How many photographer here still using SLR camera or film ?

I shoot digital for work (in a non-professional setting) and film for pleasure. It is as simple as I just like my SLR better for a bunch of reasons. When I can afford a premium DSLR I'll make the switch completely to digital. I do have to add though that some of films characteristics (TMax 400 and such) will be hard to reproduce digitally. Of course one can always spend a bunch on software to mimic those characteristics.

99% film. Shoot a lot of MF.

Beyond the media itself, many people that I talk to simply do not like digital cameras. Not everybody likes electronic push-button cameras. Many people use a hand-held meter and focus manually with digital cameras simply because they feel they get better control over the final images, so considering that they are manually focusing and metering manually, there really aren't any significant advantages in using a camera body that eats through batteries and has plastic buttons and knobs all over it. With film you can do "off the grid" shooting by using mechanical cameras and processing B&W on location in remote regions. Me, I shoot Olympus OM film cameras mostly and I've invested heavily into those lenses. I really enjoy the performance and the compact size of those lenses and cameras, and in the digital realm there is quite simply nothing that compares. Equipment prices to switch from all-film to digital is another thing holding many people who don't get paid to do their photography to film. It's a huge one-time expense considering the body, batteries, lenses and large diameter filters for the lenses etc etc.

I use both and have bought both film and digital cameras this year.

 

I do like the control I get with digital so I mostly scan my film into my computer. I also like the look I get from my digital prints.

 

It doesn't have to be one or the other. It doesn't have to be expensive. Use whatever you like.

Still shooting film with my trusty Nikon F2AS manual camera. Also do some

medium and large format work. Have had my own wet darkroom since the

1960's. I have a digital Canon for quick results, but can't really afford the cost of

a faster CPU, Massive file storage, latest Photoshop software, etc. Prefer to be in

darkroom and get a few great prints than spend my free hours in

front of a monitor. Both film and digital have their good/bad points.

 

/Clay

SLR. Film. I'm cheap, and prefer to spend my money on film and cheap used film equipment, rather than on expensive new digital equipment. If I were starting from scratch, I'd probably go with digital, but I'm not. I grew up with film, and I like it. I like slides. Since I am a complete amateur beholden to nobody, I shoot what I like.

I'm in love with my F5 and can not seem to part with it so film for now. I have a little canon p&s that I use for snapshots. I like shooting my 4x5 for some of the alternative processes. If I were to move to doing photography in a more professional capacity I would definitely branch out to digital. As things stand, I only shoot for myself so ... go film GO!

I still shoot b&w film in small, medium, and large format. It's what I've always wanted to do since receiving my first camera from my father-in-law twenty-eight years ago. In time I managed to set up a darkroom at home. Somewhere along the way digital photography became popular. My wife gave me a digital camera, which I use occasionally in addition to film cameras. From time to time I send digital files to pictopia, a great photo service, for color prints. But b&w film photography has been my dream from the start. Check out my photonet gallery for samples of my film and digital photography.<div></div>

After using digital for a couple of years, I'm back to film. I liked my 30D but I *love* my F5 !

And I just picked up a Stylus Epic for $20 that will just destroy my (now seldom used) Canon compact digital in terms of photo quality

35mm film. Too intrigued with the possibilities of emulsions to consider anything else. Have been able to attain previously unaffordable top quality equipment these last few years thanks to the craze for digital. I'm very impressed with the results from modern films, and the relative simplicity of film photography. I scan film and print digitally, and am quite satisfied. Where I lived previously, there was a good processing lab with overnight service, so even if I were shooting time sensitive things, I don't see a compelling reason not to shoot film, and many things in its favor.

I own over 150 cameras, about which 8 are digital, (including canon a650is and nikon d70 and d200), and 7 non digital Leicas, 15 film Nikons, 8 Canon FDs, 12 Pentax spotmatics, 15 Minolta SLRS, many Kodak Retina's, many Voigtlanders, a few Zeiss. The big advantage of digital is (1) instant feedback, and (2) the equivalent of many rolls of film on one memory card. Film cameras are more elegant, made of metal and glass, not plastic. If you had to take your memory card to a photoshop and wait days to get prints, I would use film exclusively. I am a self confessed luddite, and I miss steam locomotives. I also miss intelligent responsible presidents like Eisenhower, under whom I was commissioned, as opposed to shyt for brains idiots like bush.

Things of my own interest I shoot with film. For commercial work digital. B&W photography I still do with film, doesn't matter what.

Having purchased an old Hasselblad only a couple of years ago, I revel in using it, the look and feel of it, that very satisfying

"click" of the shutter, the results on the large negatives which make such lovely prints. I don't anticipate switching cameras or

techniques since I have so much to learn on the camera I have.

 

I like the look of film and, although I scan prints so I'll have digital versions, I don't like "post-production", as it's called. I like

having prints to look at and share. Wading through hundreds of digital photos, including mine, exhausts me, I don't do it.

 

I also like having the financial limitations of film. The cost of processing deters me from shooting hundreds of photos in one

afternoon, like some people with whom I go out shooting. The photos I take are ones I really want. If I bracket shots, I pay

attention to the results, having noted f/stop and shutter speed when I took them. With rare exceptions, I shoot fewer than 36

shots/week. The time period between shooting and getting the film back from the lab gives me something to look forward to.

