|
|
O jeesus, don't start this debate you two.
It's always seemed so idiotic strange to me, this debate of film vs digital, from both sides of the coin. A good quality image hasn't got jack shit to do with obsessing about how many megapixels your camera has, or how sharp that glass you've got is. Neither is it by being an elitist ANALOG ONLY type person, thumbing your nose at anyone who dare mention they like shooting digital, while slowly turning into the hunchback of notre dame in your bathroom turned impromptu darkroom over your chemicals while an original vinyl of Led Zeppelin's first album plays in the corner.
You get quality images by thinking about composition, lighting, exposure etc, and by thinking about how those photos will look aesthetically, which can mean a slew of different looks, not to mention capturing things like emotion, atmosphere; certain feelings n shit. Doesn't matter in the fucking slightest if you're using your iphone camera or a Nikon D850, a Kodak Instamatic or a Hasselblad H6D-50c.
Posted by Mr. Bitey
I am not photographer by any means, but exploring has definitely sparked an interest. I have to ask, why would anyone use film in this age? I by no means am being critical or mocking, I just want to understand.
Isn't a good digital camera a high enough resolution that our eye/brain can't tell (I was once told humans can't tell the difference past 10mp, no clue if there is any truth to that)?
Isn't digital easier to manipulate in editing software?
Finally, for those of you that shoot with both, how are you deciding which shot would be better on film?
|
It's just a lot of fun shooting with film, simple as that imo. It's another avenue to get creative with. Can't really add more than what's already been said.
Purveyor of Sinister Whimsy to the Wretched | |
Posted by Sheavy
O jeesus, don't start this debate you two.
It's always seemed so idiotic strange to me, this debate of film vs digital, from both sides of the coin. A good quality image hasn't got jack shit to do with obsessing about how many megapixels your camera has, or how sharp that glass you've got is. Neither is it by being an elitist ANALOG ONLY type person, thumbing your nose at anyone who dare mention they like shooting digital, while slowly turning into the hunchback of notre dame in your bathroom turned impromptu darkroom over your chemicals while an original vinyl of Led Zeppelin's first album plays in the corner.
You get quality images by thinking about composition, lighting, exposure etc, and by thinking about how those photos will look aesthetically, which can mean a slew of different looks, not to mention capturing things like emotion, atmosphere; certain feelings n shit. Doesn't matter in the fucking slightest if you're using your iphone camera or a Nikon D850, a Kodak Instamatic or a Hasselblad H6D-50c.
It's just a lot of fun shooting with film, simple as that imo. It's another avenue to get creative with. Can't really add more than what's already been said.
|
I agree film has it's place especially at the large format level.
10 years ago though I saw some using sensors to replace film on large format cams but it was expensive and no in cam processing.
At the FF vs 35mm film level the shift favors digital hands down. High Q FF digitals (not procams) are much more affordable now.
The debate about the unlimited color/hue range of film is completely moot once you convert it into the digital realm for printing. Add to that I doubt people can even see those subtle differences when you get to the 48 16 bit resolution level. My color/hue perception is at the top end of the 1% of the population and I like to put that pure analog film throughput exposed on paper vs printed pure digital to the test... never had that opportunity.
&
Monitor color/hue resolution has always been an issue even on calibrated monitors.
Gray scale film vs digital is no issue at all because the human eye is relatively insensitive to gray scale. Digital far exceeds the eye's ability to perceive subtle changes in it even at the 16 8 bit level.
Of coar$e getting a high dollar u$ed film cam has something to be said for it if you're dog poor.
If you don't shoot much, film may be attractive.
Obviously you will need a computer for digital images and a good backup solution; a few don't have even a laptop.
Plus you need to learn that technology.
Other than those considerations unless I had a specific need for a film cam I would invest my time and money in digital.
Mistakes with digital cost you time but not film. Results are near real time making learning easier.
The Hubble telescope is film, right?
Either one is time intensive with a steep learning curve...
[last edit 1/25/2019 4:25 PM by blackhawk - edited 1 times]
Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in.
| |
Posted by Sheavy
certain feelings n shit.
|
That. Right there. LOL.
Seriously though, I appreciate everyone's input. I never intended to start a debate. Perhaps a more direct question would have been "Why do YOU use film?"? I couldn't care less whether you think you know it all, or nothing, or whether you think someone else knows it all or nothing.
None the less - I am getting an grasp on why some choose to use film, and that is all I was really looking for. I am gaining an interest in photography, I am considering replacing the cell phone with a DSLR. I have learned that film probably isn't for me, at least not now if ever.
Thanks to all for their input! I value everyone's opinion, as this was more of a poll then who knows what.
Give abandonment a reason for its sacrificial reclamation to nature. Love it. Remember it. Take a picture. Share it. Leave the decay to nature.
