Digital Photos

I like it. No smells. No chemicals. Free pixels. Instant feedback.

I would be interested to know how many photographers here are actually still using film.

I'd like to use 35mm; if they developed the film for free and put the images on a CD.

Oh, they'd have to give away the rolls of film too.

:(

I use film for some work, digital for most. It depends on the subject and my intention at the time. I generally prefer digital for colour work and film for black and white.



Film is far more difficult to work with, given the risk of errors in development and dust and scratches that can affect scans or darkroom prints.

The expense isn't so much, if you think you can get a good old film camera for $100, you are far more selective in what you shoot with film and buying and developing a roll of B&W at home costs maybe $5.

film is prehistoric. hard to find, clumsy, not that sharp and expensive to use.

digital is the best for me, instant results, better for the environment, can take as many pix as you want. this conversation was more popular about 15 years ago.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

the only real advantage film can have is - the camera doesn't need batteries and you can use it in colder weather.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

I haven't shot film in well over 10 years.

I would challenge that digital is better for the environment. At best it's a toss up. It requires electricity and electronics, the later requiring power and resources to manufacturer. And if you have any prints made, there are still chemicals involved, it's just not as messy.

It's not true to say that film is "not that sharp" - it depends on the film. There are (still, I think) some incredibly fine-grained 35mm emulsions that outresolve anything digital can manage, but they are technical films with very low ISOs. It also depends on the format - the image I posted was shot on a large format camera and even though it was only using ordinary 100 ISO film the resolving power would be a couple of hundred megapixels equivalent. Even medium format (6x6) should easily be able to match a 50MP digital camera.

Expense would depend on how much film you shot. A medium format camera with an extremely good lens can be got for $200 or less these days, you need to shoot quite a lot of film to rack up the costs to equal the price of a 50MP DSLR.

It all depends on what you want to do. Film would be next to useless for Mike's sort of work. But a black and white negative is fine for my style and is likely to be more permanent than digitial files which keep getting lost when hard drives crash or new computers don't like reading the data from old drives. I no longer know which of my digital files still exist and digging out a specific file from hundreds of old CDs or half-a-dozen hard drives is a nightmare (especially as it might be on something unreadable or corrupted).

Today I use digital DSLRs but there are some reasons I bemoan the old times: The contrast of slides is so much higher than in any file. The exposure accuracy was better than from any digital camera I have used since 2006, and there were many (I don't know why !?). The resolution has reached my slide film experience not earlier than 2013 (at least for the price I wanted to pay).

For those who claim that film isn't as sharp as digital, I've used this before, but it still tells the story:

Shot on film:



A small detail:

Sometimes I feel nostalgic especially for b&w like the Ilford negative below. But that train has left for good.

Digital these days, except for playing around with the Recesky for fun...



- Richard Reeve
ReevePhotos.com

i think if we think film then its 35mm. medium and large format - its hard to compare. going over these old images. i have images from the civil war, that are sharper than modern things. most of the stuff from 1900 is way sharper than anything 35mm. but then you have the portability thing.

i think a part of the problem was, with a camera the size of a microwave, you had to have a tripod for different reasons. and 35mm, coupled with grain, and lack of tripod, creates lack of focus as well. or at least in the images i've been doing as of late.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

In the end though digital is so much quicker and easier.

I disliked 35mm intensely so I shot 6x7 and 4x5. I enjoyed a B&W wet lab but never liked wet color printing. Now I have little interest in digital B&W (I miss the faint orange glow and the smell of acetic acid) but love doing digital color because it's so much more flexible than was film. Digital image quality is so much better than film in most cases and we have controls, both in camera and in software, that were just not possible with film. And my kit in the field is smaller which is good because I'm older and tire more easily.

As you are probably seeing from responses to your post - it is a solidly digital world for both practical and artistic reasons.

I was thinking about starting a thread for Analog Photograpy. I am so glad for this thread, because I want to learn more about it.
I guess I was thinking about my Dad's photos. I remembered, he used to developed his own film.
When you compare film and digital in B&W, they are definitely noticeably different in my mind. I like it better with film for B&W.
More natural look compare to Digital. Digital seemed more artificial sort of like plastic.
The only concern is environmentally not safe. That is my main concern.

@ Murray: Which format was that shot of the girl, out of interest?

@ Mike: If you are looking at old 35mm photos you need to remember that most of that stuff was shot by amateurs who were happy if it looked sharp on a 5x7 print, so their shooting technique was generally pretty poor. I've been shocked by how bad some of my photos turned out to be when I looked at them closely.
If you have been shooting 35mm yourself then there are lots of reasons it might not be sharp. For example, I would never shoot B&W with a CN film that can be developed with colour development chemicals, instead of grains of silver it uses dyes that lack the sharp edge of silver. Then Ilford PanF ISO 50 will give much finer definition than, say Ilford HP5 at ISO 400. The type of developer you use makes a big difference to the contrast in the neg, which also affects the apparent sharpness. Finally, you have to assess negatives directly, not from scans, as most scanners have default settings that wreck the output so you have to switch off all the automated features and learn how to get the best output for yourself - also the scanner may have focus issues depending on how accurate the position of the neg in the carrier is. A darkroom print is better than a scan viewed on a screen but, of course, there are lots of things that can go wrong between shooting and obtaining the processed negative.
It's definitely much harder to get a top quality result from film than it is from digital.

