Why do you carry on using film instead of digital?
Discussion
Serious question as an ex-film SLR user - why not buy a Digital SLR?
I posted this in the middle of another thread but thought I would make it a thread of it's own cos I really am interested in the question.
I've not bought one cos I lost the serious photography bug some time ago, but having tried some friend's digi SLRs and seen the stunning results, I can't see why not. Surely convenience of digital makes the move a no brainer? You can take thousands of photos without worrying about the cost - you know straight away whether you've got the shot you wanted, and these day the best way to show your photos is on the web, so you'd end up scanning them anyway?
Apologies if I'm an infidel, but I used to be a major advocate of Vinyl, until I got fed up with the messing around with turning the record over half way through an album! etc etc.
Cheers.
I posted this in the middle of another thread but thought I would make it a thread of it's own cos I really am interested in the question.
I've not bought one cos I lost the serious photography bug some time ago, but having tried some friend's digi SLRs and seen the stunning results, I can't see why not. Surely convenience of digital makes the move a no brainer? You can take thousands of photos without worrying about the cost - you know straight away whether you've got the shot you wanted, and these day the best way to show your photos is on the web, so you'd end up scanning them anyway?
Apologies if I'm an infidel, but I used to be a major advocate of Vinyl, until I got fed up with the messing around with turning the record over half way through an album! etc etc.
Cheers.
I held out for ages. The main reason was that there was no way I could really afford a camera that was going to give as good results as my film SLR. Then the new Eos 450D dropped to under £500 then to £450, and finally Canon came out with a cash back offer, the seasaw tipped, the camel's back broke and the avalanche, er, avalanched. I'm now training myself to realise that it doesn't cost money to press the shutter, and my memory card won't be full in 36 shots.
I sort of went the other way. I started out with digital as I never had the patience to make the correlation between what I was shooting and the end results with film. Once I figured out the technicalities with digital, I bought an A1 SLR and messed about with slide film. I've also got a Holga lurking in my pack too - although I've only used 2 rolls so far.
I still have digital - my main camera is a 1D - but I find myself being lazy with it (full burst for example) and I really do not use it to its fullest. In fact, that's one of the reasons I'm selling it (the other is weight and value given some of the places I'll be travelling to next) as I'm going to downgrade to a 30 or 400.
There's absolutely no doubt that the slide film shots have a much stronger tonal range, although I guess if I was more proficient with Photoshop I could get similar results from digital. I think that might be the difference - digital almost HAS to use the PC to get the best out of it (all other things being equal I mean, ie no filters on either)
I still have digital - my main camera is a 1D - but I find myself being lazy with it (full burst for example) and I really do not use it to its fullest. In fact, that's one of the reasons I'm selling it (the other is weight and value given some of the places I'll be travelling to next) as I'm going to downgrade to a 30 or 400.
There's absolutely no doubt that the slide film shots have a much stronger tonal range, although I guess if I was more proficient with Photoshop I could get similar results from digital. I think that might be the difference - digital almost HAS to use the PC to get the best out of it (all other things being equal I mean, ie no filters on either)
Edited by Famous Graham on Wednesday 2nd July 01:20
I went all-digital at the beginning of the century, and then returned to nearly all film in the past two years.
Why?
It was all becoming too simple, and I got lazy. My dSLR had a thousand functions (none of which I knew how to use), the shutter-speed and aperture were hidden away in menus and/or those scroll-wheels instead of barrels on the lense, and the minutae of the focus was determined by the camera, not by me. As well as that, whereas before I would think about the photo I was taking, with digital, I would come away from a day's shooting with thousands of photos - nearly all of them identical, and nearly all of them crap.
Now I shoot with either with film rangefinders (Leica M7/MP/MP-3), or a medium-format SLR (Hasselblad 503CW). Every photo is a synaptic process - EVERYTHING is done by me: the SLR doesn't even use batteries! The result is that I get exactly the photo I envisioned, and my hit-rate has gone from single digits, to at least 70% (you get very picky about what you take a photo of when you only have 12 shots per roll).
Also, film adds another level of innate depth to the photo. Yes, you can change things on Photoshop, and shift to greyscale, and use a filter for noise or texture on digital, but with film, all the warmth, the feel, and the look is chosen BEFORE the photo is taken, and cannot be seperated from the finished result. There is a warmth and honesty of film that I simply cannot/will not trade for digital.
More than anything, though, I love the purity of the process. In both cameras, it is a four-point, and never changing: focus, aperture, shutter-speed, CLICK!
If you want - check out my Flickr page. Apart from the D200/Cuba sets, they are all film.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7592660@N06/
The only downside is the cost invovled in processing at a decent lab nowadays - but I live in Israel, and my local pro-lab gives me an almost ridiculous discount, so I'm happy! Oh, and they scan 20MB images at the time of development (I usually don't even bother with prints).
Why?
It was all becoming too simple, and I got lazy. My dSLR had a thousand functions (none of which I knew how to use), the shutter-speed and aperture were hidden away in menus and/or those scroll-wheels instead of barrels on the lense, and the minutae of the focus was determined by the camera, not by me. As well as that, whereas before I would think about the photo I was taking, with digital, I would come away from a day's shooting with thousands of photos - nearly all of them identical, and nearly all of them crap.
Now I shoot with either with film rangefinders (Leica M7/MP/MP-3), or a medium-format SLR (Hasselblad 503CW). Every photo is a synaptic process - EVERYTHING is done by me: the SLR doesn't even use batteries! The result is that I get exactly the photo I envisioned, and my hit-rate has gone from single digits, to at least 70% (you get very picky about what you take a photo of when you only have 12 shots per roll).
