why do you shoot digital... film is so much better!

Demonstrate this by posting some examples.
 
Eventually if I only ever view my photo's on my PC Digital will pay for itself? (Maybe)
 
Immediacy (I don't usually FTT...). I can have an A3 print in my hands 5 minutes after pressing the shutter release - the fastest D&P I've come across for film is 30 minutes and that's only for 6x4 prints from 35mm.

I stuck with film for a while alongside digital because I love wide angles and FF wasn't affordable. Still tempted by a MF kit but keep managing to resist GAS!
 
errrmmm.....

really? I'm positive you don't need it spelled out ;)
 
You are a bad person young donut....love it. Revenge is a dish best served cold.
 
viewfromthenorth said:
Wow, film vs digital - have I stepped back in time to a discussion thread from 2001?
Click to expand...

Yes. In five years' time, there will be no film left (as they said twelve years ago).

EDIT: What happened?... Is this a new thread with the same title?... Who am I?... Where am I?


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
If that's all you do, you don't need a D7000. Something with about a million pixels will do.


Steve.
Click to expand...

I have actually been thinking about that and totally agree with you, well not quite 1 million pixels, thinking of a D70 would be enough tbh :)
 
Ivan S said:
I have actually been thinking about that and totally agree with you, well not quite 1 million pixels, thinking of a D70 would be enough tbh :)
Click to expand...

There was a thread on here a few years ago asking how many people printed their pictures. At least half said that they only viewed them on websites or on their monitors or digital frames.

I thought it was odd that a lot of them had to have the latest multi mega pixel cameras (whatever they were then).


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
There was a thread on here a few years ago asking how many people printed their pictures. At least half said that they only viewed them on websites or on their monitors or digital frames.

I thought it was odd that a lot of them had to have the latest multi mega pixel cameras (whatever they were then).


Steve.
Click to expand...

What gobsmacks me are the people who feel the need to 'prove' they did the right thing buying a £5000 camera by showing off a 800 pixel wide photo, cracks me up - lost on them:shrug:

I actually print very little (for myself), but at least some of my stuff sees the light of day printed large.
 
There is no better or worse in my little opinion its completely different, for me with Film its the kit, its old its cranky, its wonderfully made, it makes some lovely noises and sometimes smells funny, batteries melt in your hands and set the cameras on fire....woah

you can have some smart fun for hardly any pennies. !
 
As I believe has already been said elsewhere....

So, to boil it down to the basics

Film is great, digital is great and it doesn't matter what you use so long as you enjoy it and get the images from it that satisfy your needs.End of subject, class dismissed, go out and take some photos.
 
Because I have only ever known digital. I started with a DSLR just over 2 years ago and all my cameras before that were either digital P&S or camera phones.

I've never learnt film processing because I've never had to.

Now I'm into photography as a hobby, I don't often get the time to shoot (especially as now we have our first on the way and are buying a new house) and when I do, I'd prefer to be out with the camera than in a dark room processing film and keeping my digital PP time to those spare late night 30mins when the missus has gone to bed.

I'm not saying digital is better than film (or vice versa) but what I am saying is digital is better for me.
 
My first camera was film a cheap and cheerful point and shoot since then I've had digtial I love how digital gives you the option to see wht your photo looks like instantly meaning less wasted time/film if the shot isn't what you wanted.

However in the future I would love to have a go a shooting with film properly and developing the film I guess it would give a real sense of achivment. The touble is I wouldn't even wno where to start.
 
SThornton said:
I'm not saying digital is better than film (or vice versa) but what I am saying is digital is better for me.
Click to expand...

that sums it up perfectly Scot ,but some of us change the d word for an f word

so why is it that people keep coming into our little fusty and crusty bit telling us we're all mad and should be using a digital

we do it because , WE LIKE IT




nuff said
 
i think i might have made a spellimg mistake in the thread title :D
 
I like both film and digital, but for an everyday camera, I find that digital is more realistic and convenient.
The thing about film, is that it takes time - lots of time, but the results can be excellent. I also love cameras from the sixties/seventies, and think the Spotmatics and Nikkormats were superbly engineered.
If I was to try and explain photography to a novice, then I would get a fully manual SLR, and show them how the aperture and shutter affect the light and the depth of field. They would be able to see the lens diaphram opening and closing, and the shutter working - very difficult/impossible with a DSLR.
However, I also believe that digital photography has encouraged people to be far more creative than the old days, and has been responsible for many more people taking up photography.
 
things move on, film is out digital is in. who now uses a slide rule instead of an electronic calculator? Who still uses clockwork watches now instead of self winding or battery ones?

Only Luddites do
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top