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

I'm going to come up with a Curveball here...

I've shot on digital all year because... (here comes the wierd reason!) ... I've only taken maybe 7 frames worth all year. As most of those have been for TP Day, I'd still have had to either waste half a roll of film and processing, or the film would still have been sat in the Bronica's #1 back (#2's got half a roll of Acros 100 in it, that's been on the go since this time last year :( )

At least with digital I could go out and take a couple of shots without wasting the rest of a roll.

(I know, I know - shooting so rarely makes me a prime candidate for MF or LF single sheet cameras, but I've already got enough cameras, a bad back, and a scanner that can't handle anything larger than 120 film)
 
To me, digital is part of the dumbing down of the whole world. It's easier and more convenient. Just like MP3s and iTunes.

It's very good at what it does, but what it does isn't for me.


Steve.
 
The weird thing for me is that I LOVE modern technology. I love my iphone, read books on kindle 99% of the time, shop online etc etc etc. but I shoot pretty much exclusively film. It's slower, cheaper than ill frame digital and developing film just gives it that little something extra for me.

Digital photography is ace. My next big purchase will be a digital camera. Bit film still rules.
 
realspeed said:
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
Click to expand...

Who drives old cars instead of shiny new ones, who collects old china instead buying a new set from Asda, who uses film cameras instead of digital?....those people who like to, who enjoy it, those people who realise that there is another way, a way that doesn't give instant gratification that isn't me, me, me and now, now, now. Those people who feel that photography is about thought and taking your time and getting the shot not firing off 100 shots and getting 1 keeper...thats who....

And you really shouldn't use Luddites as an insult. They were people who realised that the new inventions would mean their livelihood was taken away and they wouldn't be able to feed their families not that they hated new inventions because they were new.

Who reads books? People who want to learn the meaning of things before they spout off gibberish, you should try it sometime. (y):D

Andy
 
I don't get to shoot much of anything at the moment, however this weekend I will be taking out my 5DIII and Eos 30 (loaded with B&W) and shooting as much as possible. I doubt anything good will come of it, but hey ho!

For me, the one advantage of film is B&W, it is so much better from film. The scan from a 6x6 acros neg blows anything digital away.

Otherwise, I do it cos I enjoy it! ;)
 
I love digital because it is instant and I take more photos of a better standard then I ever shot with film. I sent my film to AG on Monday. It will have arrived Tuesday. It still isn't in their lab yet. For an impatient person this is excruciating...

I can shoot in gloomy places handheld which I could never manage with film. Auto white balance means being able to shoot under all sorts of weird lighting.

Film is the slightly itchy pure wool jumper you keep for sentimental reasons. It's warm but after a while you remember why you switched to acrylic ;)
 
Steve Smith said:
To me, digital is part of the dumbing down of the whole world. It's easier and more convenient. Just like MP3s and iTunes.

It's very good at what it does, but what it does isn't for me.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Did Giotto, Michelangelo, Picasso, Henry Moore (or indeed Cartier-Bresson or Ansel Adams) choose their artistic medium based on convenience?
 
srichards said:
I love digital because it is instant and I take more photos of a better standard then I ever shot with film. I sent my film to AG on Monday. It will have arrived Tuesday. It still isn't in their lab yet. For an impatient person this is excruciating...

I can shoot in gloomy places handheld which I could never manage with film. Auto white balance means being able to shoot under all sorts of weird lighting.

Film is the slightly itchy pure wool jumper you keep for sentimental reasons. It's warm but after a while you remember why you switched to acrylic ;)
Click to expand...

Acrylic? Cashmere is where its at! ;)
 
I shoot digital because it's the same as shooting film was for me 30+ years ago.

In those days I did my own B+W developing and printing. I could come home, develop a roll of film, and see what I'd shot that day. I took slide film to a pro lab which turned it round overnight.

