Having shot both professionally, there is nothing, I mean NOTHING, in the 35mm format, as sharp and highly defined as film shot on a Leica M3 with a 50mm Sumicron. It simply can't be beat. However, I love the instant gratification that digital gives.
Film vs Digital
(113 posts) (45 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
Digital doesn't come close to film's dynamic range. I've shot scenes on film that would have given me nothing but blown out highlights with a digital camera. Film also has a nice color depth to it that I have only seen the D3 and 5D2 come close to but they still can't match. Digital cameras also can't get deep red or yellow right without blowing them out.
Digital on the other hand has passed fast films in grain/noise control. You can't shoot in low light and get smooth clean pictures on film at ISO 1600, 3200, 6400 like you can with the D3/D700/5D2.
How exactly are you going to combine film with digital photos? If you scan film then it becomes a digital photo and there's no point in comparing the two then.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I just had my first go at film last month (picked up an F90 for under a hundred bucks). Last weekend I spent my first hours in a dark room. My overal experience was very positive, it's just an entirely different way of taking pictures. I noticed that I pay for more attention to every shot I take, really observe the scene better and try out different viewpoints and compositions before taking the shot. Because obviously you only have 36 and each one is going to cost you. Then the developing and printing, it's quite a time investment compared to digital, but somehow the reward of having a good looking print is so much higher than with digital. Also, the colours (well, black and white) look much better if you ask me. The black in digital prints is just not quite the same as it is in film prints.
That being said, I don't think I'll all of a sudden be taking all my shots on film now. As I said, it just costs more time. For assignments I'll stick to digital, but if I'm just wandering the streets on my own for fun / myself, I'm definitely taking my F90. I could really recommend picking up an SLR to everyone, it actually makes you a more conscious photographer.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Why do old/classic cars that are physically inferior in almost every way to their modern equivalents, make so much money at auction? Because in spite of all their failings and idiosyncrasies, they have something greatly prized that their modern counterparts have not.......SOUL. They are better, because they are not as good! Film makes you slow down and consentrate on the shot, because it's potentially more difficult to get that "wow" of a shot, when you get it you feel much more impressed than you do with digital. Think about it this way, do you get the same satisfaction completing a computer game on the easy level, as you do on the super hard? If not why not? You've completed the game haven't you? It's the increased challenge that makes it more of an accomplishment. Just like driving an old car with no electronic stability this or traction that.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hi all,
All good stuff.
After starting in a dark room (vinegary smell [acetic acid - stop bath - those were the days]) in the late 50's, using an Argus C3, a Rollei, and spending a fortune to learn how to do it, as much as I could on my own. (finally an F)
Then getting Uncle Sam to pick up the tab to really show me how to the tune of tens of thousands. We were burning hundreds of rolls a week in Vietnam, and a few cameras and lenses a month.
Well. I think that's my point. It was and is costly.
Tens of thousands to get really good at it. You get my point.
There isn't a faster, more efficient and effective way to learn how to make pictures than digital.
I don't really want to sound like I'm bashing film, I'm sure I've shot far, far over a 100 rolls a week 30 years running - on someone else's dime. ;-)
I won't shoot film again, I don't have any nostalgia for it. You young whippersnappers go for it and enjoy it! (I might have an F70 somewhere...)
My best (from an old foggy),
Mike
Posted 2 years ago # -
Some good points being made about film and the way photographers use it.
I always said if you want to find out how good a photographer is ask them to do a shoot with one roll of HP5 and see what images they come back with.
I see blogs/sites all over the net where people who call themselves photographers are using their camera as a machinegun. They're taking thousands of frames at one event, then boast about getting one image they think is great after they've adjusted the hell out of it in Lightroom?
I'd love to use more film but financially it no longer makes any sense for me, darkrooms have closed and costs of materials have rocketed.
