# The Debate - film vs digital



## Firky (Jan 22, 2005)

*The Debate*

Simple.

Film or Digital. Which is best. No ifs or buts about megapixels. Whats in your heart?


----------



## Firky (Jan 22, 2005)

For me it is film, there is just something about the alchemistry of it I love, and the end result has something quite unique about it.

Digital is amazing now, some of the cameras and apps you get now rival a darkroom and surpass it, but there's something about film that I just love. I guess its parly the material thing of holding the image in your hands. The moment as it were.

Film for me! The end result is always better IMHO, its the imperfections and witchery that make it.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 22, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> Simple.
> 
> Film or Digital. Which is best. No ifs or buts about megapixels. Whats in your heart?



Digital as it is so easy. The only downside is that by going digital it is no longer a hobby as it was in the past. Meaning that the unknown expeimental side will to some degree be lost forever. Even though I have gone digital in not only the camera but in scanning negatives as well in my heart I know that traditional film is best. Nothing quite like using an old Twin Lens Reflex and people coming up to you and asking about the equipment


----------



## alef (Jan 22, 2005)

Judge the image not the tools! Painters can argue about oils vs acrylics but their subjects, ideas, expression and composition count for a lot more. With photography there's even less difference, it's now very very hard to distinguish between film and digital with small prints. Focusing too much on camera issues perhaps even creates the danger of not keeping your eyes open enough to what's around.

Also hard to generalise since different types of photography have their priorities. If you want to aim for Ansel Adams b+w landscapes then go large format film, if you want Martin Parr shots of the public then I think the convenience of digital wins out.

Personally I stuck to using film for a long time and then suddenly switched to 100% digital just a year ago. Since my shots end up scanned, Photoshop tweaked and online anyway it just makes sense to free up the costs and hassle. I guess the answer is to use whatever you find most comfortable, confidence in using your equipment is important.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jan 22, 2005)

Film creates constraints both physically and chemically...the only thing with limitations digitally is your own imagination.


----------



## alef (Jan 22, 2005)

squelch said:
			
		

> Film creates constraints both physically and chemically...the only thing with limitations digitally is your own imagination.



Don't follow that at all, mate. I have both an Olympus Mju 35mm film and an Olympus Mju digital. The constraints of the digital in terms of aperture is greater, so I have more freedom with 35mm technically since I refuse to use flashes except in dire emergencies! Presume you mean the constraint of costs? Well if I took 300 photos with the digital I wouldn't necessarily have any better shots than the 36 of a single roll of film. Unless you're doing sporting events or any kind of action shots I'm not convinced quantity improves quality.

Suerly, imagination is always the key constraint whatever the kit?

I think when comparing digital video to motion picture film then the limitation argument holds more. If your actors needs to get it right quickly to save on stock then you might produce more focused results than if you're free to have 30 takes. But with an individual doing art photography I'm less sure this is so relevant.


----------



## Firky (Jan 22, 2005)

Black and White always works best in fillm, I don't know if it is because with a digital I am forced to use a digital view finder, which is colour - therefore I'm more inclined to shoot a colour shot, rather than look with a black and white eye, hhmm. Did that make sense? I'll try again hehe
I feel forced by digital to see in colour, rather than black and white. When using an SLR I find it easier to see in black and white. Also photoshop and camera trickery don't quite cut it to the same degree as a true B&W shot. 

35mm film also makes excellent bedding for the humble house mouse as I found out 

Oh infared B&W film is the dogs' 

http://www.deviantart.com/view/12073742/


----------



## The Old Sarge (Jan 22, 2005)

No doubt about it ... film for me.

I have been doing my own film and prints for nearly 35 years. I have grown .... addicted? .... to the smells and such.  lol

Digital is great. For strictly commercial purposes, it's probably better and cheaper than film. At least for me. And I'm still so new to digital that it's still fun and I'm HAVING fun playing with it. But as I've said before, as long as somebody is making film and photo paper, I'll be using both. It's in my blood.

BTW Squelch ... the earliest photogs in the 19th century used the same argument about cameras, and tin and glass sheets when the painters blasted them for "destroying" the "art."    

The Old Sarge


----------



## George & Bill (Jan 22, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> Judge the image not the tools!



bang on! take the camera out of photography!


----------



## boskysquelch (Jan 22, 2005)

The Old Sarge said:
			
		

> BTW Squelch ... the earliest photogs in the 19th century used the same argument about cameras, and tin and glass sheets when the painters blasted them for "destroying" the "art."
> 
> The Old Sarge



LOL so?...so who was proved right or wrong? Snot black n white izzit?  

