Say So

Film, the larger the better.

Super 8 all the way you digital sissies!

Digital is so plain. Film instead is soooo crunchy!

I have used both extensively, but in the last 8 or 10 months I’ve become a 90% film shooter again.

Partly because I mostly shoot black and white - where digital really can’t cut it, yet, on acount of those dynamic range issues, not to mention the ephemeral ‘feel’ - and partly because it takes too much effort to achieve the look I want.. I find “that film” or “that film and that developer, then that paper” much more straightforward than mucking about in photoshop :-)

Plus, there is only one digital rangefinder in the world, and it’s flippin’ expensive. And a long way from perfect.

Film all the way!! Plus my 35mm is fully manual. No machine is going to tell me when I’m in focus or whether there’s enough light!

Why film OR digital? Film AND digital! Both formats has its advantages from differents points of view. But… I don’t know why all people are claiming “speed” and “ease” about photography, are they all photojournalist there???

Photography is just a serious hobby for me, and I don’t need to have my photos ready in a minute, so I prefer to go analog. I shoot with my DSLR only in those cases that I don’t plan to print, or maybe for experimental or web purposes. Plus, digital RGB sensors are not the ideal medium if you want to go B/W.

BTW, Digital is not cheaper if one wants a “heavy” camera, because obsolence is the key in every two or three years.

The warmth.

I like big, square pieces of film and cropping a picture down from a rectangle to a square just isn’t the same.

I love touching the film. Digital images seem more abstract, less tangible. All those pictures on a disk freaks me out somehow.

I like the slowness of film. I move slowly and deliberatly when using a film camera… especially my big clunky medium format slrs. If I only have 12 pictures on a roll I want them to count. I’m too snap-happy with a digital camera and it shows. I like that I have to wait for film so there’s an anticipation. That distance between taking the photos and seeing the photos provides me with a different perspective on the whole experience. For me it’s not just the end product, the photo — it’s the entire process.

I love the quirks and loud shutter sounds, and annoying habits, and general messiness of my film cameras. They are all used. They have a history. Some of them are very old and simple little gadgets but I can do so much with them still. That’s magic.

Although I probably shoot digital much more often, I prefer film. Nothing compares to looking through the old albums and boxes of photos of different shapes, sizes, and levels of fadedness and color. They seem so much more precious than the cd archives I make every so often.

Ditto what Mark said about B&W, especially if you’re want something larger than 8x10.

I believe there will be an entire generation lost with digital photography. Servers crash, hard drives go bad, CDs and DVDs scratch, cameras and laptops get stolen, and technology becomes redundant (store your images on a Syquest, anyone?). And where will these images be? I personally have taken over 10,000 images and never printed a single one. Just too lazy to take that extra step, and I suspect many others feel the same. Sure we lose film-based images to fires, water damage, exes, but there is a lot less that can go wrong. Film has proven its durability and longevity over the last 100 years, and I suspect it’ll be around another 100. Film isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.

All the way.

Remember the late 1970s when digital watches were the latest craze? Now look at your wrists.

to get the quality that I have with film I would need to drop bundles on a digital camera. both are viable forms of photography, but for archival purposes film is still the way to go… not to mention I like the look better, but the days of that limitation will pass.

What Gayla said.

Film makes me slow down and think about the shot, especially when I’m shooting 120 and have 12 chances before I have to fumble around with a new roll. And I love the sensuality of the whole process: fiddling with the camera settings, licking the minty tape on a finished roll of Ilford film, getting my hands wet over the basement sink, hanging up a strip to dry.

digital is too clean, for my style film just looks better. plus i like having the prints. film seems more of a art and process than digital.

TriX for ever. I’ll get that tatooed.

With hundreds of feet of Kodak High-Speed Infrared in the freezer (digital cannot match it, at least, yet), with the ability to alter the film holder in my pinhole camera so that it is not flat, and with the fact that as a Webmaster I spend nine hours a day in front of the monitor, if someone puts a gun to my head for an answer then I’d have to say film, despite the fact that I shoot both for each one’s advantage.

GLSmyth.com

I use both, but for the last 6 months or so I’ve been using film about 90% of the time. The photoblogs that I watch most of the time are mostly film based and I suddenly realised there was a reason for this, I liked the look of film!

Even though it’s more time consuming, costly and messy I have to say I still love film to the core. With digital you lose so much fidelity and richness for the sake of convenience. You also stop caring about finding the perfect shot since you can rattle off a hundred shots in no time flat for free and fix it in post and over time you just become lazy. My christmas present to myself is a 4x5 view camera just so I can get back to my roots and shoot some serious film :-)

I go both ways, but I prefer film.

Digital just doesn’t invoke the same kind of passion in my little black heart that film does.

I was one hundred percent film, then I did a digital test, and, lemme tell you, digital can be incredibly satisfying. If I could do with digital what I do with film - and don’t start, you can’t shoot digital at f11 for 8 seconds - then I would do it.

Digital is ugly. Really ugly. Like, really really ugly.

And most digital photographers decide to take 40 photographs of a subject and then choose the best ones out of the stockpile… I’ve heard a few people in that colum on the right say something about it. BAD. You want to be able to make a great photo from the moment you flip the shutter, you shouldn’t have to rely on “spray and pray” photography. Try to get an excellent shot of your subject in less shots and your photography will improve, be it digital or film.

Plus, where is the processing with digital? Aside from photoshopping the daylights out of your stuff, there isn’t any control over your image.

FIlm is gonna be around for a long time…

Definately Film. Look how many interesting old and new cameras there are out there like swing lens panoramics, toy cameras, pinholes. The advantage to this is a huge range of possibilities for an end result and expression and when it comes to black and white there is no comparison.

Digital just cant fully match what film can do. ( yes I know Photoshop can do anything….almost anthing) But that would be cheating! Film just has that certain feel and look to it that is warm and has more character in most situations.

The whole process involved is much more exciting for me ( carrying 5 cameras each with a completely different end result, loading film, shooting, taking the pictures, developing, waiting )

There are some upsides to digital and I have seen many amazing shots taken with digital cameras, but I prefer film.

After a three year affair with digital I ended up going back to film. Why? The look. The feel. The grain. Especially in medium format. Even better with crappy plastic cameras. But your mileage may vary…

Having used film for the last 20 years or so, I would say film is the best. Film is far more forgiving than digital is at this point, but I am sure that will change. I like the fact that you can actually have photos in your hand after getting film developed - you can see what you took and hold on to it. Whereas with digital, you have to upload it to a computer and then take what photo you want, play with it and then print it off. That can be very cost and time prohibitive, whereas film processing is pretty quick and not as cost and time prohibitive. I know there are places that will print your digital photos for you, but it’s not the same thing in my mind. With film, I seem to take more time when I am shooting something. With digital, I get what a fellow photographer calls motordrive diarrhea - I just start blasting away!! I use my company’s Nikon D1H and before I know it, I’ve blasted off upwards of 400 shots in just a couple of hours!! With film, I would be far more selective in what I shot. That being said, digital does have its advantages - you can blast off many shots and not have to worry about changing film in the middle of something important. You can look at the back of your camera and see what you have done and change your settings and get the shot you want with digital as well. That is a definite advantage over film at times. All in all though, I still like to use film, but am not opposed to using digital. I see the pros and cons of both, but will stick with film for the time being.

You can cross-process film.

no contest…

Oh my god! My wrist has a Betamax recorder strapped to it!

easy…started with digital, but regressed into film, which is the way to go.

the grain, the authenticy, the feel of film is lovely.

although it is due to digital (nikon D70) that i am now an avid film fan. it taught me much.

It just looks real!

Film all the way. It’s richer, warmer, and more versatile artistically. Digital by comparison is flat, bland and soulless.

Film for me, I have a D70 but it only comes out at family occasions or for stuff I am not so fussed about, although it does give good results I prefer to use film for many reasons:- The quality of film for me looks better / I like having negatives / I don’t want to rely on storing things digitally only / I like surprises / I don’t like working on images too much - which with digital you have to adjust contrast, sharpen etc / digital for me is unsatisfying / it’s not the reason I got into photography.

