Digital or Not ????? [Archive]

Stemmy

2nd October 2005, 09:07 AM

I used film for the first six years of my photography career and I always used to have that slight feeling of dread after a wedding hoping that the pictures were ok.

When I visited the Lab I always sighed with relief when he passed me a package that felt like it had plenty of pictures in it.

I do not miss that feeling.

At least now I am sure of the pictures I have taken. After the wedding (Whilst having a pint) I backup all the compact flash cards to a portable hard drive (Flashtrax). I can view the images and the hard drive will even verify all the images to make sure none are corrupt.

When I get home my family know that the first thing I do is go to my office and download the cards then make three backups of the images. Two stay at my house and the other goes to my mum and dads (Just in case).

What do I miss about film - absolutley nothing!!

I used to do my weddings using a Bronica Medium format camera which used to use 120 roll film. It used to take 12 pictures per roll of film. On a standard wedding I would take 5 or 6 rolls of film, thats 70ish pictures. Not a massive amount for the Bride and Groom to choose from. What it did do for me was to train me to make every shot count.

Now using digital there is nothing stopping me taking pictures. I am currently previewing 150 to 200 images to the Bride and Groom. My reprint orders have almost doubled in two years. Better for me better for them.

Ok as I have said there is a trade off between digital and film but I think that I now provide a much better service to my customers. That is all that matters to me.

I will say it again FILM IS DEAD!!! Proove me wrong!

storm7

27th October 2005, 08:58 PM

What's film ?

Stemmy

27th October 2005, 09:22 PM

Apparently in the "Olden Days" people used to put a roll of tightly wound plastic into a "Camera" and then take pictures using it.

All sounds a bit primative to me!!!!!!!!!

StagePhotography.co.uk

19th November 2005, 12:02 AM

Well I've used nothing but digital....

While shooting a play once, there was a "film" photographer there for some reason - not sure why - but he came up to me and looked me in the face, almost spitting fire and said.....

"It's people like you that are putting me out of business....!"

I though in a split second...

1. Thanks for actually thinking i'm good enoug to do that....

2. Get a grip...

My reply was...

"Deal with it....."

Film has it's uses, but as you know nowadays everyone wants everything now.... Same goes with customers now....

Having spent most of my time doing stage photography I am only now moving towards weddings after having been asked to do a few...

The "film" chaps - as good as they are - seem rather threatened with digital side of things....

There must be a reason for that... ;)

Evoke

19th November 2005, 09:09 AM

DerekB

19th November 2005, 11:44 AM

I learnt my trade the hard way, back in the days before auto exposure, focus, etc. I tried out a digital camera as a way of planning studio shots (correct lighting ratios, exposure, etc.) without having to make copious notes and then trying to recreate the scene when the films came back.

The pictures from the digital camera amazed me. I haven't looked back since and my film cameras are now gathering dust. I still have a small film stock in case a client insistes on my using film but that hasn't happened yet.

Current system is Canon EOS 1DMkII, Canon EOS 10D and loads of mainly Sigma lenses ranging from 12mm to 300mm.

I shoot mainly weddings and can now download the shots (usually about 3-400) to a laptop and have a slide show running at the reception. I also have a dye-sub printer so can sell prints at the event.

On returning home I make at least 3 copies of the RAW image files before staring work on them (2x CD/DVD - 1 kept off site and backup hard drive).

The comments about always having the negatives in case of computer failure are spurious - what happens with film if you have a fire or damp gets to them? I once lost several thousand negatives and my print archive as well, due to rodents taking a liking to them.

If there is a downside, it's that i spend more time in Photoshop these days. Previously I would send the films off to the lab and they would go into the album as is. Now clients expect every shot to be retouched, fancy borders added, etc. But that is the way it is and I wouldn't change back again.

TTFN

StagePhotography.co.uk

19th November 2005, 12:31 PM

Totally agree with DerekB...

I do back up my photographs there and then, lowering risk...

I back them up in 2 places, on my laptop, and on
one of these Phototainer things......

http://www.intro2020.co.uk/pages/innoplus.htm

Push the card in and bang, a few minutes later you
got them all backed up...

Out of location shooting I use my laptop, and with the S3 Pro
you get shooting software which allows you to take the photo
from the laptop and it's loaded to the laptop and the camera
once it takes it... Very nice for Model and magazine stuff
and products...

StagePhotography.co.uk

19th November 2005, 12:33 PM

If there is a downside, it's that i spend more time in Photoshop these days. Previously I would send the films off to the lab and they would go into the album as is. Now clients expect every shot to be retouched, fancy borders added, etc. But that is the way it is and I wouldn't change back again.

Not used photoshop much, but Paint Shop Pro 9 has scripting
whch means you just load in the photo and if you have a standard
look and feel (complete with adding borders) you just run the script
and the computer gets on with it...

Saves me a LOT of time...

Dotty.c

20th November 2005, 07:55 AM

We use both film and digital, love the instant results with digital, but I also spend hours locked away in my dark room, developing my own prints (Not customers work, just personal) I have just spent a year studing for HNC with school leavers, 8 had fully automatic cameras 2 digital and 1 had a very old manual camera, all had done A level photography, but all of those who had automatic cameras had no idea how to use them on manual, mention depth of field and a glazed look desended. Digital is the way forward, but every photographer should first learn the basics and still know how to make every shot count, My 13 year old daughter can.

Craig

20th November 2005, 03:19 PM

Thank you for inviting me here, Martin. I'm a wildlife photographer and safari guide. Digital is not yet king, but it is stupid to ignore it. Unfortunately, it has too much going for it. Two years ago, I advised a 15 year old woman to continue to use and perfect her B&W technique with her ancient Canon A1. But today, I guess I'd say go directly to digital.

The worst things about digital? That damn Nikon I bought 14 months ago has lost 50% value. My Nikon F5's are now worth $500. And how can you tell if a super print is technique with the camera... or with the computer? Or does it matter.

In short, having been a film person for 40+ years, I will never see Digital as king. When I can view a virgin digital photo with the same excitement as a transparency through a good loupe...it might make it.

The worst part about digital? I have too many photos to edit. Taking 80 photos of a Pied Kingfisher opening a river crab is something I cannot do with my F5 and 37 exposures.

Such is life.

Stemmy

21st November 2005, 03:08 PM

I spent 6 years doing my weddings with a Bronica, Tripod, Metz Flash, Light Meter, Pro 4 Filter system etc.

I learnt how to take a photograph. And more importantly how a photograph was made. I could 90% of the time guess exposure and it be right. I learnt Fill Flash and Flash Balancing, Depth Of Field etc.

As soon as I went digital the camera now does most of this. You have to relearn photography and know the limitatioan that come with digital photography.

I also back up my images three times (one off site). So I feel they are safer than my rolls of film shoved in a box.

I think I give the customer a much better product being digital.

Martin

michaeljwhiston

21st November 2005, 05:36 PM

I have been shooting weddings for the last 4 years with Fuji NPH film and whether some consider it primitive or not my average reprint order is £300 to £400 and occasionally as much as £700. I could have carried on doing this for years, as there never was any good technical reason to change since modern film is superb.

However, in the light of obvious customer pressure, I have recently purchased the Canon EOS 5D and whilst film cameras were measured in hundreds of pounds, we are suddenly talking thousands to achieve the same result.

So that?s enough about costs and what?s done is done. I am about to shoot my first digital wedding this coming Saturday. The final test results that I took at the location last week were faultless and I do like being able to see the results in the camera's large 2.5" TFT screen.

I am a natural enthusiast for any technology (with an IT background), so I have enjoyed my learning curve over the last few weeks. I think if I am truthful about this, my greatest fear was the notorious reputation that digital has for being so sensitive that 1/3rd of a stop makes a difference, as this is a recipe for disaster in the rough and tumble of a wedding shoot. Film offered a latitude that I clung onto to save me from many a slip up in exposure settings.

To my utter surprise, RAW files are very little different in their flexibility and provide a very secure latitude for errors as most things can be corrected later, making digital ideal for weddings. I am particularly impress with the total control over white balance, contrast, sharpness and even picture styles, which can be sorted out in the comfort of my own office after the event.

I think I must agree with an earlier thread comment that it is not knowing what to do once you have the files that is putting many wedding photographers off from making the jump. I am still stinging from the expense this has incurred, but I haven't got a greater buzz out of anything in a long time and am really looking forward to the wedding shoot this coming Saturday.

Michael Whiston

lostmysnorkel

22nd November 2005, 02:44 AM

I recently went digital because of a job I had with Gymboree - a music and play organisation for kids.

I had two weeks with them, and worked out that with film, I would need to sell AT LEAST £300-350 worth of prints to break even due to film & processing costs.

It was simple maths, two of these bookings with Gymboree would cost me the same as a D70s in film stock and processing, so in came the digi.

I still use my film cameras for the underwater work, partly because it is expensive to 'waterproof' a decent DSLR, and also because I don't need to be able to fill a card with 180 RAW files during a dive. I rarely finish a roll of 36 before my air runs out!

Still, I am plannning to be fully digital within 12-18 months as for me, the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. |Just got to sasve up more of the green stuff.

chozma

22nd November 2005, 03:13 PM

I was dragged kicking and screaming into the wold of digital photography by way of a graduation present. The digital camera that I have doesn't do everything that my old film camera does but that's just because I need to upgrade. Digital photography is just so convenient and much cheaper on a day to day basis - there's no going back.
I am keeping my film cameras though in the wistful, nostalgic hope of spending long, beautiful days shut up in a pitch black room with chemicals. ahh (sighs).

fotomatt

22nd November 2005, 03:20 PM

I've been shooting since '77 and will be looking at the elimination of my favorite film, TriX, in the near future. As a photojournalist in the early 90's we collectively spat on the idea of digital photography. "You can take my film camera when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers!!!" Okay, so maybe that's severe, but digital over film? NEVER! Yeah, right! For photojournalism, I can't imagine a better method of capture! For portraits and wedding photography? Absolutely!

I went "didge" two years ago and never looked back...too much...

I shoot with the Fuji S3 and S2. I love the freedom of only carrying one camera and being able to produce B&W, Color (that's colour for you folks over the Pond) and any ISO! I love coming back from a shoot, dumping my images in my dual G5, backing them up and knowing they are there. With film, I sent the medium format to my out-of-state lab and the 35mm stuff to a local lab. Now, I never had a film break or other problem...but it was a nerve-racking week while I waited!

When I leave a job I have at least two copies: one on the CF card, one in my Powerbook laptop (and a backup CD if my assistant is computer saavy). When I get back to the studio I dump the cards (again) in my G5 and back it up again! Too many copies? You can't do that with film!

For those of you considering (or just starting with) digital I have this advise. Don't...DO NOT...jump in with both feet! Take a wedding season and shoot didge side-by-side with your film. Learn the quirks, technicalities, exposure tolerance and workflow of digital BEFORE you attempt to do it professionally!

And get ready to spend some cash! HEAR THIS: Digital is NOT cheaper than film! DIGITAL IS NOT CHEAPER THAN FILM! To do digital right requires a huge investment. Remember when a $1,000 body was hard to swallow? Well, I'm on my second $2,500 body in as many years! And a dual G5 with 2 gigs memory (3,500), and two 500 gig LaCie harddrives...and 8 1-gig CF cards...and...and...and...

You can shoot a lot of film for that cash layout!

Would I have done it any other way? NO WAY! Digital has changed EVERYTHING about what I do for the positive!

The only film I ever seem to shoot now is in my Holga (www.LITfoto.com/holga)! I even sold my venerable F4 (to someone over there!).

Thanks for the space...feel free to email me with questions about digital workflow.

tonymidd

25th November 2005, 09:35 AM

I'm not going into the why's and where fore's but here's my penny worth.
Digital for colour that's far better than I could achive in the dark and so-so mono. All my commercial stuff is digital.
Fine art mono still has to be film and done properly in the dark. I feel really sad for anyone, and that includes pros who used film and sent it to a lab, who has never watched the magic of a print appearing in the dev. I've been doing it on and off for well over 50 years and I still get a tingle when that image appears. Beats watching an inkjet at work!
Oh before anyone says, darkrooms are not damp, smelly or dirty if ventilated properly and looked after.

DigitalRetouch

14th December 2005, 07:54 PM

Hello

I started out 6 years ago with my first manual SLR a Pentax MZM. I took a course - Small format camera and darkroom technique.

A year ago i took the plunge and splashed out on a Canon 20D. I also use a Flashtrax 20Gig backup. Photoshop CS2 on G4 flat panel iMac.

I find that going digital has allowed me to try out new techniques more freely without the worry of how much it is going to cost me in film and printing.

I have to admit though that I do not print my images enough now!

geoffhym

3rd January 2006, 11:59 PM

Film versus digi!!!!
I'm only a complete amateur here among you professionals - so what can I say.
Well a few months ago I watched a programme on TV about a group of proffs who only worked with "film", they were given digital cameras to use and were each given a project to shoot. Most were very impressed and suprised with the standard of work produced digitally. The reason that they still used film was merely because that's what they were used to!!! In many fields in life you do get that - people stuck in the mud - that's what we're used to!

Digi whether for a amateur or professional does make sense - for all the reasons already stated. That one can constantly preview the shot taken - is surely a great bonus.

Apart from all that is the convenience of storing shots on Cd's, electronically being able to send them within minutes to anywhere in the world etc. That is great technology!!!

Yes the equipment and upgrades are endless and a lot of dosh - but that's how it always is.
Geoff.

dengli

4th January 2006, 12:39 AM

I remember a while ago hearing an after dinner speech from an air traffic controller. He was talking about flying a helicopter and the gist of this part of his speech was - twiddle the sticks and see what happens because if you ever want to do that again that's what you do with the sticks.

The point? How many of us older generation who grew up with film ever remembered the settings we used when taking shots? I certainly didn't because of the time lapse between taking the shot and seeing the finished slide/print.

With digital I've learned more about why things work or don't work because of (a) the instant feedback from the camera and (b) the information I can see in the EXIF data. From experience I generally know what to do in terms of shutter speeds, aperture and on-the-fly flash calculations and the effects these have on the final image. Now I can hone and tune these skills to my heart's content using digital technology.

Digital rocks in my mind - heavens I can even mimic the characteristics of different film emulsions by tweaking the digital parameters! There's no going back.

england1965

14th January 2006, 02:01 PM

I used film for 28 years and was very sceptical of digital. I bought my first digital camera (Canon D30) to take on a trip across Australia and New Zealand in 2003.

I bought the D30 as an entry level unit (which still cost more than any single film camera I'd ever bought) to see how I liked it.

I must admit I have never looked back. I took 10,000 shots on that trip and was completely sold on the convenience, reliability, quality and cost of digital. I don't think I have taken a single film shot since then.

Film used to cost me 50p a frame - with that dreaded wait for the films to come back from the lab. I experiment a lot more these days - trying shots for the sake of trying.

Dust is my biggest bug-bear - once they get that sorted I'll be a happy bunny :)

Cheers

Mark

donkeypoodle

14th January 2006, 07:15 PM

I am interested to see that someone has posted that film doesnt (like a computer) "crash"...true, but labs processing machines do....trust me I have worked in pro labs in the past for many years, and seen it all...120 film mangled in the rollers, fogged, and even lost....you can't back up film...the risks are equal, but the benefits of digital are far more.....
That is why you should develop and process your own film at a photo lab. You can personalize many things about how your photo is developed, and best of all, none of it is automated; you do it all yourself, so there's no need to wory about a machine breaking down in the middle of processing your film.

Matt Needham

22nd January 2006, 01:51 PM

I definately prefer digital for for the majority of my weddings and commercial work. It's much more convenient and faster than film in many ways. That said I still love film, and shoot a lot of it in my personal work.

In 2004 I was 100% film, but as others have mentioned, finding good, reliable, local film services was getting harder. Digital drove all the good film lab techs out of the small market pro labs. After some problems with the only local lab left I bought a 20D out of frustration, and was really very pleasantly surprised. As far as I'm concerned I can do at least as good of a job with it as I can with any of my 35mm SLRs loaded with color film, and with the instant feedback I may be doing better.

I still like medium and large format film for landscapes, and some portrait work. There is digital technology showing up that looks like it can stand up to medium format film and 4x5, but it'll be a while before I can afford it, and I already have the film gear. I like fooling around in the darkroom, and using vintage cameras so I'll be somewhat of a film geek forever.

I also feel that besides looking fantastic, hand printed photographs made in the traditional BW darkroom have a romance or magic about them. When I'm shooting BW, and really trying to get something good, I'm visualizing the final piece as a gelatin silver print. A recent Washington Post article about digital photography becoming more popular in the art buying scene talked to one of New York's famous art photography dealers. He said that while gliclee (why are they afraid to call it ink-jet?), and other machine produced prints are doing well (not only of photography, but copies of sketches, screen prints, etc...) there is still a difference in percieved value between a piece "created with the push of a button" vs. "created by the photographer, alone in the dark." I've heard about enlargers that can print from files, but I wonder if they'll ever catch on enough to be affordable.

That said, the next gear on my wish list is a sweet Epson ink jet printer. :)

tonymidd

25th January 2006, 09:55 AM

There is one area where digital does not reign supreme, fine art mono.
Even the epson2400 can not equal a good fibre based wet processed mono print. Those subtle midrange greys are missing. I still use my 'blad and wet darkroom for this sort of work other wise it's all digital.
My D200 produces detail that equals if not betters the 'blad. The Hassy 39meg HD2 must be fantastic. The mono problem is with the printers and papers. The 2400 equals good RC mono so it will not be long before digital mono equals a byata print.

dazdidge

30th January 2006, 01:19 AM

Digital versus film is an argument that can never be won, both have their advantages/disadvantages. I have seen some digi prints that can't be distinguished from film, so I don't think quallity is an argument, unless of course you bring medium/large format into the equation. Personally I use film although I do have a little powershot G3, usually for convenience as it is small and easy to use. I have thought long and hard about going over to digital but to be honest I love my old film cameras and darkroom, I have tried and tried with photoshop etc but to be honest I find it a little boring, the darkroom to me is more interesting and fulfilling. Their is one area in which digital does excel, speed, and for journalists, wedding photographers etc digital has an obvious and undeniable advantage. On the other hand, there is nothing like developing your own film and then watching the resulting prints appear on a bit of paper. But each to their own I say.

Steve P

30th January 2006, 05:24 PM

Digital all the way. Being a printer as well as a photographer it was not a problem for me to move over, however for photographers who sent off their films there was a big learning curve to deal with.As well as learning computing skills.

But I think that film based photographers just have not got the know how to move over. So they would rather slag it off.

Just my opinion.

There are of course some uses for the old ways bilbo. But I can not think of any.

DennisB

30th January 2006, 06:23 PM

But I think that film based photographers just have not got the know how to move over. So they would rather slag it off.

Quite a generalisation there. I too, am a 100% digital man. I changed whenever it became clear to me that digital SLR capabilities matched my needs. I can fully appreciate that there are lots of other photographers who do not have the same needs and preferences that I have. It would be presumtious in the extreme for me to consider that they had made a wrong decision or were in any way less capable of adapting to new technology. Slagging off is not confined to one camp or the other, but whenever it happens, it usually indicates a lack of understanding of the real issues. Digital and film are just two different tools for addressing the same outcome. Many conditions will deteremine which is most suitable for a particular person or application.

Thankfully this forum has so far been spared the inane arguments and opinions such as those that litter the letters pages of many photography magazines. Long may it continue.

Just my opinion, of course :rolleyes:

(anyone old enough to remeber the derision heaped on ball-point pens when they started to become popular? Would never last they said; the ink would fade with time. At one time most official forms had "to be completed in ink, not ball point". )

Steve P

30th January 2006, 07:24 PM

Digital has its problems and the saddest thing to me is that digital is too easy and it?s not really a good learning tool for budding amateurs. With film "you learnt from your mistakes" and this genuinely gave you more understanding about exposure and light in general. Making you a better photographer.

By the way film 18 years digital 6. loved it but you have to move on

bbb

30th January 2006, 08:28 PM

I'm fairly new to photography and wouldn't have got into it if it were still film. I've only had a DSLR just over a year and have been published in a magazine - which is amazing to me :) I signed up for a City and Guilds in photography to learn all the technicalities of what I was achieving (but didn't fully understand) and learned about depth of field and the relationship between shutter speed, aperture and focal length which was invaluable. Unfortunatley I couldn't finish the course as the tutor quit, she didn't understand DLSRs at all really, when she tried to take a photo with mine she held it up, looked at the screen on the back and asked why the image wasn't there :rolleyes: :eek:

One thing about digital is that it's only just getting warmed up, image the cameras we'll be using in 10 years! Could be a full 3D scan of whatever is in front of you :D

DennisB

30th January 2006, 09:32 PM

........digital is too easy and it?s not really a good learning tool for budding amateurs. With film "you learnt from your mistakes"

Still not convinced, Steve. I believe that a modern digital camera, particularly a DSLR , is an excellent way for a beginner to learn about photography and all the technicallities. Of course, the basics like exposure and the affect of different apertures and all the other things we have grown up with are the starting point, but a digital camera has all these controls too. We all learn by mistakes and by experimentation whetehr we work with film or digital chip. Digital aids the learning process immensely because mistakes don't cost much, for the most part are evident immediatly, and best of all, all the parameters are recorded with the image. That certainly beats experimenting with film, where material costs, delay in getting the results and the need to keep accurate records are all weighed against quick feedback and effective learning.

