chiller
Member
I do ask this as a serious question. I don't want to hear from digital fan boys explaining to me the errors of my non digital ways.
I would like to know why people don't embrace digital as their creative outlet. I'm not asking for a technical digital vs film battle, that has been done to death. I'm more interested in the very subjective personal "Why don't you like digital?".
I would like to know why people don't embrace digital as their creative outlet. I'm not asking for a technical digital vs film battle, that has been done to death. I'm more interested in the very subjective personal "Why don't you like digital?".
ptpdprinter
Mentor
I embrace both as my creative outlets. No dogma or religion.
Pioneer
Mentor
Because digital is such a PITA
Because digital is such a PITA
Rather than make photography easier, as everyone promised, digital made everything far more complicated and harder to do. Unless you were a programmer or loved sitting in front of a computer editing things compulsively, digital just was not as nice as film.
BUT...Now that someone finally got smart and put the camera in the phone where it really belonged all along, it is finally easy. Now I can take pictures of anything I want and instantly share it with everybody.
Digital photography finally has a purpose for being. Up until now it has always been the poor stepchild of film photography; always trying but never quite good enough to make the grade at anything but newspaper photography.
EDIT - I actually love digital and film. Both different but both are great fun.
Because digital is such a PITA
Rather than make photography easier, as everyone promised, digital made everything far more complicated and harder to do. Unless you were a programmer or loved sitting in front of a computer editing things compulsively, digital just was not as nice as film.
BUT...Now that someone finally got smart and put the camera in the phone where it really belonged all along, it is finally easy. Now I can take pictures of anything I want and instantly share it with everybody.
Digital photography finally has a purpose for being. Up until now it has always been the poor stepchild of film photography; always trying but never quite good enough to make the grade at anything but newspaper photography.
EDIT - I actually love digital and film. Both different but both are great fun.
Last edited:
Lux Optima
Established
I love not seeing what I have shot on a display. Not looking back but always following the pictures I have in my mind.
And I love talking with people about why I shoot on film.
And I love talking with people about why I shoot on film.
Carey M
Established
I don't hate digital, but I do find shooting film a lot more exhilarating. Hard to put into words why exactly, but probably in large part because of what Stefan talks about above. Doesn't really matter if I'm using a P&S, a manual rangefinder or a TLR, if it's film, I'll enjoy it more than using any digital camera. I also like the look of film and using different film stock, but I admit much of this can be replicated very well in digital realm.
I just purchased an M9 to try and get back to digital, and even though I'm liking it just fine, I have to admit that so far I'm not really "feeling it". I'll persist, but secretly I'm already thinking of replacing it with a lens or two or another film body
I just purchased an M9 to try and get back to digital, and even though I'm liking it just fine, I have to admit that so far I'm not really "feeling it". I'll persist, but secretly I'm already thinking of replacing it with a lens or two or another film body
Scrambler
Well-known
I like doing stuff differently.
To be honest, my most commonly used camera is an Epson R-D1 - a digital you use like a film camera. Even down to hiding the screen. Mind you, you can use my wife's Canon digital SLR that way if you want
The fun for me with film cameras is that with careful selection I have 90 years of camera history (over 100 if you consider base designs rather than specific models) with functional cameras. I can take a photo just like they did in 1900 (albeit with a camera from the 1920s) right through to doing it like they do today. I have a film SLR from the first 12 months of 35mm SLR build, and it takes entirely usable photos in the modern world. I have a Leica of essentially the same age, and lenses from the 1930's forward to 2000's that fit it.
I suppose I'm just backward. It's a pleasant feeling to generate a fully functional photo out of an old camera. And I have gradually acquired cameras and lenses to allow a range of approaches, though the number of 50mm lenses at times appalls me (I think I've got about 12 in good working condition...)
To be honest, my most commonly used camera is an Epson R-D1 - a digital you use like a film camera. Even down to hiding the screen. Mind you, you can use my wife's Canon digital SLR that way if you want
The fun for me with film cameras is that with careful selection I have 90 years of camera history (over 100 if you consider base designs rather than specific models) with functional cameras. I can take a photo just like they did in 1900 (albeit with a camera from the 1920s) right through to doing it like they do today. I have a film SLR from the first 12 months of 35mm SLR build, and it takes entirely usable photos in the modern world. I have a Leica of essentially the same age, and lenses from the 1930's forward to 2000's that fit it.
I suppose I'm just backward. It's a pleasant feeling to generate a fully functional photo out of an old camera. And I have gradually acquired cameras and lenses to allow a range of approaches, though the number of 50mm lenses at times appalls me (I think I've got about 12 in good working condition...)
Tom R
Established
I don't dislike "digital," per se, but I think that anyone considering that path needs to take into account its various tradeoffs. And while every technology has its tradeoffs, I think that the 21st century has oversold and over invested in technology for technology's sake. We see this especially in "niche" or boutique areas, such as photography (at least in the 21st century).
