Anyone burned out on digital and going back to film?

[puredrifting]

Hi all:

I have been a photographer since I was a kid. I grew up on a horse ranch, my parents went to horse shows. I interned with a very well respected horse photographer for two years. I shot for yearbook in junior high and high school, had a darkroom, and in general, shot a lot of photos. I landed two magazine cover shots for nationally distributed magazines when I was 14. I have always loved photography and all that I learned has served me well in developing my cinematography skills.

I stopped shooting film for stills pretty much when everyone else did, back in the late 90s. I have owned and used a Nikon d70, D80, D300 and numerous point and shoots. I am kind of not digging photography nearly as much in the digital age. I went through boxes of my old prints and negatives and although I have become a better photographer in the past ten years, the images are lacking something in the look and feel.

So I just bought a really cheap Nikon 35mm film camera. I am also contemplating a used medium format camera setup. I think that going back to shooting film will inspire me a lot more than I have been for the past few years with digital.

Anyone else missing film? I also used to shoot a lot of S16 before HD came in. I miss that as well but I cannot afford to shoot S16 anymore. It's weird, I like shooting with my HPX170 almost as much as I ever did with S16, so my film obsession seems more limited to still photography.

Anyone else feel this way? If so, why?

Dan

[alwayslearning]

It took me quite a while to switch to digital. Now that I have (May 2006), I can't go back to just film. I love to shoot and could never even remotely afford the number of shots I can take, if I used film. With the modern digital cameras and the amazing Photoshop tools, as I'm sure you're aware, we can get some amazing things accomplished.

That being said, I think that with the look of film, which cannot and likely never will, be perfectly reproduced digitally, I think that there is a place for both. It just depends on what one wants their end product to be.

With my Sony A700, a good lense and Photoshop CS3, I'm happy and expect to be for a long time.

It just depends. My family and some friends did Niagara Fall's a couple years ago. My youngest son (16 at the time), wanted to do film. He shot four rolls on my old Minolta. Some of the shots are great and some are garbage. That was him though, not film. But there is definitely a place for film and a place for digital.

I did a trip out West not too long ago. I'd hate to pay to get 1800 shots "developed". :)

just my .02 worth ...
Larry

[puredrifting]

Hey Larry:

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I think a lot of it is mindset and probably the aesthetics of age. I am 45 and grew up on film. I definitely have taken some great digital still images and yes, I know exactly what you mean, I did a Southwest roadtrip two years ago, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Nevada and I probably took close to 1800 images. That would have cost quite a few hundred dollars to have shot on film. But I bet I would have liked the images better and I would taken far fewer than 1,800 of them.

I am going to travel throughout France, from Paris to the Riviera in June for a documentary project and I will be leaving my D80 and D300 at home. I will be bringing my F75, about 20-30 rolls of film and my Canon point and shoot. I am also willing that I will take more high quality images with the film camera, reserving the point and shoot for when I am shooting video also and just need some snapshots.

But I also agree that digital has taken the thought and care that I used to take with film away. Digital is like being at a shooting range with the machine gun. You are going to blast through a heck of a lot more ammo that you will with a bolt action rifle, and with digital, the ammo is free but how many times are you going to hit the target? Also with digital, the gun is a LOT more expensive. My Nikon F75 cost $69.00 new in the box vs. $1,800.00 for the D300. Which one shoots higher resolution images? (35mm film = about 25 megapixels vs. 12.3 mgeapixels with the D300) Which one is lighter (13 oz. vs. a few pounds for the D300), simpler (F75 is a basic 35mm plastic camera), and more reliable? (F75 has very basic electronics whereas the D300 is ALL electronics).

I figure I bought my D300 body for about $1,800.00 (early adapter, paid too much). This camera is already outdated and in another year, may break, have problems or just stop working OR more likely is that Nikon will come out with a D500 or a cheaper D700. Oh, and I will be like a kid in a toy store, pressing my nose against the glass and exclaiming how I MUST have that new camera becuase it has more megapixels, has an FX instead of the DX sensor (oh, yeah, now all of the DX lenses are going to be useless or not as useful on FF, gotta buy more FX lenses to replace them). See what I mean? Digital has all of us on a treadmill because they keep improving them so much. I miss film cameras where the right camera would easily last me 10 years and at times, even 20 years. So in the end, if I stay on the digital track, my D300 will probably cost me $100.00 per month to own, whether or not I am actually shooting it. My F75 will cost me $3.83 per month whether or not I am shooting it and assuming I am getting rid of it in 18 months (unless it breaks, I will be keeping it for many years).

Sure film isn't free but for casual shooting, it costs under $6.00 per roll of 24 for film to shoot in total (.99 and a half cents per roll for Fuji 400 Superia in six packs from Costco) and $1.59 for devleoping and $2.99 for high res scans to a Gold Kodak CD. If I only NEED to shoot a few rolls a month, I am saving thousands of dollars over shooting digital, have better quality images with much better archival capabilities (all of my digital photos are archived on two CDs or DVDs - so far so good, but I have lost about 20 data CDs so far to digital rot, I am sure that I will lose many of my digital images in the next ten years if I am not hyper vigilant about transferring to other media). Film negatives are proven to last at least 100 years with proper storage and much longer if you are lucky. Sure, I will be working with the digital images from the Kodak CDs but I will also have real negatives in my fireproof safe as well that can be re-scanned anytime in the future to new types of media also. Negatives are just plain better than only digital long term storage.

