GeneW
Mentor
From my vantage point, both are wonderful.
Gene
Gene
jockscott1
Newbie
I use both ie Contax G1 with 45mm and Canon 40d with Voightlander 20mm and in Australia with our harsh sunlight I find that when photographing flowers or foilage digital seems to block more than film, for that reason I think that film will still be used for a long time to come and of course prints are here forever (how many prints are taken off digital? and you do need memory cards/dvd,s and computer with expensive programs, etc which crash,(wish I had never got into this dog chasing tail syndrome) of digital!
Lobo
Minimalist
I'm new to fotography. But i'm old enough not to raised with digitalphotography. I
had some thought about cameras. but i noticed that i was wrong.
Digital cameras:
batterydependend
damageable
You can make zillions of pictures, so u shot like crazy. in the end, only a few are good, and you print them months and years later.
But: The battery of my canon Ixus lasts so long, its amazing. now i got myself a polaroid Pogo instantprinter for digital cameras and mobile phones. the pictures fits good in my journal, and its the size of a 2,5" Harddrive. i very happy with it, fits exactly my needs.
chemicalfilm cameras:
solid, build like a tank
all mechanical, if it brokes you can repair it by yourself
no need for a battery.
But: i have a voigtländer. A rangefinders from the 70s a, build like a tank. but from one second to the other is doesnt work. and without the knowledge i cant repair it, is useless. and most of the rangefinders needs the mercurybatteries, without they have only limited function.
So nothing is so clear as it seems. But i use both, digital Cameras for quick prints with the pogo for my journal and chemical film with my agfa optima for more "artistic" stuff. both have their right to live
had some thought about cameras. but i noticed that i was wrong.
Digital cameras:
batterydependend
damageable
You can make zillions of pictures, so u shot like crazy. in the end, only a few are good, and you print them months and years later.
But: The battery of my canon Ixus lasts so long, its amazing. now i got myself a polaroid Pogo instantprinter for digital cameras and mobile phones. the pictures fits good in my journal, and its the size of a 2,5" Harddrive. i very happy with it, fits exactly my needs.
chemicalfilm cameras:
solid, build like a tank
all mechanical, if it brokes you can repair it by yourself
no need for a battery.
But: i have a voigtländer. A rangefinders from the 70s a, build like a tank. but from one second to the other is doesnt work. and without the knowledge i cant repair it, is useless. and most of the rangefinders needs the mercurybatteries, without they have only limited function.
So nothing is so clear as it seems. But i use both, digital Cameras for quick prints with the pogo for my journal and chemical film with my agfa optima for more "artistic" stuff. both have their right to live
Last edited:
craygc
Well-known
Got bored and just picked a thread so I could write something...
Apart from my own personal reasons, and not being professional, shooting film is way cheaper...
Apart from my own personal reasons, and not being professional, shooting film is way cheaper...
sc_rufctr
Leica nuts
It is way cheaper in the long run...
People think digital is free... Well until you want to print one print anyways, but what people forget is that you only have a digital file on a computer.
That file has to be stored correctly. That means some sort of external backup... Hard drive or tapes... Whatever. The choice is yours. But be warned they are all electronic devices that WILL fail one day.
It may not be for many years but believe me they are more likely to fail than not fail.
Recently there was massive flooding in Queensland Australia.
Thousands of homes were flooded. Once the flood waters receded most of the houses were filled with mud.
How many external hard drives, PCs and laptops were destroyed? Who knows? Lots I'm guessing.
So how many digital photos were destroyed along with them?
I don't mean to trivialize the event because lots of people perished in the floods so the loss of some digital photos isn't the most important issue.
But I will say many film negatives would have survived the flooding.
Sure they would be soaked but a good cleaning and most of them would be fine to re scan on that brand new scanner paid for by the insurance company.
This may seem like an extreme example but these people, like a lot of people never though that something like this could happen to them.
Bushfire and the loss of my house and contents is my biggest fear...
So what can I do about it? Fire proof filing cabinet? That's something I need to think about
Lobo
Minimalist
It is way cheaper in the long run...
People think digital is free... Well until you want to print one print anyways, but what people forget is that you only have a digital file on a computer.
That file has to be stored correctly. That means some sort of external backup... Hard drive or tapes... Whatever. The choice is yours. But be warned they are all electronic devices that WILL fail one day.
It may not be for many years but believe me they are more likely to fail than not fail.
Recently there was massive flooding in Queensland Australia.
Thousands of homes were flooded. Once the flood waters receded most of the houses were filled with mud.
How many external hard drives, PCs and laptops were destroyed? Who knows? Lots I'm guessing.
So how many digital photos were destroyed along with them?
I don't mean to trivialize the event because lots of people perished in the floods so the loss of some digital photos isn't the most important issue.
But I will say many film negatives would have survived the flooding.
Sure they would be soaked but a good cleaning and most of them would be fine to re scan on that brand new scanner paid for by the insurance company.
This may seem like an extreme example but these people, like a lot of people never though that something like this could happen to them.
Bushfire and the loss of my house and contents is my biggest fear...
So what can I do about it? Fire proof filing cabinet? That's something I need to think about
thats so true. thats what i'm very afraid with. i live in south germany. thank god, i cant thing of a more safe place on earth than here. i have never seen a big disaster, except of some storms. i always seen the big thunderstorms, eartquakes, hurricanes ect. in other parts of the world, i 'm glad not to have this here. but you never know what will come! and losing all of my photos on my harddrive is one of my biggest fears. due to my moves i newer have printed much of my photos. and harddrives have a limited lifetime, like CDs and DVDs. So i make regulary backups to an other harddrive. and i will make more prints!
hatidua
Established
which is better and why?
That would be a lot easier to answer if you defined "better".
Chris101
summicronia
Definition of better is a personal choice.
sc_rufctr
Leica nuts
"Better" to me means more enjoyable or fun. Also Better quality or Better made.
The one thing that keeps me with film is the "look" of film.
I know you can "shop" a digital photo into something that looks like film but it's not real. And real is always "Better".
I don't even "shop" my film scans. But that's a whole different thread.
The one thing that keeps me with film is the "look" of film.
I know you can "shop" a digital photo into something that looks like film but it's not real. And real is always "Better".
I don't even "shop" my film scans. But that's a whole different thread.