The Debate - film vs digital
- Thread starter Firky
- Start date
For me it is film, there is just something about the alchemistry of it I love, and the end result has something quite unique about it.
Digital is amazing now, some of the cameras and apps you get now rival a darkroom and surpass it, but there's something about film that I just love. I guess its parly the material thing of holding the image in your hands. The moment as it were.
Film for me! The end result is always better IMHO, its the imperfections and witchery that make it.
Digital is amazing now, some of the cameras and apps you get now rival a darkroom and surpass it, but there's something about film that I just love. I guess its parly the material thing of holding the image in your hands. The moment as it were.
Film for me! The end result is always better IMHO, its the imperfections and witchery that make it.
stowpirate
skinflintish camera nut
Firky said:
Digital as it is so easy. The only downside is that by going digital it is no longer a hobby as it was in the past. Meaning that the unknown expeimental side will to some degree be lost forever. Even though I have gone digital in not only the camera but in scanning negatives as well in my heart I know that traditional film is best. Nothing quite like using an old Twin Lens Reflex and people coming up to you and asking about the equipment
alef
Needs to take more photos
Judge the image not the tools! Painters can argue about oils vs acrylics but their subjects, ideas, expression and composition count for a lot more. With photography there's even less difference, it's now very very hard to distinguish between film and digital with small prints. Focusing too much on camera issues perhaps even creates the danger of not keeping your eyes open enough to what's around.
Also hard to generalise since different types of photography have their priorities. If you want to aim for Ansel Adams b+w landscapes then go large format film, if you want Martin Parr shots of the public then I think the convenience of digital wins out.
Personally I stuck to using film for a long time and then suddenly switched to 100% digital just a year ago. Since my shots end up scanned, Photoshop tweaked and online anyway it just makes sense to free up the costs and hassle. I guess the answer is to use whatever you find most comfortable, confidence in using your equipment is important.
Also hard to generalise since different types of photography have their priorities. If you want to aim for Ansel Adams b+w landscapes then go large format film, if you want Martin Parr shots of the public then I think the convenience of digital wins out.
Personally I stuck to using film for a long time and then suddenly switched to 100% digital just a year ago. Since my shots end up scanned, Photoshop tweaked and online anyway it just makes sense to free up the costs and hassle. I guess the answer is to use whatever you find most comfortable, confidence in using your equipment is important.
Film creates constraints both physically and chemically...the only thing with limitations digitally is your own imagination.
alef
Needs to take more photos
squelch said:Film creates constraints both physically and chemically...the only thing with limitations digitally is your own imagination.
Don't follow that at all, mate. I have both an Olympus Mju 35mm film and an Olympus Mju digital. The constraints of the digital in terms of aperture is greater, so I have more freedom with 35mm technically since I refuse to use flashes except in dire emergencies! Presume you mean the constraint of costs? Well if I took 300 photos with the digital I wouldn't necessarily have any better shots than the 36 of a single roll of film. Unless you're doing sporting events or any kind of action shots I'm not convinced quantity improves quality.
Suerly, imagination is always the key constraint whatever the kit?
I think when comparing digital video to motion picture film then the limitation argument holds more. If your actors needs to get it right quickly to save on stock then you might produce more focused results than if you're free to have 30 takes. But with an individual doing art photography I'm less sure this is so relevant.
Black and White always works best in fillm, I don't know if it is because with a digital I am forced to use a digital view finder, which is colour - therefore I'm more inclined to shoot a colour shot, rather than look with a black and white eye, hhmm. Did that make sense? I'll try again hehe
I feel forced by digital to see in colour, rather than black and white. When using an SLR I find it easier to see in black and white. Also photoshop and camera trickery don't quite cut it to the same degree as a true B&W shot.
35mm film also makes excellent bedding for the humble house mouse as I found out
Oh infared B&W film is the dogs'
http://www.deviantart.com/view/12073742/
I feel forced by digital to see in colour, rather than black and white. When using an SLR I find it easier to see in black and white. Also photoshop and camera trickery don't quite cut it to the same degree as a true B&W shot.
35mm film also makes excellent bedding for the humble house mouse as I found out
Oh infared B&W film is the dogs'
http://www.deviantart.com/view/12073742/
The Old Sarge
Professionally idle
No doubt about it ... film for me.
I have been doing my own film and prints for nearly 35 years. I have grown .... addicted? .... to the smells and such. lol
Digital is great. For strictly commercial purposes, it's probably better and cheaper than film. At least for me. And I'm still so new to digital that it's still fun and I'm HAVING fun playing with it. But as I've said before, as long as somebody is making film and photo paper, I'll be using both. It's in my blood.
