What is an old photographer to do?

I recently retired and am getting back into serious photography again after

about 25 years. I used by old cameras to take pictures of the kids and travel

shots then just took the film to Costco. I started looking around and was amazed

at what had changed over the years. I currently use a Canon A-1 and a

Rolleiflex. I am used to getting really good results but I like the idea of

using a digital and being able to put pictures on the web. I still want to get

excellent quality prints when I need them. My problem is should I keep using

film and scan it or am I better off to stop using film and just buy new equipment?

If you want to end up with digital images, start with digital.

 

Scanning is a very time consuming process, and introduces many variables that must be controlled for consistent results, and, unless you use very good equipment (that means expensive) the results are inferior to digital capture.

 

Go digital. You'll never look back.

you can take your film to Costco and have them give you prints and a digital disc. I have

done that with my film and it works out fine. I use both film and digital and find myself

leaning more towards film these days then digital. I too and older and retired and i guess

I am just stuck in my ways. I use my digital about half the time. Down from 80%

Larry is probably right. I shoot large format film. I recently bought a $134 Canon point & shoot. It is lots of fun and does far better pictures than I expected. The cost is just about the same as 33 sheets of 8x10 Tri.X, which is gone in two shoots..

Well, one thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is you already have a good knowledge base with film, where as with digital, you've got

software to learn (Lightroom, Capture One, Photoshop, etc). If you're already computer savvy then you've got a good jump-start. I'd been

using Photoshop and working with digital imagery for years when I "defected" ;) and bought a digital, so that wasn't much of a hurdle. Even

still, I was surprised (I shouldn't have been) at how different the two mediums were from each other.

<br><br>

Personally, I don't understand the "either-or" mentality here. I shoot both, I use both, and all things considered, enjoy using both very much.

My Nikon gives me wonderful tone, color and clarity. The big advantage with digital is of course, the ability to experiment and get immediate

feedback on new ideas and techniques without spending a lot of money of processing.

<br><br>

That said, <i>get yer hands off my Velvia!</i> I love shooting color slides, and just from being familiar with my equipment and the films I use,

know pretty much exactly what I'm going to get given certain circumstances, and thus don't need the immediate feedback. For me anyway,

with trickier lighting situations I can usually get on film in 2 or 3 shots what would take me 7 or 8 on digital. There's a lot to be said for that. Granted, scanning does introduce a lot of variables, and can be time consuming; but then again going through 500 RAW files can eat a few

hours too.

<br><br>

So, my (not so) humble opinion is shoot film for now, since you've got it, and give digital a look, but certainly don't dive in right away. There's

a ton of great info on this site, which will help you learn more about digital as a medium, and you'll be likely to make the choice that's best for

you.

<br><br>

Cheers!

I was in your situation about 4 years ago. I sold my Nikon F100 and went 100% digital. I never looked back.

 

You'll be amazed what a digital camera will do for you. It freed me up to look at the photo, and not at all the technical stuff you need to get an image on film.

 

Besides, it won't be long (IMHO) before you won't be able to get consumer film and processing. Then what?

If your're comfortable with film and the equipment that you have then stick with it. As mentioned above you can have a CD of your film made when you have it processed for a couple of dollars above the price of the development--Rex

I'm an old photographer who went digital about 5 years ago. No regrets at all. Yes there is a new learning curve to deal with but you can handle it.

 

What I did was buy an upper end Point and shoot with lots of manual controls available (Canon G3 - latest version is G9) and shot only jpgs. It was a good learning experience and the camera wasn't too pricey compared to a DSLR. It allowed me to move into digital and learn the process in smaller increments.

 

When I felt ready for more sophistication, I bought and Olympus E500 DSLR 2 lens kit. and bought the very good Zuiko 14 - 54 zoom lens. (28 mm to 108mm zoom in 35mm format) . I am very satisfied.

 

I still use the G3, BTW. I toss it into the saddlebags of my motorcycle. Motorcycles are great photo accessories, they allow you to go places and get photos you wouldn't get otherwise.

<I>......and not at all the technical stuff you need to get an image on film.</I><P>That

is not doubt the most absurd comment I have seen on Photonet. The only difference

between digital and film is one uses a digital sensor while the other uses film to

capture the image. Light is bipartisan.

