Going all film?

Go for it! I shoot film because it has an intangible look to it that digital simply doesn't have. There is some great work out there in digital, but I can tell it's digital and not film. Plus, I love all the old vintage 35mm mechanical cameras and equipment. They were made to last, and to me that is really important. To hold something in my hands so solidly constructed with manual controls is much of the fun of the photography. Most of the gazillion photos people take with their digisnaps with crap zooms will end up getting deleted, then the camera will crap out in a couple years because its cheaply made.

The arguments about which is better are really useless. The truth is, it isn't about quality - it's about the immediate need for delivery. In a technological age when we are requiring instant response and real-time communication, digital fills that requirement. You have to separate the different types of photography and examine the requirements for each. For hobbyist and those who are producing art work for gallery type display or anything else that does not have clients chomping at the bit to publish, film can be used very easily and the photographer can be patient in waiting for the film to be developed and printed. Others may not have that ability.

 

But even so, the whole cost comparison regarding computers, software, etc. is also an unnecessary debate. Most people who shoot film are still involved in the communication of their work. Negatives are scanned and digitally enhanced and digitally published. It's a moot point regarding the need for computers and sophisticated software. If you don't have those things it is hard to communicate to a large audience.

 

Digital equipment costs more than film equipment in cameras and some accessories but lenses are fairly similar. Used film gear is much cheaper today of course.

 

With lab costs, the real challenge is not paying for a good lab, it's finding one. More and more traditional film labs are making way for digital functionality and the quality of manual developing and printing is a less proliferated skill.

 

All technical and electronic gear nowadays is made to be just as volatile as all the other things on the market. Quality assurance is lacking and manufacturing is not about pride in workmanship but making the most market share dollars possible in the short term. So, yes, everything new will "crap out" as it was said.

 

My film gear will long outlast my digital gear but I still shoot with digital mostly because it is more convenient to shoot and process some photographs in the same day if needed. No waiting and no hours in the darkroom. I can produce proofs in just a short time compared to the long hours of creating proof prints or proof sheets.

 

I have always been on the fence about returning to film completely but once you shoot with a really good digital setup it is hard to look back.

 

Lou

You're right about the crap out. They make cameras with so many fancy gadgets. Most people have to have a camera that does everything. Including autofocus. What I call the couch potato mindset. Push one button, no more. It's the same with cars.My 1966 Chevy pickup at 40 years old,the windows worked fine. My friend's mid 90's Ford truck. He couldn't open the driver's window. Another friend has a Mustang about 2002-2004. He had his driver's door panel off working on his power window.

Digital cameras with all their electronic gadgets will be the same. I bought a $300.00 digital several years ago to sell some of my old cameras on ebay. Halfway through installing the software,it stopped. The camera sat there unused for 2 years. I later reinstalled the harddrive,then, the on off switch broke after 2-3 dozen times of use.

My cameras from 1917 on, no problem. Mechanical will always outlast electroinic.

My last point is that these super meg digitals that people mention, the 16megs up to the 20-30 megs, do costs thousands. Maybe pros can justify that expensive, for something that might be oudated in a few years. But, the average amateurs can't.

You can go 100% film if you will only be doing personal work, OR if you are already such a well-established professional that nobody cares how long it takes to see your pix.

 

Personally, I only use digital as a way to financially support my use of film.

I was in the darkroom yesterday - did 20 7x9 prints in 30 minutes. Surely that is fast

enough?

Listen kid, embrace them both. You love film... that makes you rare. You just have to remember, film is kinda suffering now. Prices going up, labs supporting it less and less. All I'm saying is that yes get your film. But hey, keep your Nikon digital equipment. Hey, maybe you should try the Nikon D3. Use it like your film stuff. Is it that film is so much simpler than digital? I'd just have to say that the cost savings of digital outweigh the film stuff in the long haul. I'll by your skyport receivers!

Hi, I think to each his own. My strongest reccomendation would be check out the labs you intend to use. I can tell you in my area there is now only one that processes film. I made the switch to digital about three years ago. I had an Rb that I just sold recently. I still have my Mamiya 645 and a Roli, as well as an AE-1. I still love all of those cameras! If you can swing it get the Rb before selling off ALL of your digital gear so you can play with it. You will not get the money back out of the RB if you want to go back to digital.

 

A note on the RB is it's a very heavy camera, if you intend on doing portraits with it you should plan to also invest in a heavy duty tripod. I have a bogen that I love with a quick release plate that screws down to lock in place (sounds complicated but very simplistic and quick).

 

You have to do what you feel most comfortable with and what you get best results with. Medium format is great and lots of fun though. There is also something to be said for seeing the negs after anticipating what is on them! Good luck to you!

