snubbr.com

Back To Film ?
Has anyone out there become disenchanted generally with digital photography vs. film (due to cost, lack of sharpness, poor color reproduction, required post-processing, etc.) ? Stupid question here, but is anyone headed BACK TO FILM ?

Comments (21)

You're joking, right? Or trying to provoke another endless argument?All the things you listed are better with digital..

1) Cost - with film is more, because you have to buy it, then pay for development, then either spend your valuable time on scanning it or paying to scan it at high-res, then you have to PP it (same as digital) - so it's more expensive;.

2) Lack of sharpness - 5D, with sensor size equivalent to 35 mm film, has been repeatedly compared to 120 format film and even to 4x5;.

3) Poor color reproduction - not only is color reproduced more accurately with digital, but there's much more flexibility with fine adjustments of color, especially from RAW;4) Required post-processing - film scans require PP just as well;.

Film's dying. You will have a couple of people here soon arguing with that, as usual. But before that, can you honestly explain your reasons for asking the question?.

Http://lordofthelens.smugmug.com/..

Comment #1

Artisticphotography wrote:.

Has anyone out there become disenchanted generally with digitalphotography vs. film (due to cost, lack of sharpness, poor colorreproduction, required post-processing, etc.) ? Stupid questionhere, but is anyone headed BACK TO FILM ? .

I think it has been the exact opposite for most of us, for easy solutions to exactly the same problems you mention. Not much we can do about the film. The immediate and processable results has certainly been a huge boost of interest for me...

Comment #2

Artisticphotography wrote:.

Has anyone out there become disenchanted generally with digitalphotography vs. film (due to cost, lack of sharpness, poor colorreproduction, required post-processing, etc.) ? Stupid questionhere, but is anyone headed BACK TO FILM ? .

Cost? Are you kidding? I've saved a small fortune since switching to digital. Have you forgotten what film and processing used to cost?.

Lack of sharpness - nope, absolutely not. If your images are soft you are doing something wrong..

Colour - well, there are a lot more options now. Previously I had to pretty much accept whatever the film and processing gave me, unless I paid another small fortune for pro-quality printing. Now I can get colour just how I want it..

Post-processing? Personally I find it much easier than chemicals; YMMV..

I do agree with you on one point though. "Stupid question." ..

Comment #3

Color film has a real difficulty in matching the naturalness of a good digital camera. The typical digicam is far too punchy but if you get one with a natural rendering, then film loses. I have been shooting B&W film and even having second thoughts there as well...

Comment #4

Stupid or not, some brave soul will step out ... just wait !..

Comment #5

I use Digital mainly. But.....

I don't like taking my $1,000.00 DSLR + Lens with me daily. I am a route driver/manager for a Commercial Window Cleaning Company. And I leave my truck often to do my work. So.....

I have 2 (yes 2) film camera's..a Yashica Electro 35 Rangefinder And a Yashica FX-3 Super that I will bring on the job with me that I leave it my truck, But if I find a "Photo OP", I will use what ever FILM camera I have with me..

I like Fuji Superia 200 and Kodak HD 400. They both scan well, and have Min PP as far "Scan Artifacts"..

Not really comparing the qualities across the two different mediums....But, Like I said. I am not going to tote around my $1,000.00 DSLR + Lens in a truck all day. that is un-attended when I am working...Locked or not. A Pipe can break glass quickly. I would rather lose an under $70.00 camera anytime !!.

Peter .

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Enjoy your photography images, even if your wife doesn't ! ;-(http://laurence-photography.com/http://www.pbase.com/peterarbib/Cameras in profile...

Comment #6

Not really back to film, since I've never stoppedthere's still no digital equivalent that I've seen to compare with a projected slideand though I resisted post-processing for quite a while, I am very impressed with the increased color accuracy digital can provide under virtually any lighting condition. I love the convenience of my digital compacts and the images I can immediately enjoy on my television or computer monitor, all without paying for film or processing..

I do have some level of disenchantment with my DSLR, but it has more to do with ergonomics than image quality. For a while, I just complemented my digital images with slide film in a TLR, but even that comparison left me frustrated by the focus-by-wire arrangment and, more importantly, lack of detailed focusing and depth of field scales on the Olympus lenses. However, it's likely I would have been just as disenchanted with an autofocus film SLR, or even a manual focus standard zoom lens, but I never owned either of those..

Also, the viewfinder is small, dim, and hard to focus with (Olympus E-300), but probably seems worse than it is because it's constantly being compared to the Contax film bodies I'm using once again at the same time, and I remember being disappointed with the reduced magnification of the Contax when I switched over from the Pentax Spotmatic system! I'm not so disenchanted with DSLR's that I've stopped trying. I've recently ordered a Samsung GX-1S (apparently the highest magnification viewfinder available short of full-frame, and better compatibility with manual focus lenses than most systems) and plan to see how I like it with a manual focus 50mm, which will get me close to life-size in the viewfinder. I rather enjoyed the results from an 80mm F/1.8 on a short-lived Praktica body, and maybe this will be similar...