Have your film shots transferred to CD. Get Elements or Paint Shop Pro (some program like that) and learn how to use the software. Later buy an advanced digital camera and start working with it. Don't jump into an expensive DSLR right off the bat, you have fine cameras. Don't worry about the film is dead crowd.

Doug, I'm semi-old and shoot Canon FD gear, Bronica medium format and 35mm digital. They are all good and have their place. For travel and casual snapshots it's hard to beat a small, lightweight point and shoot digicam. If you have a deep investment in Canon FD lenses and accessories, it's certianly feasable, and easy, to shoot color neg film, get it processed, have a CD of digital scans made, at your local wallgreens or other outlet. A full blown digital SLR is going to offer bigger front end cost but lower back end costs and offer many serious advantages not the least is auto focus, and instant feedback. Be prepared to learn software for editing and techniques for safe storage of digital files. If you want to invest in and learn film scanning your Rolleiflex will still give you the best overall Image quality if big prints or super smooth tonalities are desired. At some point, no matter what your capture method, you want to end up with digital files so you may also want to pick up an inkjet printer and try making your own color or B&W prints. Lots of fun and satisfaction there. SInce you have the Canon A-1(great camera), start to use it with film to tune up the eye and use the drug store scans to dip your toe in the digital waters. Proceed to a small digicam point and shoot to go full digital. They are so compact and fun you may find that to be plenty for you. Read books and info on this site to learn more about digital. If the digital bug really bites, a full digital SLR and or a serious film scanner for medium format film may be something to explore for top quality. No matter what you choose, its a great time to be into photography. Best to you.......................Lou

TM Said:

 

"Well, one thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is you already have a good knowledge base with film, where as with digital, you've got software to learn (Lightroom, Capture One, Photoshop, etc). If you're already computer savvy then you've got a good jump-start. I'd been using Photoshop and working with digital imagery for years when I "defected" ;) and bought a digital, so that wasn't much of a hurdle."

 

 

While learning software for editing and post production is good to know, you don't have to. It is just like film in this aspect. You don't have to do post production if the conditions were right when you composed the shot. I don't consider it a must. I do very little editing - I just tweak the raw files a bit with Canon Digital Photo Professional. If I have something like dust on the sensor, or didn't level the camera exactly, I may do editing with Photoshop Essentials, but that is fairly rare for me. I am not trying to say anything about anyone's ability, but I don't think that having that software and doing post processing is a critical element. Granted if you want to do a surreal image, then yes, you need to learn them. Learning them for minor editing, is not that complicated.

 

 

 

Enjoy!

 

Dennis

I went digital after 25 years of shooting film. Digital is much more versatile. I don't have to worry about the film ISO, or media type that I happen to have loaded into the camera. I shoot RAW and if I really want the film characteristics, there is excellent software that has profiled hundreds of types of film and I can apply them in post processing. Other than wanting to be part of the "I shoot film" club, I can't think of any reason not to shoot digital these days.

I inhaled my share of Dektol and fixer fumes in the previous century, then switched to digital about 7 years ago.

 

Since I retired a few years ago, I have spent a lot of time learning the camera techniques and computer post-processing skills necessary to get the results I want with digital. Here's some stuff from last weekend:

 

http://www.brentreid.exposuremanager.com/g/may_30--june_1--2008

 

If one of your main purposes is still travel photography, digital frees you from having to protect your exposed and unexposed film from x-rays, heat, and other travel hazards. Pocket-sized backup devices or CD burning services abroad can keep your images safe.

 

With children and grandchildren, digital's instant feedback can involve them in the photo-making process. They will show you how to email your shots around and get them on the web when you are starting out.

 

I think the learning curve involved in going digital is one of those activities that keeps your mind sharp as you age, and if you join or start a good camera club you can meet a lot of interesting people and stay very active going on shoots, etc.

 

That said, stick with film if that is what you enjoy.

