BellaOnline Forums Hobbies and Crafts Photography Digital vs. FIlm!!

You're getting completely off the topic. I simply explained why many professional photographers think that shooting positive film helps one improve his skill as a photographer. If you like digital, then use it. I sense you feel threatened, and there's no need. I know many people who love digital for their snapshots and have no idea to use film.

I personally just think that it's best to concentrate on getting the shot right when you take it so that it doesn't have to be corrected later.



With digital, you can see what you just shot, so your skills don't have to be as perfected. And that's great for many people! You mentioned in an earlier post that you like to check the focus when you're on a mountain to make sure that you focused correctly. It sounds like digital is just the medium for you. If you're comfortable with that, go for it.

However, there is one undeniable fact with digital that everyone needs to be aware: because it's digital and not film, the image is captured differently. Hitting the wrong button or being around a magnet in digital, and *poof* your pictures are gone.



Just because you don't agree with professional photographers doesn't mean they're snobs. For some reason, you don't like film. That's fine. For you, digital works better, so you shouldn't feel defensive about it. I apologize if I made you feel bad about what you're doing.

Personally, I love film and all that it entails -- choosing film (infrared is so cool), developing my own film, printing my own film, and especially learning how to get the shot right the first time, since every shot is mechanically recorded on film and can't be erased. I wouldn't give up that the mechanical process, which is highly aesthetically pleasing to me, for an electronic process, for anything in the world! But I will admit that digital is much simpler in that you really only need a camera and computer.

The original poster asked for suggestions. I gave mine for consideration, as did others. Sorry if I've offended you.

I'm not getting off topic (and I'm certainly not threatened), I just want to quash the incorrect theory that digital is a poor relation to film and is only of use as 'snapshots'. I think that amateurs should not dismiss this as a serious professional tool. I don't agree with your advice, sorry about that.



I check that my camera is metered and focused correctly via the camera settings - but you can't check that the picture you have taken is any good via the small replay window. It's not big enough to show if you've taken a good picture, only an indication of the composition. Like I said before, you still need to learn proper photographic techniques.



Yes, and you should also be aware that if you open the back of a film camera, get any light onto the film while you're loading it into the camera, or lose your unprocessed/processed film in the post and *poof* your images are gone too. Neither is foolproof, they're just different methods of achieving the same result.





I didn't say I didn't agree with professional photographers (there you go again assuming that professionals only use film), I said I didn't agree with film snobs that theirs is the only professional medium. I'm not being defensive, I'm disagreeing with you. For the record I do like film and have used it for many years, but digital is better.



It's simple to start, but the potential is there for complete creative control, which is why I would recommend it to anyone thinking of becoming a photographer - in fact a lot of 'professional' photographers (and virtually all press photographers) have now realised the potential of this exciting new medium.

Listen, you're completely wild over digital, and I'm really not trying to talk you out of it, but for the benefit of anyone who is trying to make a choice and is reading this, some actual facts need to be clarified.



Generally, the most exposures on film are 37 or 38. Even then, opening a camera back doesn't mean you'll lose the entire roll. If the back is quickly closed, you may only lose 3 or 4 images. With digital, the potential is for losing hundreds that are loaded in your camera if you're around magnetic fields or accidentally erase them on your computer or in the camera. Once actual film is developed, you have to physically destroy it with scissors, fire, or other means. Being around magnetic fields will not affect film.



Without qualifying exactly how it's better, your statement is factually wrong.

For instance, on a naval ship, a digital camera's system will be jammed on some types of ship (it happened to a friend of mine. Fortunately, he had a fully manual camera with him). In fact, an electronic film camera will do the same. The only thing that works is a completely manual film camera. A Pentax K1000 is an example. I have several medium and a large format camera, and they will all work.

A digital camera will have problems and probably will not work in extreme heat or frigid climates. Again, a fully manual film camera (which, by the way, requires no batteries) will work.

Film cameras are not the "best" for everyone nor in every situation. Digital cameras are not the "best" for everyone nor in every situation.

For someone starting out, I strongly advise doing homework. Assess your needs. What will be the main use for the camera? Is size an issue? Is weight? If you live near a large camera store, go in multiple times and look at all the cameras in your price range. Ask if there may be used cameras. Quite often, with any piece of equipment, it's only after we've become familiar and somewhat competent with using it that we can determine what features are really important to us individually. My father's eyesight is really failing, but he is an excellent photographer. However, because of his eyesight, auto-focus is a feature that is very important to him. It won't be to others.

I would hate for someone to invest in a huge camera system with all kinds of lenses only to discover that the particular system he purchased really didn't meet his needs!

Better yet, buy a disposable camera for snapshots if you have no camera at all and take a photography course at your local junior college. Then, you'll have a better idea on which direction to follow.

Purchasing a camera system is a big deal. Once you have the body and a lens or two, you have a lot invested, and although not impossible, it's more difficult to change systems.

And, although familychoice doesn't agree, an excellent way to improve one's photgraphy is to shoot positive film. It isn't the only way, but most successful professional photographers who are at the top of their field say the same thing. You can check for yourself in any professional or even amateur photography magazine.

And -- if you want lots and lots of opinions on whether or go film or digital, try here:

http://www.say-so.org/view/cntmhwzd

Good link, and lots of good views on there. I'm bored with talking to brick walls, so happy to let others do the talking for me:

"Digital - no question, no looking back. I have been a professional advertising/editorial photographer since 1986. (website) Been using high end digital since 1996 (Leaf DCB) and digital SLRs since 2001. Sure film, still, has some advantages, but digital has it completely beat for workflow, immediacy, accuracy, flexibility, convenience and cost�to name just a few.