Lifetime member of The Anti-MyInstaTubeTweetFace consortium. | |
For me, I shoot film for a number of reasons:
1) Digital is too expensive for what I want to do, which is really, really large prints for my gallery shows. At that scale, you're looking at $80,000+ in digital medium format gear, and it still won't have the resolution of a $5 piece of 4x5 film.
2) Film still has a look that isn't replicated digital sensors. It just... looks digital. I have yet to see a large print taken with a digital camera any kind (and yes I look at a lot) that comes close to a film look. The limitations of digital are especially noticeable when you are doing prints at the scale that I am and still want a 1" viewing distance.
3) Digital makes people sloppy. If you can shoot everything, you will shoot everything. Spray and pray is a phrase for a reason. Get better with limitations that aren't present in digital, unless you're loading a 1gb card into a 50mp camera.
I shoot digital for a number of reasons:
1) I'm lazy. Digital is just so much easier sometimes and I can't be bothered to put in the work to shoot with my film gear.
2) When I don't know what I want to shoot with my film gear, I might take some test framing shots with my digital gear.
3) If I'm on a paid shoot, and volume is going to be a question, or time.
Why I wouldn't shoot film:
1) 35mm is pretty much a dead format, unfortunately. I don't see the value in shooting that small vs. digital, other than for the look (which I don't discount). I do shoot 120 though, and that's a nice small format (by my standards).
Why I wouldn't shoot digital:
1) Hard drives fail way more easily than film deteriorates (if you don't leave it out in the sun).
"Great architecture has only two natural enemies: water and stupid men." - Richard Nickel | |
Posted by yokes
1) Hard drives fail way more easily than film deteriorates (if you don't leave it out in the sun).
|
I've never had an enterprise class hdd fail or a RAM* stick for that matter.
Use only enterprise class hhd's for data backup and make sure they are within their operating temp range before spin up, and run cool when in operation.
Protect from vibration and impact especially when spun up.
*Always protect from ESD when handling and storing them. Never touch the electrical contacts with your fingers!
Keep all magnets (including speakers) at least 2 feet or more from them at all times.
Retire them before their estimated service life.
Best to have the OS and data on separate hdds if possible on your computer.
Best to have good surge protector on the computer and all attached devices.
Have at least 2 copies on data hdd outside of the computer and at least one in another location.
Store in a fireproof, earth grounded box; near lighting strikes can and do wipe or destroy unshielded drives.
Never connect a backup hdd to a malware compromised computer.
You can lose everything in a second to malware.
Keep a cloned copy of the computers OS and all critical programs except antivirus to restore OS if crashed or compromised. Store and isolate this away from the computer.
Do a full wipe all compromised discs and drives before reloading and attempting to use.
Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in.
| |
Posted by blackhawk
I've never had an enterprise class hdd fail or a RAM* stick for that matter.
|
I'm so very happy for you. I have, both, and it sucks. Of course, I've also had film fuck up, too. I am just more zen about photography.. shit will happen and sometimes you lose things.
"Great architecture has only two natural enemies: water and stupid men." - Richard Nickel | |
Posted by yokes
I am just more zen about photography.. shit will happen and sometimes you lose things.
|
 Hah, interesting to read this. After starting to shoot film, I also got way more relaxed concerning this.
brokenview.net (Everything) | brokenview.org (Portfolio) | |
Posted by yokes
I'm so very happy for you. I have, both, and it sucks. Of course, I've also had film fuck up, too. I am just more zen about photography.. shit will happen and sometimes you lose things.
|
People say "digital (of anything) is forever" without mentioning the caveats: 1) digital media is far from everlasting, and is prone to wholesale failure; and 2) digital can be "forever" if one engages in a regimen of backup for forever.
Which then does bring us to one of the pros (and maybe cons, i.e. theft/piracy) of digital: that duplication is high-fidelity, lossless, and relatively effortless.
My own approach is run a RAID-ish w/parity (done some version of this for many years), and subscribe to an automated cloud backup service (Backblaze, done this for the last few years). Backblaze is also providing a public service (a la Roger Cicala of LensRentals) given their unique position as mass consumer of storage medium with no ties to a particular manufacturer. They publish annually drive failure data based on their massive pools, which is infinitely more telling than any MTBF specs a drive manufacturer will provide.
I personally switched from my preference for Western Digital to specific HGST models that have demonstrated particular longevity. This was no small inertia for this as I still remember the IBM "Deathstars" (which comes from the same entity, then then turned into Hitachi, then HGST/WD).
Anyways, point is... digital can be *relatively* secure and durable. Or at least secure and durable enough for me.
