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

steak and kidney and custard mmmmmmmmmmmmmm
 
donutagain said:
steak and kidney and custard mmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Click to expand...

did someone say Pi

3.14159 26535 89793 23846 26433 83279 50288 41971 69399 37510 58209 74944 59230 78164 06286 20899 86280 34825 34211 70679
 
Nguss said:
Why have these strange people escaped from the film and conventional forum and why are they talking about pies? Someone shut the trapdoor quickly!
Click to expand...

Too late! They're already skipping through the meadows eating pies :D
 
RedRobin said:
As far as I'm concerned, the bottom line is the final image and it being suitable for where it's to be seen (from an online thumbnail to an onstreet hoarding).
Click to expand...

The final image is a big concern in my photography and consequently one of the biggest factors in my using film. I simply cannot get the images I want on my DSLR, but I have no problems doing so on my film cameras.

Yes, digital is convenient with regard to instant access, but film is more convenient for the shooting scenarios I often encounter. For instance, backlit subjects in the middle of the day? No problem with film: No trouble retaining both highlights and shadow detail and I don't even require fill flash to do it. Even if I did need fill flash, my medium format film equipment synchs at all speeds, unlike my 'fancy' modern DSLR.

And how boring is the 3:2 digital aspect ratio by the way? Everyone is shooting it, so it's not unique in the slightest, and this wide rectangle looks dreadful unless you're shooting a movie. I know you could crop it in digital, but the viewfinders in digital cameras are small enough as it is to only be using a portion of it.

To be clear though, I'm not saying film is inherently better than digital, but that it can be better for certain applications and for the way that some folks, such as myself, prefer to shoot. Most folks using film will be aware of what digital has to offer, as they own both, the issue to me is that many digital folks don't have ANY idea what modern film emulsions can do and are simply jumping to conclusions based on the assumption that digital 'replaced' film (not that I've ever been guilty of this...).
 
barratt1988 said:
...
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?
Click to expand...

They did ;), and it wasn't a convincing argument for you :thinking:
 
Did we mention just how damn cool old film cameras look?
 
not to mention that on digital you can put a big grip on and 'look like a pro' :whistle:
 
big soft moose said:
not to mention that on digital you can put a big grip on and 'look like a pro' :whistle:
Click to expand...

hehe...thats the first point I have to concede to digital :)

Although have you seen the old motor drives for the Nikon F....now they are big
 
star wars episode 7 to be shot on kodak 35mm film

others were as well

(In the midst of doom and gloom regarding the future of 35mm and digital cinema overtaking the movie industry, I received a press release from Eastman Kodak several weeks ago, boasting that six of this year’s Best Picture Oscar nominees were shot on Kodak film: Argo, Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook, Django Unchained, Beasts of the Southern Wild, and Les Misérables. (The publicist added, “In the 84-year history of Oscar, no Academy Award-winning best picture has ever been made without motion picture film.”)

even kodak are still going ,,,maybe not strong , but still going
 
daugirdas said:
Meanwhile Fuji discontinued even more films. You know the end is very near :LOL:
Click to expand...

Yet Kodak announced they may make more, Adox has restarted production, ilford have set up a lab in the US and invested heavily in their UK factory...

Seems like some people want film to die out...

:shrug:
 
James J said:
Leica's are quite similar from the front... (not the back though, admittedly...)
Click to expand...

Most DSLRs look very similar to an SLR from the front :cautious: (provided you're comparing to a modern SLR)
 
One thing I don't like about shooting film is the "accessories" you have to wear/grow/inhale.

Daft hats, bizarre facial hair and old auburn a just a few obligatory add ons no self respecting film duffer would be seen without.


I gots brown Hush Puppies..:D
 
When my friend was getting pictures for his wedding the photographer asked for more money to do digital instead of film.
 
I'm really passionate about the image. I love the image !!

I learnt photography at Paddington Art College way back in the 80's and spent hours in the darkroom, pushing and pulling, developing and printing. I have had my own darkroom and loved watching the images appear before my eyes in the trays. I actuly think it was simpler back then shooting in 35mm, 120mm and 5" x 4"

Whould I return to those halycon days again ? - No chance.

These days I would rather boot up the computer and open up CS6. I can do far more with the image. I would suggest however, that todays digital workflow is more complex
and challanging then the darkroom.

I think it's great that there are still pepole out there who prefer the darkroom and whole new generation born in the post-digital era activley learning and trying out the wet & dry techniqes. Whatever you do enjoy it. It is after all about the image
 
Last edited:
James J said:
Nah not slr type cameras. Meant rangefinders
Click to expand...

