Film vs. digital

[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?

[jfrancho]

I agree that certain films hold a a special charm, and films latitude made getting good exposures a bit easier. But the advantages of digital far outweigh whatever was lost in film. The transition to digital is tricky, and take quite a bit of learning. I doubt film will disappear, but to be honest, I know of only a few of labs in town that will even process it, and my home town is home to Eastman Kodak!

Perhaps try posting a a few pictures, and ask more specific questions as to what your goals are with that picture, and what can be done to the image file to achieve them.

[Sidebyte]

You are both beating a dead horse trying to choose one over the other. Use the best tool for the job, I still have 7 film cameras as well as 5 digitals and use both. This I will offer though, I digitize my film to digital files before printing.

[jfrancho]

How am I beating a dead horse? LOL.

[Sidebyte]

By addressing the merits of one over the other.........they are equals.

[blumesan]

Originally Posted by Sidebyte

By addressing the merits of one over the other.........they are equals.

I would not describe the two technologies as "equals". In my opinion sometimes one is preferrable to the other, but the preference is usually based on the personal tastes of the user and the particular circumstances of the shot.

I know that you use both, and so do I. And I don't think that either of us would make generalized statements about the merits of one over the other.

[jfrancho]

I really couldn't care less about comparing them, that wasn't my intention. The gist of my response was to address the original poster's frustrations with digital. Nothing else. Sorry if you think I stepped on your film canisters. I've been on the record here that I know quite a few pros that are using film, and producing very high quality work, though my suspicion is that if they could afford a digital back for their Hassies and Mamiyas, they'd jump. They digitize their transparencies as well.

[Waleed]

Originally Posted by Sidebyte

By addressing the merits of one over the other.........they are equals.

A few years back, a photographer friend & I were appointed to do the photography for a national encyclopedia. I had converted to digital many years before that, but my friend remained with film.

The locations were mixed, indoor & outdoor, inside the cities, industrial areas, and historical areas. The temperatures varied greatly between the different locations, especially the historical locations in desert areas.

My friend bought a small fridge for his pickup truck to store new and used rolls of film. He would mail the rolls to his studio in Riyadh for developing. Then awaits feedback from his studio with the status of his work, are they acceptable or not, and they would mail back printed contact sheets.

I carried enough GBs of CF cards for my camera, my PowerBook G4, with an external HD.. On location, I would review the photos before moving on, dump a copy on the PowerBook's internal HD, another copy on the external HD, and on DVD-R when I return to the hotel.

After a few months, I was almost done with my assigned locations and he was falling behind schedule due to the time consuming post processing.. When meeting with the client, I show up with my PowerBook and review the photographs on the computer screen or a projector when more people are at the review.. My friend brings the contact sheets, the slides, and 2 light tables & magnifying lenses.

The final deliverables were required to be DVDs and contact sheets.


Technology comes with solutions that eases our lives, evolution is inevitable

[Mark McCall]

I still love to shoot with my Bronica 645. I love the ease of use, and the heavy, metallic CLUNK of the mirror.
The color of the UC film is amazing. I love how all the dials are huge, the camera is bulky, heavy...wreaks quality.

The lab will drum scan any shot needed digitally.

For me, the difference is that with digital, I can more closely replicate what I see in my head when composing a shot. The ease of manipulation is fantastic.

[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

[HuBBaTheMan]

Though both Kodak and Fuji are presenting figures for actually an increase in film sales. Kodak have even stated they have a 10 year old actionplan for continuing film production.

There are a lot of venues still where film is used and me personally love to shoot it.

Kodak: Film is far from dead news - Amateur Photographer - news, camera reviews, lens reviews, camera equipment guides, photography courses, competitions, photography forums

Film may have had a bit of a decline when Digital has taken over the mainstream market, but its far from dead yet.

[WayneM]

Hubba, I think that you have missed my point somewhat, I am not saying that film will die due to lack of its ability to produce excellent images but rather because of factors of cost. For large format and even to a great extent medium format this is not a factor due to the very high cost of medium format size sensors and the very limited availability, if any, of large format sensors. Nor am I sugesting that films death will be quick, afterall buggy whips are still readily available, and they still work just fine.

I am of the opinion that Fuji's stock is preforming much better than Kodaks because Fuji embraced digital imaging in a big way much sooner than Kodak did. And it should be noted that Kodak has seen the error of its ways and is making an effort to catch up, and in time I predict that they will.

