Film vs. Digital

[babydoll8677]

What is your take on film vs. digital cameras? Which do you prefer? Also for a person who is just starting out to experiment with photography, which is better to use, a digital or film camera?

[unknown_epiphany]

film is so much better to use as a beginning medium for the budding photographer. i honestly love film so much more then digital but to each his/her own. the only thing i like better about digital is the turn-around time.

[ShadeOfDawn]

i prefer Digital, the upper end cameras (which i have) are comparable to film cameras in most print sizes, and the lenses function the same (actually theres more functionality sometimes for digital camera)

as someone who wants to experiment you would likely want to focus on composition and learning how to take a picture artistically as opposed to technically. Also, you would want to see them immediately and share them for critique so you can improve. Digital is much better in my opinion, more versatility and the line between the quality in digital vs film is blurring (but you need a very pricey camera for that). Also you will save money on developing film as you can print only the shots that you want. Digital is a great benefit.

[Barret_wallace]

if you are new to photography and don't already have a camera
a digital would be the best.

the professionals like Phil Holland use Digital SLR
it's faster and cheaper :)

[Bill Beaton]

For a beginner, I recommend a cheap but sturdy old film SLR. To get to grips with the basic concepts of photography. If I could afford a really good DSLR i would probably opt for that instead of a film one, for the sake of convenience.

But there is a certain magic in waiting to see what image will materialise from the chemicals, when using film. And in general, film has a warmer more artistic look then digital - but there are some great DSLRs about these days.

I think a film camera also trains you to think more about your shots. Although you should never feel restricted by the number of exposures left (ie, always have more film), it's good to think about each shot before you take it. With digital, you're inclined just to take hundreds of shots and select the best one later.. . . .. . . knowwhati'msaying

[Morbid]

Bill Beaton has a point, I believe film photographers value each shot much more.

I think its easier for a beginner to get bored and give up photography, when they start out with digital. They get their pics right away, and get kind of spoiled, if you know what I mean.

I have never shot film seriously, except for with my point and shoot camera when I was younger. But I want to try it out sometime.

[Barret_wallace]

you make sense ;) :7up:

[katsgod]

I like both of them but I have to go with film. With digital camera alot more dust and things like that tend to show up. I was thought that through paranormal research.

[Barret_wallace]

hmm... i believe that i heard just the opposite,
cause you never need to open the back on a digital cam

[Josiahh]

I tend to lean towards digital as well. I haven't really worked with film much but I know people who do. A friend of mine has actually been put off from photography because she has film. If you're an amateur, you will probably go through a lot of film and that can get too expensive, as is the case for my friend.
I probably am a bit biased but that's my opinion. I purchased a Canon S2 IS a couple months ago and it's let me expiriment and learn without going through tons of film. Also being a university student, I'm a little bit poor lol.

[BrianT]

When I was very young I would use my parents quick-snap camera to take pictures. Of course, they wouldn't let me take it anywhere. If they had, it probably wouldn't have come back in one piece! When I was in high school, I made a pin-hole-camera out of black bristol board, some scotch tape, and a thin piece of aluminum with a tiny hole. I would cover the pinhole, load a piece of photo paper at the back, then bring it outside where I 'exposed' the paper by uncovering the pinhole and counted. The paper was later drowned in fluids to get the image. I moved on to using a 35mm SLR and processed my film in a dark room (black & white). Then I got a better 35mm camera and started taking color photos (but had the film processed at a store like Wal-mart or Black's). I also used slide film for a long time, and had the slides processed at a store. In my opinion, slides are the nicest way to view photos. You sit in a pitch-black room and the photo is projected on a large screen. The colors and tones are very rich. The large size, which can go beyond your peripheral vision, makes the photo feel grand - especially landscapes. It's like the difference between watching a movie at home compared to the silver screen. It doesn't make the photo better, but it makes the viewing better.

I've had a digital camera for about 4 years - my little Canon Powershot S30. 3.2 megapixels. I paid $800 for the little bugger. Now, equivalant cameras are $200.

So I like digital better. It's faster, waaay cheaper, easier to experiment with, and has some features that film cameras don't such as image stablization (maybe film cameras have this now, I'm not 100% sure). Digital cameras CAN take photos that are equivilant to film. Also, being able to see your photos on-the-spot, whether through the LCD screen or immediately downloading them to a lap-top computer, is very valueable.

