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

Cagey75 said:
Digital has well surpassed the quality of film in general. Nobody should have to argue why.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. Digital just cannot be beaten in the things that matter like resolution or dynamic range...

Errr... Wait a minute... Yes, it very well can ;)
 
Oh I dunno, you don't think artsy fartsy elitist is a bit too strong to be actually serious...lol....he's missed out being irresistible to girls and some camp dancers, so :shrug:


Anyway oojymadoodah shoots wildlife on film.

Errrr......I've forgot......no its Brandt, Nick Brandt, he shoots a Pentax 67, so not even 35mm.
Granted, they ain't sea eagles diving at 100mph freeze frames, but there's a lot to "wildlife".
He's exhibiting in Landan you lucky southern jessies, so go see.

October 21 - November 10 2013
ATLAS GALLERY AT 28 CORK STREET, LONDON
“ACROSS THE RAVAGED LAND”


Nick Brandt Africa

wow,^ some big ole prints in there..:cool:
 
Cagey75 said:
Digital has well surpassed the quality of film in general. Nobody should have to argue why. If you love dilm, good for you. Why the need to moan and whine against digital because of it? It's just another artsy fartsy thing wannabe elitists do.
Click to expand...

This thread continues to deliver :) :) :)
 
Cagey75 said:
Digital has well surpassed the quality of film in general. Nobody should have to argue why. If you love dilm, good for you. Why the need to moan and whine against digital because of it? It's just another artsy fartsy thing wannabe elitists do.
Click to expand...

It's like those artsy fartsy musicians with their crappy old stradavaroiuses innit. That bloke from ELO had an electric violin that could sound like a trumpet! That's well mint.
 
essexash said:
It's like those artsy fartsy musicians with their crappy old stradavaroiuses innit. That bloke from ELO had an electric violin that could sound like a trumpet! That's well mint.
Click to expand...

....:LOL:

As a musician whose first instrument was a traditional violin I absolutely love the sound of the electric violin and so wish it was an option back in the 1960s when I learnt to play (badly!). I play another instrument now (well, I'm told).

Are we to assume that you also think that the electric guitar is an abomination and plays the music of the devil - Well, if it doesn't, it's not being played properly. Cue for some AC/DC music such as "Rock N Roll Train" at River Plate gig.

Musical instruments and cameras make a good analogy - Everyone should either play or use the one which resonates with them and which inspires them the most. Is that too "artsy fartsy"?
 
This is the thread that keeps on giving. A lot of things have been said by a lot of people, and I am glad that everyone has been able to finally agree that film is best.

Seriously though one set of converts will never really be able to convince the other that theirs is best as you get used to working with your preferred medium, taking advantage of the good things and working around the bad ones.

It's still good crack though.
 
What's the "chops"

I can't play this violin or shoot a camera because I have the chops...lol


can you get some cream for it or something
 
I seem to recall Bob Dylan being shouted at and called Judas when he switched from acoustic to electric.

Quite right....splitter
 
Steve said:
I seem to recall Bob Dylan being shouted at and called Judas when he switched from acoustic to electric.
Click to expand...

....And I remember thinking what stick-in-the-muds those narrow-minded folks shouting were.
 
srichards said:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm is worth reading. Film is way ahead of digital on resolution still.

My normal scans from the minolta are 5400 dpi or 36mp which nikon have only just reached with their FF camera.


Ken says:

To scan most of the detail on a 35mm photo, you'll need about 864 x 0.1, or 87 Megapixels.

But wait: each film pixel represents true R, G and B data, not the softer Bayer interpolated data from digital camera sensors. A single-chip 87 MP digital camera still couldn't see details as fine as a piece of 35mm film.

Such a shame film is a total faff compared to digital.
Click to expand...

http://blog.bahneman.com/content/ken-rockwell-facts
 
What takes little effort to obtain, is often of little value; that which is hard to obtain, is frequently prized

With digital, it is very easy to take photos. Taking 'good' photo's still takes effort, and is difficult, and thefore they still have value; but to do it with film? Can be more of a challenge, and therfore to get ANYTHING ultimately more rewarding.

Said it over and over, 'Better' is subjective. Better at what?

Matter of Image Quality has been done to death, and is ultimately pretty irrelevent. Few ever exploit the ultimate Image Quality either 35mm or Digital might offer, so what does it matter? Either can deliver more than 'Acceptable Quality Levels'.

Cost has been done to death. Digital isn't 'Free'; and we shoot to the limits of our budget anyway; the camera and consumeables only being a part of the costs of getting a picture anyhow.

