Film vs Digital

[ratzz]

In a similar vein to the record vs CD thread, what do you guys prefer?

Ok, here is my 2 pence:

I have about three digital cameras, and I also own a 1960's 35mm SLR Praktica that my Dad game me.

The camera I use mostly for work is my Canon DSLR EOS450D which gives me fantastic results, especially with my lighting rig, but my Praktica is fantastic for portrait work, and I somehow love the feel and experience of using film.

With film, there is no instant gratification - you can't delete the image, and developing seems a lot more exciting.

I'm from the 35mm film age (born late 60's), so I can also appreciate the advances and practicality that digital has brought to the industry, but have we lost something in translation here? Similar to the Vinyl V CD debate, have we forsaken quality for practicality?

There is no doubt in my mind that film is pretty much dead (except for some hi-end portrait photographers), but I somehow miss the days where developing film was the norm, and touching things up to make a crap image look good in Photoshop was a long way off in the future ...

Ratzz

[Ginsu Victim]

I prefer film, though digital is easier for what we do. It's nice to have an arcade question and just go take a snap and post it.

That said, the look of film (both photographic and cinematographic) just gives me the warm fuzzies. I love the grain, the softness, the depth. My worst film photos are better than most of my digital photos. With digital, there's always going to be something lost.

[AtomSmasher]

I've only ever used low end automatic digital cameras, so I have no idea how much better the high end digital cameras are, but by far the best pictures I've ever taken are from my dads old 35mm Nikon (which he traded a motorcycle for back in the 1970's).

[Ken Layton]

I still mostly use my 35mm Ricoh SLR camera. When I take a picture, I want it to last. My camera is almost 30 years old and I've shot hundreds of rolls of film with it and it's never broken down---ever.

All my friends have 'digital' (I call them electronic cameras) cameras and they're always broken. They go out and buy one and 3 months later it's broken, out-of-warranty, or costs too much to fix. So they throw it away and go out and buy another one! How stupid.

[DaveMMR]

I prefer digital, but I'm not a professional photographer.  I used to take pictures on those cheap disposable cameras so digital is actually a step up for me.   

[Ed_McCarron]

I've got a Canon AE-1 thats on its last legs... I haven't gone DSLR yet...  I like film.

[SirPeale]

All my friends have 'digital' (I call them electronic cameras) cameras and they're always broken. They go out and buy one and 3 months later it's broken, out-of-warranty, or costs too much to fix. So they throw it away and go out and buy another one! How stupid.

They must not be getting decent cameras.  I've had the one I've been using for at least three years.  The one I had before that I had for four years.  The only reason I replaced it is I dropped it, and it went *kablooey*.  One of these days I'll get around to attempt repair.

[ark_ader]

I'm a professional photographer, by trade and I always use chemical based film compared to digital.  I have worked in different areas of camera work, including studio and wildlife.  Actually my entire family is from a photographic profession, one way or another.

When I worked as an aerial photographer we tried out digital cameras, and there was no comparison, besides you cannot enlarge a digital print as you can do with medium format.  I also used a 9x9 plate camera for helicopter obliques, yet we tried a digital SLR on the second pass to see if we could save money and the shoot failed to impress or make money.  Ground work with filters failed with digital, well we stopped trying basically.

It is a shame that we are losing the plants to develop the negatives, as the consumer chooses digital for ease of use.  I have to send off for all my processing, as my local guy has stopped his processing to devote his time with digital manipulation.  I still work in photoshop but like for reproduction, I colour and mask the prints myself.

The little custom work I do is all film, but I use my camera phone for spec work and when I see an opportunity present itself.  Copy negatives via digital is a waste of time.  Digital restoration work is the same.  You cannot get the right color tones, and you have to invest in expensive color calibration for your monitors, unless you like cartoon prints. 

The only benefit that digital has brought me, is the availability of low cost medium format cameras on eBay.  Also digital video movies are good enough, compared to my old super 8, since most super 8 film is so old that it will come out red.   Also digital camera suffer from signal and color issues. 