An important thing to know is: Higher quality equipment WILL NOT make you a better photographer. Good photos can be taken with a Kodak disposable camera! An experienced photographer WILL get better photos with cheap equipment than an amatuer with the best equiment money can buy. Just like why a racecar driver WILL get better lap times in a mini-van than a shitty driver in a Corvette.

Before my digital camera I had a Minolta 35mm SLR with the basic 50mm lens, plus a wide angle lens, tele-photo lens (about 200mm I think), a lens multiplier, a decent flash, and a bunch of other equipment. After I bought my digital camera I never had access to my 35mm any more. My Canon digital has a motorized zoom thats 35-105mm. I miss the lenses a lot, but for some reason the photos I've taken with my Canon digital are better. With the film camera I probably snapped about 1000 photos over a few years. But with my digital camera I've taken closer to 10,000. My film camera had more range, but my digital camera is more efficient. Unless you a very wealthy, cost IS a factor. (And if you are very wealthy, get off your damn computer and take that Ferrari for a spin!) Maybe my digital pictures are better because I'm a better photographer than when I had my film camera? Could be. But I think it has more to do with the fact that on the digital I could preview a shot as soon as I take it. Didn't turn out well? Composition sucks? No problem, just snap another.

If you are starting out and want to experiment, get digital camera. Buy a moderately priced, name-brand (like Canon) with manual settings and start exploring the world through the viewfinder (or LCD screen). Today, it doesn't make much sense to buy a film camera, unless you need it for some special reason. If you don't know much about photography (both technical and artistic), then a digital camera is going to make your life easier. Not every individual who's new to photography needs to learn the foundation of the technology. Should every first time car-buyer get a 1960's car with a carbureator? Okay, that's not a great example. Should every new concept artist who wants to paint start with acrylics, oils, and/or watercolor? It's probably not necessary, unless they need to use that medium. That's what I did, but have now learned that Photoshop and Wacom are better, faster tools in today's fast-paced world.

This is all a matter of personal opinion of course. I DID start with the basics. I didn't even have a computer when I was using film. It's never a waste of time to learn about the old ways, about history. But you're better of spending time sharpening your artistic ability. That means mileage: take a lot of photos. Practice, then practice more. Digital will allow that to come faster.

I consider myself an amatuer photographer because I don't make my living selling photos. Not to contradict the above speech, but I want a better quality camera. One that can exchange lenses. This is mostly because my exisiting one is getting old and I need larger resolution. I think the Canon Rebel will be good - as long as there's a telephoto lens available.

[babydoll8677]

Thanks BrianT for taking the time to write such a huge reply! Thanks for the great advice!!!

[ShadeOfDawn]

BrianT The Canon Rebel was discontinued - it was replaced by the Canon Rebel XT, and yes there most certainly are telephoto lenses.

Check out this site: www.vistek.ca

its a great clean site and anyone who wants to look at lenses should check it out, but be aware that the prices are Canadian.

[Datameister]

For me personally, digital is definitely the better option. I'm not a professional, but I need to be able to take a relatively large volume of shots without running out of film. Many of these I need to get into the computer quickly. Being able to instantly view your photos is a huge plus. Yes, that capability can spoil some people. But it can also improve one's art by providing instant feedback--I can take a picture, look at it, see what worked and what didn't work, and keep that knowledge in mind. With film, the "long" wait has a tendency to fade your memory a little.

That being said--film overall tends to look so much nicer than digital. The high-end DSLRs can produce beautiful photos (if handled properly), but they're incredibly expensive. Even a cheap disposable film camera will handle certain lighting situations better than a mid-price-range digital point-and-shoot. Go figure.

So I prefer working digitally, but I wouldn't dream of claiming it's a better alternative to film. It just works out better for someone in my circumstances.

[mollyduker]

I prefer film. I like having to think out every shot very carefully. It makes you consider composition and everything (i'm not saying that i'm great at it... ) and it makes you think hard about what you want to take pictures of because it costs money. Also, I like the wait. And I got my camera for free from my dad so yea. I think it is good for beginners, because its easier to learn all the manual stuff (aperature shutter speed etc) on a $90 camera where as it takes an expensive DSLR to have those options on a digital camera. Just my two cents.
-Mollyduker

[Bill Beaton]

If you have access to a darkroom definitely try film. It's magical, and lots of fun, to develop your own pictures.

