film vs. digital

[JJOC]

Ok, no dispute the world is moving or has moved to digital photography. But there is still room in the world for film.

Digital offers the advantage when shooting of instant gratification. Film requires that you work to compose the photo and wait until you can develop the image.

Also with the computer controlled digital cameras on the market, it is possible to take a DSLR from a point and shoot to full manual camera with the flip of a switch.

One reason I ask is I just picked up a Nikon FM3a and am looking forward to getting back to a manual film camera.

The questions are:
1. Do you think there is room in this world for film.
2. Which do you prefer and why?

[TxTowman]

1. yes

2. I would have to have a lot of instruction to learn how to develop the film.
Unless you plan on sending it to a lab, and that's costly.

[KJ Smith]

Why do you think it needs to be film v digi?

They are two different tools with different effects.

Becoming proficient with both can only benefit you.

[duronboy]

I'm wanting to get back into some film, myself. B&W, at least, so I can develop it myself.

How-To: Develop Film with Coffee and Vitamin C (Caffenol) - YouTube

How-To: Develop Film with Coffee and Vitamin C (Caffenol) - YouTube

Caffenol

[JJOC]

Originally Posted by KJ Smith

Why do you think it needs to be film v digi?

They are two different tools with different effects.

Becoming proficient with both can only benefit you.

No arguement around the proficiency or the different results. And it is not necessarily a vs. situation. But when you look at the way the market is heading, the focus seems to be on digital. Nikon only makes 2 film cameras currently. The FM10 is an entry level camera targeted towards students that is made under license for Nikon. The F6 is a high end professional model costing close to $3,000. There must be a market for a camera in between.

The Nikon FM3a that I just bought is to replace the FG that would have cost more to repair than it was worth. I like using a manual camera. It is part of the fun in taking good photographs. Don't get me wrong, I like the D3100 that I bought earlier this year. It does a great job. But it is somehow not the same as working with film.

[Daniel Bates]

Originally Posted by JJOC

1. Do you think there is room in this world for film.

There is definitely room for film, and there always will be. It is (and will continue to be) a niche product, but that's not always a bad thing.

Originally Posted by JJOC

2. Which do you prefer and why?

Digital. I didn't use film for very long before getting a digital camera, so I'm not nostalgic at all; I don't need film's particular benefits (tonal graduations, color rendering, overall 'look', etc); and, probably the most important reason: I'm way too impatient.

I'll always look back on my Pentax ME Super with fond memories; it had an amazing viewfinder and the focus barrels on those old K-mount lenses were superb. Okay, maybe I am a little nostalgic.

[contributor_M]

This debate is really akin to the one in the music world. Vinyl vs CD/Mp3 debate.

As with most things, it really doesn't matter. If people are still buying one or the other, then there will always be room.

Preference wise, what ever I need.

[tc95]

Everything has been said before...

1. Film - If you don't know what your doing even with the best camera...your shot is not going to come-out...(because of this) The Surprise to see what you did and how it looks, will always be the reason it does not go away...Present....of something nice...when you do it right....That is why I still shoot film...

2. Of coarse I will say Digital...you can correct your actions right there...and make the little changes to get the perfect shot...you know what you are getting...and know you can correct it later if you don't like it...

As stated film is expensive to process...and on top of that...the processing is the other half of the deal...you take it to a bad lab...they will screw-it up...you take it to a great lab...even if you screw-it-up they can help you get something from nothing...

My 2-Cents....

[RexGig]

1. Yes

2. Why do I have to prefer one over the other? It depends on what I am trying to accomplish. One thing for sure, I hate computers, and tend to disdain electronic gadgets in general, which affects digital photography. At work, I upload JPEGs, and other people do the rest. I store my own digital images on archive-grade CD, if I want to keep them. I do not trust external hard drives, from hearing friends' horror stories.

On the other hand, film does not provide the instant feed-back that digital does. Images cannot be reviewed after the shot, and having film developed takes time. I did not become serious about photography until I owned a DSLR.

As for pure elegance, I reckon some film cameras definitely have that, over their digital counterparts. A Nikon FM3A is more elegant than any digital Nikon, in my opinion, for example. In that regard, I prefer film.

[tc95]

Rex...has a point...nothing fells like my Leica R4-Mot and R8...

[ronocnikral]

we've debated before, and there are ways in which film is less costly, and it all varies according to what you want to do. for my business, no way I would shoot film. for my "leisure" shooting, film is cheaper.

just looking at my shooting habits, a "decent" film camera, a year's worth of film & chems cost much less than a "decent" DSLR and lens. i'm sure all my film stuff costs less than what a lot of people spend on their first DSLR, software, lenses, new computers, etc. of course, I got a lot of stuff for free!

[Tom]

There is definitely room for film, and there always will be.

In history books.

[Buddha]

YMMV.
I shot film for several decades and was rarely happy with the resulting prints. Doing my own was out of the question, though. Finally, I bought a negative scanner to use to save some of my old negatives by digitizing them. With zero editing skills, I was still able to make the scans look much better than they ever had before, and that made me think alot about going digital.
How you save an image is one half of the process. The other half is how it is processed and 'retouched' no matter how saved. There is just no comparison between film negatives and digital negatives and what you can do with them. I no longer carry a bag full of filters or get caught out with the wrong film for the subject I just saw. The light can change and that won't shoot me down. I still plan on getting it right in the camera, and I just retouch images. I don't add graphics to them. Now I have tools to help me create the images that I first saw in my mind somewhere. I was never going to get there with film, although I still like the looks of various kinds of film when I do B&W, and I have presets to take care of that.
YMMV, but that is my opinion.

[auddii]

Originally Posted by Buddha

YMMV.
I shot film for several decades and was rarely happy with the resulting prints. Doing my own was out of the question, though. Finally, I bought a negative scanner to use to save some of my old negatives by digitizing them. With zero editing skills, I was still able to make the scans look much better than they ever had before, and that made me think alot about going digital.
How you save an image is one half of the process. The other half is how it is processed and 'retouched' no matter how saved. There is just no comparison between film negatives and digital negatives and what you can do with them. I no longer carry a bag full of filters or get caught out with the wrong film for the subject I just saw. The light can change and that won't shoot me down. I still plan on getting it right in the camera, and I just retouch images. I don't add graphics to them. Now I have tools to help me create the images that I first saw in my mind somewhere. I was never going to get there with film, although I still like the looks of various kinds of film when I do B&W, and I have presets to take care of that.
YMMV, but that is my opinion.

I think one of the key elements to really good film photography is developing your own film and making your own prints. It's been discussed many, many times before that a lot of the basic editing tools in photoshop are things you can do while creating the prints. Many of the greats who worked with film put a lot of effort into their prints after taking the shot.

[craigb456]

Originally Posted by duronboy

I'm wanting to get back into some film, myself. B&W, at least, so I can develop it myself.

How-To: Develop Film with Coffee and Vitamin C (Caffenol) - YouTube

Caffenol

I want to try this :)