Which is best, film or digital?
Error
- You need to be logged in to vote on this poll
2,125 posts
Link
Posted 22/05/2014 - 06:06
I use both, enjoy both, and for different results and purposes. Film is a lot more hastle than digital, but if I wanted to save on hastle my hobby would be sitting on the sofa watching TV, not photography.
Of the photos I see on flickr, the ones that most impress me are taken on film, by people who really know what they're doing. Film is more capable than digital of recording stunning shots, at least of the type of photography that I like.
Pentax hybrid user - Digital K3, film 645 and 35mm SLR and Pentax (&other) lenses adapted to Fuji X and Panasonic L digital
Fan of DA limited and old manual lenses
Of the photos I see on flickr, the ones that most impress me are taken on film, by people who really know what they're doing. Film is more capable than digital of recording stunning shots, at least of the type of photography that I like.
Pentax hybrid user - Digital K3, film 645 and 35mm SLR and Pentax (&other) lenses adapted to Fuji X and Panasonic L digital
Fan of DA limited and old manual lenses
Link
Posted 22/05/2014 - 06:57
ChrisA wrote:
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.
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.
ChrisA wrote:
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.
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.
But Polaroid cameras do not use film....
Link
Posted 22/05/2014 - 07:10
I don't know about better. I remember years ago an "early adopter" friend of mine bought (for an unlikely sum) one of the first Kodak digital camera with, I think, about 1.2mp. He proudly showed me a horrible noisy shot of a canal barge, proclaiming it to be the future. I though it would never catch on.
Mind you, I thought the same about mobile 'phones. Why would anyone go to the expense and trouble when there was a phone in every home and a red box on most street corners?
Now I look on film rather as I do vintage cars: I'm really glad they still exist and that people cherish and use them. I love looking at, say, an MGB or a Zeiss Ikon, but I wouldn't want the hassle of getting personally involved with them again.
Still never use a cell-phone, though. Still don't get them. And one day I'll be in court for running over a texter who, miles away in a world of their own, wanders into the road in front of my car.
Best wishes,
Andrew
"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050 http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05
Mind you, I thought the same about mobile 'phones. Why would anyone go to the expense and trouble when there was a phone in every home and a red box on most street corners?
Now I look on film rather as I do vintage cars: I'm really glad they still exist and that people cherish and use them. I love looking at, say, an MGB or a Zeiss Ikon, but I wouldn't want the hassle of getting personally involved with them again.
Still never use a cell-phone, though. Still don't get them. And one day I'll be in court for running over a texter who, miles away in a world of their own, wanders into the road in front of my car.
Best wishes,
Andrew
"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050 http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05
Link
Posted 22/05/2014 - 09:10
In this poll there should have been a third option: "Film AND digital". I believe there are very few photographers that exclusively use film, it is very common to combine analogue and digital.
The "film vs digital" discussion is as pointless as in example "APS-C vs FF", "Bayer vs Foveon", "Canon vs Nikon", "BMW vs AUDI", and many other similar discussions.
Film and digital both have characteristic qualities that can be exploited. Some prefer film and other people digital. Luckily film is not "dead", one can still purchase fresh Fuji Velvia 50, Kodak Porta 160 and 400, which could cover most people's needs within colour film. Ilford is going strong. New films are being developed by ADOX and other companies. One can choose which photographic medium one wants to exploit.
There is also a philosophical/political/environmenal side to the use of film. Consumerism is supported by the notion that people have a need for products to "progress" by being faster, have bigger capacity, etc. In the photo world this corresponds to "more megapixels", "larger RAM buffer", "more frames pr second", etc. By adhering to film one can choose not to follow the whole concept that is promoted by mass-consumerism. One can decide to use old (often inexpensive but high quality) cameras, concentrate on taking fewer photos, there is no need to "upgrade" every second year, etc. The use of film results in an photographic activity that moves at a slower pace, which one needs to experience, to fully appreciate it.
I use both film and digital, and I am having a good time with my hobby
Bjørn
PS: The ideas promoted by the photographer mentioned in the start of the tread just seem very strange.
Bjørn
PPG
Flickr
The "film vs digital" discussion is as pointless as in example "APS-C vs FF", "Bayer vs Foveon", "Canon vs Nikon", "BMW vs AUDI", and many other similar discussions.
Film and digital both have characteristic qualities that can be exploited. Some prefer film and other people digital. Luckily film is not "dead", one can still purchase fresh Fuji Velvia 50, Kodak Porta 160 and 400, which could cover most people's needs within colour film. Ilford is going strong. New films are being developed by ADOX and other companies. One can choose which photographic medium one wants to exploit.