SkintBrit talked about "soul" and I think he's right to an extent, part of the reason for that is because a 1930's Leica can still use the latest 35mm film. A D1 that's only 10 years old is little use to anyone because the technology is old and is in the camera not the film.
I think my D3 has soul, but I don't think my D80 did.
My Ricoh GX200 has soul but my friend's Panasonic FS10 doesn't.
Maybe it's a personal thing?
@Bram try niksoftware's Silver Efex for B&W images from your digital files, it's brilliant.Posted 2 years ago # -
I love shooting with a 4x5 loaded with tmax film for B/W Landscapes, the results are great compared to digital.
But I prefer the processing part of digital over film any day.
Posted 2 years ago # -
@Mike
It is interesing to see a totally opposite opinion from someone who has started with film.
However one thing that I discovered after I started shooting film and working in a darkroom is that you start to pay much more attention to what you shoot. I'm sure that you can also achieve the effect of not using your camera as a machine gun but when each shot costs you learn to step back and think. Of course it hasn't all transferred to the way how I shoot digital but I think that it has aided me more in taking my time and giving some more thought to what I shoot.
Ok, I do admit, that this might have happened to me without the film camera but I have no way of finding that out so I choose to believe that my FM2 helped me a lot.
More on the subject of film ... it seems to be coming back a bit, as Kodak recently reported a considerable increase in film sales. I guess that if you wish to be different today you choose film :) I did :)
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hi Monty,
I guess I'm saying I've had my time in the trenches with film and film cameras.
While there is certainly more resolution in film, it really depends upon what you'll do with what you've got. My don't end up more than 16"x20", but a few do. Surprisingly, my DX cameras do fine, although I did post a question about a D700 upgrade (which I doubt I'll do).
When I was a very young fellow and I do mean young, I put all of my spending money in photo supplies - film and darkroom. It was expensive.
The Army experience was exhaustive, both as a shooter and in the darkroom as a technician. That experience was expensive, too, to someone, but not to me.
I couldn't possibly pay for it out of my pocket. Frankly, I don't know anyone personally who could.
That's point that is often missed. Digital photography is a very democratic art, where film is sort of elite, certainly out of the hands of everyman, perhaps even showy. It may well have a place, I don't knock it - I've shot countless thousands of negatives and positives - but digital photography really does satisfy _most_ photographic needs.
All of them? Heck no. But then, none of us, as shooters satisfy all photographic styles either. That's what makes the art, art.
But I, for one, am done with film and the darkroom.
My best,
Mike
Posted 2 years ago # -
Mike Gunter said:
While there is certainly more resolution in film,Is there really, outside B/W lithographic film, more resolution available than the D3X in color 35mm film, especially once printed?
Velvia is the highest resolution slide film, with a spec of 160 lines per mm.
That's 5760x3840 or 22mega pixels.
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/pdf/velvia_50_datasheet.pdfThe t-grain (yuck) modern B/W films with their funky small grains are in the 130-150 lines per mm resolving power range.
EDIT: Now a D3x isn't hitting 24.5 MP of resolving power, either, so don't get me wrong. I'm saying that resolution is one test the OP is very very unlikely to be able to demonstrate without inadvertently showing something other than what he is claiming. 160 lines/mm on velvia, like I said, is bench test with a projected grid. Real world shooting, even with a tripod and a great lens, you're unlikely to see that.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I shoot film for many reasons, but one of them is that I can carry my little Olympus 35SP, a camera that fits in a jacket pocket, and still have a coupled/combined rangefinder, a piercingly sharp 42mm/1.7 lens, and a camera that will not illicit a reaction from most people. Oh and it has both spot metering and averaging metering, manual or programmed auto, a pc sync socket and hot shoe, and a shutter that will sync at 1/500. All that in the size of a Canon G10 or Nikon S7000.
show me that feature set in a digital camera of equivalent size and weight and notice that the 35SP came out in the 70s and costs between $150-300 used.
that's the gearhead in me talking.
the real reason? I like the results I get.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm very hate film. It's just a toy for rich troll.