Comment #7

We love film & shoot more film than digital ; )..

Comment #8

I know still shooting film do so because of a specific need, such as MF, but they scan their negatives and slides and do digital post-processing anyway.Patrick T. KellyOaxaca, Mexico..

Comment #9

Jrtrent wrote:.

I do have some level of disenchantment with my DSLR, but it has moreto do with ergonomics than image quality. For a while, I justcomplemented my digital images with slide film in a TLR, but eventhat comparison left me frustrated by the focus-by-wire arrangmentand, more importantly, lack of detailed focusing and depth of fieldscales on the Olympus lenses. However, it's likely I would have beenjust as disenchanted with an autofocus film SLR, or even a manualfocus standard zoom lens, but I never owned either of those..

Also, the viewfinder is small, dim, and hard to focus with (OlympusE-300),.

I think quite a few of us are thinking "we could have told you that you wouldn't be happy with that"..

There are two inherent problems in trying to use DSLRs and autofocus lenses as if they were manual focus 35 mm cameras. One is the smaller sensor, which means less than half the amount of light is available to make the viewfinder image. The other is that autofocus lens motors require the focusing mechanism to have less rotation and less damping so even the best are harder to focus manually..

But you have greatly compounded this by buying a DSLR with a crummy viewfinder, fly-by-wire manual focusing (*horrible*) and lenses which are a couple of stops dimmer than those you are used to. Sounds like you might not have had the best advice .

If you could get hold of a Canon 40D and one or two of the better lenses, I can assure you it would be a revelation...

Comment #10

Artisticphotography wrote:.

Has anyone out there become disenchanted generally with digitalphotography vs. film (due to cost, lack of sharpness, poor colorreproduction, required post-processing, etc.) ? Stupid questionhere, but is anyone headed BACK TO FILM ? .

I do still shoot with film, and have been doing so regularly with my F100, but it's certainly not because my digital files lack image quality. In fact, putting a file of the same subject Taken with my D2X side by side with a high res scan of Velvia 100 from my friend's F5 just reassured me that at least as far as 35mm is concerned, I don't have much reason to shoot film. If I were shooting large or medium format it might be a different story. IR photography would be an exception, I'm not getting one of my digital bodies converted to IR, so that's something I would use film for, and there are certain films I just like the look of, and I'll continue to use them..

Cost wise, digital is much better. If I take 300+ photos at an event, as I often do, and the client wants a CD full of high res images the next day, it costs me nothing, other than the few cent for the CD which I already have. Imagine doing that with film? Cost of the rolls themselves, which would be at least $5 each, maybe up to $12 for certain films, at least 10 rolls to get the same amount of images, I'd also have to buy a wide range of ISOs since I can't switch ISO as needed as I can with digital. Then I'd need them all processed and scanned by the next day, assuming it would be doable by the next day. The place I go to charges $12 to develop a 36 frame roll and scan it at high res. So far that's as much as $240 against whatever I'm actually making at the event, which makes the whole thing a lot less profitable..

I think I'll stick with digital...

Comment #11

Steve Balcombe wrote:.

I think quite a few of us are thinking "we could have told you thatyou wouldn't be happy with that".Sounds likeyou might not have had the best advice .

Well, I went into it with my eyes wide open, knowing the areas I'd likely have issues with, but thought I could accustom myself to a different way of doing things. I really liked the 4:3 aspect ratio and dust removal system of the Olympus, it takes my Contax lenses, albeit with greatly reduced functionality via adapters, and I found the E-300 to sit very well in my hands as well as being aesthetically pleasing (believe it or not!). However, I've been impressed with the easy manual focusing ability of my dad's Pentax K110D, even with the slow kit lenses and his 81 year-old eyes, and I've read that the slightly bigger, clearer pentaprism viewfinder of the GX-1S is even better (though I couldn't find one locally to try or buy, and the K110D was sold out and discontinued). I'll soon know as it shipped yesterday...

Comment #12

I shoot film with my F100 and love it, also shoot with my D80 and love it. I guess I just love taking photos.geraldo..

Comment #13

Back to film? Good Lord, no! I've been shooting since I was a young lad eight years of age (I'm forty-six now). The only film I shoot is when a tourist hands me their Yellow Kodak disposable in public and asks me to take their picture, lol..

Digital has absolutely reignited my interest in photography. My work is better, more creative, and certainly more fun..

I've had the dark room, processing transparencies and printing. Sheesh, when I think back to those days of processing and printing my own stuff, I wonder how I ever did it..