Capabilities? Ability to change ISO setting or switch between Colour & B&W. Ability to machine-gun; all these sort of things? ALL are just as possible with film as with digital; just not necesserily with a single camera body; or at the flick of a switch or prod of a button.

CONVENIENCE remains about the only significant difference. The convenience of shooting in a format that the image is most likely to remain in; which can more easily and rapidly be accessed, viewed, stored, transmitted, duplicated or manipulated.

But the sacrifice for that convenience is 'Magic'.

You shoot digital; you come home, take the card out the camera, stick it in the computer, copy to your hard drive, then click on the first one in the list, and it pops up, instantly, what, 15" wide or more?

You know you took photo's; you probably saw them on the screen on the back when they were taken, and you got a frame review. You expect that them to be on the card, you expect them to be on teh disc and its no surprise when they pop up on the screen in all thier glory.

When you shoot film, particularly slide film.... well... I KNOW that its only 'chemistry'.. I have a ruddy A-Level in the subject, I am a scientist, an empirasist... but even so...

You take a little can out the back of the camera; you trim the ends of the leader you have been careful not to loose into the can on rewind; then put it, a pair of scissors, a developing tank and spiral into a changing bag, and working blind and by feel you wind the film onto the spiral, snip the film off the spindle, then put the loaded spiral in the tank, and seal it up, before taking it out the bag.

You then pop the tank into a washing up bowl full of warm water, and add warm water to the tank to get it up to temperature, which you measure with a thermomenter stuck out the top.

Meanwhile, you get your chemistry ready, and likewise, put the bottles of made up solution into the washing up bowl, and making sure you clean and rince the thermomenter between solutions... take all thier temperatures; scooping water out of the bowl and topping up with warm to keep them all constant.

Like a parent, nursing a child, you nurture your latent image; tend to it, care for it, and following the instructions, slosh chemicals around like the mad scientis about to make that breakthrough that will save mankind!

Eventually, after lots of intense adjustments; taking care to keep the temperatures correct, and watching your timings, the film is developed, and ready to rince; in warm water first, but cooling it, slowly back to room temperature, adding a little drying agent in the last rince...

Then... then.. and with unsteady hands, you face the moment of truth...

HAS IT WORKED!

What will you find inside the tank?

Will the film have dissolved? Have you cooked the emulsion? Have you over agitated it and got sloch markes and uneven development? Was there anything there to develop in the first place? Did you fog the film loading it onto the spiral? Did you kink it? Please, PLEAS dont tell me I cross threaded the spiral, or opened it and dropped the film out the grooves as I put it in the tank, and all I'm going to find in there is a much of stuck together celuloid!

And, with shaking hands you lift the lid, and withdraw the spiral... and as the last rince drips, you SEE....

strip.jpg


Little Pictures!

Tiny, little minute photographs! And you hold them up to the light, as you squeegee off the damp of the last wash; and extract the film from the spiral, and weight it and hang it to dry... And you stand there, like a new father, EVERY BLOOMIN TIME.... stunned, marvelling at these little wonders of chemistry, hanging in the doorway, the light from behind shining through them.

"I MADE THAT!"

Its incredible. Doesn't matter if they are any good or not. It's just incredible they even EXIST at all! And you value them, because you made them. You invested your time, your effort, your know-how into producing them, and it WASN'T easy; it wasn't just a touch of a button, it WASN'T 'expected'....

It was MAGIC

And that is something Digital just does not, CANNOT offer.

I'll probably, well, almost certainly digitise any pictures I have taken on film; anyway, and it would be a heck of a lot easier to shoot directly, and more reliably and predictably, straight to digital.... but? But... there's no 'Magic' in that. No involvement; no challenge, and what comes 'easily' is often valued little; what is hard, prized.

Now WHO the heck is this Bob Dylan character you are talking about?! :thinking: Was he that hippy fella my Mum & Dad used to listen to?;)
 
Teflon-Mike said:
What takes little effort to obtain, is often of little value; that which is hard to obtain, is frequently prized

With digital, it is very easy to take photos. Taking 'good' photo's still takes effort, and is difficult, and thefore they still have value; but to do it with film? Can be more of a challenge, and therfore to get ANYTHING ultimately more rewarding.

Said it over and over, 'Better' is subjective. Better at what?

Matter of Image Quality has been done to death, and is ultimately pretty irrelevent. Few ever exploit the ultimate Image Quality either 35mm or Digital might offer, so what does it matter? Either can deliver more than 'Acceptable Quality Levels'.

