Digital and Film camera as combo/backup, why?

[photos by kiem]

Hi, this may be a dumb question but I notice some of you use both

digital and film cameras as combo or backup. I started out using film

camera with an FM2 camera I bought from ebay, then later bought an

N80. Shortly I bought a D70 then recently a D200. I find it more

flexible doing post processing on the digtal camera and havent gone

back to film; my film cameras are now sitting on the shelf. Maybe I

havent experienced enough in the film department to appreciate its

capability. For those who still use both, why?

[arnabdas]

I use both an FM3A and D70, because both work well for me and I spent many years doing film photography. I get more keepers from film than from digital, not sure why.

[ky2]

Ummm...

 

1) I like the smaller, more robust footprint of my Fm3a.

 

2) I enjoy the process much more, and when I'm more into the process than the product, I prefer my film cameras.

 

3) IMO, the viewfinder and ergonomics are still better on those older, simplified bodies.

 

4) I prefer the look of grain.

 

5) I enjoy shooting a few rolls, then sending them off to print, without any postprocessing on my side.

 

6) I enjoy being relieved of computers, batteries, and other unneccessary gizmos when I photograph.

 

7) I've grown accustomed to the look and feel of the films I use.

 

8) I project my slides.

 

9) I'd like to use it while it still around.

 

Btw, my Fm3a is not a backup to my D200. They get served on an equal basis. There are probably more reasons, but these are the ones that popped first.

[klix]

Because I love the smell of stop bath in the morning :-P

[NK Guy]

I shoot Canon and generally travel with one film and one digital body. The film body is mainly

used with infrared film, since that's an effect that you really can't duplicate properly with

digital. Plus it's nice to have the backup body in case I run out of memory cards or whatever.

[david_kelly13]

On my film cameras my inventory of wide-angle lenses are still wide angle.

[Ed_Ingold]

A film camera is not really a backup for a DSLR. In a pinch, you could still get the job done, but other than a FF for wide angle, there's not much film has to offer.

 

If you use a film camera for a backup, you have to carry film (duh), maybe a lot of film (enough to do the whole job). If it is truely a backup, that film will get old before you use it.

 

I'd say OK on film if you can't afford a digital backup. Most of us have one or more film cameras that would work. However the work flow is so different that you put yourself at a serious disadvantage if you actually use that camera.

 

From a quality standpoint, the D200 (or even the D70) is well beyond 35mm film. You will see that in short order. You'll also hear a lot in defense of film from those who don't have a DSLR of the D200 caliber.

[StuartMoxham]

I use and FM2 and a D70. The FM2 is used for B&W film or when I want a smaller camera. I will add an AF film body this summer to replace my EOS film gear that I sold to buy the D70. I prefer film when I have to shoot events. That way I can drop the film off and get back prints.

[david_h._hartman]

Ill throw a few reason in...<br>

<br>

With DX I have little wide angle capacity. With 35mm film I have

a 100 degree horizontal view (110 degrees diagonal).<br>

<br>

With DX I have little ability to blur backgrounds in typical

portrait focal lengths. Nikon doesnt make a DX portrait

lens. <br>

<br>

With DX I have no fast wide angle lenses, my best is a 25~50/4.0

at 25mm or 20/2.8. Neither of these are particularly wide on DX,

neither are fast.<br>

<br>

With digital I have no way of making silver B&W prints in my

darkroom.<br>

<br>

With digital I have a short dynamic range. With color and B&W

negative film I have available a great capacity for long dynamic

range.<br>

<br>

The primary advantage of digital is the speed with which you can

get it on a computer. Instant feedback is very welcomed. There

are solid advantages for telephoto and macro photography with the

DX formats. I dont want to give the impression that I see

only negatives for digital and DX.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.<br>

<br>

Postscript: I agree with most of Yaron Kidrons list.

[dave wyman]

I occasionally sell a photo. Sometimes - rarely - this requires submitting a photograph made with film.

 

I've sold off almost all my 35mm gear. For useable film cameras, I'm down to my dwindling collection of Rolleiflexes. I enjoy the process of making photographs with a twin lens relflex camera more than I do with any other camera. I've had many people tell me the 2.25 inch viewfinder on a Rolleiflex is the biggest and brightest LCD they've every seen. :-)

[lightwriting by swapan]

Edward,

 

"other than a FF for wide angle, there's not much film has to offer."