And the "Judge the image not the tools!" is what I'm tlkin about....and the fact that you can do ANYTHING to an image digitally jus misses some people...with traditional photography that is ALL it can be...a photograph...therefore there is NO debate...Photography is best coz that is all there is?...nah!...tbh most of people view on photgraphy is re-interpretation through the process of publishing_pritning of massmedia(dot matrixes etc not silver halide m....."real" prints would dissapoint...even Ansel Adams(no two prints the same,the Zone System is a bitch to do right once let alone on a print run)...even Bill Brandt(shit loads of pencil and scalpel marks)...and as for Bresson's contact sheets!!!!..."devicesive" moment more like...but again this is tangetial...if you want to stick to "traditional film" fairy muff but sticking to something dunt make it bestest(see the NF!). .


Tbh I think you've all so far demonstrated why and how traditional photography is tooo restrictive and how the digitalization of it has outstepped it's forefather...it IS the leap that HAS allowed photgraphy to stand on equal footing with other "traditional" Art...as  a  medium  of  expression.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Jan 22, 2005)

Having used both I prefer digital for the simple reason that I can check any picture I've taken straight away.  As I have a slight hand wobble from time to time due to a RSI I always found it a bitch to get me pictures back & find on some occasions all of them completely useless.  With digital I can just take it again as often as needed therefore getting a shot I can use.  Another thing I like about digitial is that I can change from b&w to colour depending on what I'm taking a picture of.

KoD


----------



## alef (Jan 22, 2005)

Ah, I understand what your train of consciousness is saying a bit more now, Squelch. You're talking about purely chemical printing vs photoshopping -- which is really is a whole minefield in terms of changing what photography is about. How many court cases have been won on the basis of a picture which could now so much more easily be faked?

My understanding of this thread was asking about the camera itself. But actually reading it again:




			
				Firky said:
			
		

> Film or Digital. Which is best. No ifs or buts about megapixels. Whats in your heart?



My heart is all about the final image, doesn't matter how it's made.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jan 22, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> My heart is all about the final image, doesn't matter how it's made.



ZACKLLY!!! AT LAST!!!! A phrase that explains me!!!!!!!!


----------



## Firky (Jan 22, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> My heart is all about the final image, doesn't matter how it's made.



Can't argue with that.

You win. Hands down. Its so obvious - yet I missed the point of it all :\


----------



## The Old Sarge (Jan 23, 2005)

squelch said:
			
		

> LOL so?...so who was proved right or wrong? Snot black n white izzit?



I am simply pointing out that the self-same argument keeps coming around. What is art? Is photography REALLY art? Is digital REALLY photography?

With each new development in technology, the old diehards that cling to the last icon always groan about things getting out of hand, and the one jumping on the new Tech Band Wagon tout the new advance as "just the thing."

It repeats endlessly.

The Old Sarge


----------



## alef (Jan 23, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> Can't argue with that.
> 
> You win. Hands down. Its so obvious - yet I missed the point of it all :\



Oh no, can't have us all in agreement, that kills the debate! In many ways autofocus, digital instead of film, photoshopping all do take away some of the craft. So, is the craft important? I tend to think not terribly if you've got a vision, though knowledge of the craft can open other creative doors.




			
				The Old Sarge said:
			
		

> I am simply pointing out that the self-same argument keeps coming around. What is art? Is photography REALLY art? Is digital REALLY photography?
> 
> With each new development in technology, the old diehards that cling to the last icon always groan about things getting out of hand, and the one jumping on the new Tech Band Wagon tout the new advance as "just the thing."
> 
> ...



I agree with you 100%. There were all sorts of worries about the introduction of electric lighting, telephones, etc. Here are a few fun quotes on "change":



> They always say time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself.
> Andy Warhol (1928 - 1987), The Philosophy of Andy Warhol
> 
> Things do not change; we change.
> ...


----------



## 5T3R30TYP3 (Jan 23, 2005)

I prefer film, only because that's all that's available to me. I think if I had a digital camera that had the exact same spec as my EOS 5 (which would be the 20D), then I would probably prefer digital due to the fact that I could have my images straight away. The only thing I wouldn't prefer is the 1.6x focal length multiplication factor. I'd have to buy a very expensive (about £500 brand new?) 10-22mm lens to replace my 17-35mm I have for my film camera - and that just ain't worth it! I'd also have to buy a new flash as my current one wouldn't work with the 20D. I'd also be inclined to buy the vertical grip/controls, a memory card, etc - basically stuff that I just cannot afford at the moment!


----------



## Firky (Jan 23, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> Oh no, can't have us all in agreement, that kills the debate! In many ways autofocus, digital instead of film, photoshopping all do take away some of the craft. So, is the craft important? I tend to think not terribly if you've got a vision, though knowledge of the craft can open other creative doors.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you 100%. There were all sorts of worries about the introduction of electric lighting, telephones, etc. Here are a few fun quotes on "change":



The Craft is vitally important, it is like taking play to create. It is through the craft you pick up all sorts of tricks, and I know all the F numbers must be as daunting to some as the chemistry - but it also places obstacles infront of the end result. Which can be a good thing as you get unexpected results, you really don't know what you've got until you've developed them - then you have to work with what you got.

