With film: quite enjoyed taking pictures, liked the "anticipation" of seeing what I'd managed to capture, but was always worried about the cost, never shot enough to really get "inside" any kind of technical understanding (not that I'm terribly good technically yet, but I'm learning by leaps and bounds and FINALLY starting to "get" it).
digital: have spent the last 6 months shooting like a madwoman and am learning ALL the time. Have gone from "quite like taking pictures" to "absolutely passionate about taking pictures". There is NO WAY I could have taken this step with film - it would have COST me too much!
Also, I hugely prefer the digital darkroom to a chemical one (I didn't do much "real" darkroom work, but I did try my hand at it many moons ago). I LOVE messin' around in PS and how I can do so many things on my laptop which with film would have required an entire laboratory and loads of physical space if they were even do-able at all.
The cheap photo feature is great but my favorite part is the ability to have complete control of the output when I manipulate on PhotoShop. I don't have to be a great photographer to produce a great shot.
Starting at around 6 MPix the digital SLR showed superiority over 35mm film SLRs. As digital began to produce better and better high-ISO results the choice became even more convincing for digital.
Better batteries and larger storage cards have sealed the deal allowing longer shooting sessions and lower per-image amortized costs.
As pixels densities increase while noise remains controlled, the full-frame dSLRs are now challenging even medium format film and the full-frame dSLR has tremendous cost and convenience advantages.
Large format film is the last bastion of the film world and even that is being challenged by digital scanning backs with increasingly improving pixel-per-dollar costs and no film scanning costs or difficulties.
Where does film-based technology still have an advantage:
Super long exposures: typical digital sensors of today would introduce too much noise due to the heating issues. Workaround: multiple short exposures and consequent blending (at a cost of HDD space and extra processing time)
Very remote location with total and ultimate absense of anything remotely reminding electric power (i.e. no way to recharge the batteries or have enough of them). I'd say, mostly hypotetical, since if that be the case taking quality pictures would probably be very low on one's task list... However, I still have fond memories of my cheap (15 roubles = $3) CMEHA-8M ("Smena") rangefinder that traveled with me through the peaks and white waters of Pamir mountains. Definitely hassle-free equipment.
Special cases, like super large formats or "historical" process. Usually highly custom projects and hobbies.
Some great points already made...so Ill just add on....
-Instant feedback on the lCD gives invaluble insight as to what I am doing right....and wrong.
-I shoot mostly by chimping the histogram. No film camera ever had that. It makes the light meter on my old Pentax 35mm look like a complete joke.
-Sharing the images.....by print, press printed books, email, web gallery, dvd, slideshow, etc....has never been easier. I can take a shot this morning...and upload it to a website, and a person on another continent can view it right away...within minutes really of capturing the image.
I hate printing or scanning film with scratches and dust on it.
Point-and-shoots have been utterly revolutionized by digital, though not many take advantage of it. How many inexpensive film point-and-shoots offered manual shutter speed, manual aperture, and image stabilization? Yet those are easy to find in digital.
With digital you can actually afford to make a backup copy of all your work for safekeeping, and unlike film the backup is first-generation quality.
Film work involves a dark, windowless room full of nasty chemicals, and afterward you have to clean up - who likes doing dishes? Digital work involves a normal room where you can eat and look out the window, and start and stop work at any time with no setup or cleanup time. And as expensive as the inks are, I think it still costs less than boxes of photo paper and keeping the chemicals fresh.
You aren't forced to miss the action every 36 frames to change film, since digital cards hold hundreds of raw images.
Well...I DID have a Yashica FX-1 and three lenses until I lost the whole sheh-bang on a train coming back from learning how to sail.
In Germany.
Thirty years ago.
I've been a digital user since 2002, with first a Nikon E2500, then a Nikon E5400, later a Canon A540 after that E5400 went purple-screen on me. In the last couple of months, I've had access to a Nikon D200.
The common thread here: NO FILM.
Without even trying hard, I've kept some 40,000 images since 2002. KEPT, mind you! Probably deleted 300,000 or more in addition.
Just try THAT with film (see you in bankruptcy court)!:photo
Point-and-shoots have been utterly revolutionized by digital, though not many take advantage of it. How many inexpensive film point-and-shoots offered manual shutter speed, manual aperture, and image stabilization? Yet those are easy to find in digital.
I can't believe the number of people who can't be bothered to learn their p&s camera's (mildly) advanced settings. A year with my prosumer p&s taught me enough that my DSLR isn't completely frightening.
