Pixiq

Since about 2001/2002, or when they handed me a 6MP Canon D60, I have had no desire to shoot film. I often have to scan my older film images and each time I do I'm so glad that I'm shooting with digital. I realize that there are those that are into the process, but to me it's the content and the message and digital gives me the ability to speak through my images more personally.

At about 8MP digital matched or surpassed film. Yes, I see figures that calculate the pixels vs. grain, but my estimation is based on working with, printing, and publishing images. Shoot your film and if you enjoy the process that's great, but don't tell me that film can do things that digital can't, or that there is a look to film that digital can't capture. I've published several books with a combination of both and I defy you to pick which is which. It's all in the preparation of the files and how big you're going to publish them.

I was a relatively late adopter of digital, clinging to slide film. I loved Velvia and Fujichrome 100.

And I read somewhere (in 2001) that digital could not compete with film until they made 20 megapixel cameras. (Well that may be true if you scanned a Velvia slide with a $100,000 scanner but not in any other aspect.)

I finally bought a DSLR when they reached 6 megapixels (in the spring of 2002) and withing a month, I was a convert. A month later I sold my 35mm SLRs, keeping only one, just in case I got an assignment from a magazine to test film.

Surprisingly (or not) I never got an assignment to test film after January 2002. None of the photo magazines (that I wrote for) were interested in that anymore.

If digital had been invented before film, would film have done well? I cannot think of a single reason why I would every shoot film again.

Yes, a couple of friends still do and more power to them. I hope film will always be available as an option, but I won't be one of the folks who ever takes that option.

I love the entire process of digital photography, the power of a RAW converter and the digital darkroom (Photoshop).

Hi John, Yeah, my wife always says that Photoshop is a method to cheat. "The scene did not look exactly like that" she'll say.

And then I'll ask, "What about the artist who paints this scene? Will she include the trash can? Will she make that dying bush look terrible or will she modify the color? etc."

Images published as News items MUST be unmodified. No dispute about that.

But for most people, images are for personal enjoyment, to print and hang on a wall, etc. So if the artist is not cheating, why is a photographer cheating if he uses Photoshop to make the image look more pleasing?

Did I cheat with this photo? ... removing a piece of paper floating in the water and applying HDR Toning? Yes, IF it were for a newspaper article but NO if it's for my own enjoyment OR to illustrate an article about HDR ...

Peter

I'm an alumni of Hofstra University. I was a Fine Arts major. We just recently built a 1 million dollar dark room. Some people think we are CRAZY for doing that. I think it's awesome.

A million dollar darkroom...um..yes indeed I do think you are crazy. Possible got ripped off, I would think. Are the tongs gold plated?

Just kidding, that's amazing, you are blessed to be able to follow your passion.

I'm still shooting professionally, and have been for 25 years. I have spent hundreds of hours in the darkroom in my life.

It is somewhat romantic. The red light helps the mood. OK maybe as a fine art experiment or like someone mentioned, to try an old camera. It's kind of like driving an old pick-up truck. It has limitations. If you open a new delivery service, you wouldn't use a horse and carriage would you?

Advice I would give to someone who is just starting out and wants to live the rewarding, passionate life of a professional photographer:

Unless you are pursuing a career in Fine Art photography, learning to shoot film and spending time in the darkroom would be an enormous waste of time.

If your hobby is photography, then you should explore as much as you can. You can make your own photo paper if you want to. I LOVE and respect and create Fine Art.

If you do go into the Darkroom, just make sure you have good ventilation, and where gloves.

Nice to have the perspective of a pro in this issue, Jay.

......Unless you are pursuing a career in Fine Art
photography, learning to shoot
film and spending time in the darkroom would be an enormous waste of time.........

John: Agreed.

But Jay was primarily discussing someone who wants to be a professional photographer. And for that person, devoting the time to mastering digital is the most worthwhile.

Hey John,
Absolutely not a waste of time to ask these questions.
I find it interesting too, that's why I read the post and gave my opinion. I was not saying your post is a waste of time. No offense intended.