I am not knocking digital in fact I think it is great for what it does and commercially it is really taking over, I am sure I will adjust to it more as the technology improves but for now film is much more fun and I have more film cameras than digital so I want to get my money’s worth out of them ;-)

The crucial factor for me is perhaps not the medium, although I do enjoy a lot of the characteristics of film. What makes the difference for me are the cameras themselves. No matter which ones I use, I always come back to my trusty OM-1.

Went from digital to film because I couldn’t afford a good digital SLR, and I haven’t regretted it.

I like digital but film still has an edge to it, especially for B&W.

Film B&W is all about a do it yourself attitude. For me photography is still something that ends up on paper in a portfolio or on a wall. 8X10 is the smallest print I make. Screen images are nice but they are not the end product for me.

I do about 70% B&W and 30% Color. Most of my color work is now digital but nothing beats a nice B&W print on fiber based paper.

I’ll be sticking with film for most of my work.

I use both, but prefer film. I’ll agree with Gayla! Well said… I started with digital first and found myself taking dozens of pictures, knowing that I could pick the best of the bunch. Once I started using film, I slowed down. I feel more confident about the quality of my pictures now. I also feel more connected to them. I worked harder to get them and each one is meaningful to me.

Film has light. Film is a sheet of music. Film is my rolleiflex.

6x6 or digital….why not both! Go both ways!

You get to wear loads of kit and look like Dennis Hopper from Apocalypse Now!

“And with that i’m outta here jack!”

Yes. Both. Digital for snaps or where you know the result won’t be printed larger than A4 or so (well, divide image-size by 300dpi for max print size). Film, specifically 6x6 medium-format, for taking photos at hugely decent resolution. Also film for dark subject-matter: if you have to stack digital images to reduce noise, you’ll extend the exposure time, whereas you can do multi-pass at scan time on film.

Too many people think fast playing of many notes on a musical instrument is the measure of good output. Too many people think the ability to take lots of snaps that mean nothing to the rest of the world and then spew them all over flickr is a good way to go. Slow down, take fewer shots, know your intended output, and since you’re going slower at source, you might as well wait for the light to be perfect too.

Especially Polaroid image transfers, emulsion transfers, SX-70/Time Zero manipulation. And Holga photos, too.

Nobody picks digital over film because they like the way it looks. They do it because it’s convenient… and art has always been about convenience and efficiency…

Oh and by the way, process means nothing.

I shoot film. I don’t shoot product or model shots, or anything studio-related at all. I’m not a PJ, nor anyone with a deadline. All of these things mean that I can sit on a roll of film for a year, Diafine it in 6 minutes, and if I want, make some nice prints with real chemistry that show off the illusive ‘glow’ of Leica glass.

If I were a PJ, I’d use whatever my editors/syndication company required. If I wanted to do macro shots of pugs and flowers, I’d get a DSLR. If I needed to do studio work I’d definitely go full-size-sensor digital.

As is, I’m quite fond of the grain of film and the wonderful analog oddities (water a few degrees too hot? too much coffee before agitation? watch it magically change in your daylight tank!)

When I can have a nice, silent, full-frame M-mount digital, I’ll definitely carry one. Until then, I kinda like the world of film. In fact, I’m gonna get a 4x5 some time this spring!

Viva la film.

Most any look you get with film you can get with digital and Photoshop — and I don’t think that’s cheating any more than chosing what film to use or paper to print on. I shoot more digital than film because it’s cheap and I have my digicam with me all the time — but I like the process of film better. I like the feel of my Nikon FE, and the continuity of going from subject to negative to print, all with light and lenses. I like the aspect ratio of 35mm film, and the discipline of shooting slide film and knowing I have to get it right when I press the button: no fixing things in the darkroom or on the computer. I love old cameras and darkroom gadgets, but I find it hard to get excited about the electronic stuff.

Film.

For I feel that you haven’t really grasp the meaning of photography if you haven’t spent hours in a darkroom breathing a combination of stop bath and fixer chemicals while wrestling with fiber paper and adjusting your filters and stops.

There is this romantic quality that belong to film and film only. Nothing can replace that.

Fuji Velvia for the fine grain and beautiful color saturation.

Film, baby!

Nothing, not even digital, can ever match the experience and discipline of using film. ‘Nuff said.

The whole process of loading the film, developing, printing, etc. is very satisfying. Plus, you’ve got that surprise element that doesn’t exist with digital.

unfortunately there is nowhere to put a sensor in my Leica IIIf

The element of surprise.

I love that.

Going to the photo lab to pick-up slides is better than Christmas morning.

I’m breakin’ this tie!

I have to make choices and sacrifices when I need to send my roll(s) of film to the lab- more drug or photo. As hard as the choice may be, I think in the long run, it’s making me a better person.

Film is king in my world. I learned on film and have a great understanding of how light and film work together. Even though I use digital for about 50% of the shots I take, I worry about the archival issues of digital images. Digital image formats will change, hard drives will crash, storage media will become obsolete, etc.. I love the lightning fast response of my Nikon film SLRs. I use a D70 at work and it just isn’t as fast and doesn’t have that satisfying feeling of capturing an image on film.

Enough said. I think I’m going to play a game of Gorgon. Oh wait, I don’t have a 5.25 inch floppy drive on my computer. Oh yeah, my Mac G5 can’t make sense of Apple II+ software. Oh darn, I just remembered that when I tried to load up that game on the Apple II+ a few years ago, the data on the disk had become unreadable.

Film all the way! Simple reason - digtial is incapable of taking decent black & white. There aint no digital camera in the world that can capture an image like true black & white film. Give me grain and contrast not smooth pixels please! Until there is a digital camera that can reproduce an image exactly as it would appear on Ilford film, my film cameras stay.

Digital colour doesnt look realistic - it looks fake and, well, computerised rather than the pure as the eye sess it colour of say Fuji Velvia.

There is only one digital range-finder and it aint worth the money.

Digital is for cheats…with film you actually need to know what you are doing - with digital you just keep pressing buttons and shooting until you get what you want - learn it on film before you go digital people please!!

There is jsut something to be said for a film picture. it is grittier…plus i love being in a dark room seeing my work take shape.

Yep, I use both. I love the whole process of film, as others have said the loading, developing and above all, inspecting the negatives. I love the satisfaction of processing my own film, there’s nothing quite like it. However, there are times when I just want to get the job done quickly and efficiently. Enter Mr D70.

I’m unsure what to vote for here, Film or Digital. Both have their place. However, I think Film just wins it for me.

I hate the way that digital prints look.. I can see the pixels, even on “professional” digital photo prints (especially on eyeglass frames and fabric patterns). Digitally printed skin just doesn’t look as smooth and real to me. I shouldn’t be able to see pixels on a 4x6 print. Hopefully digital prints will get better. But, people don’t seem to notice the pixels until I point them out, so maybe the prints won’t improve. It’s nice seeing pictures on a computer, but I need a nice print I can put in an album and show to family or friends.

With film I also get physical negatives. Several CD-R’s have failed on me.. but these negatives should be around a while, even if they get scratched or fade. Sure they can get lost, burnt, etc.. but the same applies to digital.

Also, I love taking pictures without a flash. Something about being able to go fully manual and adjust everything really appeals to me. My current camera is a Nikon N65 SLR. I’ve taken more pictures with this camera than all my past cameras combined.

If I need a digital photo (rarely), I have a cheapie, or I can scan a film photo.

Definitely film. I love it, I love it, I love it….

Long live film.

“However I do hope she will one day enjoy the extasy of seeing a print coming to life in the developer, with the red light and the smell of chemicals.”

red light? what kind of paper are you using? my Kodak Brownie OA Safelight is a nasty yellowish color, thank you very much.

But that does bring me to my favorite part about film- tremendous latitude. I shoot Ilford HP5 or T-Max which captures way way more information about highlight and shadow detail than you could ever print on paper. So I pick what i want to bring out- the light grain of the sand, the darkness in her eyes. My final print represents a carefully created artistic vision of the scene I saw. With digital, you don’t have the luxury of a huge dynamic range. (I shoot with Nikon DSLR’s professionally as a photojournalist). What you shoot is damn close to what your print looks like, there’s very little range for adjustment using Levels in Photoshop compared to the outstanding latitude of print film. Someone earlier said that digital gives you more flexibility because you can add color filters later- I beg to differ! Take a course at your local community college on film photography and discover the power you wield as an artist when exposing and printing film.