There are other far more awkward obsolete techniques out there that people are still using for artistic reasons http://www.tintypestudio.net/
So you can be modern and efficient, taking ordinary digital shot and maybe even using the latest techiques described in Amateur Photographer, like 99% of camera owners today, or you can go off on your own path and waste time doing something different and inefficient to produce a result you could pretty well mock up in PS if you felt like it.
What surprises me a bit is that on an "art" site so many people are dismissive of alternative techniques, preferring the standardised perfection created by the automated functions in their DSLR's computer to the risks and uncertainties of a more hands-on technique.
If efficiency is the aim, why don't painters abandon their pens, pencils and brushes and pick up a dslr? After all, it would be easy to take a photo, fade out the background a bit, slap a filter on it and then produce an inkjet print while claiming it is a "hyper-realistic watercolour" wouldn't it? How many people would notice that your "watercolour" had photographic depth of field and perspective, traces of chromatic aberrations, the faded ochre colour of shadows that you tried to fade out in PS and didn't quite get rid of, and the fisheye distortions that no painter with a brush could, or would, reproduce? Hardly anyone (except, perhaps, a photographer). But don't do it with stock photos and put them in international competitions or you might get caught! However, I digress down avenues that are perhaps best left closed.
My point is that in the art world it is only photographers who consider efficiency, ease of execution, cost-saving and technical perfection to be more important than the human engagement in the process of making a work. That's because we are essentially technicians, skilled in the use of tools that others provide, rather than artisans skilled in the use of our hands to create things. Painters don't consider pen and ink, charcoal or watercolours to be obsolete, they regard them as valid techniques that create options they can explore. I regard "obsolete" photographic techniques in a similar way.
There you go, there's something to quibble over!

I have film cameras.. and use to have a darkroom with all the trimmings..but no more darkroom and the cameras are for collection.I was really good at photography then and but better in the darkroom..that is the secret, to take a bad photo and make it magnificent in the darkroom. I miss it so...now im stupid digital and dont have a clue.. hate it.. why can't the world just stop and let me get off..

@Paul you are right. It's not really about efficiency it's about enjoying whatever creative activity you do. I do a limited amount of film these days, mostly 35mm, some 120 to in the Holga. It's fun playing about and waiting for the results. I have darkroom equipment for b/w gathering dust in the basement. It was fun for a while too. However, I enjoy the flexibility of digital manipulation more these days. Partly though i have to say because i can drop in and out of it so easily, picking up where I left off. Dropping one image if i get frustrated and moving on to another before coming back, trying and evaluating myriad different techniques.
I guess my frenetic way of doing things suits this medium. My wife, who is a traditional painter/sculptor cannot understand how I do it.

In the end it's a matter of personal choice.

- Richard Reeve
ReevePhotos.com

Hyoye - the environmental concerns are questionable. According to an industrial chemist who got involved in a discussion on this, there is more silver leaching out of your clothes in the wash than there is in a batch of used film developer/fixer (they use silver to kill bacteria that make smells: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/silver-nanoparticles-in-clothing-pose-no-new-risk/). I use a citric acid solution for a stop-bath rather than acetic acid, it seems to work just as well, is more readily available and doesn't have unpleasant fumes.
The industrial processes involved in making cameras and computers also have an environmental impact and camera phones and P&S cameras (and their batteries) seem to be throw-away items, in a way that film cameras never were.
I doubt if you need to feel any more environmentally guilty about using film than you do for using digital.
Here's technical stuff about film chemical health and safety: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/healthandsafety/page.asp?n=163#Environmental%20Toxicity

Jean - I wish my darkroom skills were better. I ought to be up there doing something to improve them now instead of sitting here gazing at a stupid screen.
Best of all, of course, would be to have a magnificent neg and to increase its magnificence even more in the darkroom.

Something I wrote about recently in my blog:

http://www.dgportfolio.net/traditional-vs-digital-photography/

Dave Gordon
http://dgportfolio.net

I do both, and find each has it's place. The cost argument is somewhat fallacious as you usually shoot less frames, a lot less if you use the larger formats, and you are likely spending less than 1000's of dollars for any top end camera. If you develop yourself, the costs drop more and you gain an additional level of control. The sharpness argument goes away with good lenses, correct film, and/or larger formats. People seem to always compare digital to 35mm and then often to non-professional gear and work. Pick up some old national geographic sometime and tell me you can't get film to compare to digital.

Digital is easier to get initially good results and if you compare that to casual film photography, there really is no comparison. However, as you get into it, film offers many benefits.
With photography, as with most things, you have tradeoffs. The same is true for the film versus digital debate. To me, the debate is silly, they are 2 different things.

@Paul, Interesting. I just use water for stop bath. I've heard some folks use diluted vinegar, but I have not tried this. Are you familiar with using coffee and vitamin C to make your own B&W developer?