One can make photographs with either digital or "analog" technology, and one the challenge is to choose the most appropriate tool for the task and not vice versa.
mbisc
Silver Halide User
I spend 40+ hours a week playing with some of the finest computing equipment out there for my day job - the last thing I want to do in my spare time is sit in front of a computer. That, and I love seeing a print "popping" in the developer...
Pioneer
Mentor
Somehow seeing the image come up on a display just is not the same. Nowhere near the same magical feeling
seany65
Well-known
I think a couple of the reasons why I've not bothered with digital are:
Any digital camera I can afford has too many buttons to push to get the settings the way I want but with analogue all I do is turn an aperture ring, a film speed dial and a shutter speed dial and press one button.
Those digital cameras that do have dials are too expensive. One make seems to be prone to sensor corrosion after a few years even though the cameras cost thousands. I don't know about other makes. Analogue cameras are far cheaper and seem to be far less prone to corrison of any sort.
Any digital camera I can afford has too many buttons to push to get the settings the way I want but with analogue all I do is turn an aperture ring, a film speed dial and a shutter speed dial and press one button.
Those digital cameras that do have dials are too expensive. One make seems to be prone to sensor corrosion after a few years even though the cameras cost thousands. I don't know about other makes. Analogue cameras are far cheaper and seem to be far less prone to corrison of any sort.
Ted Striker
Well-known
Because it is very very very boring to me. It's that simple.
Tom R
Established
It's not that I "dislike digital." Rather, it's that I'd prefer NOT to depend upon digital technology for my photographic output. I would gladly swap "features" and "the ephemeral" for dependability and the enduring qualities that I've experienced for nearly forty years using Leica M bodies and associated lenses.
At the end of the day, cameras are tools that I use to express something about the world. I prefer to focus more on my vision and less on my toolkit with the caveat that a good set of dependable tools frees me up to do just that.
Now, I do own one digital Leica body--an M 8.2. I use this, often, as a "sketch pad" for vetting ideas. Sometimes these sketches stand alone; more often, I study the sketches and return with a film body to complete the task. For what it's worth, I use the same lenses (all pre-ASPH) on the digital as well as the film bodies ... never saw the need to justify the expense ... or maybe I'm just not that discerning.
I'm sure that others on this forum will have different opinions in this regard.
TR
ptpdprinter
Mentor
I shoot both film and digital. They are both tools used to make images. I don't understand all the antipathy, the choosing of sides, the us and them mentality. Is it just a sign of the times, a reflection of current society?
mdarnton
Well-known
I'm fine with the digital process--I happily use it with film negatives, and I don't miss the darkroom even a tiny little bit. There are really only two problems for me.
One is the digital dynamic range. I like full, open shadows and contrasty highlights, not blown out at either end. One of the delights of the digital process from film negs is the ability to harvest 15 to 20 stops of dynamic range without abrupt dead ends. My Nikon D7200 supposedly captures 14, and really, that is getting pretty close to good for me. Another two stops or so, and I'll probably be happy.
The other problem is the cameras themselves, and to some extent my stubbornness is the issue. I would like to use my current full frame lenses on a full frame digital optical-finder camera that is reasonably sized, like my Nikon FGs and Leica M4s. If I were willing to start over again with a new system than Nikon, I could perhaps beat that. The other option is to turn my film Leica system, which is also extensive, to digital, but I can't afford that. . . No, actually I could, but at this point I don't trust Leica's record with digital system failures and rotting sensors. When they make a digital camera that won't amortize to more than a thousand or even two thousand dollars per year of life (!!) I'm in.
Without a small full frame camera using my lenses as intended, and without an expanded digital dynamic range, I'm not ready to switch. If these things become possible, and I believe they eventually will, bye-bye 35mm film.
I don't forsee giving up large format film, which performs an entirely different function for me.
One is the digital dynamic range. I like full, open shadows and contrasty highlights, not blown out at either end. One of the delights of the digital process from film negs is the ability to harvest 15 to 20 stops of dynamic range without abrupt dead ends. My Nikon D7200 supposedly captures 14, and really, that is getting pretty close to good for me. Another two stops or so, and I'll probably be happy.
The other problem is the cameras themselves, and to some extent my stubbornness is the issue. I would like to use my current full frame lenses on a full frame digital optical-finder camera that is reasonably sized, like my Nikon FGs and Leica M4s. If I were willing to start over again with a new system than Nikon, I could perhaps beat that. The other option is to turn my film Leica system, which is also extensive, to digital, but I can't afford that. . . No, actually I could, but at this point I don't trust Leica's record with digital system failures and rotting sensors. When they make a digital camera that won't amortize to more than a thousand or even two thousand dollars per year of life (!!) I'm in.
Without a small full frame camera using my lenses as intended, and without an expanded digital dynamic range, I'm not ready to switch. If these things become possible, and I believe they eventually will, bye-bye 35mm film.
I don't forsee giving up large format film, which performs an entirely different function for me.
Contarama
Well-known
I love my set of primes more than my blocks. I own both film and digital blocks and both work with that set of primes.
jgrainger
Established
To lay my cards on the table (as an amateur), I have a digital compact and slr, both capable of excellent pictures, my phone camera too, obviously.. And a 35mm rangefinder, SLRs, 645, 6x6 folders - and I've previously owned some others including 5x4.