You have many responses here, but only you can ultimately know if your decision is right for you. I'd imagine it would depend in part on whether you intend to make a living with photography as your primary income source or (like myself) enjoy it as a hobby or secondary income source. You've got your youth as an asset here! You can always buy the "latest" digital gear later if it becomes necessary. Like many have said already, there are some "jobs" where digital is a superior tool. I found that to be the case when shooting fast action sports photography. On the other hand, the availability of film and a decent processing lab -- or paper/chemicals if you plan to process yourself -- will introduce an economic factor to your assessment. While I'm not in your age group (I'm 43) I'd like to share one other perspective regarding ergonomics. I extensively use a computer/laptop in my "real" job which I believe is the reason for the carpal tunnel and tarsal tunnel that I suffer from now -- gifts of a sedentary work-style. I recently got back into doing darkroom work as a means to get up and move in the process of being creative in my hobby. I do digital also, but for personal reasons I need to spend less time in Photoshop and more time moving my hands, arms, and legs about. I think the best thing about photography right now is that you still have so much choice! If film supply ever goes away completely (and I sure hope that doesn't happen) then we'll all have less choice. So enjoy this time while you can! Go for that film!

I'd just like to say that I'm impressed by how civil this discussion is. Not too long ago film vs digital debates used to degrade into nasty insults. I'm glad we've gone past that.

 

For the record, I went from film to digital and back to film for many of the reasons outlined here.

An RB67! What a beauty. When I was about your age I saw Herb Ritts shooting an

RB, and later saw the photos from the shoot. I WOULD have an RB67, at any cost.

When I finally bought my first RB, it was true love; that 6x7 focus screen, that

rotating back and those negatives, my god those negatives. How can a print be so

creamy smooth, and so razor sharp all at once? Hi-fidelity. Making available

light portraits I found, with practice, I could shoot my RB handheld at speeds

down to 1/15 second, which made up for the slow-ish lenses. Since my RB didn't

have a meter, I bought and used a handheld exposure meter, and in the process of

learning to use the camera and the meter, and to process and print the film I

shot, I learned quite a bit about the medium. The history of photography is

chemical, and as a student of the medium, the attraction of the darkroom was

irresistible. For me, it has never been ALL about the final print, but also

about the continuum; the photographic process and the evolution of the medium.

Since the first photographic images were chemically rendered, innovators worked

hard to make photography more accessible, and the technical challenges more

manageable, and routinely sacrificed quality for convenience and economy. From

Daguerreotypes to wet plates to dry plates to film, to instant prints, image

quality was second to convenience and productivity, but these innovators never

stopped working to improve that balance, and today we have available to us

equipment and materials offering the very highest quality and ease of use that

would have astounded early photographers. Digital imaging technology is more

revolutionary than evolutionary, and essentially separates imaging from

chemistry. In many ways, I think digital imaging is as different from

photography as photography is from painting. If I had to predict how the

division of film/digital would play out, I would look to the history of motion

pictures, where digital imaging first took hold with consumers and low budget

pros, but took much longer to displace high quality applications. Will digital

imaging replace chemical photography? In my own opinion, yes, when digital

imaging quality, convenience and economy are sufficiently balanced, but we

should bear in mind that the image qualities of a Daguerreotype or a color

pigment carbon print remain unmatched even in our gizmocentric age. So, if

you're curious about, or even slightly interested in chemical photography,

there's no time like the present. Digital imaging will continue to improve in

quality, convenience and economy, so the longer you wait to embrace it, the

easier it will be. Have fun!

 

Jay

I'd recommend film. How else could you document the Cybernetic Revolt ;)

<I>"I'd just like to say that I'm impressed by how civil this discussion is. Not too long ago film vs digital debates used to degrade into nasty insults. I'm glad we've gone past that".</I><br><br>

I agree totally. A very civilised thread without the usual 'one is better than the other' attitude which is hopefully no more.<BR><BR>

I like to do a bit of oil painting occasionally but has anyone noticed those old dinosaurs still painting with watercolours?

Jay, you mentioned the carbon prints. If I could, I would buy an 8x10 and go back to carbon printing. Time consuming, yes. But, the quality is there to the max!

I recommend film. I'm 45, although I've only been serious into art photography for about 10 years. As an artist/hobbyist, I think film offers a number of advantages over all but the most expensive digital:

 

* A dreamier tonal quality.

* More information and detail, especially at 6x7 and larger.

* Not too expensive, as long as you're not shooting gobs of photos.

* Better potential to improve your "eye" (for composition, etc.)

 

As for my last point, here's what I mean. The greatest skill an art photographer can have is the ability to assess a potential shot and decide it's NOT worth shooting -- the ability to self-critique a shot BEFORE you take it, and then resist the temptation to click the shutter if it isn't good enough. This will really improve your photography.