Like you Steve, I have moved on...1955 first film camera, 1958 enlarger and rudimentary darkroom, 1997 first digital camera (640x480 pixels !), 2002 first DSLR, 2003 sold or gave away all film equipment.

To my mind, technology is only a tool to be used towards an end, not something to be worshipped because it is "traditional" or "trendy". The buzz of seing an image develop had long worn off for me, and unlike Tony, fine art printing is not something that I am (currently) interested in. Who knows, though.....this forum awakens all sorts of interests :D

I don't have any gripe with film or those who use it. I personally prefer digital, but as Dazdidge said earlier....each to his own :)

mauro

31st January 2006, 03:15 AM

Heya all,
I just joined this forum...so pls be kind! I would like to add my 2 cents worth on the argument over Digi and Film. There really shouldn't be an argument! For both have their place in photography, I dont agree with Stemmy's suggestion that film is dead...for as long as I'm alive film will live..and I'm only 29! I will make my own if I have to! Digital capture is now commonly used in my sector (advertising) though it is not the be all and end all. Personally I prefer film, but that is because I love the organic relationship I share with the entire process, though I also shoot digi for catalogue work. The revolution of digital technology has certainly made a lot of photographers complacent with their lighting considerations, and pre shoot visualisation. This, along with a crap load more people claiming to be photographers are the main down falls of digi. Though a great photographer is not great because of his/her equipment.
My conlusion is that this argument must be put to rest, we all have our own journeys and we must move on from this attachment to what is or what should be or what maybe... Live and enjoy!

Peace 'N love

mauro :)

DennisB

31st January 2006, 11:27 AM

Welcome to the forum, Mauro.

I agree that the only argument about digi-v-film is about why feel there is a need to defend either technology.

Looking forward to seeing more posts from you

tonymidd

31st January 2006, 01:04 PM

but a digital camera has all these controls too.
True Dennis, but the problem is a newcommer to photography with a digicam will not use them as it's easier to get acceptable results by letting the camera do it for you. So how to control DoF etc is not learnt. Using a manual camera, Zenith, Seagull what ever, will teach those basics that get overlooked with a digi.

Stemmy

31st January 2006, 01:20 PM

Seagull - whats one of those.

How do you get it to stand still ? - how does it hold the camera ? :D

Is that where "Watch the birdie" came from :D

I totally agree with what you are saying Tony. When I was using Bronica you had to know about exposure - DOF - flash balance etc.

Every shot had to count. 5 Rolls of 120 at a wedding. 12 shots per roll. I expected 58 shots to show the B&G.

Even with 35mm every shot used to cost money so you were aware of what you were doing. With digi there semms to be the attitude "I can take more or less anything, it can then be made a good picture in the computer". Not a good attitude !!!

Digital has transformed my business, but I think nothing gave me a better start in photography than the Bronica.

I also agree with mauro, my comment "Film is dead" was really to provoke discussion. I think there will always be a certain demand for film. Even if it is to satisfy a nostalgic few. I loved watching the prints develop in my darkroom. The problem is now that photography is my business my time is better spent with the family.

Marcin

31st January 2006, 01:31 PM

I'm new here but will try to put something into discussion.

I just started a blog that concerns photography; I wrote about a digital photography there: http://www.myphotobooth.com/blog/11.html (MyPhotoBooth). It is more like a confession than a pro comment, but maybe you want to see it.

John Argetsinger

5th February 2006, 06:02 AM

Everyone loves digital so much that it made me hate it so I stopped and now all I use are "primative" film cameras. I decided to use tools that were more challenging for me and made me work harder to get a good image out of the camera since there all so basic. This forum looks to me to be mainly digital toting commerical photographers two things that bore me most.

Photography that will never bore me:

Yoni Kifle (http://svr84.ehostpros.com/~plrds84/plrdyks85.htm)

Mike Brodie (http://svr84.ehostpros.com/~plrds84/plrdmbp89.htm)

Two photographers from:

www.plrds.com (http://www.plrds.com)

John Argetsinger

5th February 2006, 06:23 AM

oh and i just realized that this is a "wedding photography" forum. i received a random email invite some time ago and made an account yet never post here. i dont even know why i was invited. i'm shooting a friends wedding in the near future. will be done with my vintage polaroid cameras. photos scanned at 3200 dpi then lazer jet printed at whatever size they want. the digital/analog system i use works well for me.

DennisB

5th February 2006, 12:47 PM

Hi John

Having had a look at your own website and those you quote, I would not be surprised that you might be bored with the range of photography discussed here. The styles are so different. We all get something different from viewing and taking photographs whether it be by the latest digital means or by pin-hole cameras and self coated emulsions. We make the choices because we are who we are.

Good luck with the wedding shoot you have planned. Hope you have plenty of polaroid packs in the fridge :)

Alan Fairhurst

12th February 2006, 08:46 PM

I've learnt the hardway about digital. Over the past six months I've saved my photos to CD. Most Roll Film, some Digital. I've lost four CD's thro them becoming corrupted. Fortunately my Rollie photos I still have but the digital shots have gone for good. Now convince me!!!

Stemmy

12th February 2006, 08:57 PM

More backups.

At the end of a wedding I end up with four discs with their images on.

Always use good quality discs (I use Ritek)

When burning discs stop doing everything else on your pc.

I use DVD+R discs I was told that they are better at error handling.

Never stick those sticky lables to your discs.

Nice to see somebody relativley local to me. I see you like trains from your website. We get loads of "Speciality" trains here in Ramsbottom on th East Lancs Railway. Sometimes hundreds of photographers waiting for one train.

DennisB

12th February 2006, 08:57 PM

It would be interesting to hear experiences others have on the forum. I have CDs dating back to at least 1999, and have not had any failures (yet). (fingers crossed)

Of course, if you listen to the pro wedding photographers, they always make one or more copies of their original CDs, just in case. A wise move if you value your digital images.

Stemmy

12th February 2006, 08:59 PM

Yep Dennis I have had a couple of corrupt discs. Lucky it was nothing important.

The problem was cheap discs.

DennisB

12th February 2006, 09:10 PM

.

The problem was cheap discs.

Apart from the first batch I bought, all of my CDs are bought as bulk (50) , and usually non-branded, packs.

Stemmy

12th February 2006, 09:13 PM

Yes I buy mine in batches of 200. They look unbranded but they are Ritek.

There is a little program you can download from the internet that will scan your disc and give you all its details.

I had one company say they were sending Ritek and actually sent me a cheaper alternative. Needless to say they were kicked into touch

DennisB

12th February 2006, 09:22 PM

There is a little program you can download from the internet that will scan your disc and give you all its details.

If it the info is readily at hand, could you post some details of the disk scan utility ?

Stemmy

12th February 2006, 10:11 PM

DVD Info Tool here

http://dvd.identifier.cdfreaks.com/

Loads of good reading why good discs go bad here. Really good read.

http://www.digitalfaq.com/media/dvdmedia.htm

Matt Needham

13th February 2006, 12:12 AM

In my life I've had one hard drive fail, and one fire in the room where I stored my negs. In a fire everything that isn't destroyed by the fire itself will be destroyed by the firemen spraying a whole lot of water everywhere. :cray: I've figured out how I can keep from losing my photo files from a hard drive crash; I'm still working on the best way to protect my photos on film.

Photoness

14th February 2006, 01:11 AM

On occasion compact flash cards can get corrupted, losing all of your images
Which happened to me once. Lucky it wasn't a wedding.
Having said that I am thinking of going digital as it would be nice not to have to change film very 15 shots

What digital camera do you recommend?

england1965

15th February 2006, 11:06 AM

I know it sounds long winded - but whenever I burn a DVD/CD I take it to another PC and copy it to the HDD - at least then you can be (more) sure you can access the data if you need to. (and my wife thinks that PC as a christmas present was for her! :-) )

Stemmy

15th February 2006, 03:19 PM

england1965

I know it sounds long winded - but whenever I burn a DVD/CD I take it to another PC and copy it to the HDD - at least then you can be (more) sure you can access the data if you need to.
In Nero there is a disc checker that validates your disc. I dont know if this is quicker.

Photoness

What digital camera do you recommend?
LTJ on the forum has got a Canon 5d and its superb. I would change only I have 4 sets of cameras so to change one would be a mess as it has different batteries etc.

england1965

15th February 2006, 05:26 PM

england1965

In Nero there is a disc checker that validates your disc. I dont know if this is quicker.

I think I like the knowledge that a physically different drive can read the disc as one DR scenario is that I no longer have access to the original PC and S/W

Cheers for the advice - I will see if my s/w does a specific verify

Mark

scotavia

4th March 2006, 03:18 PM

I started out with 35mm film slr,latest model in use is a Canon with a back up slr.Lenses 75 to 300 and 55. Shooting from the air my shutter speeds are between 500 and 750 using 400 or 800 asa Fuji.Looked at digital,however the recycle times are a bit slow for me.
Also decided that for some jobs where the client needs a big wall photo I needed medium format. So last year I spent £1600 on a Mamiya body, two lenses,three film backs and a few other bits and pieces including a great Lowe Pro backpack.I believe that to get the same information onto a digital chip would require a huge purchase price if indeed such a chip existed.

All my work is scanned to disc at process time so I can send images to clients.I spend very little time at the PC fiddling with images, my lab can photoshop quickly what I need.All my 35mm film work is available within 24 hours of the flight.

So I feel I am missing nothing for my pro work...I did buy a wee compact digital off ebay last year,handy for home use and its fun.

Darren1961

4th March 2006, 06:51 PM

I started seriously in 1982 with a Practika LTL (built like a tank) SLR.
Since that time i must have shot 10's of thousands of photos on colour film, b+w film, slide and now digital. I currently use a Fuji S2 and haven't used a film in about 4 years. None of the clients I have ever worked with have ever complained about any of the media I have used.

Black and White developing and printing used to be a passion of mine, it was exciting waiting to see what came out, but that excitement now transfers to my computer when I download my pics.

This debate will rage on for a while yet, so any debate on the subject is good, it keeps people interested.

Keitht

4th March 2006, 09:20 PM

I started far more years ago than I care to admit - literally with a box Brownie. I swore that I would never go over to that digital rubbish. Trained chimp with a typewriter .. Shakespear. etc.
Then along came the 5D! Yes I am now a convert but still with some reservations. Not about the quality of the image as even I can create some decent shots. I like to think I could also do that on film. My concern is still about storage and the longevity of various image formats. There is no standard for RAW at the moment so consideration has to be given to keeping a copy of the reading software safe as well as backup copies of the images themselves.
Multiple copies, as long as they are safely stored, do give more protection in the event of fire than a single set of slides or negs.
The 'not learning' when using digital was probably actually more relevant to the introduction of auto everything. In the days when you had to set everything manually you had to learn if you wanted to get decent results.
Is digital or film the better medium? No:Dm They both have their place and long may it last.

Alan Fairhurst

7th March 2006, 06:53 PM

I've just had need to sort thro' my old photos and I was appalled that I'd got rid of my old camera a couple of years ago. I used to use a Praktica camera, (don't remember the model but pre-Berlin wall as it was East German), I then bought a Canon 350V. After that I listened to all the hyp about modern technology and purchased a Canon 350D.
Looking thro' my old photos I found that my Praktica photos were clear, clean and perfectly focused...the Canon 350V shots were slightly less perfect but the Canon 350D shots are rubbish by comparison. I think I'm going back to film.
Problem is with technology...manufacturers are always determined to force us to change. I'm not against new technology as long as we are given a choice.
Please, please let me have my Praktica back!!!!!!!!

photopauluk

11th March 2006, 10:22 PM

Back in the old days when I used to do a lot of weddings i used to shoot on a Bronica SQAI, when I saw what was happening in the late 90's I got rid of all me medium format stuff and was shooting only on 35mm.
I first went onto digital about 5 years ago and since then have only used my 35mm about twice.
I used to be a real sceptic towards digital until I borrowed a Digi SLR, after doing one shoot on it I was converted and I've never looked back.

Stemmy

12th March 2006, 10:16 AM

I sold my SQAI last month. I still got a good price for it so some people must still want to use film.

Took delivery of my 5D on Thursday. WOW !!!!

Only 107 images on a 2GIG card.

It took 20 images in 6 seconds before it locked up to write the images from the buffer to the card. It locked for around 2 seconds then took a burst if another 20 images. Its amazing.

I thought my 10Ds were good. The skin tones and contrast is amazing.

Just short of 13 Mega pixels. Each file is around 12mb on the card.

£1700 including the battery grip. The battery grip is better than the 10D as it can now take standard AA batteries (in a cage).

The screen on the back is huge. Its almost half the back of the camera.

Next wedding is this weekend cant wait.

Bindii

20th March 2006, 09:12 AM

Oooh, I'm so jealous the 5D's look superb!

I use a 20D, and most of the lenses that I have are just kit lenses with the exception of the 100mm macro I bought....not that it improved my macro photography - maybe its me...;)c

I also have an EOS 300, and an EOS 3. I love the 3, and still shoot with it occasionally, because no matter what anyone say's I still believe that film is crisper than digital. Digital is a lot more fun, and economical but the quality (I believe) is not as good as film is - yet.

Dotty.c

20th March 2006, 09:32 AM

Had a look at a 5D saturday, nice, but I still prefer my EOS30, and Hubbies 10D will do for now, and if we both went digital I'd have no excuse to shut myself away in the dark room.

Stemmy

20th March 2006, 10:01 AM

Did my first wedding with the 5D on Saturday.

Amazing !!!

thats all I can say. Its truly amazing.!!

The coverage was a two camera shoot. The second photographer had a 10D. Loads of times we took the same picture to compare cameras. The 5D pictures were in a class of their own. Using direct flash the camera metered perfectly. Beautiful skin tones.

The 10D was always a bit hit and miss. You could take the same picture twice and the two images would be completely different. With the 5D I started to have complete confidence in its metering.

I really didn't think I was going to be overly impressed with it.

Dotty if you are thinking of a purchase this camera is a must. LTJ said it was superb - I agree !!

Bindii

20th March 2006, 10:03 AM

Gadget

26th March 2006, 08:31 PM

And I haven't looked back.
Most of my work is commercial Press and PR.....in which the DEADLINE IS KING!!!
sorry its something i keep telling my clients when they say "oh I'll have a look tomorrow."
Anyway back to the point.
Digital has opened up a whole new world. At conferences i can see images of the days activities being displayed during dinner, its gets great reactions. On the Press and PR I can sit my car in the middle of nowhere, laptop connected to GPRS phone and be beaming images to whoever the client tells me with them looking over my shoulder making decisions on what goes to which publication...yes I know it fills some people with horror - letting the client have a say- but they are paying the bill.
Digital systems are getting better all the time, the outlay is expensive for the right stuff - 8 to 12 mpx and I shoot on Canon but thats my own fault - but the ultimate savings in time, stress and money...not to mention no more chemicals around the place, is the ultimate plus.

brucesmithphoto

26th March 2006, 08:43 PM

I started shooting digital about 6 years ago, although I hated it at first, I could not live without it now.

I shoot every job on it these days and dont believe I can go back.

When I first started I missed the excitement of waiting for clip tests, that would arrive at the studio a few hours after shooting and shots taken towards the end of the day you would not be seen until the next day.
This was a lovely experience that I miss.

Shooting film, even with its restrictions meant you tried so much harder to get the best shot out of 1 or 2 rolls of film.

I made some big changes to the way I shoot and am so much happier with what Im producing now and the freedom to explore a shot to its best.

Alan Schofield

26th March 2006, 09:27 PM

Can't agree more then the last two posts

I moved over ( to the light side ) around four years ago & haven't looked back since, It allows me more diversity, which I can then pass on to the customer & as for waiting in the darkroom to see if your shots had come out , oh am I glad that's over

And I don't smell of chemicals anymore

ted scott

26th March 2006, 11:15 PM

working here in new zealand the major problem is that we are working upside down, and we have to rotate our images for you guys living north of the equator to view. I work in both digital, and film. It is still a question of image quality. Now that film use is in decline the quality of new film types has never been better. For large wall murals I still prefer transparency film for quality. My personal view is that the weak link in digital photography is the lens especially wide angle systems where refraction of light is more extreme, and difficult to cure chromatic abberation, hence the need for correcting software. On the plus side it is now easy to test the lens before purchase. Do not just go by brand name only ,each lens ever made has its own characteristics. I recently purchased a lens half the price of the camera lens produced with the camera because the quality was better. Regards Ted

Gadget

27th March 2006, 08:14 AM

There is one BIG downside.......
It can make you lazy. Sometimes I just set up and guess, then shoot and adjust until i've got the light right.
In fact I pulled my lightmeter out of my bag recently and honestly couldn't remember how to use it:doh:

Then i remembered that with my digital cameras it seemed to be reading 2 stops under anyway.
so yeah it can make you lazy...just make sure you look cool when doing the job.

Eric

4th April 2006, 09:10 AM

I have used film for years taking a combination of weddings, PR work and industrial. Two years ago I bought my first digital SLR (Canon 300D) and slowly have increased the proportions of digital output. All our weddings are now and PR work done on digital. ( with the addition of a 20D and 5D body)Sheer versatility and speed are the main advantages. Quality is improving and I now find it almost impossible to tell the difference on large prints between a digital source and !00 ASA slide film such as Ectachrome Professional.

The only major drawback is the speed of progress (1 new camera model every two months) and the cost of camera bodies.

beryl the peril

10th April 2006, 06:11 PM

I just take photos as a hobby and would hate to got back to film. When I got my first digital, a few years ago I couldnt put it down, was like a child with a new toy - it was so exciting taking a picture, being able to see it... and then delete it if it looked crap, then going home and putting them on the computer. Also I think the pictures are more lifelike, thing look so clear and real on them. Was an expensive do having to take film to the shop anyway and most of my pics were rubbish..how easy it is just to delete the bad ones! :icon_nice

Photoness

17th April 2006, 09:51 AM

I still prefer 'designer photography' (medium format) for weddings
I have two digital weddings booked for August, but most of my customers still want medium format.
I am doing a wedding in July using film medium format along with another photographer who will be using digital. It will be interesting to see the results in both formats from the same wedding.

tonymidd

17th April 2006, 10:11 AM

I may have recounted this story elsewhere so if it sounds familiar my appologies.
In 2000 I had to pitch for a new client in the fine art antiques world. I went along for a trial shoot and took the 'serious' shots with a 'blad fitted with a Plannar, arguably one of the best body/lens combos you can get. I was trying digital using a Fuji 6900z (which incidentally cost me nearly as much as my D200 body has) and took virtually the same shots as those on the 'blad but hand held as I did not feel it warrented me swoping cameras on the tripod. Lots of light from three 650w tungsten lamps allowed me to do this.
When I took the shots in to the client I showed him the Fuiji shots as the way things are moving without expecting him to be over impressed. I was still brain washed that film ruled. He went over board for the digital images and I went out and bought an E10 and the 'blad has been virtually unused from that day.

Brad

18th April 2006, 02:56 PM

Hi Vanessa,
All my weddings are toally digital now (Nikon D2xs) and I think the D2X is far superior to 35 mm film now and even beats my old Mamiya RZ 67 which has now sadly been sold on ebay for a pittance.
I hated selling my F5 too, but the D2X has the same if not more brick outhouse build so I'm happy.
Is anyone using the NIK digital filters for photoshop as htere are some stunning additions to augment your photos.
Brad

http://www.photodex.com/sharing/viewshow.html?fl=2576405&alb=0

Here's some samples in this slideshow.

Photoness

21st April 2006, 05:27 PM

I have just purchase a Nikon D70

richardtm

28th May 2006, 02:46 PM

I don't think anyone is doing anything different if they have changed from film/wet darkroom to digital. We all dodged and burned in the darkroom, we all projected the pictures bigger, then put a smaller sheet of paper under it (today that's called cropping). The only thing is it's a lot easier to do on a PC than sitting in the dark. Like most other people, I have lost negs, trannies and prints when they got damp, and it's much harder, not to mention more expensive, to make back-ups from film or transparencies than it is with a cd or dvd writable disk costing around 20p each nowadays. I still have my old film cameras and lenses,but they have not been out in daylight for 18 months or so now.

