Which do you prefer? I usually take digital for ease but I think the results you get from 35mm or much more satisfying and I prefer the raw grainy feel to the pictures
i love film! just has a better feel to it. also it makes you think about the shot your about to take alot more that if your shooting digital. plus the suprise of having it developed and printed is great.
I love both. I have digital SLR cameras and film, and to me they just suit different purposes. Granted, my primary remaining film camera is a medium format Mamiya, but it still cannot be said that I prefer film.
Film can be beautiful - it is magic, watching images appear on paper, and it can be difficult to replicate with digital. But, not impossible. Inkjet papers, for example, are fast becoming superior to the old papers, and in many cases are almost indistinguishable. Just take a look at some of the Canson papers now, like the rag photographique. And one can render an image to look almost exactly like their favourite old film, complete with grain.
Digital is easier to produce. It is quicker, and cheaper, to create an image on paper. Of course, I'm not talking about shooting and printing, but the whole journey from camera, to darkroom, to paper, where just as much artistry and editing was involved with film as it is with digital.
Film, though, tends to have naturally better dynamic range. And, because it isn't restricted by pixels, you're not confounded with issues such as circles of confusion (the reason why using more than f/11 on a DSLR is counter-productive for greater DOF - your images actually become softer by going further!) and noise in the shadows.
I think film has now solidified its place, for now, when not so long ago it seemed it might become extinct. But digital is progressing fast, and is an exciting technology with a whole new world of possibilties.
I prefer film, but the digital is so much faster. I use to have a dark room set-up for black and white and enjoyed it a great deal. I still have all the equipment, but not the space------maybe someday
Digital's great for perfecting your technique, but now I'm much better at using my dSLR on manual mode I'd like to do some more B&W stuff. Gotta get my manual SLR fixed, though!!
I prefer film. I hate sitting at computers editing, it bores me. I hate that I can take nearly 1000 photos on one memory card (unless I'm shooting sports, sports is best done in digital, I'd hate to do a racing event on film). I like that 120 film limits me to 12 shots and that I actually have to carefully think about everything.
I started on digital and went to film. Film helped make me a better photographer a million times over. Before I shot film I'd go out for a day and shoot 900 photos on digital. Now that film "trained" me, I find myself taking far less photos on digital. Hell, I shot a wedding in only 620 frames... I wouldn't have done that before I honed my craft on film. So I'd say film is better for perfecting your technique because you are focused, only have so many frames, therefore making you concentrate that much more.
The only ironic thing about film for me now is I get mine processed, and then scanned to digital files since I don't have darkroom access anymore, and do a lot of color/slide stuff now. Once I have my own place I want to set up a small darkroom in a spare bathroom, though. I love the smell of fixer, what can I say?! And NOTHING digital replicates Velvia slide film.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Film can be beautiful - it is magic, watching images appear on paper, and it can be difficult to replicate with digital. But, not impossible. Inkjet papers, for example, are fast becoming superior to the old papers, and in many cases are almost indistinguishable. Just take a look at some of the Canson papers now, like the rag photographique. And one can render an image to look almost exactly like their favourite old film, complete with grain.
Digital is easier to produce. It is quicker, and cheaper, to create an image on paper. Of course, I'm not talking about shooting and printing, but the whole journey from camera, to darkroom, to paper, where just as much artistry and editing was involved with film as it is with digital.
Film, though, tends to have naturally better dynamic range. And, because it isn't restricted by pixels, you're not confounded with issues such as circles of confusion (the reason why using more than f/11 on a DSLR is counter-productive for greater DOF - your images actually become softer by going further!) and noise in the shadows.
I think film has now solidified its place, for now, when not so long ago it seemed it might become extinct. But digital is progressing fast, and is an exciting technology with a whole new world of possibilties.
I started on digital and went to film. Film helped make me a better photographer a million times over. Before I shot film I'd go out for a day and shoot 900 photos on digital. Now that film "trained" me, I find myself taking far less photos on digital. Hell, I shot a wedding in only 620 frames... I wouldn't have done that before I honed my craft on film. So I'd say film is better for perfecting your technique because you are focused, only have so many frames, therefore making you concentrate that much more.
The only ironic thing about film for me now is I get mine processed, and then scanned to digital files since I don't have darkroom access anymore, and do a lot of color/slide stuff now. Once I have my own place I want to set up a small darkroom in a spare bathroom, though. I love the smell of fixer, what can I say?! And NOTHING digital replicates Velvia slide film.