Why were we so quick to abandon film?

[llpoolej]

I have shot film and I have shot digital. I shoot MUCH MUCH MORE when I shoot digital. That alone is worth the extra price in the body. My canon camera was free, lifted out of my parents closet and I used it some. Not *nearly* like I have used my digitals though. There were many times I just didn't have the film when I wanted to shoot. I always have a memory card.

Waste is not only a monetary thing. I have a horse. It was wasteful to have her at a much lower board price because I did not ride her. She was an expensive pet. I moved her much closer to my home and ride quite a bit. I pay 3x's as much to keep her, but, it is less wasteful since I am at least riding her.

I don't shoot machine gun style because I never have. I guess I could, I just never think to. I chimp very rarely as most of my shots are usuable. Not to mention I don't trust the LCD to judge unless the shot is just a mess. I do chimp some, but not alot. I don't PRINT alot as only my very favorites are prints. There is where my $$ savings are.

[Tom Caldwell]

I used film for 30 years. I could not be bothered writing down the camera settings so that I would remember what I had used when the image did not work out. Digital does this for me and I also get the chance to take several images at differnt settings to see what works best and the settings are all recorded without fuss.

Digital has made me a better photographer in a couple of years compared to the first 30 years.

I used to take half a film and then the next half many moons later. When the film came back from the lab it was always interesting to find what had been on the roll, but sometimes I wondered why I had bothered as the excitement had passed for the early shots. Sometimes I just "used up" the film so that I could get a roll processed when I was impatient for some images.

When I was young I had a b&w processing kit and processed some images. It was nice to see the magic of the image appearing but I quickly decided it was just so much bother and I am not into processing "ritual". When you send the images to a lab - they don't always process them the way that you would like and images would have to be sent back to be reprinted. More cost and bother so extra prints were only made of the good ones. The lab also faithfully processed all the images so the packet always came back with a bunch of failures and a few gems.

Digital gives you your own processing lab cleanly at your desk with a thousand variations to taste possible almost instantly. Much better.

Scanning is relatively recent technology that allows conversion from print (or better: negative) into a digital image. It is bound to degrade the film image somewhat and doesn't take away the inherent problems of film - the delay and the reliance on chemical processing by yourself or a commercial laboratory. Why not just capture on digital in the first place?

Remember how much film and processing cost? Are we kidding ourselves that film would have become cheaper without the proliferation of digital. Budget film and processing is the last-gasp attempt to keep a declining market alive. Without digital film camera SLR bodies would still be expenesive and film processing labs just as relatively expensive as before.

I love digital and its quality will keep on improving. It is significant that digital camera "styles" along the lines of the established film bodies ie: cheap automatic point and shoot's have their exact digital equivalent and photolabs now have machines where instant print gratification can be achieved by a few button presses and now you can chose the exact prints that you want and how many. Skipping the "duds". Those that might have gravitated to the SLR can now have their digital SLR equivalent but instead of processing their own or being disappointed by the lab results can do their own processing on computer. I belonged to the latter very large category who wanted something better but was not willing to set up a home laboratory - now my wishes have been gratified.

I guess that the pool of active enthusiastic advanced amateurs has been greatly advanced by digital, the advance was rapid but the face of photography has been changed forever (and for the better).

Tom

[badpickev]

how about a diff view. I reflect about this. Digital was out for a few years before I looked, then I debated, then the product was available, then I waffeled, then I bought. Now I think, was I really quick to leave film? No I was slow.

[BobTrips]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm not sure you're right about this. There's little difference between getting prints from digital and from film. It might be a little quicker to drop a roll and run, but it doesn't take long to stick your memory card in a kiosk and pick the images that you want printed either.

And one can sit in the comfort of their own home, upload files, and get the prints back in the mail.

Certainly there's no difference between digital and film when it comes to 'careful shooting produces better images'. There is a huge difference in that you can easily take your best shooting efforts and easily make them better.

[dc2]

Another point to remember is the simplicity allows us to earn dollar.
I'm often shooting events for a company and I can garrantee not everone turns up on the day so they ask me to cut them out of another photo and put them in which is quickly done and emailed to there publishers .
Job done dollar in my pocket.
I have never done anything like this with film and its not something I would like to try.

[mawz]

I'm getting my first DSLR in a couple hours, but I'll still be shooting a fair bit of film. Each has it's own strength.

Personally, I think that Digital has killed off the need for Colour Negative film. Slide still has it's place, but even that is on it's way out. It's B&W, specifically fast B&W, that will keep film alive (Although I expect the slow emulsions to persist due to Large Format work, where they easily outresolve digital). B&W has a 'look', notably in the traditional grain films, and a dynamic range that Digital currently can't match. And in the latter case, I don't expect it ever to match (As resolution goes up for a given sensor size, maximum possible dynamic range goes down for digital, due to sensor site size, this being the one area which makes FF Sensors potentially worth the cost increase). I'll dance on the grave of T-Max happily, as long as Tri-X and Neopan survive. Because it's all about the 'look' to me. Currently 90%+ of my work is B&W, that will come down with the DSLR, but I expect it will still top 50% (Probably more like 80% if Digital B&W conversions are included. I've done them from colour film and slide scans already, so it's no big leap).

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by mawz

I'm getting my first DSLR in a couple hours, but I'll still be shooting a fair bit of film. Each has it's own strength.

Cool! It's always nice buying into new stuff. What are you getting?

[dc2]

Mawz I remember how it it felt when I got my first dslr a canon 1OD .
You did not mention what model your getting but all recommend if its possible on your camera is to learn to shoot in raw ,it pays for the quality.
Best of luck and enjoy

[Paul Shields]

What I've found recently (i.e. over the last couple of years or so) is that there is a lot more to the enjoyment of photography than the end result. There really is great pleasure to be had in the process of developing and printing one's own film, or framing a shot in a film SLR that has a huge bright viewfinder. Even sending the film off to a developer has a certain pleasure when you collect the prints (which can then be enjoyed by anyone with eyes, rather than anyone with a computer). I would hate to lose that aspect to photography, regardless of the obvious benefits of digital - which I love just as much, but for completely different reasons.

[Catman]

I've just found another disadvantage to digital. My CD ROM has been playing up for awhile and I've lost hundreds of photos. I thought it was a software problem until the ROM packed up altogether today. Some of the pics were scanned in and I still have the originals but some were digital and I've lost them for good. >