Too many technical issues to invest in a professional Digital SLR.  I think that all custom work will go to a central processing plant in the future, which will ensure quality work, than the nightmares I have experienced in the past 23 years.

Just keep parting with those Yashicas and Minoltas. 

[AtomSmasher]

All my friends have 'digital' (I call them electronic cameras) cameras and they're always broken. They go out and buy one and 3 months later it's broken, out-of-warranty, or costs too much to fix. So they throw it away and go out and buy another one! How stupid.

They must not be getting decent cameras.  I've had the one I've been using for at least three years.  The one I had before that I had for four years.  The only reason I replaced it is I dropped it, and it went *kablooey*.  One of these days I'll get around to attempt repair.

I'd have to agree because in my job I usually take 100-200 pictures a week and I've been using the same digital camera for almost 4 years.  Digital cameras definately save me a lot of time and money, but only because I don't need high quality pictures for my work.

[Jdurg]

A lot of the reason for the lowering number of film based cameras is, as ark-ader pointed out, the fewer number of developers out there.  Digital images don't require chemicals to create the image.  Film does.  Many of these chemicals are starting to get harder and harder to obtain thanks to the government's decision to crack down on EVERY chemical out there regardless of what it is.  The film processor don't want to have to fill out oodles of paperwork and subject themselves to random searches and seizures just because they bought a chemical that they need to develop the film.

Developing at home has also taken a hit because again, the government thinks that anybody who buys a chemical is a terrorist and a drug dealer.  It is really, really sad that this country (US), and in a sense this world, has taken such a horrific stance on chemistry.  What these government ass-holes don't understand is that everything they fight for and everything in life that they enjoy was the result of chemists not affiliated with any major institution or research company.  Home chemistry is dead and because of that a lot of other hobbies, past-times and enjoyment is dead as well.

[patrickl]

I still mostly use my 35mm Ricoh SLR camera. When I take a picture, I want it to last.

That makes no sense whatsoever If there is one huge problem with film then it's the degradation of the film. If you want to make sure your image will change color, contrast, saturation etc then shoot it on film ...

A lot of the reason for the lowering number of film based cameras is, as ark-ader pointed out, the fewer number of developers out there.

It's the other way around. There are less developers because hardly anyone wants their films developed anymore.

I used a high end 35mm SLR for years. Indeed in the early days of digital there was no contest between the digital and film cameras. I had a Sony DSC S70. One of the first cameras to be available at a reasonable price at 3 megapixels. I used that a lot for holiday snaps. The quality was nowhere near that of the film camera.

When 6MP digital SLR cameras were coming out the tables changed though. Then there wasn't much difference in resolution anymore (true image resolution and not just the number of pixels they mention) between 35mm film and digital. The current crop of semi-pro 12MP digital SLR camera's blow 35mm film completely out of the water. Even the dynamic range (light intensity difference between darkest and lightest area in the image) is starting to get close. I don't think there is much difference anymore. But then I almost always shot on slide film so I was fine with less dynamic range.

I have a whole pile of film still in my cooler. I don't think I will ever use it. It's just too much work for nothing. If I want the nicely distorted colors of a certain brand/type of film then I can simply use a Photoshop filter. i can change ISO when I move to a location inside or outside without throwing away most of the film or shoot a whole lot of pictures just to fill the film.

I really don't see any advantage in using film anymore.

[Ummon]

Processing film is one of the most toxic industrial processes still in existence. For this reason alone, it will disappear. However, soon enough there will be digital equivalents. Or, perhaps something organic-based, even. Of course, the coming generations will likely not need a physical print, either.

[TOK]

Digital all the way. My wife is a photo fanatic and it would be completely unmanageable with film. She also has books done with family pics from places like Shutterfly that are really nice. She did an album of my parents by both scanning old pictures and adding new digital ones that ended up being fantastic.