BTW Squelch ... the earliest photogs in the 19th century used the same argument about cameras, and tin and glass sheets when the painters blasted them for "destroying" the "art."
The Old Sarge
I have been doing my own film and prints for nearly 35 years. I have grown .... addicted? .... to the smells and such. lol
Digital is great. For strictly commercial purposes, it's probably better and cheaper than film. At least for me. And I'm still so new to digital that it's still fun and I'm HAVING fun playing with it. But as I've said before, as long as somebody is making film and photo paper, I'll be using both. It's in my blood.
BTW Squelch ... the earliest photogs in the 19th century used the same argument about cameras, and tin and glass sheets when the painters blasted them for "destroying" the "art."
The Old Sarge
George & Bill
semiotically superfluous
alef said:
bang on! take the camera out of photography!
The Old Sarge said:BTW Squelch ... the earliest photogs in the 19th century used the same argument about cameras, and tin and glass sheets when the painters blasted them for "destroying" the "art."
The Old Sarge
LOL so?...so who was proved right or wrong? Snot black n white izzit?
And the "Judge the image not the tools!" is what I'm tlkin about....and the fact that you can do ANYTHING to an image digitally jus misses some people...with traditional photography that is ALL it can be...a photograph...therefore there is NO debate...Photography is best coz that is all there is?...nah!...tbh most of people view on photgraphy is re-interpretation through the process of publishing_pritning of massmedia(dot matrixes etc not silver halide m....."real" prints would dissapoint...even Ansel Adams(no two prints the same,the Zone System is a bitch to do right once let alone on a print run)...even Bill Brandt(shit loads of pencil and scalpel marks)...and as for Bresson's contact sheets!!!!..."devicesive" moment more like...but again this is tangetial...if you want to stick to "traditional film" fairy muff but sticking to something dunt make it bestest(see the NF!). .
Tbh I think you've all so far demonstrated why and how traditional photography is tooo restrictive and how the digitalization of it has outstepped it's forefather...it IS the leap that HAS allowed photgraphy to stand on equal footing with other "traditional" Art...as a medium of expression.
KeeperofDragons
Crazy dragon lady
Having used both I prefer digital for the simple reason that I can check any picture I've taken straight away. As I have a slight hand wobble from time to time due to a RSI I always found it a bitch to get me pictures back & find on some occasions all of them completely useless. With digital I can just take it again as often as needed therefore getting a shot I can use. Another thing I like about digitial is that I can change from b&w to colour depending on what I'm taking a picture of.
KoD
KoD
alef
Needs to take more photos
Ah, I understand what your train of consciousness is saying a bit more now, Squelch. You're talking about purely chemical printing vs photoshopping -- which is really is a whole minefield in terms of changing what photography is about. How many court cases have been won on the basis of a picture which could now so much more easily be faked?
My understanding of this thread was asking about the camera itself. But actually reading it again:
My heart is all about the final image, doesn't matter how it's made.
My understanding of this thread was asking about the camera itself. But actually reading it again:
Firky said:
My heart is all about the final image, doesn't matter how it's made.
alef said:
ZACKLLY!!! AT LAST!!!! A phrase that explains me!!!!!!!!
The Old Sarge
Professionally idle
squelch said:LOL so?...so who was proved right or wrong? Snot black n white izzit?
I am simply pointing out that the self-same argument keeps coming around. What is art? Is photography REALLY art? Is digital REALLY photography?
With each new development in technology, the old diehards that cling to the last icon always groan about things getting out of hand, and the one jumping on the new Tech Band Wagon tout the new advance as "just the thing."
It repeats endlessly.
The Old Sarge
alef
Needs to take more photos
Firky said:
Oh no, can't have us all in agreement, that kills the debate! In many ways autofocus, digital instead of film, photoshopping all do take away some of the craft. So, is the craft important? I tend to think not terribly if you've got a vision, though knowledge of the craft can open other creative doors.
The Old Sarge said:
I agree with you 100%. There were all sorts of worries about the introduction of electric lighting, telephones, etc. Here are a few fun quotes on "change":
I prefer film, only because that's all that's available to me. I think if I had a digital camera that had the exact same spec as my EOS 5 (which would be the 20D), then I would probably prefer digital due to the fact that I could have my images straight away. The only thing I wouldn't prefer is the 1.6x focal length multiplication factor. I'd have to buy a very expensive (about £500 brand new?) 10-22mm lens to replace my 17-35mm I have for my film camera - and that just ain't worth it! I'd also have to buy a new flash as my current one wouldn't work with the 20D. I'd also be inclined to buy the vertical grip/controls, a memory card, etc - basically stuff that I just cannot afford at the moment!
alef said:
The Craft is vitally important, it is like taking play to create. It is through the craft you pick up all sorts of tricks, and I know all the F numbers must be as daunting to some as the chemistry - but it also places obstacles infront of the end result. Which can be a good thing as you get unexpected results, you really don't know what you've got until you've developed them - then you have to work with what you got.