You know, you're RIGHT! Having had a Nikon E5400--and using ALL its features and settings--has made my finally transitioning to DSLR (in this case, a Nikon D200) smooooooooooooth jazzzzzzzzzzzz!:cool
I can't believe the number of people who can't be bothered to learn their p&s camera's (mildly) advanced settings. A year with my prosumer p&s taught me enough that my DSLR isn't completely frightening.
What a great reminder here about the advantages of digital. I thoroughly enjoyed the quality I got from film cameras over the years, but I feel I am free with digital to get instant gratification if I got the shot. I would imagine, changing media cards is WAY faster than changing film, though I was pretty good at that too.
Nice replies. I posted this tread because my husband recently talked me into getting a digital camera when all I use is film cameras. I'm not sure why I was hesitant in getting a digital, I guess I felt my "eye" for capturing images would be lost. I' m always excited to find out how well or how bad I did when I first see my developed photos. The cost of having a digital camera is cheaper I know, but I'm not one to edit photos if they didn't come out the way I wanted. I like to learn from my mistakes and improve on my skills. I guess I feel all that would be lost if I could just edit the photo with some software. Your posts have made me see digital photography in a different light. Thank you.
-Neoette
The concept that editing either ruins a photo or "makes" a photo is pretty much nonsense, but sensible editing can certainly enhance a good photo.
Feel free to use whatever you have at your disposal to represent what you saw or felt as you made the photograph. A digital camera, or film camera for that matter, can only record what it was designed to record, and that may not match your needs or your vision.
Darkroom processing or software editing is a means to an end that "you" control. Ansel Adams and Yousuf Karsh's processor/printer (Karsh was widely rumored to rarely do his own) used considerable manipulation to produce what "appeared" to be perfectly natural and certainly appropriate for the image.
It is that combination of total control as well as your handling of the particular photographic situation that will establish your style and photographic personality.
Even photo journalists are allowed exposure correction, white balance and color balance, and cropping in most circumstances.
I'm kinda late to this discussion, but I want to add my two cents.
If I was a pro then, most definitely, I'd go with digital. Who needs the darkroom, the chemicals, the slow turn around, etc. Digital is faster, better, cheaper, more flexible, etc. I'd ditch film and never look back.
However, I'm not a pro. I'm strictly amateur, so I have the one luxury that pros don't have: time.
I recently bought a film camera and I've been learning film photography for the past few months. Because photography is a hobby I have all the time in the world to putter around in the darkroom, getting my prints to look just so. I find working in the darkroom rather relaxing. I like mixing chemicals, developing film, and watching prints develop. However, I would hate to work in the darkroom if I was working under any kind of deadline.
I can't say I prefer one over the other. For photos that I can't risk screwing up, I'd go with digital. The appeal of film for me is in the intangibles.
For me, digital cameras fall into same electronic fog as cell phones, ipods, iphones, video games, blackberries, etc. It's just another electronic gizmo that magically does what it does, needs constant recharging, and will be obsolete in three years. Film cameras seem more timeless. When I step into a darkroom, I feel like I'm following in the footsteps of past photographers. When I edit a photo in Photoshop, I just feel like a computer geek.
I shot 35mm Kodachrome for years and printed it to 16x 20 on Cibachrome prints - I still have the prints. I shot 35mm Tri-X and Plus-X and Panatomic-X and still have 16 x 20 in prints.
The prints I now make from my DSLRs - even some from a 3 generation back Canon 10D - are vastly better, whether color or B&W, than I ever obtained with film and my own darkroom. A 5D Mkll will make better image quality than previous medium format film cameras. 35mm film won't even come close!
I now am able to have prints 30 inches by 40 inches that are essentaily grainless, sharp, with good contrast. The only way to get there with film is at least 2 1/4 sq, 35mm film just would not cut it.
I still have a Bessler 2 1/4 sq color enlarger with a Nikon 50mm lens. One of you film lovers want to buy it? I'll make you a very good deal
wrong debate
I think the most important thing has been told by dkoyanagi.
are you a pro, have you time ?
and ... what are expecting when you make a picture (shoot, process and so on). yes make, not take. what do you want to say? to share?
where is the pleasure for you?
another common and contemporary myth (is the academic sense) regarding photography evolution is :
- sharp is better
- no grain is better
- and of course, 100000000000000 pictures on my HD is better
better for what? what do you feel when you look at a picture ? the sharpness? the noise level? or the story inside picture ?
yes digital has a lot of advantages (I used a D200 a lot), but now... film
another common and contemporary myth (is the academic sense) regarding photography evolution is :
- sharp is better
- no grain is better
- and of course, 100000000000000 pictures on my HD is better
better for what? what do you feel when you look at a picture ? the sharpness? the noise level? or the story inside picture ?