The scary thing about digital is that they can be gone in an instant. Once we got over about 5 gig and they became unruly, I went with an offsite backup service. Our new Canon is 10megapixel and I think the images are 2meg a piece, so it got out of hand real fast when we started using that.

[Ken Layton]

Processing film is one of the most toxic industrial processes still in existence. For this reason alone, it will disappear.

---That which is odiferous and causeth plants to grow---!


I developed my own negatives and prints years ago in high school in the school photography club and school darkroom. Even for a while I did it at home and washed my prints in the bathtub.



The most toxic are the manufacturing of transistors and integrated circuits along with the acids to etch printed circuit boards. Now that's toxic!

[Jdurg]

Processing film is one of the most toxic industrial processes still in existence. For this reason alone, it will disappear.

---That which is odiferous and causeth plants to grow---!


I developed my own negatives and prints years ago in high school in the school photography club and school darkroom. Even for a while I did it at home and washed my prints in the bathtub.



The most toxic are the manufacturing of transistors and integrated circuits along with the acids to etch printed circuit boards. Now that's toxic!

According to our government, EVERY chemical is toxic and if you use one you should go to jail.

For film developing, the actual developin isn't what is toxic.  It's the cleaning chemicals needed.  To clean the latent silver off of your materials, you need to dissolve it in nitric acid which is some pretty nasty stuff.  Again, to anybody with a brain it's not toxic, it's not dangerous, it's not a threat to the well-being of others.  In the eyes of the mentally retarded people who run our government, everything is dangerous.  It's REALLY sad because a lot of people are afraid to get into the fields of chemistry and physics because they figure if they do, they'll be labelled as a terrorist or a drug dealer.  Frankly, if our entire government were to die right now I'd be a very happy man.  (And since I said that, in about ten minutes the FBI will visit me).

[Donkey_Kong]

I still mostly use my 35mm Ricoh SLR camera. When I take a picture, I want it to last. My camera is almost 30 years old and I've shot hundreds of rolls of film with it and it's never broken down---ever.

All my friends have 'digital' (I call them electronic cameras) cameras and they're always broken. They go out and buy one and 3 months later it's broken, out-of-warranty, or costs too much to fix. So they throw it away and go out and buy another one! How stupid.

We have a canon rebel xt and have taken about 40,000 pictures with it. Still works like the day I got it...the battery still lasts very long (though not QUITE as long as when it was new). I was just starting to wonder the other day what the life cycle of that poor thing is? Not only has it taken 40,000 images on the highest resolution setting...it's done so in some of the craziest environments...snowboarding, skateboarding, kitesurfing, roofing, wood carving (major dust storms) you name it...it's been there and done that. lol I don't think I will ever buy anything other than canon after this.

Oh, and could you imagine...40,000 prints?!?!?

[mameotron]

I haven't used my regular camera at all since I got a digital one for christmas 4 years ago.  at 4 megapixels it was way expensive, but it works as well today as it did the day I got it.  Plus, I was really blown away at the quality of prints I get from my $40 Lexmark printer and decent Kodak film paper.  Not professional quality, but close enough for my vacation photos.

My sister in law is a professional photographer, and at 24 years old she has never used anything but digital.  You can't tell the difference in her work vs. someone who works in the old film media.  I think digital has already won this contest.

[ark_ader]

If I went back to black and white work, I could very easily set up my darkroom up again.  My father, brother and I ran a successful camera/B&W processing store in Whittier, CA  for many years.  When Kodak started to up their prices, and Fuji cut back their film stock, we saw the writing on the walls.

I always had an interest to go back to mainstream studio work, like private modeling    or advertising and public relations, but the market isn't out there as most of these roles are done in-house now.  I can very easily get the needed chemicals and gas dryer...well a small one.  The draw back is the discoloration of your fingernails, which are kinda nasty.  I cannot wear gloves.  My water bill probably would go up too, reverse osmosis etc.