There's a difference between taking a good photograph and a chosing a good subject, too often a subject matter can make up for the photo - just look at my work


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 23, 2005)

Plus ca change...


----------



## editor (Jan 23, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> Oh infared B&W film is the dogs'


You can shoot infrared straight out of some Sony cameras and spare yourself the hassle (and cost) of all that fiddly developing!


----------



## alef (Jan 24, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> There's a difference between taking a good photograph and a chosing a good subject, too often a subject matter can make up for the photo - just look at my work



There is more than just the subject though. There's plenty about your viewpoint which is separate to the tools. With a point'n'shoot compact you can still develop an eye for lighting, composition, angle, etc. I think f-stops should be one of the last things learned, they only really make a difference with depth of field and unusual exposure situations (and you can even later cheat the depth of field in Photoshop if you really want to, certainly mess about easily with the levels).

Trying to think of vaguely plausible analogies...

You can be an excellent driver and hardly understand a car, but a master driver must know the choke, handling skids and so on? Hmm. Maybe need something more creative, how about a musician doesn't need to know how to read music?


----------



## suzi (Jan 24, 2005)

film film film.


----------



## Poi E (Jan 24, 2005)

Better for what? For learning, it's digital, hand down. Just fire away, and review your days shooting in the evening and see what worked, what didn't. And the price of film and developing is huge, a digital will pay for itself very quickly IME.


----------



## suzi (Jan 24, 2005)

Poi E said:
			
		

> Better for what? For learning, it's digital, hand down. Just fire away, and review your days shooting in the evening and see what worked, what didn't. And the price of film and developing is huge, a digital will pay for itself very quickly IME.



i disagree. i learnt on a battered old pentax ME, it was cheap and easy and the thing was built like a tank.


----------



## Poi E (Jan 24, 2005)

suzi said:
			
		

> i disagree. i learnt on a battered old pentax ME, it was cheap and easy and the thing was built like a tank.



Nothing to do with the camera, but rather the advantages that digital offers that film can't. I bet if you learnt on a digicam you'd have learnt faster. Sure, you might get to play with more bits and pieces on an SLR (aperture, shutter etc) but as far as your composition goes, digital will help you learn faster than film, just because you can shoot away with reckless abandon and review shots straight away. Maybe "learn" is the wrong word; perhaps "bring out your style" is better. Digital has certainly increased the amount of "keeper" shots I have, and I don't have to think about spending money on developing rubbish shots.


----------



## suzi (Jan 24, 2005)

Poi E said:
			
		

> Nothing to do with the camera, but rather the advantages that digital offers that film can't. I bet if you learnt on a digicam you'd have learnt faster. Sure, you might get to play with more bits and pieces on an SLR (aperture, shutter etc) but as far as your composition goes, digital will help you learn faster than film, just because you can shoot away with reckless abandon and review shots straight away. Maybe "learn" is the wrong word; perhaps "bring out your style" is better. Digital has certainly increased the amount of "keeper" shots I have, and I don't have to think about spending money on developing rubbish shots.



hmmm, good points but i still disagree. i had the advantage of cost not being a factor as i had use of a college darkroom to muck about and learn in, and the trial and error of developing my own photographs has been an invaluable experience i feel, you cannot beat the excitement of seeing your first print come to life, in fact it is something i still get a thrill out of. thats something i don't get with digital although i've had some good results, i always go back to my SLR. 
anyway, for my own personal style i never tweak anything in photoshop, so for personal preference, its always film for me.


----------



## suzi (Jan 24, 2005)

Poi E said:
			
		

> Nothing to do with the camera, but rather the advantages that digital offers that film can't. I bet if you learnt on a digicam you'd have learnt faster.



faster, maybe. but i wasnt in any rush!


----------



## mattie (Jan 24, 2005)

It's film for me.

I spend all my working day in front of a computer, the last thing I want to do when I get home is spend another three hours there manipulating images.  I actually find time in the darkroom to be a release, where there is nothing else to focus on except the print.  On the computer, there are too many distractions.  There is also the problem that my PC takes an age to get anything done, but of course that is an issue regarding my machine, not digital in general.

As for the time saved with digital, I'm not sure.  I batch process my negatives and can get a decent print after around 10 minutes.  However, many prints can feasibly take a lot longer, depending how much dodging or burning in they need (which I am admittedly awful at), and I'm quite practised now - it did take me a lot, lot longer at first.  It's worth noting that many wedding photographers have gone back to film, and one of the factors causing this decision is the time taken - pretty much all digital photos will require manipulation, where the photographer will have to spend a few minutes _on each image_ whereas a decent photographer can get the right results first time with film and leave the actual printing to a lab, where level adjustment can be done automatically for lab prints.  Of course, there will come a time when really good digital prints will be available 'straight out of the box', but I don't think it'll be for a little while yet.

Squelch makes a good point that the range of possibilities for digital is far greater than for film, but I would suggest that's heading more towards graphics and away from photography.  Still, it is very useful to be able to remove that pesky phone line or street sign.