I invested a lot of money for film system when D2H is just 4 megapixels, a lot of master tell me film is better than that D2H but not.
Today I never get a money from film cameras and lost a lot of money, I lost more than 10,000 USD.
And now all of my money came from digital cameras.
Posted 2 years ago # -
ChrisLange said:
I shoot film for many reasons, but one of them is that I can carry my little Olympus 35SP, a camera that fits in a jacket pocket, and still have a coupled/combined rangefinder, a piercingly sharp 42mm/1.7 lens, and a camera that will not illicit a reaction from most people. Oh and it has both spot metering and averaging metering, manual or programmed auto, a pc sync socket and hot shoe, and a shutter that will sync at 1/500. All that in the size of a Canon G10 or Nikon S7000.show me that feature set in a digital camera of equivalent size and weight and notice that the 35SP came out in the 70s and costs between $150-300 used.
that's the gearhead in me talking.
the real reason? I like the results I get.
Yup great little camera .. I had one of them.. The 42 mm FOV sure grows on you.. thats why I am waiting for the 28mm dx prime :-)
Posted 2 years ago # -
I was getting pretty good with my "Canon AE-1"/"50mm F1.4" (which I still have) and decided I would go for the pictures of my lifetime. I planned and collected money for two years, quit my job and got a bunch of ISO 25 films among others that I kept in the freezer until my departure for Hawaii. Once there, spent a crazy amount of time planning every shots, measuring light, waiting for the right conditions, running all the settings possibilities in my head before any clicks, hiking close to active volcanos, hanging on life threatening cliffs, camping at impossible places, going days without food, the whole shebang. Back home while healing my injuries, I carefully picked the best professional shop I could find just to see half of my negatives being scrapped during development. The ass… offered me a refund of new films. I am still angry 25 years later.
Films? No thanks.... ever... I would rather quit photography instead...
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hey guys thanks!! Sorry for posting so late.. Someone asked me how I'm going to combine digital photo and film photo. I was thinking of printing digital photo in a transparencies and use the print with the photo paper and film under the enlarger and create digital-film photo.
Posted 2 years ago # -
It sounds like the animosity towards film comes from user error or general incompetence during some part of the process. Either use a good lab or do it yourself. Film is not a waste, by any means. I wouldn't use a Canon AE-1 for that type of photography either, Pierre, for all the agony you went through you may as well have been shooting an 8x10" view camera.
Posted 2 years ago # -
HotDuckZ said:
I'm very hate film. It's just a toy for rich troll.I invested a lot of money for film system when D2H is just 4 megapixels, a lot of master tell me film is better than that D2H but not.
Today I never get a money from film cameras and lost a lot of money, I lost more than 10,000 USD.
And now all of my money came from digital cameras.
I'm by no means rich and I'd like to believe that I'm not a troll either :D Thanks for the colourful comparison though.
I do agree that if you started with film and invested a lot of money into it then you won't be getting it back. But to start now from scratch, when you can use a darkroom, then it is pretty cheap. I got my FM2 with 2 good lenses for like $160 dollars. I'm now going to get a F100 for the same price, a 20mm 2.8 Nikkor for 400$ and the 1.8 85mm D for about 300-400$. That is 5 good primes and two bodies for a bit over 1000$.
Especially here film is becoming very popular among students who can't afford proper digital gear. If you go for Russian gear, you get it for $100 and have money left over for film too.
@Mike Gunter
I do fully understand where you are coming from. For me film is something new and interesting, especially with the work done in the darkroom. The joy from getting a good shot and printing it they way that you reaelly want to do it, gives a nice sense of fulfilment. I know that there is nothing nice, new and shiny about film and the darkroom for those of you who have been doing it for years.