Like Marc, I use both and have purchased film as well as digital equipment this year (and last, and the year before that...).

While both have their distinct advantages that are best in various situations, overall I prefer film, especially medium format

and Velvia 100.

FWIW, I still sometimes get that "oops" feeling in my stomach when I realize I just loaded a CF card in bright sunlight. Then I think for a second and remember that it's ok. Old habits die hard.

Me,it's only film. Why spend several thousand for a digital that, as the film magazines said, "equals film". When they are talking about 35? When 35 is one of the smallest film formats ever made. I shoot medium format and large. Don't plan on changing. Digital is fine, I use to have one. I'm happy with what I have, and besides, since I plan on getting back into the old processes. Which are contact printed. Large negs are what I need anyway.

When digital came out, the pros bought DSLR's because it was cheaper than buying a digital back for their blad's and RB 67's.That's why there are so many low cost medium formats out there.

Not, because a DSLR is better than a 6x7.

I'm currently between systems, due to financial situations, and trying to decide on the best dslr for my needs. Sick of

the obsolescence with digital cams, when the Nikon D200 came out it was highly rated, but after a year and a half, it is

now considered "old school," because of the Nikon D3 and D300, D700.....Also considering adding more film equipment

because of the dependence on electrical systems in today's modern cameras, my Canon G9 froze up several days ago,

and will not respond to anything, when i needed a digital camera, it was dead in the water, and my $500 digital p/s was

worthless when I needed it the most! Thank goodness that I had my Olympus Stylus Epic! So I am looking for a

mostly mechanical camera now, so I won't be crippled if the electrical system goes out!

 

I'm starting to wonder just how much camera we really need to make quality photos.....

I do, because I can.

hey, we are many yet

Jet- I threw away two Leica R 5 bodies because the electrical systems are crap, it can happen even with film cameras, not to mention me jamming the lens mount on the hasselblad.

I do. I have seven cameras obtained in the course of 20 years. All film, except for a point and shoot digital I use for snaps. The other six are large format, medium and 35mm. Why do I keep using film? I like it. I know how. For the longest time, digital output could not compete with analog -- that's not true anymore, so I have some of my negs scanned and printed by digital labs. Very good results. I am loathe to buy anything better than a point and shoot for taking the image -- the technology is improving so rapidly that I worry I am buying at the steepest part of the technology curve -- next year, all your digital cameras will be left in the dust by gigapixel sensors. That kind of thing. It took me a long time to buy a CD player, just for this reason. Anyway, I'll play with my film cameras for the time being -- no one is working on producing a better medium format film camera than a 500C/M Hasselblad, or a Leica M3 -- much less my Kodak Masterview 8x10!

Still film. I shoot with an Olympus OM-1 and an OM-1n. I'll probably go at least part digital some day, but I don't see the point anytime soon. Its a hobby and I really enjoy film. I also don't have the money to afford sink thousands of dollars in to my hobby. One of these days when full frame sensor cameras come down in price quite a bit I'll probably get one, but until I am earning more money (well more like when my wife and I are done having kids and they are in school) and full frame cameras come down to at most $1,500 it isn't going to happen. To many lenses I would be forced to replace if I want both ultra wide angle lenses and also fast wide angle lenses and way to much money I would have to spend getting them.

 

Even then I'll probably still use film a fair amount, its just a lot of fun for me.

 

I probably expose a roll of film every couple of weeks these days, mostly because I shoot a lot of pictures of my son (5 months). On vacations I might only shoot 1-2 rolls if it is going to my in-laws at the beach. If it is a big vacation such as Europe I probably average 1.5 rolls a day, though I am in to photography a lot more then I was the last time I took a major trip (about 2 years ago now), so I would suspect my rate would be closer to 2.5-3 rolls a day. Still maybe only 40-50 rolls of film a year.

I shoot 100% film. I have no desire to go digital and have a computer and software make images for me.

I shoot both. 80%digital 20%film. Besides the obvious differences in the hardware and workflow, I don't see a lot of differences in my photography. My images still look like my images. I go to my film cameras mostly for fun B&W photography and for shooting in less-than-friendly shooting conditions (rain, dust, salt spray etc). I am drawn to my Canon F-1's and FD lenses because I enjoy the feel of using a precision, mechanical device. I still get better prints from my scanned 6x6 Bronica negs than from 35mm digital anything.

I shoot about 5 rolls of film per month on average. All kinds. I like to have slide film cross processed. And I love my medium formats, most of which are completely manual. I just starting shooting with a Polaroid ProPack, because it was so cheap on ebay. And I still try to dust off my 35mm's and take them out for a shoot once in a while. I feel more artistic with film cameras. I like knowing that I know exposures, and that I understand light. I like knowing I'm old school. I'm not embarrassed to wip out a cheap-ass Holga.

 

With all that said, the majority of today's assignment work expects digital, and digital has its merits. I always end up shooting way too many pictures with digital, and it can be a bitch to have to sift through thousands of pictures to pull out the good ones, and then edit in photoshop.