Cost is an area where (once you've paid off the credit card bill for the actual camera!) digital is a little better - I say a little, as my film and film dev costs are low as I buy in bulk (around £2 all up for a 36 exposure film) and I only print the good ones (i.e. about one for every 2 films with my shakey hands!)   Slides are a lot more, around £6 for 36 exposures, however I don't shoot much slide as I can't print them at home.  The paper costs, I would suggest, are pretty much the same for chemical and digital, but digital inks are very expensive.  I have to use a few sheets of paper to work out exposure (and allow for inevitable mistakes) but this is the same for digital.

I don't think it's the final image that really matters that much to me, as an amateur it's the activity I find most enjoyable, and I can get a perfectly servicable print either digitally or from film.  I just happen to enjoy the film route a lot more - it's a hobby, not a competition, as long as I get something OK at the end then I'm happy.

(Edited to add

In terms of learning, I think both have pros and cons.  Digital lets you shoot away without worrying about cost, but I see many people simply review the image in the display and make a decision whether to keep or delete after a few seconds - not the most critical of practises.  There is almost a logic of simply shooting blind and hoping for the killer image through sheer luck.  With film, you have to think a lot more, and have a permanent record of what you've done, thus allowing fo more critical evaluation.  Of course, this is expensive, but I think the biggest stumbling block is the delay - you might get your film developed quickly, but it is very hard to actually remember what it was you did when shooting the film, in effect there is a removal between doing something and then evaluating it's effect.  This is very hard to learn with, as you can't learn from mistakes as easily - with digital, if you overexpose a scene for example you can try again and see if you've improved.

Edited again - what the hell is that smily doing in my post?  Does colon followed by close bracket give a smily?


----------



## Poi E (Jan 24, 2005)

suzi said:
			
		

> hmmm, good points but i still disagree. i had the advantage of cost not being a factor as i had use of a college darkroom to muck about and learn in, and the trial and error of developing my own photographs has been an invaluable experience i feel, you cannot beat the excitement of seeing your first print come to life, in fact it is something i still get a thrill out of. thats something i don't get with digital although i've had some good results, i always go back to my SLR.
> anyway, for my own personal style i never tweak anything in photoshop, so for personal preference, its always film for me.



What's coming through from many posts in favour of film is that the decision is based on emotive factors, like the thrill you get from seeing your prints, or the release that mattie finds in the darkroom.

I shot 300 images on Saturday, using various speeds to suit the conditions. I couldn't have done that with film, and to have 8 rolls of Sensia processed would have cost me about £40, which was the price of dinner for me and the missus to make up for me staring through the lens all day


----------



## boncey (Jan 24, 2005)

I used to have a EOS 300 film camera then bought a EOS 300D digital.
I can only speak for myself, but I have taken lots more photos since "going digital".

My ability to learn from my mistakes and reduce the number of basic errors has improved.
On the other hand, batteries and memory cards can be a pain when going on a long trip.
The 1.6 mutliplication factor (on DSLRs) is crap too (I miss wide-angle).  Good for making zooms longer though.

No conclusions really, but I could never go back to film.


----------



## girasol (Jan 24, 2005)

I prefer film for the quality of the images (once they've been printed).  However I really like the instant satisfaction/huge amount of photos you get from digital.

I used to spend a lot of time in a darkroom, when I was younger, and I do miss that.  Film is more 'hands on' for me.  I will probably use both for the rest of my life.

Is it really necessary to have a favorite?  Surely there's a market for both...


----------



## suzi (Jan 24, 2005)

Poi E said:
			
		

> What's coming through from many posts in favour of film is that the decision is based on emotive factors, like the thrill you get from seeing your prints, or the release that mattie finds in the darkroom.
> 
> I shot 300 images on Saturday, using various speeds to suit the conditions. I couldn't have done that with film, and to have 8 rolls of Sensia processed would have cost me about £40, which was the price of dinner for me and the missus to make up for me staring through the lens all day



i get a lot of stuff done free or big discounts, so costs are low for me. even so, having used both digital and film my preference is still film. i agree with whoever wrote they like to get away from their pc too, thats a big plus for me, i hate sitting in front of my pc all day.


----------



## boncey (Jan 24, 2005)

Oh yeah, was gonna add this earlier but forgot.
In terms of "workflow" I have it as automated as it can possibly be (given limitations of software tools).
I use in-camera sharpening and contrast etc (the default settings on the 300D), but I shoot in RAW mode.

This means I can batch process and get good results but I also have the option of going back to any photo and tweaking it more in Photoshop if I want to get a little bit more out of it.

This means I spend very little time in the "digital darkroom", unless I choose to spend more time on a particularly good photo, and with my ratio of good to bad photos, that's very little time indeed!


----------



## Poi E (Jan 24, 2005)

suzi said:
			
		

> i get a lot of stuff done free or big discounts, so costs are low for me.