"What surprises me a bit is that on an "art" site so many people are dismissive of alternative techniques..." . hear hear.

@ Richard " it is a solidly digital world for both practical and artistic reasons" . I am afraid we must agree to disagree, or not...

right now the stuff i'm working with is from the library of congress. the big stuff was made by pros. the smaller stuff, i think were pros, and it was in focus. but the grain in it, made it really tough to work with. focus wise in general my grandfathers stuff seemed to front focus.

ideally thought digital is much better in so many ways. and it improves on itself with each generation.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

@Mike, Oranges are better than apples in so many ways... for example I like the packaging better and the color just makes me happy. :)

Mike,.....you still had to be very careful in cold weather as film became very brittle.
Advance the film too quickly and the sprockets would rip through the film.

Spare batteries kept close to ones body heat saves the bacon with digital gear today.

Wouldn't it be something if they could devise an sophisticated 35mm cassette that contained a thin yet flexible & durable CCD type material
that stretched over the film plane,....(like film)...... and electronically stored all the images within that cassette,....
Then you were able to download those images much like from today's media cards.

That'd throw a wrench in the dropping old cameras values,...wouldn't it?

Nope,....but they can land on the moon and leave our galaxy and take photographs there,...priorities,....priorities.

Marty Saccone

I think that if you want to good back to the good old days of post-processing reflected light you need to take it all the way back to the beautiful glass plates produced by Mathew Brady and others who took their darkrooms with them in covered wagons. What's the matter can't handle the mercury fumes... then just go way back to the first time someone put a painter inside of a camera obscura...very environmentally friendly.

@Marty, actually I don't think old camera values are dropping any more for good quality well known gear. For some cameras, they are clearly going up.

HW - I messed about with "caffeenol" three or four years back, this was from the first roll I developed in coffee https://www.flickr.com/photos/paulcowan/6707972733/in/photostream/ and that was the best result I ever got. At the time, I was having trouble getting chemicals, later I found a supplier who would ship - though my first lot got sent to the hospital by Customs to see if they were "allowed" (later, I had a Customs officer who wanted to open a pack of photo paper and look through it, because he couldn't understand why I would import sheets of paper! Fortunately I managed to dissuade him).

@Paul, that's a very nice image.

I have used it only a little so far, but have been quite impressed with the results some folks are getting.

I think this is the only one of mine I have posted. Taken with a 60 year old 6x4.5 folder. Amazingly small camera for the negative size.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/hwkphoto/16512037087/

Paul,
You are right about environmental issues. I guess this is a small fraction when you compare with electron waste.
EPA estimates that as much as three quarters of the computers sold in the US are stockpiled in garages and closets. When thrown away, they end up in landfills or incinerators or, more recently, are exported to Asia.

HW: that's a pretty good result for caffeenol. The camera in the picture I posted is also a 60+ year old 6x4.5 folder (1947/8 Zeiss Ikonta A), it's got a marvellous shutter, a decent Tessar lens and an accurate rangefinder (well, it's accurate now - the adjustment took about 10 seconds). It was top-of-the-range for consumer cameras in its day. I think the 6x4.5 format was pretty much the ideal balance between image quality, economics (with the extra frames) and ergonomics for folders. It's amazing how many of them still work as well as ever.

@ Paul. This is the camera. A little simpler than your Ikonta. No rangefinder.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/hwkphoto/16119568832/

Amazing! A Zenobia was the first folder I bought - unfortunately as well as being wildly over-priced by the vendor (who claimed it was extremely rare), they forgot to mention that the lens had separated (a common problem with Zenobias seemingly). I managed to get the glass completely separated but I never managed to glue it back together again.

@HW...Maybe you're referring to collectors pieces rather than gear purchased as a users? I'm out of touch in that respect.

The older lenses are among my most used ones, my most used glass being from the early 1980's.

They are readily available at bargain prices,...just last month I purchased a backup spare of that same lens,..for $95.00.

I read a hyped up review,..convinced myself I needed something newer,.......and tested a new Zeiss lens that I immediately returned because my vintage brand name lens produced results just as good IMO.

although I'd love to be using it,...
maybe I'll just hold on the that old Hassy SWC and Nikon S2 awhile longer and try to recoup my investment made years ago ;-))

Marty Saccone

Many of us go a few steps beyond with digital. The ease of going a few steps beyond with digital
allows for much greater creativity.

Dave

I don't see how limiting yourself to one medium allows greater creativity, Dave. I shoot with a Canon 6D, a Mamiya C33 and a Crown Graphic among other things. On the Canon I use top-end Canon EF lenses, an FD f/1.2 lens, Leitz Summicrons, Zeiss Flektogons, Tessars or Sonnars and Micro-Nikkors and even a Hartblei Super-rotator. I process my work in Lightroom and Photoshop, but also in a darkroom and a black tank. I don't see why this would, of necessity, make me less creative than someone who sticks exclusively to digital.
But it is true that my creativity isn't great enough for me to create anything that even faintly resembles a Vermeer or a van Gogh.