I don't think that there actually is a point of arguing over whether film is good or bad, especially if the sides consist of a) former healy film users and b) people who have just discovered it. Of course if the b group continues with film for the next decade or two, then the sides will most probably reach an agreement :)
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hi Monty,
Goodness, no, I don't mean to argue at all, or be argumentative. My 'education', if one could call it that, and if one could put a price tag on it, would run into the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. And like Pierre, I have more than one sad story to tell at the end of the day. Unfortunately, I will confess that _I_ am the one to blame more than once with a crumpled film in the tank or air bubbles on the film or too hot or what ever. Mistakes happen. I would love to blame someone else, but...
I thought after posting the other day about what you said about your due consideration over one exposure (my words - please forgive my abbreviated words), however in the business I was in we purposely shot rolls of film to arrive at _one_ shot to tell the story, almost counter intuitive to the notion of building a photograph, but I would suggest that it isn't.
A lot of folks thing that good photo journalists (and good photographers in general) are lucky. I think that luck finds good photographers. They (the good photographers) are prepared, have done their homework about their subjects, the subjects surroundings, the stories they are doing, the backgrounds the subjects are in, and have their cameras prepared and a good notion of the story they are telling and for whatever they are facing. They aren't afraid to ask the subjects to move, or move to the subjects or go wide. Good photo journalists get there early.
The luckiest are the earliest. ;-)
My best,
Mike
Posted 2 years ago # -
ChrisLange said: It sounds like the animosity towards film...
In the episode I describe, having paid 10 times more for a better body would have made what difference? The "incompetence during some part of the process" is exactly what got me so pissed and why I love digital so much. Users make errors with digital too and preferring digital over film has nothing to do with animosity so what is your point exactly?
If someone wants to publish a book using only a typewriter and their hand-made paper, that’s their choice, but after having tasted the convenience of computers and text editors, typewriters would never be my choice and much less making my own paper. Beside, I don't see how that would automatically make a better story.
In my opinion, when comparing digital and film, the convenience of digital far out weight any marginal advantage films could have and I don’t see why only the most purist scientist can claim to be true artists nor why photography must be painful to be valuable.
Posted 2 years ago # -
All I'm saying is don't discount film as an obsolete medium...
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hi all,
I like Pierre's comments better than mine. He sums it up better than me. And Chris, I don't _discount_ film_ as a medium. I don't use it any more. That's all.
I find digital a better fit for me. I likely would (and have) advise folks to steer clear of it for economic reasons, if they are serious about doing a lot of shooting. In the long run, film will cost a lot more.
My best,
Mike
Posted 2 years ago # -
Mike, I think this isn't such a black and white (funny eh...) choice. I consider myself a digital photographer, but shooting film is like a hobby on the side. I wouldn't consider shooting film at an event or for an assignment, but it's a learnful experience to shoot film when you have the time. I actually think that since I started shooting film my digital captures have become better as well. I need less shots to arrive at the shot I want. Also, with regard to various options and effects in Photoshop, it's useful to know their analog origins.
However you're absolutely correct considering money issues and also the learning curves of both mediums. However, as I stated at the start of this post, no one has to pick between the two mediums, anyone can (Dutch expression:) eat from two enbankments :)Posted 2 years ago # -
Film: high-speed, black-and-white negative.
I recently bought a used, mint-condition, Nikon N90s 35mm SLR. Thanks to the popularity of DSLRs, excellent-condition, used 35mm SLRs can now be had for a fraction of their original price. It's just awesome to finally be able to use all of my lenses on a "full-frame" body. Plus, I've really missed those big, bright viewfinders of film SLRs. I bought the N90s specifically for shooting grainy, gritty, high-speed, 35mm black-and-white negative. Nothing looks quite like real film grain. Nothing. Only shot a few rolls of Tri-X so far with my N90s, but I'm really excited to try the following:
Kodak T-Max P3200
Ilford Delta 3200Due to its expense, shooting film imparts an added discipline to composing and exposing each frame. Add the under-/ over-exposure, and under-/ over-development tonal curve manipulation possible when shooting black-and-white negative under the Zone System, and you have quite an expansive, artistically expressive palette. I love how B+W negative can have lots of grain, yet still retain a high degree of "accutence." When I load up my N90s with a roll of 135 film, I'm definitely in "artistic-mode." As soon as I can start shooting again with more frequency, I plan to shoot more B+W film, then have selected negs printed on real silver paper.