Slide film is in the same boat with print film except you have to get it right the first time. For people shooting landscapes this is perfect, they have tripods and spot meters and (relatively) all the time in the world. For everyday work (people, journalism, etc) I’d rather set my camera close to the right exposure and rely on the -2/+4 stop latitude you get with HP5 to get me an image.

What use do I have for digital? Simple- when I shoot a community event, human intrest story, or sport, my editor wants to see my top 3 to 5 images by the next day (im at a weekly paper. guys who work for dailies have it even tougher, their photos are due within 12 hours, often less than 2.) I set my Nikon to Matrix Metering and Aperture priority and let it choose exposure in 1/3EV steps. I review my shots on the preview screen and usually shoot at -1 EV because highlights are harder to rescue than shadows to get an image acceptable for newsprint. Digital is the way to go if you want to make money, because unless you’re in the top 0.1% of artistic geniuses who wield cameras (and you’re not), no editor on earth will pay you for your time and materials to shoot film and do things the old way- they’ll call up the next guy on their list who will do the job faster for cheaper with his Nikon D2X or Canon 1D.

But for images that have meaning to me, as an artist, you’ll never get me out of the darkroom. Digital doesn’t come close.

Just cannot get the lens I want on a digital camera.

I just picked up an RB67 kit for 600 bucks. Not only will I have better quality and aesthetics than 5000+ digital slrs, I’ll have the bicepts to kick all those digital sissies asses. Okay I must admit digital does have it’s place, it is far supior in work flow aspects. However, as an artist, I feel I can take my time and be so much more expressive. From the click of the shutter, the controlled processing of the film, to the final print, I can mold my final image into extreme beauty or whatever else I please. I’m sure there is a similar way of doing this with digital, but as a web designer/graphic designer I spend far too much time in front of a computer as it is. When every last bit of black and white film, papers, and chemicals are gone, I hope I am too. Long live film (and me).

I must say after having got huge retail therapy from buying an early xmas pressie (Minolta D5) I am having big problems adjusting to the pixel world. Bought for convienience, left it home and used our little piont and shoot Sony and got better results, no exposure probs, etc,etc,etc. Oh yeah I failed to confer, at this point in time my Minolta 35mm bodies (full frame capture) film SLRs’ win hands down even after playing at entry level for many years. the results are always worth waiting for, and yes I too some how contracted multiple shot syndrome, and so quickly too!

Like your Blog, AJ

Picture quality is sooo much better with film. I would like to have a digital SLR also, but cannot justify the expense in a good quality SLR that i know will need to be “upgraded” in a few years. I have had my Canon Rebel for 14 years and have never had one problem with it. I take awesome pictures with it. Lately i have been agonizing if i should switch to a Digital SLR or not and after much research i have decided it’s not my time yet…so i have upgraded my 14 year old Rebel to a Canon EOS-3. I will consider digital in a few more years but never give up my film camera!

Film For Sure.

its the feel, the loook, the real ness. digital has pro’s too, but more con’s in my opinion. film makes you think, gives a fresh look on things and forces to interact. digital easily becomes too easy and does not push the photographer to the limit.

sometimes, it is good to change between the two, simply cos they are different formats. maybe shooting film should be called “photography” and shooting digital “digitograhy”. usage of the one can stimulate usage of the other.

but what would i shoot for the perfect shot ?

Film. For Sure.

danielleussink.blogspot.com

I shoot both, but much prefer the look and feel of film. My digital work is relegated to newspaper and editorial assignments, where the longer turnover time of film is not allowed.

In general, I love film. However, I do shoot in digital too. When it comes to people photography in Canda or abroad, I prefer digital because the final quality of the imge is not my major concern. However, when I decide to photograph Yellow Mountains of China, specially in black and white, I use my 35mm Pentax Z1P or MZS. Inside Canada, I use medium format (Bronica ETRSi or Mamiya RB Pro SB, or Toyo 4 x 5 inch field camera). I am also semi-pro and do on location potrature in black and white and colour (visit my website: http://www.sharyphoto.ca). The only downside to film is that its cost (specially black and white darkroom material) is going up and I have to charge more my clients. Some of the clients cannot afford or do not understand the difference between film and digital. So, I have to use my digital camera for the portraiture. When I do wedding, I use my high speed film with great results.

So, what I am saying is that, film is superior to digital quality wise. Digital is more convenient when it comes to speedy work or snap shots.

I use the new product-digital film.

I enjoy both but still go 90% film. I use medium and 35 format, slide and b&w. With film I think a lot more about what I’m doing and it shows. After spending the day sitting at a computer screen at work I look forward to the hands-on aspects of film. Technically I find b&w film is more forgiving and will get an image where digital would not (though this will change?). I also use digital to set up flash before taking the final film images. Films each have a certain character (films are friends, not camera food) which I find engaging to work with. I don’t think of digital cameras in this way, though maybe if I meet the right one who knows? Emotionally film hits the high note for me, I identify with the images it gives me and can remember how I felt for each one.

The only thing I should say is that I am reluctant to use my digital camera to preview light settings. This is because the dark areas in the digital are not the same as those on the film. So, I prefer to use Polaroid with my medium format which gives me better prediction.

www.SharyPhoto.ca

film forces the present upon me. Like making love, it can be precious, guarded, anticipated, clumsy, awkward, new, refreshing, wonderful, exciting, fleeting. Digital is just not as exciting.

Right now I am mostly film. I use digital to shoot, say, a wedding, but for my own photography, film.

The notion that shooting volume increases your chances of getting a good shot is a false one. When I was in school this was a rude awakening. Paying attention to what you are doing will yield quality images far more than volume ever will. Anyone that has ever shot 4 x 5 or larger knows this. This of course isn’t a digital/film issue, it’s a quality of photography issue.

Stieglitz didn’t care how you made an image, he just cared about the image itself. Most of the time, I’d second that.

One concern I have, for the family photographer, not the professional, is the issue of having voluminous images on a hard drive that never get printed. All those shots from childhood that we all have, random shots, fuzzy shots, that we now look on fondly would never make it to paper, or the family album, in this digital age. Perhaps the ease of the digital image will translate into a loss for posterity.

Been shooting digital for two years, it’s back to slides for me. People look like crap in digital. Two words: COLOR INTERLOPATION. Digital color is fake, and it shows! Even worse, in areas of high detail, digital sacrifices color for detail. Faces are an area of high detail. People look beautiful on film. They just do. Of course, I’m a hobbyist. If I had to work as a photographer, digital has many advantages. QUALITY is not one of them.

Just got two rolls done…my God, the colors! And REAL bokeh! And actual 28mm shots! People who say that you can get the film look with digital and Photoshop need glasses. There is no substitute for real color information in every pixel. By that I mean the actual color information that existed during the shot, for every single pixel, not the filled-in, guesstimated by algorythm crayon crap that the digital camera “provides”. Besides, I’m going to scan my slides, and do all the cool Pshop stuff, and have that film look too.

Digital will mature some day…right now, it’s for low quality stuff. Any model who shoots their portfolio with digital…pity.

I’ve been shooting on Digital Film film for about 4 years now… Yes, it is cheaper, but it just doesn’t capture the “magic” of film. There’s just something missing.

I love the quality and creativity of film.

FILM - is more cooler than digital! It has a better quality and its for me, the real photography!

I like film. I have a Elan 7n and had a 20D. I used it for a week and I used it at a wedding and it was good but….I really didn’t like the kind of photographer I became (click click click). I even did my bro in laws family pics afterwards and took like 70 pics. I was like CRAP…now i have to go through all those…and I felt more like I was just pushing the button alot hoping for a good shot. I do like that you can delete the bad pics and I really do see the valitity that one can grow as a photographer in one way becasue you can gain alot more expreince faster but in I believe that you also grow as a photographer using film becuase you have to be more pateint with your shots and you shoot knowing what you shoot has to count. I also found that as much as digital saves time it also doesn’t. In this way you have to spend the time deleting…and if you shoot like 70 pics when you only want a handful…that kinda sucks…plus all the balancing and stuff that the lab does (if you get to know the people doing it and can trust them). I spent like 7 hours sorting out the wedding pics and deleting and so forth….man I hated that. I found myself not really even using the display at the back after a pic b/c I was so used to film and knowing if a pic turned out or not. I don’t think film will die out completly and I do like the look of film better but I can see how things are all going digital and really I think it is too bad. But like records even…some people are coming back to them for just that little bit of quility that it gives them and I think film will be the same way….it may fade but it will never go away.

film

Film activates the brain before pressing the button.