There's a difference between taking a good photograph and a chosing a good subject, too often a subject matter can make up for the photo - just look at my work
Plus ca change...
alef
Needs to take more photos
Firky said:There's a difference between taking a good photograph and a chosing a good subject, too often a subject matter can make up for the photo - just look at my work
There is more than just the subject though. There's plenty about your viewpoint which is separate to the tools. With a point'n'shoot compact you can still develop an eye for lighting, composition, angle, etc. I think f-stops should be one of the last things learned, they only really make a difference with depth of field and unusual exposure situations (and you can even later cheat the depth of field in Photoshop if you really want to, certainly mess about easily with the levels).
Trying to think of vaguely plausible analogies...
You can be an excellent driver and hardly understand a car, but a master driver must know the choke, handling skids and so on? Hmm. Maybe need something more creative, how about a musician doesn't need to know how to read music?
suzi said:
Nothing to do with the camera, but rather the advantages that digital offers that film can't. I bet if you learnt on a digicam you'd have learnt faster. Sure, you might get to play with more bits and pieces on an SLR (aperture, shutter etc) but as far as your composition goes, digital will help you learn faster than film, just because you can shoot away with reckless abandon and review shots straight away. Maybe "learn" is the wrong word; perhaps "bring out your style" is better. Digital has certainly increased the amount of "keeper" shots I have, and I don't have to think about spending money on developing rubbish shots.
Poi E said:
hmmm, good points but i still disagree. i had the advantage of cost not being a factor as i had use of a college darkroom to muck about and learn in, and the trial and error of developing my own photographs has been an invaluable experience i feel, you cannot beat the excitement of seeing your first print come to life, in fact it is something i still get a thrill out of. thats something i don't get with digital although i've had some good results, i always go back to my SLR.
anyway, for my own personal style i never tweak anything in photoshop, so for personal preference, its always film for me.
mattie
missing in inaction
It's film for me.
I spend all my working day in front of a computer, the last thing I want to do when I get home is spend another three hours there manipulating images. I actually find time in the darkroom to be a release, where there is nothing else to focus on except the print. On the computer, there are too many distractions. There is also the problem that my PC takes an age to get anything done, but of course that is an issue regarding my machine, not digital in general.
As for the time saved with digital, I'm not sure. I batch process my negatives and can get a decent print after around 10 minutes. However, many prints can feasibly take a lot longer, depending how much dodging or burning in they need (which I am admittedly awful at), and I'm quite practised now - it did take me a lot, lot longer at first. It's worth noting that many wedding photographers have gone back to film, and one of the factors causing this decision is the time taken - pretty much all digital photos will require manipulation, where the photographer will have to spend a few minutes on each image whereas a decent photographer can get the right results first time with film and leave the actual printing to a lab, where level adjustment can be done automatically for lab prints. Of course, there will come a time when really good digital prints will be available 'straight out of the box', but I don't think it'll be for a little while yet.
Squelch makes a good point that the range of possibilities for digital is far greater than for film, but I would suggest that's heading more towards graphics and away from photography. Still, it is very useful to be able to remove that pesky phone line or street sign.
Cost is an area where (once you've paid off the credit card bill for the actual camera!) digital is a little better - I say a little, as my film and film dev costs are low as I buy in bulk (around £2 all up for a 36 exposure film) and I only print the good ones (i.e. about one for every 2 films with my shakey hands!) Slides are a lot more, around £6 for 36 exposures, however I don't shoot much slide as I can't print them at home. The paper costs, I would suggest, are pretty much the same for chemical and digital, but digital inks are very expensive. I have to use a few sheets of paper to work out exposure (and allow for inevitable mistakes) but this is the same for digital.
I don't think it's the final image that really matters that much to me, as an amateur it's the activity I find most enjoyable, and I can get a perfectly servicable print either digitally or from film. I just happen to enjoy the film route a lot more - it's a hobby, not a competition, as long as I get something OK at the end then I'm happy.