[Barret_wallace]

here read this thread

[Marley]

Film has a natural mystique about it. Most Professionals learnt photography with a film camera...and 'most' would [no matter what anyone says] use film over digital if that was a possibility. My mentors...my inspiration... came from those togs who used film...and used it well.

With film you learn not only how to use a camera [on manual...i.e for all those who use digital means working out the perfect exposure for yourself ;)], but how to develop negatives...how to contact...how to print...how to use a darkroom...what grain...what film...what paper...light sensitivity...all that control and ability cannot really be emulated through a digital process.

I have written on another thread, so sorry if i repeat myself. I use a D1, and a D2hs, and the D1 is rubbish...but the D2hs is amazing. Nikon has come along way since it's first panicked and quick produced D1. These cameras...D2x, D2h, 1D MKI MKII, Kodaks version etc are all desinged [as they were from the start] as sports cameras...predominantly for the biggest industries in the world, soccer...American football...and the like. In fact Digital camera's came all those years ago from this thinking.

These camera's I know are professional camera's and people on here would probably never need to use a camera like this...but surely this is the point here?

Film is better...film is the thing that 'digital' is trying so hard to replicate isn't it? All these newer camera's with more pixels than you could shake a lens at are simply trying to match film. And they always fail. Film is built up from un-uniformed grain which light ignites. Digital is made from uniformed squares...that can always be noticed. You get such things as anti-alaising issues, which you would never get with film...you enlarge film and you lose definition...but you still produce a photo which is natural and aesthetically sound. You do the same with digital and you soon lose realism and quality.

Have you ever shot a pic using film at speeds of 800 iso...1500 iso? I used to get illford 400 and push it to 1500 and it produced amazing results. Jazz singers....sax players...musicians etc...they look awesome at even/if not more so at these speeds. Can you do that with Digital? I put my D2hs on 1500 and it's just an expensive brick! The quality cannot be compared...it's close, but as a professional I would never get away with using it.

I learnt on a Pentax k1000, then got a Nikon F3, I learnt the zone system and never looked back. I got into every uni I applied to, and got work straight after.

There is something key to this arguement though...who on here has studied/worked/used film? And I mean on an SLR and at a good level...even professional?

It seems to me that a lot of people on here have used digital for all there time spent learning or working? I hardly think this could qualify as a sound platform to argue about digital and film, if you haven't tried.

As I see most of those who have gone through their schooling with film are those who are sticking up for it.

All those photographers mentioned for using digital would have learnt photography with film.

However, Digital is much more efficient...much more suited to fast photography. I would not go back to film...although personnally I think 'film' is much nicer in it's latitude and forgiveness...what i would now take 15 pics for would only have taken me 3 with film on a job.

However it is important to differentiate your level to what you suggest as better:

With this I mean that if you are learning/beginning photography you must either get a film slr...or treat your Dslr as a Film slr! to Learn photography is like being a concept artist. You must learn life drawing with a pencil and paper, or chalk etc...before you can go and paint digitally. The same applies here:

Do not rely on the screen...use the view finder to compose your pictures and learn how to see...how to compose. I was taught by a very talented photographer, who told me that what I see in the view finder should be the finished [or as near to it] photograph. You can enhance the mood with post production...that has helped me more than anything else. In fact never look at the screen...this stops you taking hours to get the picture right, you need to learn from those who can do it so study other photograhers for composition etc, and not rely on hitting a picture through masses of picture taking. I don't take millions of pictures of the same thing, I never have...it's about understanding why you take a picture the way you do...then eventually you can take a picture how you 'want' to.

Do not take...or rely on the fact that you can take photo after photo because you have unlimited memory, or can delete the pics you don't like...treat each memory stick as a roll of 36, and limit yourself! This stops again the need to keep clicking until you 'hit' upon accidentally the correct picture, or exposure.

USE Manual exposure and learn how to get the correct exposure for a scene...and why when you use f8 it's appears this way or f2.8 at 250 is much more saturated than at 125! Also with flash why do we have setting limiters, learn about reciprocity failure and sh*t like that.

And put your camera on BLACK AND WHITE [or get B/W film] and learn about value...light...etc, before you learn about colour!!

