Photographer
Blanchard
Posts: 116
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
I'm post-digital and only shoot with 2 film cameras now. Both cameras are rangefinders and I develop my own film. I won't say anything bad about digital...I believe both mediums have their purpose. Being an artist, I'm just more comfortable with my rangefinders and lots of grain in my images.
Photographer
Barone Photography
Posts: 91
Northampton, Pennsylvania, US
Digital or film is like comparing apples and oranges. They are both fruits but the taste is completely different. The better question is how are you using the images? If you are strictly doing web and digital portfolios, why use film, you will just have to scan them anyway. But film has better exposure lattitude and if you are not good at using a light meter and know how to balance light then film is your choice because it is more forgiving. Commercial labs now a days print digital files pretty much the same way they print film. With my digital SLR I can enlarge an image to the same sizes I can with my medium format film camera. But when doing a billboard size print for a client, then I shoot with a 4x5 view camera and chromes. Output, the end result, should decide what you should use.
Michael
Model
Jeremy Blaine
Posts: 28
Los Angeles, California, US
Just because I can't fly a plane doesn't mean I can't........hell I can't beat the original lol I was reading the posts from the top down and I just had to reply to this one because it made me laugh!! you are funny! I don't mean to offend any photographers by posting here even though I am not a photographer; however, my 2 cents about film and digital is that it seems like film makes me feel like I am there......like it is more 3D feeling for some reason(when I look at print outs that is).......but on the computer screen I wouldn't even try to guess what is digital and what is film.....I am sure most everything is digital online but I guess some could be done on film and scanned in......It seems like the photo would lose quality through that process. From reading( and learning) from the posts above, it sounds like digital has more pros than cons. What could possibly be better than instant gratification?!!! Digital gives this to us hehe. Posted by Kevin Connery:
Posted by Rohit:
Is there a digital equivalent of infrared film? Sure. A digital camera that doesn't have a narrow-band IR blocking filter over the sensor. Many P&S cameras are well-suited for IR photography just by adding an 87 or 89 filter over the lens, and some [few] dSLRs can do so as well.
irdigital.net will even convert some existing digital SLRs to shoot infrared.
Posted by Ken Erickson:
My personal recommendation is get a high quality digital SLR (like a Canon 20D) and use photoshop to create all the special effects.[...]
There are photoshop plugins that will simulate infra-red.
Key word: simulate.
There are some effects that can't be duplicated readily in post-production, and they're all related to what the camera captures. Polarizing filters to cut through glare, for example, can't be duplicated in post, though some of their other aspects can be.
Achieving the "look" of infrared is possible, but it's NOT capturing the extended wavelengths, which is often the real goal. (An IR portrait looks quite a bit different than one shot with a red filter, or faked in post--the translucency of the skin isn't captured in visible-light-only form. False-color infrared (such as is available from Ektachrome IR, or some digital sensors) is another area: where do you get the information to fake the IR data?
Posted by edrickguerrero photography:
[...]but when we were shooting live nudes at a class, his d100 needed to be serviced so he borrowed his friend's 35mm. he didn't even know how to load the friggin' film. he asked me to do it. that's embarrasing man. Why is it embarassing? Do you know how to load a Hasselblad back? That's film, after all. How about a Leica M4--that's even a 35mm camera. What about sheet film?
I've been given point and shoot cameras--film and digital--that I couldn't figure out how to turn on without looking like an idiot. Unless it's the ones I expect to use, or something I need for a job I'm doing, why would that embarass me? I can't fly a helicopter, either, but that doesn't mean I can't transport myself from one place to another.
As for digital vs film, I'm not going to get involved.
Model
Jeremy Blaine
Posts: 28
Los Angeles, California, US
I hit the quote button then replied then I didn't see it on here, so I must have done it wrong.....This could be a duplicate for all I know......Hell I am a newbie gimme a break lol.......anyways i just had to laugh at the helicoptor joke that was funny!
My 2 cents:
Film print outs seem more 3D to me.
Digital from reading these posts has way more pros than cons.
What could be better than instant gratification??
If this is a duplicate then just have fun laughing at me:-))
Photographer
Justin N Lane
Posts: 1720
Brooklyn, New York, US
the digital/film debate... my personal pro+con list:
digital: -fantastic, efficient workflow, especially on commercial jobs
(pro) -great flexibilty shooting in mixed existing light
-8mp + images surpass 35mm film scans in most cases
-quick feedback, no polaroids
-waaaay more environmentally sound
(con) -high iso settings (1600+3200) while often rendering detail better
than comparable films still have too much patterned noise.
