Barry Kidd Photography wrote:
I shot film from 1979 - 2008.  I shot nothing but film till 2005. I just wasn't sold on digital.  It simply didn't produce the results I wanted from what little I saw. 

After the release of second generation digital I did invest in a consumer grade Nikon D70 in 2005 just to play with. I wasn't about to blow 5000 bucks on a pro-grade body that I wasn't happy with.

We have pretty much the same duration of film and switch to digital.

I too switched in 2005 (April) to the Nikon D70.

A few months earlier, I still shot NY Fashion Week with film... I was so used to it, that I could switch the roll of film in the dark, on the media riser while the same model is still walking...

I spent $1,200 in film, development and scanning on DVD in that week...

I too thought that digital is just not good enough yet for me to switch, when a colleague, who shot runway for WireImage used the D70 and explained to me the advantages of this very fast model... and how his employer accepts the resolution etc., without problems.

That convinced me and eight weeks later, I went digital.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
Why is this conversation (and it comes up over and over) a binary one for most people?

I shot film for decades.  I still shoot film and work in my darkroom.  I also shoot digital on a routine basis and work on a computer.

It doesn't have to be an either or proposition.

If you're "taking better pictures" with digital than you "ever did" with film, perhaps the fault, dear Brutus, is not in your stars...

Great quote!

Someone mentioned crushing berries to make pigments, and that's important to the discussion. If you make your own tools, you understand the process better. That doesn't mean that someone that uses store-bought paints can't go as far or further than you. All it means is that you start out a few steps ahead.

If you're shooting film with a Rebel, and someone else is developing and scanning/printing it, you're not learning anything more than with digital. Feel free to feel superior, but the fact is that you're doing it just because you want to.

I strongly believe that there were more good printers in the film days than today. That is because in a darkroom, you are forced to make and understand decisions. Before you even load the negative you need to pick a developer and a paper, or if not a paper than a contrast filter. With digital, you can just select the paper you own, and click print. You may not even know if a print could be improved, because you haven't been presented with a single choice to make. As far as you know, you did it the right way, and the only way there is.

All manual photography does is force you to make the same decisions that are there with automatic or digital photography. You're not raising the bar - you're simply raising the floor.

Shooting film doesn't make you a better photographer - it just makes you less likely to be complete and utter shit.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
I am taking better photos now with digital than I did when I used film.

I have the opposite problem. The images I take with film out so much better.

Nerdscarf wrote:
I have the opposite problem. The images I take with film out so much better.

The images I take with digital are the same as they ever were, but the image QUALITY, (details, and cleanliness), went up dramatically. Of course, I could have joined those who shoot with medium and large format film, and maybe gotten the same amount of detail. I've seen online comparisons. The most notable one was an image of a river with a bridge over it, and two people standing on the bridge. In the medium format image, the two people were very hard to discern, at a high zoom, but, in the 35mm, digital image the two people were not only distinct, but you could see details in their clothing. I have seen the same increase in detail, and pixels that are meaningful to the image, at high zooms with my digital camera. I will NOT go backwards ! And the argument, that one develops bad photography habits because of digital cameras is ludicrous, as I have explained in an earlier post to this thread.
-Don

Frozen Instant Imagery wrote:
I believe it is easier (and faster) to learn with digital, providing you set out to learn. You can shoot more images with different settings, and the settings you used are recorded in the EXIF data, so you can see what you did right or wrong. You can shoot the same scene a hundred times with a hundred different combinations of ISO, aperture, and shutter speed.

You could do the same with film, but the settings you used aren't recorded in the images, so you'd need meticulous record-keeping. I imagine that some people did learn that way, but they would have had to be strongly motivated.

Once you have some understanding of photography, then you can choose to use whatever you want - whether that's a Leica M4, Canon 5D or a Nikon D810, a Hasselblad 500, or a compact, an iPhone or a Rollei TLR, even a a disposable film camera (do they still make those?). Heck, if you want make your own photographic plates and a pinhole camera, feel free.


There is NO "one right way" to shoot. Shooting film is not the only way. Shooting a DSLR is not the only way. For some people, at some times, an iPhone or a Samsung Galaxy is the right way.


For me, at the moment, I choose a D810 sometimes, and a Sony RX100 other times. I am not going to tell you to abandon film and use the same cameras I do. I resent being told that I must shoot film.

This a good, and balanced point of view. I would add to your first two paragraphs, (even if it's redundant), that some will experiment and learn, and others will not - regardless of the type of camera they use.
-Don

zardoz35 wrote:
Digital is for wimps.

Very good, well thought out, and meaningful post !
-Don
EDIT: In case anyone needs help in identifying sarcasm, you're looking at it here !