That's progress. I don't recall this much fuss when we changed from gas lights or candles to electricity, or from solid rubber tyres on cars to pneumatic, so why from film to digital?

tonymidd

28th May 2006, 03:26 PM

That's progress. I don't recall this much fuss when we changed from gas lights or candles to electricity, or from solid rubber tyres on cars to pneumatic, so why from film to digital?

Can't remember any of those, you must have a few, well a lot, of years on me:yahoo::yahoo::yahoo:
Must be a photography thing, plates to 35mm??? can't remember that one either but from what I've read it was quite vocal :yahoo::yahoo: but I can remember b/w to colour and that ones still running. :exit:

aps

8th June 2006, 08:08 PM

tonymidd

8th June 2006, 08:13 PM

Hi Guys,

I have been digital for the last 4 1/2 years.

i dont miss film at all, certainly not the waiting over the weekend to find out if your wedding you shot on saturday is ok. I can now download on saturday night and have a peaceful nights sleep with no worries that the lab are going to do something nasty to my nicely exposed rolls of 120

I have film cameras still in my possession, never use them.

Steve

Sounds very familiar, just about how I went, only I processed my own negs so I could sleep on saturday night :Dm:Dm
I take the 'blad out of the cupboard every so often and run a mono film thru itand then spend a happy afternoon in the dark but that's getting more infriquent. Sad really:(x:(x

i7nvd

18th August 2006, 03:28 PM

You know, I started off using 35mm. The first day that I took my dad's old camera out, I used a model and did a photoshoot in the snow. When I got the film back, and everything turned otu wonderfully, my dad picked up his old camera again for the first time just to reminise, I suppose. He looked through the view finder and went "Why did you turn the light meter off?" And I said "what's a light meter?"

I was incredibly lucky with that shoot and the lighting conditions, but other times, I was not so lucky. Even with the light meter, I had problems picking up subjects in shadow, or having one over-exposed section of the picture.

I've never had to print anything bigger than an 8x10, which my 6MP camera can do just fine. I don't see any detail loss, and the biggest perk for me, as it is for most people, is I can look at my photo right away and make sure it's ok. If it's not, I can do it again.

Digital all the way, baby!

Mike Aiken

18th August 2006, 05:43 PM

Digital for me all the time, the main reason why is the cost, if i were to use film, everytime i would look to take a shot, i would think twice about it. With digital i would take several shots and discard what i didnt need. I also feel so much more confident with digital.

Also i get a lot of pleasure from using photoshop and processing my shots.

Mike

saxokid

18th August 2006, 08:16 PM

I,ve been digital with my Fuji S7000 for about 16mths now and find it,s more satisfying than using my old Olympus OM1 which I,ve still got plus lenses in my camera bag!!
Although I still use a 35mm film now and again,I find digital images are easier to handle and store rather than the two current wardrobes full of prints and sldies which I,ve still got!!.

Commercial processing I found,has dropped off in quality over the last year or so but I still use a local shop which has it,s own Agfa lab built -in and is operated by a genuine photo enthusiast so results from here are quite good.
However as said previously you can delete pics that you don,t require in digi-format so there,s no costly waste etc.

I do miss the more responsiveness of an SLR and so will upgrade to a digi-version sometime in the near future hopefully,,as it will suit my needs better especially with motorsport photography etc.

cheers,saxokid.

JonUK

14th September 2006, 07:01 PM

Got to agree with Stemmy, I've gone through the film, developing, contact sheets, printing phase, only eventually to move onto having them hand printed at a local photographic lab eventually...everytime nervous of "hope they've turned out". None of that anymore with digital.

However, there is 'one' aspect of the old film scenario I miss.....the assistant that used to deal with my film! She was a real cutie with a smile and a figure to kill for! :woot:

Jon

David Worthington

14th September 2006, 07:57 PM

She was a real cutie with a smile and a figure to kill for! :woot:

Jon

so did ya kill 'er:tease: :tease: :assassin: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1:

JBMUK

15th September 2006, 12:14 AM

so did ya kill 'er:tease: :tease: :assassin: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1:

no he said it was a figure to kill for - question is who would he kill for her.!:dance2:

Gwen

16th September 2006, 07:29 PM

This is an interesting subject for me. I've only very recently gone fully digital; this is in part due to the fact that my university education had a lot of film based courses, partly due to the fact that I don't feel the same sense of satisfaction in a print unless it came from me being up to my elbows in developer all day (I still love the darkroom despite the anachronism of it), and partly due to the fact that I could not be parted from my ancient, twenty five year old Nikon FE2 and the battery of lenses, filters, and associated gear that went with it.

At the time I entered wedding photography I was a student, and so costs were quite different to me-I could develop and scan the negatives in for free in the school's lab; if I wanted to print I could do it in the school's darkroom on their paper, and I was financed by student loans, so time wasn't an issue. On the other side of the degree the costs of shooting film would be prohibitive (from actual purchase of film to developing and printing), and the first thing I found in shooting a wedding all digital is that the flow of the day itself was much smoother. I offloaded images onto my laptop as the day went on, so I had an instant idea of what was good and what needed re-doing. As a result, I think I came away with more usable images stemming from less overall work.

I'm not fussed about using digital, although it took me a long time to get here my new gear has made me very happy and I like the way CS2 helps me handle my workflow. Backup copies of everything are stored on the server, on an external drive, and on DVD as well-more security than I have with those old negatives in a file! I really think digital has helped me to be able to offer more as a photographer.

george.monaghan

26th September 2006, 01:56 PM

Hi,

Digital does have its problems, and I am now using only digital cameras. You no longer have the cost of film but camera prices are way over the top and the model is practically obsolete before you can buy it. Lenses are crap unless you want to pay real money for a 2.8 anything. I have a canon eos 5d, 20d 16-35 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 IS etc. All cost a fortune.
Digital does to have the same f stop coverage of film which has at least nearly 2 stops more latitude. Highlights are often blown on digital despite the advances in metering. Dirt is a major problem on sensors. I had a very small hair lodge on the sensor during a wedding shoot three weeks ago - what an nighmare that was to clean up. No matter how hard I tried some pictures were just not recoverable although most were with patching, cloning and healing etc. That is a pile of work you cannot reclaim from the client. The camera was cleaned and checked prior to the shoot - these things happen, a first for me and hopefully last. Canons new cameras now having sensor cleaning built in because of all the complaints from users. Do I have to spend another couple of grand to get peace of mind from this problem?
Have you tried to insure your equipment now? Car, home insurance do not want to know, max is about £150 - that would not buy a flash gun.
Flash gun and intergrated cameras can have a mind of their own, 580ex can seriously underexpose when you have a low roof and once you lower the head to correct the problem you have to dial in exposure because it has locked it into memory.
Digital might be king but it does have its problems. The advantages do outweigh the problems. It takes time to get to know a camera, digital does not afford you that luxury - hurry and buy the next model? When will the bubble burst? You cannot keep renewing equipment unless the boss is buying it for you or you are really making good money from it.
Would noty be without a digital though!

Cheers,

George Monaghan

PMR

28th September 2006, 08:29 PM

Digital is the one that I use the most now I?ve retired as it is so much easier to make a DVD show; but there is no way that I would dismantle my darkroom! Come winter I get out the Mamiya?s and 35mm Canons and spend hours developing and printing (Colour and B & W) Just checking that the negs have developed ok is something that you don?t get with digital. Oh, and I still have one shelf in the fridge for my film.
Paul.
:stir:

Keitht

28th September 2006, 09:44 PM

Hi,

Digital does have its problems, and I am now using only digital cameras. You no longer have the cost of film but camera prices are way over the top and the model is practically obsolete before you can buy it. Cheers,

George Monaghan

I agree that prices can make your eyes water, but how is the model practically obsolete.....?

A fully manual film camera wasn't obsolete just because a later model had built in metering, so there is no reason for a digital camera to be obsolete just because there is a new model out. As long as the tool does the job there is no reason to worry about new developments. That's my view anyway.

GlenJDiamond

29th September 2006, 03:43 PM

I think that where the technology helps is when, like say, they bring out a camera like the Nikon D200 - it has a lot more megapixels than my D70 - yes I can still take reasonable images on 6 megapixels, but the D200 has the advantage of allowing a crop of an image without too much degradation of the old pixel count. Also the D200 has a lovely big screen on the back. The good news is that the new technology very quickly becomes old hat and in a year or so's time it is a lot cheaper - I seem to remember top of the range film cameras keeping their value for longer.

george.monaghan

29th September 2006, 06:23 PM

Hi,

Re camera being obselete. The technical advance does not make your old camera useless but digital is not "quite there" yet.
Full frame 35mm sensors are now abaout and the quality difference can be clearly seen when set against you old cameras.

Faster start up times, my old camera had a lag on 1s, this one is instant. Shutter lag, practically eliminated and now fast -anticipate the hight of the action shot is achievable a lot easier and for more people. Larger viewfinder to enlarge and view the final image. Great ISo speed up to 3200 and as low as 50asa. Faster write times on substained burst of firing. Better imaging sensors. Cleaner sensors with built in cleaning. Image stablising within the camera
I could go on but most of what is written above would be needed by most users of high end cameras.
Quality and cleaner images with the ability to really enlarge to poster size.
If you use it, then you need thes advances.

No your old camera still has the same spec, but put your image alongside a full frame sensor 24mb image and - hey - spot the difference. We live in a competive world, you keep up of fall behind.

Digital cameras are nearly at the point when they will surpass 35mm film and rival medium format. When you get to that stage then you cameras will be of better long term value and use. When the image improvements slow down so with the sale of newer models.
The latest top of the range Canon camera is very nearly there and I would be quite pleased to have one for a few years - the technology will improve beyond that but this model will produce the good for publishing in any magazine etc.

Your old camera is obsolete and if you are using it for general home use taking family pictures then there is no reason why it will not keep you happy for years. Not so in the selling game. Quality is king unless you have some picture that is unique.

Not sure what I would do if I had to actually buy my own!!!! The Canon would come close and I would invest in it as a working tool built to last for years. At £5,000 you expect quality, and it delivers!!

Cheers,

George Monaghan

tonymidd

8th October 2006, 05:18 PM

Interesting comments re full 35mm frame digital. OK you may have a pile of L lenses but if it's absolulte quality your after then the new breed of medium format based cameras has to be the way for a pro to go.
The Mamyia ZD is 'affordable' and with the 'blad H3D and the new Sinar/Leaf out perform a 35mm FF digital without the problems of vigneting. The ZD and H3D are hand cameras, not so sure about the other two.
If I were still full time these are the cameras I'd be talking to the bank manager about. I'd think the quality off any of the above would be acceptable for many years to come 39 or 42MP files........ and no vigneting.

Matt Needham

5th November 2006, 06:42 PM

In the 10 months since my last post in this thread I've shot 27 weddings almost all digital. I love it. It's just so flexible and fast. I find time to be my biggest challenge when shooting a wedding. No matter how much planning we do before the wedding day, it all goes to heck, and is running late on the day itself. The time I've scheduled for photography is what gets crunched. Just not having to reload film (I don't have an assistant) is a huge timesaver. Being able to switch ISO, WB, color/BW from shot to shot is so much easier than having to deal with multiple cameras or film backs.

In the last year I've had six clients express a preference for some film photography coverage. After looking through my portfolios, which are all digital photographs except two hand-printed gelatin silver prints from medium format film, three of those clients decided they'd be happy with all digital coverage. The other three were interested in buying hand-printed gelatin silver prints, and so I was going to shoot a few rolls of the posed portraits with BW medium format film, as well as digital. Two of those couples ran so late on their wedding day that we had to trim time somewhere, and they chose to skip the film coverage (so I could stick to one camera and just roll through the posed shots).

Yesterday I finally shot some BW film for the first time at a wedding all year. I walked downtown with the B & G and shot with a Rolleiflex TLR and a Widelux (35mm model) on the way out, and on our way back I shot with a 20D. It was fun, and they are interested in having hand-printed gelatin silver prints made so I was happy to do it.

As far as cost goes there is no doubt that I am spending more money on digital photography gear than I did on film photography gear. On the other hand I'm taking more photos, and still getting a similar percentage of keepers as I did with film. On a per shot cost breakdown digital is way more expensive than film for my landscape photography where I'm not taking many shots. But when I consider the huge number of shots from weddings and portrait sessions that I take over the course of the year it would cost a lot in film and processing to see my mistakes, subject sneezing/blinking, test shots, and experiments, and those don't cost me any extra money with digital.

For those who say that digital takes more time to process, and that means spending time, and time is money, well that is true. But I prefer to be more involved in the processing. That's why I have a BW darkroom. I rarely shot in color for my personal work before digital. I had no interest in dropping it off at the lab for them to have all the fun, and a home color darkroom was more expensive and toxic than I cared for. With digital I can get in on more of the processing of the color photos before they go to the lab, and I enjoy that.

Whatever your opinion of the quality of digital photography today, there is little doubt in my mind that there are technological advances right around the corner that are going to end the film vs digital debate pretty soundly. The potential for extended dynamic range, and noiseless, very high ISO is going to change how we think about available light photography. I'm excited!

All that said I still love my BW film and film cameras for my personal work.

bladhassy

5th November 2006, 10:52 PM

I've read most of the post here....don't get me wrong digital is ok for you...but this late in the game for me to go out and rebuy equipment would not be the right choice right now...I'm 49 and don't know how much longer I will be shooting weddings and senior grads....Fuji came out with there new film last year and i love it....brides here in WI in my area are still looking for film photographers so I will be in biz for awhile yet...I shoot medium format and looked into getting a digital back for it awhile back....10,000.00 no thank you...and a new Hasselblad 32,000.00 no thank you...so for me I'll be keeping my 503CW and shooting film....i wish the best to all you digital users, yes it is the wave of the future, but as stated in a few posts you buy your camera and a few weeks later it's out dated...so when film is out dated, my camera bags get put away and i retire...but I don't see that happening too soon with the new films that have come out...why would the film makers spend the time and money on delveloping the film if they were going to be taken over by digital?...just a question and my opinion........wayne

george.monaghan

5th November 2006, 11:19 PM

Hi,

Wayne in a lot of ways you are correct, as are most of the other comments here. The problem for film makers like Kodak/Fuji is that not enough consumers are buying their product. Printing paper manufacturers have gone out of business and no doubt others will follow.

Quality issues between digital and film, the gap is fast disappearing. In fact in high end cameras 35mm film is well superseded. Medium format is now matched with the latest cameras and full frame digital sensors. The abilty to shoot in any low light situation with high ISO setting and auto WB cannot be matched by 35mm - without changing film type etc.

Digital will overtake you, probably sooner rather than later. It might be a good idea to start looking, and saving, for the next generation of high end, professional camera. That might mean picking a brand and buying/saving up to purchase some quality glass to put in front of it. That's is the way ahead for many people do have access to the internet/PC's and would like to see and share their pictures online. Straight to DVD by digital or slide show is another advantage not given by film - without all that scanning stuff.

Digital is the technology for today, in its time it to will be obsolete as well and overtaking by the new wave of personal communications device. I see it happening now with phones that take pictures (still and motion), play music, text and of course, talk to others. When they het the pixel resolution up enough - watch out - cameras will suffer!!!

Just my thoughts. Specialists will remain in B&W, printing etc. As the years pass they will be the old blacksmiths - few and far between.

Matt Needham

6th November 2006, 01:25 PM

I can definately understand not wanting to have to buy a bunch of expensive, new, digital gear, and the camera body and lenses are the least of it. I spent a bunch of money on the obvious gear, only to realize I needed a much more powerful computer, lots more hard drive space, batteries, memory, etc..., and all that stuff ended up costing more than twice what the actual DSLR cost me.

I probably could have continued to shoot with film for weddings and portraits, although as I said in my first post I was having to search farther and farther for the quality film processing service I was used to. But my commercial clients were getting impatient with my insistance on using film. As several art directors explained to me, they didn't need the image quality provided by medium format film. They were using the photos for projects that didn't require a lot of resolution anyway (TV, web, small photos in publications, etc...). What they really needed was the photos emailed to them that day. I was losing commercial jobs because the clients didn't want to wait 2 days for processing and scanning.

bladhassy

9th February 2007, 08:18 PM

The Fist Post On This Thread Says Film Is Dead....far From The Truth.....why Did Kodak And Fuji Spend All That Money On Reseach And Delvelopment To Bring Out There New Mf Film If It Was Dead....they Should Of Just Said Forget It And Let In On The Shelf, But No They Came Out With The New Film...the New Fuji Pro 160s Is The Best That I Have Shot In A Long Time....then The Post Says That Film Users Don't Know What To Do With The Images From Digital...i Do..i've Work With It....i Choose Film..
Be Honest....isn't Another Reason You Shoot Digital Because The Profits Are Greater....the Photographers I Know Here Say It And Admit To It...they Tell Me To Switch Over For That Reason...not Thats Its Better But That My Profits Will Be Greater....
For My Wedding And Senoir Grads And Portrait, And Auto Picture Clients I Want Them To Have The Best I Can Give Them...and For Me It's With Film....film Will Be Around For Awhile...maybe By The Time I Retire It Will Be Gone,,,then My Hasselblads Can Become Collectables.....but I'm Not Going To Change To Make My Pockets Fatter....so Bring On The Flame For I've Said....this Is What I Believe

Wayne
Mirror Image Photography
Milwaukee, Wi Usa

GlenJDiamond

13th February 2007, 01:36 PM

tonymidd

14th February 2007, 10:47 AM

That's Ok BladHassy, it is honourable to continue to use film. It shows that you are a true professional. As for me, I've just started out in the big wide world of wedding photography and for my part I will stick to using digital SLR's. It's not the money. I don't charge a lot for my work. I feel happier using digital raw files because if I have made some mistakes I should be able to enhance the image to a usable form. I continually check the histogram and enlarge areas of the screen to check detail - I couldn't do that with a film camera. Perhaps it's a "lack of confidence" on my part that I choose to use digital for wedding work as I understand that medium and large format cameras must give the best quality - and that film photography should command a higher price. I had a stall at a Wedding fair recently and most of the potential clients were amazed that we were so "cheap". I can only assume that other photographers they are meeting are "full-time" and have to add a premium in order to pay the mortgage. It is also very convenient to be able to adjust the sensitivity of the ISO on the fly and to be able to fit 180 raw files on a 1GB flash-card without having to change camera backs or wind and load film.

Why does using film make you a true professional? A recent comment on some of my older shots was' not bad for film' the inference being they would have been better digitaly which I very much doubt; as good but not better as the originals were shot on 6x6cm medium format.
Recent tests showed that a 10meg digital camera could more than hold it's own against 5x4 ISO 100 film. One is better in some respects and the other better in others but overall there was not a lot to choose between the two mediums. If we are talking 35mm then a 8 to 10 meg dSLR definitely is superior especially with good lenses and a well processed RAW file.
IMHO a true pro is someone who can consistently produce high quality work and who also has a professional approach to their clients. It has nothing to do with the equipment used.

GlenJDiamond

20th February 2007, 03:48 PM

tonymidd

21st February 2007, 04:19 PM

Hi - suppose I have admiration for a photographer who can work with film in the knowledge that they will get the desired results. I don't feel condifent enough to be able to do that. Not that I take photos that are sub-standard, and that is only with a Nikon D70. We held a slide competition at our club last night and it was very very clear that the slides that were taken with real film had bags of detail whereas the digitally produced images (made into slides - apparently on slide film) were jaded by comparison. It could be a reference detail like the calibration on each object in the chain but I have lots of admiration for photographers who really know how to work with film. Sadly I'm not one of them!!

I see where you are coming from and agree totally, when using film you had to know what you were doing, you told the camera what to do not the other way round which seems todays norm.
I think that those of use who grew up with film still work in much the same way, wanting to be in control whereas those who have only used digital tend to be equipment reliant and so many can't be bothered to learn the basics,,,,. don't get me going on that subject :grin::grin:
Your club will have to get a digital projector, mine has and the digitally projected files leave slide film standing, even those shot on Leicas. We got a lottery grant of just over £3.5k so we were able to get some very good gear.

robbie-doux

24th March 2007, 11:48 AM

Digital and Film, and the view they were taking.

tonymidd

24th March 2007, 12:11 PM

Ah the guy in the foreground is using a real camera, if you've never used a 5x4 or larger with all the movements you are missing one of the most magical parts of togging. I'll alway remember the look on the face of one of my mates after I'd bent my dear old De Vere monorail into a controrted shape but every thing was sharp from about 2m in front of the camera to the horizon with the lens 2 stops down from wide open. Also a very good way of learning to look, select and think before press the button, mono film about £1.50 colour neg £2 and trannie film £3.50 per shot and that was 5 or 6 years ago.
The view they were taking looks impressive, where is it?
For anyone who does not know what a mono rail looks like this is very similar to my old DV
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Toyo-5-x-4-View-Deluxe-Camera-Large-Format-Ex-Cond_W0QQitemZ250094984706QQcategoryZ627QQrdZ1QQcm dZViewItem

robbie-doux

24th March 2007, 06:19 PM

The view they were taking looks impressive, where is it?