As far as Photoshop, I guess that is my age showing through again. Yes, I use Photoshop. Yes, I am decent with it. Study the books, take all of the classes, Scott Kelby stares at me from my bookshelf and computer monitor at least a few times a week. But I have to say, I prefer images that just need a bit of cropping, perhaps some slight tweaking of curves and that's about it. I am somewhat of a purist in that I don't like the look of super digitally manipulated images. To me, Photoshop is an artistic tool that stands at least somewhat apart from great photography. I have seen some great images created with Photoshop and some awesome skills, but I will never be that Photoshop artist and I don't really want to be. I prefer to create images mostly in-camera and leave the Photoshop to minimal cleanup and repair chores. HDR, virtual lighting, most Photoshop plug-ins look extremely stupid to me, they look phoney and way too manipulated. Not to most people because they have been conditioned to it, it is everywhere.

I just looked through that idiotic magazine Popular Photography and most of the reader submitted images looked really horrible. Photoshopped within an inch of their lives and that hideous Lucis Looks filter applied to everything. Yuck.

It's the same in filmmaking, I reject most visual effects in comparison to practical effects. Almost all of the popular feature films today look like moving Photoshop effects. Showing my age but optical and practical effects in films like Bladerunner and Brazil have yet to equaled by the best DI, Flame and Smoke artists IMHO. Almost all popular films today contain visual effects that to my eye, will be looked upon as quaintly in 50 years as we look upon Georges Melies, "A Trip to the Moon" today. In other words, to me, in general, Photoshop and most feature film VFX have a plastic, synthetic, unrealistic look to them, everything looks too perfect. Digital cameras as well. Sure we can add grain and manipulate in Photoshop but in general, it all looks synthetic and manufactured to me, especially in print. Most car commericals, other than obviously live running footage use photorealistic 3D models of cars. My kids don't even give it a second thought, to them, these cars are "real", but to me, since I started out on LightWave, they just look like someone spent some major money with Viewpoint Labs, buying 80,000 point models and animating them. Fine for the look, but it's not the real car you are looking at, it is an avatar. Drives me nuts. At some point, I wonder if people will tire of digitally manipulated imagery that looks so perfect that it is obviously fake?

But I don't think that organic, naturalistic, imperfect images will age quite so quickly. If you compare the images from the Melies film above to a still like the Bresson "Man Jumping Over a Puddle", I think you would agree that the Bresson image looks less dated, much more elegant and organic. It looks pretty timeless to me, wheras the Melies images looked quaint even 10 years after they were created.

I am probably diverging way too much from the point at hand here. Thanks for listening.

Dan

[PerroneFord]

I've really been thinking about why I sold all my film camera. T70, EOS 10S, F4s... I may buy an old F2 and shoot some E6. Maybe some Reala, or good old K64. Can you still get it?

[Starmapper]

I did film in college and loathed it, give me photoshop and no chemicals or any darkroom experience for that matter. I'm too impatient for film, I want to see my results as soon as I get home:) In school we shot film then scanned it all for digital and just around when I graduated, Nikon came by the school and did a digital camera back demo that was well beyond my price range but I knew I was in love. In the seventies I had a Ricoh 35mm with a 500 mm catadioptric lens and I would romp around Toronto doing candid closeups of people and loved it. Even then though, I hated waiting for my rolls to come back (did I mention I'm impatient) When I got my first decent digital camera and coupled it with my PS skills, I never looked back. I think digital is still very much in its infancy and will eventually close the door on film (for the most part) indefinately. Just my .02

[TimurCivan]

Well it depends on how you use it. I have had my 5D for 1 year almost to the day. And i take phtos all the time, but none of them are "machine gunned", every picture i take is thoughtful.

i used to shoot film like that too... it cost me a fortune over the years.

now i make one big investment that keeps on trucking.

[mcgeedigital]

I sold my F100 for a D300 and have not regretted the decision yet.

[ChipG]

If you like to sell stock photo's most travel magazines will only buy images shot on film. Same with most nature magazines.

[egproductions]

Chip, do you sell the negatives to the stock websites. If so then it would make sense because negatives keep up with the technology. They can be scanned in as scanners get better and better. If they only take film but want it scanned in and digital, I think its kind of silly....the end result is what should matter in that case.

[ChipG]

I do not sell stock still photo's some friends do. They only shoot film for the $ shots and digital for thier personal photo album's. My understanding was they send the magazine publishers the negative's and do not scan them to make a digital copy.

[puredrifting]

I've really been thinking about why I sold all my film camera. T70, EOS 10S, F4s... I may buy an old F2 and shoot some E6. Maybe some Reala, or good old K64. Can you still get it?