Lucky you! For most of us it looks like film is being priced off the amateur market.


----------



## suzi (Jan 24, 2005)

i'd be interested to know if anyone here has used digital medium format?


----------



## alef (Jan 24, 2005)

suzi said:
			
		

> i'd be interested to know if anyone here has used digital medium format?



Maybe I'm missing something, but what would "digital medium format" be? The reason to use film larger than 35mm is to get the better resolution, so the parallel is to get a lot more megapixels? Although the different aspect ratios will confuse the matter somewhat. Are you talking about the size of the sensor inside the camera? I don't know much about the digital camera technology... off to surf for answers...


----------



## Firky (Jan 24, 2005)

Poi E said:
			
		

> Better for what? For learning, it's digital, hand down. Just fire away, and review your days shooting in the evening and see what worked, what didn't. And the price of film and developing is huge, a digital will pay for itself very quickly IME.



When I first picked up a digital camera I did not pick another one up again for two years, I really just did not like the feel of it. Plasticy and crap, nothing like my german engineering camera 

but thats besdies the point really, it is far easier to get to grips with a digital - but that is because most digital cameras apart from the expensive onces are castrated of the variables of an slr. Less to fiddle with!

My cheapy fuji finepix, is the best point n shoot camera I've ever had. Batteries last around 1,000 shots, its quite fast, it is excellent in bright sunlight, and has a beautiful 12X optical zoom - digital zooms ARE crap.


----------



## George & Bill (Jan 24, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm missing something, but what would "digital medium format" be? The reason to use film larger than 35mm is to get the better resolution, so the parallel is to get a lot more megapixels? Although the different aspect ratios will confuse the matter somewhat. Are you talking about the size of the sensor inside the camera? I don't know much about the digital camera technology... off to surf for answers...



You can get digital backs for medium format cameras; the aspect ratio depends on the camera, but I think you typically get 22mp; never used one myself, since I have to way of getting my hands on one. I think the sensor is full frame for 645.

IIRC, the top end cannon DSLR also has a 22mp sensor - this seems to me preferable to the MF option, unless of course you want to use it to set up shots on film.


----------



## stdPikachu (Jan 24, 2005)

You can even get digital backs for 4*5 (and prolly 10*12) view cameras that cost about 20 grand  Digital backs for medium format are very popular amongst the fashion crowd, or so I've heard... but it'll be awhile before that filters down into consumer tech.


----------



## George & Bill (Jan 24, 2005)

stdPikachu said:
			
		

> You can even get digital backs for 4*5 (and prolly 10*12) view cameras that cost about 20 grand  Digital backs for medium format are very popular amongst the fashion crowd, or so I've heard... but it'll be awhile before that filters down into consumer tech.



These are scanning backs rather than CCDs (ie, it scans the image being projected on the GGS) - hence very slow, and producing somewhat unwieldy files; I haven't done the 'math', but if you can get a 150+mb file from a 1"x1.5" 35mm neg, just imagine....


----------



## suzi (Jan 24, 2005)

slowjoe said:
			
		

> You can get digital backs for medium format cameras; the aspect ratio depends on the camera, but I think you typically get 22mp; never used one myself, since I have to way of getting my hands on one. I think the sensor is full frame for 645.




yeh those are what i meant. was just curious to know if anyone had used them.


----------



## stdPikachu (Jan 24, 2005)

Those two factors would explain why the digital back I saw was advertised as having a "3 minute transfer time" then


----------



## George & Bill (Jan 24, 2005)

suzi said:
			
		

> yeh those are what i meant. was just curious to know if anyone had used them.



fraid not!

(another thing is that, afaik, digital backs don't have any storage and therefore have to be hooked up to a portable HD/laptop during use - further limiting them!)


----------



## Poi E (Jan 25, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> but thats besdies the point really, it is far easier to get to grips with a digital - but that is because most digital cameras apart from the expensive onces are castrated of the variables of an slr. Less to fiddle with!



That's what digital SLRs are for


----------



## suzi (Jan 25, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> but thats besdies the point really, it is far easier to get to grips with a digital - but that is because most digital cameras apart from the expensive onces are castrated of the variables of an slr. Less to fiddle with!



it's the fiddling that i like!


----------



## George & Bill (Jan 25, 2005)

suzi said:
			
		

> it's the fiddling that i like!



over and above creative progress?


----------



## suzi (Jan 25, 2005)

slowjoe said:
			
		

> over and above creative progress?



i dont think my SLR halts creative progress.


----------



## suzi (Jan 25, 2005)

let me put that differently. i dont think not using digital is any less creative than using digital. thats what i mean.


----------



## boskysquelch1 (Jan 25, 2005)

suzi said:
			
		

> yeh those are what i meant. was just curious to know if anyone had used them.



Aight!...I hv!  ,,,they are l u s h!..tho unwieldy and a bit of a drag..cables to latop etc...but with time they become quite useable...


