Why do you shoot film... Digital is so much better!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Andysnap said:
1. Shoot with a digital camera
2. RAW demosaic (+ exposure correction, I suspect)
3. Process with DxO Film Pack for Kodak TriX 400 or TMax 3200 film simulation.
4. Print that image to a 35mm technical film internegative (so you have a real negative whose image simulates his favorite old films without adding grain).
5. Print the internegative to silver halide paper in Parisian darkroom using his regular printer** (with dodging and burning for the Salgado look).
Click to expand...

We can modify it slightly and miss out three steps.

1. Shoot with a film camera
5. Print to silver halide paper - Paris darkroom optional.


Steve.
 
When I make soup, I prefer to make my own stock from scratch and it's way better.

When I'm lazy I shoot digital.... and use a stock cube.
 
Steve said:
When I make soup, I prefer to make my own stock from scratch and it's way better.

When I'm lazy I shoot digital.... and use a stock cube.
Click to expand...

Chortle
 
Amp34 said:
Out of interest then where do you get your 120 B&W film developed and scanned? At the moment it's costing me £15 not inc postage for Genie in London and about the same for Club 35. Film is another £5 a roll. If I can get that down it would be very useful.

I'm planning on getting developing kit soon as the price of developing B&W film is rather high!:LOL:
Click to expand...

I've really only developed my own black and white, but I did use Ilford Direct once for development and prints. They were okay, but I do prefer the control I get by doing it at home.

For colour, I've recently been using UK Film Lab for developing and scanning and they've been really good and their pricing is very competitive for the quality. They do black and white as well, but I've never used them for that.


Amp34 said:
How about comparing it to a £1 35mm camera? That's what I was replying to (unless of course you put 35mm film in your MF camera?:LOL: I'll admit I could have been clearer.) :)
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, I do occasionally put some 35mm film in my medium format camera. ;)

As others have suggested, I guess it's not really a case of one vs the other with regard to 35mm film and digital. They both have their strengths and weaknesses and they can easily be used alongside each other.

At the end of the day, I'm a believer in any photographic method that's fun and/or gets the sorts of results that I'm looking for. I can sometimes get a bit carried away defending film, as I think it's often unfairly overlooked or just ignored nowadays, but I'll use whatever tool is right for the job.
 
Andysnap said:
Sebastiao Salgado has this workflow

1. Shoot with a digital camera
2. RAW demosaic (+ exposure correction, I suspect)
3. Process with DxO Film Pack for Kodak TriX 400 or TMax 3200 film simulation.
4. Print that image to a 35mm technical film internegative (so you have a real negative whose image simulates his favorite old films without adding grain).
5. Print the internegative to silver halide paper in Parisian darkroom using his regular printer** (with dodging and burning for the Salgado look).

Bit of an pita but if its good enough for a man of his experience and skill its good enough for me.....although I am way to lazy to go through it all. :D

Andy
Click to expand...


:puke:

I'm not a fan

why does he shoot that......when film is so much better!

lol
 
joxby said:
:puke:

I'm not a fan

why does he shoot that......when film is so much better!

lol
Click to expand...

Genesis involved a lot of travel so Salagado was worried about xray damage. I've seen the exhibition, the prints from both sources (he started out with film then switched to digi) were very nice.
 
Amp34 said:
Yep, £7 for colour and £14 for B&W which seems about standard from the companies I looked at. Any recommendations for B&W printers then?
Click to expand...

The kitchen sink.

Once you've made he initial sub forty quid outlay then it's very very VERY cheap.
 
popcorn_yes.gif
 
Time for me to leave this discussion, before I say something more stupid than normal...

1290708698_magic-chair.gif
 
joxby said:
:puke:

I'm not a fan

why does he shoot that......when film is so much better!

lol
Click to expand...

I can see some advantages, get to preview your exposure etc and yet still get a proper looking real image at the end. Bloody long winded though and seems exactly opposite if what we normally do, IE shoot film then scan and print the digital image!