(Edited to add
In terms of learning, I think both have pros and cons. Digital lets you shoot away without worrying about cost, but I see many people simply review the image in the display and make a decision whether to keep or delete after a few seconds - not the most critical of practises. There is almost a logic of simply shooting blind and hoping for the killer image through sheer luck. With film, you have to think a lot more, and have a permanent record of what you've done, thus allowing fo more critical evaluation. Of course, this is expensive, but I think the biggest stumbling block is the delay - you might get your film developed quickly, but it is very hard to actually remember what it was you did when shooting the film, in effect there is a removal between doing something and then evaluating it's effect. This is very hard to learn with, as you can't learn from mistakes as easily - with digital, if you overexpose a scene for example you can try again and see if you've improved.
Edited again - what the hell is that smily doing in my post? Does colon followed by close bracket give a smily?
I spend all my working day in front of a computer, the last thing I want to do when I get home is spend another three hours there manipulating images. I actually find time in the darkroom to be a release, where there is nothing else to focus on except the print. On the computer, there are too many distractions. There is also the problem that my PC takes an age to get anything done, but of course that is an issue regarding my machine, not digital in general.
As for the time saved with digital, I'm not sure. I batch process my negatives and can get a decent print after around 10 minutes. However, many prints can feasibly take a lot longer, depending how much dodging or burning in they need (which I am admittedly awful at), and I'm quite practised now - it did take me a lot, lot longer at first. It's worth noting that many wedding photographers have gone back to film, and one of the factors causing this decision is the time taken - pretty much all digital photos will require manipulation, where the photographer will have to spend a few minutes on each image whereas a decent photographer can get the right results first time with film and leave the actual printing to a lab, where level adjustment can be done automatically for lab prints. Of course, there will come a time when really good digital prints will be available 'straight out of the box', but I don't think it'll be for a little while yet.
Squelch makes a good point that the range of possibilities for digital is far greater than for film, but I would suggest that's heading more towards graphics and away from photography. Still, it is very useful to be able to remove that pesky phone line or street sign.
Cost is an area where (once you've paid off the credit card bill for the actual camera!) digital is a little better - I say a little, as my film and film dev costs are low as I buy in bulk (around £2 all up for a 36 exposure film) and I only print the good ones (i.e. about one for every 2 films with my shakey hands!) Slides are a lot more, around £6 for 36 exposures, however I don't shoot much slide as I can't print them at home. The paper costs, I would suggest, are pretty much the same for chemical and digital, but digital inks are very expensive. I have to use a few sheets of paper to work out exposure (and allow for inevitable mistakes) but this is the same for digital.
I don't think it's the final image that really matters that much to me, as an amateur it's the activity I find most enjoyable, and I can get a perfectly servicable print either digitally or from film. I just happen to enjoy the film route a lot more - it's a hobby, not a competition, as long as I get something OK at the end then I'm happy.
(Edited to add
In terms of learning, I think both have pros and cons. Digital lets you shoot away without worrying about cost, but I see many people simply review the image in the display and make a decision whether to keep or delete after a few seconds - not the most critical of practises. There is almost a logic of simply shooting blind and hoping for the killer image through sheer luck. With film, you have to think a lot more, and have a permanent record of what you've done, thus allowing fo more critical evaluation. Of course, this is expensive, but I think the biggest stumbling block is the delay - you might get your film developed quickly, but it is very hard to actually remember what it was you did when shooting the film, in effect there is a removal between doing something and then evaluating it's effect. This is very hard to learn with, as you can't learn from mistakes as easily - with digital, if you overexpose a scene for example you can try again and see if you've improved.
Edited again - what the hell is that smily doing in my post? Does colon followed by close bracket give a smily?
suzi said:
What's coming through from many posts in favour of film is that the decision is based on emotive factors, like the thrill you get from seeing your prints, or the release that mattie finds in the darkroom.
I shot 300 images on Saturday, using various speeds to suit the conditions. I couldn't have done that with film, and to have 8 rolls of Sensia processed would have cost me about £40, which was the price of dinner for me and the missus to make up for me staring through the lens all day
I used to have a EOS 300 film camera then bought a EOS 300D digital.
I can only speak for myself, but I have taken lots more photos since "going digital".
My ability to learn from my mistakes and reduce the number of basic errors has improved.
On the other hand, batteries and memory cards can be a pain when going on a long trip.
The 1.6 mutliplication factor (on DSLRs) is crap too (I miss wide-angle). Good for making zooms longer though.
No conclusions really, but I could never go back to film.
I can only speak for myself, but I have taken lots more photos since "going digital".
My ability to learn from my mistakes and reduce the number of basic errors has improved.
On the other hand, batteries and memory cards can be a pain when going on a long trip.
The 1.6 mutliplication factor (on DSLRs) is crap too (I miss wide-angle). Good for making zooms longer though.
No conclusions really, but I could never go back to film.
Similar threads