There is also a philosophical/political/environmenal side to the use of film. Consumerism is supported by the notion that people have a need for products to "progress" by being faster, have bigger capacity, etc. In the photo world this corresponds to "more megapixels", "larger RAM buffer", "more frames pr second", etc. By adhering to film one can choose not to follow the whole concept that is promoted by mass-consumerism. One can decide to use old (often inexpensive but high quality) cameras, concentrate on taking fewer photos, there is no need to "upgrade" every second year, etc. The use of film results in an photographic activity that moves at a slower pace, which one needs to experience, to fully appreciate it.
I use both film and digital, and I am having a good time with my hobby
Bjørn
PS: The ideas promoted by the photographer mentioned in the start of the tread just seem very strange.
Bjørn
PPG
Flickr
Last Edited by bjolester on 22/05/2014 - 09:28
Link
Posted 22/05/2014 - 10:56
bjolester wrote:
"BMW vs AUDI"
"BMW vs AUDI"
The answer to that is any car except those two!
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
Link
Posted 22/05/2014 - 11:13
walkeja wrote:
The answer to that is any car except those two!
bjolester wrote:
"BMW vs AUDI"
"BMW vs AUDI"
The answer to that is any car except those two!
Or either of them... well, perhaps BMW has the better pedigree. And rear-wheel drive.
Best wishes,
Andrew
"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050 http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05
Link
Posted 22/05/2014 - 11:38
Amazingly Pentax/Ricoh have just asked 'film or digital?' on their facebook page this morning with a picture of a Spotmatic and a 645Z 
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 -
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 -
Link
Posted 22/05/2014 - 12:32
gartmore wrote:
Amazingly Pentax/Ricoh have just asked 'film or digital?' on their facebook page this morning with a picture of a Spotmatic and a 645Z
Amazingly Pentax/Ricoh have just asked 'film or digital?' on their facebook page this morning with a picture of a Spotmatic and a 645Z
I have always thought the Pentax marketing people are muppets.
Like for instance the competition where you have to post an image *and* say why you think you should win.
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Last Edited by ChrisA on 22/05/2014 - 12:36
Link
Posted 25/05/2014 - 16:49
bwlchmawr wrote:
perhaps BMW has the better pedigree.
perhaps BMW has the better pedigree.
Who says?
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
Link
Posted 25/05/2014 - 19:21
walkeja wrote:
Who says?
bwlchmawr wrote:
perhaps BMW has the better pedigree.
perhaps BMW has the better pedigree.
Who says?
Well, Audis are VWs in a posh frock. I often tease my Audi-owning neighbour that my Skoda is full of the same parts...
Best wishes,
Andrew
"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050 http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05
Link
Posted 25/05/2014 - 21:23
Trabant. The Lomography of cars!
[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
[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
Link
Posted 25/05/2014 - 22:13
In Spain, it seems Audi drivers have a special dispensation to drive at least 25Kmh faster than anybody else on any road. I stick to the 120 Kmh limit on motorways but 90% of the vehicles that pass me are Audi, some considerably faster.
But we digress. Digital is better, move on . . .
Peter E Smith
My flickr Photostream
But we digress. Digital is better, move on . . .
Peter E Smith
My flickr Photostream
Link
Posted 26/05/2014 - 07:58
Mannesty wrote:
In Spain, it seems Audi drivers have a special dispensation to drive at least 25Kmh faster than anybody else on any road. I stick to the 120 Kmh limit on motorways but 90% of the vehicles that pass me are Audi, some considerably faster.
But we digress. Digital is better, move on . . .
In Spain, it seems Audi drivers have a special dispensation to drive at least 25Kmh faster than anybody else on any road. I stick to the 120 Kmh limit on motorways but 90% of the vehicles that pass me are Audi, some considerably faster.
But we digress. Digital is better, move on . . .
Part of me envies you living in such a beautiful country, Peter, where you can rely on decent summer weather. Unlike some countries I could mention. But the only times I've been really scared in a car have been on Spanish motorways. I sometimes think that I'll specify railway style couplings on the rear of my hire car as others drive so closely, yet leave a safe gap in front of you and they get furious, thinking you're driving slowly.
Best wishes,
Andrew
"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050 http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05
Link
Posted 26/05/2014 - 08:13
Mannesty wrote:
But we digress. Digital is better, move on . . .
But we digress. Digital is better, move on . . .
I could never imagine ever shooting on film again. The last time I used motion picture film was in a documentary for the BBC in 1995 and the last time on stills was in 2005
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 -
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.
Smeggypants
Member
Smegland
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.
I can half agree and half disagree.
For those who don't want to spend time tweaking each image to give it a pop specific to that image then a template catch all 'pop' setting in cam isn't a bad idea.
I shoot both RAW and JPG, mainly RAW, but I don't have any in cam manipulations for JPG output and it looks pretty similar to the RAW output.
However I do employ a first stage editing of generic enhancements in Lightroom which I apply to all pics of a certain type with Lightroom's develop presets.
Not editing each image from scratch saves a huge amount of time and avoids repitition and when I come to edit specific images it's usually just local adjustments to that image I need to do. saves a load of time
[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