Looking across to the Langdale Pikes from the nice easy path along Elterwater.
I'll try to put it on the map

tonymidd

24th March 2007, 07:56 PM

Looking across to the Langdale Pikes from the nice easy path along Elterwater.
I'll try to put it on the map

Thought they were the Langdales but not a view I remember.

Reickert

13th April 2007, 06:28 PM

Well, I thought I would post here just because I think I should.

I started shooting film in 1970. (Yeah, I am ancient) And film will always occupy a place in my heart-I still own a perfectly excellent Pentax system.

A perfectly excellent Pentax system that has not been used for ten years.

The work that I am doing today, the Photo manipulations, is an idea that was born in 1980 when I considered how interesting it would be to try and emulate the work of Frank Frazetta or Boris Vallejo (two fantasy art painters) but doing it with photography rather than paint and canvas. Of course, back then, the cost of film and processing to say nothing of special effects only a major movie studio could afford, put the concept to rest rather quickly.

But today, with digital photography and Photoshop I am enjoying myself discovering the culmination of a dream of twenty five years duration.

Sure, there will probably be a place for film for some time to come. The purists and the view camera pundits will keep it alive and there is nothing wrong with that. But for my purposes not only in the field of manipulating images but given the ridiculously quick turn-around times I am forced to deal with in the glamorous and exciting world (**sarcasm2** ) of advertising and promotion, there is no other way for me to go but digital.

And I hate to say it, but the fact of being able to look at the back of my camera and KNOW that I got the shot while on site would be enough to make it worthwhile for me.

amarques

12th May 2007, 02:51 PM

This discussion is certainly not new and I think there are advantages and disadvantages to both.
The advantages of digital are obvious (low cost, easiness of post processing, etc.) but this, mostly regarding new photographers is taking a dent in the knowledge of photography. The learning curves are getting very gradual compared to the steep ones that originated from film use.
If you are interested, I had a similar discussion on my blog some time ago, that lead to some interesting answers. You can find it here (http://www.tzplanet.com/words/are-digital-cameras-destroying-photography/20).

Anyway, I'm a full (save for the rare exception) digital user and I'm not planning to go back. But learning is still one of my top priorities.

Adam

13th May 2007, 03:36 PM

I like both formats and have to use both at uni. I think I prefer film to be honest but that's probably cos I'm not a professional and if I ever set up my own business I'd probably opt for digital.

I think the main problem with digital is that people buy a digicam and automatically think they're a photographer.

Ant1981

13th May 2007, 04:39 PM

The advantages of digital are obvious (low cost, easiness of post processing, etc.) but this, mostly regarding new photographers is taking a dent in the knowledge of photography. The learning curves are getting very gradual compared to the steep ones that originated from film use.

Not sure I'd agree here. I think that with digital, there are still things to learn. A digital SLR will have the same controls as a film SLR, you've to decide on Program or which ever priority ect. You still have to be able to compose, focus on the correct part of the subject, digital or film. A change of format doesnt take the learning away.

steveathome

31st May 2007, 01:33 AM

I enjoyed every minute in my darkroom some years ago, but I could never produce the results I get now with digital, I don't think I'll be going back.

I always fancied a hassy though, and still wouldn't mind one, but I know I will never be able to afford a digital Hassy, dreams............

I do think we are a little ripped off with digital, especially in the UK, as already said you have to pay a fortune for decent lens's, this didn't seem to be the case when I was being brought up on the Olympus OM1 and OM2's, unless my memory is going.

I think I have what I require now regarding bodies and Len's, still building my lighting kit up though. I thought I should have learnt my lesson by now of knowing what to buy and save money on the intermediate stuff, but have been proved wrong over the last year or so, and have wasted a fair bit, mainly due to not having the patience to wait for what I really wanted.

PSILVERMAN

5th June 2007, 06:12 AM

Hi all,
I started 20 years ago with an all manual Yashica FX3 then moved onto another mostly manual Contax 139,I used these right up to about 2 and half years ago when I went digi.I learnt the hard way through wrong exposures,labs screwing up by losing/ruining my films. (yes even so called pro labs).

Since going digi I have never looked back,the power is mostly in my own hands and if something goes wrong (and fortunately it hasn't yet) then I'm the one to blame.
I can check the images straight away and alter accordingly and none of my clients have asked me to use film.
I really love the whole new world that has opened up but the main thing is for everyone is the image.It's all only a means to an end and if you're happy using film and it produces the goods then fine.
Digital suits me and my clients.
Regards to All,Phil.

wgwphotos

9th July 2007, 11:42 PM

I started taking sports photos for my school using a Pentax K-1000 about 35 years ago.

I left school.. joined the Air Force.. started freelancing on the side.

I still use film and digital shooting as a commercial shooter. I still use my Bronica 645's when the job calls for it as well as my Maymia RB67.

I do shoot mostly digital though. My main camera is a Sony Alpha -100. I have 4 lens.. I'm building this up. along with a Fuji S9500 as my backup camera.

Thats my 2 cents worth

William

kyranryan

10th July 2007, 09:43 AM

...but this late in the game for me to go out and rebuy equipment would not be the right choice right now...I'm 49 and don't know how much longer I will be shooting weddings and senior grads..........wayne

Hey! Wayne
I spent 20+year with hassy etc and loved them, took a few years out (Tired) and then went back (04). got Nikon dig and love it. Now granted i like computers/photoshop BUT AT 49 YOU ARE NOT over the hill. Get a Nikon d80 or pref a d200 or a canon 30 or 5d and try it, beg borrow st...no not that, Hire. JUST TRY IT!!! for a week or two, not a day. The ease of work, the speed, the weight i could go on.
i started with computers from zero at 46 yo 11 years ago.
There is a learning curve, granted, but it need NOT be that big. from camera to print,can be straightforward if you wish it to be. all the additional thing you can do with digital can come later, IF you want to.

you DO NOT need a dig back for hassy, nice as they are and HD3 is, they are overkill for social photog.

matt7x5

20th July 2007, 09:57 AM

For me the benifits of Digital far out weigh those of Film. I think a lot of Film users feel threatend that there are going to be more photographers out there competing for their business but thats not the case sure Digital has increased the number of photographers out there as its cheaper and yes easier for joe public to use but at the end of the day Digital does not make you a better photographer but it has given those that want to try a way of doing it without breaking the bank of having to get film developed only to find that they have no good shots now they can shoot to their hearts content and learn from mistakes made etc.

gubak

2nd August 2007, 01:10 PM

copycat

19th August 2007, 07:48 PM

Hi All

Brand new here so please be gentle.

I have 2 Canon EOS slr's and 2 Canon EOS 35mm slr's and use all of them regularly (too often according to the wife) and I love both formats they each have their own quirks, so if I could offer this quote which sums up the debate for me.

"Photography is not about cameras, gadgets and gismos. Photography is about photographers. A camera didn't make a great picture any more than a typewriter wrote a great novel". -Peter Adams, Sydney 1978

Regards

tonymidd

19th August 2007, 08:31 PM

You are right, cameras with films are the past. Many people use it, because they like the procedure around films. But if they'd try digital machine only once, I'm sure they would change their analog machine!

So why do I regularly take my old 'blad for an outing? It's to get back to basics and use a well built camera that feels positive and smooth. I freely admit a lot of my commissioned work is a dam sight easier with digital but for the sheer pleasure of making an image as against taking one film always gives more satisfaction especially with 5x4. You are in complete control not some chip, that's to say you have to know what you are doing!!!!!!!
My D200 is well made but compared to a Nikon F2 it's no where as well made, the same goes for Canon before any one pipes up. The only current one I've come across where the digital version feels as well made as the film version is the M8 Leica against a current M7 but both of them can't stand comparison with say a M2 or 3.
Photographers use film 'cos they like the qualities of the end result, yes some techies like the darkroom procedures just as there are a heck of a lot of digital types who prefer the computer manipulation to the actual image taking.
Yes film is almost dead in the popular snapshot market; dying fast in the serious hobby and general professional markets but in the high end advertising and fine art worlds film is far from dead.

PS My films are now sent to a lab for processing and the negs scanned onto a CD. In the past I did my own processing to have control over the results but that's no longer viable.

Dawn

29th September 2007, 11:46 PM

Can't beat digital for most of my work but there are exceptions...........
I need to use transparency film to photograph textures for my fine art work - texures projected onto the nude form, then recaptured usually using medium format. Tried digital to project but it looses all it's quality/saturation etc. Recapture can be done with digital, but i prefer to keep the whole process in film just in case one day.... some one wants a huge reproduction, film means i can keep my options open.
Check out http://www.dawnrobinson.co.uk

possiblesmooth

6th October 2007, 02:53 AM

i prefer photos taken from an slr... more precise. but as long as you know how to manipulate your digital cam, and it has good specifications then you can have same outcome of pictures like those from an slr -- not as precise though.

___________________

Performance parts blog (http://www.speedyperformanceparts.com/blog/) Nissan blog (http://www.shopnisparts.com/nissan-blog/) Ford truck info (http://www.fordpickuptruck.blogspot.com/)

mark-dubya

2nd November 2007, 06:22 PM

Been pro photographer for 13 years, photographic experience of nigh on 30 years, and still use medium format, I use digital as well.

When I started you were always well diciplined when taking photo's, metering, composition etc, as every time you pressed the shutter it was costing you money. This discipline I still have and many photographer's from the bygone era of film are also as well disciplined. I still love the look of good printed images from film and it is possible to tell the difference.

I find that with digital I spend more time editing for final prints. With film a good 95% of my images were spot on and next to no retouching and faffing about was required.

I still like film and I like the fact that I can use the format and then scan in the negs giving me the versatility of playing around with them on the Mac or just print them straight.

Many new photographers lack discipline and just shoot until they get an acceptable image.

When shooting wedding on medium format there is NEVER any question who the official photographer is:grin: and I find it still a selling point and a good conversational piece with guests.

Don't get me wrong I enjoy digital and I love the graphic work that my wife and I complete.

What don't I like : Hours in front of a screen .... Constant backing up .... Corrupt CD's, DVD's .... Having to keep buying hard drives to store the images ... crashing computers .... it's all fun I suppose :wacko:

possiblesmooth

7th November 2007, 03:38 AM

i guess im gonna agree with mark dubya... film still rocks!

_________________
Performance parts blog (http://www.speedyperformanceparts.com/blog/)|Nissan blog (http://www.shopnisparts.com/nissan-blog/)|Ford truck info (http://www.fordpickuptruck.blogspot.com/)

JoeBruch

21st November 2007, 03:30 AM

Hi,

Don't we owe it to all those new photographers in the world to learn how film is made, exposed and handled. If anything from the perspective of where our art started. We call a very famous light pattern "Rembrandt Light" for example. As Pros and maybe some serious amateurs, you should all be able to duplicate this light pattern on your subjects. It is of course one of the most fundamental light patterns still being used.

I feel personally that in some ways digital has made photography "appear" way too easy. Sure some photographers have been lucky by just having the art of composition. This may last a bit of time, however it would be inevitable that one must learn as much about our art form as possible before advancing themselves to current standards.

Joe

ALDP

21st November 2007, 09:36 AM

A useful description of different lighting styles, including Rembrandt lighting, can be found here:

http://www.vividlight.com/articles/1615.htm

TheVDM

5th December 2007, 11:06 AM

Hi, I use both digital and film, the reason being is that I feel that film has made me learn, whereas with my dSLR I can take a picture and if I dont like it I can take another straight off, but with my 35mm equipment I have to get it right first time (therefore making me learn).

Despite being fairly young (21) I enjoy working with film and am just about to set up a 35mm black and white lab in my garage (got the equipment, just need to make the space), I feel that there is something that film has that digital doesnt (allthough I do feel the same the other way too).

But dont get me wrong I do use digital most of the time as its cheaper to run and more convenient (plus im a gadget person).

camerashy

7th January 2008, 01:46 AM

Having spent many years using a film camera (and being slightly older!), I was a bit dubious when given the task of learning digital in my job, however, I haven't looked back and love the delete immediately action! (specially for us amateurs!). I had a good teacher though, so that helped.

My partner is reluctantly getting used to the digital, especially since I make him use it and hide his old film camera (yes they are still around!), and it is increasingly harder to find film when you are on holiday.

It's also a no brainer for downloads now as you have card-readers, etc., and it's nice to be able to "photoshop" the wrinkles!!

:grin:

.Ray

7th January 2008, 12:06 PM

I love digital, so much so, I want my kids to start on it now! I saw some cheap digi cams on sale at Sainsburys the other day for £30, wished I had bought them for my kids... only if I haven't spent a fortune over xmas.

tonymp

14th January 2008, 02:23 AM

I haven't had time to read through all the posts so I suspect everything I say may have already have been said so if this is the case - forgive my ignorance.

However, I can assure you that film is not dead!!! At least not in my domain!
I use several Bronica medium format cameras plus a few old Canon A1 manual focus SLR's with some L-glass which I use for my monochrome boudoir work and I've yet to see better mono results from digital cameras. I suppose one could argue that the 30 odd Mp Hassie's backs are the exception, but we're talking regular digital cameras now!
I regularly blow up to 30 x 20 in my darkroom and while I can get the same sized shot printed out from my Nikon D200, visually, I feel the true mono print has the edge!
One of the comments I hear regularly which sometimes winds me up is that some digital photographers will boast about how many images they've taken either at a wedding or even just out on a day's shooting!
Now I know that after the digital equipment is purchased, then images captured are by and large free and some candid shots are very often speculative BUT, I just wouldn't have the time to trawl through hundreds of images just to find the best ones - time for some is money and an expensive commodity!! In fact it would do my head in trawling though so many images as well as cost me a forture!

What's wrong with making each shot count?

When I shoot digital outdoors for whatever purpose, I use a good old fashioned Kodak Grey Card and usually a hand-held meter so that when it comes to PP'ing, that's one job less and the exposure & WB usually, without question are by and large - spot on! I also, keep an eye on the colour temperature of the light as it changes throughout the day so I'm not having to rely upon AWB or PP later - it takes very little extra time but it saves hours later. I also rarely rely upon AF and I spend that little extra time composing, focusing and framing the shot, which again saves time during PP.

I would agree that for some photographers, digital, practically speaking is a far better medium than film but, film also has it's place and digital still doesn't better film with regard to dynamic range!
Machine gunning, which is by and large a 'digital photography' phenomenon is certainly not the answer to getting lots of good shots - good shots are usually composed and expedited accordingly! I'd much prefer capturing a modest amount of properly composed, well executed and saleable shots, than firing off 100's of shots in the hope that I could get a few good ones to sell! Sports/Action photography is the exception, just as it was when film was the medium of choice, or the ONLY choice LOL!
I doubt very much that digital imaging has actually increased 'keeper' rates - with film one needs to get about a 95% keeper rate and the same should be held for digital otherwise, one is wasting valuable resourses and time!

With film - one has several choices. Drop the film off at the lab and collect it later or develop it yourself.
Again, once the negs have been devleoped, you have the choice of either printing yourself, having the lab print them for you or, scanning the negs and editing them on your computer in just the same manner as your digital image - however, the scanned image will hold the highlights better than a digitally aquired image providing the exposure is right in the first place. Again, a properly exposed medium format neg professionally scanned can easily match the image from regular digital cameras so, film is not quite as obsolete as many would have us believe!
A final anecdote - I have friends who shoot weddings - some have gone fully digital while others are either still shooting with film or both. Of those who have gone fully digital, some actually complain of having less time than when they used neg film - the ones who particularly like the advantages of digital are those who use both medias. They use film for the formals and digital for the 'reportage' shots!
Digital imaging, while convenient for many, doesn't necessarily mean better imaging or convenience unless it is approached with the same mercenary attitude of film shooters. Neg film on the other hand need not be inconvenient or cumbersome - it's all about how one approaches the image capture and the application of aquired skills!
Anyway - just my POV.
Regards...
Tony

David Worthington

14th January 2008, 09:08 AM

tonymp

14th January 2008, 11:15 AM

Yep I would agree with most of that Tony.. even down to the choice of cameras used !!!!

moving from film to digi is such an upheaval of all that was held sacred for so many years, it really is a difficult time... but whats the alternative ??? I didnt see burying my head and sayin" o well this has served me well for the last 18 years, i guess i will just plod along as before" for me that wasnt an option....

and another factor to consider is that kick up the arse that digi gives you to shake you out of complacency and routine !!

Fair comments and I mostly agree with you too David.
However, just one small but relevent point: Why should there be a need for an 'alternative' ? Ok, if they stop making film then there isn't one but that's quite a way down the line for now.
The next points are my general views and not aimed at you David.

Nearly 5 years ago, I was using a KM 7i and later an A2 both synch'd as a polaroid substitute for my neg film work which has saved me loads of money over the years. Even back then I new that digital was the future media but I have not burried my head over this time - I've used and embraced both digital and traditional media to advantage, which serves me well and I don't see any urgency to change!
In recent years, monochrome images have seen a re-emergence in popularity which was for all intents and purposes, dead and burried by the mid 70's so there is still a place for the traditional alongside the modern.
For a number of photographers, it's not just the inconvenience and cost of film that is seeing the current demise of neg film photography, it's also for some, the uncertainty and lack of faith in their ability that their neg film shots will turn out ok which is giving digital imaging the edge. Polaroids were the answer to this for the pro studio long before digital was ever conceived - now digital has reached the status of both media & polaroid which I agree is good for most photographers, but until the dynamic range and tolerence of neg film is achieved through digital imaging for the regular jobbing pro, I don't think we'll see the final nail placed in the coffin of neg film cameras just yet!
I know technology moves on and just as in the days when the 35mm came on the scene and it's popularity grew, everyone declared that large format was dead - but there are still many exponents of this antiquated medium who make an excellent living from their work and it's still a medium to be reckoned with in the adverising world even today as it's quality is still unsurpassed for some work!
As a final point, a growing number of photographers are beginning to rely all too heavily upon technology as a way of capturing images - this can be seen by the feeding frenzies whenever new models are announced by camera manufacturers. That digital body which was the embodiment of the all-singing all-dancing model just a couple of years ago is suddenly obsolete. To some extent it's replacing the traditional skills but, an over-reliance in technology doesn't necessarily mean instantly better imaging - it still needs the support of skills in photography that are common in any media if excellence is to be achieved!
There are lots of things that digital allows that could never be achieved through conventional methods in film without an awful lot of processing in the darkroom so, on this count, digital will win hands down but, exposure, composition, cropping etc can all be achieved in-camera - therefore digital doesn't have the advantage in all events.
If I was personally only printing up to 10 x 8 / A4, then I reckon I'd be fully digital by now but, I print large so for me, neg film is still advantageous.
Whether one chooses digital or film as their preferred medium, good common basic skills are still the best way of achieving good images - after all it's not just the camera or medium but it's the photographer holding the camera.
Just my personal views...
Regards...
Tony

David Worthington

14th January 2008, 11:34 AM

tonymp

14th January 2008, 12:21 PM

good points there Tony.... I would throw this in as well for discussion.

one of the many mistakes i made with the transisition to digi was in doing it in stages;;; and the big / major prob was in shooting some wedding shots on digi and some on film and then trying to match them when they went into the same album !!!! nightmare or what.... the far better choice would have been to leap in with both feet.. but that was way back in the days of the S1 and i was not competent or confident to make the change overnight.

these days with the d200 and now D300 i would recommend that any ditherers just go in a do it............ given of course you know how to expose and use the camera properly before standing in front of a client with it !!!!:russian_r

I totally agree David - it can be very daunting to make the move, especially if one has been using neg film cameras for donkey's years.
The transition won't be painles but it's just transferring skills from one media to another, but just think of what it would be like for those who've had little or no experience of neg or reversal film who went the other way!!! ie: from digital to neg film!
Now that WOULD be daunting! LOL!
Tony

anya

22nd January 2008, 04:01 PM

I don't think film is dead. I use both. People thought vinyl was dead but more & more people are appreciating it again now - albeit in a more specialist form. There will always be a place for the old ways of doing things, perhaps not so widespread. Maybe it is difficult to run a business using film now, but I think for art - film will not die. Nostalgia will keep it going - even if Kodak doesn't. No more Kodacolor green pics, oh well.

tonymidd

31st January 2008, 11:15 AM

Something that's not related to image quality and is becoming more and more of an issue is the archival reliability of digital files.
I've glass plates over 100 years old in perfect condition; no I did not take them :); I've my grand-father's mono negs in perfect condition dating back before the Great War. I've also got 8mm cine film that I had to scour the junk shops for gear to run them on. I've also got some Betamax tapes I can't get equipment for. A lot of the trade processed colour negs and trannies from the 70/80's are showing signs of fading, probably due to poor processing as the ones I processed are not quite as bad. The mono negs are OK.
The 'indistructable' CD/DVD is very suspect as are some camera file formats.
A local museum has put it's archive onto disk but plans to replace the disks at intervals not exceeding 10 years.
Ironic that digital files, in some cases less than 10 years old, are giving problems while a 100+ year old neg is perfect.
We call that progress????????

