Do you Shoot Film or Digital?

Do you Shoot Film or Digital?

  • All Film

    Votes: 190 19.8%

  • Mostly Film, Some Digital

    Votes: 358 37.3%

  • All Digital

    Votes: 55 5.7%

  • Mostly Digital, Some Film

    Votes: 357 37.2%
  • Total voters
    960
mostly digital, very little film

mostly digital, very little film

I shoot and I collect. Shooting comes first. Digital wins.

I shot film 1960-2000, then digital found a place and gradually digital has pushed film out of the picture to the extent that film is primarily shot for keeping vintage items (including some barely vintage) in shape, their clocks wound, etc. I shoot large negative occasionally, at least in party to remind me why I shot a fair amount of large format in that first decade.

Why not more film now? In terms of absolutely straight photography, the only real hitch is processing, i.e. I have to either farm out processing or do it myself. I prefer the latter if it's B&W. But for physical reasons, I just don't feel like setting up a darkroom again for printing.

So in the end, everything gets digitized. I maintain a library of items from the 60s digitized which collects some royalties most years. Digital is essentially a requirement now.

That extends to large negative, up to 5x7 now. I have the ability to scan 8x10 if I can ever convince the other half to let me bring a monster in the house.

I like the merger of film and digital, especially really old film. Spot once, get it right, keep printing.

I all but lived in a darkroom for 20 years when I wasn't shooting. I applaud those who shoot film but in the end, it's about what I see and how I can get that done.

If I was doing a lot more film and silver work, I'd be a lot more upset than most at the scaling back of the non-standard BW papers and irritated about how very few majors are involved in Photo chemicals. I hope we can manage to keep enough so I can indulge myself with film.
 
I have a bunch of film cameras and keep them all loaded. The IIIf, Ikon, and TC-1 get the most use, primarily as street cameras. I shoot 3-5 roles a month.

I, too, pay for developing and scan -- and realize that I'm missing out on much of the process and losing a lot of control. It's lazy, and maybe one day I'll bring home a tank and chemicals from Freestyle. But truth? I think one of the things that got me back into film was the ease of scanning and doing post digitally.

My day to day camera is an M9 and I love it. But the look of film is unique.
 
Stopped to take pictueres for nearly 10years :eek:
Digital brought me back to fotografie and to film to because i had a my equipment which couldn´t be used digital (Canon FD)
Than GAS got me and the Internet gave me the possibility to get all the stuff I dreamed from when I was young!
Now I got the most beautifull cams ever and shot digital only for pics I need quick.
Because I hve never more the space for a darkroom I shot hybrid but hope to find a way to get a darkroom in the future.
 
Film, digital on phone - never printed off one from my current phone in the last 9 months. print of lots from mine own phone- because the phone function had packed up and it was going in the WEE bin.
 
Last edited:
I voted all film, but there is a rare occasion once in a while that I do use my DSLRs. For the past 6-7 months, though, each time I've used digital was for a backup in case I messed up the film or for additional shots so I don't waste film.
 
Digital for convenience. Film for everything else. Everything about shooting film is precisely why I take joy in photography.
 
Because I only shoot for my own satisfaction (or dissatisfaction as the case may be), I can afford the luxury of all film. Now it's also all B&W, I develop and print my own as well. I have a dSLR collecting dust, only used it on one trip. It can produce nice pictures, but I don't like being on the computer. For work related documentation I use digital, but I don't count that as "photography".
 
While I just voted "mostly digital, some film", I am seriously considering going all film now that I now longer am working for a newspaper. I am looking to do some self-assignments to keep my hand in but really think I might prefer film over digital. I can always go back and scan my film but, at some point in time, I have a feeling my digital files will be render unusable either by technology advances or failures. Plus I just love pulling 35mm film out of the can and seeing the images for the first time!:D
 
My experiment with the Leica M6 didn't last long. Really, really loved the M6, but I just missed too many shots with it.

Also having experimented with small format digital cameras, I went back to my trusty D700 for my digital work, but I also picked up a minty Nikon F5 so that I could use all my nice lenses. Love the photos so far, but yes, the size can be a pain in the rear.

I've thought about a Contax G2 for travel, but might even re-consider a Leica RF. Perhaps the M7 this time.

Film has me hooked right now. Yes, it is quite expensive when you factor in quality film, processing, scanning, and printing. Digital does give you so much more flexibility, but the fun just isn't there like film.
 
film only

film only

I use film only,
well with a Nikon FM3a and a Leica MP can't do anything else.

I'm down now to my last 3 rolls of fuji Reala 100 asa film
the 2 unused are in bottom of the fridge - expire date
was Jan 2012.

Not sure what to do next - as the available choice of film
to buy in Dublin is very very limited indeed.
I never buy film online - and 100 asa is gone!!
 
I've been all digital for ten years, after 25 years of film. I just bought an M4-P and 35mm lens, thinking I'll revisit film. But I'm really having a hard time getting into it. Sometimes we like the IDEA of something more than the reality of it, and this might be one of those cases for me.

However, lately I've been scanning and printing old filmstrips and really appreciating the difference. I think of it this way: my digital inkjet prints look like they're ON the surface of the paper, while my inkjet prints from film look like they are IN the paper. The depth, richness, and especially the lovely whites of film are so appealing. What to do....

John
 
Having used my Nikon F5 for about 5 rolls of film, I decided to splurge and upgrade to an F6. Absolutely LOVE IT!!! People may cringe at the price of an F6, but it is a bargain when compared to a Leica M7. On top of that, as much as I love the classic looks of rangefinders, I still get more enjoyment using an SLR.

Oh crap! Almost forgot this is a RF forum. :bang:
 
Don't know anything about digital and I just love everything about film. Most of all a darkroom not a computer program to process my work.

Regards,
Clcolucci58
 
johnwolf said:
I've been all digital for ten years, after 25 years of film. I just bought an M4-P and 35mm lens, thinking I'll revisit film. But I'm really having a hard time getting into it. Sometimes we like the IDEA of something more than the reality of it, and this might be one of those cases for me.

However, lately I've been scanning and printing old filmstrips and really appreciating the difference. I think of it this way: my digital inkjet prints look like they're ON the surface of the paper, while my inkjet prints from film look like they are IN the paper. The depth, richness, and especially the lovely whites of film are so appealing. What to do....

John
Click to expand...

I work with both. Since I started doing more and more film, which always happens at a slower pace than digital, I notice my digital volume slowing down to the film volume. Funny thing is that I still cannot keep up with the processing of either!

G
 
to update my reply to this thread, i went to 99% film.

the 1% is for my Gf1 with 20mm 1.7. I doubt I will need much more from digital (other than a M9 or xe1/gxr as a digital back for my film lens.)

it is useful to keep my gf1 round with adapters to test infinity focus and whatnot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top