Visit MPB Visit MPB Visit MPB

Which is best, film or digital?

This topic has a poll - login to enter
walkeja
Posted 21/05/2014 - 11:44 Link
While on holiday last week, I read in the newspaper an article about the photographer famous for hid landscape nudes. (He gets a lot of people to fill a landscape and they are all naked.) He said that in his opinion film is better than digital as there is too much messing about with digital to get it right whereas with film, choose the right film, job done. He admitted it was getting more difficult to get the right film now.

What is your opinion?
Pentax K1-ii and MZ6
Pentax Lenses 28-80 F, 300 DA*, 80-200 F, 35 F2.4 AL, M50 F1.7, 28-105 DFA, 20 F4 SMC
ONE UNITED Member
McGregNi
Posted 21/05/2014 - 12:16 Link
'Film is better than digital as there is too much messing about with digital wheras with film, choose the right film, job done.'

Utter nonsense.

Can't answer your poll, there's no simple answer to 'film or digital'. Both have special qualities, pros & cons. Too many variables. Film is not necessarily more simple - there are many steps and techniques needed to get to a high quality output, either printed or for internet display.
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Edited by McGregNi: 21/05/2014 - 12:20
johnriley
Posted 21/05/2014 - 12:31 Link
I can see where he gets his argument from, and I think a lot of this stems from people feeling pressured into shooting RAW. Very often they don't need to do this at all and it just adds complication that exhausts them and creates dissatisfaction.

A modern camera set up to taste will deliver beautiful JPEG captures that need very little doing to them.

Now anyone who thinks film is less trouble though doesn't use it to its full potential. The skill involved in processing and printing from film can take a lifetime of practice. It's such a shame that it can't be shown on the web, because a truly magnificent black and white print is an art form in itself.

To put it in context, Bailey's exhibition prints that I've seen were downright poor compared to the best prints I have seen. In a book or on the web the difference is diminished and could easily be dismissed.

Film is becoming a lost art I'm afraid and for most of us digital is far, far better.
McGregNi
Posted 21/05/2014 - 12:35 Link
Well there's not much argument at all in that quote from walkeja. Its just simplifying it too much. Of course there's plenty of things to go wrong in shooting film and getting the output right.

You know I can't agree with your 'camera set up to taste' idea! Every shot deserves proper attention and optimization, and the camera controls when out on a shoot are not the ideal way to be managing this.
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
gwing
Posted 21/05/2014 - 12:54 Link
Film is only easier if you just take the shot then give it someone else to do the processing and printing for you. If you want any post-camera control of the image yourself then digital is far, far easier.

I'm afraid your holiday photographer's comment seems based on personal preference and/or prejudice rather than being anything useful or considered. Sorry.
Mannesty
Posted 21/05/2014 - 13:10 Link
There's no option for neither, both have their place although digital is probably replacing film in almost all scenarios.

I can't imagine there is much that the 645Z and other similar cameras can't do that film can.
Peter E Smith - flickr Photostream
Edited by Mannesty: 21/05/2014 - 13:10
ilovesaabs
Posted 21/05/2014 - 15:13 Link
An unanswerable poll.

Convenience of digital or the satisfaction of seeing a Velvia tranny on lightbox.

And there's the small matter of click wwwhhhhhiiiiiirrrrrrr..on the Z-1s and M645
AKA Welshwizard/PWynneJ
Assorted Pentax/Nikon/Mamiya stuff
ronniemac
Posted 21/05/2014 - 16:00 Link
It's not necessarily a question of either/or. You can use both film and digital cameras. My preferences currently are K-5 and 645N.

My days of working with chemicals and enlargers are long gone. I send film to professionals for processing, then scan it myself, and take it into Lightroom for final proofing if needs be.

I have nothing but the highest regard for those who continue working in the darkroom. Greysummers, for example, creates photographs with a quality that would not come naturally to digital.
Smeggypants
Posted 21/05/2014 - 19:23 Link
ilovesaabs wrote:
An unanswerable poll.

Yup.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Smeggypants
Posted 21/05/2014 - 19:24 Link
McGregNi wrote:
'Film is better than digital as there is too much messing about with digital wheras with film, choose the right film, job done.'

Utter nonsense.

Agreed, it is utter nonsense
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
gartmore
Posted 21/05/2014 - 19:36 Link
I think the photographer concerned shoots on large format so there will be a tangible difference, we're not comparing APS-C with 35mm.

However, I was looking at a friends work, he's just returned from shooting in Ukraine. I couldn't tell the difference between pictures from his Leica M6, his Fuji X-Pro 1 or X100

I thought the poll was too simplistic so didn't answer
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
Edited by gartmore: 21/05/2014 - 19:37
ChrisA
Posted 21/05/2014 - 19:54 Link
Digital is best. If I had to mess about with film, still, I probably wouldn't take pictures at all any more.

That said, apparently Polaroid cameras are all the rage again, amongst teenagers.

So clearly film is best, or at least coolest.
dougf8
Posted 21/05/2014 - 21:43 Link
walkeja wrote:
While on holiday last week, I read in the newspaper an article about the photographer famous for hid landscape nudes. (He gets a lot of people to fill a landscape and they are all naked.) He said that in his opinion film is better than digital as there is too much messing about with digital to get it right whereas with film, choose the right film, job done. He admitted it was getting more difficult to get the right film now.

What is your opinion?

Is this the young bloke who shoots 200 rolls in one go? I bet he isn't the one developing them

Having said that, the best prints of a nude I saw were platinum prints, absolutely fabulous prints.
Lurking is shirking.!
Edited by dougf8: 21/05/2014 - 21:47
Gravelrash
Posted 21/05/2014 - 21:53 Link
I think everyone else has said it...

Anyone that says film is less messing than digital hasn't developed colour film!

Don't get me wrong, there's a genuine satisfaction in film and I still love the results you can obtain, but I think this guy is guilty of offering a poor explanation for his preference. Trying to quantify the unquantifiable.

Anyone still listen to vinyl? It's so much easier cleaning your lp, placing it on the turntable, lining up the needle, tip toeing away so you don't make it jump and then turning it over 20 minutes later

Doesn't work as an argument but I love the ritual
Steve

Sometimes I'm serious and sometimes not, but I consider sarcasm an artform. Which is it today?
johnha
Posted 21/05/2014 - 23:15 Link
As others have said, a meaningless (and unanswered) poll. If you're used to a particular film and well practiced in exposing, processing and printing it, then it could be easier than using a less well practiced digital camera. All film cameras will record the same image on the same emulsion in the above case - for digital it depends on the sensor, camera firmware, post processing software and operator workflow.

It doesn't matter as long as you (or if pro - your clients) get the result you (or they) are looking for. Sticking a good 6x7 transparency on a light box blows away a digital image on a monitor IMHO. The one thing that is easier with film is archiving - chuck the negatives in a draw and have done with it - none of these striped RAID arrays, CD burning every couple of years and cloud storage (anybody read the T's & C's properly).

The whole process is different - sometimes I just prefer to use a film camera (as Gravelrash commented - the ritual).

Add Comment

To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.