Switched from digital back to film ?

We always hear about folks "going digital." I was wondering how many

amateurs have "gone digital" only to return to film later. If you

are one who has gone digital and returned to film, let us know about

your experience and why you were not satisfied with digital.

To a smoker there is nothing so annoying as a reformed smoker pointing out the error of their ways. I suppose it would be the same for digital camera users.

 

I can't see that it would be a very smart idea for somebody to limit themselves to only one medium since they cut themselves off from the positive aspects of the other because of a silly prejudice.

 

Both digital and film have strengths that the other lacks and, if my intention is to create the best image, I should have the ability to choose gear that will deliver without having to make a 100% choice of one medium over the other.

Nope...

 

My 35mm gear is gathering dust right now..

 

Still shooting 120 though...

 

I never thought I would be as amazed about digital as I am... instant

feedback, greater abilities for experimentation/manipulation, and the control

you have over your pics (esp. now with color pics) make going back to 35mm

impossible for me. I still shoot 6x7's, but I cannot see myself ever buying

35mm film except maybe delta 3200...

John,

 

Like Meryl says "digital" is just a method of capture, nothing more. Each medium lends itself to certain photographic situations. I shoot everything from digital, 35mm, 6x6 and 6x7. Part of sucessful photography is matching the medium to the situation....

 

Mark

I'm 100% digital now and don't anticipate moving back, though I never say never, but beware Meryl's apparently calm reply... "<i>I can't see that it would be a very smart idea for somebody to limit themselves to only one medium since they cut themselves off from the positive aspects of the other because of a silly prejudice</i>".

 

<p>And I thought the USA was alleged to be the land that irony forgot. Meryl is the most prejudiced anti-digital ranter I see on these forums. The usual line being that everyone using a digital camera (except Meryl using hers of course) just blasts away without a creative thought in their mind, just picking out the lucky, OK shots later. That's just a bigoted generalisation surely? Surely some people with film do that (like a lot of pros on a shoot where they take 400 shots and the client selects and uses 4?) and some people using digital carefully set up shots and just hit the button a few times, or walk around using their eyes and creative mind, looking for great images and then pushing the button when they see them?

 

<p>To claim that the type of camera you carry is a 100% reliable guide to the creativity of your mind would be bonkers wouldn't it? Like saying that all Contax users are good photographers while all Nikon users are crap?

 

<p><i>I should have the ability to choose gear that will deliver without having to make a 100% choice of one medium over the other.</i> Meryl, Meryl, Meryl, nobody wants you to choose one medium 100% over the other. Use them both. See if anybody cares. I don't hear anyone telling you that you have to choose one or the other, for ever, no backsliding, no doing some of each.

 

<P>Use whatever works. Don't listen to anyone who says that one medium is dead, or that there's no room for choice. Even a film and filter addict like Meryl has a digital camera which I'm sure she uses to produce excellent and well crafted images.

I have (mostly) gone back to film. Not because of any quality shortcoming with digital (I have the excellent Canon EOS 10D), but because of the quality of Leica lenses and the amazing results I get from my Hasselblad and Fuji 617. And the all-manual cameras are a lot more fun to use.

I have been anty digital for a long time,

but in the last few months i have changed my view on digital.

 

I would like to have a digital SLR one day, but i wouldn't

like to stop shooting film just because of that. I think both

mediums can give you astonishing pictures if you are a good photographer, and both can give you crappy images if you are not.

 

 

Qualitty is subjective. Some people might find that quality is

high resolution on test targets, others might feel that quality

is lack of grain. And besides there is a quality difference between

medium format and 35mm but that doesn't mean that one is always

better than the other. Sometimes people want the texture of grain in their images. Photography is art, the idea is to get the images the way you envision it, not to get a perfect replica of reality. It is all about what you prefer.

 

But still i find them different, not better or worse, just different.

I find film to be a bit "fatter", more organic, and digital to be

a bit colder and down to earth.