Yup, both are still available http://www.adorama.com/KKKR36U.html and http://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-Superia-Reala-100-exposures/dp/B00009V3CM

Dan

[puredrifting]

Starmapper:

You sound like a child of the new generation ;-) Just like my daughter, everything is needed NOW! Can you enjoy Gone with the Wind or Barry Lyndon in one sitting? I was crushed to show my daughter Raiders of the Lost Ark, one of my favorites and she was yawning 10 minutes in. The pace and cuts were way too slow for her.

I do think digital will close the door and just like shooting HD is numbering motion picture films days, it is the same with still gear. But the gear I own today, I don't like it as much as I like film, especially for travel, art and portraits. But for family, sports and just experimenting, yes, you cannot beat digital.

Dan

[puredrifting]

Hi Timur:

I know you are a DP so you are probably one of the few digital users who shoot that way.

I even find myself doing it, when I shoot sports, I have about a 2% keeper ratio, the rest are just deleted. I definitely don't have the eye and the reflexes to shoot sports. Candids I do better at and I am pretty good at landscape, travel and sort of abstract art shots.

5D is a sweet camera.

Dan

[puredrifting]

I guess in the end, you have to shoot with whatever you are comfortable shooting with. But the money equation on digital still makes me think it is a supreme ripoff for serious amateur photographers. It is the perfect addiction for wealthy amateurs, go and surf the photography sites, you have amateurs on there that have gone from the D80 to the D300, back to the D90, then to the D700, then to the D3 and now they want the D3X. Insanity, especially in this economy. Or the one that really kills me, the "grass is always greener" guys, you know, I have three EOS bodies and 12 Canon lenses, but I am thinking of switching over to Nikon because it has better xxxxxwhatever. I am going to take a beating on selling all of my Canon stuff but I gotta have the Nikon DXXX cuz it's so much better." Jeez, talk about being sucked in by marketing hype.

I have owned both brands and to me, they are the same (yes, a tiny bit different but eseentially for all intents and purposes, the same). If you have a great eye and are a good photographer, camera doesn't really matter so why not shoot with a cheap one?

Other than an occasional stipend or doing so in the line of DP work, I don't really shoot stills professionally so my situation is a little different. If I was a pro, I probably would either be shooting large format film or would have about 2-3 D3Xs. Doesn't matter in the least for pros, they have paying jobs and a D3X or an EOS 1D is just a write off, it is paid for almost instantly.

I am curious, are any of you still pros? (make your living shooting stills?)


Dan

[frisco]

I'm have a still based Studio in San Francisco. Only a couple of reasons to shoot film now days.

1- 4x5 for High End Architecture...... Hang on.....most of you photo hobby guys are thinking.... tilt shift on a dslr..... or correct it in Photoshop. Or even Horseman rise fall camera on med format digital.... better, But still not the same. The field of view is much bigger on 4x5 (notice I didn't say angle of view)

2- Shoot film for fun to make real paper based b&w prints. Not shoot film than scan.... Thats stupid.... Just shoot digital.

Digital has taken photography to another level..... Just like back in the day when we used polaroid to work up to the final shot.

frisco

[Starmapper]

Starmapper:

You sound like a child of the new generation ;-) Just like my daughter, everything is needed NOW! Can you enjoy Gone with the Wind or Barry Lyndon in one sitting? I was crushed to show my daughter Raiders of the Lost Ark, one of my favorites and she was yawning 10 minutes in. The pace and cuts were way too slow for her.

I do think digital will close the door and just like shooting HD is numbering motion picture films days, it is the same with still gear. But the gear I own today, I don't like it as much as I like film, especially for travel, art and portraits. But for family, sports and just experimenting, yes, you cannot beat digital.

Dan

Hopefully I can still squeeze in as a child of the new generation, but at 53 it becomes increasingly suspect:) I can sit through Barry Lyndon in one sitting but I've watched it probably ten or more times. Now if I had never seen it and it was on ebay for 5 bucks or at my local video store for twenty, I couldn't wait for shipping so I'd drop the extra fifteen and watch it now. I've watched "The good shepherd" numerous times and been totally absorbed each time and pacing doesn't get much slower than that. On the other hand, I've screened "Bourne Ultimatum" more than is healthy and love the high speed pacing of that film. I like digital because it's imediate and I have total control over the process from beginning to end. To me, mourning the death of film is similar to missing the characteristic style of quill written letters verses the document my canon printer spits out. Not to suggest in any way that you're mourning, you just enjoy the look and process of film and to quote Martha..."That's a good thing" :)

[PerroneFord]

Starmapper:

You sound like a child of the new generation ;-)

Loupe? Whazzat?

No more lightboxes, no more getting color negs developed and asking for 5 cuts to fit your sleeves instead of commercial 4 cuts which made you use 2 sleeves! No more contact prints! No more Luna-Pros (or Luna-Sixes for the old timers), no more tearing off the box top and putting it in the film back to remind you what the heck you had loaded... or writing notes to let you know that roll was getting pushed 2 stops!!

Digital has changed a lot for sure, but you don't find the old film shooters on these forums asking basic exposure questions, or even framing questions. My keep ratio was really high even as a sports photog, because I had to learn timing. I was hand winding while my co-worker was shooting an F3.