 

So, you take a roll of 120, use a 6x7 camera, and know you have only 10 shots. You must make them count, and you don't have a little screen on the camera to help you. You must VISUALIZE it. This discipline, this constant rethinking and reimagining, will make you a better photographer.

 

And use "low tech" cameras especially. I find the fewer "bells and whistles" my camera has, the better my artistic instincts become. (For what it's worth, I shoot mostly with a Mamiya 7ii, a camera with great glass but some limitations.)

 

Good luck!

All the discussion here underlines the fact that these media are tools, best suited to particular needs and desires. Each has its own advantages and properties. I am glad to learn that younger people having only digital experience are discovering the merits of film use. Yes, it is fun in its own special way, and it does force you to take more care with each shot, and become more accurate. Using film keeps you on your toes. I have often said if film were the new kid on the block, it would be generating all the attention the latest digital equipment now enjoys.

 

I have been shooting film for over 30 years, and digital for over 3 years. MF offers great quality for enlargements. I shoot 35mm because it offers good quality with versatility in extensive lens FL selection, range of shutter speed and flash sync, and a variety of practical applications, which makes it more fun for me.

 

I vote with those who advise you to keep your digital stuff too. Digital, film,LF, MF, and smaller formats all have their uses.

 

Just one example- I shoot some sports for certain high school and college teams sometimes. When I shoot wrestling, I do so with 35mm print film. Nearly all my shots are keepers. I use zoom lenses of certain FL, and order 3 sets of 5x7 prints with each roll- one for my archive, one for the athlete, one for the coaches, who use them to analyze technique. I get 25 shots per roll, so I get a total of 75 5x7 prints for about $15 using local Kodak Perfect Touch service. It is convenient, with no computer time by me. I just drop it off and pick it up. Digital can't touch that deal. On the other hand, when shooting hockey, an extremely unpredictable high-speed sport, around 50% are discards. I use a DSLR, put the keepers on a CD and give it to the team captain, who can copy same for coaches and team mates. Digital is a great tool, but so is film. I still enjoy shooting slides as well, for their accuracy. No in-camera image processing, or post processing, what you shoot is what you get. For many applications I shoot a mix of film and digital.

Buy film cameras if you want, but "going all film" sounds more like a religious decision these days than anything else. Digital has enormous practical utility, and if you ever decide to do anything serious with photography, you will need to know it inside and out.

Then get a Nikon film body and that way you can use your existing lenses -

unless they're all DX lenses, then you might as well start from scratch.<p/>My

apologies if this has been said already but I was getting tired with some of the

film vs. digital comments. Especially, when we all know that glass plates are

better than both combined. :-P

Hmmmm......is this thread closed? I get the comment ENOUGH ALREADY,

adjust and resubmit. My comment certainly wasn't very long.

"Digital has enormous practical utility, and if you ever decide to do anything serious

with photography, you will need to know it inside and out."

 

Can you please define "anything serious with photography" for me, Mark? I'm a full-

time professional photographer working across the US, Canada, and Europe, and I

shoot film exclusively. It seems to me I'm doing something "serious with

photography" without shooting any digital whatsoever.

 

There is no reason to assert the absolute necessity of knowing digital inside and out

any more than there is reason to assert the absolute necessity of knowing film.

What's important is knowing the medium you choose to use, and using the

appropriate tool for the job. To assert that anyone serious about a career in

photography must have thorough knowledge of digital is just not true.

 

As far as I'm concerned, it's usually appropriate to be suspect of any statement of

absolutes. "You must" is rarely true.

 

- CJ

Hi Jack,

 

a carbon print is an amazing thing; too few photographers have ever seen one, and fewer still have made one. I have an 8x10 camera, but the only carbon prints I've made were 3x4. If I ever got beyond the finger crossing stage, I had planned to make some 8x10 carbon prints, but I haven't committed the time for that yet, despite the process' addictive nature. Carbon printing is a very simple process that's diabolically easy to screw up, but the few successes make the many failures worthwhile. Color pigment prints require a level of mastery far beyond my fumbling efforts. I do have a file of negatives suitable for carbon printing, so I'll never say never, but I don't see any carbon printing in my immediate future. Making a good carbon print is no mean feat, but producing a body of work in carbon is a monumental achievement of craft. Can a process elevate a work beyond craft? I don't know, but a finely crafted carbon print is a thing of beauty, even if the subject matter is mundane. Yours could easily end up on a museum wall, Jack, so keep them well.

 

Jay

Hi Jay,

 

I did my carbon printing back in the early 80's. I had a 4x5 then, and medium

format. I couldn't afford an enlarger bigger than 120. So, I used the Kodak

duplicating sheet film in 8x10 size. Do you remember Dr. Green from Gallery 614

in Indiana? I only did monochromes, then. It was easy to buy Dr. Greens color

tissues, etc, then. He imported them from Germany.