 

Really ? How do you know for sure ? Ever shot a slide film of Fall with a Velvia 50 and a Singh-Ray Circular polarizer with Color intensifier where the technic was right and viewed them on a quality viewer with a quality loupe ?

 

"I'd say OK on film if you can't afford a digital backup" !

 

You will be surprised to find that there are people who can afford the best 35 mm digital that money can buy and still use the good old film a lot. I cant believe they are all idiots and do not know what they are doing and get crappy results with fils compared to digital!

 

"From a quality standpoint, the D200 (or even the D70) is well beyond 35mm film"

 

Really ? That is news to me. Can you provide a link where you got your info ? Or, is this your inferences from "your" work ?

 

"You'll also hear a lot in defense of film from those who don't have a DSLR of the D200 caliber."

 

I have a 1Ds MK II, I dont know whether that is close to D200 s caliber or not but I also use a Canon 1v for my chromes. These are the shots which give me goosebump every once in a while. I enjoy working with the 1Ds MK II but I think chromes are the shots that tell me whether I know what I was doing or not. I dont have to spend hours on my computer postprocessing, when I feel I am actually a "Photoshopographer" rather than a photographer ! To me it is digital rape !

 

Thank God, I dont have to earn my living as a photographer and hence I enjoy doing it! I for one will be a very sorry person when I will no longer be able to buy Velvia 50 !

 

Just my opinoins !

[paulr]

D2X and Leica M's for me. I have somewhat given up the F5 based on weight. I personally

prefer editing B&W and color film and there are no photos that have been tossed based on

what you see on those little viewing screen on digitals. Misinterpted histograms is another

reason. In some situations I still hand meter with digital (and film).

 

I must add that for economic reasons I shoot mostly color in digital. But....ugh I still love

Kodachrome.

 

There is another reason I still use film and that is has a excellent history of archival

characteristics. Lets not battle over gold CD's and hard drives and all that stuff.

 

Alex Webb recently said about digital and film, "basically the relationship between the

focal length of and the way spatial depth works is different so I could not take the same

photograhs." (with digital)

[photo5]

I shoot film and digital. I love the immediacy of digital, being able to get it on screen and view it so quickly is wonderful. I tried to leave film, sold off all my film cameras and missed it terribly. I missed having to manually focus and think in zones when using center weighted metering. And my company has given me about 100 free rolls of slide film that I've shot some of and the rest is in my freezer.

 

I like to shoot for preservation purposes. Buildings, cities, places, people. I just don't see digital as archival at all. It's too transitory, it can be deleted or lost so easily. A piece of film can be lost or damaged too, but I think overall it is a more stable and long-lasting medium.

 

So I'm often out, as I was at the Mariners game on Sunday, shooting digital alongside slide film. My Canon Pro1 and Nikon F3HP work well together and I enjoy using both. When I travel to Japan this fall they will both come with me to record the trip.

 

There's nothing like a slide show. Digital imagery still can't display such radient images as can a slide with an old Kodak projector.

 

Dave

[jim mucklin]

Because my F100 has never let me down and while my D70s can do a 20x30 poster it can't match film above that, yes there is a difference at 24x36 and I can't afford the 200 or the D2. Like the others said, it's nice once in a while to shoot and forget about it. It's hard to break old habits. Many people haven't even seen quality film done by a person who knows what he's doing.

[photo5]

Ah the joys of a front row seat in the Diamond Club. This was shot with digital, nice to have a very quiet camera with a long lens (Canon Pro1 with zoom out to 200mm). I also shot with my Nikon F3HP with the 105mm 2.5 and I am very excited to see the developed slides! This is another thing I still like about film, having to wait and see how they came out!

 

Dave<div></div>

[lahuasteca]

I use film and digital both. Just bought a D70s - it is teamed with either FE2 or F100.

The film is for wide angle, digital for longer range. With both there is a pretty involved

workflow - scanning at 4000 dpi for film/slide, RAW conversion for digital, photoshop for

both.

 

Having just said all that, I get the most satisfaction from the FE2 plus primes - just quicker

to set aperture, frame and recompose without having to dip into menus.

 

But sending slide film out to be processed, waiting for it to return, possibility of damage

somewhere along the way - all that is a drag.

 

Back to the original question - slide film (Astia) for wides (20-28 mm. actual), D70s for

just about everything longer than that. I just bought a 20 mm AFD that can be used on

both.