Oh well... That's progress I suppose.

[DivotDan]

I left film for too long, but I'm getting back into it for fun. Don't know that I could ever swing to just one or the other. I do stick to one system though so all my lenses work on any of my bodies.

[Postmaster]

. Digital is like being at a shooting range with the machine gun. You are going to blast through a heck of a lot more ammo that you will with a bolt action rifle, and with digital, the ammo is free but how many times are you going to hit the target?

.... Almost all of the popular feature films today look like moving Photoshop effects.

....most feature film VFX have a plastic, synthetic, unrealistic look to them, everything looks too perfect.
...
they just look like someone spent some major money with Viewpoint Labs,

..Drives me nuts. At some point, I wonder if people will tire of digitally manipulated imagery that looks so perfect that it is obviously fake?



And I thought it was only me..

Dan, I could not agree more with every single word in your post.
Probably it´s because we are almost in the same age.

When I saw Star Wars Episode 1, I almost puked because of that "Visual Quality" of the VFX and the overall look (and don´t get me into talking about the story telling, but that´s an other storry - literally).
Was a major dealbreaker for the next 2 films in my book - I skipped them.

Thou I´m guilty to do exactly what you said (shooting digital stills and use photoshop - http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=158748&highlight=merry) out of parsimony and convenience, I still have that 1962 Pentacon Six full manual medium format camera, with that wonderfull set of 1960s Zeiss primes (that I religiosly use on my LEX/HVX combo).

Anytime I use it, I fall in love again with REAL film. Especialy if I use BW material.

I also saw some pretty impressing new Super8 material telecined to HD.
It looks to me, that super8 may have a renicance since modern stock is aviable now and prices for telecine dropped.

I think all this comes from the fact, that the human body is a analog system.
So analog input pleases. Like most everyone preferes the sound of a tube amp over the sound of a transistor amp. There is a reason why hifi amps in the upper price league use tubes.

Frank

[puredrifting]

Not shoot film than scan.... Thats stupid.... Just shoot digital.

I gotta disagree Frisco. For me, spending thousands of dollars a year for digital camera gear that is outdated right after I buy it seems more stupid. I know that you are going to say, you don't HAVE to buy the latest and greatest but go to a soccer game or Disneyland and look around, you don;t see a lot of 3 and 4 year old DSLRs, you see a lot of the latest and greatest besides the point and shoots.

The D90 came out three weeks after I bought the D300. Same imager, better features, almost half the cost. D300 is built better but essentially it was outdated as soon I bought it. And if you bought the D3, same issue, the D700 came out and it had the sme imager, same basic features and cost a LOT less. Canon 5D MKII blows the EOS-1ds MKIII at almost half the price. That is all well and good for working pros who pay off a camera instantly but it is stupid from a smart consumer viewpoint. DSLRs are a moneymaking machine for the camera manufacturers, which is great and 99.8% of amateurs are happy to keep Canon and Nikon going and I say more power to them, but in these economic times, it is crazy to waste so much money with planned obsolescence on such a tight scale of 8-12 month cycles.

There is a lot more to it than convenience for me. Film quantitatively looks better than DSLRs, ask any measurebator. D3X is the newest, baddest state of the art 24 megapixel DSLR that costs a ridiculous U.S. $8,000.00. But at an equivalent of 25 megapixels, still 35mm film has more resolution, much better latitude and superior colorimetry. If you care about quality, why would you not shoot film?

I totally respect your opinion, I am just trying to refute it with facts. ;-)

Dan

[puredrifting]

To me, mourning the death of film is similar to missing the characteristic style of quill written letters verses the document my canon printer spits out. Not to suggest in any way that you're mourning, you just enjoy the look and process of film and to quote Martha..."That's a good thing" :)

Hi Starmapper:

Just goes to show how misleading assumptions can be from on-line. I had you pegged as a caffeine addicted 20 something, not someone more my age ;-)

I don't know, I think it's a bit like vinyl (I used to be in the high end audio business). Never totally died, definitely went down in popularity though. But just as vinyl is enjoying a resurgence of sorts and not just from oldsters, lots of kids bough Radiohead's "In Rainbows" on vinyl, so too I think film is still there. Sure, not popular with amateurs in general, but most pros still shoot medium and large format film and a lot of more discerning amateurs are liking at least experimenting with film. I don't think one is the ultimate way, especially 35mm.

I love my iPod, literally have fallen in love with my new Touch. But relatively speaking, it sounds like crap. But you have to weight the lousy sound with the convenience and flexibility of it, which is brilliant. Records are a major hassle and they degrade each time they are played. Low bit rate MP3s sound like crap. Low bit rate AACs sound better but in comparison to a SACD or DVD Audio, they still sound like crap. Regular CDs, with a few exceptions, sound worse than vinyl. Digital audio, sampled at 44.1kHz for music, sounds pretty bad, there is something missing there. On a killer Linn-Sondek turntable through a high end amp through killer speakers, yes, vinyl sounds leagues better than any CD IMHO. SACD and DVD Audio at least get in the neighborhood but both of those formats were a flop because consumers, even the audiophile kind, would not pay more for better audio. CD audio and now MP3s and AACs are "good enough". But there will always be a core of listeners and in photography, shooters who want something that is better.