Bandit

31st January 2008, 11:19 AM

anya

31st January 2008, 12:27 PM

Ironic that digital files, in some cases less than 10 years old, are giving problems while a 100+ year old neg is perfect.

The museum I worked at had ancient glass negs that were still being used. The pic that starts the film 'Titanic' was from an original neg - almost 100 years old now. I worry about my digi images - not because of my more fanciful stuff - but because I've been using a digi to photograph my two boys, ever since they were born. Lately I've been wishing it was all on neg instead.

.Ray

31st January 2008, 12:47 PM

Storage is definitely a worry, not just longevity of archives, but also the immediate problem of finding reliable disk space to store the ever larger files. While large harddisks are cheaper than ever (500GB for way under £100), they are filling up just as quickly as before, and still have lifespan of under 10 years.

tonymidd

31st January 2008, 04:13 PM

Some of you may remember me a couple of years back toying with the Route 33 project which for many reasons went into limbo.
A mate and I have since resurrected this and hopefully when we get confirmation of gallery space and sponsorship we'll start shooting in the spring. We decided that for old times sake and to keep our hands in we'd shoot on mono film using our semi-retired 'blads and Rolleis.
There is something extremely satisfying about using a classic mechanical camera that no digital camera can equal. The smoothness of the controls, the unbustable feel of the thing, that loverly clunk as it fires and of course the magic of the darkroom when that film comes out of the dev tank. And above all the square print!!!!!!!
Why use film? Apart from the fact we'd decided to do the project this way for our own satisfaction we were surprised when one of the potential sponsors asked if they could buy the images for publicity and archive use subject to us using film!!

steveathome

31st January 2008, 06:44 PM

Firstly, I am not an authority on anything digital, (or anything else come to that) of which this will become apparent after at least my first sentence :crazy:

I personally don't rate CD's as a long term storage media, they haven't been out long enough to have been proved / tested, I believe CD-R and CD-RW are possibly more susceptible than pre recorded CD's.

HD's also no more than a magnetic storage media, so no confidence there over long term.

Re-writable storage media ie memory sticks, Compact flash etc, I also wouldn't trust for long term.

getting to my point....

Working in the security industry, we frequently blow 8 pin NVM chips (Non Volatile Memory). These can generally be re-written so many 100 / 1000 times, these also have been know to fail. I would guess they have similar technology to flash cards etc. However, the older type 16 pin chips we used to blow were not re-writable. I wondered if this older style chip may be less susceptible to degradation than current media. Any tech guru's here to input some info?

Failing that, maybe for long term storage, we will have to go back to computer punch cards - no degradation there, unless you set light to them.

I daren't wonder how many holes would need to be punched to save a typical 5D raw file :hissyfit:

ps

I also wonder how some ink manufacturers can give a 200 year life expectancy, I don't recall ink jet printers being available at the begining of the 19th century to have been tested?

canonman

12th March 2008, 02:07 PM

As a professional photographer I cut my teeth on siver halide and hours in the darkroom. Unlike a lot of fellow photographers at the introduction to digital, I began to look carefully at the entire process. In its early years, there was no comparison to be made in image quality; digital cameras were very crude in terms of the final product. The excitement of what would enevitably transpire from the first steps in this technology, is what kept me up to speed and interested. I learned as much as possible about the entire digital process from capture to print, whilst still producing the best quality images possible.......which for a long time was still silver-halide.

For this reason, I was in a position to make an informed judgement when I saw that digital technology and the associated processes began to edge ahead of film. Unfortuneatly, the early days photographers who ignored the digital revolution are today caught in a trap of ignorance. To change now from film to digital, with no strong understanding of the digital process is a huge problem. In my opinion it is only here that the argument still remains un-resolved. The silver-halide guys today in my opinion stay with it for no other reason, than the fact that it is to them a brand new world full of stuff they have little knowledge of. They are the ones that still insist on banging on about all of the qualities of silver-halide based photography over digital. Because photography is enjoyed all over the world by millions of people with no great knowledge of the subject, silver-halide is being marketed as some amazing un-beatable dying art.

Photography first and foremost, is about making images that we all wish to look at. There are many ways to arrive at that end. If silver-halide is what you are most comfortable with, then that is great. Likewise with digital work, the finnished product is the only relevence.

For me, the silver-halide world is one that I do not miss at all. Digital gives you maximum control, allows you to shoot and inspect the result at a fantastic speed, thus allowing you far greater ability to get the intended result. No matter how good a photographer you are, silver-halide is still very much more of a lottery. The problems associated with computer crashes, dusty sensors and lost files in comparison to the fragility and vulnerability of film and chemicals disolve into insignificancy.

Making great images today with film and in darkrooms, I think can be compared to felling a tree with an axe versus a chainsaw (without the pollution and noise issue). They both have an identical end result, but one is without doubt far more efficient than the other.

george.monaghan

12th March 2008, 03:14 PM

tonymidd

12th March 2008, 03:30 PM

Hi,

The answer is not that simple. Many world beating photographers still use film - and they could afford to have others do their digital images if they wished. The still prefer the fine tonal graduation that comes from film - digital has not got there yet. OK you are only talking 35MM - but what about the rest of the formats?

What about longevity? Will that DVD/CD you make today still be viewable in 25 years time - never mind in a 100 years? Will this technology go the way of tape recordings/video/vinyl etc?

The present method used by manufacturers is to get the consumer to constantly upgrade their equipment. Where will that leave us in 10 years time - duplicating all our archives onto minitature 3D viewers - oh you only have them in 2D - how retro? The world turns and we move on. Digital is not a proven technology and by its very nature will not stand the test of time - fact! It will be overtaken by newer technology.

Will we be able to scan old DVD/CDs that have not stood the test of time and start to break up due to exposure to air/sun/humidity etc? Negatives and plate images are still there to make more prints from - how do you examine a CD when held up to the light of day? :wacko:

This is already happening, there are some early, and not so early, formats that current soft ware can't or won't read. CD/DVD life is very uncertain especially the cheap makes with unstable dyes. I'm using my 'blad more than ever and am considering getting a F3 or 5 to use with my Nikon lenses. I've negs that are well over 100 years old, not taken by me I hasten to add, that are perfectly useable but some cd's that are just over 10 years old are only readable by certain progs.
Have a look here for my thoughts in greater depth.....

http://www.photography-forum.org/showthread.php?t=17911

Lee Ash

12th March 2008, 03:50 PM

Its funny seeing this conversation evolve because I am just getting back into film after using digital for quite a few years. I've just bought a Zenza Bronica SQA! It won't be used for professional work but purely for art photography. Interestingly BJP recently did an article on Camille Solyagua whos work is all done on film cameras. I think Tony on here had a very good point when he said that apart from the end result, its also about the experience of using an older camera, a light meter etc. I must confess I get depressed by the way modern cameras are not the treasured possessions they should be but a machine you keep for a few months until an upgrade becomes available.
Lee

canonman

12th March 2008, 06:57 PM

I here it more and more, yes the old cameras felt good, but I want to make pictures as best I can. It is nice to have a bit of kit that looks good and feels good, but if photography (producing images) is what its all about then that is merely a bonus.

The pixel frenzy and digital marketing boom is only born out of consumer ignorance. The vast majority of people rushing out to replace their camera for one with an extra 2 or 3MP do so through a mis-conception that this will make a better quality image. There are of course advantages of shooting at 21MP or more, even when the final print is to be no larger than A2. But how many people are actually shooting a 21MP image with a wide angle lens, then making a huge crop to produce an image with a massive DOF? How many even of the more informed photographers, understand the huge significance of sensor type and size over pixel count?

I'm also surprised to hear from any experienced photographer admitting to rarely bothering to look at histogram info!! Even Ansel was the first to admit that he got exposure badly wrong on occasion ! I doubt very much if he would have not bothered checking a histogram had it been available, especially bearing in mind the time and trouble spent getting into location with, and setting up a large format field camera!

Longevity of CD/DVD ?! I'm have no idea how long I will live, I make pictures today for now. I'm pretty sure they will be every bit as safe as a negative. Has anyone ever tried to wipe clean a hard drive??!! Data appears to have vanished when actually it hasn't ! Obviously another huge learning curve on that front. How or why does anyone think that recovery software exists, or what it's for!?

Come on lets move forward, the loss of Concorde from the skies is the only backward step that I can think of in terms of progress. i am as sure as I can be about anything, that film will not return to the fore. Film is to photography what the vinyl disc is to music. There is a place for both, but let's get it into perspective with regard to its wonders and merit.

george.monaghan

12th March 2008, 07:04 PM

Hi,

I did not realise we were that ignorant of the facts - another BSC in computing science wasted!

Sorry we entered your world - enjoy it today - tomorrow never comes.

Bandit

12th March 2008, 07:23 PM

[QUOTE=canonman;175920]I here it more and more, yes the old cameras felt good, but I want to make pictures as best I can. It is nice to have a bit of kit that looks good and feels good, but if photography (producing images) is what its all about then that is merely a bonus.

The pixel frenzy and digital marketing boom is only born out of consumer ignorance. The vast majority of people rushing out to replace their camera for one with an extra 2 or 3MP do so through a mis-conception that this will make a better quality image, regardless of their intended use of the image. There are of course advantages of shooting at 21MP or more, even when the final print is to be no larger than A2. But how many people are actually shooting a 21MP image with a wide angle lens, then making a huge crop to produce an image with a massive DOF? How many even of the more informed photographers, understand the huge significance of sensor type and size over pixel count?

I'm also surprised to hear from any experienced photographer admitting to rarely bothering to look at histogram info!! Even Ansel was the first to admit that he got exposure badly wrong on occasion ! I doubt very much if he would have not bothered checking a histogram had it been available, especially bearing in mind the time and trouble spent getting into location with, and setting up a large format field camera!

Longevity of CD/DVD ?! I'm have no idea how long I will live, I make pictures today for now. I'm pretty sure they will be every bit as safe as a negative. Has anyone ever tried to wipe clean a hard drive??!! Data appears to have vanished when actually it hasn't ! Obviously another huge learning curve on that front. How or why does anyone think that recovery software exists, or what it's for!?

The "master photographers" of today, I guarantee that 95% of thier workflow is digital, whatever they may proclaim to the contrary. The old mystery of film at the high end market still sells......even more ignorance of the public being exploited!

Come on lets move forward, the loss of Concorde from the skies is the only backward step that I can think of in terms of progress. I am as sure as I can be about anything, that film will not return to the fore. Film is to photography what the vinyl disc is to music. There is a place for both, but let's get it into perspective with regard to its wonders and merit.

I agree. I'v shot film cameras for years...so what? Things change. Oh I never look at histograms :acute:

Give it 5 years and see what digital has to offer then, the film buffs will find it very hard to defend the stuff then. But if you have the time to use it and like doing it..nowt wrong with that.:)

Blue72

12th March 2008, 07:48 PM

SpecialK

14th March 2008, 06:26 PM

i agree with Bandit.
Its stubborn pride I feel that cuases these debates.
Im sure you would all love to walk everywhere again and take 6 months to sail somewhere wouldnt you?

Digiutalk is the same. Technology moves on at a frightening rate.
Only the mis informed go blundering ahead on upgrades that they doint need.

After all how many times is it said on here that its the person behind the lens?

I do agree that a lot of people upgrade for pointless reasons, but to be fair, film photography reached an "image quality" plateau around 20 years ago despite convenience and automation like AE, AF etc. Improvements in IQ mean moving to a larger format or waiting for a new improved emulsion to be developed.

However each new generation of digital SLRs does still provide a substantial improvement in actual image quality because of the improvements in sensor design. As well as doubling resolution in the last 2 years, manufacturers are for the most part maintaining (or improving) noise characteristics and dynamic range.

Hopefully digital will also reach a plateau soon. 15-20 MP is probably about the practical limit on APSC cameras because of the optics, and around 30-40MP on FF cameras. I am already hoping they will start to focus more on dynamic range now and less on resolution.

I also agree that MF (film) cameras still have an edge over even the latest digital FF SLRs, but not as much as they used to. I can see the point in buying and using an MF or LF film system if I wanted that extra quality for landscapes and didnt mind the development costs.

As for maintaining digital data over long periods I agree its a challenge, but its by no means an impossible one. I use a set of portable hard drives so that all my data is triplicated and one complete copy is off site. If formats change I will simply create 3 new sets on whatever drive media is current and carry on.

Note I could NEVER deplicate my negatives or slides, and if I lost one or scratched one that was it. The routine I have above is far safer and also uses up about 10% of the space. Seek and access times are also a lot faster and there is no image degredation at all even after 1000 years!

Steve

chaz

14th March 2008, 06:39 PM

there is no image degredation at all even after 1000 years!

I take it this is simulated result :)

Lee Ash

14th March 2008, 07:54 PM

in 1000 years time I suspect that species degradation will be higher on our list of problems than... 'oh shit, my photo CDs are corrupted' :grin:
Lee

SpecialK

14th March 2008, 11:31 PM

there is no image degredation at all even after 1000 years!

I take it this is simulated result :)

Yes its a condition of my will that my antecedents must continue to copy my photos to new media every 5 years :)

chaz

14th March 2008, 11:47 PM

Yes its a condition of my will that my antecedents must continue to copy my photos to new media every 5 years :)

Wow, your thinking ahead, good idea :)

TedE

26th May 2008, 08:57 PM

i didnt read through this thread, so if this point was already said, or way off topic by now i apologize.

but for me, I am leaning towards going film all the way with digital being better and better and more accessable by the masses then i feel that degressing to film and experimenting with it has more chance to stand yourself out from the crowd. or it could be the worst idea ever to shoot film now a days.

RedHawk

26th May 2008, 11:03 PM

Well says he who's barely used either film or digital thus:

I find with my dSLR I just happy snap away and end up with loads of photos, some of which will be good. With the film a higher percentage would be good because you have to sit and think a bit first- every shot being worth about 30p.

I think film is good to learn on, because it makes you think a bit more. But I think this is just true for a hobbyist. You pro togs must've been stalwart to keep going in the age of film. (Though I suppose you knew nothing better... in jumps the armchair philosopher)

-James

stevedevil

26th May 2008, 11:17 PM

Ok well lots of pages to answer the " Unanswerable " Question...

The question would be as good as saying " Canon v Nikon "

and more recently " Sony & Olympus "

There is no real answer, as personal choices will always seem best for the person choosing!

Before Digital, the 35mm questions were even harder, " What Film " as we have so many to choose from, different lighting films such as tungsten etc etc, also different ways of pushing the film, which gave different processing etc..

We are always going to ask the questions as Photography grows into the modern age..

So I will answer the question, film was fantastic in its day, and now the days are changing!

Not saying that Digital willever reach the wideness of control that film gave, but the software sure lends a different aspect to it!

flybybry

13th July 2008, 08:34 AM

I am now 100% digital but do sometimes miss the times spent in the darkroom.

I shot 120 and 35mm, developed and printed everything by hand, even the proofs all in my 2 Nova tanks, making sure all the chemicals were in date, at the right temperature, checking all the paper was correct for the job and the inevitable switching the light on and seeing a brand new box of 20x16 fuji paper with the lid off...arrrrgggghhhhhhhhh!

Nowadays it's click click click and you almost know that you will have what you want and to the customers satisfaction.

As well as being quicker, more convenient and versatile digital is the way forward and I don't think film has a look in anymore.

Xarra

24th January 2009, 09:57 AM

Went to Tesco last night and had a browse in their photography section (new tripod that'll do & doesn't bite. Woot...) and ended up in a discussion with a random guy over film vs digital...

It was quite interesting - he shoots landscapes with film, I shoot action generally with digital... Discussion meandered through monocrome (and each pixel being 4 parts, so monochrome conversion loses resolution?), speed, deteroration, ability to find decent processors, the fact that being able to take loads of shots isn't necessarily good as once the moment's gone, it's gone so taking extra shots can't get it back, and so on...

I think our conclusion (before we got on with actual shopping...) was that they're different - both might have their place, but they're different and in some ways can't be compared.

Me? I like my digital. :)

PaulG

24th January 2009, 10:54 AM

Hi

I see this old cherry has been resurrected so I thought I'd add my 2p's worth.
My experience of film/chemical photography is from a hobbyist point of view. Many years ago I had a darkroom where I used to do black & white, colour film and colour slides. You were never sure what you've got until you produced positives. So you'd take the shots, go home set up the darkroom, process the film, let it dry, scan the negs, make a test print, develop the photos. Then you might have to do that again to incorporate some dodging and burning. If I wanted to process a recently taken film say 36 35mm shots you could say goodbye to an afternoon. I'd be in a stuffy DR on my own for 4 to 5 hours. In those days the temperature of the chemical was critical. When doing colour slides the variance was +/- half a degree C. There were so many factors that could effect the end result, ambient temperature, temperature of the chemicals, time in the solution, exposure time etc :wacko: I did do three wedding way back then but stopped because I was so worried that the films weren't correct.

Digital is a different ball game before you go home you are sure of what you've got and tweaks can be made in editing software in a reasonable environment. If you've made a bit of a mistake you can easily remedy this in PS etc. You couldn't take shots at different ISOs (ASA as it was then), the film determined the ISO and that had to be used for the whole film. Despite the fact I've still got most of the old kit I for one will never go back to film. So I would fully support the original statement from Stemmy 'Film is dead long live Digital'

Paul

Chris Hawkins

24th January 2009, 11:44 AM

See here:

http://fwd.five.tv/videos/challenge-blow-up-part-3

Chris Hawkins

24th January 2009, 11:51 AM

See here:

http://fwd.five.tv/videos/challenge-blow-up-part-3

The D700 beats the F5 hands down. I can't think of a single advantage of film now - on a like for like comparison.

paulmag

24th January 2009, 12:02 PM

The thing about film is/was you could lock yourself in a room and shout you cannot come in yet and carry on reading your mag book or whatever you cannot do that with digital. :)

Its the only downside.

In many areas computer based equipment has transformed industries A job that used to take me 3 days to machine can now be done with 30mins of operator time and a couple of hours of machine time.

The whole of the print and reprographics industries have been transformed

Xarra

24th January 2009, 01:57 PM

paulmag

24th January 2009, 02:17 PM

The guy I was talking to said he knows companies that switched to digital, but then went bust because they spent so long retouching and enhancing on PS etc that they did less weddings/day and didn't just get the photos right... Opinions?

Well they must have been doing it wrong or not known what they are doing or because they can they where fiddling more than they would do with film or they are on the internet viewing porn.

The path from the click to the print is so short with digital compared to film that it is a no brainer to use digital.

Commercially it is also a lot more versatile opening up more sales opportunities to the photographer with the many ways they can present the images to the customer, on the web, dvd, cd etc.

Jenny105

17th February 2009, 03:01 PM

Digital ia all Ive known. There wouldnt be any where for me to have a dark room and i wouldnt have enjoyed a therapeutic passtime/ club/exhibitions/new friends

I lament that i spend so much time with Elements but hope that once I'm taking better photos n the first place. i'll limit the playing time.

I' would have enjoyed using chemicals and watching the photos appear and change but for me that was never a possibility. a laptop means i can play and be with the family at the same time. Its very much a womens thing. Since digital our local club has gained more women and numbers are rising as it becomes a hobby for almost all.

.Ray

17th February 2009, 03:25 PM

Just as there's still people paying good money to ride on a steam trains, buy black vinyl records, and do sums by hand, there will always be a market for film, but for the rest of us, digital will be the only way to go until something else takes over.