----------



## Firky (Jan 25, 2005)

stdPikachu said:
			
		

> You can even get digital backs for 4*5 (and prolly 10*12) view cameras that cost about 20 grand  Digital backs for medium format are very popular amongst the fashion crowd, or so I've heard... but it'll be awhile before that filters down into consumer tech.



Try nearer £75K for some.


----------



## Firky (Jan 25, 2005)

suzi said:
			
		

> i'd be interested to know if anyone here has used digital medium format?



Anyone here won the lottery?


----------



## boskysquelch (Jan 26, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> Anyone here won the lottery?



The set-up I used was a Fuji 6x9...everyting standard cept the actual dig-back...which was £24k worth...#gulp#...then you need a decent monitor and a lappy or somesuch to stored data on...so roughly£30k will do ya's nicely..the geeeezer whose set-up i've used was mugged in Saaaaaaaaaaaarf Londum...da Filth toook 2 hrs to find him...they sent him on his way...he drove to Southhampton...where he found his neck was broken in seven places!!!!!  by the time they found out is was too late for surgery or somesuch so now the dood is in permanent extreme agony and consequently spends most of his days self-admin_ing smack/opiates and has got £40k so far in criminal injury payments.


----------



## Firky (Jan 26, 2005)

Was it someone he knew? They must of known his equipment was worth a mint - its not the easiest stuff to flog either.

Then again I laughed at my friend when he bought about thousand victorian firebricks for £500 - sold them on ebay for £15k to a polish smeltery


----------



## boskysquelch (Jan 26, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> Was it someone he knew? They must of known his equipment was worth a mint - its not the easiest stuff to flog either.



Nha doood!...he bought the cameras as a RESULT of being mugged...by using his compensation monies. ...as usual my posts dunt make sense... ...note to self :::do not have possession of telepathic capabilities to  project whole thought streamage to others, must take care to read what is typened!


----------



## George & Bill (Jan 26, 2005)

suzi said:
			
		

> let me put that differently. i dont think not using digital is any less creative than using digital. thats what i mean.



surely there will always be times when digital is most creatively apropriate, just as there are times when 35mm, 6x7, or polaroid are most apropriate?


----------



## suzi (Jan 26, 2005)

slowjoe said:
			
		

> surely there will always be times when digital is most creatively apropriate, just as there are times when 35mm, 6x7, or polaroid are most apropriate?



matter of opinion, i guess.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 26, 2005)

Film.

For the stuff I like doing (Landscapes on Velvia, Portraits on B&W) digital just dosen't cut it IMHO.

I'd love to go digital for cost reasons, but until the quality gets a lot better I'm sticking with film.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jan 26, 2005)

suzi said:
			
		

> i'd be interested to know if anyone here has used digital medium format?



Yeah I do, quite a lot. I use a Phase One H25 on a Hasselblad . It's the absolute dogs and the quality of the image is mind blowing and for (reletively disposable) commercial photography it's perfect.
Trouble is they're around £16,000 + another odd £3,000 or so the duel processor G5 & gubbings that you need to run it smoothly   
Needless to say, I rent it.  


But it ain't film. 
Nothing can touch the feeling you get when you flick on a light box and see a 5x4 trannie that's bang on, then you start looking at the depth in it through a lupe...it's almost alive.


----------



## George & Bill (Jan 26, 2005)

suzi said:
			
		

> matter of opinion, i guess.



i'm just surprised by the opinion that film is always the most creatively appropriate medium. of course this may genuinely be the case, but I can't think of anyone who would say that digital was always the most creatively appropriate - so I think that generally that sort of attachment to film is just that - an attachment - and not an objective preference.


----------



## suzi (Jan 26, 2005)

slowjoe said:
			
		

> i'm just surprised by the opinion that film is always the most creatively appropriate medium. of course this may genuinely be the case, but I can't think of anyone who would say that digital was always the most creatively appropriate - so I think that generally that sort of attachment to film is just that - an attachment - and not an objective preference.



for me, personally it is just a preference. i like working in b&w (and medium format) and i hated working with digital for b&w. 
i dont feel particularly creative working on images on a computer but i do when im in a darkroom. thats about the juxt of it.


----------



## Firky (Jan 27, 2005)

Ditto. When I first started doing design the computers were a bit shit, and we did not have them at school, ten years later I use one every single day - always online. 

I like to get my hands dirty again


----------



## boskysquelch (Jan 27, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> I like to get my hands dirty again



So ow many flims did we shoot today folks?


----------



## tom k&e (Jan 27, 2005)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> But it ain't film.
> Nothing can touch the feeling you get when you flick on a light box and see a 5x4 trannie that's bang on, then you start looking at the depth in it through a lupe...it's almost alive.



...at about £5 an exposure. I've been wanting to try LF though ever since I saw a 30x40 ciba print from an 8x10. OMG!


