Here we have a hallway with huge enlargements of the Med School graduating class photos. You can tell INSTANTLY which year it was that the school photographer went digital from the fuzziness of the enlargements. I'm sure the photographer always used up to the minute pro equipment. Of course, the digital SLRs of today have tons of Megapixels more than the pro gear of yesterday-- but if my business involved huge enlargements, I'd still go with film.
SLR: Digital vs. Film
- Thread starter TimmyBoston
- Start date
I could be wrong but I think film is better for low light work where higher iso's are needed. Film may get granier at higher iso's but I think most people would rather have grain than noise.
What about wide angle lenses? Who can find a wide-angle digital lens (not fisheye) that can match the fov of a 12mm wide-angle for film. Don't forget that a 12mm wide-angle on digital doesn't have the same fov anymore because of the crop factor.
You can find and get film processed for less than $15 these days too. I roll and process my own b&w. I'm probably spending $3 a roll for a roll of 36 exposures including developing. Thats hardly braking the bank and I'm in school without a job.
I think TTL flash metering works better on film cameras. Something to do with light not bouncing off of a ccd as well as film does. Sure there's i-ttl and d-ttl and what else, but I don't think they work as reliably as "analog" ttl did.
Plus, not really a film/digital thing, more of a new/old thing, with older cameras that had the DOF printed on the lenses you could set your lens at the hyperfocal distance and not worry about focusing for the rest of the day. Not having to focus is quicker than autofocus can ever be. Also, older film cameras could work without batteries.
I dont really have a film/digital preference, I just use film because it's all I got. Just fanning the fire here.
What about wide angle lenses? Who can find a wide-angle digital lens (not fisheye) that can match the fov of a 12mm wide-angle for film. Don't forget that a 12mm wide-angle on digital doesn't have the same fov anymore because of the crop factor.
You can find and get film processed for less than $15 these days too. I roll and process my own b&w. I'm probably spending $3 a roll for a roll of 36 exposures including developing. Thats hardly braking the bank and I'm in school without a job.
I think TTL flash metering works better on film cameras. Something to do with light not bouncing off of a ccd as well as film does. Sure there's i-ttl and d-ttl and what else, but I don't think they work as reliably as "analog" ttl did.
Plus, not really a film/digital thing, more of a new/old thing, with older cameras that had the DOF printed on the lenses you could set your lens at the hyperfocal distance and not worry about focusing for the rest of the day. Not having to focus is quicker than autofocus can ever be. Also, older film cameras could work without batteries.
I dont really have a film/digital preference, I just use film because it's all I got. Just fanning the fire here.
My Canon xti with an 85mm f/1.8 lens takes better shots, sans flash, than my old Olympus OM-1 ever did.
And all of the upfront costs (in fact almost all the costs, period) are known.
Only on a traditional shaving forum could anyone ever have a serious debate about film vs digital photography.
Oh.
Wait.
Where are we again?
And all of the upfront costs (in fact almost all the costs, period) are known.
Only on a traditional shaving forum could anyone ever have a serious debate about film vs digital photography.
Oh.
Wait.
Where are we again?
thats very relative and vague.
There really is no debate as far as many people are concerned. For many, and I'm one of those, there is no question but that film is better.
That isn't to say that digital is just great for many folks as well, but when 9,000 professional photographers were surveyed by Kodak, they chose film over digital. Kodak has, in part as a result of this, introduced a new black and white film. So there it is: Kodak, which is doing what it can to reposition itself from a film company to a digital company, has introduced a new black and white film of all things.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/October2007/09/c9349.html
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2709&pq-locale=en_US&gpcid=0900688a807b9764
That isn't to say that digital is just great for many folks as well, but when 9,000 professional photographers were surveyed by Kodak, they chose film over digital. Kodak has, in part as a result of this, introduced a new black and white film. So there it is: Kodak, which is doing what it can to reposition itself from a film company to a digital company, has introduced a new black and white film of all things.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/October2007/09/c9349.html
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2709&pq-locale=en_US&gpcid=0900688a807b9764
Film will be around for awhile for fine arts applications, but for the regular Joe, it's no longer a viable option.
The only film I'll likely continue to use is medium format and up. Even those days are numbered.
The only film I'll likely continue to use is medium format and up. Even those days are numbered.
they updated their portra films last year too.
Yes, they did didn't they. I have a few rolls of their VC 160 and it is truly wonderful stuff. Fuji also updated their films and has introduced 100 ASA Velvia which they advertise produces finer grain than their 50 ASA. I've not tried it yet, but their 100 ASA is just great.
I think Ouch is right that film looks like it will be around for a while, and I hope a long while. I don't think that it isn't a viable option, but that's not something I would debate.
You know, all I really want is a digital equivalent to the Pentax k1000. I'd love to have 1:1 conversion factor on the lenses... use old pentax glass... I'd even be willing to give up access to a preview screen, if it meant that I could have a full frame sensor. If you know how your camera works, you shouldn't need that screen anyway. I'd just love to be able to eliminate the need for developing/scanning, and just insert the card and download. I sometimes think that the instant gratification aspect of digital hurts my art; With film, you have to trust that you got the shot right-- you have to trust your skills and your equipment. Besides, sometimes it's the shots that weren't quite "right" that later appeal to you. What do they call them? Happy Accidents.