No longer having those facilities shooting film involves sending it away and waiting days to see what I've got. I've given it a try but it's a PITA - I've a roll still sitting waiting to be processed that I finished off in May because it's too much hassle.

With digital I can have a print, yes a print :), in my hand within minutes of walking through the door with the camera. What's more it can be a colour or a monochrome print which has been processed to my satisfaction in less time than I could ever get a wet print right.

Far from dumbing down photography it's expanded it. You can shoot more, experiment more, see the results faster and as a result progress more easily.

The majority of people who look at photographs don't care if they were made on film or digitally, Only photo geeks give a toss how photographs were made. The medium is not the message, the picture is...
 
Ed Sutton said:
I shoot digital because it's the same as shooting film was for me 30+ years ago.

In those days I did my own B+W developing and printing. I could come home, develop a roll of film, and see what I'd shot that day. I took slide film to a pro lab which turned it round overnight.

No longer having those facilities shooting film involves sending it away and waiting days to see what I've got. I've given it a try but it's a PITA - I've a roll still sitting waiting to be processed that I finished off in May because it's too much hassle.

With digital I can have a print, yes a print :), in my hand within minutes of walking through the door with the camera. What's more it can be a colour or a monochrome print which has been processed to my satisfaction in less time than I could ever get a wet print right.

Far from dumbing down photography it's expanded it. You can shoot more, experiment more, see the results faster and as a result progress more easily.

The majority of people who look at photographs don't care if they were made on film or digitally, Only photo geeks give a toss how photographs were made. The medium is not the message, the picture is...
Click to expand...

You make some very valid points here but as I said further up the thread....none of them matter... film is great, digital is great, whatever floats your boat. This is a pointless thread that just inflames stupid fanboy reactions, just get out there, take pictures with whatever you enjoy, get them developed/processed however you feel fit and make prints of the ones you like most...simples.

So lets stop this futile and stupid point scoring and get out there and make some images. (y)
 
Andysnap said:
You make some very valid points here but as I said further up the thread....none of them matter... film is great, digital is great, whatever floats your boat. This is a pointless thread that just inflames stupid fanboy reactions, just get out there, take pictures with whatever you enjoy, get them developed/processed however you feel fit and make prints of the ones you like most...simples. So lets stop this futile and stupid point scoring and get out there and make some images. (y)
Click to expand...

Yes but which is better??

:) :) :) :)
 
Oh Film, without a doubt...:D
 
Why not just use both...
 
Yv said:
Film?? FILM?? I'll tell you about film Mr Donut - you are not the Messiah, you're just a very naughty boy!! :p
Click to expand...

lol.....yes indeed
 
robhooley167 said:
Why not just use both...
Click to expand...

It is what I do.

Digital for when I am out underground in a mine/cave etc. I am trying to use film to teach me to shoot less and think more.

I would say I would love it if manufacturers would return to all metal bodies, like the old film cameras had, as they are indestructable.
 
Andysnap said:
You make some very valid points here but as I said further up the thread....none of them matter... film is great, digital is great, whatever floats your boat. This is a pointless thread that just inflames stupid fanboy reactions, just get out there, take pictures with whatever you enjoy, get them developed/processed however you feel fit and make prints of the ones you like most...simples.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree neither one is inherently 'better' and that it is pointless to argue in favour of one or the other; however, I feel it is important to acknowledge that each medium has its advantages and both have a place in the photographer's tool box.

Only a year ago I naively thought that digital had simply replaced film and that there wasn't any point in using it. That was until I happened to come across a Nikon F80 film SLR for £20 that completely changed my perspective. My same lenses were now 'full frame' and I had access to all sorts of film emulsions that offered a different look to anything I could achieve digitally (in camera or pp).

I am now mostly shooting film, as I love the colours, skin tones, dynamic range, and latitude I get from it compared to the results from my D5100, but I'd be foolish to say that it's appropriate for everything. Hell, the top shutter speed on my main film camera is 1/500 (although you can overexpose some modern negative films by up to 5 stops, so this has mattered little)!