...
Since it is easier to digitally reduce sharpness as needed and induce graininess and since it is also much more cost effective to process and store 100000000000000 "digital" images I think you have made a perfect argument "for" multiple digital images with blistering sharpness and virtually no grain.
You would be correct to say that it is wrong to "obsess" about sharpness and grain to the exclusion of image content and impact and story. thumb
I think the most important thing has been told by dkoyanagi.
are you a pro, have you time ?
and ... what are expecting when you make a picture (shoot, process and so on). yes make, not take. what do you want to say? to share?
where is the pleasure for you?
another common and contemporary myth (is the academic sense) regarding photography evolution is :
- sharp is better
- no grain is better
- and of course, 100000000000000 pictures on my HD is better
better for what? what do you feel when you look at a picture ? the sharpness? the noise level? or the story inside picture ?
yes digital has a lot of advantages (I used a D200 a lot), but now... film
I fully agree that sharpness, lack of grain, saturation of color do not in them selves make great photos. But blurry, out of focus, grainy images are not inherently great either.
Given a choice between two identically composed images, I suggest we frequently prefer the image with the better overall image quality. I do not believe we routinely prefer unsharp, out of focus, grainy images if a better alternative is available. Just my opinion.
I resisted the move to Digital for quite some time, but once I got involved it made perfect sense. The fact that I can shoot a thousand images on a battery and CF card makes life a little easier.
The processing using digital is taking the hardest toll on me. Photoshop is supposed to be my friend, but we don't seem to agree that often
I can't say that I miss the chemicals, although I am far better at manipulating my images with film.
Now my digital camera is like my cell phone, I couldn't live without it.
Comments
Digital ALL the way.
With film: quite enjoyed taking pictures, liked the "anticipation" of seeing what I'd managed to capture, but was always worried about the cost, never shot enough to really get "inside" any kind of technical understanding (not that I'm terribly good technically yet, but I'm learning by leaps and bounds and FINALLY starting to "get" it).
digital: have spent the last 6 months shooting like a madwoman and am learning ALL the time. Have gone from "quite like taking pictures" to "absolutely passionate about taking pictures". There is NO WAY I could have taken this step with film - it would have COST me too much!
Also, I hugely prefer the digital darkroom to a chemical one (I didn't do much "real" darkroom work, but I did try my hand at it many moons ago). I LOVE messin' around in PS and how I can do so many things on my laptop which with film would have required an entire laboratory and loads of physical space if they were even do-able at all.
Yes Digital.
The cheap photo feature is great but my favorite part is the ability to have complete control of the output when I manipulate on PhotoShop. I don't have to be a great photographer to produce a great shot.
Better batteries and larger storage cards have sealed the deal allowing longer shooting sessions and lower per-image amortized costs.
As pixels densities increase while noise remains controlled, the full-frame dSLRs are now challenging even medium format film and the full-frame dSLR has tremendous cost and convenience advantages.
Large format film is the last bastion of the film world and even that is being challenged by digital scanning backs with increasingly improving pixel-per-dollar costs and no film scanning costs or difficulties.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
-Instant feedback on the lCD gives invaluble insight as to what I am doing right....and wrong.
-I shoot mostly by chimping the histogram. No film camera ever had that. It makes the light meter on my old Pentax 35mm look like a complete joke.
-Sharing the images.....by print, press printed books, email, web gallery, dvd, slideshow, etc....has never been easier. I can take a shot this morning...and upload it to a website, and a person on another continent can view it right away...within minutes really of capturing the image.
Jeff
-Need help with Dgrin?; Wedding Photography Resources
-My Website - Blog - Tips for Senior Portraiture
Point-and-shoots have been utterly revolutionized by digital, though not many take advantage of it. How many inexpensive film point-and-shoots offered manual shutter speed, manual aperture, and image stabilization? Yet those are easy to find in digital.
With digital you can actually afford to make a backup copy of all your work for safekeeping, and unlike film the backup is first-generation quality.
Film work involves a dark, windowless room full of nasty chemicals, and afterward you have to clean up - who likes doing dishes? Digital work involves a normal room where you can eat and look out the window, and start and stop work at any time with no setup or cleanup time. And as expensive as the inks are, I think it still costs less than boxes of photo paper and keeping the chemicals fresh.
You aren't forced to miss the action every 36 frames to change film, since digital cards hold hundreds of raw images.
In Germany.
Thirty years ago.
