Film vs Digital Photography?
Posted on Jan 23, 2009 under Digital news and reports |Which do you prefer and why? Pros and cons of each?
And what's a good website to view and learn about basic photography?
Kristina- I'm not asking which is better, I'm asking what you prefer. I need to choose one of the other for a class I'll be taking. And nice profile picture.
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:41 am
digital is nice to have if you have nice software. such as photoshop cs3.
film is also nice cuz u can kind of edit it in ur own ways.
idk. id suggest taking a class.
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:41 am
Most of the regulars here are film lovers, so you'll mostly get people who are film fanatics (Nothin' wrong with that) and a handful people who like both mediums, and a few "DIGITAL IS GOOD CUZ JOO CAN EDIT!" people (Whom I generally frown upon, much like the rest here, because photography is about what you do in camera).
I'll break it down in to the things you need to know:
Speed
- Without a doubt, Digital is faster than film, both in ISO speed (I clocked ASA 400 as ISO 100 in comparison to my 400D/XTi) and in getting the pictures to the state where you can actually looks at them. Digital is a very convenient medium
Quality
- Film takes the cake here. You cannot beat film at this current stage (Without spending a vast amount of money). Also, the noise, or grain as we like to call it when using film (;P) is so much better than what we currently have on digital.
Price
- A film camera will definitely cost far less than digital camera (If the seller isn't being an unreasonable idiot, I saw someone trying to sell a crappy canon film P&S for 150$), but in the long run, digital CAN be cheaper if you aren't a sheep and decide you need the absolute latest technology NOW! (See; The people who leapt from the 40D to 50D for no reason other than the tech, the people who flew from the D40 to the D40x just because "MOAR MEGAPIX, LULZ!")
Durability
- Film wins here. Especially with the older, ugly rectangular cameras like the Pentax K100. I had a clone of the aforementioned camera, and it was tough as a cockroach. I abused it. Hell, one time my bus took a particularly sharp turn and it flew right out of my bag. The only damage was the lens release lever being a little stiff. Had that happened to my EOS 400D (XTi), I'd be one digital camera less, and a rather unhappy man.
It will take a while for digital to reach the point where film purists are happy enough with it.
For vegans, digital photography is the only option, due to the materials used in traditional photo papers and film itself.
As I'm rather poor, I have to use digital, or risk using a WalMart style photo lab. That, and the career I aspire to one day have is digital dominated (Photojournalism).
In the end, it's your choice, based on your needs. However, I'd just like to point out one thing:
Digital doesn't have bad quality, nor are all digital cameras weak little plastic lumps (You just have to spend a bit of money to get a tough body), and I'm sure that if you did your own film processing it would be economically feasible.
Personally, I think using both mediums is the best way, and I keep a film camera in my room just in case. It's not a matter of versus, more of comparison. Let one help the other.
EDIT:
Oh yeah, and about websites;
http://dpreview.com - The website for all your technophile needs
http://photo.net - They have some good pointers
http://www.cameraporn.net/2008/05/12/60-photography-links-you-cant-live-without/ - 60 links for photography (Ignore the word "porn" in the URL, no nekkid ladies, just a plethora of cameras, sorry 13 year old boys)
However, I think the best way to learn is to look at what other people have done, so with that in mind;
http://www.flickr.com
http://deviantart.com
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:41 am
Personally, I prefer medium format (MF) film photography for virtually everything but insect macro photography. I'd messed around with it for years, but only recently bought my Mamiya RB67 (I'd used cameras from friends, my university, and my father previously). The initial price was very reasonable for a decent used body and full set of lenses, well below that of an "Entry" DSLR with similar lenses.
I couldn't really care less about the technical quality of medium format. I've heard numerous numbers thrown around that it's equivalent to anywhere between 10 practical megapixels and 150 practical megapixels — I don't care. There really isn't any serious film or digital system on the market today that can't print at the size that I need. Don't care about the whole convenience and developing-film issue either. I enjoy developing and printing my own film in a photo lab — it's a time for me to unwind and slow down for the day. When you make a contact sheet with 6×7 frames, it's just more satisfying than seeing thousands of images in Bibble. The only technical benefit that I really can't get over is the color from some slide films — there's just nothing that compares.
Anyways, the reason that I like medium format is that my camera is heavy, fully manual, and about the size of a mailbox. To be honest, I can't shoot very fast at all. There are about 7 motions that I have to go through for each shot, and I have to reload the film every 10 shots. This means that I must compose well, work the lighting, get my exposure dead-on, and otherwise think before I shoot. I have neither the time nor the money for bad photos, which is not the case when I'm shooting digital. The enormous waistlevel finder with focus magnifier really makes composition and focusing as smooth as butter. The attached bellows is brilliant for close-up work with virtually any lens. A MF camera is somewhat unique, most of the public has not had any experience with such devices. As such, when I'm out shooting, people are interested and come up to talk. It may start with "Hey, nice camera," but that leads to a decent conversation that really helps me meet new people while they learn something new about photography. If they're well-meaning, I'm more than happy to let them take a photo or two to learn how the camera works as compared to the everyday point-and-shoot — it's always fun for both parties. Many times, this also leads to a decent portrait of a new friend or information about an area of the city that I've not shot. Given that one of my greatest problems is breaking the ice with people on the city streets, what many photographers would consider a vice — a noticeable camera — I consider a benefit.