So I can understand the digital debate, as I could go digital for that work, but I think I tend to go with what I am used to, and stick to film like my old man did.  Another thing I hate about digital is the corruption issue, where you spent all day shooting a wedding, only to find your work lost by some data corruption.  Its near impossible to get a second chance to film a wedding a second time. 

But here come the rub: Archiving is perfect for digital, and I move all my family photo albums to disc, yet if I had to search though all the mountains of negs I have in storage, and had them processed again it would be very expensive.  Some of the negs have gone brittle with age.  So that is OK as I'm not enlarging those prints. 

[patrickl]

Another thing I hate about digital is the corruption issue, where you spent all day shooting a wedding, only to find your work lost by some data corruption.  Its near impossible to get a second chance to film a wedding a second time. 

Indeed. That's why I don't go for the 8GB (or bigger) cards. I just use a bunch of 2GB and 4GB cards. Also, get good cards. Ones that come with software to recover (most) corruption that might occur. It makes no sense to save a few bucks on memory cards when you just spend hundreds of dollars on a camera (or maybe even thousands if you go for a dSLR with lenses).

I've had cards come out of washing machines and they were fine.

[Blanka]

Since the D3 and D700 from Nikon I throw the towel in the ring. My Provia and Velvia's cannot keep up to these mofo's.
The big problem with digital is that it hollowed out the profession. Someone with cash buys a 3D, and shoots 10000 pictures at a wedding (the shutter only handles 300000 shots, so that is 30 weddings to earn your D3 back!), and then chooses 100 'nice' ones. Professional photographer? Yeah right.
Try to duck-tape the LCD, use a flash card that only holds 100 shots and then do a wedding! If you succeed that, you know what you're doing. I like to come home from holiday with 30 rolls and not knowing what is on them and where I took them. Now the whole bunch is geo- and time-tagged and uploaded to flickr before you know it. A lot of the fun is gone.

[TOK]

To me, not knowing what you're getting is a case of the camera being an obstacle, not a tool. Not my kind of fun. I'm not looking to be a professional, I just want to preserve some memories of good times with minimal hassle. The 10mp Canon Rebel does that perfectly, plus still offers the manual modes and swappable lenses if I should decide to try things old school.

[bishmasterb]

These transitions, from one type of technology to another, are fascinating. As humans, we just don't use the technology dispassionately, it actually becomes embedded in our culture. Activities such as how a picture is taken or developed, are not just about the practical means of capturing an image, they have cultural and individual significance. Developing film oneself, and the training necessary to accomplish it, causes a great deal of personal satisfaction I would assume, and relinquishing that experience becomes difficult.

To further add to the awkwardness of the transition, the average consumer can essentially perform with new technology what it took a significant amount of training to accomplish well on film.

And of course think about all of the businesses, both small and large, that had a huge vested interest in film. As with countless transitions that have occurred before, they will have to adapt or die, or possibly identify a small niche where they can continue to exist.

In the end, technology moves forward, which is a good thing. Digital camera technology has given the power to a vast number of consumers to take more and better photographs. It has also clearly made life more efficient for professional photographers, and driven down costs.

Like other technological transitions, rationalizations will be made by those who resist the transition, but it will continue anyhow. Assuredly, a small film industry will persist for some time, just as a small vinyl record industry persists. And as long as people are enjoying what they do, there's nothing wrong with that.

[Ken Layton]

I can take pictures without a battery in my camera. Can you do that with a 'digital' one?

[Jdurg]

I can instantly see the image I took and know whether or not I need to adjust my lighting or positioning in my picture.  All this can be done in a matter of seconds. 

Can you do that with a "film-based" camera?   

[Donkey_Kong]

Ken...you realize that you have 'technician' directly under your avatar...yet I think you arguing against one of the biggest 'technical' advances in modern photgraphy. The digital camera. 

Something not stirring the kool aid, ace!   