Also, film adds another level of innate depth to the photo. Yes, you can change things on Photoshop, and shift to greyscale, and use a filter for noise or texture on digital, but with film, all the warmth, the feel, and the look is chosen BEFORE the photo is taken, and cannot be seperated from the finished result. There is a warmth and honesty of film that I simply cannot/will not trade for digital.
More than anything, though, I love the purity of the process. In both cameras, it is a four-point, and never changing: focus, aperture, shutter-speed, CLICK!
If you want - check out my Flickr page. Apart from the D200/Cuba sets, they are all film.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7592660@N06/
The only downside is the cost invovled in processing at a decent lab nowadays - but I live in Israel, and my local pro-lab gives me an almost ridiculous discount, so I'm happy! Oh, and they scan 20MB images at the time of development (I usually don't even bother with prints).
Edited by urban_alchemist on Wednesday 2nd July 05:45
Similar story really, I had a decent DSLR kit but found it was too heavy to cart around for family snapshots and didn't satisfy for landscape use. In the end I sold it all and now have 2 cameras I use regularly: a G9 which is easy to carry for snapshots and an Ebony 5x4 for landscape use.
I went large format because I like the whole process of composing and taking an image - it takes me probably 15mins to take one picture - which might seem ridiculous, but I work in a high tech industry all day long and value the simple, totally mechanical process of image making with the 5x4. I find it really relaxing, although I make plenty of mistakes. Plus theres the advantages of the camera movements and I don't think I'll ever get bored of looking at a large format slide on a light box - the detail is stunning. One other benefit I hadn't realised before was the quality of modern large format lenses - there's no need for any of that "is my lens sharp?" nonsense I fell into with the DSLR. It really does just come down to me and my mistakes!
Having said that, I would love to try a BetterLight scanning back on the Ebony!
I went large format because I like the whole process of composing and taking an image - it takes me probably 15mins to take one picture - which might seem ridiculous, but I work in a high tech industry all day long and value the simple, totally mechanical process of image making with the 5x4. I find it really relaxing, although I make plenty of mistakes. Plus theres the advantages of the camera movements and I don't think I'll ever get bored of looking at a large format slide on a light box - the detail is stunning. One other benefit I hadn't realised before was the quality of modern large format lenses - there's no need for any of that "is my lens sharp?" nonsense I fell into with the DSLR. It really does just come down to me and my mistakes!
Having said that, I would love to try a BetterLight scanning back on the Ebony!
I held out moving to digital for years for no other reason than I loved my film camera (Nikon F100), enjoyed using film and mostly did my own developing and printing. My better half then bought me a D70 for Christmas and I didn't really take to it. The camera was fine - I was the problem. Digital was too easy and I found myself thinking less and less and basically just pointing and shooting more and more (and just fixing poor results in photoshop later).
The turning point came when I enrolled in a digital photography course at my local lab and took the time to understand key things like using histograms etc. It was a good course and it made me use my D70 as a photographer, rather than as a quick snapper. The D70 made way for a D200 and I have never looked back. The F100 is gathering dust in a bag in my office and has never been used since. I do miss using film, but am now hooked on the immediacy of digital and doubt I'll ever go back.
Gixxer.
The turning point came when I enrolled in a digital photography course at my local lab and took the time to understand key things like using histograms etc. It was a good course and it made me use my D70 as a photographer, rather than as a quick snapper. The D70 made way for a D200 and I have never looked back. The F100 is gathering dust in a bag in my office and has never been used since. I do miss using film, but am now hooked on the immediacy of digital and doubt I'll ever go back.
Gixxer.
JonathanP said:
Similar story really, I had a decent DSLR kit but found it was too heavy to cart around for family snapshots and didn't satisfy for landscape use. In the end I sold it all and now have 2 cameras I use regularly: a G9 which is easy to carry for snapshots and an Ebony 5x4 for landscape use.
I went large format because I like the whole process of composing and taking an image - it takes me probably 15mins to take one picture - which might seem ridiculous, but I work in a high tech industry all day long and value the simple, totally mechanical process of image making with the 5x4. I find it really relaxing, although I make plenty of mistakes. Plus theres the advantages of the camera movements and I don't think I'll ever get bored of looking at a large format slide on a light box - the detail is stunning. One other benefit I hadn't realised before was the quality of modern large format lenses - there's no need for any of that "is my lens sharp?" nonsense I fell into with the DSLR. It really does just come down to me and my mistakes!
Having said that, I would love to try a BetterLight scanning back on the Ebony!
Wow... that's an interesting story! I've been intrigued by LF photography for a while, but think I lack the patience for the traditional setup. Have you ever been tempted by/used one of these? I have to say, it is really difficult to say no:I went large format because I like the whole process of composing and taking an image - it takes me probably 15mins to take one picture - which might seem ridiculous, but I work in a high tech industry all day long and value the simple, totally mechanical process of image making with the 5x4. I find it really relaxing, although I make plenty of mistakes. Plus theres the advantages of the camera movements and I don't think I'll ever get bored of looking at a large format slide on a light box - the detail is stunning. One other benefit I hadn't realised before was the quality of modern large format lenses - there's no need for any of that "is my lens sharp?" nonsense I fell into with the DSLR. It really does just come down to me and my mistakes!
Having said that, I would love to try a BetterLight scanning back on the Ebony!
http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle/index.html
(Although I just bought a Hasselblad XPanII, so the Razzle's gonna have to wait)
Edited by urban_alchemist on Wednesday 2nd July 10:50
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff