The Debate - film vs digital

[girasol]

I prefer film for the quality of the images (once they've been printed). However I really like the instant satisfaction/huge amount of photos you get from digital.

I used to spend a lot of time in a darkroom, when I was younger, and I do miss that. Film is more 'hands on' for me. I will probably use both for the rest of my life.

Is it really necessary to have a favorite? Surely there's a market for both...

 

[suzi]

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 get a lot of stuff done free or big discounts, so costs are low for me. even so, having used both digital and film my preference is still film. i agree with whoever wrote they like to get away from their pc too, thats a big plus for me, i hate sitting in front of my pc all day.

 

[boncey]

Oh yeah, was gonna add this earlier but forgot.
In terms of "workflow" I have it as automated as it can possibly be (given limitations of software tools).
I use in-camera sharpening and contrast etc (the default settings on the 300D), but I shoot in RAW mode.

This means I can batch process and get good results but I also have the option of going back to any photo and tweaking it more in Photoshop if I want to get a little bit more out of it.

This means I spend very little time in the "digital darkroom", unless I choose to spend more time on a particularly good photo, and with my ratio of good to bad photos, that's very little time indeed!

 

[Poi E]

i get a lot of stuff done free or big discounts, so costs are low for me.

Lucky you! For most of us it looks like film is being priced off the amateur market.

 

[suzi]

i'd be interested to know if anyone here has used digital medium format?

 

[alef]

i'd be interested to know if anyone here has used digital medium format?

Maybe I'm missing something, but what would "digital medium format" be? The reason to use film larger than 35mm is to get the better resolution, so the parallel is to get a lot more megapixels? Although the different aspect ratios will confuse the matter somewhat. Are you talking about the size of the sensor inside the camera? I don't know much about the digital camera technology... off to surf for answers...

 

[Firky]

Better for what? For learning, it's digital, hand down. Just fire away, and review your days shooting in the evening and see what worked, what didn't. And the price of film and developing is huge, a digital will pay for itself very quickly IME.

When I first picked up a digital camera I did not pick another one up again for two years, I really just did not like the feel of it. Plasticy and crap, nothing like my german engineering camera

but thats besdies the point really, it is far easier to get to grips with a digital - but that is because most digital cameras apart from the expensive onces are castrated of the variables of an slr. Less to fiddle with!

My cheapy fuji finepix, is the best point n shoot camera I've ever had. Batteries last around 1,000 shots, its quite fast, it is excellent in bright sunlight, and has a beautiful 12X optical zoom - digital zooms ARE crap.

 

[George & Bill]

Maybe I'm missing something, but what would "digital medium format" be? The reason to use film larger than 35mm is to get the better resolution, so the parallel is to get a lot more megapixels? Although the different aspect ratios will confuse the matter somewhat. Are you talking about the size of the sensor inside the camera? I don't know much about the digital camera technology... off to surf for answers...

You can get digital backs for medium format cameras; the aspect ratio depends on the camera, but I think you typically get 22mp; never used one myself, since I have to way of getting my hands on one. I think the sensor is full frame for 645.

IIRC, the top end cannon DSLR also has a 22mp sensor - this seems to me preferable to the MF option, unless of course you want to use it to set up shots on film.

 

[stdPikachu]

You can even get digital backs for 4*5 (and prolly 10*12) view cameras that cost about 20 grand Digital backs for medium format are very popular amongst the fashion crowd, or so I've heard... but it'll be awhile before that filters down into consumer tech.

 

[George & Bill]

You can even get digital backs for 4*5 (and prolly 10*12) view cameras that cost about 20 grand Digital backs for medium format are very popular amongst the fashion crowd, or so I've heard... but it'll be awhile before that filters down into consumer tech.

These are scanning backs rather than CCDs (ie, it scans the image being projected on the GGS) - hence very slow, and producing somewhat unwieldy files; I haven't done the 'math', but if you can get a 150+mb file from a 1"x1.5" 35mm neg, just imagine....

 

[suzi]

You can get digital backs for medium format cameras; the aspect ratio depends on the camera, but I think you typically get 22mp; never used one myself, since I have to way of getting my hands on one. I think the sensor is full frame for 645.

yeh those are what i meant. was just curious to know if anyone had used them.

 

[stdPikachu]

Those two factors would explain why the digital back I saw was advertised as having a "3 minute transfer time" then

 

[George & Bill]

yeh those are what i meant. was just curious to know if anyone had used them.

fraid not!

(another thing is that, afaik, digital backs don't have any storage and therefore have to be hooked up to a portable HD/laptop during use - further limiting them!)

 

[Poi E]

but thats besdies the point really, it is far easier to get to grips with a digital - but that is because most digital cameras apart from the expensive onces are castrated of the variables of an slr. Less to fiddle with!

That's what digital SLRs are for

 

[suzi]

but thats besdies the point really, it is far easier to get to grips with a digital - but that is because most digital cameras apart from the expensive onces are castrated of the variables of an slr. Less to fiddle with!

it's the fiddling that i like!

 

[George & Bill]

it's the fiddling that i like!

over and above creative progress?

 

[suzi]

over and above creative progress?

i dont think my SLR halts creative progress.

 

[suzi]

let me put that differently. i dont think not using digital is any less creative than using digital. thats what i mean.

 

[boskysquelch1]

yeh those are what i meant. was just curious to know if anyone had used them.

Aight!...I hv! ,,,they are l u s h!..tho unwieldy and a bit of a drag..cables to latop etc...but with time they become quite useable...

 

[Firky]

You can even get digital backs for 4*5 (and prolly 10*12) view cameras that cost about 20 grand Digital backs for medium format are very popular amongst the fashion crowd, or so I've heard... but it'll be awhile before that filters down into consumer tech.

Try nearer £75K for some.

 

[Firky]

i'd be interested to know if anyone here has used digital medium format?

Anyone here won the lottery?

 

[boskysquelch]

Anyone here won the lottery?

The set-up I used was a Fuji 6x9...everyting standard cept the actual dig-back...which was £24k worth...#gulp#...then you need a decent monitor and a lappy or somesuch to stored data on...so roughly£30k will do ya's nicely..the geeeezer whose set-up i've used was mugged in Saaaaaaaaaaaarf Londum...da Filth toook 2 hrs to find him...they sent him on his way...he drove to Southhampton...where he found his neck was broken in seven places!!!!! by the time they found out is was too late for surgery or somesuch so now the dood is in permanent extreme agony and consequently spends most of his days self-admin_ing smack/opiates and has got £40k so far in criminal injury payments.

 

[Firky]

Was it someone he knew? They must of known his equipment was worth a mint - its not the easiest stuff to flog either.

Then again I laughed at my friend when he bought about thousand victorian firebricks for £500 - sold them on ebay for £15k to a polish smeltery

 

[boskysquelch]

Was it someone he knew? They must of known his equipment was worth a mint - its not the easiest stuff to flog either.

Nha doood!...he bought the cameras as a RESULT of being mugged...by using his compensation monies. ...as usual my posts dunt make sense... ...note to self :::do not have possession of telepathic capabilities to project whole thought streamage to others, must take care to read what is typened!

 

[George & Bill]

let me put that differently. i dont think not using digital is any less creative than using digital. thats what i mean.

surely there will always be times when digital is most creatively apropriate, just as there are times when 35mm, 6x7, or polaroid are most apropriate?

 

[suzi]

surely there will always be times when digital is most creatively apropriate, just as there are times when 35mm, 6x7, or polaroid are most apropriate?

matter of opinion, i guess.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Film.

For the stuff I like doing (Landscapes on Velvia, Portraits on B&W) digital just dosen't cut it IMHO.

I'd love to go digital for cost reasons, but until the quality gets a lot better I'm sticking with film.

 

[Pie 1]

i'd be interested to know if anyone here has used digital medium format?

Yeah I do, quite a lot. I use a Phase One H25 on a Hasselblad . It's the absolute dogs and the quality of the image is mind blowing and for (reletively disposable) commercial photography it's perfect.
Trouble is they're around £16,000 + another odd £3,000 or so the duel processor G5 & gubbings that you need to run it smoothly
Needless to say, I rent it.


But it ain't film.
Nothing can touch the feeling you get when you flick on a light box and see a 5x4 trannie that's bang on, then you start looking at the depth in it through a lupe...it's almost alive.

 

[George & Bill]

matter of opinion, i guess.

i'm just surprised by the opinion that film is always the most creatively appropriate medium. of course this may genuinely be the case, but I can't think of anyone who would say that digital was always the most creatively appropriate - so I think that generally that sort of attachment to film is just that - an attachment - and not an objective preference.

 

[suzi]

i'm just surprised by the opinion that film is always the most creatively appropriate medium. of course this may genuinely be the case, but I can't think of anyone who would say that digital was always the most creatively appropriate - so I think that generally that sort of attachment to film is just that - an attachment - and not an objective preference.

for me, personally it is just a preference. i like working in b&w (and medium format) and i hated working with digital for b&w.
i dont feel particularly creative working on images on a computer but i do when im in a darkroom. thats about the juxt of it.