It is like difference between old 70's analog synthesizers and the new digital keyboards.

The new ones have some benefits that old ones did not and the old ones

have a special character that new ones don't. They are equally good,

each for some other styles of music.

I use both; but digital remains experimental. A PowerShot G3 is my first step into

digital imaging; however I do scan film. I see great potential with digitial but I still

love film, the feel of my hands around my 35mm camera and the knowledge I've

obtained over the years using film. I think I'll stay with both. It's hard to leave an old

magical friend.

Well, I am surprised by Barry's comments. I thought that my posting was balanced and allowed each person to select the gear that suited the job.

 

He is right, however, that I currently have both film and digital cameras and have used digital cameras since the early days. (Anyone remember the Logitech Fotoman?) I have many more film cameras than digital today and I acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of both. Hardly, the pattern of somebody who is 'rabidly anti-digital'. But, one thing that I do oppose is the attempt to claim that one medium has ALL the advantages and the other has none or that people who don't jump completely into the new technology are luddite fools.

Definitely not a seasoned pro here, but I just sold off my digital equipment. I have returned to film and couldn't be happier. I found myself more consumed with the computer and less consumed with the enjoyment of being behind the camera. I have seen alot of great work done with digital, but I always wonder how much came from the camera directly without extensive time in Photoshop. I guess I am old-fashioned in that I like to have a tangible product in my hand and enjoy trying different types of film in different circumstances. Film has an artistic quality that I haven't seen duplicated without technical intervention.

 

My camera will never need an upgrade. Perhaps a new lense or a new grip, but not an upgrade. The beauty of it is that film is what it is...I mean, can it really get any better? All I ever hear about digital is how much better the cameras are getting and the latest greatest software. For those who can afford it, I am sure they will be very happy with the digital format. Just don't drop that camera!! For me, I will stick with my slide film.

 

I have invested in a Minolta Scan Dual IV. This makes it easy for me to share my photos online, create electronic slideshows and get prints made from slides. Can't beat the quality for the price. That will be the end of my investment in digital equipment.

 

The money I made from selling my digital camera equipment bought alot of film!! But as I said....I am not a seasoned professional, so please be kind to this first time poster :)

I've not "gone digital" or "switched to digital". I've added one digital camera to the list of my tools. Within my budget, digital didn't solve the issues of wide-angles or very high-resolution pictures (I shoot a bit of 4x5 sometimes), and negative film sometimes reacts better to high-contrast scenes.

<I>Meryl is the most prejudiced anti-digital ranter I see on these forums.</i><p>Meryl also thinks that scanning film requires less computer time and post processing than shooting digital capture in the first place. That shows the mentality we're dealing with here. <P>This post is also vague in the sense it needs more detailed questions up front. Given a $500 digi-cam 3-4 years ago hell, I'd move back to 35mm film in a heartbeat. Once I started shooting 6mp DSLR, I was sold, and I don't see many of those owners switching back. So, under the broad umbrella that John has deployed, a 6mp DSL qualifies with the same consideration as 2.1mp point -n- shoot. Good one.<P><I>I have invested in a Minolta Scan Dual IV. This makes it easy for me to share my photos online, create electronic slideshows and get prints made from slides. </i><P>This is why the 'digital angst' crowd really deserves free membership in the flat earth society. Anybody who would choose to take digital pictures of 35mm film (a film scanner *is* a digital camera) then complains about all the computer time they spent with digital capture vs straight capture of the original scene isn't being very coherent. I can understand to some extent preferring to work in a darkroom, or wanting to work with slides directly, or having the fortune of working with a really good optical lab. Considering that the majority of mini labs have now switched to digital loops, the idea of an amatuer still wanting to use film only to be scanned on those crappy integrated scanners makes no sense and has *no* artistic justification other than what you really prefer it having the lab rat think for you. Since digital capture puts all excuses and blame on the photographer, I guess we know why many moved back to 35mm film.