Lately I have just seen a bunch of workshops pop up that are all about shooting film, which is fine, however, I think a film workshop should be way down the priority list as far as a workshop that an emerging professional photographer should invest any time or money into.

It could be an amazing workshop for someone who had been cranking out the digital for 10 years. It will slow you down and help you get back to basics. I'm a big fan of Will Jacks, and his Rebirth Workshops.

I shoot both film and digital, as a complete amateur photographer that shoots only for the pleasure of shooting. Yes, I'd love to be able to make a living out of it, or at the very least recover some of the investment back - because these "toys" aren't getting any cheaper-, but that's just not happening just yet. But enough of the rambling and daydreaming...

Why film and / or digital? Well... here's my view on it:

I use digital for speed and convenience. It can go something along the lines of picking the camera up, check that there is a memory card in, turn camera on, vaguely aim camera at what seems to be the right direction, eyeball the exposure with the aid of a few gimmicks inside the thingy you put your eye to, press button, turn camera off, take card out and into computer, download picture and hey, we have a picture in less time than it took to describe the whole process. Even if I want to do some PP and print it, it's as quick a process as I want it to be.

Film will force me to slow down, when I have the time and mindset to do it. Even the process of loading a 35 mm roll onto the camera is slower and, to me, feels a lot more organic than shoving an SD card in a slot.
Then while shooting I force myself to give each and every shot a lot more time and consideration, because every time I press the shutter release, money goes out the window (even though I realise that DSLR shutters have a limited time span, causing every picture to have a cost attached to it, but not being an immediate cost doesn't quite feel the same), so I want an even higher rate of keepers than when I'm shooting digital. Does it make sense? It shouldn't, but unfortunately my mind seems to think like it does.

As for the end result... film has the ability to drive me nuts. Infinite amounts of time spent trying to get the flippin' scanner to work correctly, cleaning the film, dealing with dust spots, removing colour casts, and just generally trying to make the photos look half decent just drives me insane. But again, to me, there's nothing like the feeling of holding a filmstrip in my hands and knowing that the photos are right there, that they "exist". On the other hand, there's the "cleanliness" and ease of work that digital carries with it...

Bottomline... there isn't one. I'll shoot whatever I feel like shooting at any given day, and I'll still be annoyed at digital noise in pictures and wish they looked a bit more like that Velvia slide I shot the other day, and then try and scan that same Velvia slide and curse the scanner because I can't get the colours to look right (as if it was solely its fault!) as quickly as I can with the DSLR. Go figure.

...But what would happen if I went pro? That would most probably be me shooting exclusively digital for assignments and leave the film for leisure, if and when I had the time to do it, and only to remind myself how much easier digital is to work with! :)

This idea that film will make you slow down and do a better job of seeing was the same argument that large format has used. Then medium format. The bottom line is that to do serious photography you need to be deliberate whether it's an 8x10 film camera or a digital DSLR. The bottom line for me is still about content. Are we trying to tell a story or evoke an emotion? I understand the use of film for someone into the process as a hobby. That's a personal choice and maybe Polaroid Transfers are your thing. But...if you are looking to produce serious images that take all the advantages of today's technology, digital is the answer. The advantage of digital is that the creator is not held back by the limitations of the photographic process. There is no reason why we should be limited by our equipment. The only question then is what are you trying to accomplish.

George Lepp

For a hobbyist like me, it's about economics. I shoot mostly digital because it's less expensive to process.

BUT, I have not yet been able to afford a camera whose metering system comes close to that of my F100. I have a D70s. I paid about the same for it as I did my F100, but the metering system leaves a lot to be desired. It seems that no matter what metering mode I choose, that camera performs some degree of Matrix metering. I cannot seem to get it to meter for a specific part of the scene, even in Spot mode.

I believe I will be a total convert, body and soul, once I own a DSLR that I can trust to perform as well in Aperture Priority without any exposure compensation as my F100 does, although I'll never, ever get rid of the F100. I'm such a sentimental sap.

And Peter, I love Velvia too! That and the Agfa XPS 160 were probably my favorite films of all time. But again, for economical reasons, I did shoot a WHOLE lot of Fuji 400.