Another old guy, retired for a few years. I bought a Heiland Pentax H2 in 1959 after doing darkroom contact prints, etc. with 6x9cm folding cameras going back further than that. I switched to digital after a trip to Berlin just after I retired on which I had all of my film just slightly fogged, despite precautions. The transition was a liberation, and the one thing I didn't miss at all were all the specks and scratches on commercially developed film. Printing is the only really touchy area in digital, but it is solvable with a little work. If you are interested in web and screen displays, digital is fantastic.

 

That being said, just after I went digital, I found out how cheap lots of film cameras I had always wanted, or was sorry I got rid of, and so on were. More than a hundred film cameras later, I find I still shoot lots of film. Go figure.

Doug, it depends on what you want to do with your photos.

 

If you like to have snapshot size prints to pass around or keep in an album, film is still very handy and cost effective, considering it demands none of your time beyond taking the photos. My mom tried digital. Didn't care for it, went back to film. She's happy.

 

I like both. I don't enjoy digital editing. While I do enjoy b&w darkroom work it's for the process, not because it's inherently superior - it's not. For color I'd rather let someone else do it. When I was doing mostly b&w I printed hundreds of photos a year in various sizes. With digital I tend to accumulate tens of thousands of files. Now I have a huge backlog of unedited photos and few prints to show for it.

 

Which reminds me, I'm on a deadline to finish some digital photos I've been putting off for two months. Just freebie portraits of my mom's friend's dog. If I'd used film they'd have been done 7 weeks, 6 days and 23 hours ago and my mom's friend would be much happier.

Old photographers don't die, they just go out of focus.

I am young (23) and mainly use film. I have a pocket digicam for convenience (Canon Ixus 75) that takes very nice pictures, but I'm holding out on the DSLR front. They don't really appeal to me. I use vintage film equipment and scan the negatives. I colour correct the scans on photoshop and email the files to the lab for printing, so I have a kind of hybrid process. Any decent photolab will also scan negatives to a cd for you.

 

Even if you buy some new digital equipment, it doesn't mean that you have to give up on the film. Why not use both?

Doug, if you are happy with the world of computers, fancy the brave new world of digital cameras and have some spare cash, then I suggest you dive into digital. As you are posting on PN I think the computer side of things should present no pronlems.

 

Digital cameras have lots of buttons that film shooters have never come acrosss but they can also be used in point-and-shoot mode to start you out before you learn what all the buttons do.

 

However the initial outlay for a DSLR plus a couple of good quality lenses will be substantial. Check out the sort of money you would need for the kit you want then ask yourself if the price is off=putting.

 

I went to digital in my fifties and have had a lot of fum with digital cameras. If the sums come out right I suggest you go for it.

Old photographers don't die. They go all orangey. Like my 1960s Ektachromes.

Lex, just like those old Ektachromes, to get back to normal all you have to do is pump up the green. ;)

I would like to thank all of you for your advice. I enjoyed reading your answers and looking at your pictures.

 

Like Brent I wasn't looking forward to dealing with chemicals again. I was thinking I could develop in the bathroom then scan the negs. What I really am worried about is getting the quality I want. So far it seams that if I get the right software and a decent camera I can get good photos with a little work. I think the thing to do is to start experimenting with a digital camera and see how they stack up to my expectations. It is going to be hard to beat the Rollie, I wish I could get a digital back for it. I could buy a new one but I would have to take a 2nd Mortgage on the house.

 

Canon has a scanner that does both 35mm and 120 does anyone have experience using it?

 

Please keep the advise coming I am having a lot of fun.

Doug,

 

First off, you gotta love the polarity of the answers, huh? No film, no digital! Film! Digital! BOTH! ;)

 

I have a Canon 8600F that scans 120 and 35mm. For the money (around $180 US, i think) it's given me pretty good images. The scanner's color

controls have a tendency to amplify film grain in strange ways (particularly on slide film) so I recommend doing the color adjustments in

Photoshop. I've printed scans from it at 24" x 18" for gallery shows and (again for what it costs) was very pleased with them. For posting here it

should be more than enough. If memory serves, Photoshop Elements was included with the scanner, which is a good way to dive into digital

imaging (provided you haven't already).

 

Also, you're going to get into scanning your negs, might I recommend a coffee press?

 

TMC

TMC,

 

Why a coffee press?

 

Doug

Because it takes a L O O O N N N G G G time with equipment most people can afford.