Another factor in this equation is thhat US economy is generaly in the Dumper (I was going to describe it as I realy see it but chose to censor my words). For most users Digital immagery is going to be less expensive than film, Yes the initial costs are higher but the cost per photograph is far less, and with digital cameras costing less every year how long will the initial cost be a barrier? As I type this B & H lists Canom film SLR's at $1700 for the EOS-V1 the only film SLR listed and it is back ordered. where the digital EOS 1 Mark III is selling for 3725, and there are several less expensive Digital SLR's to choose from. Both of these two cameras are aimed at the profesional and would give years of excelent service under hard usage. My piont is How long would it take a profesional photographer to spend a mere $2000 in 35 mm film and development charges?

Wayne

[Mark McCall]

Originally Posted by WayneM

For most users Digital immagery is going to be less expensive than film, Yes the initial costs are higher but the cost per photograph is far less, and with digital cameras costing less every year how long will the initial cost be a barrier?

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.

That said, about 95% of our output is digital capture. I still have a few commercial clients who insist on medium format negs or transparencies. Our price adjustment reflected the amount of time it took to produce digital imagery.

ps.
I saw Fuji's new Polaroid(esc) camera at PPA last month.
The camera was larger than a Polaroid, produced the same square instant prints.
Who knows where film is going when a camera manufacturer reinvents an old Polaroid?

[WayneM]

Mark I agree that film has a place in photography, and agree that film has and will continue to have it's advantages Digital is going to replace it over time, just as film replaced glass plates and tin type. And while my posts have been hard on Eastman Kodak I also have recently purchased stock in EK as I am of the opinion that they will turn things around and $4.25 a share was just too good to pass up.

Wayne

[Mark McCall]

Originally Posted by WayneM

film has and will continue to have it's advantages Digital is going to replace it over time, just as film replaced glass plates and tin type.

I have no doubt about that either.
I was just pointing out that some feel digital is cheaper to shoot than film.

[Sidebyte]

Originally Posted by blumesan

I would not describe the two technologies as "equals". In my opinion sometimes one is preferrable to the other, but the preference is usually based on the personal tastes of the user and the particular circumstances of the shot.

I know that you use both, and so do I. And I don't think that either of us would make generalized statements about the merits of one over the other.

Mike,
I'll offer one generalized statement in regards to the differences between film and digi now. Film may be rewarding in the final outcome but it's a journey getting there. Digi is so much faster and a lot easier to get satisfactory results.
I, like you are retired and have a lot of time to spend on my hobby but from a professionals standpoint film is like eating soup with a toothpick.

[blumesan]

Originally Posted by Sidebyte

Mike,
I'll offer one generalized statement in regards to the differences between film and digi now. Film may be rewarding in the final outcome but it's a journey getting there. Digi is so much faster and a lot easier to get satisfactory results.
I, like you are retired and have a lot of time to spend on my hobby but from a professionals standpoint film is like eating soup with a toothpick.

I don't think anyone would argue with that position. From shutter press to final print digital is much more efficient. And for professionals, efficiency means $$$. However I don't know that it is any "easier" (in terms of required skills) to get "satisfactory results" from digital. And most of us still shooting film scan the negatives to digital for postprocessing.

[jfrancho]

The "Easter Horse" thread.

[roncgizmo]

Originally Posted by Sidebyte

By addressing the merits of one over the other.........they are equals.

Personally I disagree.. IMO Film has a warmer feel to it.

If you listen to a CD VS. a Record you can hear the some thing or
watch a movie shot on film VS.video and you can see it..

To me Digital lacks something.. It's a great advantage over film when it comes to archiving and it's much easier to master when you think about the cost of shooting.. Also more and more people are fixing bad shots in PhotoShop So anyone with a computer now can be a photographer with short cuts... On another forum I hear some people
call themselves "Pros" but never take the camera off Automatic

[WayneM]

Originally Posted by roncgizmo

Personally I disagree.. IMO Film has a warmer feel to it.

If you listen to a CD VS. a Record you can hear the some thing or
watch a movie shot on film VS.video and you can see it..

To me Digital lacks something.. It's a great advantage over film when it comes to archiving and it's much easier to master when you think about the cost of shooting.. Also more and more people are fixing bad shots in PhotoShop So anyone with a computer now can be a photographer with short cuts... On another forum I hear some people
call themselves "Pros" but never take the camera off Automatic

Whether film is better or not in the long term it is doomed because of the economics of film/Digital Consider that Eastman Kodak just completed a four year conversion to emphasize Digital imaging and is currently looking for partners to take this even farther. It should be noted that Kodak stock is down big in comparison to others like Fuji because they didn't do this earlier, and the current economy is also hurting them, fewer vacations equate to fewer pictures taken, and photographs which are taken will be predominately digital where Kodak is behind. However I am optimistic about EK's future as a Digital vendor.

Wayne