Cost has been done to death. Digital isn't 'Free'; and we shoot to the limits of our budget anyway; the camera and consumeables only being a part of the costs of getting a picture anyhow.

Capabilities? Ability to change ISO setting or switch between Colour & B&W. Ability to machine-gun; all these sort of things? ALL are just as possible with film as with digital; just not necesserily with a single camera body; or at the flick of a switch or prod of a button.

CONVENIENCE remains about the only significant difference. The convenience of shooting in a format that the image is most likely to remain in; which can more easily and rapidly be accessed, viewed, stored, transmitted, duplicated or manipulated.

But the sacrifice for that convenience is 'Magic'.

You shoot digital; you come home, take the card out the camera, stick it in the computer, copy to your hard drive, then click on the first one in the list, and it pops up, instantly, what, 15" wide or more?

You know you took photo's; you probably saw them on the screen on the back when they were taken, and you got a frame review. You expect that them to be on the card, you expect them to be on teh disc and its no surprise when they pop up on the screen in all thier glory.

When you shoot film, particularly slide film.... well... I KNOW that its only 'chemistry'.. I have a ruddy A-Level in the subject, I am a scientist, an empirasist... but even so...

You take a little can out the back of the camera; you trim the ends of the leader you have been careful not to loose into the can on rewind; then put it, a pair of scissors, a developing tank and spiral into a changing bag, and working blind and by feel you wind the film onto the spiral, snip the film off the spindle, then put the loaded spiral in the tank, and seal it up, before taking it out the bag.

You then pop the tank into a washing up bowl full of warm water, and add warm water to the tank to get it up to temperature, which you measure with a thermomenter stuck out the top.

Meanwhile, you get your chemistry ready, and likewise, put the bottles of made up solution into the washing up bowl, and making sure you clean and rince the thermomenter between solutions... take all thier temperatures; scooping water out of the bowl and topping up with warm to keep them all constant.

Like a parent, nursing a child, you nurture your latent image; tend to it, care for it, and following the instructions, slosh chemicals around like the mad scientis about to make that breakthrough that will save mankind!

Eventually, after lots of intense adjustments; taking care to keep the temperatures correct, and watching your timings, the film is developed, and ready to rince; in warm water first, but cooling it, slowly back to room temperature, adding a little drying agent in the last rince...

Then... then.. and with unsteady hands, you face the moment of truth...

HAS IT WORKED!

What will you find inside the tank?

Will the film have dissolved? Have you cooked the emulsion? Have you over agitated it and got sloch markes and uneven development? Was there anything there to develop in the first place? Did you fog the film loading it onto the spiral? Did you kink it? Please, PLEAS dont tell me I cross threaded the spiral, or opened it and dropped the film out the grooves as I put it in the tank, and all I'm going to find in there is a much of stuck together celuloid!

And, with shaking hands you lift the lid, and withdraw the spiral... and as the last rince drips, you SEE....

strip.jpg


Little Pictures!

Tiny, little minute photographs! And you hold them up to the light, as you squeegee off the damp of the last wash; and extract the film from the spiral, and weight it and hang it to dry... And you stand there, like a new father, EVERY BLOOMIN TIME.... stunned, marvelling at these little wonders of chemistry, hanging in the doorway, the light from behind shining through them.

"I MADE THAT!"

Its incredible. Doesn't matter if they are any good or not. It's just incredible they even EXIST at all! And you value them, because you made them. You invested your time, your effort, your know-how into producing them, and it WASN'T easy; it wasn't just a touch of a button, it WASN'T 'expected'....

It was MAGIC

And that is something Digital just does not, CANNOT offer.

I'll probably, well, almost certainly digitise any pictures I have taken on film; anyway, and it would be a heck of a lot easier to shoot directly, and more reliably and predictably, straight to digital.... but? But... there's no 'Magic' in that. No involvement; no challenge, and what comes 'easily' is often valued little; what is hard, prized.

Now WHO the heck is this Bob Dylan character you are talking about?! :thinking: Was he that hippy fella my Mum & Dad used to listen to?;)
Click to expand...

Digital is better though.
 
Technology is magic too. For those of us used to waiting an age for a film to come back as prints being able to plug a camera into a computer and see the images straight away was amazing. Then you could instantly email them half way round the world to friends or family. Still magic :)
 
Steve said:
Doesn't make them wrong though :)
Click to expand...

....What's 'right' or 'wrong' or 'better' etc is up to the individual but being a stick-in-the-mud suggests a rather closed mind and that's not a characteristic which is at all attractive in anyone.

Would you deny Bob Dylan, or indeed any other musician or artist, the choice to expand his/her creative horizons?

