Film vs. digital

[jpdenk]

Originally Posted by Mark McCall

Photographers have a tendency not to count their time in the cost of sale of digital imagery.
White balancing the camera, maintaining a properly calibrated monitor, conversion of digital files, (or artworking up jpgs), maintaining and repairing computers, hard drives and other storage mediums all takes time.
There's also the added cost of the high speed internet connection needed to transfer files to the lab.

When I shoot 220, all I have to do is buy film that's already calibrated to the type of light I'm shooting under. The lab does the rest. Easy.
They even pay to get the film to them, then pay to get prints back to you.

Most fail to realize that with the switch to digitial, they are taking on tasks that used to be performed by the lab for free.

Kind of grasping at straws there, aren't you?

For the vast majority of digital camera users, white balance is done automatically, only a few of us who are a bit more fanatical take the time to manually set white balance regularly. Most don't calibrate their monitors, and for those of us who do, it takes a few minutes every couple weeks. We all have and maintain computers and broadband Internet connections already, it's not like we only have our computers and Internet connection because we're using digital cameras, so that isn't really a major part of the digital photography equation.

I agree that if we do post-processing and printing ourselves, we are taking on tasks done by printing labs in the past, same as those who do/did their own darkroom work with film, but most people just take their memory card to the drugstore and hand it over to the technician, same as with negative film, no PP work on the photographer's part, so digital doesn't need to be any more labor intensive than film. With digital, we also have the option to just upload our files and either pick up our prints or have them mailed, an option not available to film users. I frequently upload files from my home near Chicago and have the prints made in Kentucky for pick-up by my family members there an hour after I uploaded the files, a real convenience, and no delivery cost.

I shot 35mm film for many years, Nikon cameras, did my own B&W darkroom work, processed my own Ektachrome slides, and I can now get better image quality from digital, and yes, I do take the time to do my own post-processing and maintain a decent printer, but it's way less expensive and massively more convenient than maintaining and operating my own wet darkroom was.

So, for me, there's no question, digital is preferred, YMMV. Not intending this as an argument over which is better, just presenting some balancing facts to your statements.

Digital is definitely less expensive than film was or will be.

John

[Tareq]

"This thread is worthless without pics".

[blumesan]

I would love to see some pics in this thread. But with or without pics, I don't think this thread is going to change anyone's mind or choice of medium. So shoot whatever gives you the most pleasure, convenience, income, etc.

[Mark McCall]

Originally Posted by jpdenk

Kind of grasping at straws there, aren't you?

Nope.

Originally Posted by jpdenk

For the vast majority of digital camera users, white balance is done automatically,

Users, yes. Pros, no.
But I know alot of amatuers who custom white balance or balance in PP.

I prefer digital as well. But I'm a business person first, photographer second. It simply costs more to produce digital because the cost of sale, which includes the time needed for PP, which is paid for by the lab if shooting film. Simple business.

The only people who can't (or refuse) to wrap their brain around smart business practices, like counting their time into the COS (cost of sale), are non pros who do not depend on photography for their income.

[Songman45]

Falling stocks and lay-offs aren't spelling and end to film. Not many companies are flourishing right now. We may see the demise of that American automobile industry who's primary product is the internal combustion engine powered vehicle. That is not an indication that electric cars are superior. You are using indices that have nothing to do with an outcome.

Originally Posted by WayneM

Unfortunately in the end the Film/Digital argument will be solved not by which one is better or why but bu the economics of each and the companies manufacturing them. With this in mind please consider Polaroid is both bankrupt and has announced that it has ceased to manufacture film. Eastman Kodak is better off but there stock is down a little over $16 a share in the last year to a close Friday at $4.52 a share down something like $2.50 in the last week alone (Four years ago feb 2,2002 EK was trading for $33.25 a share). S&P rate there stock as SELL. Eastman Kodak has just announced that they are laying off 4,500 employees, there credit ratings have drooped and they are expected to post a $0.50 per share loss for the upcoming quarter after a $0.08 per share loss for the previous quarter.

As sad as it seems it don't look good for film. And this has nothing to do with whether film better or worse than Digital capture but rather whether film is selling or not.

Wayne

[danir.photography]

Originally Posted by yvonnei.606

I just need to put in my two cents about this one. I know that the digital and technology world of photography is taking over the world, but will it ever completely? I find that with some photographs, I just get better pictures with film. I don't know if it is the processing or the texture, or what... but the lighting is slightly different and it holds a certain charm. Am I just looking at my photographs to often, or does anyone else feel this way too?

