I have more fun with film than with digital

<p>Hello, I'm a fairly young amateur photographer, and I started off shooting my parent's canon ae-1 a year ago. I learned how to develop film and make prints. When I saved enough money up, I bought digital cameras, first a sony nex 6, which I sold and bought a fuji x100, which I sold and bought a x-pro1, which I sold and bought a d7000. I've found, however, that when I carry a digital camera with me, I feel numb the whole time. Im more focus on that lcd screen than the world around me. I know many of you will scoff at this, but I'm going to sell my d7000 and tamron 28-70 and 50mm 1.8 and put all the money toward film, photo paper, chemicals, and probably a medium format camera. I know ill never be able to do the same thing I could with digital, but i think its much more fun shooting film. Anyone else have a similar experience?</p>

<p>You may want to edit the title of your post Robert!</p>

<p>WOW I MESSED UP BAD LOL</p>

<p>Welp time to close my account out of embarrassment.... umm mods please change the title? </p><P><I>

Moderator note: Title correction made.</I><P>

<p>No problem, I do stuff like this all the time!</p>

<p>Hi Robert. I had the problem too, but in my case, I had no return. Moving in a apartment, darkroom was out of question. For a wile, I shot film and dropped for development with contact print, then scan them. Didn't worked. The best desktop scanner, the Nikon Super Coolscan-4000 ED wasn't good enough for my test for b&w, for slide film it was reasonable. Then, I bought my first digital, a Fuji pro . . . . 6MP camera. Image quality was ok the rest of the camera a disaster, then the Nikon D300, and so on. The way I shot with my digital cameras, most of the time I'm on manual, including the focus and using a good practice I squared in the last 60 years. Hardly ever chimping on the little monitor at the back, except a couple of really critical cases, situation. So I happily using digital nowadays, and sometime go out for a walk with a rangefinder and shot a roll or two, drop the film for development with contact print. I my never going to scan them, occasionally pull then out of the envelope and see and feel the film or the contact print and happily back to the envelop. Digital photography is good, fast and you have more chance for a good print. I meant, real print, because the image in digital format in your computer, not an image at all. The print is your real photograph only.<br>

Happy shooting</p>

<p>Robert, I found that with digital I am much better to do a lot of image previewing (perception, followed by some form of image conception) outside of the EVF or monitor, for the reason you mention. Film and darkroom permit a lot of time to do those things. Despite the lower availability of materials, it is still a route I like to take when a photo project in black and white does not impose time constraints on the shooting part. However, I love digital for the ability to redo the image capture or provide alternative results at the same time as the original image capture. I wonder though if I always apply the same quality of seeing as I do when using the film medium.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Anyone else have a similar experience</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>No. The opposite. I never had the remotest interest in processing or printing myself, and was happy to leave those to others working under my direction. Now, using digital I can shoot as many variations on a subject as I want without thinking how much this is costing me; whether I've brought enough film, where I might get some more, how best to carry my comprehensive MF kit and the 50-75 rolls of 120/220 I used on my average trip. No more worries about scanning -which I hate- and editing scans from film ( a whole lot harder than editing a digital original). I'm happy to make my own print files. And I get to look at a jpeg approximation and a histogram so I pretty much know when I've nailed something or need to do it again. And all up I reckon I save more than £4 000 a year- enough to buy a new dslr and lenses each year if I want (which I don't btw).<br>

I do understand where you're coming from and you're by no means alone in your conclusions. But there is an opposite view that some people much prefer. </p>

If it tickles your fancy or rings your bell then we do not scoff. Each to her own in this best of all possible photo sites. I have been through the darkroom phase. Set up the trays and get the water temperature as cool as possible in a warm climate. I still keep my Meopta enlarger somewhere. I long ago said that I considered development of film like cooking spaghetti. Time and temperature wise. And someone, perhaps like yourself replied they enjoyed cooking spaghetti. Me I enjoy eating the stuff al dente please. I like the instant gratification of digital. The spontaneity. I do not need to do test strips from an enlarger and pick the correct filter. And my rhinitis would not like the dark room. So I am a veteran of those days. Good luck. No scoffing. Chemistry is more hands on. Wet hands, a little stinky, but go for it..