Do you listen to the equipment or do you listen to the music?
 
Last edited:
Teflon-Mike said:
What takes little effort to obtain, is often of little value; that which is hard to obtain, is frequently prized

With digital, it is very easy to take photos. Taking 'good' photo's still takes effort, and is difficult, and thefore they still have value; but to do it with film? Can be more of a challenge, and therfore to get ANYTHING ultimately more rewarding.

Said it over and over, 'Better' is subjective. Better at what?
Click to expand...

....I think that some people perversely enjoy making things harder to obtain!

Film and digital are merely two different media resulting in us expressing ourselves via pictures. One isn't 'better' than the other - One suits different people 'better' than the other.

Hypothetically, if digital, in the more advanced state it currently is, had been an option alongside film at the beginning of photography, I wonder which you would have chosen.
 
RedRobin said:
Hypothetically, if digital, in the more advanced state it currently is, had been an option alongside film at the beginning of photography, I wonder which you would have chosen.
Click to expand...

Only digital would have survived due to it's convenience. It's similar to John Logie Baird's mechanical television system which was developed alongside EMI's electronic version. After trials at the BBC, the EMI version won because it was far easier to implement.

However, film and digital were not developed at the same time so what we have now is a non electronic method which has had 100+ years of research and development and is fully mature and an electronic system which is getting close to being mature.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Only digital would have survived due to it's convenience. It's similar to John Logie Baird's mechanical television system which was developed alongside EMI's electronic version. After trials at the BBC, the EMI version won because it was far easier to implement.

However, film and digital were not developed at the same time so what we have now is a non electronic method which has had 100+ years of research and development and is fully mature and an electronic system which is getting close to being mature.

Steve.
Click to expand...

I dont think you can talk about the rate of technology maturing in years because when film 1st came out the rate was very slow. Digital has came on more in the last 5 years than film did in 50?

Look at the internet. We had dial up for ages.. then slow broadband.. over night fiber came in now we have speeds of over 100meg.

I agree digital will improve but its not all about the resolution digital offers a bigger package.

People on here go on about resolution.. when was the last time you all used it? Printed 5foot wide images.

If you use film then good. Its nice to see people still using it but atleast give a half decent argument for what it offers over digital?
 
RedRobin said:
....I think that some people perversely enjoy making things harder to obtain!
Click to expand...

Who doesn't enjoy a challenge?

"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills," JFK

I seriously doubt many people will do the same thing over and over because it's easy, there's no fun in that.
 
RedRobin said:
....I think that some people perversely enjoy making things harder to obtain!
Click to expand...

The harder you have to work for something the more satisfying it can be. My 5D2's an awesome toy and I adore it, the quality straight out of the camera is superb and it feels wonderful to use. I love my 7D as well, but with my digital cameras once I've pressed the shutter release I'm one import away from having a useable image. Easy for sure, and digital is my only medium of choice for certain types of shooting but personally I find the immediacy and ease of digital a bit boring at times.

If I'm shooting with my RB67 I have to meter externally, spend more time trying to make sure I nail the focus, choose a type of film that suits what I'm shooting, wait for developing and then there's another entire technical challenge in getting a good scan from the film. Most people these days can't be arsed doing all that which is perfectly understandable, but for me personally it's infinitely more satisfying getting a shot on film that I'm really happy with than shot than a shot on digital. There's a kind of 'I've really worked for that' thing going on which I really like. Plus there's something almost magical about being able to hold a physical bit of film in your hand and see a miniature version of the photo, holding a CF card doesn't quite feel the same.

It's funny actually that as we've gone digital with music and photography we've lost that tactile touchy feely thing that we had with film, vinyl records, etc. Yeah, I love vinyl as well. :)
 
Last edited:
PMN said:
The harder you have to work for something the more satisfying it can be. My 5D2's an awesome toy and I adore it, the quality straight out of the camera is superb and it feels wonderful to use. I love my 7D as well, but with my digital cameras once I've pressed the shutter release I'm one import away from having a useable image. Easy for sure, and digital is my only medium of choice for certain types of shooting but personally I find the immediacy and ease of digital a bit boring at times.

If I'm shooting with my RB67 I have to meter externally, spend more time trying to make sure I nail the focus, choose a type of film that suits what I'm shooting, wait for developing and then there's another entire technical challenge in getting a good scan from the film. Most people these days can't be arsed doing all that which is perfectly understandable, but for me personally it's infinitely more satisfying getting a shot on film that I'm really happy with than shot than a shot on digital. There's a kind of 'I've really worked for that' thing going on which I really like. Plus there's something almost magical about being able to hold a physical bit of film in your hand and see a miniature version of the photo, holding a CF card doesn't quite feel the same.