[last edit 1/25/2019 8:54 PM by dtewsacrificial - edited 2 times]
| |
Posted by yokes
I'm so very happy for you. I have, both, and it sucks. Of course, I've also had film fuck up, too. I am just more zen about photography.. shit will happen and sometimes you lose things.
|
Had I started with and invested in film equipment I probably feel more as you do.
The learning curve for either one is high.
I've lost hhd's both from physical failure and had data a loss on a back up clone OS Raptor (too close to an audio speaker, my bad).
The enterprise class ones have served me well. Not having them in service all the time helps too although they are built to run 24/7.
Out of about 35 or so hdds only 2 to physical failure.
One was a WD IDE hhd known to have longevity issues.
Lol, the other one was on a dropped operating laptop (my bad).
Meh, shit always happens... many times it's not what you thought it be.
Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in.
| |
Ive been shooting pretty much only film since I started. Its more fun and rewarding to me and thats really all I care about. I couldn't care less about tech specs.
https://www.instagram.com/chris.kiely/
ttp://www.flickr.com/photos/adv_/ | |
My preference is medium format film. But I also shoot digital, simply because of the cost associated with film.
Shooting with my TLR is an entirely different process than shooting digitally, and I enjoy it a lot more. My TLR gives me a lot of limitations - one fixed lens, 12 shots per roll (each roll costing me $10-15 plus processing/postage), etc., so you are forced to think of alternative ways to frame your subject since you can't zoom in or out.
I really miss printing in the colour darkroom, which was even more costly and time consuming (colour correction can take hours - approx 10 mins per test strip, colour correct, wait for next test strip, compare, add 10Y, repeat). But the whole thing is kind of a meditative process, and for what I can afford, I can't come close to film in terms of quality.
I like my 60D, and I shoot more digital than I do film these days, but that simply comes down to a cost issue. In terms of printing, the last public accessible colour darkroom that I know of in Canada shut down in 2014. And that makes me really sad (not that I'm anywhere near it these days anyways...).
"Adventure is the respectful pursuit of trouble." - Expedition Overland | |
Gallery44 has a public darkroom still.
"Great architecture has only two natural enemies: water and stupid men." - Richard Nickel | |
Posted by yokes
Gallery44 has a public darkroom still.
|
Not colour, they only do black and white. Image Works was the only colour darkroom that could be rented out, IIRC they gave their equipment to OCAD. I believe Ryerson also did the same. The only universities I know of in Canada that still do analog colour are NSCAD, OCAD, Emily Carr and Concordia.
OCAD used to do a summer course that was basically open studio for the colour darkroom, but I no longer see it listed on their continuing education page.
I have my own b/w darkroom setup, it's just the colour I don't have the space/money/equipment for.
"Adventure is the respectful pursuit of trouble." - Expedition Overland | |
We used to have a colour projector there, but maybe its gone ... I don't go in that room very often, so dunno.
"Great architecture has only two natural enemies: water and stupid men." - Richard Nickel | |
For me, film is just too expensive to be sustainable, regardless of how much I like it. I was able to buy a really nice digital camera, plus lenses and a computer for way cheaper than an equivalent film body, plus enlarger, chemical trays, chemical, and enough rolls of film to produce 100,000+ photographs.
The big question you need to answer is, "What am I doing with my photography?" For what I do, I counted the cost years ago and film lost ...hard.
That doesn't mean I don't use film anymore, I just use it as a novelty now because it's still fun to see what comes out long after a shoot, when it's finally developed.
"The time of getting fame for your name on its own is over. Artwork that is only about wanting to be famous will never make you famous. Fame is a by-product of doing something else. You don't go to a restaurant and order a meal because you want to have a shit."
-Banksy
The work of FuriousD: https://www.flickr...photos/opdendries/ | |
I'm late to this thread, wondering if someone could help me, I recently acquired a Nikon N60 film cam from the girlfriend, who never really learned how to use it. In programmable auto (P) mode in low light, the readout doesnt give me a shutter speed, it just says "Lo". I can take the shot, but I would like to know what shutter speed the camera used, for bracketing purposes,to increase my odds of getting a good shot. In low light I'd expect to see 15 sec or 20 sec or whatever. In better light, I get the aperture and shutter speeds like I'd expect. I know I could use aperture priority or shutter priority or fully manual, but I like to get an idea of what the camera thinks. If anyone could help me out, PM me please, I know its a very basic (stupid) question, but I have 0 experience with film, and want to learn. Thanks
http://www.flickr....otos/96576503@N00/ | |
Posted by offlimits
...wondering if someone could help me, I recently acquired a Nikon N60 film cam from the girlfriend
|
Not sure myself, but a quick search on the Googles found me the manual for it.
http://www.cameram..._pdf/nikon_n60.pdf
"The time of getting fame for your name on its own is over. Artwork that is only about wanting to be famous will never make you famous. Fame is a by-product of doing something else. You don't go to a restaurant and order a meal because you want to have a shit."