<p>For over 30 years I truly enjoyed seeing and capturing images, and viewing and sharing those images in print form. However, I constantly wrestled with issues of time, space, and budget to buy and process film, and to print those images for display. I found cost and complexity the largest impediments to realizing full enjoyment of photography as a hobby. I held out on purchasing a DSLR until the price and quality curves reached a balance I found worthwhile. Gratifyingly, this happened at about the same time when I could afford to invest in new equipment.</p>

<p>Now, with digital image capture, processing, and printing, I find the entire photographic process enjoyable, affordable, and accessible. I learned the hard way that digital adds the temptation to shotgun the image capture process, shooting hundreds of images and hoping you get something worthwhile. When I shot film, I was very careful to evaluate and set up every shot, because of the investment of resources in making each image. Now, when I discipline myself to set up every shot as if I were using film, I find my results are far better. I was reminded of this on a photo tour last February. The pros who led the tour were shooting medium-format film. I watched carefully as they evaluated, set up, and executed each shot. While they were shooting the same subjects and they took a tiny fraction of the images compared to the rest of the tour (with our digital cameras), their outcomes were far and away more compelling. I have since re-committed myself to invest more in my creative process, and do less thoughtless shooting, and my creative joy has been reanimated.</p>

<p>I will not criticize anyone who finds pleasure in the art and technique of film. I understand it. But for me, digital has made photography a far more pleasurable and accessible pastime than I ever knew with film.</p>

<p>"Fun" is such a nebulous word. It means different things to different people. Some found film photography to be elitist and taking too much time to learn. Along comes digital and instead of a long, deliberate learning process, the quick and easy trial and error learning method advanced their skill and their results. That sort of learning has been around for a long time. It's how most of the animal kingdom operates. It works.</p>

<p>Coming from a film background I find that digital enhanced my film skill. Some simply gave up film entirely. They had no vestment in it. They aren't nostalgic and have no interest in it. Personally, I thought digital was going to replace film entirely. It's a bit of a surprise that it's still around, but I'll continue to enjoy it - not as long as I can, but until I stop enjoying it.</p>

<p>Yes, I'm that well stocked. :)</p>

<p>My approach has been, at times, to use a small storage memory card in my camera and go out for photo strolls. I have one camera/card combo that will hold only ~27 RAW photos. I don't delete during these sessions and see if I can force myself to really think about the image before snapping the shutter. It seems to help my brain a bit to re-set and think more carefully about my image creation process. I might only do this a couple times a year, but I find it enjoyable. </p>

<p>I can understand the issue, even though I'm doing almost entirely digital nowadays for various reasons, especially because I have been traveling a lot and digital equipment is easier to travel with, and cheaper if you're taking lots of pictures. If it were easier to get slides processed locally, I'd be more inclined to keep going with film. I always found slides magical in a way that prints are not. I was never a great darkroom technician either, and tend to prefer color.</p>

<p>Speaking for myself, I'd keep the digital camera, since it probably will not fetch much money, and find a bargain in a film camera. There's no need to go all one way or the other.</p>

<p>My son had a bit the same issue, and though he's always shot digital, and continues to own a nice Canon or two, for his birthday a couple of years ago I got him a Mamiya medium format camera, which takes gorgeous pictures, and which he loves to use. It has all sorts of neat features, a rotating back and multiple film formats, and interchangeable this and that, and it was not terribly expensive. </p>