[tekkie]

I use a D200 as my main camera now and agree that the quality is really excellent. I am in the

process of selling my Minolta 9 on E Bay. It's like losing an old friend, but I fear it will sit on a

shelf if I do not.

 

I also do not feel sad about not paying for processing, although I intened to keep a Leica

M6TTL for black and white. Those lenses are fantastic and nothing beats it for B&W.

[lex_jenkins]

I still shoot film both as the primary medium and as a complement to digital. It offers certain advantages.

 

For one thing, I can get back good color corrected 4x6 proofs within an hour from a good minilab; next day if I use one of the local pro labs.

 

I can't produce, in quality and number, comparable proofs using digital. Too many variables. Even when all camera settings are nailed down and not changed during shooting - white balance, exposure (which usually means no auto exposure and no TTL flash) - the cameras themselves introduce variables. Sensors and, possibly more importantly, in camera processing do not yet render all colors equally. Every dSLR and digicam owner who is being honest will admit to this problem. I've taken plenty of photos of groups of people to prove this fact. If you group together folks with skin tones ranging from pale pinkish to slightly cyan to vaguely yellowish to ruddy to blotchy reddish to olive to cafe au lait to espresso, somebody will suffer. With my D2H in anything less than perfect lighting it's usually folks with olive and ruddy skin. With my Olympus digicams reddish skin tends to suffer. It's a helluva lotta trouble to retouch large numbers of photos like this.

 

With good film, it isn't necessary. I usually prefer Fuji's pro films, especially NPH and the slightly revised Pro 400H, but Kodak Portra and even 400UC and Kodak Gold 100 can be pretty good when printed properly. The trick is to use good paper, not overly saturated, too contrasty consumer grade minilab stuff. Better still, match the paper to the film: Fuji film to Fuji paper; Kodak to Kodak.

 

At a recent social event (one of those annual gala awards ceremonies) all three pro photographers shot film (FWIW, two used Nikon, including an N90s with 35-70/2.8D AF Nikkor; and one used Contax). I wasn't an official pro at this event but was shooting for one particular award winner and used my FM2N/MD-12, 35-70/2.8D AF Nikkor, SB-800 flash in auto thyristor and manual modes on a CB Junior bracket, and Fuji Pro 400H. There were several digicams present but not one of the serious photographers used a dSLR.

 

Because of the challenging nature of the conditions - practically non-existent house lights, spotlit stage, mostly elderly attendees (who often have blotchy complexions) - this was a situation where it was far easier to get good results with quick turnaround using film.

 

I prefer digital for high volume shooting, especially where perfect skin tones aren't a primary consideration. But in some specific situations, such as shooting indoor high school sports under inconsistent artificial lights, I don't enjoy processing the large number of photos. It was easier, if more expensive, to get good results using film in these gyms.

[loreneidahl]

I still use both. Each is a different tool. They do not compete for my usage at all. When I shoot a typical concert I bring at least 3 digitals and 2 film cameras.

 

Digital cameras: - D2h,D200,D2x ( in order of expense for those who are counting ;) )

 

Film Cameras: Nikon F2 or F3 possibly an N70 ( accepts manual focus lenses)

 

My Film cameras are loaded Tri-X -- Which I like for Concert shots. When I get home I develop the shots in my darkroom and deliver the custom prints to my client.

 

I can shoot anywhere from 3000-4000 images per weekend on digital. I I am not against digital, in fact I am all for it as it makes me money.

 

But, because I also shoot in very low light using very fast Manual Focus lenses ,like the Nikon MF 50 1.2 and the MF 35 1.4, I have to have bodies that can handle these lenses and still give me the precision control I desire ( DOF on the 50 1.2 is in inches) So these lenses are used with the MF cameras and the D2h and D2x. D200 is not as good for these lenses due to smaller viewfinder.

 

Have you ever tried to Auto focus one of these lenses on the D200? Try focusing one on these on a F2 or a F3 and you will have an eye-opening experience.

 

One reason why I carry multiple camera formats:

 

On New Years Eve of this year I was contracted to shoot the entire day at a special Rock'N'Eve event. The event was simlucast and was going to be the basis for several CD covers.

 

Long story -short - I had major equipment failure on my main digital camera. No problem -- I continued shooting using my F3/MD4 combo.

