35mm Verses Digital

[gwendlyn702]

I am thinking about switching from 35mm to Digital, could I please

get some feedback on the pro's and con's of each. I have had amazing

shots with my 35mm, but like the idea of the convience and cost

reduction of the Digital.

Thanks,

Gwen<div></div>

[zapped]

You may get flamed for simply asking the question, but I'll step up to the plate. You've probably thought of some of the positive aspects of moving to digital, but even though I'm exclusively a digital shooter let me take a crack at some of the negative aspects.

 

Digital SLRs have somewhat less dynamic range than negative film, so you have to be as careful about not blowing highlights as you would with slides. Maybe a little more careful.

 

Due to the 1.3x to 1.6x crop factor of dSLRs, you'll have somewhat more DoF at a given aperture, which may be a hindrance if you're trying to get a heavily blurred background.

 

You'll need to do significant post-processing to match what a typical lab gives you now with film. dSLR images come out a bit soft so you'll need to sharpen. You may find your exposure isn't always spot-on, and that your lab has been tweaking it for you more than your might have realized. The learning curve associated with post-processing is not small, but it's arguably easier to learn than traditional darkroom techniques, and once mastered it's repeatable.

 

I'll let other pile on with more pros & cons.

[al_kaplan1]

Of course if you shoot color film you don't really need to learn any darkroom techniques. I used to stop by my friend Mike's studio once or twice a week and we'd go out for coffee when he was a film shooter. Now I get handed a cup by his wife and get to watch him hunched over his computer tweaking endless files into a semblance of nicely cropped and color balanced images. I'm not anti-digital. It has its uses. But I can't see where the cost savings are if you consider your time and the cost of equipment. It's constantly in need of upgrading because it's not a mature technology yet, or at least people feel that they need to always buy the latest. I finished paying for my Leicas and the lenses I still use something like 35 years ago. They still work fine, take great pictures, and are worth many times what I paid for them. Essentially free cameras! And if need be, the negatives can still be scanned and manipulated. When it comes to B&W nothing beats a gelatin silver print for archiveability or looks. There seems to be a growing number of clients wanting traditional B&W and willing to pay many times what you can get for a color print. Just something to think about...

[jon jacobson]

Mr Z summed up the challenges quite well.

 

I made the switch because of the control factor. Let's face it, a drum scan of a negative ain't cheap. To after you snap the picture, and say to yourself, "I can photoshop out those power lines later," is easier said with digital.

 

Here's an image I reference in my portforlio when asked about digital vs. film. This image was taken in color, then PSed. Had I been using Tri-X with a red filter, this image would not have worked. However, in PS, I selected a yellow "filter" after some experimenting. Had a red filter been used, the lemon wedges would have looked dead.

 

One of many advantages, allbeit, time consuming.<div></div>

[conraderb]

hi gwendlyn.

 

I will assume that you have already searched for the long threads on this topic, because a lot of typing has gone into this discussion already.

 

That said, having just switched from an old (Olympus OM-1 and OM-2) film system to twin Canon 20Ds, I will just say that there are a lot of 'amazing' film photographers (myself included) who will learn that they have been pretty lazy on exposure for many years, and digital requires that your exposures be much closer to correct. No more than one stop above or below, as opposed to film, where two or three stops over was generally no problem.

 

That said, digital allows you to experiment and reduces your costs of testing under lots of lighting conditions to essentially ZERO. You can also bracket like craaaazy in a way that you couldn't afford to with film.

 

You will need to get out an incident meter and start using it until you can know how your camera's on board meter works. With all of the testing you will do, you will also start to develop a better sense of (ie. sunny f16 rule. I'm sure you know about it. If not research it. A few months after going digital, I expect to be able to tell you within 60% of a stop what the correct exposure is - something that I just never had to worry about with film. I would always guess and just add a stop more exposure for safety).

 

I second the opinion that post-processing has a steep and difficult learning curve. I use the Pictage service for now to make sure that I get good prints for clients, but I hope to be able to do it myself within the next year. Film is more expensive, but until you are well past the transitional period, I say the 'getting nice prints' part is much more convenient than digital.

 

cheers.

 

Conrad

[marcin harla]

<i>but like the idea of the convience and cost reduction of the Digital</i>

<p>Define: <b>convience</b> and <b>cost reduction</b>.

<br>Are you prepared to go 100% digital? I'm talking fast computer with reasonably large HD (250GB and up), software, CF cards (you need at least 6GB if you want to shoot RAW) - my point is, it all adds up pretty quickly.