I am so spoiled now. Who knows, maybe in another 40 years, if I'm still breathing, God willing, I may be saying the same thing all over again..

Dpreview & pbase supporterhttp://www.pbase.com/digirob..

Comment #14

I wouldn't say disenchanted. I just got my first digital camera 14 days ago (G9) and am very happy with it but there are issues. The RAW file has white-balance issues because it's new but this will resolve itself when Adobe DNG updates. The RAW issues baffle me. I'm surprised manufacturer's all don't embrace DNG format. The view finder is too small and using the LCD is awkward, except in macro.

Personally I wish there was no LCD and in it's place a much smaller LED display, a larger viewfinder with light meter and bigger CMOS sensor..

That said I don't miss paying for film and processing. Digital is the future but there will always be a place for film. My next camera will be pinhole. Saw some great pinhole work at a photography show last week. Just another tool to capture images.....

Comment #15

GrendelX wrote:.

I wouldn't say disenchanted. I just got my first digital camera 14days ago (G9) and am very happy with it but there are issues. The RAWfile has white-balance issues.

Not as bad as film though - how quickly we forget!.

Because it's new but this will resolveitself when Adobe DNG updates. The RAW issues baffle me. I'msurprised manufacturer's all don't embrace DNG format..

I wonder whether we might one day see DNG as an option on digital SLRs and higher-end compacts, alongside the proprietary RAW formats. But I don't think it will ever replace them..

The viewfinder is too small and using the LCD is awkward, except in macro.The preview feature was very distracting so I turned off preview andnow I'm shooting alot without display on. Personally I wish there wasno LCD and in it's place a much smaller LED display, a largerviewfinder with light meter and bigger CMOS sensor..

I would love to have such a camera - best image quality, very compact with no more than a 3x zoom, optical viewfinder, 6-7MP, affordable. Trouble is, I don't think it would actually sell to the masses..

That said I don't miss paying for film and processing..

Yep...

Comment #16

Steve Balcombe wrote:.

The viewfinder is too small and using the LCD is awkward, except in macro.The preview feature was very distracting so I turned off preview andnow I'm shooting alot without display on. Personally I wish there wasno LCD and in it's place a much smaller LED display, a largerviewfinder with light meter and bigger CMOS sensor..

I would love to have such a camera - best image quality, very compactwith no more than a 3x zoom, optical viewfinder, 6-7MP, affordable.Trouble is, I don't think it would actually sell to the masses..

I would love this camera too. If IQ can rival DSLR, a no LCD compact with fixed lens will sell.....

Comment #17

Educator or not, I guess you don't know anything about rogue waves...

Comment #18

I shot film for years with my Canon AE1. The photo quality, flexibility, and the ability to do my own post processing with my Canon 5D surpasses anything I did with my film camera, which sits in the closet collecting dust. Be able to take hundreds of photos at multiple exposures at different film speeds with the flick of a button provides so much more flexibility...

Comment #19

Been there, done that, wouldn't go back..

For me, it's digital only. Oh sure, I still play with my Yashica Mat 124 occasionally, there's something very satisfying about that zwirrr - clik - ick of a clockwork shutter, but all my serious photos are digital. I'm a much better photographer now than I ever was 30 years ago. I'm sure some of it is that I'm just maturing as a photographer. But I also think as a photographer, I couldn't fully release or realize my vision until digital came along.STOP Global Stasis! Change is good!.

Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos..http://www.photo.net/photos/GlenBarrington..

Comment #20

What a fun debate. I am a professional photographer and I shoot in both, I use a d200 and d2x for digital and a mixture of an f5 and mamiya rz67 for film. There is still benifits to shooting in film, however I disagree with the original post on what those are. Firstly cost, to get a good system in either is not going to be cheap albeit a little cheaper in film, but depending on how much you shoot digital quickly wins out. Sharpness in digital is superior. Color reproduction is a mixed bag and I really don't care because with both there is color correction or pushing in post and I think that digital can be made to look as good as film..

Here are the real advantages to film..

The biggest reason that I still shoot film is the exposure latitude, the ability to have maybe 2 stops between white and black, this is just not possible in digital (to my knowledge please let me know if there is any new systems etc.). At weddings shooting a bride and groom wearing a black tux and a white dress respectively in a candid, spur of the moment and trying to get detail in the white and the black is a major headache if not impossible in digital. Granted there are some photographers who can consistantly...and they are extremely impressive. The second way in which film trumps digital is over exposure. In digital there is only a limited ammount of incriments when going from white to back but in film it is infinite so overexposing can be a great look..

All this said I love my digitals and could not do the sports projects I do with out them. Digital is the new primary but film will have a place for a long long time with pros...

Comment #21

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.