I've been shooting mostly film, my G2 has been gathering dust- though, for my live event stuff, I'd use my digital more if I could use my Nikon glass.<div></div>

I still waffle back and forth...

 

I have and use a Digital Rebel quite a bit. Right now I need to send it back to Canon because I have what I think is a dead/stuck pixel right in the upper-middle of the sensor that sticks out in images at f16 and smaller if that area has blue sky or white walls. Thankfully not too many images are taken at f16 or smaller and I can just clone it out in the ones where it crops up, but it's still a pain because I know it's there- something you don't have to worry about with a film camera since you load a new roll each time. With digital, the sensor in the camera is the film...it's the only film you have. If anything gets on it you potentially have problems with any shot you take. That said, a well exposed 6 megapixel RAW file properly processed blows away the quality of any (scanned at home) piece of film when it comes to grain free clean final images. I just received a 12x18 I ordered online from Adorama (for $9.99!) that looks so good and is so clean and clear I can't believe it.

 

If you don't like to process images on the computer and If you can find a lab that consistently can process and print your film well you're better off with film. That was my problem- I love shooting film with my EOS 3 but I hate dealing with poor quality printing or having to spend top dollar to get somewhat consistent quality from an upscale lab. I still shoot film, but now I only have the lab process the film and I scan it into my computer- a process I would not want to deal with if I needed to shoot 10 rolls or more at a time. I can process 20 or more RAW images in Capture One in the amount of time it takes to preview, scan and correct one film image.

I also gave up on digital, though that had less to do with its abilities versus film, and more to do with cost/performance ratio in the short term. I had a Sony F717 for awhile, but found it too unresponsive compared to a film SLR at one third the price. Still saving for the DSLR... When I need a P&S digital camera, I borrow one from a friend.

 

Strangely, all my friends who have gone digital have the same problem. Nobody gets their files printed. They're all stored on CD's in a nice box somewhere. Nobody ever sees them.

 

I recently came back from China, where I had a chance to get together with a group of people to reflect on the loss of somebody important to us, and somebody pulled out an envelope of old photos dating back as far as the 1950's. Never mind the photos are all brown, faded, poorly composed, and even stained. Every single photo was precious to us. As I see it, digital will inflict loss upon us in the coming decades without us ever knowing it, as photo albums and scrap books become things of the past and memories slip away. Let's face facts: the majority of people aren't going to browse CD's of pictures the way they look through photoalbums. For that reason, one friend went back to her SLR to force her to get prints made.

 

 

Still clinging to film, but praying for a cheaper, easier way to get digital prints without spending time in photoshop.

 

 

Colin

Forgot to add to the above comment the "wide-angle factor". If you shoot only digital and believe that complaint is not valid, take a look at this folder of shots taken with both my Digital Rebel and EOS 3, all at the 17mm end of my 17-40 zoom.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=410839

 

The angle of view and "look" of each image is drastically different, and it's not a case of simply being able to back up a few steps and get the same thing, because you don't get the same look. If you like the wide angle perspective and unique look a 16mm or 17mm lens gives you today have to either shoot 35mm film or have the $8,000 to get a 1Ds.

Hi John,

 

I've been predicting for a while that we may see a film "comeback" of sorts, primarily for two reasons:

 

1. The tactile and "visceral" experience of working with film and a film body. At present price points, an equivalent F-mount digital body to the F100 (or, in another sense, to the FM3A) is economically out of reach for many people. And those DSLRs that ARE affordable often leave the user ergonomically and "spiritually" dissatisfied.

 

2. The explosive quality/affordability improvements in desktop scanners over the past couple of years now allow film users to have the best of both worlds.....the satisfaction of film bodies coupled with the convenience and flexibility of the digital darkroom.