In still photography, 35mm film still looks better than DSLRs. Not by a lot, but by enough to where some of us are crazy enough for it to go through the loss of convenience in using film instead of digital or in addition to digital.

And I may also be a luddite with my still shooting, but sorry, I still really enjoy prints, handling prints, framing prints and looking through my portfolio on prints, not on the web. Computer screens just don't really do images justice if you want to get technical.

I agree with Frank. Humans are analog and the world we exist in is analog. All digital technology is merely a "sampling" of the real world isn't it?

Dan

But just as I can co-exist with my iPod

[puredrifting]

I think all this comes from the fact, that the human body is a analog system.So analog input pleases. Like most everyone preferes the sound of a tube amp over the sound of a transistor amp. There is a reason why hifi amps in the upper price league use tubes.

Frank

You are a very wise Sage Frank!

Dan

[frisco]

Hey Dan,

You do bring up a great point. You have figured out what is best for you, And it is a solid direction if you want to go down that road. I'm probably speaking from a professional point of view on how things work in the commercial/advertising world.

But here is a counterpoint to your method, Or a road I would take before I went back to film.

- First off if were talking money..... How much time and money does it cost to make 5000 exposures on film/with scans vs. digital. (I don't know the answer)
I'm sure glad I don't have the $2000 film bill from the camera store and the $2000 bill from the lab every month.

- Were getting to the point that you do not have to have the latest and greatest camera or computer. I am just now switching to Intel chip Macs.

- Buy cameras that are one generation back. Heck, I paid $5000 for a Nikon D1x when they were new, Now that camera is worth $200...... I still use it to shoot my nephews Baseball games at dusty fields out in the boonies.

- I don't know where your getting you info from and not saying your wrong..... But my high megapix dslrs make much better images for me than I could ever get with 35mm SLR's. Don't get me wrong..... Remember I've shot film since the seventies and I have all my little tweeks, favorite films and secrets to get certain looks. (I don't hate film)

- My first impression is that the New 5D dosn't blow away the 1dsMklll. A very nice camera and will be fine for most.

- I have the Leaf Aptus 75s It's a 33 megapix medium format back that I've been using for a couple years now and I bet I could use it for another 5 years.

Keep in mind also I was one of the last ones to switch over to digital. I still have Nikon F4's, Hasselblads, Fuji 680's, Sinar P 4x5, 5x7, 8x10.

If your just gonna be shooting kids soccer games and Disneyland pictures, Just buy something digital for less than a thousand dollars new or used and just use it.

frisco



I gotta disagree Frisco. For me, spending thousands of dollars a year for digital camera gear that is outdated right after I buy it seems more stupid. I know that you are going to say, you don't HAVE to buy the latest and greatest but go to a soccer game or Disneyland and look around, you don;t see a lot of 3 and 4 year old DSLRs, you see a lot of the latest and greatest besides the point and shoots.

The D90 came out three weeks after I bought the D300. Same imager, better features, almost half the cost. D300 is built better but essentially it was outdated as soon I bought it. And if you bought the D3, same issue, the D700 came out and it had the sme imager, same basic features and cost a LOT less. Canon 5D MKII blows the EOS-1ds MKIII at almost half the price. That is all well and good for working pros who pay off a camera instantly but it is stupid from a smart consumer viewpoint. DSLRs are a moneymaking machine for the camera manufacturers, which is great and 99.8% of amateurs are happy to keep Canon and Nikon going and I say more power to them, but in these economic times, it is crazy to waste so much money with planned obsolescence on such a tight scale of 8-12 month cycles.

There is a lot more to it than convenience for me. Film quantitatively looks better than DSLRs, ask any measurebator. D3X is the newest, baddest state of the art 24 megapixel DSLR that costs a ridiculous U.S. $8,000.00. But at an equivalent of 25 megapixels, still 35mm film has more resolution, much better latitude and superior colorimetry. If you care about quality, why would you not shoot film?

I totally respect your opinion, I am just trying to refute it with facts. ;-)

Dan

[Jeremy Ordan]

This is a curious topic to me.

As someone who has taught digital photography classes at the community college I normally start my classes with a rant on why camera really doesn't matter, in a digital environment. I truly believe that while each new model offers small conveniences at the end of the day they are all basically the same.

That being said, I do find myself more often pulling out an F100 or F4 (if I want a work out carrying a camera) to shoot more often. Now that I'm married I appreciate taking my film down to the The Light Factory (a photography location here in Charlotte) to develop my film and enjoy a couple of hours of technical darkroom work.

Film does have a place but the reason why I continue to pull a digital body out more often than a film body is because of the archiving ease. I have boxes upon boxes of negatives and slides and prints... Digital is just easier on the space concerns.

All things being equal I am actually selling on of my digital camera outfits though because of size and weight. For all the benefits that a big heavy latest and greatest offers a lightweight camera is still a big selling point to me.... Then again, I spend a lot of time in the woods.

