Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 19, 2008, 10:49 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

Yes I have an evil streak. MuHAHAAA!!! Asking more film questions....

Knowing this is a digital photography forum I'd still like to know how you all feel regarding film versus digital photography. Which do you prefer and for what reasons?

Is it fair to say that shooting in film gives you a more "analogue look"? Even if there is a fair bit of digital circutry in the newer film cameras. Also, it could be me but it seems that film handles rays of light differently. Looks more "natural". Or could it just be that particular photographer's abilities?

Thanks.
DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 19, 2008, 11:57 AM   #2
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 96
Default

I'm not sure I know quite what an "analogue"look is. I periodically see reviews of digital cameras in magazines and on websites where the reviewer talks about the "film-like" qualities of the pictures produced on the said digicam.

As far as I'm concerned......and please forgive the use ofa phrase well known in the UK.......its all a load of b*ll*ks.

I look at the output from my digital cameras and I look at the output from my film cameras and I pretty much see the same thing.


ron519098 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2008, 12:00 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

DarkDTSHD wrote:
Quote:
Yes I have an evil streak. MuHAHAAA!!! Asking more film questions....

Knowing this is a digital photography forum I'd still like to know how you all feel regarding film versus digital photography. Which do you prefer and for what reasons?

Is it fair to say that shooting in film gives you a more "analogue look"? Even if there is a fair bit of digital circutry in the newer film cameras. Also, it could be me but it seems that film handles rays of light differently. Looks more "natural". Or could it just be that particular photographer's abilities?

Thanks.
Would you feel better if I told you that digitalsensors are really analog and film is really digital?
ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2008, 12:47 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

ron519098 wrote:
Quote:
I'm not sure I know quite what an "analogue"look is. I periodically see reviews of digital cameras in magazines and on websites where the reviewer talks about the "film-like" qualities of the pictures produced on the said digicam.

As far as I'm concerned......and please forgive the use ofa phrase well known in the UK.......its all a load of b*ll*ks.

I look at the output from my digital cameras and I look at the output from my film cameras and I pretty much see the same thing.

As I said. I don't know if it's in my head. That I might be seeing things that really isn't there in a photo shot with a SLR versus one shot with a DSLR.

By "analogue" I guess I am talking about that "film-like" quality. Less processed and more natural. Just as if you were comparing listening to vinyl to a CD. For me the difference in that analogy is night and day. Listening to your favorite music (assuming it's available on vinyl) on an analogue system (e.g. turntable, tube amp and electrostatic speakers) sounds sublime. Very "musical" whereas music on a CD does IMHO have a "processed sound". Not that it's at all objectionable.

Any how I have heard that said. That people just can't see a difference. Maybe there really isn't.

Though, many agree that if shooting b/w film is better. If shooting in color then digital is the medium of choice. Why is this? Or do you guys disagree? I've heard this said from hobbyists and professionals like Vincent Versace.
DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2008, 1:36 PM   #5
Member
 
erutcip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 45
Default

DarkDTSHD wrote:
Quote:
Knowing this is a digital photography forum I'd still like to know how you all feel regarding film versus digital photography. Which do you prefer and for what reasons?


For me, the advantages of digital are instant gratification, the low cost of trial and error, and life-cycle cost. I prefer digital for these reasons.

However, I also feel that I had to think a lot more before pressing the shutter button with film and that made me a better photog (better being a relative term).

With film, one must wait for developing before seeing the finished product.

With digital, one can take many different exposures of the same subjectfor minimal additionalcost.

Assuming all otherthings being equal, the one-timecost for memory cards is less than the on-goingcost of purchasingfilm.


erutcip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2008, 2:58 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

DarkDTSHD wrote:
Quote:
Yes I have an evil streak. MuHAHAAA!!! Asking more film questions....

Knowing this is a digital photography forum I'd still like to know how you all feel regarding film versus digital photography. Which do you prefer and for what reasons?

Is it fair to say that shooting in film gives you a more "analogue look"? Even if there is a fair bit of digital circutry in the newer film cameras. Also, it could be me but it seems that film handles rays of light differently. Looks more "natural". Or could it just be that particular photographer's abilities?

Thanks.
Are you saying they still make film?!