[TOK]

I think carrying a spare battery vs. multiple rolls of film is kind of a wash here, but we're getting into fanatically dangerous territory. 
I did just use a film camera for something cool, and a disposable at that... They have them encased in plastic and good for up to like 30 feet deep. A custom housing for our digital would have been way too expensive, I think the 35mm was under 15 bucks.

[bishmasterb]

I can take pictures without a battery in my camera. Can you do that with a 'digital' one?

Technological advances are rarely ALL good. While they are made up of many beneficial changes, often they include compromises and even negative aspects.

For example, cars have to have gasoline, maintenance and repairs. The oil must be checked, the tires inflated and rotated, and they can of course be dangerous. But, we put up with all of those things because they beat horse drawn carriages. Keeping hay on hand for food and disposing of horse ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- just plain sucks.

[ark_ader]

I can instantly see the image I took and know whether or not I need to adjust my lighting or positioning in my picture.  All this can be done in a matter of seconds. 

Can you do that with a "film-based" camera?   

Yes.

[protokatie]

I can instantly see the image I took and know whether or not I need to adjust my lighting or positioning in my picture.  All this can be done in a matter of seconds. 

Can you do that with a "film-based" camera?   

Yes.

We aren't talking about Polaroid here, ark

As per the "wedding" thing: The best way to get wedding shots is to get a bunch of disposable cameras and hand them off to the guests. (This is in addition to a professional or dedicated photographer). Some of the best shots will come from the guests taking their own pics with the disposables. (Just make sure to get the so-called "digital" disposable cameras. They are film cameras, but instead of just getting prints and the negative back, you also get a CD with JPEG negative scans, a definate plus)

[Zero_Hour]

One thing that neither Film or Digital do - Give the Photographer a "good eye". Sure Digital Helps Framing, and you can do some cool things with exposures and labwork with film (I know, I know -  Photoshop, but it just isn't quite the same to me), but the difference between a good picture and a great picture - at least, has more to do with the artistic vision of the photographer, than the technology they employ. I have all the technical knowledge of Photography fairly well understood, but my wife, who knows far less than I do about how cameras work, takes better photographs than I ever will. In the end, choose digital, or choose film, they're both just tools.

[patrickl]

One thing that neither Film or Digital do - Give the Photographer a "good eye".

Yeah I have always been wondering about this.

Also with learning how photography really works. When I was taking pictures on film I was taking time thinking through the depth and lighting. With digital I notice that often I just shoot the picture and then look how it comes out. I guess each has it's own merits. To be honest it's probably experience too. I know how to use the camera (and to get the results i want) a lot better. Still film makes you think ahead more since by the time you see the result there is no chance to redo the shot anymore.

I feel it's much easier to learn the fundamentals of photography on a digital camera. I know people in photography class are (often) forced to use film, but still. When I was experimenting with film, it was a lot of work since you need to keep a journal to keep track of what you are trying. With digital the details are recorded in the image. Besides, you can see immediately how it comes out. I bought a unit to record image settings for use with a film camera, but still

[Level42]

There I was thinking this thread was about DLP in the movie theaters

I've seen DLP for the first time in the theatre 3 weeks ago and I have to say it impressed me. I have to admit it was Wall-E, so this is computer generated graphics, which always seem to do best on digital projection methods. However, the colors were more vibrant, very steady picture of course and I did not notice any artifacting and no flicker, which is a major improvement IMHO.
Also of course no stripes/bad spots like happens when films have been projected tens of times.

Couple of days ago I finaly went to see IJ4 (yeah I know, very late) and it was old fashioned film and I noticed those things in the first couple of minutes. After that you just watch the movie.....

I'll need to go see a movie with real actors to know if I'm all for DLP now....

[richms]

For photography at tech (it was an elective I ended up with because the ones I really wanted were full) we had to use film for the first exercise and develop it our self with a tank and liquid and crap.

Never again.