Digital would have to be the biggest con. Many times I have had discussions with digital heads who want to believe that their digital photos somehow are better than my film shots. All I have to do is set up the projector and display some of my transparencies, which silences them almost instantly. I suppose I would be upset too if I spent all that money and ended up with digital quality and not excellent quality as I now get with film.

For convenience, digital. Nothing beats taking hundreds of shots an hour for ease and carefreeness.

For art, film. I’m sorry, but there IS something vaguely erotic about that little ‘snap’ that marks the flick of the mirror and the rearranging of the little silver salt crystals on the emulsi…

Ahem.

I only use film mostly b/w. I also tend to favor manual primelenses.

digital black and white looks cheesy, dont like it, film is like painting, writing with light not sensors

film for photos

I use both, but I love b&w film (Tri-X) and fiber based papers - prints that don’t rub off with wet fingers - the silver image is still tops. My digital camera is 8 megapixel with a superb lens which I use for convenience and fun, not for making serious keeper photos. The idea of ink splashed on paper isn’t a real photograph in my opinion, real photos are made with photons from beginning to end (I also like Physics). For me there is something about the look, feel and sound of medium format cameras (without batteries), filled with roll film, that make me feel serious about my photography and the resulting silver gel, fiber based, sepia toned prints are great for making oil tinted color photos that really impress.

I definitely prefer film it alows me to be more creative with focus than digital does

Those of us who are around the history business share the concerns of long-term archival.

In additon, remember some of the color print paper of the early 70s. When they first came out they looked great. As the years passed by some the paper of the 60s held there color better than the some of the paper of the 70s. I suspect that many of the of the prints that digital users are generating off of their home printers will change for the worse, 5, 10, 20 etc. in the future.

These are great times we live in…..go buy yourself a Hasselblad MF AND a Nikon 990 digital on ebay for under a grand. Digital was good for bringing down the price of truely great equipment. Buy them both…..seriously.

Digital is more up-to-dated, but film is much better, in my opinion.

I think film is just “feeling” and looking better for me - more natural, I should say. And, also, I really pay much more attention to every shoot when I use film.

For me, digital is for parties, film is for other reasons. It’s good to have both!

Oh please. Traditional is the only way to go. You’ve gotta start with the roots or you’ll learn nothing - applies to much more than photography or filmmaking. Currently digital is a very useful tool for those entering cinema due to it’s affordability, but nothing looks better than film. So much more control!

I must admit, the advances in digital these past couple of years are truly remarkable. But after years of shooting medium format transparencies, my jaw still drops when I put them on a light table. I see a lot of you nodding approvingly.

Started with film, went digital and learned alot but decided that I liked taking pictures better than sittting in front of my computer and went back to film

I must admit I love technology but digital does not resonate with me. I’ve taken the best pictures with film and it’s likely I’ll continue to do so. Digital cameras are wonderful tools but film is more an art medium to me. You can have multiple copies of your digital file but there is only one film frame and it’s that uniqueness that seems to give it value.

film gives an earthy feel to the prints. although i have done a lot of digital, i find myself inclining towards the film lately.

To make one digital sensor = 2 years of one amateur film developing! So, did someone said digital is cleaner and safer?

If you viewed 70mm film on 70mm theaters and 35mm on good theaters you will definetly hate digital. No latitude, horrible digital grain, horrible video colors and lack of magic. Maybe in the future, but today’s digital imaging is simply UGLY!

Hi,

I love film-based photography. I tried to work semi-professionally, but it was disappointing, as the market is so saturated. Now, photography is my major hobby and that’s it! All my focus is on making pictures, sharing it with the others and discuss photography as art form. I am also interested in discussing photographic techniques.

In addition to fim-based black and white photography, I also hand colour one or more elements of the image at times.

Visit my non commercial web site at http://SharyPhoto.ca and read my article on photography. If you do so, please e-mail me you feedback.

I hope that Ilford will provide us with its great traditional products for as long as I live.

I use both and I think both mediums have their use. It’s like a choice between painting in oils or water colours. I shoot the majority of images on digital for convenience, but forced to make a choice, I prefer film.

I began shooting digital, and then on a college course started using film. Using film has vastly improved my photography. The focus is more on getting it right first time. Although at first, I thought there is more work involved with developing and printing yourself, but I’m changing my mind.

With digital it’s great for immediate feedback, but I tend to end up trigger-happy. The problem is I end up sat in front of a computer for hours with a lot of post processing to do. If you are serious you need an up to-date computer, Photoshop, colour calibration equipment to profile monitors and printers etc.. I seem to end up doing more work than with film.

Interestingly, I discovered on a visit to the lab I use, with the equipment they use, regardless whether I use film or digital, the image is still projected on traditional photographic paper and processed with chemicals!

For pure output alone especially monochrome film is hard to beat. I use digital when time is an issue, film when I want to record something important.

So glad to find this discussion thread. Like many of you, I’ve contemplated and re-contemplated the film vs. digital advantages and disadvantages. Perhaps unlike most of you, however, I’ve obsessed hours and hours over it, going to virtually any site I could find to read up on the virtues and liabilities of both. Then I reluctantly jumped into the digital world and went for it like a mad man. Result? FILM, FILM, FILM. Why? 3 main reasons:

1. Quality: when processed professionally, film still outperforms digital, esp. when enlarging (see luminouslandscape.com for a good discussion of this)
2. Convenience: when all is said and done, taking a roll of film and then dropping it off at my local pro shop to pick up later than day, and then downloading and sending the pics I want to family and friends, is still more convenient than playing around in Adobe or Capture One four hours and downloading RAW files and converting to JPEG and storing and erasing and…
3. Integrity: though this may sound odd, I’ve seen far too many examples of “altered” shots from digital that completely erase the artistry involved in getting the shot right at the “click.” I don’t want to doctor up my images to such a degree that I end up with a qualitatively different shot than the one I took — that, to my mind, is cheating. Yes, I know all the arguments about the manipulation that can happen in darkrooms with film, but they take a lot of effort and a lot of time and 99% of photogs don’t work in color darkrooms. I do my own b&w, which I prefer to shoot anyway. But the point is, part of the allure of shooting pictures are the technical and aesthetic decisions I make as I’m framing the shot. I like guess-work, I like understanding how light works, I like understanding the vagaries of exposure, and I DON’T like the ultra-colorful, ultra-saturated world of digital photography. It just seems like a cop-out to me in the end. So for those three reasons and few others, I’m relieved to be getting back to photography the way I think it was intended: with fine emulsions and analogue processing. (And I have a funny feeling many others are making the switch back, as well… can’t you just hear the collective sigh of relief?)

If desert island choice, I prefer to film. Ever since I got a digital camera, it spent nothing but little electricity to take a picture, not like before ,we had to cost for film. So my wife take pictures everywhere without any consider if necessary.Then store them into my computer ,never reviewing them. Soon my poor harddisk is filled with insignificant picturs. If use film, it has some relationgship with money when use the camera, and when we got them in the shape of cards, we’ll have look at them, and pick out the wonderful ones to treasure.

I love film, I love Slides, there is nothing like shoot a role of fuji velvia 50 slides and wacth it on the wall.

Film has the magical “Look” I have also digital but the images are filling my hdd and dvds forever.

Now im gone back to 35mm film and I love it.