<p>Look around, and I think you may well find something that is nice to use, but which does not duplicate what a DSLR can do also. </p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>Different Kinds of</strong> <strong>Fun</strong><br /> When my brother-in-law died earlier this year, I received his near-mint Minolta X700 camera outfit as a gift. It really was fun to handle and shoot film again, and to wait for the unveiling of a physical set of images. I loved the feel of every part of the process. <br /> Digital is a different kind of fun, spontaneous and more easily controlled throughout the workflow. For me, it's also easier on the pocketbook. And I can shoot very much like with a film camera. I'm not the "spray and pray" type, owing to over thirty years of careful work with film before making the shift in 2003.</p>

<p>What works for one, it may not work for another. I shoot sheet film (4x5 & 5x7) and it requires more time to set things up....occasionally I do medium format too. Although digital is quite different, I normally use the same approach for both. While I don't even try to shoot film around wildlife (unless it's completely motionless), doing that with digital required different and quite intense approach. I'm assuming this is not another digital vs film discussion.<br>

Les</p>

 

<p>I only know 1 that shoots film in any decent quantity (he also has his own darkroom) and maybe 2 or 3 that dabble with it now and then but 1 of them haven't since his scanner broke down. These are at my camera club. From normal every walk of life, I know no one that shoots film not even the odd dabble.</p>

<p>When I am with other people it is always digital and 90% of the time the shots get uploaded to Facebook (FB) the same day. 100% of the time no request of prints are asked for. Occasionally they give me their USB stick or they just download off FB.</p>

<p>For me is I like the slow nature of film. I only use film when I am by myself or if I am with others I have some time to myself. It's great now that one can get film equipment for much cheaper including larger format sizes. I also don't shoot so much frames b/c I found that with digital most of them are just stored away. With digital I take about 50-70 a day. Film maybe 12-25. What is cool is maybe 617 format so the print just have that visual impact. Vast majority of my film work are off a tripod. Portraits, low light, multiple shots at diff angles, different apertures, action, wildlife, events, occasions I don't use film. </p>

<p>You just get tired of things so easily. You just want to change all the time. You have been through 5 cameras in a year.<br>

"Anyone else have a similar experience?". I bought my first camera 39 years ago and I someone didn't steal it from me I am still very happy using it today.</p>

I've been working at photography 45years give or take and it has never been a better time technically to be involved. I

took up digital when a 6mp camera was a big deal. I'm 2 or 3 generations out of date now and while I can't abandon

digital I find it dull and less demanding. The result is that I've bought an entire set of darkroom gear and am going back

to film more often. I have my C-41 film done locally but Tri-X and it's cousins are calling out. These days I am much

more likely to be shooting film and leaving digital in the bag. As I write this I'm taking time away at the Gulf Coast and

while I brought a digital I also brought an F4s, an N90s and an ancient Nikkormat Ft2. I take time, compose, think and

sometimes walk away. Much of what I enjoy in photography is part of a process that I don't find on a computer so to

the original post, enjoy film and hold on to a decent digital body or two. It will make itself clear as you go.

<p>My 2006 6MP Pentax K100D is making my kitchen sink and Pyrex measuring cup a wonderland of abstract textures and colors that I would have never even considered pointing a film camera at 15 years ago.</p>

<p>The things a digital sensor and post processing can bring to creative image language is more than fun. It's almost a religious experience. Certainly the freedom it provides is intoxicating.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>That's interesting, Robert, because if a beginner were to ask me what kind of camera they should use, I'd always recommend a digital one. These days I do use digital almost all of the time, but I agree with you that film cameras are much more enjoyable.</p>

<p>My opinion is not derived from the comparison with digital, though. I always liked using film cameras, and I never had a wish to see my results so soon after taking them. I liked choosing film emulsions, and I especially adored slide film. The cost of scanning these days takes the fun away a little bit, as well as the cost of developing slide film.</p>

<p>If you're interested, I started a thread back in 2012 about my infatuation with a 6x6 Zeiss folding camera:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00aboO</p>