Hi Becky, Well, try one of the newer Nikon digital SLRs with the more sophisticated 3D Color Matrix Metering system and you might never use the other metering options.

But, sure when you DO want to do so, the Spot Meter or Center Weighted meter of the D90 (for example) does exactly what you want. It does not apply any artificial intelligence to try to modify the exposures.

Yeah, I'm a little bitter, actually, that I spent so much money on that D70s to find out that the meter is photographer-proof! Someday, when the money comes around again, I will buy myself a D7000 or something similar. But hey, since I'm only speaking hypothetically at this point, let's make that an M9 or a 645D!

It would be nice to think that using both mediums would give you more tools to your arsenal.

Personally, I love the look of film, even highspeed B&W on 35mm, compared to the very steril look that you see on every photographic website.

I recentley did a shoot using a Canon 5D MKII and a 6x7 camera with Provia. I scanned the film on an Imacon to produce near perfect results. Again, no question, the film looked great, out resolving the digital and the tones from the film were off the scale. I showed the results to my work colleagues at the studio I work at without telling them which were digital or film, and all prefered the digital over the film. Even the way over cooked images that I did in Photoshop. I expected this as we have all become accustomed to the digital look from almost every media source.

So for me, in professional terms, it has to be digital. It's workflow is fast and it's very cheap. I can't see how film can be another tool in your arsenal if only a tiny few people can notice any difference.

However, I will continue to use film even if it's only for my eyes.

I havent seen anyone talk about what may very well be the one main reason digital is very good. you get your moneys worth with a DSLR where film costs are much more! [even for only a few 100 rolls of 35mm or so, slide film, b/w,] or whatever your shooting, you can pay for a decent DSLR right now. my point being that, many more may now enjoy the creating of an image, and perfecting it to what they want! its easier and cost a lot less, then with film. and for this reason a lot are shooting where with film perhaps they never would have!
And as for the quality, i think DSLR has gotten better then most film images, and in the near future, if not already, will get better!
There are many images out there now, that i think would have not been created if it were not for the DLSR cameras!
[for now I wont even get into what is happening in the VIDEO camcorder market, EX:80GB-HDD video camcorder, there are a few out there now that shoot broadcast quality, and the cost is under $1000usd.]

i have started to shoot film, i really enjoy it, a lot more than digital.

yes digital you can shoot millions of shots and not spend an extra penny but if I'm honest i really don't feel any connection with the shots some of them may turn out good and yes they may be easier to upload and edit into funky designs etc. But film is just there, you feel like each shot is precious to you, its obviously money but i feel its more of a connection to photography than looking at a computer screen.
i am only young and do not develop my own film but i do have to set up every shot because i have an old zenit with no automatic function.

i love my DSLR and would never go back to film. i happen to be one of those that think film has had its day and now the present and future belongs to film+ which i think happens to be digital at least in part!
as in digital cameras of all sorts. video and images!
for those that live in the past, i feel sorry for them and i dont think much can be gained by learning to shoot with film if someone only wants and is striving to be a PRO photographer!
cant be hurt by learning film stuff, if this is what someone chooses to do, but i think there is a disservice by those that tell everyone they may meet, do film first then go digital! i disagree with that.
there is so much to learn about the new, [cost effective and easier to get quality video and images], tech/digital photography that for all to learn film before learning anything digital is just not right on more then one level!
and your wrong i do not hate film, well maybe a little bit. :(

Digital, for all the obvious reasons. Cost per shot is low, and the resolution is sufficient for most purposes. Like film, you can always spend more and get more resolution (e.g. using a 645 instead of 35mm; shooting 20+ MPx versus 8-10).

The dynamic range of digital is its biggest Achilles' heel, as far as I am concerned, but it is sufficient for most tasks, and you can sometimes shoot HDR to overcome it.

The instant gratification is nice, too. Granted, you can't see the shot in its full resolution on the camera's viewscreen, but you can at least see, before getting into the darkroom, whether or not someone blinked or was picking their nose or whatever, and so know immediately that you need to re-take that shot.