This is like cd vs. vinyl. The thing is most people don’t realize that they made a laser record player that plays vinyl records better than cd’s ,in fact it sounds as good as the master in the recording studio with no wear, popping or scratching, you can even break the record in half and it will still play without skipping. Take a look at it on elpj.com.I wondered at the time why if they can make a laser read a pattern on a disc, How come they can’t make it read the groove in a record. Answer:They can brainwash you into thinking your getting a better format with digital and make you spend a bunch of money on an inferior technology. (This technology came out in the late 80’s along with cd’s) With this and mp3’s, It’s your cd’s that are really obsolete.The same technology that invented cd’s improved vinyl and that’s the same that will happen with film.You can still get all the latest releases on vinyl too if you look.So i don’t think films in to much trouble of being totally unavailable.It’s a shame camera manufacturers dumped film cameras because they just didn’t want there new product line to compete with $200.00 camera that can take pictures as good as there $2000.00 digital equivalent simply because they based pricing on image quality(megapixels).Same thing all over again.

digital is great for taking snap shots and pictures of stuff you are selling on ebay. for anything more serious film is more cost effective in many but not all cases. If you are shooting for art´s sake, then film will almost always be superior, better grey range, better color range, better saturation, much better detail in low light with no washouts, and a good progression in contrast and in shadow detail. Digital can replicate this look with the very best new Canon camera and maybe the new Nikon , in print sizes of 9x12 or smaller printed at 300 dpi. The older digital Nikons with the smaller sensor, ie less than full frame, are not so hot, they are kind of lame, when you compare them to the Canon full frame sensor, the detail just is not there, nor is the gradation of color. All of this pertains to the 35mm format and similar digital formats. Now, going to medium format, if money is no object, you can buy a leaf back and shoot with a Mamiya or Contax 645 and get stellar results. However your file size will be about 22 megapixels. Remember there is no direct conversion to a analog scan , on a high end flatbed scanner like a Scitex, or a good crossfield drum scan. These machines put out file sizes of 40 to 88 megabytes on the Scitex and 150 megabytes on the Crossfield, for high end scans that cost you a lot of money per 35mm negative. For example, an 88 megabyte scan on a scitex is about 45 dollars. But if the picture is important, ie for publication, or for a client, that is not such a big cost. It all depends on what the purpose of the picture is. At the lab I go to a proof sheet, developing, and a CD with high res scans of 30 megabytes per image, is about 28.00 dollars, then the really stellar images can be scanned later on a scitex if there is a reason and a financial justification to do so. Another thing, where do you shoot, what do you shoot, if you are like me and work in the boonies or in developing countries, there is no computer access for weeks at a time, you can´t carry a laptop, you can not carry a lot of batteries, nothing makes sense except carrying film. Also if you cost out things for travel photography, especially in developing countries where there is a high probability of theft, breakage, or loss, on your equipment, can you rationalize carrying a 5000 dollar camera body that might get stolen ? You have to worry about this all the time. If you are carrying film bodies, by comparison, a like new used F5 Nikon now is only about 700 dollars and it will outperform the digital cameras in almost every respect. Other used or new old stock Nikons are also a terrific bargain compared to their prices of a few years ago. So for what you would spend on one digital body, you can have two Nikon bodies, and two or three good zooms and a wide angle lens, all your film, flashes, and enough money left over to buy a ticket to anywhere in the world and stay for 3 weeks. Figure that !!! Most USA photographers are way too obsessed with equipment. The equation should be, to have the minimum amount of equipment with you , you need to do your shooting. Every other dollar should go to travel costs, hotel costs, developing and printing, and if you are self - employed, you should be saving money not spending it all on equipment. Now I understand the obsessive nature of buying photo equipment but the reality is a few really good zooms will cover most jobs and one really good long fast lens is a big plus especially an 85 1.4 or 135 2.0. The best lens for shooting stage stuff and nightime performances without flash is probably a 300 2.8. You can use these with digital or analog bodies. But they are huge and weigh a ton, travelling with one is a miserable experience, better to have a 70 to 200 and get closer to your subject….well anyway, film is better for serious applications uless you have a ton of money to spend and can buy the latest nikon or canon or larger format equpment. A good digital back for medium format is at least 20k usd and can be much higher, like 60 k, do you want to go on safari with a 60k back for your camera? Unless someone else is paying you it just does not make sense. And if you are shooting medium format your file sizes will be bigger if you shoot negative or transparency, and scan on a good flatbed scanner………bigger, much bigger than file sizes from any but the largest and most expensive of the new digital backs. And these really are not pragmatic to carry around on the back of the elephant or whatever…

Digital looks wierd. I mean, everything about the image looks wierd. Depth of field is not at all how the eye sees reality. Look at a digital image of a city scene, and pay attention to the background. The lighting is not right, and distant objects seem to be as clearly defined as foreground. This is not how the human eye sees distance. Hair often looks like plastic and wig like. People’s bodies seem too sharply defined, as if they were mannequins. Granted, digital is sharp, but that isn’t what makes a pleasant image. For B&W digital is hopeless. You will never in a million years take a desaturated color shot and be able to reproduce the tonal latitude of Tri-X or any other great B&W film. I have given up on digital, after looking thru my older film work. Digital is cheap and handy, and I still use digital for quick grab shots to document things, but invariably I look at the image later and think, gee, I wish I had shot that w/ film. I don’t have a biased agenda. I really wish digital looked better because I could afford to take many more shots. But the downsides are too large and unavoidable. So, I sold the DSLR’s and even the film SLR’s and bought a Contax G1 w/ a couple of lenses, and a Konica Hexar, and some Agfa Vista 200 old stock to go w/ my Ilford HP5 and Tri-X and couldn’t be happier. The images are just great. Expensive, and inconvenient, but worth it.

I think most people’s perception of film is based on using consumer grade film in consumer cameras and dropping their film off later at a Walmart of Walgreens. Compared to that, digital can look really good. And of course it has all of the advantages of instantly seeing on your LCD screen if you have the shot, no film costs, etc. Personally, I blame the incompetent boobs at one hour labs for the death of film. They can really mess up your photos, and you can forget asking them for tips or advice. They don’t know anything. But use pro film in a pro camera w/ a sharp lens and drop your film off at a pro lab and you will be see a world of difference. They will usually be able to help you to improve your shots, and recommend what type of film would work best for you. If you choose to shoot B&W it is very easy and cheap to develop your own negs in a little bottle. You don’t need a darkroom. Then you can scan the negs on a film scanner and edit the images in Photoshop and print on a dedicated B&W printer. The costs are very low, you have total control of the whole process from film to print, and you can learn so much more about photography this way. Not to mention that a B&W image from film is nearly always going to look much better than a digital image that has been captured in color and then converted to B&W. Digital is for speed and convenience. The result of this has been to drive film camera prices way down, so now you can buy a top of the line film camera for peanuts. The pro Nikon, Canon, Leica etc film cameras and lenses are good investments too, as they are now seeing a resurgence in resale prices. I know that I can buy a nice pro film lens or camera, use it for years, and resell it for what I paid for it, or more. I know this because I have been doing it, as have other people. So for me, the question of film or digital is really about different things. Do you need speed and low processing costs? Are you comfortable w/ the type of images that you get from digital capture? Are nearly all of your shots going to be in color? Are you going to be working in a commercial environment? Then you would probably be happier w/ digital. But if image quality is of prime importance, you shoot a lot of B&W, you want to learn more about photography, your market is going to be a gallery, and you like using finely engineered equipment, then you really have to shoot film. It just depends on what your needs are.

I love film. I attempted to work as semi-pro sometime ago (as indicated in my older message here), but it turned out to be futile. I am only a serious hobbyist whose passion #1 is film. My images are mediocre, but I love the process of taking pictures while I put a lot of thought into it, develop and print on b/w paper. The only problem is the cost. But, since I am very slow in finishing a 35 mm film, my overall cost is not that much per year (it is minimal). So, I enjoy doing it and wait for the results a bit longer, which is OK.

I wrote an article on my web site (http://SharyPhoto.ca). Please read it.

People who think that digital photography is equal to or anywhere near equal to film are rationalizing their choice to move to an inferior medium for the sake of gee whiz convenience features. Don’t get me wrong, there’s things I love about digital, like the flexibility to be able to change ISO speeds shot by shot if encountering different lighting situations and the instant feedback for exposure checking, etc. But the images are not as good as film, period. The comparisons that attempt to “prove” otherwise are a joke (typitcally they compare digital images to scanned film, which already “dumbs down” the film image since no scanner can capture all of the information on the film, and many resort to ridiculousness of zooming in to take the film shot to match the “magnification” of the digital shot (when the magnification is identical AT THE SAME FOCAL LENGTH), thus invalidating the so-called comparison (making it a sharpness of lens-at-shorter-focal-length vs. sharpness of lens-at-longer-focal-length comparison instead of a film vs. digital comparison), not to mention most choose to use skylines as their subject (lots of nice straight lines, nothing to challlenge the square pixels) - wonder why they don’t use LANDSCAPES lol…

OK, next time I’m shooting pitures when the wind chill is 40 below (which I’ve done before) I’ll still be shooting with film, since even IF I thought digital was as good, even the top of the line digital SLR camera specs say they cease to function below freezing, which is a pretty high “pack it in” temperature!

iam not a film generation , but of course with no doubts i prefer use film 8x10 , 5x7 and 4x5 large format maybe a medium 120mm sometimes …

i use digital because iam a amateur but i see works in film too beautifull

I’ll have film thanks the reason? I like print, end of story. There has never been a digital picture the way that a 35mm film can produce which is going through the projector at 24fps. Think about it The Godfather, A Clockwork Orange, Rocky, Superman The Movie, Halloween. Would any of these look as good shot on a digital camera. I work with digital for one reason - I cannot offord film, but I use digital to showcase my work and to hopefully get enough money as a result to use film in the future. I don’t think it’s on the way out yet.