<p>I have not yet bought more medium format cameras, though I have a decent Pentax 645 kit with 3 lenses. I'll use that some day. :-) I have lots of plans about using film cameras more, but I want to do it right, and not just buy stuff which I will eventually discard.</p>

<p>The great thing about many film cameras is that they're cheap. If it gets damaged or stolen (unlikely), then they're easy to replace. Even Contax cameras are cheap, including some of the lenses.</p>

<p>I think Bebu Lamar makes a good point. Basically if you've been through 5 cameras in a year its likely that your long term opinions may yet be incompletely formed. It'll be interesting to see whether your view remains constant in the future.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now, using digital I can shoot as many variations on a subject as I want without thinking how much this is costing me;<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I first started in darkroom work, pretty much when I started photography, when I was about nine years old. When I was 10, I inherited much of my grandfather's darkroom equipment, including a 100 foot roll of Tri-X. After I finished that, I found I could buy 100 foot rolls of film from Freestyle for about $5. (That is about 50 years ago.) <br>

<br>

It wasn't that I didn't have to worry about the cost, but it was low enough that I didn't worry too much about it. I did yearbook photography in 7th and 8th grade, and still have lots of negatives from those years. (Many now scanned, and on FB. Something I never would have guessed about 50 years ago.) <br>

<br>

As for the OP, don't give up on digital, but do also do film photography. Nikon film SLRs are very reasonably priced. You don't have to sell your D7000. Find someone giving away their darkroom equipment. It happens often enough. To start, you only need enough to develop the film, and a scanner. </p>

<p>I often take two cameras along, one digital, one film. Usually black and white film, but once in a while, color. If you use FX lenses, including all the ones from the film SLR days, you can also use them on your D7000. (I am not sure exactly which ones you can use. The D200 can use all AI and later lenses, and meter with them.) </p>

<p>If you put a manual focus lens on your D7000, you will be part way to the experience from most of the film days. (Besides that the D7000 likely has a poor screen for manual focus.) You will have to think a little before you take the picture. You might even need an external light meter. (The D200 and D300 will meter with AI lenses, but many others won't.) </p>

<p>OK, trade in your D7000 for a D200, along with some film camera and lenses. The D200 is plenty good enough for ordinary digital work. When you friends want a picture, and won't wait for you to develop the roll. You might even get a medium format camera and lens or two, for the difference between a D7000 and D200. (Or maybe D300.) </p>

<p>Then buy some AI lenses to go with the D200 or D300. Practice thinking before taking the picture. The film camera will be for fun, the digital for things other people want pictures of. (Like family members.)</p>

The D7000 will provide full matrix metering in A and M

modes with all AI and AIs lenses, and provides

autofocus with both AF and AF-S lenses. It provides a

very high level of functionality and performance at a very

reasonable price.

<p>When I worked at Kodak, we referred to people who switched to digital as "going over to the dark side." When Kodak told me it was time to leave, I spent part of the re-training allowance on a D200. I've improved my photography skills more in the past 10 years since "going over to the dark side" than in the previous 40 years. I've shot more photos in the past 10 years than in the previous 40. The ability to check the results while still on location is a big advantage, but I rarely compose by looking at the LCD screen. I look through the optical viewfinder just as I did with a film camera. Especially when shooting sporting events I keep both eyes open. There is no reason why a digital camera needs to keep you focused on the LCD screen. </p>

<p>If you like to shoot film, go for it. I still have a few friends left who make a little film at Kodak. They will appreciate the business. I still shoot film occasionally--mostly for special events. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Im more focus on that lcd screen than the world around me</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

This is more about LCD vs OVF shootings than film vs digital. You switched from AE1 VF to Nex6 LCD and since then using the LCD with all digitals including D7000. At least, you don't have to use digital by LCDs. I have been having a lot more fun (more in the sense of quantity rather than quality) with digital than with film, simply because I use it a lot more. But I usually turn off the LCD except cases that I need to use the LCD to see the settings on the camera. That saves battery and help my mind to have a better feeling.</p>