I do have a sizeable digital system though, and I tend to use that for fast subjects or to carry with me when I'm not out with the intention of photography. I also use digital for near infrared photography. It does the job, and with either system, my skill is always the weakest link. Sorry for the winded response, just some guy's opinion on the whole deal.
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:41 am
All I can say for film… the end is (very) near. You bet film fanatics. (LOL)
Aside from y!a where we can ask, I also view those pictures in flickr to see the settings (how they do that), I check also some sites like http://digital-photography-school.com/digital-photography-tips-for-beginners
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:41 am
listen to drenton and noodles also remeber you can get digital files from film and have higher resolution than most dslr files
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:41 am
Drenton's and Noodles' responses are right on especially when you consider that most major magazines, especially fashion, still require color film slides as the only medium for publication.
Good luck!
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:41 am
OK. I guess I will be the one dissenting professional that votes for "all digital".
I still shoot film if the client requests/requires it, but so far in my professional career that has been 1 or 2 jobs out of all that I have done.
Each medium has its own strengths and weaknesses, which is why I still keep a film camera around. However, with the newest of the technologies in the modern DSLRs or medium format digitals, I would be hard pressed for any person without some major pixel peeping to be able to tell the difference between a film or digital print.
I prefer digital because it actually decreases a lot of my costs in development. It is faster/easier for me to work with in post processing.
This might be because I grew up in the late 70's early 80's and have always been on the cutting edge of technology(my college degree has me in the IT industry, but I do that and professional photography).
When making prints for clients, my 12mp Nikon has no problems at any of the msot popular sizes from wallets all the way to 20×30.
There are various techniques like upsizing, panoramas and compositing that can increase the base size of an image if I needed to print something larger than that.
For me, the hi ISO low noise of the modern DSLR was enough for me to all but abandon film. And the trend will most likely only get better.
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:41 am
I prefer Digital SLR's for a few reasons. I am not biased towards film photography, but it's simply not as convenient ( and cheap ) as Digital photography. Digital SLR cameras typically shoot faster than film cameras, and you can change sensitivity without changing it via film. Also, with MOST digital SLR's you can shoot in black and white and color, all with just a click or two. With film, you have to switch the roll of film. I like the gratification of seeing my photographs i have taken instantly to see if they are to my satisfaction, you can't do this with film. You can run to your computer with your digital images, and post them on the internet in seconds. Going to the Lab, and getting prints, is rather outlandish nowadays. When it comes to quality, film is better, but that's a sacrifice many professional photographers are making ( this isn't to say some aren't still using film, or have film cameras in their kits ). Also, you get better noise-handling with digital SLR's, at least on my 30d, because some SLR cameras are horrible when used with high ISOs. In short, i prefer digital, more efficient, simple, and modernistic.
***EDIT****
In your photography class, you will most likely be required to use both. You really should go on ebay, and get a cheap used Film SLR, there's no shame in that. Then, when you save up your money, you can get a DSLR. In terms of efficiency, and simplicity, Digital is always better.
****EDIT****
To the ignoramus that gave me a thumbs down, this is my opinion. As i said, i am not biased towards film, i just prefer digital, and that is my opinion, you don't have to agree with it whatsoever.
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:41 am
I dont get this and proberly never will………do artist discuss whats better oils or watercolours? - they are different like film and dig…….
film is digital what you do is ………….. scan it, then you can do editing and stuff
if your starting out digi is proberly best to start with - instant feedback et cetera, if you graduate to fine art or shooting billboards then a large film camera would be good
for tonality and large prints film is kool, for everythig else digi is kool, they are both kool, for you to start digi would be easier and less hasslehoff
October 30th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
Christmas Tree…
That is really fascinating, You’re an overly professional blogger. I have joined your rss feed and look ahead to in quest of more of your excellent post. Also, I have shared your website in my social networks! Christmas Tree …
December 5th, 2011 at 12:15 am
Sites You Should Check Out…
http://www.hyspecs.getlisted.co.nz/pumps…
December 8th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
Sites You Should Check Out…
http://www.techrentals.getlisted.co.nz/hire-thermal-imaging-camera…
December 19th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Sites You Should Check Out…
http://www.jucy.getlisted.co.nz/hire-a-car-auckland…
December 19th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
Enjoyed every bit of it…
I ought to say, as a lot as I enjoyed reading what you had to say, I couldnt support but lose interest soon after a while. …
January 4th, 2012 at 10:54 pm
Sites You Should Check Out…
http://www.mymmainfo.com…
January 9th, 2012 at 1:35 am
… [Trackback] …
[…] Read More here: online4best.com/2009/01/23/film-vs-digital-photography/ […] …
January 9th, 2012 at 3:31 am
Sites You Should Check Out…
http://www.lifereader.com/psychics/psychic_readings…
January 10th, 2012 at 9:32 am
Tarif Platz…
Heya i am for the first time here. I came across this board and I in finding It really useful & it helped me out much. I hope to offer one thing again and help others such as you helped me….
January 17th, 2012 at 8:14 pm
… [Trackback] …
[…] Read More: online4best.com/2009/01/23/film-vs-digital-photography/ […] …
January 20th, 2012 at 7:15 pm
seks filmy…
Ostre jebanie ogolonej cipki…
January 30th, 2012 at 10:48 am
No Deposit Poker…
My brother suggested I may like this web site. He was once entirely right. This put up truly made my day. You can not imagine simply how much time I had spent for this info! Thanks!…
January 31st, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Locksmith in Toronto…
Professional locksmith companies help present safety measures and luxury for your home….