.e. the way I prefer to do it.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. I love the start to finish process of film and still get a tingle of excitement when the print appears in the developer.
 
Teflon-Mike said:
And to remember it is ONLY a means to an end... what counts at the end of the day, is the PHOTO... not really how you got it.
Click to expand...

Steve Smith said:
Nonsense!
I do photography for my own enjoyment so I do every stage of the process the way I want to do it. i.e. the way I prefer to do it.
Steve.
Click to expand...

Well... if you want to get all zen about it... "the tea does not care how many times you turned the pot before you poured"

Back to what's 'appropriate' for the task.. starts with pondering "What IS the task?"

I ride motorbikes. Destination, ultimately, is always the same. Back Home..... hopefully! So what's the 'Point'? Well, point may be to get to work in between leaving and returning. Might be to pick something up from the shops. Or meet a few friends at a pub. Utterly perversely... might even be to go to some old quarry, ride around very slowly in front of some geeza with a clip-board trying not to laugh, over rather large rocks or logs on devious slopes, trying not to put a foot down or fall off and bend bits of bike.... merely for the satisfaction of a bit of paper through the letter box a week later that says "Mike - Montesa - DNF" again!

Primary function of a motorcycle is as a conveyance. A tool of transport. I might ride it more for 'fun' than any 'need' to get somewhere; but that is to invest other 'objectives' over and above its primary purpose, which remains a mode of transport.

Cameras take photos. And we get an end product from them. A Picture. That is their primary function, whatever secondary interests in the act of using them we may have, and how much we may value that in comparison to the actual product of that endeavor.

What we are left with when all the shouting is over is a photograph.

Another lesson, perhaps, beyond slo-foto 'discipline'... to think about your 'objective', as well as your subject, as well as your technical 'craft'.
 
If the objective is just to create a photograph, then why shoot film at all ?


No, the objective is to shoot a photograph on film, that's what F&C is about, and for that, digital is completely useless.
There is no Zen, no slofoto, you shoot how you want, machine gun or wait 3 weeks, whatever the subject, there is no choice, it has to be film..



...because this is F&C.:banana:
 
joxby said:
If the objective is just to create a photograph, then why shoot film at all ?
Click to expand...

Because..... My 12mm fish-eye wont fit my digital camera..... and I can buy a LOT of film for the price of a Samyang lens!;)

Because...... my Olympus XA offers full-frame resolution, but is as small and inconspicuous as a digi-compact.

Because...... well.. you have to take that "just" out and ask what other objectives there mat be, dont you?
 
Last edited:
Sorry Teflon-Mike but I think you seem to get to deep for the subject mate.

I'm glad your digging the fim as I am but wow
 
Well I suppose life itself is simply "a means to an end" but damn it, I'd like to enjoy some part along the way :D
 
Teflon-Mike said:
Because..... My 12mm fish-eye wont fit my digital camera..... and I can buy a LOT of film for the price of a Samyang lens!;)

Because...... my Olympus XA offers full-frame resolution, but is as small and inconspicuous as a digi-compact.

Because...... well.. you have to take that "just" out and ask what other objectives there mat be, dont you?
Click to expand...


Well I think you're talking circumstance not objectives.

Business isn't a consideration because that has external pressures, you shoot to a customer brief, they couldn't care less what material you use so it makes business sense to use the most economical method.

That is objective driven, object is to put food on the table.

Some peeps use film and digital side by side, I dunno but I'd wager in reality anyone who enjoys the challenge of film doesn't stick themselves with a 50/50 coin toss to decide which to use, I'd expect it to be much clearer cut than that.

The objective only has to be vaguely achievable with film because we all know its possible with digital, but
1. that ain't no challenge.
2. it'll look like everything else digital, soulessly synthetic and..
3....destined to die on a hard drive before it was born.

Film and digital make fundamentally different things.

Maybe the objective is just to enjoy whatever you shoot.:)
 
Joeturner11 said:
Personally I love my Digital DSLR for my wildlife, Birding, Sport photography and like using my Film Camera for landscape, urban and street work
Click to expand...

Very nice statement.(y)
 
PMN said:
I don't quite understand your point here, are you saying most people don't actually think of what they're trying to achieve when they press the shutter release? :thinking:
Click to expand...

I don't, my dad didn't when he did some semi macro in low light in auto mode so low f number...

with digital its why not take a picture. With film its why take a picture, its a more considered aproach, specialy with a full manual camera
and its more enjoyable, typically. I think its partly like a game, film is like a harder mode, or being more sporting.

you can just shoot digital like film, but then your just gimping yourself for no real gain...

oh and I wouldn't do timelapse with a film camera :bonk:
 
pingu666 said:
with digital its why not take a picture. With film its why take a picture, its a more considered aproach, specialy with a full manual camera and its more enjoyable, typically.
Click to expand...

I understand your point and I know many would agree but I think there's a bit of a tendency for film shooters to assume all digital guys do is machine gun stacks of images and hope one of them kinda turns out alright, as someone with one foot very firmly in digital and the other well and truly planted in analogue I know that's really not the case. I'm still thinking the same way when shooting digital and I'll try shoot what I want by nailing the image I want in 1 or 2 frames rather than firing off 30 and hoping one is somewhere near, and I know there are plenty of others who have a similarly considered approach on digital.
 
Last edited:
PMN said:
I understand your point and I know many would agree but I think there's a bit of a tendency for film shooters to assume all digital guys do is machine gun stacks of images and hope one of them kinda turns out alright, as someone with one foot very firmly in digital and the other well and truly planted in analogue I know that's really not the case. I'm still thinking the same way when shooting digital and I'll try shoot what I want by nailing the image I want in 1 or 2 frames rather than firing off 30 and hoping one is somewhere near, and I know there are plenty of others who have a similarly considered approach on digital.
Click to expand...

^^ THIS ^^

For example i wandered around town the other evening with a D50 and only rattled off 13 frames of 9 different subjects , purposely selecting what shot I wanted and the way in which I wished to capture them.
I basically shot with a similar attitutde to how i shoot film.
 
Sure, some digital users do machine gun. But the vast majority don't, and the only difference is they might take another shot after reviewing their first shot and seeing it wasn't up to scratch - wouldn't you do that, if you had the opportunity? As much as I enjoy film, and the waiting on the results, there are frames that I have reviewed (post development), where another exposure, or bracketing the frame would've been great in hindsight.

Silly statements like that is what makes digital users think film users are somewhat up themselves, when in reality a large number of us shoot in both formats.
 
I went out with my D7000+300mm VR lens the other week and came back with one picture of a green finch !
 
freecom2 said:
Silly statements like that is what makes digital users think film users are somewhat up themselves, when in reality a large number of us shoot in both formats.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much exactly what I wanted to say, maybe I should have just said it in plain English! :LOL:
 
PMN said:
That's pretty much exactly what I wanted to say, maybe I should have just said it in plain English! :LOL:
Click to expand...

Maybe you should have, would avoid discombobulating the good folks of F&C :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top