As for companies going bust after going digital, there's one thing that Stemmy wrote in another thread somewhere that's very appropriate -- know what you're not good at, and pay someone else to do that for you.

tinysmall

17th February 2009, 05:05 PM

I think Chris nailed it. On a LIKE FOR LIKE basis, digital is better. That does mean though that you have to have a full frame DSLR, which for a lot of people is a pipedream. It also depends massively on what film you use. A 35mm frame shot on good film will be better than 99% of todays crop frame DSLR's if it's processed and scanned right, however, it just won't hold up to a 35mm digital kit. The medium format stuff I use gives great results however, because its a huge piece of film, grain is very apparent when viewing at 100% even with iso 100 film but the detail is just something else. The shots I took in the studio recently showed that the detail (especially in the blacks) was a million miles ahead of any of my digital kit (although Im not shooting full frame). The girl was wearing a black wool coat and with the film shot, at 100%, you could see every fibre whereas the digital file at 100% was just a black mess. There are pro's and cons to both but for me, I'll be sticking with digital outside the studio, but in the studio, the 6x7cm film wins hands down and I'll be sticking with that until I can afford to go digital medium format. Unfortunately, digital medium format just wipes the slate with everything as far as image quality goes, take a look at the hassleblad H3DII-50 and then tell me you don't want one. Lol.

35mm digital is great but they way ahead is medium format for anyone working in a studio. Just got to rob a bank to get one. Or stumble across £20,000 in the street. It's not gonna happen is it? Oh well.

skida

25th February 2009, 04:46 PM

Hi. I haven't been on here for a while and this thread is about one of the reasons I am vidsiting.

I have enjoyed getting back into photography since getting my first digital compact (Nikon Easypix 3100) in 2003. I have gone through a few cameras since then and now use a Kodak Z812IS superzoom compact. I have no asperations about turning professional, so the only person I have to please is myself and the Kodak suits my needs at the moment ...... almost.

An earlier poster said he hoped the manufacturers would shift their focus from resolution to dynamic range (exposure latitude in the days of film) and I have to say that this is where my dissatisfaction lies. Digital sensors just can't manage contrasty shots taken into the light and it seems that the only way round this is to take a set of bracketed shots in order to produce an HDR image.

My camera doesn't shoot raw and I can't afford CS3/4/5 or whatever and I just didn't get on with GIMP.

Another worry is how quickly cameras become old these days: this thread started in 2005 and it is interesting to hear people talking about the latest, all bells and whistles DSLR, like the Canon EOS 1D MkII etc. How can I go out and spend £1000 on a DSLR and a lens or two when I know it will be a grandad in 2 years time? Poor hobbyist photographers like me are at a disadvantage, so I had to come up with a plan B.

Last night I bought an Olympus OM10 package on ebay for 40 quid. I am going to use film again, so does anyone know of a company that will process film and digitaze on to a cd?

skida

25th February 2009, 08:49 PM

ps: I am looking forward to going back to manual focus, especially with the focal range guage on top of the lens. I can't think of many reasons we might need autofocus for landscapes which is my thing.

.Ray

25th February 2009, 10:42 PM

I have a feeling that high street labs that offer "film to CD" services at time of processing won't be very good and doubt it'd be worth the hassle. And if you go for the pro labs then it'd probably be cheaper to buy a mid-range DSLR in the medium-long term.

You have to remember just because a camera is "granddad" after 2 years doesn't make it rubbish all of a sudden.

To answer your question, one lab I know is http://www.peak-imaging.com/htmls/imagescd.htm who offers a film to cd service starting from £6.81 for files suitable only for 6x4; it goes up to £14.39 for files suitable for 9x6; then £19.48 for files suitable for 12x8.

A £400 DSLR will give you endless files suitable for 24x16.

PS

Cost per roll = £3 (for film) + £19.48 = £22.48 (= 62.44p per frame)
Then £400 / £22.48 = 17 rolls of film = 612 frames

Or a mid range camera:
£800 / £22.48 = 35 rolls = 1260 frames

now I know which one would be cheaper for me, albeit a less romantic choice.

Even at the low low resolution scans, each roll = £3 + 6.81 = £9.81 which is 27p per frame, now that is expensive

Bandit

25th February 2009, 10:52 PM

Film is dead...RIP nuff said

lostmysnorkel

25th February 2009, 10:59 PM

Just as there's still people paying good money to ride on a steam trains, buy black vinyl records, and do sums by hand, there will always be a market for film, but for the rest of us, digital will be the only way to go until something else takes over.

.

Sadly, the only reason the film manufacturers are still making 35mm film, is for the film industry. They use miles of the stuff and it's just about commercially viable for the manufacturers at the moment.

Digital movie cameras are almost good enough to replace good ol' 35mm, wihtout the costs of processing, editing and distribution associated with 35mm and still retain projection quality at the end - user (cinema).

It won't be long - I reckon 5 years or thereabouts.

skida

26th February 2009, 01:07 AM

My intention is to get a neg/slide scanner and I may even set up a darkroom to process my own negs and slides.

I am quite looking forward having to think hard about every single frame I take.

Incidently, I am not giving up on digital. I will be carrying both with me when I go out, but at the moment, digital processors don't match the dynamic range of film which frustrates the hell out of me.

I got quite excited about a year ago when Sigma launched a DSLR with a foveon (sp?) processor on which each element could record all the colours as , like film, the light passed through filters. This gave and improved dynamic range and better resolution for the given amount of Megapixels because there was no need for demosaicing. Sadly it was rated at 4.2MP (if I remember correctly) and was largely ignored by the photgraphic community, even though the quality was as good as cameras with supposedly much higher resolution. I hope that there will be more development of this technology but I can't say I have heard anything more about it.

BenjaminFarr

28th March 2009, 06:51 PM

How can you call yourself a photographer, if you dont understand photography itself.
film allows you to understand the processes, you have a better understanding of Apperature, Shutter Speed, ISO...

Film isnt DEAD

If you go to study photography at a higher lvl (BA or MA) you will be MADE to use film, and most probably have a number of projects based around the use of film. This is because it teaches you photography, unlike digital photgraphy, this is all done by computers and stuff.

Digital photography is cheaper, faster, but thats about it. its all down to opinion at the end of the day, but one thing you cant denie is that film is important, without understanding film, you cant really say your a Professional photographer..

:P

tinysmall

28th March 2009, 07:38 PM

I can't believe this old dinosaur keeps getting dragged up.

How can you call yourself a photographer, if you dont understand photography itself.
film allows you to understand the processes, you have a better understanding of Apperature, Shutter Speed, ISO...

Film isnt DEAD

If you go to study photography at a higher lvl (BA or MA) you will be MADE to use film, and most probably have a number of projects based around the use of film. This is because it teaches you photography, unlike digital photgraphy, this is all done by computers and stuff.

Digital photography is cheaper, faster, but thats about it. its all down to opinion at the end of the day, but one thing you cant denie is that film is important, without understanding film, you cant really say your a Professional photographer..

:P

Lol. What?
You do know what the word photography means don't you? It's literal translation is painting with light. It has nothing to do with the medium. The reason why the higher level courses make you learn film is because film is still used in the fashion industry by some people, not because you learn more about photography by using film. In fact, if anything, you can learn a hell of a lot more about photography through using digital, and digital photography is not all done with computers. Bad digital photography is done with computers, good digital photography is done with the skills earned through a lot of studying and practice just as it is with film. Learning with film will give you a good understanding of the basics. Thats it. The truth is it's a pain in the arse to learn with because the whole process is so slow that anyone learning with it would be miles behind someone learning the same stuff on digital.

As for not being able to call yourself a professional photographer unless you learn using film.... I don't know how you could come out with a statement like that and expect people to take you seriously. Photography is about creating beautiful images for people to enjoy and the medium in which it is captured is absolutely irrelevant.

I agree that film isn't dead though as I shoot 6x7 film as well as digital and it does have some advantages, but on a like for like basis, with modern cameras, digital is just better and there is no real comparison anymore. I shoot 6x7 film because it gives higher resolution and better detail than my crop sensor DSLR, but on a like for like comparison with digital medium format, there is no comparison, just as with 35mm film and a full frame DSLR, the digital camera will produce better results. Film isn't dead but it is dying and it's only because of people like me and other nut jobs that enjoy the mechanics of shooting film that it still has a small place on the market.

.Ray

28th March 2009, 08:07 PM

Tiny, you say it far better than I ever can. Not to mention I don't believe in having a degree in anything makes anyone better at that subject... (and I have two).

To say unless you understood film you can't call yourself a pro is ridiculous, do professional writers have to understand how a ball point pen, or a type writer or a word processor work? As Tiny said, it's all about the image, not how or what it's captured on. Sure there are occasions where the medium used forms part of the final product, and that I guess takes photography further into the "art" world. It's bit like that bloke on "Genuis of Photography" shown the other week who makes his own metal plate photos by hand (whatever they're called). Can you say if you don't know how to make one of those then you can't be a pro? Of course not.

BarryM

28th March 2009, 08:14 PM

Digital photography is cheaper, faster, but thats about it. its all down to opinion at the end of the day, but one thing you cant denie is that film is important, without understanding film, you cant really say your a Professional photographer..

:P

what a crock of nonsense, total tosh and absolute codswallop. I run a pretty succesfull photography business, have my LMPA just received recently, did over 180 portraits last year, 67 weddings to my name now, with bookings for next three years including 65 for this year, and have never touched film at all.

So how you can say the beggars belief.

Ah, just found your 17 years old, that explains it, stop listening to stuffy tutors in classrooms that probably havent left the classroom for over 200 years, and get out and open your eyes.

BenjaminFarr

28th March 2009, 08:21 PM

BarryM, im talking more about the art side of photography, and like i said it was in my opinion.

your a commercial photographer, im studying photography as an art, yes you are a professional, and by the sounds of it a very sucessful one!

I was only saying how i saw it on the art side of phtography..

tenchy

28th March 2009, 08:31 PM

So Constable's fine art Watercolour paintings are not art then, as they are not oil paintings?
Or all oil paintings are not 'real' art, watercolours are?

Of course not, that's just as much tosh as digital is not real photography.

BenjaminFarr

28th March 2009, 08:34 PM

1st, i never said digital was NOT real photography

2nd, yes they are art, but there was a reason he did them in water colour, most probably because he disliked the use of Painting with oil and the end result is completeley different.

tinysmall

28th March 2009, 08:38 PM

Photography in the art world is driven by the advent of digital. Film has even less of a place there than in the commercial world with the exception of nudes for some reason. Barry is right about most tutors though. They see the world through rose tinted glasses and are usually very pretentious, pompous gits who are trying to justify keeping themselves in a job when the rest of the world is evolving and they can't keep up. Just like those nobs on 'the genius of photography' program. Most of what was shown on there was absolute crap and all the pretentious turds were running around saying it was great then trying to justify their opinion by spouting a load of psycho babble.

And by the way, most of Constables work was done in oil and it is just spectacular when viewed in the flesh.

BenjaminFarr

28th March 2009, 08:43 PM

well, im not trying to offend anyone and im sorry if i did

I have to look at all aspects of phtography, and ive argued with my lectures about certain parts of phtography, and there response has been, without film you cant say your a photographer, and for example the same has happened with life drawing.

tinysmall

28th March 2009, 08:47 PM

Not to be offensive here but your tutor is talking bollocks and is blatantly trying to keep himself in a job. Go out and learn through experience and then you will realise that just because your tutor tells you his view, it doesn't make it true. I'm sure you will learn a hell of a lot on your course, but as with everything in life, the real learning starts with the doing of a thing and not with the initial learning in a classroom. These course are designed to give you a good base from which to learn, not to teach you everything you need to know.

.Ray

29th March 2009, 12:09 AM

I have to look at all aspects of phtography, and ive argued with my lectures about certain parts of photography, and there response has been, without film you cant say your a photographer

Don't you just love it when lecturers make silly claims to make themselves feel superior and to justify their own existence and why they do things the way they do.

To tarnish everyone with the same brush with condescending statements about "real pros" won't make you new friends. I suggest you shouldn't believe everything you hear in class, nor everything you read here for that matter.

Bandit

29th March 2009, 12:10 AM

I have been taking pics for near on 25 years with film and now digital. Either way photography is photography, no matter what the medium..so as Tiny has put it so well...you really are "talking bollocks" :grin:

adenough

16th April 2009, 10:04 PM

If I remember correctly one Patrick Lichfield remarked that the one thng that got in the way of a good photograph was the camera. It is the eye via the brain that makes a picture. The recording device can be anything you choose. brush, camera etc.
I do thing some of you are being rather offensive though in you choice of language and agressive attitude. Not required to make a point.

.Ray

16th April 2009, 10:22 PM

Not required to make a point, but you can't blame people for over reacting the original ludicrous statement about who is and who isn't a real tog.

lostmysnorkel

16th April 2009, 10:34 PM

LMAO...just thought I'd drop into this thread as I've kinda ignored it for ages.

Don't use film and you're not a professional?

Yeagh right.

The ONLY reason manufacturers still make film, is for the movie industry. Once 'Hollywood' has 35mm movie cams that can produce the quality for projection in theatres, bye bye film altogether.

Fuji/Kodak et al do not spend on R&D to satisfy us photographers, there's no money in that anymore.

Once they stop producing film, I suppose that means noone can become a professional photographer?

Hmmmm....I'm glad I got into the game when I did and have never shot anyhting on film in a professional commission.

al1967

16th April 2009, 10:45 PM

It's really interesting and funny to read this thread back to front from the end :ok:
Why do you get all stressed out? Photography is photography and camera is just a tool you use in the process. You can create using a Polaroid camera, or the latest and greatest digital camera - it doesn't really matter. If you are good, nobody will ask what camera and lens you used, if it's bad you can blame your camera, cheap lens, faulty memory card or a bad batch of film or your brushes - it doesn't matter, because your creation simply sucks :).
One last thing, Benjamin, it's aperture and not Apperature, if we are talking high art and photography :tease:

Benw

16th April 2009, 11:11 PM

Lol - what an entertaining read!

Some supreme arrogance here - some from those who don't yet know what it is they don't know.. (yes we were all there once) and the equally pompous attitude of washed up lecturers, embedded in their past and totally unable to change.. The same ones who in the past would have still been teaching that the world was flat.. when clearly the shape of the world had changed..

It's a shame really, about all those amazing books written in the last 20 years, because if they'd been written on a 1924 Underwood #5 typewriter instead then they might have actually been quite good.

Or better still, if the author had beaten some wood to a pulp himself, dried it out onto sheets, found a feather, mixed some ferrous sulphate and tannin with a thickener as ink, and then wrote it by hand, only then might we be able to consider it a classic!

I had a nice cup of tea earlier. Actually no I didnt, because I used a kettle. It would have been so much better if I'd cut some wood myself, let it dry out, built a small fire, heated a pan of water, and took it from there.. It was truly enlightening when I did that, because only then did I really understand the processes involved in making hot water for a cuppa..

Utter tripe.

I have nothing against a healthy appreciation for history and traditional processes.
It can be fascinating, enlightening, and is a totally valid area of study in itself.

But why claim that they are the 'only' true or correct way to understand something that moved on a long time ago?

We've all encountered Steam enthusiasts who claim that modern trains are not 'proper' trains. Classic car nuts who claim that modern cars are not 'proper' cars.
No harm in their interests, but if you could travel back in time and offer a Model T driver a modern, safe, comfortable, fast, warm, efficient and reliable car to travel in, is he going to turn round and say 'no thanks, its not a real car...'? course not. Which is why the model T got traded in for something that did the job better, and that process was endlessly repeated all the way through to modern day.

The principles of adjusting aperture, shutter speed, focus, ISO et al and presenting a properly exposed image to the relevant sensitive area of your camera, whether film or digital sensor are the same as ever.

Understand film? Yes, why not. Take advantage of film's attributes (esp in the few areas where it's still cheaper - well done Mr Tinysmall) Yes, why not.

Use the right tool for the job in hand? absolutely.

and for (IMO) maybe 99% of the jobs we face today, digital is the right tool.

Rant over! ;-)

lostmysnorkel

16th April 2009, 11:16 PM

kemp2906

17th April 2009, 12:00 AM

the inevitable switching the light on and seeing a brand new box of 20x16 fuji paper with the lid off...arrrrgggghhhhhhhhh!

OMG, i hate it when the year 10 & 11's do this lol.

Kemp

tinysmall

17th April 2009, 12:10 AM

I can't believe this has been dragged up AGAIN! lol. Nice. And thank you Ben :)

.Ray

17th April 2009, 12:19 AM

OMG, i hate it when the year 10 & 11's do this lol.

Kemp

You teach year 10 and 11s to print in the darkroom?! In 2009? Wow, lucky kids.

And Ben, can't put it any better even if I tried, not even if it was written with ink and paper that I made myself.

photograham

25th April 2009, 10:03 PM

Hehe its an old topic.
LOL old school camera all the way

uuilliam

25th April 2009, 11:13 PM

photograham are you spamming?... hope not spamming isn't good
just your post seems a little like spam thats all no disrespect ment

kemp2906

26th April 2009, 12:34 AM

You teach year 10 and 11s to print in the darkroom?! In 2009? Wow, lucky kids.

Yep, you would be suprised how many people take it as a subject really. Since i started GCSE 2 years ago the numbers have doubled to something like 80 students per year.

We have two darkrooms now with 2 enlargers each :)

Kemp

Willfordphoto

3rd May 2009, 12:11 PM

This is so not a one or the other subject. Saying that people only use film because they don't know to use digital or because they think digital is not proper photography isbt the point. Film isnt dead its just more obscure and less mainstream than it used to be, of course digital is more popular every one and his mother has a full colour printer a computer and access to the internet these days so anyone starting out inn photography is going to go for the format in which they can edit and print there images at home with equipment they already have.

Photography is like any other form of art, the difference between film and digital is the same as the difference between painting on canvas in a studio and painting on a wall looking over your shoulder for police. or creating music with an acoustic guitar and a sound recorder compared to fabricating a track on sound program on a mac. Film is different to digital its not a substitute in all areas.

I challenge anyone who shoots digital to shoot some film, develop it, contact print it, and then enlarge an image from it and not enjoy every second.

I shoot both and enjoy both.

peace

adrianm

4th May 2009, 12:43 PM

I learned photography when I was little before digital was about, my pentax was completly manual - no autofocus or anything, the most advanced thign it did was suggest a shutter speed for the light :P

Having since moved to a film camera that had a computer that did everything for you and now a digital - I can safely say that the vast majority of those cameras "features" go unused by me :P I still do everything myself, I dont even really like using aperature priority or other priorities.

HOWEVER, my digital is king and id never go back :P purley because when I was young I couldnt afford alot of film and developing, my learning curve was quite slow because of it - also, when I got a film back and saw a nice photo - could I remember how I got it, what the settings were? hell no :P

Iv learned more about photography in teh last year with my digital than I did in several years with my film - purley because I can now go out and take a ridiculus number of photos and experiment and see the results right away, no worries about wasting film.

Having said that - Im extremly glad I learned on such a basic camera - I think if you learn how to do things old school you get a much better understanding than if you try to learn on a camera that can do everything for you.

Im also considering bringing out my old pentax every now and then with some black and white film just for the enjoyment of it :D id want to develop them myself tho - so ill have to learn how to do that first :D

Blue Print

27th May 2009, 10:19 PM

I kind of started in the middle... I bought my first film compact in 1989. It was a Pentax. Then I saved up enough to buy my first SLR, Canon EOS 50E during my uni days. I was inspired by my mates who I studied with at the time.

I must confess that I enjoy learning the characteristics of each type of films. Owing to my budget at the time, I rarely shoot Positives and spent most of my time shooting consumer negatives, mostly Fuji Superia series.

When I got my first job, I upgraded a few lenses and started to explore more better films, the results were staggering. I moved up to Fuji Reala 100, and then professional negatives like 160NC... etc. I also tried Kodak Portra series too. They were all great films. But outright sharpness, I just think the Fuji Velvia was excellent.

That was about to change when I moved to digital in 2005, with the Canon EOS 5D. The initial impression was somehow mixed, despite its superior technologies. I needed to adjust my eyes to digital. It's somehow, too perfect. No grains but noise... I'd never seen any sharper images at ISO 800 before. It was weird.

But I have grown to love digital, and I use it professionally now. My recent purchase 5D MKII actually shocked me to a new level. I can actually shoot in low light without flash?? That was impossible in the film days.

Umm.. a hard call... I love both as they are different. I still shoot film in my Canon 1v, Nikon FM3a and my lovely Zenit FS2...

It's a draw!

lostmysnorkel

27th May 2009, 10:35 PM

You teach year 10 and 11s to print in the darkroom?! In 2009? Wow, lucky kids.

Luck Teachers more like. The yr 10 & 11s I know, I'd give anything to shut them in a small room, turn out the lights and leave 'em there for a while!

kemp2906

27th May 2009, 11:03 PM

Luck Teachers more like. The yr 10 & 11s I know, I'd give anything to shut them in a small room, turn out the lights and leave 'em there for a while!