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
It doesn't have to be an either or proposition.

Crazy.

Farenell Photography wrote:
Nor do I miss going to the local print shop & needing them to print me out a single 12x18 color shot 5 different times because they weren't quit getting how I was instructing them the first time around.

In a nutshell, that is why I fully converted to digital by 2001. My "local" print shop was an hour round trip. When I found I was spending 5 hours to get the color right in a print, I knew I needed to do it myself, and going digital made that possible.

Frozen Instant Imagery wrote:
I believe it is easier (and faster) to learn with digital, providing you set out to learn. You can shoot more images with different settings, and the settings you used are recorded in the EXIF data, so you can see what you did right or wrong. You can shoot the same scene a hundred times with a hundred different combinations of ISO, aperture, and shutter speed.

You could do the same with film, but the settings you used aren't recorded in the images, so you'd need meticulous record-keeping. I imagine that some people did learn that way, but they would have had to be strongly motivated.

Once you have some understanding of photography, then you can choose to use whatever you want - whether that's a Leica M4, Canon 5D or a Nikon D810, a Hasselblad 500, or a compact, an iPhone or a Rollei TLR, even a a disposable film camera (do they still make those?). Heck, if you want make your own photographic plates and a pinhole camera, feel free.


There is NO "one right way" to shoot. Shooting film is not the only way. Shooting a DSLR is not the only way. For some people, at some times, an iPhone or a Samsung Galaxy is the right way.


For me, at the moment, I choose a D810 sometimes, and a Sony RX100 other times. I am not going to tell you to abandon film and use the same cameras I do. I resent being told that I must shoot film.

don't even understand why one would bother with exif....light changes, ,even with every meter...so why bother checking the settings afterwards??...that is so photo-geek.....
just look at a scenery, define where you want to put your medium grey, or even better your zones, measure and adjust and click...

When  i give workshops people ask me this question ( i know then it's a hobbyist, dead giveaway), and basically i say I don't care as it is of no use to me afterwards....the only important thing that counts is where i put my zone 1 or zone 9, or zone V


Never ever understood that....typical photo-geeks!

Herman
www.hermanvangestel.com

udor wrote:
We have pretty much the same duration of film and switch to digital.

I too switched in 2005 (April) to the Nikon D70.

A few months earlier, I still shot NY Fashion Week with film... I was so used to it, that I could switch the roll of film in the dark, on the media riser while the same model is still walking...

I spent $1,200 in film, development and scanning on DVD in that week...

I too thought that digital is just not good enough yet for me to switch, when a colleague, who shot runway for WireImage used the D70 and explained to me the advantages of this very fast model... and how his employer accepts the resolution etc., without problems.

That convinced me and eight weeks later, I went digital.

The D70 was a great camera.  Not so good at higher ISO but that's life.  If you were shooting ISO 200 it ROCKED as good as anything else.  I bought it to play with and allow be to get a feel for digital.  I ended up using it for work more often than not.

I just wouldn't take it in the field with me as the body was soft and couldn't take the beating that the F3 and other pro bodies did but when I left it behind I missed it and the ease of use that it gave me.

There is another thread here where I bitch about the shock industry.  Well, my single highest money making photo ever was snapped with the D70 while on a family outing.  Not an F3 and not a D3  and not for some big assignment gig.  It was snapped on a family outing.  Go figure?

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st19057931

These days I'd work with a D800 for sure if I could get away with it but for many jobs I need the hard body of the pro-grade cameras just so I don't beat them to death.  That's more because I'm hard on my cameras.  I sort of abuse them more than I should.

That's why, after I finally did up grade to a por-gade digital body I was done with film for good.

Herman van Gestel wrote:
don't even understand why one would bother with exif....light changes, ,even with every meter...so why bother checking the settings afterwards??...that is so photo-geek.....
just look at a scenery, define where you want to put your medium grey, or even better your zones, measure and adjust and click...

The EXIF data can be a useful learning tool for things entirely unrelated to exposure.

Did a shot have too much subject blur? You can look up the shutter speed so you can avoid it next time. Same for too little.

Did a shot have too much 'in focus', or not enough? You can look up the aperture so you can avoid the problem next time.

After a little while, you won't need it, but in the learning process, it's a lot easier than trying to write things down when you're already still confused by other basics that more experienced photographers take for granted.

L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote:
"Well, our DSLRs turned us into the equivalent of photographic sloths. We wander about with too much gear, sluggish pulling the camera up, staring at our LCDs and wondering where all the love and emotion went."

Really? Really?

Oh Please....

