Why were we so quick to abandon film?

[JohnL]

Since the mid-90s I've been messing with digital, initially using consumer digicams, then a Canon G5 which is a "real camera" in that you can control the exposure manually. Then I got my 10D in April 2004, since when I have taken well over 20,000 pictures with it. I still have the G5, which is my carry-everywhere, also an EOS3 and an old Nikonos III, both film cameras, which I still use for specific purposes. At about 50 cents a frame direct cost, there is no way I would have taken this many pictures on film, so for me, digital has been enabling from the cost aspect. I also appreciate the print-making control available with digital. This is also possible via scanning film, which I now do as well, but I don't know if I'd ever have returned to my current level of interest by that route alone. I never got into colour film processing - it just seemed too much of a hassle - and I was never really satisified with results from commercial processing, except for the few occasions that I had some custom work done, and that was expensive too.

[timjon]

The main thing I miss is the huge dynamic range of B+W neg film. I spent years as a teenager shooting B+W almost exclusively, and although I'm now entirely digital, I miss the amount of shadow and higlight detail you could get out of film. With digital the only real option is to bracket and post process if you want to get anywhere near it.

Hopefully this will be the next "big thing" as peoplerealise that increasing megapixels bring diminishing returns after a certain point. I'd love to see a digital sensor with several times the dynamic range of current models (or more). The new Fuji sensor seems like a step in the right direction... with a wide enough range, exposure issues could almost become irrelevant.

Cheers,

Tim.

[Wilt]

<<I went digital because i am lazy.>>

I think that statement encapsulates the entire reason why the new technology becomes the replacement for the old technology all so often.

Automatic transmission...easier to have to not have to shift
CD...easier than getting up and advance the tape or to move the playback arm on the LP to the song desired
Digital photo...easier to email a photo than to run to the store and have a print made and mailed
Cell phone...easier to answer with the phone next to you no matter where you are, than to deal with listening and calling back the phone messages left on the answering machine

That is not to say that the newer is always 'better' in all respects, but for those characteristics that matter to people, they are enough. I think it is a pity that so many of the new generation cannot even drive a car with a clutch...so they pay more for rentals in Europe, if you can FIND a car with auto transmission. And increasingly photographers will have no knowledge of conventional darkroom, where digital photography has come nowhere near reproducting...e.g. it takes tremendous effort to even get close to duplicating the B&W print of the masters like Ansel Adams.

[Catman]

I could not agree more! The only people to gain from these so called improvements are the people who make money from them. I'm not against techi. advancements so long as the consumer is left with the choice of changing to the "new" or sticking to the "old".
Unfortunately we are not given the option for very long. I've just changed from a Rollie Camera to a Digital. The difference is readily noticable. I've recently purchased a Canon EOS 350D. I was using a Canon EOS 300v. The DSLR is useless. The photos are flat, washed out with no depth of colour.* Plus the fact that, when using the camera on "Sports Mode" the pictures are far from clear. I think I'll go back to the rollie for as long as the "All knowing experts allow me to buy film.

[Catman]

I've just realised why we ditched film for digital. We are too damn lazy to learn how to take good photos with a real camera. We just want to "aim, shoot and hope for the best". Why; we try to cram too much into our lives instead of concentrating on those things we want to do and do well! Photography is an art. Manipulating digital photos is a skill!

[dc2]

Erm not just lazy we are also impatient but on the plus side of digital is photoshop and the like thats given us creativity wth out the smelly chemicals. Something we got to be grateful for

[ditto1958]

Originally Posted by BobTrips

Then in order to get the further advantages of digital from a film capture you must convert your film to digital. After that you can sit in a comfortable chair and tweak your color balance, contrast, crop, saturation, etc. to your heart's content.

Excellent point, except... I sometimes wonder why I paid $1,000 for a dslr when Nikon and KM both make really good dedicated film scanners for around $600. I could still be using my OM system AND have the advantages of controlling everything from a comfortable chair.

I suppose, though, I could also be listening to music from vinyl records instead of from an ipod.

[llpoolej]

I don't think I would be photographing seriously had digital not come along. I control the processing, vs the fotomat. I am able to shoot endlessly and not worry about wasting film. I *really* hate waste and I was very careful about film. The price of buying it, the process of going to the store to get it and the price of development. If all my pictures suck, I just format and start over. No fuss, no muss.

I enjoy fussing with the pictures in photoshop. The colors out of my Olympus E-1 are as nice or nicer than my Canon 35mm. Digital files are easy to make sometimes TOO sharp. I think we have equalled 35mm quality film, though one must be careful as if you were shooting slides.

I print my own at home, no more going to the store. I send them via the web.

I actually have two 35mm cameras and I haven't touched them in years. The minolta is going on Ebay and the Canon has a home for life, as it has great sentimental value. I do not desire to shoot with it though. I love how my camera feels and the immediate control I have

[Wilt]

>> I *really* hate waste and I was very careful about film. The price of buying it, the process of going to the store to get it and the price of development. If all my pictures suck, I just format and start over.<<

Let me put this statement in a different perspective...instead of paying $200 for a film SLR, it is necessary to pay $800 for a dSLR. For $600 you can buy and process a huge amount of film!

And the trial and error method of learning to shoot sounds unforunately like getting 10000 chimps to write Shakespear by trial and error. I see too much shooting without thinking, too much behavior where the owner will "press the shutter on Continuous and hope for a good photo"

Not to say this is your approach, but it is indicative too much of the attitude today. (I don't want to start a flame war, but this is an observation of a prevalent method of shooting. A lot of us love Medium Format and Large Format because it causes us to slow down, and sometimes spend an entire day and not come back with one frame shot on film. Contrast that with those who shoot a 3-5 fps and bring back 200 shots in an afternoon! I shoot weddings on film and get 300 photos. The guy who shot our daughter's wedding handed her 3000 shots to choose from! Talk about chimps writing Shakespeare!

[Catman]

I think it's all about whether or not you want to have a photo that you can hold in your hand. I very much suspect that most digital enthusiasts just keep their photos on discs etc! or maybe email them to someone. I have found that processing and printing a good digital photo is very time consuming. As someone said, it's easy to point and shoot an unlimited number of photos if you know you can easily dump the unwanted ones. But the pleasure of taking a photo that has been carefully thought out and taken... when you see a good result the feeling is terrific.