There is something very “textile” about shooting film. I have told my friends with the advant of good digitalcameras a “monkey” could do my job, where as before only a trainned professional could do.

I use both. A curent spec (planned obsolescence anybody??) DSLR for press work and jobs where ultimate quality doesn’t matter; press work and some commercial jobs where the end result will be for web, AV or a small prints. The speed and convenience is absolutely unbeatable..for the right job.

But I have a major issue with the ‘dumbing down’ of photography; 8 or at most 12bit color, agains 44 bit on film, ropey quality zooms in the consume DSLR market. Unsharp images and the copmlete emphasis on ‘no skill required’. Most of the digital guys on here keep on about how wonderful photoshop is for picking up the pieces when the photographer (image taker?) has made a balls of it in the first place. Half the editing tools in PS aren’t needed if you can take a properly exposed, focussed image first time around.

However my quality work (architecture) is done on a Contax G1 with a 21mm prime and 50asa E6 which produces jaw dropping sharp prints at sizes digital can’t get near…and this is still 35mm. My old Bronica 120 (30 years old) will blow both digital & 35mm out of the water..but you get a hernia carrying the full kit.

Horses for courses but there’s still a load of life left in film..Hollywood still store their movie masters on film because nobody knows the image format in 20 years time …

Digital will be better…someday but not yet. At this time the quality is iffy (I’d happily play basketball with matey’s D5 over in the digital dorks section. Newer yes..more convenient yes..instant result yes. Decent 60x40 prints from a DSLR with 12 bit Tiff files ha ha..get a life! As Jon said..becareful of the digital format..its not fixed yet which image format will last..so in 10 yrs your could have unreadable files.

Although I’m not half as good a photographer as I think I could be, I like the digital format because its mostly faster, cheaper and easier. Seems to me, a greater volume of photos creates a greater chance that a few good ones will turn up. Many of the photos I find most interesting are ones that show a particular moment, that have an element of chance - these are hard to capture without just taking tons and tons of photos. Once you get past the initial steeper (in some cases) cost of a digital camera (as well as the need for a computer I suppose), there’s no economic disadvantages to taking enormous amounts of photos when you go digital.

This is not to say I don’t appreciate film, growing up in Rochester New York (home of Kodak), summer camp was actually “photography camp” so the smell of fixer and the satisfaction of developing a high quality print cuts pretty deep. In the end though, I prefer digital just because it means a fewer barriers, and greater chances that I’ll keep taking photos.

I’ve done both (more film thus far). Digital is so easy and convenient but I believe that any budding photographer should endure the smell of fix and the wrench work in a dark room for a handsome amount of time before considering oneself a decent photographer.

Digital photography has proved true my long-time assertion that, unlike other art forms, everyone can make a great photograph. I love that aspect of it and for that, I wil go with “Digital” as the great exposer of charlatans.

That being said, nothing has the character and qualities of flim — both moving and still photos.

But still, if it weren’t for digital cameras and Flickr, I’d see about 10 great photos per year. Now I see hundreds, if not thousands.

There should definitely be a third option. Nothing beats the satisfaction of setting up a great landscape shot on a fully-manual film SLR, hearing the “click” of the shutter, and knowing it’ll be at least two weeks before that perfect developed Kodachrome 25 slide drops through your letterbox.

Or perhaps you screwed up the exposure or something else went wrong - who knows?

But for ease and speed, nothing beats digital. I can set up a shot, take it, preview it to check it’s fundamentally correct, fiddle with it until perfect and have it printed or published on the web within an hour.

You ask this question in the internet? Of course we all like Digital over Film. ;)

Both are fun. I even like instant film. It’s so cool that I don’t have to choose one over the other.

Would there be wirless or 1-hour processing on this desert island?

If you’re a fetishist who needs to feel the dials click, the shutter snick, and the comforting smell of developer in the darkroom, go with film. But if you’re interested in the images, digital is the only way to go, and has been for a couple of years. Near-zero cost means you won’t hesitate to capture that once-in-a-lifetime image, and immediate feedback lets you know you’ve gotten what you set out to capture.

For most of us, quality is a wash. I’m sure there are a handful of landscape photographers who need the resolution of a fine-grained B/W 8x10 view camera shot, but stunning 11x17 prints are good enough for most.

1/60 of a second

~100 kb/s

yellow “new” flickr image

repeat

actually, i want both. or rather, i want it all.

Digital is so plain ? digital is ecologic digital don´t waste water and for people like me who shoot thousands photos digital creativity versus money digital colour digital and the kodak rule FAST focus-aperture-shutter-THINK digital etc etc

Ahrrrrg, These be the days of early digital, just ye wait mateys, the future of digital will far out-deliver the molycules. Think of TV in the 50’s…(ahrrrg)

Assuming that there is power on the island to charge the batteries, that also assumes that I have a computer with a kick ass image editor.

I’ve long shot film, but the cost to print is too high. With the crack hit of flickr and the power (and utter enjoyability) of working in front of a computer instead of in a cold darkroom, I’ve been able to experiment beyond anything I’ve ever done on film. I’ve shot more and learned more about light with digital than I ever did with film.

While nothing can match getting a contact sheet back on a roll of Holga exposures, image editing has come so far as to allow one to be able to recreate that look/feel on a computer. The island would have to have a sweet internet connection.

I’m a geek. A computer geek, not a photography geek.

sensuality-too clean-of a art-tri-x,maybe a lot of people doesn´t know much about photography,art etc,and about sensuality,yes if you go to the darkroom with a woman,red ligth in a warm day sure tons of sensuality at the end of the whole process we have to make a clean-up to the darkroom,fight with dust,with cold water, in summer to hot,5 or more hour to enlarge 10 paper copy 30/40cm,for me darkroom is dead and heavy cameras around the neck no more, really the only interesting thing is the final photo not the process before you take

There was a time when I would have answered “film” without thinking. But with Canon’s fabulous Digital Rebel line, I’ve really transitioned to digital. I love film and always will, but the freedom digital allows just makes film seem pricey and outdated. I still love you, film, I’m just not in that way.

Digital. Entirely for practical reasons. First: It’s what I know. I’ve done digital media all my life. I know it. Second: Speed and convenience. I’ve only been a still photographer for a little over a year. The feedback loop on taking photos and seeing the results (not the tiny result in the display but the full result on the computer and printouts) is much faster, and so I found that I’ve learned much quicker.

So my vote is digital.

That said, I’m fascinated with the qualities of film photographs that I’ve seen. Specifically, the different tonalities. I’ve even tried to recreate (with some success) film tonalities in my digital photographs. If I had a lot more time to devote to it, I think I’d take up film photography.

But my vote is still digital.

for analogphotography.net,please go to this url http://the-look-of-love.my-expressions.com/lad.html and you can find the UGLY quintessence. http://the-look-of-love.my-expressions.com/hs.html
http://the-look-of-love.my-expressions.com/hsz.html

I’m impatient. Gimme digital!

If you had asked me 12 months ago, I would have definitely said “film” for any shots that I cared about. Turn to today, and I now have a digital SLR which has dramatically changed my view.

The workflow is so much easier, and on my terms. With film photography, I would have to buy the film (not cheap for good film), store it properly, expose it before it passed its peak, get it processed, scan in the slides, process the digital files, and so on.

With my digital SLR, I still have the exposure control that I loved about film, but get the pleasure of coming home from shooting, plugging in, and getting right down to it.