I ended up with black and white pics (so worthless to me) with more snow on it then an old tv on bunny ears. Apparently that was the temperature or the time of the development. Great. So the pics would be useless if I wanted to use them for anything. Whereas the DSLR (it was an old one too) there was no noise unless I did something stupid like turn it to an absurd iso setting, and I could see how the depth of field was instantly, since it never shows that well in the viewfinder.

For what I want to do, digital is clearly the way to go. The biggest thing I had against the photography classes I did is that so much time was wasted on the film stuff, and not enough on taking good photos with composition etc.

[richms]

Another thing I hate about digital is the corruption issue, where you spent all day shooting a wedding, only to find your work lost by some data corruption.  Its near impossible to get a second chance to film a wedding a second time. 

And dropping an undeveloped film canister never happens?

My only data corruption has being from

1. Crap cheap memory cards
2. turning the camera back on to take a few more after the low battery shutoff did its thing
3. and one case of plugging my card into a dodgy card reader.

It was just individual images in the case of #2 (taken on low battery were corrupted), they were all recoverable in #3 and #1 serves me right.

Whereas I have lost 2 rolls of film totally, once when a camera back popped open in a bag when it was bumped hard, and once dropping a canister,

[Singapura]

And with most digital cards you still get a chance to recover the data. Try that with an exposed undeveloped film. If I want to see my wedding I just pop in the DVD and watch. My parent's wedding film is somewhere in their attic. I really must see if I can find it and have it transfered in DVD.

[Ken Layton]

35mm film has been standardized for nearly 100 years. "Digital" standards keep changing.

The reason we have pictures still around after 100 or more years is because the film contains silver.

[bishmasterb]

35mm film has been standardized for nearly 100 years. "Digital" standards keep changing.

The reason we have pictures still around after 100 or more years is because the film contains silver.

Of course digital standards keep changing, the technology is still in its infancy. Nonetheless, I don't have any problems opening or viewing the JPEGs from 10 years ago taken with my Kodak DCS-315. And I seriously doubt that I'll have any trouble opening them 50 or 100 years from now as well.

Neither will my relatives, because I've effortlessly emailed them perfect copies of the photographs.

Ken, I'm not sure what you're arguing. If you're resistant to digital because you have a lot of familiarity and expertise with film, I completely understand. If you are arguing that the common consumer or professional should stay with film, the points you've raised don't even come close to overcoming the efficiencies attained by digital.

[ark_ader]

I can instantly see the image I took and know whether or not I need to adjust my lighting or positioning in my picture.  All this can be done in a matter of seconds. 

Can you do that with a "film-based" camera?   

Yes.

We aren't talking about Polaroid here, ark

Either am I. 

I can see the shot and take it, get it developed and it looks the same as I visualized it.   

Try that with a digital camera.  Try that with a traditional film camera.  No dark shadows, red eyes or ghosting. 

I used to have a portfolio of all my special low light and high speed pictures.  My favorite is of New York New York via helicopter the image is just stunning or the Las Vegas strip just before sunset (sold a lot of those).  I used to work with all different types of film, some experimental and some technical.  You cannot compare skill with point and shoot.  Sadly all that will be moot in a few years. 

[patrickl]

So you are saying film is better because you are a better photographer and you use film?

[Ummon]

I can take pictures without a battery in my camera. Can you do that with a 'digital' one?

Technological advances are rarely ALL good. While they are made up of many beneficial changes, often they include compromises and even negative aspects.

For example, cars have to have gasoline, maintenance and repairs. The oil must be checked, the tires inflated and rotated, and they can of course be dangerous. But, we put up with all of those things because they beat horse drawn carriages. Keeping hay on hand for food and disposing of horse ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- just plain sucks.

That's a little messy, as there were at least two other alternatives at the time.

Ken...you realize that you have 'technician' directly under your avatar...yet I think you arguing against one of the biggest 'technical' advances in modern photgraphy. The digital camera. 

Something not stirring the kool aid, ace!  

Actually, technicians seem to be the stodgy ones when it comes to advancements. Engineers are similar.