 

For the record, I've been mainly digital for over four years, and shoot with a Fuji S2 Pro when the speedy access of digital images is necessary. But I much prefer the feel and ergonomics of my F100/FE2/FM3A, and then scanning the results. (I am one of those who actually *enjoys* the digital side of processing, and whether an image gets to Photoshop via a downloaded CF card or a scanned TIFF from a slide/negative is not nearly so important to me at this point than are the usability differences between digital and film bodies.)

It's a shame so many don't want to respond to your post, but only to bash other contributors.

 

Never went digital, but am abandoning my 35mm gear more and more for my 4x5. I don't do this for a living, and if I had to live with the quality that either DSLR's or 35mm film produce, I don't think I would be satisfied with my photographic efforts.

I have gradually migrated back to film after using a CP990 almost exclusively for

about a year. I just like the responsiveness of my N80 and lenses and the tactile

experience of using my FM2n. That said, when it is financially feasible, I will

eventually go the DSLR route. To echo what Robert said above, I will probably get a

Minolta Scan Dual IV to scan the occasional slide or negative to share on the web or

enlarge. I have contemplated selling my 35mm equipment and going for a "prosumer"

digicam, but, in the end, I cannot part with the equipment I have come to know so

well.

 

Steve

When affordable (somewhat) consumer digital cameras were a few years old, I purchased a Kodak 1.5Mpixel camera which was considered top of the line in those days. Of course, it was a piece of s*** and would take 20 seconds just to power on and 20 more seconds to record an image. I migrated to other digicams and played with DSLR's for a while. Now I'm back to film with my cheap and trusty elan-7. It works for my needs and offers the lowest cost and highest quality results for what I do. Digital doesn't come close. Of course, there will be 20 people who disagree.

Thank you. That was my first and last post on this website. Mr. Eaton has no manners, patience or professionalism.

 

I will leave you all to his insults and self-declared expertise. I don't have the time for it.

Ditto!!!

"Thank you. That was my first and last post on this website. Mr. Eaton has no

manners, patience or professionalism.

 

I will leave you all to his insults and self-declared expertise. I don't have the

time for it."

 

This is the internet.. strong opinions will be stated.. check the Leica forum

(very entertaining) for example... don't sweat it..

When you essentially imply that film is artistically superior to digital, expect a

strong response.. especially since you convert your images to digital in the

end anyways

You may notice the "hero" icon next to Scott Eaton's name. This image of Atlas holding the world on his shoulders is awarded to Photo.net members who have made significant contributions to this site, and in the particular case of Mr. Eaton this is especially appropriate, as he has graciously shared his vast expertise time and time again on this site. His knowledge of specific film emulsions, digital processing techniques, and a myriad of other apparently widely varied topics is seemingly unsurpassed, and Photo.net would not be the same without the immeasurable expertise Mr. Eaton brings to this site. So please, keep the personal attacks to a minimum, especially those directed at members who have contributed so much.

Robert,

 

Don't let Mr. Eaton deter you from Photo.net, that's just his nature, but he is actually quite helpful and knowledgeable from time to time. Some people just have a very hard time respecting someone else's opinion.

 

Some can't understand that using a scanner to digitize a piece of film can actually result in less time in front of the computer. Not every shot taken deserves to be printed. Most advanced amateurs I know are humble enough to only print a select few images, whereas every shot taken with a digital camera requires some PC time, as you have to get the shots off your CF card and they must be archived somehow. Of course you can have a lab do this for you, but I don't think too many DSLR users leave this up to the lab, at least I would hope not considering the longevity of CD/DVD media these days.

 

Anyway, use what you chose and don't feel the need to justify it. Be warned though that when posting responses to questions that make comparisons between digital and film that it does pain some early digital camera adopters to know that some of us are saving our pennies now and will jump into the digital market when it stabilizes, while they have potentially blown large amounts of disposable income to finance the R&D departments of the camera manufacturers. Film is a fantastic medium that has and will stand the test of time. I personally think digital is a convenient medium and I will surely buy a DSLR as well, when the price/performance ratio is right. Will I continue to shoot film? Sure, 4x5 is in my blood.