I appreciate what you were saying re rangefinders :D

But how different does a 5d look to an EOS3*

An EOS 1n to an EOS 1DIII

From the front - similar - from the back - very different. ;)

*Of course the EOS3 has that eye control focus logo, which is clearly far in advance to anything available on any DSLR :p
 
Last edited:
Having read through this 'thread' the phrase "sometimes its better to agree to disagree" seems like a good way to conclude it.

As far as terrestrial photography goes, I'll not say that digital is better than film, or visa versa, because if I did the two 'camps' would descend upon me, and argue their case all over again.

Yes, I grew up with film, yes I've done the whole home processing bit, and yes I'm now 100% digital.

However, what I will say is that as far as astro-imaging goes, film is in the 'dark ages'.

As amateurs, using digital imaging equipment, we are now producing stuff that the professionals of the film era, couldn't even dream of producing.

I enjoyed film photography, and now I'm enjoying digital photography, and that's all that matters to me.

Dave
 
Last edited:
I think its the end for film for me,just put up my last film camera for sale.

How long do you think 35mm film will last ?
 
unless they go bust
 
Phil V said:
*Of course the EOS3 has that eye control focus logo, which is clearly far in advance to anything available on any DSLR :p
Click to expand...

I never got on with eye focus control - so I wasnt sorry that canon didn't include it in the DSLR
 
Interestingly, I have just come home after being stopped in a car park by a student with a Pentax who wanted to photograph me. It's usually my car that attracts photographers but this time it was me and he was a student doing a photography course with a brief to shoot black & white portraits.

The camera was 'electronic' but using a film cassette. Obviously it's very good that photography students are taught a variety of media.
 
big soft moose said:
I never got on with eye focus control - so I wasnt sorry that canon didn't include it in the DSLR
Click to expand...

I loved it, but do remember lots of people couldn't get on with it. For me going to a 300d from an EOS30 was a major step backwards (but I couldn't afford a 10d). With the 20d came a proper camera that was almost affordable and I said a tearful farewell to shooting film. I'm nostalgic about it - but never quite enough to want to shoot some.
 
RedRobin said:
Obviously it's very good that photography students are taught a variety of media.
Click to expand...

Agreed Robin,

Although realistically any that go on to become pros will be entirely digital I think there is something still to be learnt from studying film too.

My daughter has started a photography degree this year at Huddersfield University and it is 100% digital. No film at all. When we went to the open days at a number of different universities, most taught a mix of film and digital. Huddersfield was the only one we visited that was digital only.

But I wonder if this will still be the case in 10 or 20 years, or whether most will be digital only by then with only the odd one or two combining it with film.
 
Steve said:
Agreed Robin,

Although realistically any that go on to become pros will be entirely digital I think there is something still to be learnt from studying film too.

.
Click to expand...

I totally aggree. Studying film I believe has made me the compolete photographer. Learning exposure by maunual intervention (ISO, apperture,speed) whilst staying well clear of automated programes combined with D+P and the adjustment of the enlarger apperture has given me a really deep seated knowledge.

That said, I prefer digital photography and don't hanker back to the good (bad?) old days.

I'm still very much in the mindset of dodging and burning on the enlarger !

Photoshop CS6, cloud - now thats a totally different ball game ! I only wish I had hald the knowledge. I'm still getting to grips with layers and masks......
 
Last edited:
Blank_Canvas said:
I totally aggree. Studying film I believe has made me the compolete photographer. Learning exposure by maunual intervention (ISO, apperture,speed) whilst staying well clear of automated programes combined with D+P and the adjustment of the enlarger apperture has given me a really deep seated knowledge.

That said, I prefer digital photography and don't hanker back to the good (bad?) old days.

I'm still very much in the mindset of dodging and burning on the enlarger !

Photoshop CS6, cloud - now thats a totally different ball game ! I only wish I had hald the knowledge. I'm still getting to grips with layers and masks......
Click to expand...

....I never studied photography but back in the 1950s when I was still in short trousers I had my first camera - A plastic Kodak Brownie (I wish I had kept it as a momento!). As I grew up and started my own graphic design limited company based in Chelsea I could afford a variety of pre-digital SLR Nikon F's and Canon EOS-1 film cameras. I also had free access to a well equipped darkroom and art directed a variety of specialist professional photographers using all the formats up to 10" x 12" plate camera.

Personally, I'm not interested in manipulating my photos with Photoshop masks etc unless the photo is a component in a graphic image I am creating. If I can't capture in camera the moment I saw, then I have failed to capture that particular photograph and will move on to other opportunities.

Like yourself, Nick, and some others here, I feel that my film history is of great benefit to my love of digital photography. Digital has brought me back to photography. However, the bottom line regardless of media, is whether a photographer has 'the eye' - Without it, photos are merely a mechanical record which even Instagram can barely rescue.

It's as my signature says (when displayed): "The camera takes the photo, but the photographer makes it" - Ansell Adams, 1902-1984.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top