I guess that and the salted paper process is why I never got into digital. I love big

negatives! When I saw a photographer in a magazine using an 8x20 banquet

camera, I was jealous!

I sold all my equipment then to start makng guitars and dulcimers. Years later, I

had to sell all of my woodworking equiptment.

Now,My equiptment are a 4x5 Anniversary Speed, and over 50 film cameras.

Anyway, I feel that with film and digital, one is not better or worse than the other.

Just like the oil painters are the same compared to my watercolors.

But, it would be great if cameras became less automated and people had to think

more.

I like using my spot meter,one reading for the shadows and one for the highlights.

Then, deciding from there.

Hi Chris,

 

Great to hear that you are so into photography at such a young age. If you are

wanting to photograph landscapes primarily, I feel the Pentax 6x7 is the camera

to get. Most professionals I know that focus on landscape and use medium

format, use this system. I have used it as a compliment to my 4x5 Tachihara for

years. The camera is bullet proof and very dependable. The lenses are

absolutely top notch in terms of sharpness, contrast, etc. And now that most

people are shooting digital, you can pick up this equipment for very reasonable

prices on ebay, etc. I found a website that rates the Pentax 6x7 lenses.

http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/p67ss.htm

 

Sample landscape images at: www.brucejackson.com

Most of these are 4x5, but a few 6x7's as well.

 

Best of luck!

~BRUCE~

Here is another post I seen on PN, person wanting to know the what should be right amount of time to spend on postprocessing...????

 

What the time has come, nobody is "PHOTOGRAPHER", all are graphics people who can edit and enhance pictures on computers, a small 35 mm would still give you far better results compared to any digital, if printed directly from pro machine, without doing any postprocessing.

 

Is this the right way to shoot as we can in any condition, without thinking about any photographic technique and then we go and sit on computer and waste our time in front of eye-harmfull computer monitor....???????

 

Just think as much any can........

I'm all for whatever people get along with best.

 

I still use film in my EOS 3, mostly because I do a lot of black and white but I

do enjoy shooting slide film still. The EOS 3 replaced my defunct EOS 5 in

December which lasted me a good few years (12 years I think) and the 3 was ﾣ150

with 12 months warranty in Exc++ condition, all caps etc, just some minor

hot-shoe marks. It has a few more scratches now but I work the thing hard.

 

Overall, I'd have to look at a 5D for something of near-equal calibre and I

would loose the weatherproofing the 3 has (to a degree) and I find the button

interface better than a dial (a big step up on my old 5.) There are other things

like multi-spot metering but I'm not saying the 5D is a bad camera. Nuh uhh.

 

I just enjoy working in the dark room, for me it's all part of the experience

but I'm old enough and probably ugly enough now to know that so long as someone

is happy with how they do something then let them be.

 

I have shot digital and still do on occasion and don't have any problem with it

at all, if you're happy with your work, and how you go about it, and you

actively enjoy it -- then that's the main thing for me.

bear in mind it also a case of Medium format vs 35mm

 

not just digital vs film.

Format, rb or rz 645 6x6 6x7 or even 6x8 with motor back

Depth of field!!! Give an rb to nubie and they will always say everything looks so 3d! You have a much more range of d.o.f due to the neg lens ratios.

sharpness, Medium format lenses are generally superior to their 35mm counterparts in overall sharpness and corner to corner sharpness. The mamiya lenes are very punchy sharp and give great vibrant colours.

35mm wideangle lenses suffer terribly from corner sharpness and falloff due to the physical restrictions of a 35mm dslr.

 

If you need speed then medium format may not be the best choice, but depends. I shoot a lot of performace artists and I end up using medium format in most cases. I do a scan of the light situation before hand so I know what f stop to use in what areas shoot either b+w or neg. When I have used digtal the autofocus tends to be slower than manual rb and often goes into epileptic mode missing many shots. Autoexposure is great for journalists and sports photoraphers but if you are being creative can be terrible. I shoot mostly chrome and only need to do a few meterings in a shoot, with a little common sense and some experience you will learn how to judge light in your head, start with the f16 rule. I test myself when doing street photography, there is rarely half a stop difference between my quess and the meter. When you pay attention to light in this manner it opens up your photography in ways that a 35mm auto process rarely would.

 

In most things I do, I'm always searching for the why, medium format will make you apprechiate the world around you more because your understanding of it will improve, hence those that have learnt with film and now use digital seem to benifit the most from both worlds.

 

There is nothingbetter than looking a slide you have taken and being aware of all the knowledge and effort that went into captuing the light.

 

The digtal age is creating in a general sense one where the blind are leading the blind, that does not mean that digital is inferior to film but the process is diminishing.

 

I saw for the first time the other day a 40 year old Ansel Adams print, i suggest to those with any doubts that if you have to chance, do the same.