I know that I am late to the game here and this response may well have already been posted, but the truth is that film WILL disappear if for no other reason than that the point will be reached where it is no longer profitable. When you see throw-away digital cameras hit the shelf you can pretty much be sure that the days of film are numbered.

Infrared film is already dead... tick tick tick...

[blumesan]

This thread started out as a question of whether, and under what circumstances, users found subtle aesthetic or other quality differences between film and digital. A valid subject for discussion.

I will not allow this thread to turn into either an obituary for film or an argument about which is a "better" medium.

[jfrancho]

Jeez, I try to make a diplomatic post trying to help in getting better digital images that rival the film images the OP was making, and I get jumped for "beating a dead horse." What color is the kettle now?

[blumesan]

Originally Posted by jfrancho

The "Easter Horse" thread.

Is this the horse you are accused of beating?

I didn't even know that horse was dead. And I know you wouldn't beat a horse, dead or alive.

[Waleed]

Originally Posted by jfrancho

LOL... Loved the fight smily.. Not to mention, squirting hot coffee from my nose was a new experience

[jfrancho]

Originally Posted by blumesan

Is this the horse you are accused of beating?

I didn't even know that horse was dead. And I know you wouldn't beat a horse, dead or alive.

I did punch our old quarterhorse in the nose once when he tried to bite me in the back of the head. Horses are "dumbsmart," dumb enough to try it once, smart enough never to do it again He was a good boy, I miss him.

Originally Posted by Waleed

LOL... Loved the fight smily.. Not to mention, squirting hot coffee from my nose was a new experience

That's called a hot coffee nasal enema. Delivers the caffeine quicker. here's a couple of my favorite smilies:

[KellyL]

Originally Posted by yvonnei.606

I just need to put in my two cents about this one. I know that the digital and technology world of photography is taking over the world, but will it ever completely? I find that with some photographs, I just get better pictures with film. I don't know if it is the processing or the texture, or what... but the lighting is slightly different and it holds a certain charm. Am I just looking at my photographs to often, or does anyone else feel this way too?

I found myself very frustrated when reading this thread, perhaps because I didn't pay that close attention to the beginning statement which seemed to start the sissy fight...(thinking of the pink slapping smilies)...I was more struck with the second part of your post.

I have wondered what we have given up by choosing to shoot digitally over film. Economically, it seems less expensive to the hobbyist. Mark makes some good points about the actual cost to the businessman, but everybody who knows me knows that I am a Mark McCall fan, so my words about him are always tainted.

However, I recall pictures that just had a certain characteristic about them that I just don't see in a digital print.

For me, this thread has nothing to do with "Which is Better...Which Will Dominate" but just an honest question...don't the prints look different? I see it. At first I thought it was just me and my uneducated mind, but the truth of it is I think that a print from film has a richer look than a print made from a digital capture.

[WayneM]

Originally Posted by KellyL

....but just an honest question...don't the prints look different? I see it. At first I thought it was just me and my uneducated mind, but the truth of it is I think that a print from film has a richer look than a print made from a digital capture.

I am far from an expert however I am of the opinion that much of the difference which some see between digital photography and film photography is created by the way the photographs are taken.

Consider most Digital images are taken using the automatic controls of the digital camera, IT chooses the shutter speed, the aperture, color balance etc, where with film many cameras don't have these functions, Yes most of the newer cameras do have automatic controls of the shutter speed and aperture but the color balance and the ISO are chosen when the film is purchased. I also am of the opinion that more care goes into the taking of film photographs you have to get it right as you will not see the results until the film is developed.

If more users shot digital like they shot slide film the images would be far more alike than with the "OH I'll just fix it in post" mentality which gives much of digital imagery its look (as a result of the time to 'fix it in post' the minor problems just don't get fixed, or the photographs have an 'over edited' look from being over edited).

Wayne

[JimmyH]

Originally Posted by yvonnei.606

I know that the digital and technology world of photography is taking over the world, but will it ever completely?

Digital will not take over completely while I can still afford film and my film camera collection still works... I hack away, shooting both film and digital, have a great time doing it, and so far have drowned only one point and shoot camera. With film I can spend a day using a camera older than I am, get strange looks, and make some good photos too.

[Orgnoi1]

The one that is better is the one you need to use for the job at hand... pure and simple...