-storage management has it's quirks
-encourages spontaneous and careless editing without reflection
film: -medium and large format still capture vast amounts of information
(pro) in comparison to most sensors
-b+w films have certain characteristics not easily reproduced
electronically
-you can shoot on film with an old slr with no electronics whatsoever
in almost all conditions.
(con) -workflow is complicated, slow and costly
-toxic, toxic, toxic
I personally shoot both but, have to say I only use med. format film... my canon 20D has replaced almost all my 35 film gear. I also work as a black and white fine printer... so I feel kind of schizophrenic on the whole issue.
I like the monkey in the box idea... they have those at adorama?
Photographer
J O H N A L L A N
Posts: 12221
Los Angeles, California, US
Well, digital is great in one respect, it's like a polaroid back on steroids.
However, it does lock you into a steeper technology curve.
What you capture is what you're stuck with in terms of quality.
I can scan my 35mm 25 Chromes from the mid-ninties with today's evolved scanning technology and have better quality prints than I could have produced from the technology when the shots were taken.
If I try to print a 6MP image I shot yesterday in 2010, the result won't improve, because the raw capture is basically "locked" digitally in todays technology.
John
Photographer
not here anymore.
Posts: 1892
San Diego, California, US
when you shoot with film, you have to get it right the first time. if you shoot with digital, your work could be fixed. if you want to learn the hard way, start with film. it might be harder, but it's worth it.
Photographer
Andrew Curry
Posts: 3
Atlanta, Georgia, US
I shoot film, that how I work.
But it's all about the image: digital, film or fingers on a cave wall. What ever gets you your image is best.
Andrew
Photographer
joe duerr
Posts: 4227
Santa Ana, California, US
BlacklistVisual wrote:
Film vs Digital... lamest argument ever.
KNOW BOTH.
But realize that to really understand your digital, you need to understand film.
Almost every aspect of your digital/photoshop process is based on something from film. Curves, histograms, dodging/burning... all that is based on something from traditional photography. The better you understand film (and real exposure - not just what you see on your LCD) the better you'll understand why your digital is doing what it does. And understanding that will allow you to really control it and get what you want out of it.
Someone mentioned C-41 vs E-6... you have to know how to shoot for the idiosyncracies of both. Same with shooting JPEG's vs RAW. If you're familiar with the latitude of negative film, you'll be able to draw the comparison when shooting RAW files... same with shooting JPEG's - more like shooting slides, because you won't have the same latitude.
I don't know...
I just think that without knowing your film, you'll never really be able to control your digital beyond just getting a decent exposure. If you wan't to find a "style" beyond just a clean shot, then know film.
It's been said, but I'll say it again... they both have their places. But the better you know one, the more you'll be able to milk out of the other. And thats the only way you'll be able to figure out which works for what you're trying to acheive.
And ultimately, that's what you need to figure out - equipment doesn't mean shit if it's not what you need to say what you want to say. You can have all the equipment in the world. But if you don't know what you're trying to achieve, it won't make a lick of difference.
Photographer
joe duerr
Posts: 4227
Santa Ana, California, US
BlacklistVisual wrote:
Film vs Digital... lamest argument ever.
KNOW BOTH.
But realize that to really understand your digital, you need to understand film.
Almost every aspect of your digital/photoshop process is based on something from film. Curves, histograms, dodging/burning... all that is based on something from traditional photography. The better you understand film (and real exposure - not just what you see on your LCD) the better you'll understand why your digital is doing what it does. And understanding that will allow you to really control it and get what you want out of it.
Someone mentioned C-41 vs E-6... you have to know how to shoot for the idiosyncracies of both. Same with shooting JPEG's vs RAW. If you're familiar with the latitude of negative film, you'll be able to draw the comparison when shooting RAW files... same with shooting JPEG's - more like shooting slides, because you won't have the same latitude.
I don't know...
I just think that without knowing your film, you'll never really be able to control your digital beyond just getting a decent exposure. If you wan't to find a "style" beyond just a clean shot, then know film.
It's been said, but I'll say it again... they both have their places. But the better you know one, the more you'll be able to milk out of the other. And thats the only way you'll be able to figure out which works for what you're trying to acheive.
And ultimately, that's what you need to figure out - equipment doesn't mean shit if it's not what you need to say what you want to say. You can have all the equipment in the world. But if you don't know what you're trying to achieve, it won't make a lick of difference. As soon as I learn how to reply correctly I'll be ok.
Now in response to above.. "balderdash". One can learn and be creative and proficient using digital never knowing anything about film. In fact someone that knows nothing about film may even have an advantage because they are not trying to create in one medium using the restrictions of the other. I learned on film and film has been very good to me but when I retired my film cameras I never looked back. I am still learning digital but it is the future and our childrens children will have to look up the word film to see what it means.
|