:Dm, our teacher told us to check the darkroom for any light leakages a while back. 45 minutes later he let us out...

Kemp

lostmysnorkel

27th May 2009, 11:20 PM

:Dm, our teacher told us to check the darkroom for any light leakages a while back. 45 minutes later he let us out...

Kemp

lmao...I'll bet he asked you to find a left-handed screwdriver as well?

googie

2nd June 2009, 10:50 PM

You have to admit though there is something special about seeing your first latent image appearing in the developer tray!!

nikkie316

6th July 2009, 03:35 PM

i still have flims that need to be taken in, juts come across them all, i use digi and will not be going back

Blue Print

10th July 2009, 11:15 AM

I have lots of films, still use film and digital.

Digital for work and travel, Film for art and occasional use.

umm.. hard decision... I would like to continue using film, for as long as I can... before they are all disappear... but developing costs in Uk is wait too high.

m3vwg

17th July 2009, 12:53 AM

.Ray

17th July 2009, 11:36 AM

ive just started to get back into photography,just as a bit of a hobby really,ive got a compact 7.1 mp cybershot but managed to get hold of 2 film cameras,a nikon f3hp with 135mm lens £20,and an f801s £29.i love the wait and antisipation to see the results.i went to a camera club the other day to pick up tips and techniques and there was a competition judging session going on.i looked at the monos and colour prints and was gobsmacked they were awsome.every one was digital but 99% were altered in photoshop,does this mean its still a photograph?it all seemed fake and disheartning,none but a couple really looked like a genuine photograph im confused now:confused:

You may be surprised to know that gobsmacking film photos probably receive as much alterations in the darkroom as their digital counterparts. Master printers would use specific paper to get the contrast they want, they would dodge here and burn there to lighten and darken specific areas, they bleach and dye the prints, the hand tint, they sandwich negs together, they double expose the same frame etc etc. All digital does is make it easier and more accessible.

I'm not sure I care if an image is labelled photography or digital image, or would I poo poo an image just because it was manipulated, sure it would be even more impressive if a great shot was out of the camera, but the end of the day, it's the final image that matters.

jagoanselatan

21st July 2009, 02:55 AM

Im thinking of getting those old camera really reminds me of old days

snowdog1

19th October 2009, 01:53 PM

I Think people get confused with digital i no i do the only digital camera i've had anything
to do with is on my phone and thats crap you press the button to take the pic and you have to hold it so still before the pics taken i just relate this to digital camera's and have stuck to that plastic stuff they call film for years, yes you have to wait for your photos and never no if they have come out tidy the money i have wasted on film but there is something about a SLR film camera. Im not saying i would'nt buy a digital camera if i thought i could work it all out and the best way to back up your digital pics i thought would be an external hard drive just for storing photo's

englishdragoon

23rd October 2009, 02:17 AM

Its funny nowadays digital is king but the Maine reason it is because of quantity. the reason digital is so popular in all realms of photorthy is simply usability, thing when u use a 35mm or 120mm film (iv left out large format because very few peoples have had the luck to use them nowadays) you had you exposures and its was up to your skill to get the image right (and there was always one image that went wrong) but now you can snap your shot and hay its there it is glowing in front. If there a problem, a-bit of dust, anything its jest snap and there we go.

The thing you must remember is the super quality of digital is in most cases is the function of after editing and not jest lighting darkening and burning in details such as in film. I agree with the earlier post about what can be called a photo and digital art, I do this myself with some of my digitals images but because I learned veracity all my skill set on a fully manual 35mm slr I trust to my ability to take the image and about 50% of the time do no editing whatsoever (except the basic raw stuff taking maybe 5-10 minuets)

even nowadays a largformat,medium format or even a 35mm developed as a slid can produce as good if not better quality images that digital.(if someone came along today and invented photo slides the photgrthy community would jest be overwhelmed by the quality and because so few people nowadays use's them often no one see the comparison)

well this is jest my view of coerce but iv used 35mm for 3years and digital cameras for about the same time and whenever I can get access to a dark room my film cameras will be in my hand in a flash (sorry about the pun) but unforchnutly demand has almost killed of the film area of photogrthy but until it dies and is several feet underground I will be taking film images (albeit every-now and again)

sos for the melodramatic ending :)
(sorry for any spelling errors)

josh_smaxx

23rd October 2009, 08:41 AM

I love using film, i use digital mainly because its what i have but when im in college and its free for me to develop and print my images id much prefer to do it like that, theres nothing like seeing your own photograph appear before your eyes in the developer tray in 8x10 so you can see every detail, its great IMO. When i get to the point where i am making my living out of photography i doubt i will ever touch film again, as i wont be shooting as a hobby, but i would like to think i will get a chance to print my own B&W's again.

Cellarman

31st December 2009, 09:59 PM

My particular interest is wild plants. For this I used to use a Rollei 6006, plus magnifier hood, bellows, 120 Makro Planar, 220 back and a Metz 45ct5 flash plus Benbo Mk1 tripod. All this added up to a heavy outfit, especially when waterproofs, food and drink are added for a day out in a remote location. I would sometimes use 2 rolls of film just on one subject to make sure I had the correct exposure and lack of subject movement. Switching to a digital SLR has meant not only a huge reduction in the weight I carry, but I am able to carefully check exposure, focus and movement immediately, so no wasted shots.

For me, film is dead. No more spending hours in the darkroom with smelly chemicals either.

Marciofs

8th January 2010, 12:24 PM

Black and white in film photography are much better because there are more tones of gray. Also I prefer the colours in film photography because are more vivid, rich and natural.

But digital is fast, easier, cheaper.

limetreepictures

8th January 2010, 12:39 PM

Great Thread.

I agree with the originator- film is over, in a business sense for many of us at least. The digital revolution has been a revelation for many photographers- and long may that continue.

There is a very clear and obvious distinction between those who shoot digital well and those who dont. And this is very important.

NOT all those who have a digital camera are capable with it- that is just some fantasy dreamt up and spewed forth by almost every experienced (old school tog) film photographers, many of whom have seen their slice of the market reduce with the new spate of digital businesses. "Digital is too/so easy......blah...blah....". It is a quite ignorant and ill informed generalisation I feel.

I work very hard at my digital photography. I know my tools inside out, and I continually strive to keep on top of what is an ever changing and diverse market. I have also shot & developed & printed film, and as has been mentioned here previously, have shared the awful experiences of ruined negatives, scratches, water marks, etc ruining an otherwise great shot. I can only imagine the dread of having a clients shots turn out this way too....!!

Digital is the smart business move. Film is still a vibrant alternative, but fo rme, it has now become more of a hobbyist, almost underground past time! Digital provides you with options- and recourse should the worst happen.

I would urge the dedicated film lovers to continue with their usage- it would be a shame if this medium disappeared completely, but I would also urge those who are dyed in the woll filmies to rediscover the aptitude and skill that is required to successfully shoot and post produce with digital.

Dave6223

28th January 2010, 10:14 PM

As a beginner, I wouldn't say film is entirely dead. I still hae 3 slr bodies and 2 6x6 mf ameras, which i still use. And i often see people showing friends their hooliday snaps out of boots wallets. I agree its probably turning int a niche market that will die. I've been shooting film for 30 years and now I've turned digital. I find it absorbing, and it's revived my interest in photography. I would agree with one statement in particular. It doesn't matter what the media is, its the picture that counts.

Dave

Lisa Janette

29th January 2010, 01:52 AM

Ha ha the beginning of this thread is 5yrs ago lol x

adenough

2nd February 2010, 02:33 PM

Ha ha the beginning of this thread is 5yrs ago lol x
I wonder how peoples attitudes have changed in that time. Film moving over to digi? Or total digi having a go at film?

Carmen

2nd February 2010, 03:20 PM

Yes it's interesting to read the opinions at the beginning of the thread as I reckon some have changed since then. I've shot film but only on fully auto compacts so I'm pretty much fully digital 'tog.

markB

4th February 2010, 08:04 PM

Dave6223

4th February 2010, 08:36 PM

tbh when using film 7o% of my photos were binned after i got them back from the lab as a beginner i was experimenting all the time i never knew what was in the picture till i got it back, digi is the mutz nutz in my opinion

And so it is with digital, quite often. The major benefit being that you can erase the digital shots and not wait till the packet is returned. In the old days the Nikon choir turned out hundreds and thousands of shots for just one or two images published.

I personally agree that digital is the future, indeed, the present, but to me film is still not totally dead. Medium format film still easily holds its own against digital, unless you happen to me rich and own a blad and digital back.

Dave

markB

4th February 2010, 08:43 PM

And so it is with digital, quite often. The major benefit being that you can erase the digital shots and not wait till the packet is returned. In the old days the Nikon choir turned out hundreds and thousands of shots for just one or two images published.

I personally agree that digital is the future, indeed, the present, but to me film is still not totally dead. Medium format film still easily holds its own against digital, unless you happen to me rich and own a blad and digital back.

Dave

but what i mean by that is id spend lets say 5.00 on prints only to get 3 good ones out of 24.... digi does away with the cost as well...

Dave6223

5th February 2010, 07:28 AM

but what i mean by that is id spend lets say 5.00 on prints only to get 3 good ones out of 24.... digi does away with the cost as well...

Yes, I understand that. Been there , done that. What I meant is that roll film, BECAUSE of the cost of buying and processing, tends to make you slow down and consider the shot. 35mm slr's especially with md or power wind did encourage one to bladder away film like it was going out of fashion. I accept different people have different opinions. The above is mine, and i respect yours too mate.

Dave

tenchy

5th February 2010, 07:57 AM

I do think digital does lean people toward the machine gun mode, though that said I was a power wind film man, at the bike races, but did only use it to capture a sequence. Too expensive to machine gun away.

I've found now, with 100% digital, that I am looking for 'the' shot so almost adopt a film mentality. Not quite, as once I'm set up I will expose for one area and shoot, then another and shoot then another and shoot again, just to ensure the best likelihood of having a frame I can get detail from all areas from.
I very often now stop for a potential shot, consider it, and think, nah, won't be 'the one' and carry on.

SeanNeedham

8th February 2010, 01:47 PM

but what i mean by that is id spend lets say 5.00 on prints only to get 3 good ones out of 24.... digi does away with the cost as well...

I disagree with this...

Digital is like the National Health Service, free at the point of use, but paid for in advance through your contributions to it.

If you followed through the price of a camera, the lenses, the upkeep of that camera, the development unit that is sat on the desk (mine is a couple of grand's worth of machine, but has worked out about 45p a day including eleccy/repairs/upgrades over it's life time), photoshop, lightroom, [insert other software here], the hard disks for the backups for the images, the paper that goes in the printer, the ink for the printer, the running cost of the printer, there will be an eventual point where it becomes cheaper to shoot with digital, but until you hit a phenomenal amount of images, then it isn't as cheap as it looks on paper.

namratasnv

22nd February 2010, 09:37 AM

I am interested to see that someone has posted that film doesnt (like a computer) "crash"...true, but labs processing machines do....trust me I have worked in pro labs in the past for many years, and seen it all...120 film mangled in the rollers, fogged, and even lost....you can't back up film...the risks are equal, but the benefits of digital are far more.....

Hi,

I do agree with you as, digital photography is getting more advance results as compared to films and you will get best out from digital photography as, it simply creates magic and fulfills your dream that you desired.

I think one site will definitely going to help you which is[NO LINKS PLEASE READ RULES]

Thanks

lianne

22nd February 2010, 10:12 AM

I think with film there is something about looking for the exact shot you want, and working hard to make sure it is as you want it. I love digital, but it perhaps takes something away from actually taking care over a particular shot when you know you can shoot it numerous ways and delete the ones you don't like.

namratasnv

22nd February 2010, 11:00 AM

Exactly, it is an advantage of digital photography by which you can keep good pictures and can delete those that are not required and also you can do some editing too by adding graphics and images.

If you want to see the image quality than you can see deleted no links see rule 3

Thanks

SeanNeedham

22nd February 2010, 11:03 AM

simply simon

22nd February 2010, 02:20 PM

Hi all - new to the forum, but with 25 years of taking pictures behind me... the advent of digital rekindled my love of photography.. I first used digital imagery back in the mid 90s, thanks to my job as an imagery analyst for the RAF. Those images mostly came from satellites. I figured the technology would eventually get into consumer photography, but it was a case of waiting. I don't have a large budget, but I just picked up a second hand D50 for £160! (my ex got the family D50 as part of the settlement.)

Wet film is a niche area now and is a hobby in its own right. There is a certain thrill to firing off a roll of B&W 35mm then processing it yourself.

Digital is so much better for learning how to take good pictures. In the days of 35mm, you only knew whether the shot worked once you'd left the subject. Now, you can reshoot until you get it right.

Now to get to grips with Photoshop... cheaper than a darkroom, but much more complicated!!!

Zuikomaniac

27th April 2010, 04:26 PM

So...you think film is dead eh?

You could not be more mistaken. Just two years ago, Kodak introduced a new film. It's called Ektar 100, a 100ISO superfine grain colour print film. I shot 3 rolls over Easter as a tester and it ROCKS.

So, Kodak trusts that there is enough of a market - why is this so? Allow me to illuminate you on the unbridled superiority of film over digital capture. We'll talk 35mm because it's the most popular format, no-one would even get close to contesting the superiority of medium/large formats.

1. Dynamic Range. To this day, nothing beats the eye-popping colours of Fuji Velvia 50. It's the ultimate for landscapes, architecture. OK I admit it isn't good for flesh tones, but for that we have Ektar.

2. Resolution. 35mm film can be printed far larger than any Dslr picture bar the huge, heavy, expensive full frame ones. So your £700 D90 loses to a £10 Olympus Trip 35.

3. Equipment. Mid-range and lower digital cameras are made of tacky plastic. The electronics die after as little as 5 years. By contrast, a 70s/80s SLR (Nikon F, Olympus OM etc) is probably still working today. Hey, I even have a folding bellows camera from 1937 that still works. In 2050 will the digital camera you're using still be working? I highly doubt it. Even if it is, the file format and memory format will be obsolete.

4. Equipment (II). A chrome or black metal film camera is far classier than a chunky, rubberised Dslr. In any part of the world people are far more uneasy having a giant zoom-lensed, whirring buzzing contraption rather than an old camera with a lever for rewinding and a shutter that goes ''Kerthunk''.

5. Film lasts forever. Every movie is transferred to film for storage. We can still read negatives from 100 years ago and even further back. Stored properly, negatives will outlive the people who made them, whereas digital files are held to ransom by the the HDs they are stored on (anyone have a HD that they've kept for more than 10 years? Thought not.) Even then, file formats come and go very quickly in the digital world, as does storage media. Think your photos are safed burned on DVDs? I bet that within my lifetime DVDs will become obsolete. Either you spend ages converting or you lose everything.

6. Logistical convenience. Gone are the days when we developed our own film - life's too short. I pop mine in the post and 3 days later I have my prints. No time spent messing around on the computer importing, tweaking and deleting the trashy ones.

7. No Electronic rubbish, ever. Whenever you carry an electronic appliance around with you, the whole charger/adaptor/laptop paraphernalia comes with you. Every evening you spend time messing around on the computer instead of getting out enjoying whatever great location you're in. With a film camera you're either shooting or relaxing, no backtalk.

Some of the commonly cited 'benefits' of digital debunked:

1. Digital is cheaper. Let's do the maths. If you're looking at getting seriously into photography, you need a dSLR. Let's say you buy a Nikon D90. As of today, the price on Amazon for a D90 with 18-105 lens is £880.

I run an OM-system. For £190 pounds I have an OM-1 and 3 lenses (28mm, 50mm, 100mm, all Zuiko). Alternatively, if you want autofocus, £200 buys you something like an EOS-30 and a zoom lens.
Film costs me £9 to buy and develop (that's Ektar 100 colour film. Other films like Superia are even cheaper). 880 (Nikon D90 price) - 190 (Olympus OM price) = £690 saved to spend on film. That equates to 76 rolls of film, developed, to the nearest whole number, or 2736 photos. As an amateur who shoots less than 10 films a year that would keep me going for quite a while, 7-8 years. In that time my D90 would be completely out of date (anyone have a digicam from 2003?) so I'd have to dump more money on replacing it, and of course it's used value would have collapsed. By contrast, used film cameras keep their value rather well. You can argue that pros would shoot far more, but pros would be spending more on a digital camera (maybe a D700 or a D3) while the equivalent film camera would be an F5. The difference in the cost of equipment easily pays for the film development costs.

2. Digital lets you take more photos, therefore you have better ones. For a start, quantity does not imply quality. In fact, the opposite is true: if you're spending a lot more per frame and you have a limited number of frames, you're far more likely to concetrate and think hard about pictures. Digital is for snapshooters who want to make loads of rubbishy, mediocre photos and then spend ages tweaking them, looking at histograms and messing around with HDR and other gimmicky computer rubbish to try and improve them. People who want a few great images use film. I always get a higher proportion of keepers on a roll of 35mm than on an SD card.

Geoffrey

27th April 2010, 05:24 PM

When you see how polaroïd becomes popular again I guess you can't say that the film industry is about to die.
**[edit] Like Zuikomaniac I also use Ektar 100 which is only £2 a 36 poses roll and has a very fine grain, but I can't develop it myself and I digitalise it, so it becomes a bit expensive**
Plus, did you know that the army still use films for their resolution ?

I personally prefer black and white films than digital pictures for many reasons :

First reason is that in digital printing (or screen viewing) you get only 256 different levels of gray instead of millions in silver-based film.
Second reason is the shape of the grain and its size when using ISO 50 films.
Third reason is the AMAZING dynamic range of B&W films.
Fourth reason is how easy and fun it is to develop and print B&W films compared to colour films.
Fifth reason is how cheap professional grade film cameras are : £150 a Nikon F100, £75 an EOS 5 ; how cheap the chemicals, how cheap the films...

Chris Hawkins

28th April 2010, 08:27 PM

Great - let's have play :-)

So...you think film is dead eh?

No, it's not dead.

You could not be more mistaken. Just two years ago, Kodak introduced a new film. It's called Ektar 100, a 100ISO superfine grain colour print film. I shot 3 rolls over Easter as a tester and it ROCKS.

2 Years ago - fine, so film's not dead as of 2 years ago.

So, Kodak trusts that there is enough of a market - why is this so? Allow me to illuminate you on the unbridled superiority of film over digital capture. We'll talk 35mm because it's the most popular format, no-one would even get close to contesting the superiority of medium/large formats.

I'm listening

1. Dynamic Range. To this day, nothing beats the eye-popping colours of Fuji Velvia 50. It's the ultimate for landscapes, architecture. OK I admit it isn't good for flesh tones, but for that we have Ektar.

HDR and image exposure merging can easily exceed the DR of film. It's pretty straightforward to mimic Velvia, if that's what you want.

2. Resolution. 35mm film can be printed far larger than any Dslr picture bar the huge, heavy, expensive full frame ones. So your £700 D90 loses to a £10 Olympus Trip 35.

Firstly, how large do you mean? - 99.999% (made that up but it's probably true) of photographers do not print larger than 10x8. Moreover, a kit lens on a D90 will far exceed the resolving power of the Zuiko lens.

3. Equipment. Mid-range and lower digital cameras are made of tacky plastic.

You've called in tacky!

The electronics die after as little as 5 years. By contrast, a 70s/80s SLR (Nikon F, Olympus OM etc) is probably still working today. Hey, I even have a folding bellows camera from 1937 that still works. In 2050 will the digital camera you're using still be working? I highly doubt it

So what! My mother-in-law has a laundry wringer still surviving in her garden, but strangely she prefers to use her tumble dryer :-)

Even if it is, the file format and memory format will be obsolete.

That's why you should use DNG format and update your files to newer formats as time progresses. JPEG has been around for 20 years already and is not going anywhere soon.

4. Equipment (II). A chrome or black metal film camera is far classier than a chunky, rubberised Dslr. In any part of the world people are far more uneasy having a giant zoom-lensed, whirring buzzing contraption rather than an old camera with a lever for rewinding and a shutter that goes ''Kerthunk''.

Do you want to take photos with your camera or take it for a dance?

5. Film lasts forever. Every movie is transferred to film for storage. We can still read negatives from 100 years ago and even further back. Stored properly, negatives will outlive the people who made them, whereas digital files are held to ransom by the the HDs they are stored on (anyone have a HD that they've kept for more than 10 years? Thought not.) Even then, file formats come and go very quickly in the digital world, as does storage media. Think your photos are safed burned on DVDs? I bet that within my lifetime DVDs will become obsolete. Either you spend ages converting or you lose everything.