[egproductions]

I think it all comes down to what you need the camera for/what type of photography you are doing.

If you are shooting events and taking 700-1000 photos twice a week then I think digitial is for you. You will save money in the long run, the quality is sufficient and clients have come to except tons of photos, they won't respect 150 great shots, they want 150 great shots and 800 ok shots that have everyone and everything that attended their event. Its annoying to change film at an event anyway.

If you are shooting carefully calculated landscaped shoot large format and scan it in at crazy high resultion if you need it. A dslr can take nice landscapes but if you care about extremem quality and detail then a large format negatvie can be scanned in at an incredible resoltion that wont have interpalation at 100%.

If you are shooting the family on vacation, bring a a low end lightweight dslr (or film SLR if you want to shoot carefully but end up with slightly superior quality that will last longer)

Studio work...well its a toss up in my opinion. High end DSLRs, the dynamic range of digital MF or regular MF are all good options.

[Zephyrnoid]

Just the opposite of me! I spent 18 years shooting still film from 35mm-8X10 commercial and personal stills. During a workshop with AA we heard the master lament the side effects and environmental impact of chemical photography. In 1996 I gave up the chemicals completely and turned to a point and shoot digital for transition. I've never looked back .My only regret was that early digicams were poor resolution for the investment. I'm a technology consultant now and use digital media in still & video for everything. I have sold and still have a decent collection of my personal work in print, which I look at and marvel at the sacrifices we had to make to produce a compelling archival image. Sigh! Time marches on and it rides on the digital super highway!
All I have is a Nikon Coolpix 5000 on the still side of the equation.

[puredrifting]

Hi Frisco:

Just a few points...

1. I would not qualify myself as a pro still photographer. I do make my living as a DP and producer so I sometimes get paid to shoot stills but it is a once in a while thing. Definitely not a working still photographer so yes, I am definitely not coming from a professional perspective. I mostly shoot for fun and for my portfolio.

2. As far as money, it would cost a lot to shoot 5,000 exposures on film. But that is kind of the point of shooting film, I will be shooting perhaps 100-200 exposures a month, at most. Another reason why I don't really need digital, other than when shooting kids, sports and certain events.

3. As far as cameras though, I agree, you definitely don't need the latest and greatest but most of my friends who are in to photography as advanced amateurs seem to be on this endless treadmill of trading up in DSLRs.

4. I am buying a camera that is about 10 generations back ;-)

5. I am saying that 35mm film has objectively better imaging capability than digital when measured purely in terms of resolution, latitude, shadow depth and color depth. Once DSLRs reach 25 megapixels, those cameras will be equal to 35mm film in pure resolution and closer in latitude.

6. I have only used the 5D MKII for video once, have not shot stills with it so I wouldn't know if it is better, but many of the reviewers on the web are saying that the 5D is capable of better images.

7. Nice digital back, you are obviously a pro. Not saying you should be shooting 35mm film, but for advanced amateurs, it should be considered.

8. Oh yeah, I still have three digital cameras and would definitely use them for Disneyland and soccer games. Film is for my shots, travel, lansdcapes, abstracts, portraits, etc. Stuff where I can easily accomplish what I want to with two or three rolls of 36 exposure film. If I need hundreds or thousands of shots to accomplish that, I am a really lousy photographer.

Dan

[frisco]

Hi Frisco:
5. I am saying that 35mm film has objectively better imaging capability than digital when measured purely in terms of resolution, latitude, shadow depth and color depth. Once DSLRs reach 25 megapixels, those cameras will be equal to 35mm film in pure resolution and closer in latitude.
Dan

Hey Dan,

This is the part that is totally not correct and does not translate to the digital image. Those specs you mention above may be true if you are evaluating the film itself.
As soon as you scan/digitize the film thats when all hell can break loose and you were better off shooting native digital. Good drum scans can cost as much as $100 each and still have a few issues.
Just so nobody gets fooled here..... If a digital image is your end product to be used for prints or any other reproduction. Modern day digital DSLR will be way better than 35mm film in almost every case.

frisco

[puredrifting]

I plan on making prints directly from negatives, no digital in the chain. That's kind of my whole point, I am sick of digital. I did photography for 25 years without computers and am going back to it.

Dan

[Petrus]

(35mm film = about 25 megapixels vs. 12.3 mgeapixels with the D300)


Not true. The consensus seems to be that 35mm film yields about 6-12 MPix resolution depending on film. There are several factors at work here, just by multiplying theoretical lines/mm figures of film stock is not going to give the real life answer. Lenses are needed also, and they are not as good as film, or sensors. At the moment the sensors are about twice as sharp as best film. Actually we are already in a situation where the laws of physics make more sharpness impossible, even with best lenses diffraction is the limiting factor, not sensor sharpness. To get any benefit from 20+ MPix 35mm sensors only the best prime lenses should be used at f8 or larger apertures.