Also another plus of 35mm film is it's a very cheap way to get shallow depth of field for those who can't afford an FF Digi camera. I actually only started getting into film seriously when I was commissioned to do a job that required some serious wideangle. I couldn't afford the required Panasonic 7-14mm so for £80 I aquired a Pentax Super A and Vivitar S1 17-35mm as well as some Fuji Pro 160C film for the job instead. Of course the job didn't need the whole roll, so I carried on shooting...and it stuck.
 
Wow you film lot aint half defensive. The upside to digital is its the on screen or on your pc. Simple as that. No waiting around and disappointment when you look at the film n think damn actually this or that would have been better
 
barratt1988 said:
Wow you film lot aint half defensive. The upside to digital is its the on screen or on your pc. Simple as that. No waiting around and disappointment when you look at the film n think damn actually this or that would have been better
Click to expand...

Oh yeah! How did I manage to take 140,000+ photos on digital cameras and not know that? :LOL:

Actually, after all those digital shots I rather like the longer period of time before I find out for definite that I well and truly borked it... :razz:
 
Last edited:
PMN said:
Oh yeah! How did I manage to take 140,000+ photos on digital cameras and not know that? :LOL:

Actually, after all those digital shots I rather like the longer period of time before I find out for definite that I well and truly borked it... :razz:
Click to expand...

Riiight pointless reply from yourself there.
 
Sectionate said:
Put it in these terms, the technology in a digital camera will age quite quickly as new products are released, often enough to tempt people. My D7000, as trusty as it is, is already out of date and will probably require an upgrade in a few years time. This is where the expense of digital comes from, along with the cost of peripherals, computers and legitimate software.

The Yashica Mat, and Pentax Super ME, I have are both close to 30 years old. The technology behind an analogue shot isn't going to change, only the emulsion does. So when Kodak upgrades there emulsion, there is no need to drop ££££ on a new bit of kit, rather a few quid can be spent on a roll of film. I home scan my film, and at the moment it costs me about £8-10 a roll for 35mm, or £15 for MF.

A little price comparison:

Digital:

D7000: £1100 New
Computer: £700 New
Software: £200 (lightroom)
Total: £2000

Film:

Camera Cost (Yashica Mat 124G) - £100, Ebay
Film Cost (Slide + Dev + Scan) = £15
To match the cost of a digital camera, I would have to shoot 1 roll of film a week for the next 2.5 years. That's 1500 film shots.

It's a close run thing IMO, if you scan the image yourself, you are looking at a development cost for MF of about £8. Thats about 4.5 years worth of exposures (238 rolls, 3000 shots). In 4.5 years, the digital camera will be miles out of date (although, for the same amount of shutter actuations, barely used).

Food for thought, I have never looked at it from a cost point of view.

And digital with never replace the feeling of looking at a perfect slide film for the first time.
Click to expand...

So you dont own a pc as you use film? Good look surfing the net on your camera. And gimp and other programs are free so you dont need light room and such..

O and final point d7000 £1100? Are you off your head? Try £650 with lens
 
barratt1988 said:
Riiight pointless reply from yourself there.
Click to expand...

It was a reply to a pointless point (can you see what I did there?).

If you know what you are doing with film or digital, you don't need the little screen on the back of the camera.

When I use digital, I have the preview switched off.

barratt1988 said:
Wow you film lot aint half defensive.
Click to expand...

You're quite right. We're not half defensive. In fact we're not defensive at all. We are just pointing out what we use and why. It's digital users who are defensive and often try to change us.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
So I've had a nice little think about this thread while I was asleep dreaming about being a spaceman and I have come to the conclusion that the original post made in the thread was a MASSIVE troll comment (he's done a hit and run).

