Film v's Digital?
- Started
- Last post
- 63 Responses
- Atkinson0
They both have their place. I love the Ricoh digital, the noise pattern is very similar to film, and b/w conversion is excellent. Film for me isn't just about the image but the process. I like things simple, so scanning the negs myself and finding that dust has scanned too is great for me. It's a little like the surprises you come across when print making.
BTW 90% of people prefer the film images from the first post, flickr / fb / twit / ,,,not that that means anything, but people prefer the aesthetic generally.
- bigtrick0
challenge accepted.
this is my own photo. it was taken digitally. had it been taken with a film camera, i would not have noticed that the liquid spilling from the glass did not catch the light adequately, and would not have instructed the model to move her hand a bit in a certain direction before spilling.
this shot was selected out of several dozen in the same exact pose. which was, i should add, already set up with standins before the models were ready. this was one of six set-up shots for the shoot day, and i needed to work extremely quickly. i shot several hundred exposures in that day, and managed to select the best of those. i couldn't have been nearly as flexible with film.
the power of digital, in this case, is that i can shoot-refine-shoot-refine-shoot, until i have exactly what i want.
film is all very nice, and you could make arguments that you can test with polaroids, but unless you shoot it specifically for its particular characteristics, as 2 posted on the previous page, it is simply outdated. digital is faster, more accurate, easier.
- ********0
film version:
- from the 40's/50's ish********
- hahaha********
- ha excellentAtkinson
- from the 40's/50's ish
- ********0
bad digital colorcorrection version:
- notice the blurs.********
- looks cartoonish.akrok
- totally blown out********
- notice the blurs.
- vvvv0
- aldebaran0
^the image you've linked too was shot on NP400pr aka Neopan 400 (
the image you posted above is of kodak color neg film - 8mmare you saying that you shot that photo on super 8 film then put it in a "645 neopan layout"? judging from the sharpness of the photo it doesn't look like a 8mm peice of film....
good god i can't believe i'm still ready this thread...
- no, the image posted above was shot on a canon 300d :)Miguex
- robynh0
And digital is digital.
Both images are digital, the film neg has been scanned which makes it digital and at the mercy of the resolution of the scanner, operator and colour management. A good scanner would have digital ice to remove dust and scratches.
The only way to compare the images it to print the negative through a good old fashioned enlarger and print the digital through a high quality printer onto photo paper (not inkjet) so both images are the same size.
Most photo shops stopped printing directly from negs years ago so ALL current prints are from digital files!
Robyn
- aldebaran0
considering the dust is in the same exact spot in this image it's safe to say you're faking it.
- inteliboy0
Ignoring the quality/tech aspects... Shooting digital feels like I'm cheating, just feels so easy and casual... even if it's a good shot, it has less value in my mind.
The process of shooting film, for me anyway, takes more thought, patience and time. You don't just snap away willy nilly, checking an lcd screen after each click. It's like a damn gift from the heavens when a roll comes back from the lab and there are killer shots in there.
- inteliboy0
Also the mac vs pc insecurity analogy is nonsense --- using digital or film can be an entirely different experience and end result. This is an actual topic that can be debated and discussed logically - where as computers, well, they run adobe apps and office, the end.
- Miguex0
^
Technically speaking, and from a strictly professional point of view, film photographers used polaroid cameras to correct strobe positioning, exposure, and lots of other factors on a composition, today, those days are gone now and professionals and enthusiasts alike (although more advanced) are able to repeat a very similar process using a single camera.I agree with anyone saying "I prefer to shoot one or the other" but when people try to put down the opposite medium, I automatically think, little experience or/ and insecurity, and that might be a good thing for whoever is saying it, because my expectations of that person being actually talented with a camera get to the same level of whoever shot this:
Which is as low as it gets really hahaha
- Miguex0
Same thing goes with music, people arguing over pro tools being better than fruity loops, or vinyl vs digital.
Good music is good music, and usually the very first record of a popular and respected artist, started with a very basic set up on some bedroom or garage, and those are usually the albums that will stand the test of time. :)
- Atkinson0
that gif is really annoying
- meffid0
What about both?
- omgitsacamera0
^ Cruel april fools joke.
RB67 + Nikon D300 here.
- The two formats are different means to the same end, for me. It's just I've grown up with digital > film.omgitsacamera
- Atkinson0
I don't think they are a means to the same end. I suppose it's how you use them though. All my photo wok is snapshot really. Day to day I use digital and carry a film camera. If I'm going somewhere new more often than not I'll use a lot of different film cameras with digital as back up. I wouldn't describe my workflow as an orthodox one though so what suits me I doubt would suit many!
