Film vs Digital

Film, because it's a little bit different, which is very welcome in this increasingly homogeneous world, where everyone copies everyone else, everything looks the same and conformity is seen as desirable.
 
BOTH are better. For different reasons.
That said, I don't do commercial work and shoot 99% film.
Because it's better for *me*. :D
 
I don't know why but I don't have any feelings for digital (...and I have two DSLR that are collecting dust on the shelf...)
This morning I was taking picture with a meterless Belomo Vilia...
 
Film, digital...they are almost same! Run out of film, cells or memory in the mid of wood or ocean and what? You can't quickly get either! That way, photography is about planning not gear.
 
Photography is a hobby for me, a means of expression. I like to think about the pictures I'm making.
Digital is fine for making snapshots.
I really don't care if film is "better" or not. I just cannot find the Zen I am seeking when I use a digital camera.
 
I can make a nice print from film but I have not seen digital prints (b&w) that attract me. I do enjoy using both film amd digital however.
 
I use film when I need it's properties - the silver based chemistry for toning and preservation, the luster and appearance of a fiber print, the ease of influencing the print by what I do to make it and ultimately, the world of happy surprises provided by using a delayed process with physical materials. I think the bounds of physical reality provide as much structure to photography, as do the edges of the picture.

I use digital when I want it's advantages - the depth and clarity of the fine detail, the rich natural (or not) colors and the incredible boost to free form thinking that the immediacy of digital provides. Digital is capable of removing the boundaries of chemical photography, while adding others, giving rise to my oft repeated opinion that digital photography and film photography are two different media. Or at least dissimilar enough that they serve different needs.
 
Last edited:
Peter^ said:
Photography is a hobby for me, a means of expression. I like to think about the pictures I'm making.
Digital is fine for making snapshots.
I really don't care if film is "better" or not. I just cannot find the Zen I am seeking when I use a digital camera.
Click to expand...

Quite a lot of professionals also like to think about their pictures, which often rise somewhat above the level of 'snapshots'.

As others have said, each is 'best' for a particular application or set of applications.

Cheers,

R.
 
I shoot film because I enjoy using film cameras, I enjoy the process, and it's a hobby so I can do whatever I want as long as I enjoy it. I also think I see a difference - but not always in favour of film.

BUT: digital camera buff friend was over and he was simply raving about the prints I'd had made (from scans, BTW). Notable is that he loves my medium format stuff, and this time he was raving about 35mm shots - up 'til then his line had been that since medium format negs are so huge, it made sense there was a quality difference. But that digital was clearly 'better' for 35mm/APS size. He was clearly surprised these ones he like were from film.

I usually demur from these discussions - I just reiterate I enjoy fiddling and taking pictures with my film cameras. Period. (I also use digital a lot too, or at least I carry the camera and my wife takes it to make pictures, then gives it back to me to carry).

No particular lesson in this: film still looks good and it looks different.
 
I love film. Long live film.

Hands down digital is better from a learning point of view (if you're really serious about learning and are paying attention). The instant feedback digital capture provides can train you on so many aspects of photography that film capture forces you to use much more time.
 
I did shoot film for years before digital. I've done color hand enlargements myself from 35mm and MF. I had a B&W darkroom for years and still set it up from time to time to make prints. I've printed thousands of rolls of color neg on konica labs while I worked as a cruiship photographer. I can't say digital is bad by any means for me I found a DSLR and an inkjet can usually give me a print as good and often better than I would make from a 35mm color neg and an old minilab assuming the digital image is exposed well and not clipping. The DSLR and the injet offers more control than the old analog minilabs so there is the potenial to make selective adjustments hence better prints. Color neg can tolerate a lot of abuse when it come to over exposure and even bullet proof neg can be printed they just need a longer printing time. With hand enlarging it is possible to make selective adjustments but most people don't have a color darkroom at home. I am quite happy with either but use more digital than film these days.
 
I like film. But I cannot differentiate between digital and film on the web and even with normal prints. The post processing of digital has become quite sophisticated... When it comes to shooting I prefer digital because I can shoot with complete peace of mind and as many as i wanted to shoot as people did when film was cheap and abundant... But I hate digital post-processing, because there is almost an infinite number of ways that one could post-process a single raw file and that throws me off, because my taste keeps changing, also I simply lack the skills for post processing and patience. But i also don't really care about learning the post processing skill because then i'm a post-processor rather than a photographer. While with film, I love development and even I don't mind the scanning, but at the same time I feel guilty about using so much water and all the chemicals. Not to mention the amount of time it takes.

so basically there is no easy answer.
 
Both film and digital definitely have their place and uses. However, what I like least about digital is its tendency to blow out highlights very easily. I also think that colors are rendered more accurately and attractively on well processed film. Overall, I prefer film.
 
Sheesh! I am still on color vs black & white.

But seriously, the best of both worlds, for my drudders, is film scanned to make digital prints. Hard to argue with the archival properties of film and improvements to scanning hardware/software means you simply make a new scan. I don't worry about meticulously maintained complex folder structures, mega drive redundant storage, or hard-drive crashes.

Just pop the film in the scanner and go again. Plus mixing chemicals in the sink late at night is quite a lot of fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top