 

I started shooting concerts before AF was even invented. So I have and idea how to do it with an F3 and a 50 1.2. In some lighting situations I can focus a manual focus lens faster than my AF lenses will lock on to what the cameras "thinks" I want to focus on.

 

To me Digital is Digital and Film is film. Neither is a replacment for the other. Lately I have been doing CD setup shots with my 4x5 Crown Graphic using real crappy lenses. ( by design , and now by request :)) No DSLR on the market today can compete with what a 4x5 camera loaded with quality film and lenses can deliver in the way of overall image quality and flexibility in camera control.

 

My decison to shoot film cameras is not based on my lack of ability to affor a "good" camera. It is far more pragmatic.

 

I do not shoot digital becaue it offers more "quality" than film - I shoot digital because I can automate the process of shooting and providing digital proofs to my client(s) so fast that when I am done shooting an event in digital my client has all of the proofs and I have a complete catalog on my web site and I have gotten paid electronically before I leave the building. Thats why I shoot digital!

 

I shoot film because it gives me:

 

a)an huge edge over every other Narrow Minded Digital Pixel Peeping Evanglist who thinks they are a photographer because then can keep shooting until they hit something (like going bird hunting with a AK-47) and who thinks that its the Digital way or the highway.

 

b)gives me more intimate control over every aspect of the cameras interaction with the film, especially when I shoot 4x5, without hte need for batteries. Of course I do have to think about what I am doing.

 

c)provides a different look to the client that they know was not photoshopped. Hand a Tri-X custom print to a client and there is no question that you shot film.

 

d)because I have clients that want to know what was really there rather than what I am showing them.

 

e)because I have a clue on how to shoot it.

 

e)because I have a way to control the final output and I dont have to use photoshop to do it.

 

f)a fail safe method to guard against dead equipment.

 

 

Nows a great time to buy film cameras. Just bought another F2 and am on the lookout for a Leica M2 with 50mm Noctilux. ( prices are still too high on that one though)

 

:)

[richard_f1]

There are some pretty convincing reasons in a lot of those posts.

 

I'm not a pro at all, but I use both digital and film. For me, the film is both the main

medium and acts a backup.

 

On my travels I take my SLR with b/w film, and I have another lighter body tucked away in

there which I use for slides. I use my more rugged camera (Minolta 9000) for the BW work

because that is what I mainly prefer and I am more comfortable with that camera.

Sometimes I like slides (usually of a landscape) so I'll crack out the Minolta 505 that used

to belong to my wife. It's very light and I hardly notice it is there.

 

She hasn't touched it since she got a Canon Ixus 40. Apples and oranges, I know, but she

loves the Ixus and never wants enlargements. And she likes the movie feature - not

everyone wants to be the next Sebastio Salgado! And since ditching the SLR she has really

discovered a love of photography and makes some really good, interesting images.

 

But I also have a pocket sized Olympus XA which I use with colour print film and just keep

handy - as a backup for her Ixus 40 which often runs out of battery power or memory card

space at the most inopportune times. She does a lot of in-camera editing and makes a lot

of short movies, and hates to delete anything.

 

So when she runs out of juice, it's often my "crappy" little XA or one of the film SLRs that

comes to the rescue.

 

(Equally i must confess she has rescued me from time to time when I ran out of film).

 

I have a nice film scanner and a nice printer, so I can still do digital processing if I want,

and make colour prints from slides. I use a darkroom for the b/w. And because I never sell

anything, turnaround time is irrelevant to me. In fact, like others, I enjoy the experience of

opening a box of slides weeks after a trip, and firing up the projector. Somehow it always

beats iPhoto on a 12 inch screen...

 

So there's a complete amateur's view on it, to complement the experience of those other

photographers above whose reputation or livelihood depends on getting things right. I

think it's best to just work out what you like (or what you need), and go for it.

 

BTW I was fascinated by the concert photography post, sounds incredible!

[john falkenstine]

Today the digital stuff stayed home. The Canon T90 came out, whirring clicking and popping, And as Lex said, off to the mini lab and within an hour I've got prints, negatives AND a CD. Last weekend the fiddlyness of my digital Olympus finally caused me to turn it off and go to the point and shoot Olymps Epic I had in my pocket. Fast shots, nice exposure and the nice light "falloff effect" in the corners of the images. But..a good DSLR is in the future. Most of the time I operate like this now. A digitan AND a film camera.