Film is boss. Digital is boss. Film makes your hands smell good. Digital makes you feel like one of the Jetsons.
 
barratt1988 said:
Wow you film lot aint half defensive.
Click to expand...


h'mmm but I would say 99% of us own a digital camera of some sort......even I have a half working P&S for quick shots. And now my son has parked his 400d at my house, and I have thought of a use for it....testing\comparing M42 lenses like shots of brick walls etc :LOL:
 
"...is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?"
 
wickerman said:
Yes it is :)
Click to expand...

Oh no it isn't... :)

Some of us oldies did ok without the screen on the back for years so it's probably a lot easier to go back to. It was the norm. Those that have never experienced that would find it much more tricky. Film requires a greater leap of faith.
 
This isn't an argument.

An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
 
PMN said:
It isn't an argument at all, from what I can see it's some digital people trying to poke fun at filmy people and failing miserably! :LOL:
Click to expand...

"Midsomer murders" was funny last night on tv, sorta based around photography...the well spoken elderly gentlemen were using Rollei and FF cameras, and the upstarts with digital cameras looking like they came from a Hell's angel meeting and speaking rough as well. :LOL:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMdwpQxTzwg&pxtry=1
 
Last edited:
barratt1988 said:
Wow you film lot aint half defensive. The upside to digital is its the on screen or on your pc. Simple as that. No waiting around and disappointment when you look at the film n think damn actually this or that would have been better
Click to expand...

What is there to be defensive about? I shoot digital and film, and don't feel any need to defend my choices. Do as you please. This is just a discussion, not a debate with winners and losers. Most of the threads on this forum are like that.

FWIW, I usually have a pretty good idea how my film shots are going to turn out when I take them, so there's no need to wait around worrying about whether I'm going to be disappointed.
 
I was going to stay away from this thread but couldn't :)

As above really, I shoot digital with a combination of Sony NEX/Canon 5D/iPhone5 for paid work and 'grab shots' but shoot film for sh!ts and giggles as a hobby.

I used to find shooting film and waiting for the results quite frustrating but like any hobby, I moved on with it and started developing B&W at home and scanning with a borrowed scanner and enjoyed the challenge. I've now given the scanner back so still develop but more often use people like AG to develop & scan so I'm back to the waiting for results feeling which is a nice change to the instant knowledge with digital that you've got it or screwed it up.

However, I will often take both my NEX and a medium format camera with me on holidays or zoo days as I get the chance to play with both. I transfer images direct to my iPhone from the NEX as I walk which means I can edit and upload the finished images to dropbox before I've left the zoo which is great but that doesn't mean shooting film is a waste of time.

As a comparison, I shot the following two shots on the roof of the Liver Building using opposite ends of the digital/film scale for a local band in Liverpool;

1) Canon 40D, edited in Lightroom/Photoshop - Used as an EP cover


The New Haze by Steve Lloyd, on Flickr

2) Holga 120, home scanned, negative photographed in front of a lamp (no scanner) - Used on their website


Holga Print by Steve Lloyd, on Flickr

Technically the image shot on the DSLR is cleaner, sharper and more dramatic but the Holga image has its' own appeal (even though the lads thought I was shooting with a Tonka toy..) and was also used by them.

Overall, I will probably always shoot film on something for the challenge and the ability to try different kit without spending a fortune but I will also always shoot digital too for the convenience and pleasure. At the moment I've borrowed a very nice Contax G 45mm F2 for my NEX...wonder how much I could sell my Kiev for to buy my own? ;)

Cheers
Steve
 
barratt1988 said:
So you dont own a pc as you use film? Good look surfing the net on your camera. And gimp and other programs are free so you dont need light room and such..

O and final point d7000 £1100? Are you off your head? Try £650 with lens
Click to expand...

I don't own one, I am posting on the forum through an interconnected fibre optic straight to my brain :wacky:

And the cost of the D7000 was what I paid new.
 
So I've read all the posts and can confirm that film is better.

Digital users know this too. Even of they cant admit it openly....deep down they know.
 
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. (y)
 
Andysnap said:
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. (y)
Click to expand...

Hallelujah brother!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top