-Banksy
The work of FuriousD: https://www.flickr...photos/opdendries/ | |
I'm a 19 year-old college student who does a lot of film photography. I started in digital as a means to a creative outlet, and then I found an old Kodak Brownie Bullseye in my aunt's house. She told me I could have it, though she was pretty sure I'd only ever use it for decoration. Then I got an old Ricoh 35mm from the 80s and fell in love. I now have over 30 functioning film cameras in a dozen different formats and I have used them all. In the era of instant and digital there's something raw and visceral about shooting on film.
Shooting on film forces you to be extremely deliberate with your shots. An amateur digital photographer can heighten their skills twice as fast shooting on film solely because of the thought that has to go into each and every image. Each shot is carefully picked, exposure precisely set, and framing exactly aligned. The skills I've been able to apply to my digital photography because of film photography, to me, are priceless.
I don't just shoot on film; I also develop my own film. Developing is the equivalent of today's Photoshop or Lightroom processes. You have the ability to change saturations/color grading and exposure levels from alternative processing and pushing and pulling. I was not nearly as likely to be shooting on film until I started developing my own. It's effectively doubled the ability to manipulate the creative processes, and made me want to use more film.
Personally I've noticed shooting on low ISO (100-400) medium format film can be just as beautiful and precise as an entry level DSLR, but this also in part depends on your scanner, especially if you don't make your own prints from the negatives or transparency film you use. Pushing and pulling during processing also have profound effects on the quality of the image (developing longer to decrease grain on a traditionally higher ISO shot).
Disadvantages: buying a cheap film camera will generally give you the same results as a cheap digital camera. You get out of it what you put into it. I recommend older cameras (especially if they're 35mm). The newer the model, the more likely it was made by mass production. When metal parts become plastic they break faster. Older models are less likely to brick. I shoot on a Minolta from '68 and it is an absolute unit. The price can really come to bite you in the ass, especially if you pay $16 on top of every roll you buy just to get it developed. That's why I recommend developing your own. It does take time and patience, so I don't recommend it for commercial use (ie don't commit to being a film photographer for business unless you've got a team and money to burn (there's money to be made on it too though I suppose).
TLDR: People still shoot film for mostly artistic purposes, but it can be a great way to learn more about photography in general. Be ready to suffer the cost of a few walletectomies though.
Feel free to PM me with more questions.
Just a college kid with a film camera | |
Posted by offlimits
I'm late to this thread, wondering if someone could help me, I recently acquired a Nikon N60 film cam from the girlfriend, who never really learned how to use it. In programmable auto (P) mode in low light, the readout doesnt give me a shutter speed, it just says "Lo". I can take the shot, but I would like to know what shutter speed the camera used, for bracketing purposes,to increase my odds of getting a good shot. In low light I'd expect to see 15 sec or 20 sec or whatever. In better light, I get the aperture and shutter speeds like I'd expect. I know I could use aperture priority or shutter priority or fully manual, but I like to get an idea of what the camera thinks. If anyone could help me out, PM me please, I know its a very basic (stupid) question, but I have 0 experience with film, and want to learn. Thanks
|
The easiest way to fix this is to just shoot in full manual or shutter priority (if the camera has it). P mode will auto set your aperture and shutter speed, so that might be why it doesn't display. My guess is though that if it says low then your aperture is all the way open and you're below 1/30th of a second.
Just a college kid with a film camera | |
Why film, well recently i've started shooting old glass plates like seriously out of date, one of the earliest i've shot had to have been from 1920 or so. Of course the irony is I use a digital camera to "scan" the plates.
But i'll tell you, nothing digital even comes close to the feeling of pulling a plate out of the tank, finding its exposed reasonably well, the emulsion slightly peeling on the sides, the imperfections. Nothing comes close to seeing your picture on a piece of glass.
Yes theres easier ways of taking pictures, and digital is definitely that option, but I can't say i've ever felt the same way pulling images off my digital camera as I have pulling images out of the developing tank.
For me film is very much a hands on experience, you are involved in the whole process using your own hands the entire time, From loading the film into the camera to pulling it out of the tank at the end of developing. A true analog experience.
Digital is very much clinical and predictable, and thats great too. But the unknown in using film is part of the attraction for me, frustrating, imperfect, but a constant journey of discovery and learning. Nothing better.
So thats why film I think. Yeah.
|
Add a poll to this thread
This thread is one of your Favourites. Click to make normal.Click to make this thread a Favourite.
| This thread is in a public category, and can't be made private. |
Powered by AvBoard AvBoard version 1.5 alpha
Page Generated In: 93 ms
|
|
Ethics