All the romantic stuff about darkrooms and chemicals and papers etc etc is just sentimental. I feel it sometime too, but it is the past."


Jeff
on 13 Dec 2005

"No question. Digital imaging is the way to go. Digital is immediate and the storage media allows experimentation, learning on the spot, discarding of poor results, etc. It�s also more environmentally friendly: print only the shots you want, view the others from your hard drive or load �em onto a photo album service for online sharing. I love film as well but once I made the switch I�ve never looked back. And I�ve captured a greater number of better pictures because of the flexibility and immediacy of digital imaging."

I'm bored with this subject now, I've got better things to do, like go and take some photos!

[color:"blue"]Then quit looking in the mirror! On a thread or two, you automatically told people to go for digital and didn't even consider individual needs.[/color]

I knew you couldn't resist posting a few comments, so to balance out yours, I'll add a few I found there:

"George. on 8 Dec 2005

I believe I believe there will be an entire generation lost with digital photography. Servers crash, hard drives go bad, CDs and DVDs scratch, cameras and laptops get stolen, and technology becomes redundant (store your images on a Syquest, anyone?). And where will these images be? I personally have taken over 10,000 images and never printed a single one. Just too lazy to take that extra step, and I suspect many others feel the same. Sure we lose film-based images to fires, water damage, exes, but there is a lot less that can go wrong. Film has proven its durability and longevity over the last 100 years, and I suspect it�ll be around another 100. Film isn�t going anywhere anytime soon."

"Film makes me slow down and think about the shot, especially when I�m shooting 120 and have 12 chances before I have to fumble around with a new roll."

"With digital you lose so much fidelity and richness for the sake of convenience. You also stop caring about finding the perfect shot since you can rattle off a hundred shots in no time flat for free and fix it in post and over time you just become lazy. My christmas present to myself is a 4x5 view camera just so I can get back to my roots and shoot some serious film :-)"

"Digital is ugly. Really ugly. Like, really really ugly.

And most digital photographers decide to take 40 photographs of a subject and then choose the best ones out of the stockpile� I�ve heard a few people in that colum on the right say something about it. BAD. You want to be able to make a great photo from the moment you flip the shutter, you shouldn�t have to rely on �spray and pray� photography. Try to get an excellent shot of your subject in less shots and your photography will improve, be it digital or film."

"Having used film for the last 20 years or so, I would say film is the best."

"Nothing, not even digital, can ever match the experience and discipline of using film. �Nuff said."

"Film all the way! Simple reason - digtial is incapable of taking decent black & white. There aint no digital camera in the world that can capture an image like true black & white film. Give me grain and contrast not smooth pixels please! Until there is a digital camera that can reproduce an image exactly as it would appear on Ilford film, my film cameras stay.

Digital colour doesnt look realistic - it looks fake and, well, computerised rather than the pure as the eye sess it colour of say Fuji Velvia.

There is only one digital range-finder and it aint worth the money.

Digital is for cheats�with film you actually need to know what you are doing - with digital you just keep pressing buttons and shooting until you get what you want - learn it on film before you go digital people please!!"

"I hate the way that digital prints look.. I can see the pixels, even on �professional� digital photo prints (especially on eyeglass frames and fabric patterns). Digitally printed skin just doesn�t look as smooth and real to me. I shouldn�t be able to see pixels on a 4x6 print. Hopefully digital prints will get better. But, people don�t seem to notice the pixels until I point them out, so maybe the prints won�t improve. It�s nice seeing pictures on a computer, but I need a nice print I can put in an album and show to family or friends."


"Been shooting digital for two years, it�s back to slides for me. People look like [censored] in digital. Two words: COLOR INTERLOPATION. Digital color is fake, and it shows! Even worse, in areas of high detail, digital sacrifices color for detail. Faces are an area of high detail. People look beautiful on film. They just do. Of course, I�m a hobbyist. If I had to work as a photographer, digital has many advantages. QUALITY is not one of them."


[color:"blue"]I failed in my earlier posts the problems with digital regarding archival longevity, black and white photography, and the electronic "feel." I failed in my earlier posts the problems with digital regarding archival longevity, black and white photography, and the electronic "feel." [/color]

Did you write that one? Sounds like your style.



Yes I heard you the first and the second time. Did you get as worked up as this when they invented television?

No, I only saw that site when I googled on the subject the other day. I never mentioned B&W or the other aspects until my last post. Unfortunately, everything new is not always better, although it appears to make you feel superior to insult me because you're insecure about your choices. I have given no indication that I'm against technology whatsoever. Your erroneous inferences are non sequitur.


From an earlier post:



Evidently not. You sound like someone who simply must have the last word on the subject. Go ahead; I'll gracefully give it to you.

go digital, wonderwoman. i used to be a horrid photographer, now with digital i'm actually pretty good! <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

lastly, invest in Paint Shop Pro, you can lighten and crop any photo with ease.

and yes, it's much much cheaper. I purchased a card for around $50. it holds 275+ pictures and is the size of a quarter. no printing costs, no waiting, and i can even download straight into my laptop while traveling and free up more room for the next day.

film is going. Kodak has already shut down the old paper and film portion of its company. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6344613

film fades. slides and negatives need undue protection or they dissolve and stick and fade.

OMG!