In all honesty, since I bought my first DSLR in 2004, I sold my film cameras and haven't touchedthe stuffsince. If film disappeared off the shelves tomorrow, I'd never know. Within the last month, out of sheer morbid curiosity I scanned B&H's inventory of film cameras, SLR and point & shoots. It's astounding howlittle today there is to choose from. Obviously, I'm not the only one not buying film cameras these days.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2008, 3:21 PM   #7
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

A couple of things...

I assume we all know the advantages of digital, so no need to belabor the point.

The state of the art in film and scanner technology (a scanner is just a special type of digital camera) has also advanced in the last few years during the digital revolution. There are fewer companies making film, and fewer types of film made nowadays, but the quality is better than it has ever been.

There are still areas where film holds some advantages: one advantage to film is that the good BW films can have DR that exceeds the DR of digital by a reasonable margin (perhaps 3-4 stops more than the best DSLR), and also has a much wider exposure latitude.

When we turn to quality and cost, consider for example the quality available from a 4x5 view camera, which can be had for around $1500. To even approach that level of resolution one needs a medium format back in the 40Mp range; the sort of thing that costs $30,000 excluding lenses and camera body. That $28,500 difference pays for a LOT of film. Busy pro studios that used to shoot medium and large format film can burn through that much in film costs in a few months, but for amateurs who crave the ultimate in quality film can still be a far more cost-effective solution. And of course when you move up to even larger formats like 8x10 one has to look at digital scanning backs which are also hugely expensive and require taking laptops in the field, etc.

This can also be evident when looking outside the realm of SLR cameras. For example if you are partial to rangefinder cameras there is only one digital model currently in production: the Leica M8. This is a very expensive camera and is not without its problems. By contrast it is possible to get hold of some very nice rangefinder film cameras for a small fraction of the cost of the M8 and the difference in price can pay for many years worth of film processing.

As a matter of fact I just purchased a Zeiss Ikon rangefinder camera and lens. The difference in cost between it and the Leica M8 will pay for around 7 years' worth of film processing in my estimation (shooting an average of one roll per week), hopefully in a few years there will be a more reasonably priced digital rangefinder on the market. The fact that I just bought a film camera doesn't mean I'm getting rid of my Canon 5D however. Digital is great, but it doesn't cover the full spectrum of photography at all price points.


peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2008, 3:44 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

I like the flexibility that digital provides. You can switch Iso's on the fly, you can convert any color pic to Black and White, no rapid switching of film because you've been shooting long bursts (at 3 fps, thats only 12 seconds of shooting per roll), not needing to store film in the freezer (although I still have a stash), carrying bulky rolls of film around....you get the idea.

Visually, I don't think either one is better than the other, unless your talking about medium format film, which is clearly a better medium. Even cost wise is close when you consider how quickly digital bodies are updated and how expensive they are compared to film, and the fact that printing files from digital is just as costly as developing film.

I have no idea what you mean by a more "analog" look.


rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2008, 4:59 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

I suppose if you were an Ansel Adams wannabe you might still want a film camera when shooting b/w.

Actually, I think waiting for film to be developed could be part of the fun. The anticippation of the print. To see if you actually got the shot. And yes it does make you think before you take ever shot. With digital you (well most of us) can get a little complacent. Lazy. Knowing that if you made a mistake you could chimp and then immediately reshoot.

But at the same time the immediate gratification is great too. Not to mention the days you don't want to trek to the developing house. Assuming you don't have a darkroom.

I think in the end it comes down to if you prefer to shoot mostly in b/w. Do you have a longing for the days of olde where you actually enjoyed thinking before every shot (not that digital photogs don't...some). I think it's also lifestyle. But picture quality wise...I think the difference is moot if you're a hobbyist. That and now there is software allowing you to mimic over 300 different types of film.

Ok on to other things....thanks guys for posting!

Will he buy a F6 for the fun of it? To be continued...
DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2008, 6:38 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
tjsnaps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sacramento, Ca
Posts: 652
Default

I've only had a digital for a short time. I love the insatnt gradifacation. the fact that I can start working on images on the computer right away and that I can shoot lots of images without hearing a cash regester in my head.

On the other hand I much prefer a solid body, easy to use dials insted of push buttons, especaily the apatrure ring on the lens. and last but not least the bigger view finder and my waist level view finder.

If they made a digital back for my F or my FM you would see my D50 for sale today

I also still use film becuase I can't afford a new ultra-wide lens for the DX format

Now I think I'll go buy a roll of the new T-MAX film and some developer.
tjsnaps is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:44 PM.