If I wanted to make some big black and white prints, I’d probably still do it on film and process the prints in the darkroom, but that’s the joy of the SLR — I still have my film body and my lens investment can be used across both.

monovita

Love film and started with it. But it’s loving the idea and memory of it more than the reality. Digital rocks! It is the next step in the evolution of photography. The fate of film is sealed and for whom the bell tolls. ;-)

A no-brainer, especially on a desert island, where you could never even see your film pics. (grin)

because for me film and printing would be a waste of money. as i am taking snapshots all the time and they’re not always good for being printed… saving them on the harddrive on the other hand is great.

hs

Film has its place, but Digital is just great

hs 24 minutes later uf !

Digital allows the photographer to work with images in numerous ways, the possibilities are seemingly endless, experimentation abounds, learning is immediate.

Film is more direct and linear, you shoot film, you develop it and then you print or scan it. Scanning opens some doors, but with film, you can never go back to the original and reinvent the image. Digital with RAW format gives you this possibility, allowing your images, no matter when you shot them, to evolve, i.e. as your image processing skills improve and evolve, you can go back to the RAWs of past favorites and completely reinvent the image using your new skills.

I tried to like film, but with digital, I feel I have more control over my images. Film is an act of faith, you are shackled to the skills of Joe Bob at the Walmart one-hour photo center and numerous ofther potentional hazards, digital is self determination, my cameras (Nikon Coolpix, Eos 10D, Eos 1D Mk II, and Eos 1Ds Mk II) have never let me down and I have complete control over the end result.

The idea that characteristics of film are somehow more warm, or crunchy or whatever, is just the desperate whinings of a dying breed. Whatever you can do with film, I can probably match or do better with digital - tones, grain, contrast, dynamic range, and more.

Bryon Paul McCartney

www.atelier-mccartney.com

I just read this:

‘you can cross process film’

Yes you can, but only once, with digital I can cross-process in a number of different ways, I can do split toning, I can use blue, red, Pantone 309, Federal Chrome Yellow No. 9 or any other color as a filter to convert to black & white. With film, you get one chance, and then it’s done, forever. I don’t like that kind of permanance, I want choices.

i prefer digital…why?? BECAUSE ON THE INTERNET EVERYONE MUST BROADCAST THEIR OPINIONS ABOUT THE BANAL MINUTIA OF THEIR LIVES CONSTANTLY.

Both have their place. Digital has made things SO much easier. If I’m feelin’ retro, I’ll break out my Holga, but you can take my Digital SLR when you can pry it from my cold, dead finger!

I seriously don’t have time to worry about film. All that time and expense for developing, printing, etc. Digital is the BOMB! I can take a picture RIGHT NOW and send it to a loved one RIGHT NOW! I love it!

Digital. Film still has its place, but just not for me usually. 35mm (unless specialized like IR or panoramic or pinhole) is useless in my opinion. You can get a better photo for less money from a DSLR. But if you shoot larger formats (esp 4x5 and larger) film is definately better for now. (give digital 5 more years)

To whomever said Digital is not cheaper, they don’t have my shooting style then. I’ve shot probably 14,000 photos this year so far (see flounderphoto.com ) that is about 390 rolls of film. at 10 dollars a roll for buying and processing that is 3900 bucks, not counting prints. I could buy a very damn good DSLR with that. (but I’m happy with my fujifilm s2 pro)

To whomever said that Digital is more prone to loss. That is ridiculous. I back my photos up to a 2nd hard drive, to DVD, and then publish lots to the web. Nuclear war probably wouldn’t ruin all of those. Yeah, every few years I might have to back them up somewhere else, but that is better than the boxes and boxes of film and photos that I have laying around everywhere that I’ll never make it through.

Also you can’t beat Digital for indexing and archiving! Also safer while shooting. You know that shot came out, or you can shoot it again.

From what I can tell from the other side of the column I might fit into the catagory of ‘shut up until you’re old enough to understand’ hehe

I was a die hard film. I had made the comment that I would not purchase a digital camera until I found one that could do everything my 35mm could. A few years ago I found that camera. At that point it was out of my price range and I resigned myself to staying with ‘tried and true’….. while at the same time keeping my eye on the dslr. The Nikon D100 finally came down in price to about 1/2 of what it was when I first started pricing it. I finally bit the bullet and bought one. I have never regretted this decision! Best camera I have ever owned and the money I save on all of the film (and sending out for developing) will someday make it so I can justify the purchase. I can now take 1000 pictures in one day, pick out the ones I like, delete the others……… and pay 15 cents a piece to put onto a 4x6. It’s a definate win/win situation for me.

I love blasting away on my digital - I feel more free to shoot everything I want. But I love my pinhole camera, and I’m trying to use it more. My next goal is to start shooting with my old Minolta XG-M.

As a new photographer I find it easier to learn when I can see results immediately with my digital slr.

With film, I can’t afford to take as my photos as I’d like. I can’t explore or take risks.

When I bought my first digital camera, the salesman told me that I would never use my SLR again. I thought he was stupid. After 3 years I have to agree that he was right. I’m owning a 5mpix camera and just got me a 70x100cm poster on the wall of a sunflower which is really amazing! Never thought that this was possible and I thought the max of 5mpix was A4.

Also check out this review of Nikon D2x compared to Film

Digital for the immediacy. You always know if you got the shot.

Digital gives me the opportunity to shoot, shoot and shoot. I can get lucky, and I can spend hours experimenting for just a few pence in electricity. Film is too expensive and doesn’t give instant feedback.

I used to be a die hard medium format guy. But now, with the advanced in digital cameras and editing software, I have switched. With digital I am able to shoot several hundred shots in an days outing and then review them later. Also the ability to review and make adjustments on the fly - much as we used to do with our Polaroid backs years ago.

Technology is a means to an end. Film was a way of capturing images. To distribute them, then you had to do more. Scanning, printing, whatever.

Digital is, in today’s connected world, a purer technology. Within minutes millions of people can see an image. With a film camera, how many pictures did you take and then develop each year? I’m guessing the average person on the street would do between 100 and 200. Max. Probably not even that. I have a digital camera, and I have taken well over 1200 images this year, and with a click of a button Ik can share them with my friends, my family, my world. The world. People can document their lives, their communities, travels, thoughts and events quickly, easily and for no incremental cost. Once you have the camera, it’s free. Basically, you can document history like never before.

We need to keep pushing boundaries. Creatively, journalistically, technically. Digital is the way to do that. All major film technology events are now digital. Sin City, Star Wars, Superman Returns. The image quality of digital images is now approaching that of film. Within a few years, they will have surpassed it.

The democratisation of technology means that soon anyone will be able to make a Hollywood quality movie for the cost of a Sony HDV cam and a Power Mac. Make a DVD, post it on the web. More stories will get told.

What about the news? Democratising technology will mean that creative and editorial control will be democratised. The BBC, Fox, CNN may tell you one story. Anyone there will be able to tell the world their story in every language under the sun - a picture.

Film has a romance about it. A history. It gave us what we have. Digital is the present and the future.

I need to be able to use my uber tool, the computer. For everything, always.

Digital - no question, no looking back. I have been a professional advertising/editorial photographer since 1986. (website) Been using high end digital since 1996 (Leaf DCB) and digital SLRs since 2001. Sure film, still, has some advantages, but digital has it completely beat for workflow, immediacy, accuracy, flexibility, convenience and cost—to name just a few.

All the romantic stuff about darkrooms and chemicals and papers etc etc is just sentimental. I feel it sometime too, but it is the past.

No question. Digital imaging is the way to go. Digital is immediate and the storage media allows experimentation, learning on the spot, discarding of poor results, etc. It’s also more environmentally friendly: print only the shots you want, view the others from your hard drive or load ‘em onto a photo album service for online sharing. I love film as well but once I made the switch I’ve never looked back. And I’ve captured a greater number of better pictures because of the flexibility and immediacy of digital imaging.

RAW gives me the power to do my own color developing. I couldn’t do that with film. Not to mention the ease of organization! It’s dig all the way for me.

Digital has less costs- no film, no printing. I rarely have a need for having my photos in print. I enjoy being able to take a photo and have it online within 5 minutes. I also do some freelance photography, and my employer takes the photos in digital format.

This question isn’t really fair—first of all, on a desert island I would choose digital because film would be effectively useless… I would never get to see my prints. At least with digital I could use the screen to look at photos I’d taken. That aside, it’s still a hard question.