Film doesn't last forever - I have lost many photos through many reasons - mould, organization, flood and fire. I've never lost a digital image (well a few from the early days when I was careless) - I have multiple backups stored at alternate locations.

6. Logistical convenience. Gone are the days when we developed our own film - life's too short. I pop mine in the post and 3 days later I have my prints. No time spent messing around on the computer importing, tweaking and deleting the trashy ones.

3 Days!!!!! My clients can have the pics within 3 hours!!! I can view the pics within 3 minutes!!!

7. No Electronic rubbish, ever. Whenever you carry an electronic appliance around with you, the whole charger/adaptor/laptop paraphernalia comes with you. Every evening you spend time messing around on the computer instead of getting out enjoying whatever great location you're in. With a film camera you're either shooting or relaxing, no backtalk.

I don't take paraphernalia with my when I go togging - I take the camera and lens.

Some of the commonly cited 'benefits' of digital debunked:

1. Digital is cheaper. Let's do the maths. If you're looking at getting seriously into photography, you need a dSLR. Let's say you buy a Nikon D90. As of today, the price on Amazon for a D90 with 18-105 lens is £880.

I run an OM-system. For £190 pounds I have an OM-1 and 3 lenses (28mm, 50mm, 100mm, all Zuiko). Alternatively, if you want autofocus, £200 buys you something like an EOS-30 and a zoom lens.
Film costs me £9 to buy and develop (that's Ektar 100 colour film. Other films like Superia are even cheaper). 880 (Nikon D90 price) - 190 (Olympus OM price) = £690 saved to spend on film. That equates to 76 rolls of film, developed, to the nearest whole number, or 2736 photos. As an amateur who shoots less than 10 films a year that would keep me going for quite a while, 7-8 years. In that time my D90 would be completely out of date (anyone have a digicam from 2003?) so I'd have to dump more money on replacing it, and of course it's used value would have collapsed. By contrast, used film cameras keep their value rather well. You can argue that pros would shoot far more, but pros would be spending more on a digital camera (maybe a D700 or a D3) while the equivalent film camera would be an F5. The difference in the cost of equipment easily pays for the film development costs.

Sure, let's do the maths. I've taken over 100,000 pictures over the past 4 years - let's call it 100,000 for ease. You say it costs £9 to buy and develop - let's assume you're talking 36 reels. If I'd shot film it would have cost me 100,000/36 x 9 = £25,000. The depreciation on my digital gear kind of pales :-)

2. Digital lets you take more photos,
Not if you can afford to buy and develop the film :-)
therefore you have better ones.

Your proposition not anyone else's.

For a start, quantity does not imply quality.

No arguments there :-)

In fact, the opposite is true: if you're spending a lot more per frame and you have a limited number of frames, you're far more likely to concetrate and think hard about pictures.

Certainly some truth there.
Digital is for snapshooters who want to make loads of rubbishy, mediocre photos and then spend ages tweaking them, looking at histograms and messing around with HDR and other gimmicky computer rubbish to try and improve them. People who want a few great images use film.

Then why does virtually every professional photographer on the planet uses digital?

I always get a higher proportion of keepers on a roll of 35mm than on an SD card.

I would too - but I'd rather get 180 keepers from 1000 shots than 36 keepers from 36 shots :-)

tinysmall

28th April 2010, 09:07 PM

Can't believe this has been brought up...AGAIN.

I shoot medium format film (6x7) and medium format digital. The film is fantastic but the digital is better in every respect. Except for mono images. I love Ilford XP2 400 iso. It's beautiful but thats a personal preference. In every other way, digital surpasses the film. Film does have a certain charm though and medium format film does give better quality than most DSLR's. Agree with almost everything Chris said in reply and would add that from a 6mp DSLR you can enlarge the images to cover a bus without loosing any quality if you get it done at a decent printers.

Geoffrey

28th April 2010, 09:43 PM

HDR is rubbish if you take a pic of the see, of the sky or of a windy landscape... There is a reason why the fuji S3 and S5 pro were so popular. film's dynamic range IS better. you can pretend that you don't need it but you can't deny it.

Chris says that "about 99.999% [...] of photographers do not print larger than 10x8", actually they don't print at all, it's a pity but where about is the argument ? And if it's true that one can print at 30dpi, don't tell me it's good quality. Luxury uses 30 to 50mpx images for their poster campaigns, and when you wait for the metro in Paris you do see the difference because your nose almost touches the paper. film really is superior, and you really need it for many purpose (talked about the army, but also for science, holography, medical imaging, etc.) . And if it's true that the lens can be a limit, it's also the case for digital.

Nomad

28th April 2010, 10:48 PM

I shoot film because I like it, and because I like using my Leica M2. I quite like using my Weston Master V light meter as well, but most of the time, I just use sunny 16. As of last Tuesday, film was still alive in the shape of the 20 rolls of Legacy Pro B&W (rebranded Fuji Neopan) that I ordered for a massive £2.15 a roll. With the 50p a roll for dev chemicals added on (assuming I don't reuse stop and fix), then I think that adds up to pretty cheap. My Epson V700 will scan them at something like 50mp without interpolation. It'll scan the 5x4 negs at something like 190mp (15,000 by 12,000 pixels), but they do cost a bit more. Not that I have any need to scan at such high resolutions - I scan at lower res and treat them as contacts. When I get my finger out and finalise the darkroom, I can print the ones I like using the enlarger. I'm not a pro, it's purely a hobby, and this is the way I like it. I still use the DSLR as well, but it has taken a back seat over the last few weeks. The Ektar sounds a bit like Fuji Superia 100, which is sharp and contrasty, if a tad saturated. Film was alive a couple of weeks ago as well when I got 20 rolls of that from Calumet for £1.56 a pop. I'm thinking of getting some Adox CMS 20 B&W film to see what it's like. In HC-110, it rates 6-12 ASA and apparently has zilch grain. Also fancy some of the Adox CHS in 5x4.

Zuikomaniac

29th April 2010, 06:00 PM

Let's address some of your points Chris.

Regarding HDR - Geoffrey mentioned that he doesn't like it for the reason that it can't quite match film. I don't like it because it means I have to take 3x more photos and spend yet more time messing around on the computer. It's certainly not convenient at all. With Velvia every picture is HDR straight out of the camera.

Regarding Storage and Storage media: How many years have you been shooting digital for? I've had a digicam since 2003. In 2006 my hard drive crashed and everything was lost. Fair enough, I should've made an effort to have them backed up. However, I never made sure my films and prints were backed up. I put the good ones in albums and the poor ones stored away in cardboard boxes along with the negs. I have an immaculate record of roll after roll of pictures going back to 1985. Nothing has ever happened to them. Sure if my house was flooded or caught fire they would be damaged, but so would your digital storage media.

In fact, I know someone who works in a high-performance supercomputer facility - they receive meteorological data from satellites which is inputted into a medium-range weather simulation. All the data both before and after is carefully archived. To my great surprise this digital data, millions of digital files, 1s and 0s are stored on magnetic tapes, rather like VHS. The simple reason for that is that no solid-state drive or disk is reliable enough. When I found this out my faith in digital methods of storage was severely challenged, and I just don't trust photos to something so whimsical.

Regarding Speed: You say digital is logistically superior because you can view the photos instantly and the clients can have them within hours. I support the latter proposition - if digital lets you make more money as a professional photographer, then go for it. In fact as you say regarding your sums - for studio photographers it's far more profitable, so fair enough. But from an amateur's perspective (I am consistently referring to the amateur's perspective, because really serious photographers often shoot large format film, which is still unrivalled for landscape photography. The large majority of photographers on the planet are amateurs) since when was instant gratification bettter? Not to mention that unpalpable sense of excitement when you get a roll back from the lab.

Paraphernalia when shooting: sure on an individual photoshoot you have camera and lens, but what about staying abroad for large periods of time? You'll at least need a charger, potentially even a laptop. More stuff to carry/lose/damage.

And finally..out of 120 film pics (3 rolls thereabouts) and 120 digital ones, there will be 9 keepers on film and 3 on digital.

EDIT: Regarding Ektar: Superficially it's similar to Superia 100, yes. However it does boast 'world's finest grain' on the packaging and the grain is indeed noticeably finer and the colours a little more saturated, particularly reds.

Geoffrey

29th April 2010, 06:28 PM

Magnetic tape is very dangerous too... You experience it every time you leave your keys next to your oyster card ;)

About HDR what I'm saying is that if your subject is moving it's almost impossible to take the 3 same pictures. Even though computer algorithms improve every day it's still simpler to take only one pic.

tenchy

29th April 2010, 06:35 PM

do you want to take photos with your camera or take it for a dance?

lmao!!!

Chris Hawkins

29th April 2010, 10:18 PM

Let's address some of your points Chris.

Thanks - this will be fun :-)

Regarding HDR - Geoffrey mentioned that he doesn't like it for the reason that it can't quite match film. I don't like it because it means I have to take 3x more photos and spend yet more time messing around on the computer. It's certainly not convenient at all. With Velvia every picture is HDR straight out of the camera.

My camera shoots 8 fps - that means it takes it takes me 0.375 seconds to shoot a bracketed exposure - the messing around on the computer is probably quicker than it takes you to walk to the post box :-)

Regarding Storage and Storage media: How many years have you been shooting digital for?

8 Years - why?

I've had a digicam since 2003. In 2006 my hard drive crashed and everything was lost. Fair enough, I should've made an effort to have them backed up.

Yes, you should - I have multiple back ups - including off site storage - my photos are sooooo safe.

However, I never made sure my films and prints were backed up. I put the good ones in albums and the poor ones stored away in cardboard boxes along with the negs. I have an immaculate record of roll after roll of pictures going back to 1985

Marvelous - can you retreive individual photos in seconds using exif/metatdata? :-)

. Nothing has ever happened to them. Sure if my house was flooded or caught fire they would be damaged, but so would your digital storage media.

In fact, I know someone who works in a high-performance supercomputer facility - they receive meteorological data from satellites which is inputted into a medium-range weather simulation. All the data both before and after is carefully archived. To my great surprise this digital data, millions of digital files, 1s and 0s are stored on magnetic tapes, rather like VHS. The simple reason for that is that no solid-state drive or disk is reliable enough.

Sure it is - the entire infrastructure of my company and the country relies on this.

When I found this out my faith in digital methods of storage was severely challenged, and I just don't trust photos to something so whimsical.

It's not whimsical it's the future - get use to it :-)

Regarding Speed: You say digital is logistically superior because you can view the photos instantly and the clients can have them within hours. I support the latter proposition - if digital lets you make more money as a professional photographer, then go for it. In fact as you say regarding your sums - for studio photographers it's far more profitable, so fair enough. But from an amateur's perspective (I am consistently referring to the amateur's perspective, because really serious photographers often shoot large format film, which is still unrivalled for landscape photography. The large majority of photographers on the planet are amateurs) since when was instant gratification bettter? Not to mention that unpalpable sense of excitement when you get a roll back from the lab.

I get unpalpable sence of excitement when I upload my CF card.

Paraphernalia when shooting: sure on an individual photoshoot you have camera and lens, but what about staying abroad for large periods of time? You'll at least need a charger, potentially even a laptop. More stuff to carry/lose/damage.

I do need a charger - it's really no effort - it takes less space than my sun tan lotion :-)

And finally..out of 120 film pics (3 rolls thereabouts) and 120 digital ones, there will be 9 keepers on film and 3 on digital.

Where did that statistic come from???????????? Out of the last 120 digital shots I took I got far more than 9 keepers :-)

Let's address some of your points Chris.

Regarding HDR - Geoffrey mentioned that he doesn't like it for the reason that it can't quite match film. I don't like it because it means I have to take 3x more photos and spend yet more time messing around on the computer. It's certainly not convenient at all. With Velvia every picture is HDR straight out of the camera.

Regarding Storage and Storage media: How many years have you been shooting digital for? I've had a digicam since 2003. In 2006 my hard drive crashed and everything was lost. Fair enough, I should've made an effort to have them backed up. However, I never made sure my films and prints were backed up. I put the good ones in albums and the poor ones stored away in cardboard boxes along with the negs. I have an immaculate record of roll after roll of pictures going back to 1985. Nothing has ever happened to them. Sure if my house was flooded or caught fire they would be damaged, but so would your digital storage media.

In fact, I know someone who works in a high-performance supercomputer facility - they receive meteorological data from satellites which is inputted into a medium-range weather simulation. All the data both before and after is carefully archived. To my great surprise this digital data, millions of digital files, 1s and 0s are stored on magnetic tapes, rather like VHS. The simple reason for that is that no solid-state drive or disk is reliable enough. When I found this out my faith in digital methods of storage was severely challenged, and I just don't trust photos to something so whimsical.

Regarding Speed: You say digital is logistically superior because you can view the photos instantly and the clients can have them within hours. I support the latter proposition - if digital lets you make more money as a professional photographer, then go for it. In fact as you say regarding your sums - for studio photographers it's far more profitable, so fair enough. But from an amateur's perspective (I am consistently referring to the amateur's perspective, because really serious photographers often shoot large format film, which is still unrivalled for landscape photography. The large majority of photographers on the planet are amateurs) since when was instant gratification bettter? Not to mention that unpalpable sense of excitement when you get a roll back from the lab.

Paraphernalia when shooting: sure on an individual photoshoot you have camera and lens, but what about staying abroad for large periods of time? You'll at least need a charger, potentially even a laptop. More stuff to carry/lose/damage.

And finally..out of 120 film pics (3 rolls thereabouts) and 120 digital ones, there will be 9 keepers on film and 3 on digital.

EDIT: Regarding Ektar: Superficially it's similar to Superia 100, yes. However it does boast 'world's finest grain' on the packaging and the grain is indeed noticeably finer and the colours a little more saturated, particularly reds.

namratasnv

14th May 2010, 02:24 PM

Digital photography is far more better then any other photography as, you will get the quality and at the same time, all the pictures are so bright with better resolution I have just started doing photography and focus of digital photography as, I studied fine art and believes in creating something very beautiful and natural.

Thanks

[NO LINKS PLEASE READ RULES]

george.monaghan

14th May 2010, 02:47 PM

I smell troll

natalia

16th May 2010, 09:06 AM

I understand why you use digital, especially if its your work / living at risk, BUT, no need to be nasty if anyone uses, and is happy to do so, a film camera. Just remember, without film cameras there would not be digital.... xxswimXX

tonymp

18th May 2010, 08:54 AM

This is a good thread!

From my perspective:
I still shoot mostly MF film and the one thing I never worry about is whether or not an image will come out correctly. even if it is an important image! I trust my hand held meter and personal judgement sufficiently so as to predict the outcome. My biggest worry is/was the film being lost in the system or damaged during D&P if it is/was out-sourced. That is where digital images come into their own...oh, and the "wait" isn't too much fun with film LOL

These days, I now use digital cameras more, at least for colour work, as the lab I used for the last 12 years has now gone, but for mono work, I stick to film. If I really want to check my film results are on the spot or for a specific a lighting check, I could always use a polaroid back ( but I admit I mostly use a small P&S for that these days) so, there aren't as many drawbacks of film as can be suggested.
I still tend to shoot digital in the same manner I shoot film - I compose and do everything in the camera and I've never been one for rapid-fire shooting so, I come away with less frames but more keepers which saves me time and trouble later as, I don't particularly enjoy PP'ing digital images and wading through hundreds upon hundreds of extra digital files is certainly not my idea of fun.
There is no doubt that digital files are much easier to edit but, I can scan a well shot neg and then edit it digitally so, the advantages of digital are reduced. Again, it will also depend upon one's work as to whether digital or film will do the job and film, for sports journos for instance, would be like something out of the stone age these days where uploading instant shots to their newspaper or agency is a requirement to meet dealines. For portraits or weddings etc, there is little advantage to shooting with digital but where time and speed of image production is the essence of the job, film just can't keep up!
Having said all that, I think the days of film are well and truly numbered and will be confined to the hobbyist or neg film specialist as digital cameras continue to improve and I too am looking to go fully digital in the near future - it will be just another stage in the evolution of photography
and while some will mourn the passing of film, a new and exciting era in photography will undoubtedly follow with a new batch of enthusiasts taking up the baton to lead it forward.

Tony

liam1234

22nd May 2010, 09:49 PM

I think film is good to learn about photography with. I learnt with it and I found it taught me a lot about how to take photos. I now use digital but I find I thought a lot more about taking a photograph when I was using film as I had to take the photograph right first time. There weren’t really any second chances with it, so in that respect I find it is good to learn with. Being only 18 I am still learning alot about photography and i have moved into digital but i still use a lot of film.
I also find now that a lot of people who use digital rely on Photoshop to "fix" there photos rather than use the camera for its purposes (although altering the basic is acceptable). Although these people seem to be in a minority it gives the REAL photographers a bad name.

The film I do use is mainly B&W and I develop it and print it myself. I find this extremely satisfying when I see my prints come through in the developer, and probably the best part.
With digital I have found that the quality has got a lot better over the years but it still doesn’t quite match large format film. Also there is a higher chance of digital files getting corrupted unless stored and backed up properly than a negative get ruined.

Liam

buru

14th June 2010, 10:43 AM

i'm sorry but arguing over which is better is pretty dumb to be honest.

look at when photography first ever came out. painters were furious and were adament that their lives were over and this new ''light drawing'' method would put them out of business. some people called it the devils' work.
ok look at where we are now.
digital photography is popular. film photographers are furious and are adament that their lives are over and this new ''digital photography'' method will, well, not really put them out of business as such (actually yeah, put them out of business because of stubborness), but find it very hard to cope with.

i wonder what will come out next that will cause digital photographers to become furious and adament that this new way of shooting photography will find it very hard to cope with and/or put them out of business out of sheer stubborness.

anyway....

my story and personal opinion:

i prefer film. not out of stubborness or anything like that. but because i just enjoy using 35mm film more than taking pictures on a digital SLR.
when i first got into photography, i started off with a fujica STX-1 that i bought from a curiousity shop in brighton. i actually broke it by accident by not pressing the rewind button on the bottom before actually rewinding it, hence breaking the motors and stuff through force. good times.....
i trawled ebay for another film SLR and found an olympus OM10. someone told me they were a nice SLR to use, so i bought it. i actually moved to london around the time so perfect timing really. i took pictures around london and actually wound the film properly when i finished and got them developed. i was so happy with how they came out. and yes i got that excited feeling of getting them back from the developers and seeing how cool they looked.
i did actually buy another fujica. i found an STX-1n on ebay and bought it. i got a tonne of extras with it. three lenses, flash, filters, bag. and it was really cheap too. i was astounded at how cheap film SLRs were on ebay and in general. my love for this camera grew. i just became very attached to it.
so then i bought a nikon D40 as my first digital SLR. at first i was completely in love with it. i'd take it everywhere with me. take a picture and LOOK EVERYONE CHECK OUT THIS PICTURE IT'S AWESOME!!! stick them all on my laptop and photoshop them to death and upload them on flikr and photobucket and facebook and wherever i uploaded them.

oh yeah by the way i gave my olympus to my best mate after getting my nikon which thinking about it now, was quite patronising and i feel kinda bad for doing that.

i had my nikon for two years. i've never been the type to constantly upgrade or anything like that. the nikon i had was good enough to take awesome pictures.
i started dating a girl january (who is now my fiancee) and as a 100 day anniversary present, i gave her my fujica with lenses and everything, which inspired her to get into photography in quite a big way.
i started missing using film. my nikon was good and all, but i didn't really get the same satisfaction. a few weeks ago i decided to sell my nikon D40 and go back to film. i bought a nice fujica STX-1 (yeah i know) off ebay with again, a pile of lenses and filters and converters and flash for really cheap. i've been happy with it ever since.

i'll say this about digital media:

in essence, it's lazy. *click* done. dont like the picture? delete it. throw it away take it again. cant get the picture you have in your head? pick a mode in the menu that will help. i find it really really really boring.
film photography excited me. you learn the manual way without being able to revert to auto mode which i love.
digital lenses feel cheap and wobbly where 35mm lenses feel big and heavy and reliable. a lot of people probably dont like big and heavy, but i do.
and yes, storage. having all your pictures on a memory card may be easier and more efficient or whatever, but i like to hold my photos in my hand and flick through them, not stare at them on a laptop. it satisfies me.
i guess it's the same with music media too, without going off topic.

CD
vinyl
MP3
cassette

which one do you love the most?

it's just something that people shouldn't argue about but they do.

I LIKE DIGITAL IT'S SO MUCH MORE BETTER THAN THAT FILM CRAP

GOD I HATE DIGITAL SO MUCH IT'S RUINED EVERYTHING

really? i accept peoples' opinion. but i dont accept peoples' arrogance.

bottom line.

neither is the best. it's all a matter of opinion.

i prefer film.
you prefer digital.

the end.