digital vs film
- Started
- Last post
- 65 Responses
- stoprev
photographers, who's shooting film / digital?
- loudubs0
film beats all, proceed with pointless arguments
- kerus0
i love my digital camera, but it really lacks the "soul" that film has...
- Bluejam0
Film.
Digtial when i'm out drugged/ drunk out of my head.
- unknown0
word (been retouching the blue channels for two hours today)
- stoprev0
Bluejam, that's a great way of looking at it
- ian0
Bought a 600 euro Fuji digital camera and I love it, really handy for carrying around cos its ickle.
Then bought a medium format holga from Lomo for 60 euro. Its beautiful!
Then bought a Fed 3 in Prague for the princly sum of 20 euro.
I love em all.
- oeuf0
film
- tymeframe0
But WHY is film better? I've seen digital do some really cool effects
- Mimio0
Film is more optical, diffused and hypnotic.
- Mimio0
But ultimately I know digital processors will surpass film image quality.
- brundlefly0
some of the new digitals are up there, the new canon digital rebel is 6.3 megapixels for about a grand....
if you are doing magazine shots you can go either way, for something a little more high end tho, film, and a drum scanner is the only way to go...
- Carty0
film is organic. made from light sensitive silver halide. i've been shooting film for exactly 18 years... i know film. and what i can do under pretty much every situation... i shoot hassleblad with carl zeiss lenses and canon eos 35mm. scanning 8x10 prints from hassy negs and then going to print is sick. you can't compare any digital camera to medium format or large format film 4x5, 8x10.
i used to shoot alot of polaroid to proof my shoots. but now with digital point and shoots being so sick, i now proof my shoots with a canon G2. which has been good enough for print work up to 8x10.
canon has just dropped the rebel digital. a 6.3 megapixel body for $1500. its the cheapest DSLR on the market. i'm buying this body next week and i'm going to begin to incorporate this camera into my regular rotation.
the only real point to incorporating digital into my gear is strictly a money making senario. many clients cannot afford the budgets that a medium format shoot will incurr. it costs roughy $700-$800 for me to buy, shoot, process and contact 50 rolls of 120. then i need to print selects and scan, retouch and get art ready.
so, soon only certain work will be shot with hassleblad, and other work will be shot digital. i have 5 lenses for the canon system so i will be inspired to push some new ideas..
my thoughts? there is room for both... for the everyday snapper, digi is sick... for the photographer, one has to understand both...
this is a pc/mac arguement if i ever saw one.... lmao...
- brundlefly0
mmm hassleblad makes me randy...reOw
- stoprev0
you only truely get an orginal image with film, why? when you shoot digital and you copy it, it is an exact clone of the first image and therefore will never be original. However is you make a print or scan from film/print, you will never reproduce the exact same result, thus each time an original is produced. something like that!
- Mimio0
That's a nice way of saying that film degenerates.
- bolus0
nothing beats film, as mentioned before digi has lacks a special feeling
- spendogg0
hey steve, thanks for actually giving us some info on your process. it is good to hear from a seasoned professional vs. the point and shoot mock up my website crew. love your work.
- stoprev0
Mimio, true, it's all a matter of taste. I have a D10, it's great for some stuff, fashion... But it is still not where it should be, a few more years maybe. Digital is still a child, it needs to mature. I like the comsumer fuji superia 200 the best.
- ribit0
depends what you are doing...
We produce an online magazine with thousands of photos from auto shows, and digital beats film in every respect that matters..
- faster (online within hours, with only a batch process to resize, sharpen, and add tags, no color correction)
- cheaper (no consumables)
- ability to immediately review and reshoot where necessary
- better quality than film (color balance, wider contrast range, less noise)
- films potential higher resolution of no use since we only provide up to 1600x1200 on the site. (we shoot at 2560x1920)and film is so 19th century.... really, it was just a stop-gap until they developed digital, which has yet to fully mature... they'll be simulating the 'character' qualities of those Hasselblads in a few years... all I'm waiting for is ISO 10000-equivalent sensors for low-light work, and faster response times.
- loudubs0
duh