LOL don't agree Mark??
You know how dramatic people are when writing these kinds of articles.
They make all these absolute statements just to get more comments.

Dobias Fine Art Photo wrote:
And, of course, he can only shoot film with a Leica M6....

MY, aren't we just tooo precious!!!

That's something I don't think I'll ever understand about people that argue about the inherent superiority of film. If they were at least shooting 120 I might buy it.

But the old analogy of records to CDs doesn't cut it - at least not these days. 35mm is like a 78, and sheet film is like 180 gram LPs. And on top of that, you've got new high-res downloads with much more information than a CD can hold.

I was a hardcore record guy, until I heard one of my favorite albums in high-res, 192Khz, 24 bit. Then I sold my record player, phono preamp, the lot. All the warmth and airiness, none of the maintainence.

I'm not saying pictures are there yet. I'm saying that there is irrefutable scientific proof that ones and zeros can contain the same or better information as analog formats once thought to be the perfection of their medium. And when that happens, I'll ditch my 4x5 too.

To me, hearing people talk about the supremacy of their format is like hearing a landscaper say that he does the best job because he owns a John Deere mower, or a writer saying that she writes well purely because she uses a typewriter. If that's the defining trait, then you couldn't be putting much thought into the job.

Zack Zoll wrote:
........ hearing people talk about the supremacy of their format is like hearing.........a writer saying that she writes well purely because she uses a typewriter. If that's the defining trait, then you couldn't be putting much thought into the job.

Great analogy

LC Photography wrote:
I like this article.

https://fstoppers.com/education/why-ive … -too-30630

I agree with 100%

I have never stopped using film.....

Eyesso wrote:
Another thought.....

Digital is like hunting with a machine gun.

Film reminds me that I'm a sniper.

oh I really really like this

Fred Greissing wrote:
The article is pathetic.

I shoot film and love shooting it, but it does not in anyway make me think better, slow me down, make me see composition, blah blah blah.

It is really misleading bullshit to propose that film slows you down and some how turns you into an artist.

It does not slow me down. There are many times where I will shoot more frames when shooting 8x10 film than when I'm shooting digital.

The evidence that the article is such BS is all around us. All the brilliant photography of the past shot on film and all the brilliant photography shot on digital.

As far as this line goes:
"high speed burst frame rates that make cameras sound like gatling guns;"

I guess he has never heard a high speed Nikon film camera with motodrive going off at 10/11 fps.

Very true!  There is a lot of BS in the forum.

Don Garrett wrote:

Like I have said before, it is the INDIVIDUAL that makes these kind of decisions, NOT the equipment. Digital NEVER MADE anyone do anything, they did it themselves.
-Don
EDIT: If one perceives their digital camera to be like a machine gun, and their film camera to be like a sniper's rifle, it is their weakness - not the equipment's. ("I couldn't help it, my camera made me do it" !), (duh).

anyone can shoot the 50 machine gun, almost can the 50 sniper rifle,,, hitting what you need/want to hit still requires skill,, no matter what your not picking up either and hitting something 1-1 1/2 miles out... Got know your equipment guns or cameras or whatever. I only use film is like saying, I only shoot natural light, I only..., I only..., photographer should be able to use it all...

I Y Q Too wrote:
There needs to be a marriage between film and digital but the manufactures don't seem to understand that is what today's photographers want...

Exactly!

Barry Kidd Photography wrote:
I also miss the split prisms that SLRs used.  They have cheap knock offs for digital but it's not the same and I still use a great deal of manual glass that I've had for 30+ years.  Now I just eye ball the focus and do OK with it but it's not the same as having a great split prism.

Focus peaking is a lot nicer than split-image or microprism rangefinders.

Other than those two points digital beats film hands down.

Film doesn't win in many areas, but it does for dynamic range, exposure latitude, expansion/contraction of the tonal range (B&W) and resolution (of certain films). Plus, I've yet to see a B&W digital print that is as good as a wet print from a negative.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
Why is this conversation (and it comes up over and over) a binary one for most people?

I shot film for decades.  I still shoot film and work in my darkroom.  I also shoot digital on a routine basis and work on a computer.

It doesn't have to be an either or proposition.

If you're "taking better pictures" with digital than you "ever did" with film, perhaps the fault, dear Brutus, is not in your stars...

Word.

Some of you people are seriously ridiculous along with your analogies.

I had a dslr for two years and I HATED it. It was making me so much more technical and missing the picture right in front of me. I've worked with so many photographers who do that and it can be annoying sometimes. I shoot with a 35mm, an RB67 and a TLR. I don't think my photography (or anyone is superior) for shooting film (that's just silly) but it does have it's place in photography and a mighty big one at that for a reason.