That said, I almost always shoot digital now. 2.3 megapixel photosmart 912 It's kind of like an slr, but without interchangeable lenses. It's much derided, but I tell you, I get excellent 8x10 prints and I'm happy with it.
Funny, photography is sort of like shaving... who needs 23 heated vibrating blades with a flexi-core shaft when a '61 Gillette Speedster still works fine? Who needs 99 gigapixels and a "movie mode" with built in cellular service and mp3 playing capabilities?
ok, I'm starting to sound a little old-mannish...
Back in my day....
That said, I almost always shoot digital now. 2.3 megapixel photosmart 912 It's kind of like an slr, but without interchangeable lenses. It's much derided, but I tell you, I get excellent 8x10 prints and I'm happy with it.
Funny, photography is sort of like shaving... who needs 23 heated vibrating blades with a flexi-core shaft when a '61 Gillette Speedster still works fine? Who needs 99 gigapixels and a "movie mode" with built in cellular service and mp3 playing capabilities?
ok, I'm starting to sound a little old-mannish...
Back in my day....my dad picked up a pentax k10d. It can take k-mount lenses and i think its the closest we'll see to a k1000 for a little while.
and it can take one of the thinnest pancakes i've ever seen!
http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-Compac...2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1193972459&sr=8-1
You know, all I really want is a digital equivalent to the Pentax k1000. I'd love to have 1:1 conversion factor on the lenses... use old pentax glass... I'd even be willing to give up access to a preview screen, if it meant that I could have a full frame sensor. If you know how your camera works, you shouldn't need that screen anyway. I'd just love to be able to eliminate the need for developing/scanning, and just insert the card and download. I sometimes think that the instant gratification aspect of digital hurts my art; With film, you have to trust that you got the shot right-- you have to trust your skills and your equipment. Besides, sometimes it's the shots that weren't quite "right" that later appeal to you. What do they call them? Happy Accidents.
That said, I almost always shoot digital now. 2.3 megapixel photosmart 912 It's kind of like an slr, but without interchangeable lenses. It's much derided, but I tell you, I get excellent 8x10 prints and I'm happy with it.
Funny, photography is sort of like shaving... who needs 23 heated vibrating blades with a flexi-core shaft when a '61 Gillette Speedster still works fine? Who needs 99 gigapixels and a "movie mode" with built in cellular service and mp3 playing capabilities?
ok, I'm starting to sound a little old-mannish...
I understand that the new Pentax digitals take the old lenses, but you should look into it to confirm. You might find that your old lens collection has been given new life.
I know that the digital/film argument is really more akin to a religious argument than a technical one. For me, digital is just way too expensive for what it delivers. My entire rig including a top-notch tripod cost me in the range of $500 or so and includes some fabulous macro equipment (a 100mm macro lens, an auto-bellows unit) as well as a host of other accessories. It costs me between $10 and $15 to purchase and print high quality 36 exp. film. It costs way less for me to process traditional silver halide black and white.
If and when film is no longer available and when I can get the same quality at the same price using digital, I'll switch. Actually, what I'm really waiting for is medium or large format digital. At the moment such a set-up runs into the tens of thousands of dollars.
I'll have to look into the 23 vibrating blades on a flexi-core shaft. It sounds intriguing.
Actually, one of the best laughs I've had about shaving was when I heard that Gillette started marketing their new electric multi-blade. Their opinion about the "best a man can get" turns out to be an electric vibrator.
Last month, I made the leap from 35 mm. SLR to digital SLR--a Canon EOS 40D. I also bought Photshop Elements 6 and the "Missing Manual." I am very impressed with the capabilities of the camera and the software (which could take a lifetime to master). Everything I ever dreamed of doing with a darkroom or advanced in-camera film techniques seems to be within my reach. I'm making time to go out and use the thing, and not having to worry about wasting film is very liberating. Most importantly, I'm satisfied with the prints I'm getting from my relatively inexpensive printer.
Good work, Jazzman.
I guess the biggest advantage for me is the control of the "speed", without need to actually replace films, or have separate cameras. Just clicking "ISO 400" is too convenient to avoid, especially when the quality of modern digitals is soooo decent.
Toodlepip,
Hobbes
I guess the biggest advantage for me is the control of the "speed", without need to actually replace films, or have separate cameras. Just clicking "ISO 400" is too convenient to avoid, especially when the quality of modern digitals is soooo decent.
Toodlepip,
Hobbes
I'm seeing little or no difference between 100 and 400 (although today's 400 speed film also is great). But the super high ISO settings on the DSLR are just amazing, and the ability to go to a slower speed without jeopardizing or wasting the unused portion of a roll of 800 or 1600 (expensive!) is just too convenient. Should we feel guilty for being lazy or feel like we're cheating? Of course not.
True enough; maybe you can see more of a difference under lower ambient light conditions. Of course, all this convenience means that I frequently forget to set my ISO back from its previous setting, and wonder my my shutter speeds aren't working as I'd expect...
Toodlepip,
Hobbes