All this is imperative if you want to learn photography, and does suggest that having a film camera would therefore be more 'benefitial' to learning than having a digital camera, unless you treat the digital camera as a film camera.

Taking lots of pictures is important to learn...but it has to be done in the right context...to learn why and what is going on when you set up a shot!

You could buy a very very good quality fim camera for the price of a lower digital camera!

And just some examples:

NIKON F90X/N90s BODY/MB-10 VERTICAL GRIP/USED/WARRANTY on ebay...$250
Nikon F5 = $600

or
Nikon D2x = £3,500 [$2,900]
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II at warehouse express.com ... £4599 [$3,900]

Yikes!!!

On that note I rest my case :)

[Morbid]

Interesting reading, thanks Marley! Do you have a website?

I would really like to try out film, but I guess I'm too lazy. :/
Not because of the time it takes to get your pictures, but rather having to give them to a lab and that stuff. Doesn't it get expensive? Or do people develop their roll themself? Do I need a darkroom for that or just for making enlargements?

I had a chance to get into a photography course in high school where I would've used film but the class was full. And then like half of the students dropped out of it, that pissed me off because I really wanted to learn photography.

[Marley]

Interesting reading, thanks Marley! Do you have a website?

I would really like to try out film, but I guess I'm too lazy. :/
Not because of the time it takes to get your pictures, but rather having to give them to a lab and that stuff. Doesn't it get expensive? Or do people develop their roll themself? Do I need a darkroom for that or just for making enlargements?

I had a chance to get into a photography course in high school where I would've used film but the class was full. And then like half of the students dropped out of it, that pissed me off because I really wanted to learn photography.


Hi there Morbid, at the moment I don't have a website, but I'm trying to sort one out. I'm doing a Masters in Games Design aswell as being a professional photographer so my hours aren't the best for free time. I ultimately came on here for the games design and concept side...then saw so many talented people trying to learn photography so have decided to spend some time each week in the photography section.

This debate is endless about digital and film. But look at this way:

WHat do you feel comfortable with? If that is digital then go digi...but I would find it very difficult to use anything lower than a D2h now, and that's mainly because of my experiences with film cameras...and wanting to continue in that quality. But your talking about a serious amount of money. I'm lucky I guess to have this kit. But it isn't all it's cracked up to be...I hate the different lense structure...I find the digital lenses not as good as the old nikon lenses.

Ok:

Kodachrome film is geared more to reds and yellows and warm even tones.
Fuji film is more towards the expressive greens and blues.

You can get Xpan 60 which produces Blacks like silk...the versatile Illford 400...which does so much more than your digital memory card will ever produce.

Then you have all the papers to print on...you can further manipulate things by pushing film iso's and over dev'ing and so-on.

WHAT this all does for the beginner is teach them the theory and natural progression used in photography. Because you can just open photoshop and use a filter, do you really learn anything? Do you understand the function it performs...or are you just using it coz it looks good?

With film you will need to get them developed and the simplest way is to get a dev tank...a little tub with a spool that you feed your film into [in complete darkness] then you can put dev fluid in and then dry it.

Or just take them to a processing house.

Then scan them and use photoshop.

But if you have a digi camera then use that...you don't need to get a film camera unless you are keen to learn the history and understand that side of it.

But it is important to understand how the camera works...how lights and value work and so-on...and I feel that so many people buy digi camera's and just point and shoot, and then say they know what they are doing!
For example how many people on this forum can say yes to all these:

Use full manual to get the perfect exposure?
Use manual focus?
Understand about depth of field and how it will relate to your image?
Compose the finished photo in the 'view' finder...knowing that when they click...it will be the right shot?
Understand the difference in range of tone and value you get at certin Fstops?
Bracketing...grain...fill in flash...off camera flash..etc

If your digital camera can allow you to do all of these then use it. But If people are relying on program settings...auto focus...on camera flash...then what seperates them from the rest? What skills do they have to assist them when they have a specific goal in mind?

Like I say it's purely subjective to use film or digital...and I would never tell anyone to use film...or use digital. It mainly comes down to cost, efficiencey and need.

However what i feel is crucial is the way you understand photography and how you learn! AND in my opinion film or digital has nothing to do with it...BUT how you can learn to USE the camera for your every need...instead of letting it take control and just coming up with accidents everytime.

If you use film then you must get those films developed somewhere. But the post production is still the same...use photoshop.