----------



## Reg in slippers (Feb 3, 2005)

a thing of rare beauty


----------



## suzi (Feb 3, 2005)

Reg in slippers said:
			
		

> a thing of rare beauty



*drool*


----------



## Poi E (Feb 4, 2005)

Reg in slippers said:
			
		

> a thing of rare beauty



How many megapixels?


----------



## George & Bill (Feb 4, 2005)

Poi E said:
			
		

> How many megapixels?



2

obviously you can get 4+ with interpolation.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 8, 2014)

Film is lovely to work with when you have the time. It's probably more of an art form than digital....but digital is the speedy, clean, universal option. 
I used to develop my own b&w film shots and loved the process. I loved the control that I had over every aspect of a photograph even before I clicked the button. 
However I can see that digital has endless possibilities and the ability to manipulate images is endless. 
For me though, I still think the art of learning how to take a good photograph starts with 35mm film.


----------



## cybertect (Apr 9, 2014)

Is this resurrection of a thread from 2005 an attempt to prove that film is not dead 

[film is not dead, BTW]


----------



## RoyReed (Apr 9, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> For me though, I still think the art of learning how to take a good photograph starts with 35mm film.


The art of taking good photographs starts with learning to see.

And I'm not getting into the 'which is better' debate. Film/digital, colour/b&w. You use the one that suits you best. It's all photography.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 9, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I loved the control that I had over every aspect of a photograph even before I clicked the button.


What control do you get with film that you don't with digital


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 9, 2014)

Film forces you to think before and during the taking if a photograph. You have complete control (if you've a good camera) and you can decide what exposure,  shutter speed, take pictures in the dark without flash, and afterwards in the dark room you get to create something unique. 
Don't get me wrong...digital is brilliant but I love the photos I took with an old pentax. I also think if you've ever used a dark room and developed your own photos it's a very memorable experience. Something you dont get from digital. But that's only my opinion. I like the speed of digital but the romanticism of film gets me


----------



## RoyReed (Apr 9, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Film forces you to think before and during the taking if a photograph. You have complete control (if you've a good camera) and you can decide what exposure, shutter speed, take pictures in the dark without flash...


Why do you think digital's different?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 9, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Film forces you to think before and during the taking if a photograph. You have complete control (if you've a good camera) and you can decide what exposure,  shutter speed, take pictures in the dark without flash, and afterwards in the dark room you get to create something unique.


But nothing you've said there is different between film and digital


----------



## pocketscience (Apr 9, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Film forces you to think before and during the taking if a photograph. You have complete control (if you've a good camera) and you can decide what exposure,  shutter speed, take pictures in the dark without flash, and afterwards in the dark room you get to create something unique.
> Don't get me wrong...digital is brilliant but I love the photos I took with an old pentax. I also think if you've ever used a dark room and developed your own photos it's a very memorable experience. Something you dont get from digital. But that's only my opinion. I like the speed of digital but the romanticism of film gets me


I've noticed that over the last 7 years of using DSLRs, I'm more inclined to think beforehand about the image I want and, take it just with a single shot.
This is in part due to the shear size of each digital image from todays DSLRs, which impact downloading speed, storage and computer performance - but more importantly, it's saves me untold amounts of time faffing around trying to decide which exposure I prefere from 25 shots of the same scene.
So in this sense, your point is invalid for me at least.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 9, 2014)

My point is just my opinion shared  that is all...
Whatever works for you is what works for you.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 9, 2014)

I guess I'm from a different era  
I just love film.....


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 9, 2014)

Blimey, this thread started way before I ever used film.


----------



## stowpirate (Apr 14, 2014)

film film film FILMmm 

Digital is too easy.


----------



## RoyReed (Apr 14, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> film film film FILMmm
> 
> Digital is too easy.


stowpirate - don't be ridiculous! Either can be as easy or as difficult as you choose to make it.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 14, 2014)

It's much harder to develop digital pictures. No matter how long I leave it in the developer for, I get nothing out of any SD card I try


----------



## lefteri (Apr 14, 2014)

I saw a set of photos from a club night during the early acid house era that Dave Swindells put up on flickr and linked to on facebook - he uploaded all 36 pictures from the film he took that night (he shot just the one roll of film) and remarked how different that was from today's situation with digital - every shot is really well composed and there's nary a duff one - plus he would have been much more discreet than these days when club photographers are lurking around snapping away for hours


----------



## stowpirate (Apr 14, 2014)

RoyReed said:


> stowpirate - don't be ridiculous! Either can be as easy or as difficult as you choose to make it.



Digital in most cases is instant, especially if you have got a mobile smart phone with internet access. Also some of the digitals can now upload straight from camera. The whole concept of digital compacts, tablets etc with ability to display results instantly has made it very easy for those not really interested in serious photography. But yes if you want to fiddle or are taking time over your photography then digital can be more demanding. The OP was asking for opinions not really debate but anyway here we are in that old "film vs digital" debate again!


