WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
30 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I prefer digital for the convenience, however film is great because you have less shots available so you think before you shoot.

Opinions?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
385 Posts
Didgial is so much better and easier, got into photography in the early 80's when I was a kid, I've shot thousands of rolls of film. The best part of film was the anticipation of seeing the image, the worst part was the time and expense. I do think the designs of some of the film cameras in the 80's were really fantastic, like the Nikon f3hp, canon f1n, Olympus om4 and on and on. Loved those cameras.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Both have their place. I primarily use digital, but every so often it's nice to shoot a few rolls of film and slow down a little bit. Really nice film gear can be had for dirt cheap, so it's a great time to get into film.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
As a camera lover, I feel sad that film was replaced with digital (at least when it comes to SLRs). each shot had to be accounted for and calculated, there was a process, from keeping the film in optimal conditions, to loading the film in low light, looking through the eyepiece, to using a meter in certain conditions and then adjusting for what you IMAGINE the photo would be... nothing beats getting a photo in the same way you IMAGINED it would be... I hated the waiting and the expenses related to film.
Digital is more convenient, but it took a lot of what I love about film away... convenience is good but sometimes the process is fun... its like driving your own classic car to and from work vs. getting a taxi and being driven there... its easier to get a cab, you can do a lot while someone else drives, but its more fun changing those old gears and turning that off-white steering wheel
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,372 Posts
In addition to the above there was also that wait you had with film to see how they'd turn out.

I shot a roll on my 35mm for the hell of it a little while ago - it was so much fun. On my digital work I don't like doing post-production work; for me it's shoot the photo and it needs to be as it comes out of the camera. I still love that warm tone from film; straight off the nat digital is still yet to touch it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
389 Posts
Shoot both!
I shoot black and white on film, and use digital for color. Digital black and white looks well, digital and I disliked all the color film I tried except maybe Portra.
I prefer film.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
I'm going to look into a getting hasselblad 501cm, sold mine years ago regretted that.
I'd imagine people like you who used medium and large format miss film even more... I miss my Nikons, I had the F, F2, F3, F4, and the F5... I didnt buy the F6 because to me that was a cop-out camera...they no longer had the interchangeable screens

31669_1307754826079_831035_n.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
389 Posts
miss my F3!
I prefer the FE2 and the match needles...still that F3 was the tank. It also had the smoothest advance ever!
Now I shoot mostly S2 rangefinder.
I got about twenty rolls of 120 I need to blow through so the Rolleiflex will be coming out soon.
Been shooting digital recently but need to get back to the whole film mentality and process.
I do believe it makes you a better photographer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
385 Posts
I had a really bad ass camera collection. It was Nikon heavy, basically everything from f3hp to em (complete kits) even had a nikonos. I had several perfect Canon's Cononet 1.7, Canon A-1, Contax RTS2, Leica M7, Hasselblad 501cm and many more. Then digital happened, saw it would kill film. I sold it all! Digital is better but it killed the camera collecting hobby for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
196 Posts
I have shot thousands of shots on film as a young man, but as a practical matter I can't imagine going back to it based on the enormous cost and quality-assurance benefits of digital. I totally respect the concern that one probably shoots more (and is less selective) with digital, but having the ability to know your shot is right, on the fly (without processing fees) is, to me, an insurmountable advantage for digital.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
I was reviewing these pictures and from a photography standpoin, one of the first things that popped out to me was 'that tone'; digital still can't capture the warm tone of a good film camera
I agree... there's that something missing in digital, they try to recapture it with filters but not quiet the same
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
389 Posts
I agree... there's that something missing in digital, they try to recapture it with filters but not quiet the same
This is getting a bit off topic, but it's not that there's something missing in digital, I think it's the high dynamic range that adds too much.
I rarely convert digital images to BW for that very reason. On the other hand, sometimes the composition just begs for that super sharp high contrast digital look.
I think you really need to start seeing/thinking in BW, and you need to be familiar with your film.
As I like to say: is that a BW image or an image in BW?

Also, thanks for this thread! you guys made me dust off the ole S2 and hit the streets again!
I wonder if my Rodinal is still good?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
Well now, as a long time Eastman Kodak Company employee, (joined Kodak in 1982) I will go out on a limb here and state that film is FAR superior to digital in many ways.

Don't get me wrong however - digital has it's place, but if you are purely looking at photographic quality, continuous tone, color balance, color gamut, etc - digital doesn't hold a candle to film that has been properly exposed.

I shoot a lot of digital purely for convenience and instant results - but if you want true professional results film is the way to go - not to mention digital preservation issues.

Hard drives fail, thumb drives fail, technology goes obsolete. With a film negative - all I need is a light source and a magnifying glass to see the content!

Cheers!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pazzo

·
Registered
Joined
·
124 Posts
Been a photographer for many years during the film days I used Hasselblad, Leica and Nikon.

When digital first came out for the public I went to Canon and stayed there for many years.

Went to the 4/3 route but just where to slow but great for being light in weight (great as I get older).

Decided last year to sell it all and got a Canon 1d model plus a Leica 109 and just use these now but when I retire I may invest in a digital Hasselblad (older model) that has already taken the depreciation hit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
I'm still using film only. No digital for me, except the phone camera for uploading pictures to the net (pictures of the actual pictures, see the attachement). I do my own developing and printing.


View attachment 9403642 View attachment 9403650 View attachment 9403658
Great shots! Develoing is as important as shooting, I spent a lot of darkroom time in the past. A lot of hit and trial, experimenting with new ways but the result you get is awarding. Its replaced by l photoshop now, but people became very careless in getting the right shot in the camera.

Sent from my HTC One A9 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
From my point of view, developing and printing is as important as the taking. Most of the times, I take the picture with the printing in mind. And it is really enjoyful, some times a bit frustrating but great when you get what you were after.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top