It's funny actually that as we've gone digital with music and photography we've lost that tactile touchy feely thing that we had with film, vinyl records, etc. Yeah, I love vinyl as well. :)
Click to expand...

Would you prefer a high quality one of a kind picture from digital or a good shot from film?

Seems like peoples argument is film is more difficult and they get a better feeling from it but surely a better final image is the end game?
 
barratt1988 said:
Would you prefer a high quality one of a kind picture from digital or a good shot from film?

Seems like peoples argument is film is more difficult and they get a better feeling from it but surely a better final image is the end game?
Click to expand...

Why not get both?
 
barratt1988 said:
Would you prefer a high quality one of a kind picture from digital or a good shot from film?
Click to expand...

Whether I like a shot of mine depends purely on how the image feels and whether it conveys what I wanted it to, it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it was taken on digital or analogue.

barratt1988 said:
Seems like peoples argument is film is more difficult
Click to expand...

That isn't an argument, it's a plain straightforward fact. At least it is when comparing an average DSLR and something like medium format film photography. DSLR's usually have a fully auto mode and always have semi-automatic modes, they also have lightmeters. My RB67 doesn't even have a battery. Are you honestly trying to tell me the DSLR is just as hard to use? If you have a 'modern' film DSLR, use it in green box mode and get high street scans done then film is every bit as easy as digital but most people who shoot film seriously won't be doing that. ;)
 
Last edited:
PMN said:
The harder you have to work for something the more satisfying it can be. My 5D2's an awesome toy and I adore it, the quality straight out of the camera is superb and it feels wonderful to use. I love my 7D as well, but with my digital cameras once I've pressed the shutter release I'm one import away from having a useable image. Easy for sure, and digital is my only medium of choice for certain types of shooting but personally I find the immediacy and ease of digital a bit boring at times.

If I'm shooting with my RB67 I have to meter externally, spend more time trying to make sure I nail the focus, choose a type of film that suits what I'm shooting, wait for developing and then there's another entire technical challenge in getting a good scan from the film. Most people these days can't be arsed doing all that which is perfectly understandable, but for me personally it's infinitely more satisfying getting a shot on film that I'm really happy with than shot than a shot on digital. There's a kind of 'I've really worked for that' thing going on which I really like. Plus there's something almost magical about being able to hold a physical bit of film in your hand and see a miniature version of the photo, holding a CF card doesn't quite feel the same.

It's funny actually that as we've gone digital with music and photography we've lost that tactile touchy feely thing that we had with film, vinyl records, etc. Yeah, I love vinyl as well. :)
Click to expand...

^^^ What he said!!


Steve.
 
robhooley167 said:
Who doesn't enjoy a challenge?

"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills," JFK

QUOTE]

so what does this JFK bloke say on digital v film then ? :D
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
donutagain said:
robhooley167 said:
Who doesn't enjoy a challenge?

"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills," JFK

QUOTE]

so what does this JFK bloke say on digital v film then ? :D
Click to expand...

He couldn't compare :LOL:
Click to expand...
 
RedRobin said:
....What's 'right' or 'wrong' or 'better' etc is up to the individual but being a stick-in-the-mud suggests a rather closed mind and that's not a characteristic which is at all attractive in anyone.
Click to expand...

Last time I got stuck in the mud was an ill judged visit to Glastonbury.:)
 
PMN said:
Whether I like a shot of mine depends purely on how the image feels and whether it conveys what I wanted it to, it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it was taken on digital or analogue.

That isn't an argument, it's a plain straightforward fact. At least it is when comparing an average DSLR and something like medium format film photography. DSLR's usually have a fully auto mode and always have semi-automatic modes, they also have lightmeters. My RB67 doesn't even have a battery. Are you honestly trying to tell me the DSLR is just as hard to use? If you have a 'modern' film DSLR, use it in green box mode and get high street scans done then film is every bit as easy as digital but most people who shoot film seriously won't be doing that. ;)
Click to expand...

It doesnt matter what you shoot a poor composition will ruin and format.

I agree film is more difficult but to be honest ive never used the green box mode so ive no idea what its like. I look at my digital shots and get a good feeling from them and am sure many people do. I wouldnt get a better feeling if it where shot on film.

If you want to make things 'difficult' then only shoot primes, blindfolded and on one leg. Then youll get a real nice feeling from your shots hahaha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top