----------



## stowpirate (Apr 14, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's much harder to develop digital pictures. No matter how long I leave it in the developer for, I get nothing out of any SD card I try







Round one film wins


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> film film film FILMmm
> 
> Digital is too easy.



I don't agree.  You may miss out the whole "pissing around with chemicals" fun with digital, but getting a good image is still the same challenge, regardless of whether you're using a digital or a film camera.  The only thing that makes digital "easier" (which isn't really the right word) is the much broader options for post-processing, but even then, you can still do digital post processing with images from film.


----------



## RoyReed (Apr 14, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Digital in most cases is instant, especially if you have got a mobile smart phone with internet access. Also some of the digitals can now upload straight from camera. The whole concept of digital compacts, tablets etc with ability to display results instantly has made it very easy for those not really interested in serious photography. But yes if you want to fiddle or are taking time over your photography then digital can be more demanding. The OP was asking for opinions not really debate but anyway here we are in that old "film vs digital" debate again!


Kodak made film that easy since the days of the Box Brownie - "You press the button, we do the rest". The only real difference is that it's not instant.

I'm absolutely NOT getting into the debate about film v digital. It's not a contest. Both are equally valid forms of photography, and as I've said before, you can make either as easy or as difficult as you want. And neither is inherently better than the other in any way.


----------



## RoyReed (Apr 14, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's much harder to develop digital pictures. No matter how long I leave it in the developer for, I get nothing out of any SD card I try


And I plugged a roll of Tri-X into my USB port - three hours later, I'm still waiting!


----------



## stowpirate (Apr 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The only thing that makes digital "easier" (which isn't really the right word) is the much broader options for post-processing, but even then, you can still do digital post processing with images from film.



I was really talking about photography for everybody and not those who see it more as a hobby or job. Mobile phone to social media is instant with no processing normally taking place. Facebook and other social media sites are full of instant photos. I am also guilty of that sin


----------



## stowpirate (Apr 14, 2014)

RoyReed said:


> And I plugged a roll of Tri-X into my USB port - three hours later, I'm still waiting!



Tried that with coffee and still waiting for the results


----------



## cybertect (Apr 14, 2014)

RoyReed said:


> And I plugged a roll of Tri-X into my USB port - three hours later, I'm still waiting!



Tri-X is not self-powered from USB ports. You need an external transformer.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 14, 2014)

I bet Kodak have stopped making the right cable too, the bastards.


----------



## ToothlessFerret (Apr 26, 2014)

Marcus Licinius Crassus: Do you eat oysters?
Antoninus: When I have them, master.
Marcus Licinius Crassus: Do you eat snails?
Antoninus: No, master.
Marcus Licinius Crassus: Do you consider the eating of oysters to be moral and the eating of snails to be immoral?
Antoninus: No, master.
Marcus Licinius Crassus: Of course not. It is all a matter of taste, isn't it?
Antoninus: Yes, master.
Marcus Licinius Crassus: And taste is not the same as appetite, and therefore not a question of morals.
Antoninus: It could be argued so, master.
Marcus Licinius Crassus: My robe, Antoninus. My taste includes both snails and oysters.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 26, 2014)

Tin plate is where it's at, you fucking amateurs.


----------



## ToothlessFerret (Apr 26, 2014)

Tin plate?  Fucking progress.  Give me a camera obscura, a canvas and paints.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 26, 2014)

If you can't express it in a saga you need to leave it to the experts tbh tbf.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 26, 2014)

I prefer film. I take mostly digital photos [although that may change], but I prefer the look of images made on film.  Also, I feel I have to work for it more with film - limited exposures, expense etc won't let me machine-gun shoot such as is possible with digital. Film photography feels closer to art.

This is just my opinion, not based on facts, statistics, or scientific study.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 26, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> If you can't express it in a saga you need to leave it to the experts tbh tbf.




You need to be over fifty to express anything in a Saga!


----------



## ToothlessFerret (Apr 27, 2014)

I'm going to boring.  My honest opinion?  Horses for courses.  I was 100% digital for several years.  The past few years I've swung back to analogue, until the present when I'd guess I'm about 90% film, and just use digital when I need a quick image.  I am now concentrating on home processed b/w - especially but not exclusively medium format.  However, I'm not an analogue purist, because I have no interest in traditional printing - I just develop film and scan, and I'm happy with that.  I principally share online, and ANY image that you see in pixels is digital - end of.  Why do I bother shooting in film in the first place? 1) I like using awesome film cameras that are far more affordable than the latest mid range DSLR.  2) I enjoy the work flow of waiting for, then developing and even scanning film.  It might change later should I get bored with it.  But I'm presently still on a learning curve.  3) least importantly, I like the end result, the images that hybrid film/digital produces.

Digital is great, it's the future, and I do use it, and most likely will use it more at some point in the future.  But for now I'm enjoying hybrid.  That's the great thing about being amateur.  We do what the fuck that we want for the pure enjoyment of photography.


----------