[Tareq]

Originally Posted by Orgnoi1

The one that is better is the one you need to use for the job at hand... pure and simple...

If you have 100 cameras or gear in front of you all or each of one can do the job, so which one to choose, for landscape i can guarantee that more than 1000 cameras can do the job.

[Vedauwoo]

Originally Posted by KellyL

I found myself very frustrated when reading this thread, perhaps because I didn't pay that close attention to the beginning statement which seemed to start the sissy fight...(thinking of the pink slapping smilies)...I was more struck with the second part of your post.

I have wondered what we have given up by choosing to shoot digitally over film. Economically, it seems less expensive to the hobbyist. Mark makes some good points about the actual cost to the businessman, but everybody who knows me knows that I am a Mark McCall fan, so my words about him are always tainted.

However, I recall pictures that just had a certain characteristic about them that I just don't see in a digital print.

For me, this thread has nothing to do with "Which is Better...Which Will Dominate" but just an honest question...don't the prints look different? I see it. At first I thought it was just me and my uneducated mind, but the truth of it is I think that a print from film has a richer look than a print made from a digital capture.

I can agree with this....

For film, I prefer the handling of the media....the fact that I can get different colour balances and different "feelings" based on the film I use....or the use of expired or distressed film for special effect. I also feel that there isn't much that is affordable in digital that can yet dome close to a 6x7 or a 4x5 image......not to mention the richer textures in the grains of films....something that can be "duplicated" in digital...but with film, the grain is inherent...and varies from one type of film to another and/or one type of developer or another....

For digital, the benefit to me is not only in instant image....but in ease of "darkroom work." Photoshop (and other programs) allow you to do so much, so much easier than in the darkroom....and no lingering chemical smells and black fingertips....lol This is really my biggest draw to digital....as I sometimes found getting the "perfect print" in the darkroom elusive...weather it be a burn job or trying to get a great print from Infrared or cross processes film....the digital tools do it much, much easier than the old methods....

[KellyL]

Wow. I am amazed that this conversation has started up again. Somebody went digging through the archives!

[Orgnoi1]

Originally Posted by Tareq

If you have 100 cameras or gear in front of you all or each of one can do the job, so which one to choose, for landscape i can guarantee that more than 1000 cameras can do the job.

Then if you have 1000 cameras to use... you ought to get cracking and pick one... basically what I am saying... is that if a customer wants negatives... then shoot film... if they want film-like quality shoot film... if they want a CD of prints... shoot digital... its fairly easy and a WAY overplayed subject matter... but I am ALL for rehashing it as many times as someone wants to... I shoot both and love both... they just do different things for me....

I tend to use digital as a way of getting my "jobs" done at the museum... its easy and quick... and I can get decent results... when I want to go out for fun I (as of late) tend to pick up a 35mm and take the digital with me in case... I still love the feel of an old manual... and my Mamiya medium format rig... but to each their own... film makes me slow down and take my time... and PLAN shots... not just spray and pray...

[Tareq]

Originally Posted by Orgnoi1

Then if you have 1000 cameras to use... you ought to get cracking and pick one... basically what I am saying... is that if a customer wants negatives... then shoot film... if they want film-like quality shoot film... if they want a CD of prints... shoot digital... its fairly easy and a WAY overplayed subject matter... but I am ALL for rehashing it as many times as someone wants to... I shoot both and love both... they just do different things for me....

I tend to use digital as a way of getting my "jobs" done at the museum... its easy and quick... and I can get decent results... when I want to go out for fun I (as of late) tend to pick up a 35mm and take the digital with me in case... I still love the feel of an old manual... and my Mamiya medium format rig... but to each their own... film makes me slow down and take my time... and PLAN shots... not just spray and pray...

I don't know why many people saying that film making them to think more and be patient more and slow down more, i have only digital cameras and i don't spray the shutter, when i am out i spend time just to setup and adjust and set the camera before i press the shutter, and from the first shot i can see if i did great or not, but 99% of the first is coming out great, so i use my digital very wisely as it is only 10 shots are there like with film rolls, even i am thinking to go with film because of that, to be more careful and so picky, i was in Scotland with a photographer who is using only film medium format, and i saw him setting his camera and things, in fact i was doing the same even more slowing down than him as he is experienced and at the end i end up with more photos than him even greater or same great results without losing many shots or just wasting the shutter, just the problem was the difficult time to choose one or 2 shots out of great well done 50 shots.