I have shot digital professionally for 7 years now, and pictures are now much sharper than they were when I was shooting mostly 100 ASA Fuji Astia & Provia. I actually tested my first EOS-1D (4.7 MPix) against EOS-1n and Provia using the same lens and framing at f8. The slide was professionally scanned to 21 MPix resolution (63MB tiff file). Comparing that with the lowly digital image the real detail resolution was almost exactly equal, digital winning overall for less noise/grain. There was no looking back for me.

Luminous landscape did a comparason of 16 MPix EOS-1Ds mkII against 645 Astia and concluded they were about equal. In the same article they found out that 5D at 12 MPix was just as sharp as Ds, as after 12 MPix or so the lenses do not resolve good enough even with full frame sensors. In that light those 20+ MPix 35mm sensor cameras are only a waste of card and HD space. There might be pixels there allright, but no real resolving power.

[Zephyrnoid]

I plan on making prints directly from negatives, no digital in the chain. That's kind of my whole point, I am sick of digital. I did photography for 25 years without computers and am going back to it.

Dan
Ok. To reiterate :
Chemical photography is Disastrous for the environment.Digital photography is MUCH less negative on the environment.
Next up. Resolution, Look and Feel and data loss. This gets ugly.
- Unless your images go from film direct to plate and are printed on a 6 color press with stochastic screen technology as gravure, nothing that you do to a 35mm frame will avoid the roughly 25% resolution loss that occurs in a lowly home scan or printing through an enlarger. I repeat. Unless you have access to Million dollar post, you will not get more than 75% of what your 35mm frame can deliver.
- Look and feel? Digital is now indistinguishable from Film. I now often introduce film like flaws ( grain for example) to get the look. everything else is the same except.......
Digital allows for MUCH wider gamma / latitude than film. Anyone casually shooting handheld available light pics knows this well.

[egproductions]

If your goal is to get the best quality possible then what you want to do is use film. As I said before, this isn't always a worthwhile workflow depending on what you shoot.

That being said film is still superior in its specs. There is no in camera interpolation or NR that is present in all digital cameras. RAW is a great format but its not a negative its an estimation of your photo. If you scan your film in using a professional grade drum scanner, you will have no problem resolving 25MP. Most of us that are looking for this type of quality are willing to spend for professional equipment.

Film is the equivelet of 25MP but remember that is a full 25MP not an interpolated 25MP coming out of todays DSLRs. Dynamic range is still far superior with film. With digital, you are stuck with the current technology but with film, you will be able to scan it in 10 years down the road and your MF negatives from today will be able to keep up with the digital cameras in 10 years from now.

Even though the specs are still better with film doesn't mean in practice its worth anything. 25MP might as well be 10MP if you are printing 4x6s because thats more resolution than paper inkjet or C-prints can resolve. Also dynamic range is nice but a good magarity of the time you don't need the extra information unless something terrible goes wrong.

Bottom line, If what you require is only the best and the most detail, stick with film for now. If you don't need the best, digital is great for convenience and not missing an oppurtunity (thats what I shoot)

[sinapps]

A few years ago, back in the good 'ol 6mp days, one of my clients hired me to shoot interiors. They did not insist on large or medium format, but became quite upset when I mentioned that I was planning to shoot digital. They heard that digital (at that time) was not nearly as good as film and were adamant that I deliver slides as the final product.

I showed up to the shoot with my trusty D100. They saw a "large" camera that appeared to be a 35mm and were pleased that I saw things their way.

I processed the 6mp images and burned them to 35mm slides with a Polaroid film recorder. Due to the resolution of that particular film recorder the images had to be downsampled by 33% prior to being burned to film.

The client was extremely pleased with the result. One of their comments was "Aren't you glad we talked you into shooting film? Couldn't get this type of quality out of digital."

[oneinfiniteloop]

A few years ago, back in the good 'ol 6mp days, one of my clients hired me to shoot interiors. They did not insist on large or medium format, but became quite upset when I mentioned that I was planning to shoot digital. They heard that digital (at that time) was not nearly as good as film and were adamant that I deliver slides as the final product.

I showed up to the shoot with my trusty D100. They saw a "large" camera that appeared to be a 35mm and were pleased that I saw things their way.

I processed the 6mp images and burned them to 35mm slides with a Polaroid film recorder. Due to the resolution of that particular film recorder the images had to be downsampled by 33% prior to being burned to film.

The client was extremely pleased with the result. One of their comments was "Aren't you glad we talked you into shooting film? Couldn't get this type of quality out of digital."

Well, and not to discount your story, most clients don't know what they're looking at.

[sinapps]

Well, and not to discount your story, most clients don't know what they're looking at.

Exactly.

Personally, I am getting better images out of my 12mp D3 than I ever did out of medium format film - going straight to print from film.

[frisco]

Hey EG,

I know we've chatted before and you know my background. I don't dought that most of what you stated has some truth to it. The problem is, It doesn't work out that way in reality.
There are ony a couple reasons I can think of to shoot film these days.
- Most important reason is if you need the "Field of View" of large format. (don't get that confused with angle of view)
- 8x10 film for a high end Still Life shot.

My clients really don't care what I shoot the job on.... They just want me to deliver what I promised..... Which is the best of my ability.