For me it's a little like playing piano - or how I've never stuck with the electronic keyboard (even a hammer action model). An acoustic piano embodies craftsmanship in a pleasing mechanical form, and making music is a physical process, in which you can appreciate someone's work and the natural ingredients present to arrive at a pleasing sound - quality furniture for the the senses.
Mechanical rangefinder cameras tend to embody some engineering and craftsmanship, in a pleasing form, which can yield good results when used correctly - and it helps that while disassembling a mechanical camera isn't necessarily something people can just do, we can appreciate the basics of how they work. I appreciate the process of taking pictures, not messing with switching, settings, or looking at the screen.
There are other things too.
I feel little love for SLRs generally, and tend to prefer the standard focal length mostly. My Canon 7 provides a reliable, repairable, and fairly flexible package for not a lot of money, and occasionally I bother to make a print the analogue way.
Admittedly I mostly prefer MF negatives, and actually particularly dislike the Canon 7 focussing (especially compared to a Contax II which is much quicker/better for action).
Besides, digital doesn't work in a practical sense for rangefinders - affordable full frame or go home.. to put it another way, I'm not holding my breath for an affordable digital Contax/ Kiev adaptation which retains the controls.. There's simply nothing to compete with an old film rangefinder for the price (excludes Leica), longevity, and feel.
Those digitals I do have are mostly used begrudgingly, except for my phone due to its convenience.
For me it's a little like playing piano - or how I've never stuck with the electronic keyboard (even a hammer action model). An acoustic piano embodies craftsmanship in a pleasing mechanical form, and making music is a physical process, in which you can appreciate someone's work and the natural ingredients present to arrive at a pleasing sound - quality furniture for the the senses.
Mechanical rangefinder cameras tend to embody some engineering and craftsmanship, in a pleasing form, which can yield good results when used correctly - and it helps that while disassembling a mechanical camera isn't necessarily something people can just do, we can appreciate the basics of how they work. I appreciate the process of taking pictures, not messing with switching, settings, or looking at the screen.
There are other things too.
I feel little love for SLRs generally, and tend to prefer the standard focal length mostly. My Canon 7 provides a reliable, repairable, and fairly flexible package for not a lot of money, and occasionally I bother to make a print the analogue way.
Admittedly I mostly prefer MF negatives, and actually particularly dislike the Canon 7 focussing (especially compared to a Contax II which is much quicker/better for action).
Besides, digital doesn't work in a practical sense for rangefinders - affordable full frame or go home.. to put it another way, I'm not holding my breath for an affordable digital Contax/ Kiev adaptation which retains the controls.. There's simply nothing to compete with an old film rangefinder for the price (excludes Leica), longevity, and feel.
Those digitals I do have are mostly used begrudgingly, except for my phone due to its convenience.
sportster44
Member
I really enjoy digital; however I also really enjoy film. Film gives me a different esthetic that I can't be bothered trying to recreate digitally.
nickjb
Nick Bedford
I learnt for years with digital cameras, and have produced a large proportion of my work on digital until the last few years as I finally started to love the process of shooting film and making the workflow... work. I don't hate digital at all, I just find the process way too automated, "electronic" and lacking in self-trust.
I own both a Leica M (240) and a Leica M7 and have grown so fond of the physical process of loading a roll of film to advancing each frame to previsualising and doing the work in my mind first, to trusting my decisions and waiting sometimes days and weeks to see the result, that I no longer like making photographs with the digital Leica. There's no "process" involved other than getting the exposure right. It's frankly boring and too immediate in comparison.
Shooting film has made me a better photographer, from seeing photo-worthy light and composition to efficiency with my frames and level of care.
TL,DR
I own both a Leica M (240) and a Leica M7 and have grown so fond of the physical process of loading a roll of film to advancing each frame to previsualising and doing the work in my mind first, to trusting my decisions and waiting sometimes days and weeks to see the result, that I no longer like making photographs with the digital Leica. There's no "process" involved other than getting the exposure right. It's frankly boring and too immediate in comparison.
Shooting film has made me a better photographer, from seeing photo-worthy light and composition to efficiency with my frames and level of care.
TL,DR
- The physicality of film rolls and film cameras — camera process.
- Imagining the photograph in your mind's eye — pre-visualisation.
- Moving on without second thought or chimping to see if you got it right — self-trust.
- Waiting to get the film developed and see the results — slowing down.
- Learn lessons more effectively — no free lunch.
- Getting "film" results because... it's film! — not faking it.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
I'm changing careers so I no longer have to be "on" as a photographer. I may use photography in my future research or practice but it is now at my pace. That pace allows film to be used. What I grew up with and began serious work on. I had a digital phase and now I'm back to film. I also really don't like staring at a screen for more than I already have to.
Phil Forrest
Phil Forrest
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I don't give a rat's patootie about film or digital cameras.
I care about the photographs I make with both.
G
I care about the photographs I make with both.
G