Most of us, even the film users on this forum, are fully aware of the advantages that digital offers us, especially its convenience. To completely ignore the opportunities that film affords simply because it isn't as fast, however, would be unfortunate.

norters said:
The weird thing for me is that I LOVE modern technology. I love my iphone, read books on kindle 99% of the time, shop online etc etc etc. but I shoot pretty much exclusively film.
Click to expand...

What about Kodak Portra doesn't make it a modern technology?

Even though most of the still photography world moved on from film, Kodak still poured money into research and development, primarily because of the motion picture industry, and we've been rewarded with arguably some of the most amazing film emulsions of all time in the last few years.

These modern emulsions can handle ridiculous amounts of overexposure (like 5 stops!) and even several stops of underexposure and still get good results without any adjustment in processing (see here: http://www.twinlenslife.com/2010/12/its-our-favorite-time-of-light-new.html).

The dynamic range is outrageous and it's almost impossible to blow your highlights with the Portra emulsions.

I think many people would be surprised at what film can offer today, I know that I certainly was.
 
Last edited:
Going to use the cooking metaphor again.

I like making stock for soups and sauces from scratch. It's time consuming but really worth the extra effort.

Digital is like using a stock cube; quicker, easier, faster, cheaper. But nowhere near as satisfying. And connoisseurs can always tell the difference :)
 
I've shot film. Lots of it, B&W colour neg , colour reversal. Processed and printed them as well, over many years. Well before digital. And yes it can be fun and interesting. But, and this is big one , trying to get the exact result you want can, be frustrating. Maybe due to the process not being up to what you want, or simply it's just too labour intensive. Plus repeatability can be a problem.

Digital solves a lot of those problems. I will say that the experience of doing my own work with film has stood me in good stead when converting to digital.

Do I get the desire to go back to film, sometimes. But it only with medium format or larger.

If people want to shoot film then I'm fine with that, for me digital just makes life so much easier. Especially when you have very tight deadlines
 
You see this is why its a pointless argument, everyone has their own reasons for shooting how they do. I have a Nikon F100 that shoots at 5 frames per second, autofocus as quick as my D7100 and is the equivalent of a D700 but I don't use it for wildlife, crikey I could shoot a roll of film on one bird in flight sequence. But for landscapes and portraits I prefer film, its not better its just what I like.
 
Andysnap said:
Who drives old cars instead of shiny new ones, who collects old china instead buying a new set from Asda, who uses film cameras instead of digital?....those people who like to, who enjoy it, those people who realise that there is another way, a way that doesn't give instant gratification that isn't me, me, me and now, now, now. Those people who feel that photography is about thought and taking your time and getting the shot not firing off 100 shots and getting 1 keeper...thats who....

And you really shouldn't use Luddites as an insult. They were people who realised that the new inventions would mean their livelihood was taken away and they wouldn't be able to feed their families not that they hated new inventions because they were new.

Who reads books? People who want to learn the meaning of things before they spout off gibberish, you should try it sometime. (y):D

Andy
Click to expand...

:naughty:
Far, far better than I could have done, particularly the bit about the Luddites.(y)
 
*** when I was younger and had a point and shoot, when I'd finish the roll, I'd wind it back open the back of the camera, and of course the film wouldn't be wound back totally, and everything was ruined! Twenty two years later I'm still as useless, and know I'd do the same!

Also, it's great being able to plug my SD card into the laptop a few minutes or hours later and see the results there and then.
 
andy700 said:
:naughty:
Far, far better than I could have done, particularly the bit about the Luddites.(y)
Click to expand...

Cheers, took some thought did that. TBH I feel a bit mean about it now, it wasn't really meant to be insulting but I was just a bit peeved at the dismissive nature of Bazza's post. Sorry Bazza.
 