Your Quote:

***Bottom line, If what you require is only the best and the most detail, stick with film for now. If you don't need the best, digital is great for convenience and not missing an opportunity (that's what I shoot)***

This is 99% not true.

If it were true I would be shooting 80% film. I work with budgets that film, lab and scans would not be an issue.

As far as "Detail" There are times with digital I have to back of on detail and resolution. I never had that with film. With film I have never heard "It's to sharp"

Don't get me wrong.... I love film....I've probably shot well over a million dollars worth of film in my day..... I was one of the last ones to convert.... I still have all my film gear and I can shoot on anything I want.

frisco




If your goal is to get the best quality possible then what you want to do is use film. As I said before, this isn't always a worthwhile workflow depending on what you shoot.

That being said film is still superior in its specs. There is no in camera interpolation or NR that is present in all digital cameras. RAW is a great format but its not a negative its an estimation of your photo. If you scan your film in using a professional grade drum scanner, you will have no problem resolving 25MP. Most of us that are looking for this type of quality are willing to spend for professional equipment.

Film is the equivelet of 25MP but remember that is a full 25MP not an interpolated 25MP coming out of todays DSLRs. Dynamic range is still far superior with film. With digital, you are stuck with the current technology but with film, you will be able to scan it in 10 years down the road and your MF negatives from today will be able to keep up with the digital cameras in 10 years from now.

Even though the specs are still better with film doesn't mean in practice its worth anything. 25MP might as well be 10MP if you are printing 4x6s because thats more resolution than paper inkjet or C-prints can resolve. Also dynamic range is nice but a good magarity of the time you don't need the extra information unless something terrible goes wrong.

Bottom line, If what you require is only the best and the most detail, stick with film for now. If you don't need the best, digital is great for convenience and not missing an oppurtunity (thats what I shoot)

[Petrus]

"Film is better" argument sounds like it was still 2003. The Truth is that digital has already passed film both in resolution, dynamic range and saturation. By far margin.

Cost and convenience are not the only reasons no professional shoots film anymore, it is also the better quality.

I say this after doing this professionally since 1978.

[egproductions]

I hear what your saying. I love both formats but I see each one being useful for different things. I'm not arguing one is better than the other but I am arguing which is better technical quality. Aside from quality they both have pros and cons. Archival v.s. cost v.s. workflow.

When I said that if you require only the best shoot film. I still stick to that statement although I rarley see instances where only the best is actually needed or worthwile unless you are shooting billboard sized lanscapes or as you mentioned, want the large format FOV (DOF to AOV ratio) and most of the time the benefits you get with digital totally outweight and result in a better photo than the better quality of film.

You said:

As far as "Detail" There are times with digital I have to back of on detail and resolution. I never had that with film. With film I have never heard "It's to sharp"

Thats a reason to shoot film. I'm sure you never said there was too little detail with film either. Film is more organic. If you need to print a 8"x10" print from a MF digital back or MF film back the digital is going to have to be downrezed to match the DPI of the printer (interpolation) and then have digital sharpening added because the original interpolation lost some sharpness. With making a str8 from negative c-print you don't have that problem.

Clients pay attention to the important parts of a photograph not the detail. So thats why digital is useful because it lets you concentrate on the important stuff even though its sacrificing the not important stuff ever so slightly.

I'll rephrase the line you quoted from me. "If you require only the best quality (which you probaly don't) stick with film but if you want to take better pictures stick with digital"


Hey EG,

I know we've chatted before and you know my background. I don't dought that most of what you stated has some truth to it. The problem is, It doesn't work out that way in reality.
There are ony a couple reasons I can think of to shoot film these days.
- Most important reason is if you need the "Field of View" of large format. (don't get that confused with angle of view)
- 8x10 film for a high end Still Life shot.

My clients really don't care what I shoot the job on.... They just want me to deliver what I promised..... Which is the best of my ability.

Your Quote:

***Bottom line, If what you require is only the best and the most detail, stick with film for now. If you don't need the best, digital is great for convenience and not missing an opportunity (that's what I shoot)***

This is 99% not true.

If it were true I would be shooting 80% film. I work with budgets that film, lab and scans would not be an issue.

As far as "Detail" There are times with digital I have to back of on detail and resolution. I never had that with film. With film I have never heard "It's to sharp"

Don't get me wrong.... I love film....I've probably shot well over a million dollars worth of film in my day..... I was one of the last ones to convert.... I still have all my film gear and I can shoot on anything I want.

frisco

[monkeyking]

As reported elsewhere here-

White House goes Digital w/Obama !

http://i.gizmodo.com/5131532/the-first-official-presidential-portrait-taken-with-a-digital-camera

[egproductions]

As reported elsewhere here-

White House goes Digital w/Obama !

http://i.gizmodo.com/5131532/the-first-official-presidential-portrait-taken-with-a-digital-camera

Do you believe the 5D mark II is the best digital camera available? Doesn't mean they chose their camera based on what was the best quality is all i'm saying.

[frisco]

Do you believe the 5D mark II is the best digital camera available? Doesn't mean they chose their camera based on what was the best quality is all i'm saying.

I believe that Pete Souza has a "Deal" with Canon.

frisco