Digital: everything else.
The benefits are obvious. I've gone from a D70, to a D90, and most recently, to a new D7000 (with only one blue pixel!). Next year, hopefully a new FX body. Colorimetry has been vastly improved over the first pro DSLRs, such as Nikon's first entry, the D1, and the Kodak/Nikon hybrids preceding it. And, the dynamic range in DSLRs is improving with each generation. Plus, HDR techniques are now readily available to the average DSLR shooter to help mitigate that particular deficiency of digital acquisition. Of course, superior ISO speeds, cost, convenience, and immediate exposure feedback, all have been of tremendous assistance to digital-age photographers. Digital has finally surpassed film in many respects, with the exception of both dynamic range, and the "organic" aesthetic of real film grain.
Nevertheless, I would still encourage any "exclusively-digital," beginning photographers to also consider picking up a used Nikon N90 or Nikon F100 35mm SLR. Used Nikon N90 bodies can be had for as little as $35-$50 (an incredible bargain, since they originally sold for about $1,000). Used Nikon F100 bodies sell anywhere from about $100-$200 (a super deal, since new F100s are still being sold at B+H for $750). And, if you look hard enough, many can be found in mint, "open-box" kinda condition (many old-school photo hobbyists appeared to really baby these things).
Posted 2 years ago # -
blckcat said:
Hi, sorry for bringing this old thread but I need to know something for my college photography project.That's okay--I like this thread!
blckcat said:
So, my question would be simply what can film camera make that DSLR can't?"Film grain."
blckcat said:
I'm trying to combine DSLR and Film photographs. But to make it interesting, I want to use each of the format's only characteristics. What I mean is that I want to use photographs that only film can produce and what DSLR can only produce.I think an interesting comparison would be a high-ISO, black-and-white negative image that really accentuates the film's grain structure for artistic effect. You could contrast that with a highly chroma-saturated digital image, shot at a very low ISO, using a cranked "vivid" in-camera picture setting (then apply additional Photoshop tweaking for an even more extreme effect). You would have a grainy B+W shot, and a silky-smooth, low-noise (i.e., "grainless"), super chroma-saturated color shot.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Digital can't be toned (legitimately toned, I mean. Try sticking an inkjet print into a selenium or gold toning bath).
Digital's definition of "archival" is a joke, an archivally processed and toned silver print has a projected lifespan of at least 500 years if stored properly.
Tonal scales are reduced in digital, especially compared to medium and large format films. Compare a D3X print to an enlargement from an 8x10" negative, no contest.
You want super chroma-saturation and no grain? Fujichrome Velvia 50 in medium or large format.
Bayer filter, doesn't exist in a film based workflow, period the end.
Freedom from batteries. I've watched DSLR users lose battery power while my Rollei just keeps on going.
Economic (yes I'm going against the general consensus that film is economically unviable): Used Rolleiflex or Hasselblad 500/CM kit, $1000 maximum. $1000 worth of film (250 rolls of Delta 400, 3000 frames worth). Process it yourself and print it yourself and darkroom costs will add up to maybe another 1000 dollars at the most.
so far our initial outlay is less than half the cost of a D3X, and we're already printing and processing images that hold about 50mp worth of information.
if you are doing this commercially, you comp the film and lab costs to the client, so it really doesn't matter. at that point, you could also have a lab make your proofs and prints for you.
congratulations, you have a top end photography system and workflow for less than 3/4 the cost of a top end camera body, which will be replaced in another 4 years for another $7000.
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