This is the biggest concentration of f&c folk I've seen outside the f&c section since I joined! It's like a Saga tour :)
 
norters said:
This is the biggest concentration of f&c folk I've seen outside the f&c section since I joined! It's like a Saga tour :)
Click to expand...

It's a corduroy revolution....we are taking over.
 
Something is itching at me to try large format, and I really would like an Ebony 4x5, was this >< close to buying one. The mess, cost and lack of instant gratification puts me off, but I do love the images from large format film.
 
The think I dislike about the concept of film is having so many different types and having to either use many bodies or waste film. On a single day you could shoot b&w landscape and low light wildlife. Thats 3 rolls so start with if you wish to use the best film for the job surely?
 
barratt1988 said:
The think I dislike about the concept of film is having so many different types and having to either use many bodies or waste film. On a single day you could shoot b&w landscape and low light wildlife. Thats 3 rolls so start with if you wish to use the best film for the job surely?
Click to expand...

There's a simple solution to that. Get a minolta dynax 9. It has mid roll rewind so you can rewind with the leader out. Pop in another film. Shoot some stuff on that then pop the other back in and wind it to where you left off.

Some colour films convert to mono nicely so that would save waste again.

I wouldn't use film at all for low light wildlife. It's a short journey into madness :D
 
srichards said:
There's a simple solution to that. Get a minolta dynax 9. It has mid roll rewind so you can rewind with the leader out. Pop in another film. Shoot some stuff on that then pop the other back in and wind it to where you left off.

Some colour films convert to mono nicely so that would save waste again.

I wouldn't use film at all for low light wildlife. It's a short journey into madness :D
Click to expand...

Nice that you answered that post without a single insult or bitchy comment hahaha whenever a x vs y forum comes up all hell brakes loose.

Film has its place but its limited and with time will become more so. Ive necer really used it but its interesting but very time consuming
 
barratt1988 said:
Film has its place but its limited and with time will become more so. Ive necer really used it but its interesting but very time consuming
Click to expand...

I mean this in the most sincere way and I merely intend to open an honest discussion with this question: how can you know that film is 'limited' if you haven't used it?

barratt1988 said:
The think I dislike about the concept of film is having so many different types and having to either use many bodies or waste film. On a single day you could shoot b&w landscape and low light wildlife. Thats 3 rolls so start with if you wish to use the best film for the job surely?
Click to expand...

On medium format cameras you can swap film backs mid-roll (the film magazines are detachable like lenses), so you only need to carry one body.
 
Last edited:
Because digital is better than film (y)
 
Laudrup said:
Something is itching at me to try large format, and I really would like an Ebony 4x5, was this >< close to buying one. The mess, cost and lack of instant gratification puts me off, but I do love the images from large format film.
Click to expand...

Have you seen tourists taking photo's with their iPads. This could be the cheapest way of getting into large format without the hassle.:)

Lack of camera movements may be deal breaker
 
barratt1988 said:
Film has its place but its limited and with time will become more so. Ive necer really used it but its interesting but very time consuming
Click to expand...

I have never found using film any more time consuming than a digital camera tbh. The time I spend scanning negatives is offset against the time it takes me to sort through the shots from my digital camera and edit them. The few days it takes to have them developed isn't that much of a problem as I don't need it right that second.
 
Last edited:
skysh4rk said:
I mean this in the most sincere way and I merely intend to open an honest discussion with this question: how can you know that film is 'limited' if you haven't used it?

On medium format cameras you can swap film backs mid-roll (the film magazines are detachable like lenses), so you only need to carry one body.
Click to expand...

Less and less places process. The press no longer shoot film. Wildlife shots are mostly digital or youll be screaming through films. Digital allows higher isos. Digital is a more friendly format. Unless tou have a specific need for what film gives then why use it? No one will use it for general photography due to the downsides stated in this thread.
 
Guys, what's better if printing both formats, will film produce sharper results than digital can?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top