I've been a digital user since 2002, with first a Nikon E2500, then a Nikon E5400, later a Canon A540 after that E5400 went purple-screen on me. In the last couple of months, I've had access to a Nikon D200.
The common thread here: NO FILM.
Without even trying hard, I've kept some 40,000 images since 2002. KEPT, mind you! Probably deleted 300,000 or more in addition.
Just try THAT with film (see you in bankruptcy court)!:photo
Steve-o
Atlanta, GA USA
my smugmug
Atlanta Modern Wedding Photographer
SheriJohnsonPhotography.com
The concept that editing either ruins a photo or "makes" a photo is pretty much nonsense, but sensible editing can certainly enhance a good photo.
Feel free to use whatever you have at your disposal to represent what you saw or felt as you made the photograph. A digital camera, or film camera for that matter, can only record what it was designed to record, and that may not match your needs or your vision.
Darkroom processing or software editing is a means to an end that "you" control. Ansel Adams and Yousuf Karsh's processor/printer (Karsh was widely rumored to rarely do his own) used considerable manipulation to produce what "appeared" to be perfectly natural and certainly appropriate for the image.
It is that combination of total control as well as your handling of the particular photographic situation that will establish your style and photographic personality.
Even photo journalists are allowed exposure correction, white balance and color balance, and cropping in most circumstances.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
If I was a pro then, most definitely, I'd go with digital. Who needs the darkroom, the chemicals, the slow turn around, etc. Digital is faster, better, cheaper, more flexible, etc. I'd ditch film and never look back.
However, I'm not a pro. I'm strictly amateur, so I have the one luxury that pros don't have: time.
I recently bought a film camera and I've been learning film photography for the past few months. Because photography is a hobby I have all the time in the world to putter around in the darkroom, getting my prints to look just so. I find working in the darkroom rather relaxing. I like mixing chemicals, developing film, and watching prints develop. However, I would hate to work in the darkroom if I was working under any kind of deadline.
I can't say I prefer one over the other. For photos that I can't risk screwing up, I'd go with digital. The appeal of film for me is in the intangibles.
For me, digital cameras fall into same electronic fog as cell phones, ipods, iphones, video games, blackberries, etc. It's just another electronic gizmo that magically does what it does, needs constant recharging, and will be obsolete in three years. Film cameras seem more timeless. When I step into a darkroom, I feel like I'm following in the footsteps of past photographers. When I edit a photo in Photoshop, I just feel like a computer geek.
www.dkoyanagi.com
www.flickr.com/photos/dkoyanagi/
The prints I now make from my DSLRs - even some from a 3 generation back Canon 10D - are vastly better, whether color or B&W, than I ever obtained with film and my own darkroom. A 5D Mkll will make better image quality than previous medium format film cameras. 35mm film won't even come close!
I now am able to have prints 30 inches by 40 inches that are essentaily grainless, sharp, with good contrast. The only way to get there with film is at least 2 1/4 sq, 35mm film just would not cut it.
I still have a Bessler 2 1/4 sq color enlarger with a Nikon 50mm lens. One of you film lovers want to buy it? I'll make you a very good deal
I'll stick with my DSLR.
MOO - YMMV!
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I think the most important thing has been told by dkoyanagi.
are you a pro, have you time ?
and ... what are expecting when you make a picture (shoot, process and so on). yes make, not take. what do you want to say? to share?
where is the pleasure for you?
another common and contemporary myth (is the academic sense) regarding photography evolution is :
- sharp is better
- no grain is better
- and of course, 100000000000000 pictures on my HD is better
better for what? what do you feel when you look at a picture ? the sharpness? the noise level? or the story inside picture ?
yes digital has a lot of advantages (I used a D200 a lot), but now... film
Since it is easier to digitally reduce sharpness as needed and induce graininess and since it is also much more cost effective to process and store 100000000000000 "digital" images I think you have made a perfect argument "for" multiple digital images with blistering sharpness and virtually no grain.
You would be correct to say that it is wrong to "obsess" about sharpness and grain to the exclusion of image content and impact and story.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I fully agree that sharpness, lack of grain, saturation of color do not in them selves make great photos. But blurry, out of focus, grainy images are not inherently great either.
Given a choice between two identically composed images, I suggest we frequently prefer the image with the better overall image quality. I do not believe we routinely prefer unsharp, out of focus, grainy images if a better alternative is available. Just my opinion.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
The processing using digital is taking the hardest toll on me. Photoshop is supposed to be my friend, but we don't seem to agree that often
I can't say that I miss the chemicals, although I am far better at manipulating my images with film.
Now my digital camera is like my cell phone, I couldn't live without it.
Website