I prefer digital now because it’s so simple. Editing photos, re-printing, sharing, etc, etc are all easier with digital and once you get a dSLR you’re also getting much better shots that look closer to film.

It used to be film until I got a decent digital SLR. Now it is digital all the way and my EOS-5 is collecting dust.

Yeah it is a bit tricky with white balance and getting decent digital black and white but both me and the technology are getting better at it!

blog.davidkaspar.com

It’s digital for me right now and that would be my desert island choice. I still love my Spotmatic but I can’t go past the instant feedback and creative options I get from digital. Maybe when I get a decent film scanner I might start to make the shift back.

After shooting digital for a year, I just shot a roll of film. Hated it.

I am not talking about the end result, I am talking about my experience. This is a hobby after all, I am supposed to enjoy it. I have grown too attached to the immediacy, the control and the privacy to ever go back to film.

Also, how can I get my 5 year old hooked on something that takes so long to process. She’s a good kid, but if the birdie isn’t coming out in the next 5 seconds, she’ll be back to watching TV. However I do hope she will one day enjoy the extasy of seeing a print coming to life in the developer, with the red light and the smell of chemicals.

Hmmm….

I see a lot of arguments here for film that would mirror the same arguments made in the past. Glass plate versus acetate film, large format versus the 35mm or Poloroids not being “real photography”. The history of photography is littered with these fights when all along the only thing history will remember is the imagery. Digital is just another means to an end people, deal with it. Now if you wanna talk professional photography, there will be 4 chem labs left in 5 years and a limited number of film stocks and papers to choose from. Much like you can’t get glass plate now either. In art everything has it’s purpose. People still do etchings for art. And people will always shoot film. It is only going to get more costly as time moves on. Too often I see people who will set up a film shoot with certain lights for the warmth, this camera and lens for this style, but then shoot digital with no thought about it. In digital all this is done in Post. Looking at your RAW files as your final is like only looking at a B&W neg and never printing it.

Digital is just the newest tool set to create imagery.

Digital is better…

Digital is better now days for most stuff… for me. Film will eventually be only for those doing fine art… sad, but true.

danklife my thoughts exactly, it’s something like the digital vs vinyl argument, Technology moves forward

Beta vs. VHS = Beta had better quality, but loss to cheaper and wiper accepted format. PC vs. MAC = I was an avid promoter of the PC until I was EDUCATED with the abilities of the MAC, MAC with OS X is truly a personal workstation.

Now it’s Film versus Digital. Personally, digital wins. The younger generation will grasp and utilize the digital camera, with that, pushing the medium of film more into an oblivion of archaic proportions. A younger generation with the needs of speed, quality and easy accessibility will drive the standards of technology higher, higher than that of film. Film will be obsolete in 10 years. Why? because the new technologies of a digital camera will rival that of any film camera.

Hypothetically, why would National Geographic Magazine ship rolls of film out of location at ridiculous costs annually when they will be able to upload images via satellite. Currently National Geographic shots solely with film only but I also predict this will change within 10 years as well.

“Learn from history and predict the future.”

Considering the average desert island won’t have a darkroom available, I’d go with digital; I’ll at least be able to see the shots I took before the battery dies in a few days.

Of course, if I were’nt on a desert island, and if I had a whole lot more money and time, I’d go with film. Currently, though, digital is best for my situation.

Working with digital affords me the opportunity to take more photographs and photograph more often. The costs of film and processing are just too expensive when you are shooting for yourself. Digitals allows me to grow as a photographer without going broke in the process.

I love them both for various reasons, but if I had to choose, it would be digital, with a LOT of memory cards. Even on a desert island, I could find a lot of things to take pictures of, and digital allows me to shoot with wild abandon without having to worry about taking 5000 photos on my honeymoon. I could have never paid the bill to develop all that if I shot film.

(I’ll be taking a photography class for college credit in a few weeks, and it is all manual, all film. Maybe I’ll feel different about this issue once I am back in the darkroom.)

I like that it is an even 68 to 68 right now - being the tie-breaker is fun!

I’ve taken images that I would have never been able to pull with film.

i perfer digital mostly because if its a bad picture i can delete it. with film you don’t know if its good or bad untill you pay to get it developed.

I perfer digital currently, mainly because it is for me the most accessible and affordable option to practice…. practice…..practice…. I have a DSLR (rebel) and an inexpensive prime and a very inexpensive kit zoom… the look and feel of the equipment may not be all that appealing (it’s a lot of plastic)… it’s the look of the image that I’m trying to refine… who cares how you get there right? How many craftspeople get noticed for the tool they have in their shop - it’s the stuff they make with it.

Perhaps I’m only feeling this way now because I have no real experience with large format film or custom / modified - homemade film shooters… I’m not so hung up on the means to the end right now…

Digicall.

I struggled to give up film. The quality of 6x7cm format black and white is still superior to anything digital can offer and film seemed like so much more of an art.

Digital has allowed me so much more freedom. This is why I go with digital here.

At the end of the day, we either produce good or bad pictures, regardless of which medium we work in. That is surely all that counts.

I use the new product-digital film

I happen to have my digital camcorder with me right now at school. I love digital 100x more than film, although Film automatically gets a few points for being here first.

But I have to say I prefer digital, it makes it much easier to edit via computer and send to friends and family ^_^

I use digital film.Works the best.

Digital. I’ve worked with both, and am still doing the odd piece with film [mainly looking at the Toy Camera scene for film work now - Holga, Lomo]. But for me, digital gives me speedy results, instant feedback on my work. Bearing in mind how many films I never ever got processed, because the feeling for the moment had passed, digital is the only way for me to keep shooting. I love the look and feel of film, but for me, it just doesn’t fit my personality.

Been shooting digital since 1996, using Photoshop since version 2.0

All you film shooters out there - keep doing it, the world would be a lesser place without you.

Check out my work at www.blueskystudio.co.uk

Why is this post still going on??? It is soooooo booorrrrinnnnngggg……yea yea yea I know, i’m posting too….bite me…. :)

Theres no doubt that the quality of the photo in a film camera can much override that of digital, but getting to that higher quality is not only a difficult it is also expensive. “Snappy snaps” wanted 8 quid off of me for one print the other day! I love film photography but im afraid for someone without the resource to do it themselves the process is a hassel. With digital you can churn out thousands pictures of good (not great) quality and every now and again there will be a brilliant picture.

I think both film and digital have their place. I LOVE turning the bathroom into a darkroom for a weekend and developing film (I don’t think my wife shares the sentiment oddly enough). However, if stuck on a desert island (with electricity and a computer of course), I’d have to go digital.

As much as I enjoy shooting and developing film, as an amateur photographer, I feel like I’ve learned 100x more while shooting digital. I can go out, snap 150 pictures while experimenting liberally with depth of field, perspective, etc. Then I can come home and view the results instantly to see what worked and what didn’t. Afterwards, for the shots that I like, I can print very clean looking 4x6’s, 8x10’s, or even a bit bigger sometimes. It’s especially nice for shots in difficult lighting too because I can check the histogram right away and see if I’ve properly exposed the image.

The quick feedback and lack of incremental expense (no film to buy or development costs) make digital ideal for people looking to practice and improve their skills.

For the most part, I like digital. There are some places, though, that I would not take my good camera - like into caves. For times like those, I use a disposable camera.

so much faster, quality getting much better great for sports photography

wrong topic but hey, Digital for movie making. Film for photography

Film is good for some projects, digital is good for others, plain and simple. There is no/shouldn’t be a standard. I’m bias towards digital although for several reasons. Now everyone is complaining about how crappy digital is, well, Collateral, Star Wars: Episodes 2-3(maybe even 1), Sin City, (and a bunch of other ones), were all shot on digital. Sin City easily could have not been made on film with Robert Rodriguez’s circumstances. At that same token, Lord of the Rings in Digital? Not so much.

Digital is growing. Film is not. Film is more of a dying elitist thing now. It’s more of a sumg difference than a quality difference now. The production company I work for just did a set of commercials. Some were shot on 35mm film with a huge professional and experienced crew and a big budget. One was shot with minimal crew for less money and on Beta SP (not even digital really). I personally thought the video looked significantly better than the film (and so did the clien