 

 

<p>Digital is also expensive if you value your time. Film you just drop at your lab and you're done. BTW, 95% of my work is done with digital ;-)

 

<p>Others talked about some pro's already so I'm not gonna - maybe except that changing the ISO on the fly is pretty cool when you need it.

[cjogo]

"convience and cost cutting"--stay with film. Unless you are a gluten for being strapped to your chair , in front of a monitor > and then maybe not even being paid!

[gwendlyn702]

Currently, I am shooting film than turning around and printing them to CD than, taking them and downloading onto my comp for PS editing. I figured if I went digital I would save money with not having to buy film and pay for developing fees. Especially, on a average of turning in 8-10 rolls at a time. I have just done it this way for so long and I know my camera so well, I am worried I wont get my current results I do now.<div></div>

[manuel_garcia5]

Take this for what it's worth, but a few semi pro's I know find themselves going back to film. Like a previous poster mentioned, their tired of spending hours on their PC tweaking photo's: if film isn't doing something you need then I'd wait.

[daniel_taylor]

I *really* do not understand all the hand wringing over post processing. I've shot events with my 10D set to the highest quality JPEG mode and printed from the camera directly to a photo ink jet at the events, *no computer*, and ended up with prints that were better than what one would get using color neg film and a typical photo lab.

 

If you feel you must post process every image, don't claim digital is time consuming. That's your choice. Granted, it's an easy choice to get sucked into because with a few minutes in photoshop you can perfect the color and contrast of an image. *Any* image, film or digital, can benefit from a levels and color tweak. But that's taking the image *beyond* what you would get back from the vast majority of labs. If you're happy with lab output, take your CF card or a CD-RW to a lab and let them print for you.

 

While we're at it, if you have basic computer skills the learning curve for post processing is small. Set your levels, tweak color if the image isn't neutral, run a quick USM, and print. Occasionally you might want to play with saturation or with a few of Photoshop's effects. And that's about it unless you want to get into digital image creation.

 

All too often people make this far more complex by trying cumbersome techniques thinking they will gain some edge. Ask how to interpolate for extreme enlargement and you'll get some nut claiming that you just have to enlarge in 1% increments and howl at the moon between each increment. No wonder they spend their lives at the computer.

 

Color management is another topic that illustrates this. Go ahead, ask how to color balance your setup on photo.net, and wade through the complex instructions and expensive hardware recommendations that are different (and contradictory) in every post. This is because people can't avoid playing with settings, and software developers like to offer 20 ways to achieve one thing. Color photo printers, from the cheapest Epson ink jet to the Fuji Frontier, are designed to be balanced with sRGB input *out of the box.* Leave all the fun settings alone, print a test target off your ink jet, adjust your monitor's brightness, contrast, and RGB until it matches, don't mess with anything else, and you're done. Start playing with all the different settings and color spaces and profiling tools and, well, yes, you'll be sitting at the computer for a week while you try to match what the printer would have done on its own if left alone.

 

My point with these examples is this: adhere to KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) in your post processing and you'll master it in a weekend.

 

As for the other comments...digital does require more careful exposure than neg film, no doubt about that. But I'll take live preview with a histogram over guessing and (maybe) being saved by neg film's latitude any day of the week.

 

Wide Angle is a problem, and you'll need to shore up your glass at that end. There are finally some good choices for extreme wide angle (i.e. 10-12mm and up, which translates to 16-19mm on 1.6x crop) with the new digital zooms. But it's extra money.

[fotografz]

Why look at it as a "this or that" proposition Gwen?

 

The hard core propionates of each approach are simply trying to justify their own "this or

that" decisions. I'm sure they believe every word of their "mission statement" concerning

this issue ... but it's simply propaganda that discounts the negatives of each, while playing

up the positives.

 

Only you can determine if convenience and cost reduction outweigh the look and feel you

seem to love from film. 100K internet uploads aren't the criteria to evaluate final product

either. You need to look at fine examples of both mediums in print form to judge what you

prefer. It's your work, not someone else's. Some people can't see the difference, and you

may be one of them. Or maybe you do see a difference, and prefer the look and feel of one

or the other.

 

The only, thing I'd advise is to keep your options open. Maybe start dabbling in digital with

an inexpensive camera that takes the lenses you already own. But most certainly keep your

35mm film camera even if it goes fallow for awhile (because it may well come back into

the picture in a big way). Go slow, and beware the initial euphoria digital provides,

because it'll fade quickly into the reality of real costs in time, money and image

characteristics.

 

Me? I do both. Having the highest end digital capture available today, and also shooting

both 35mm and MF films and scanning them into the digital domain on my own dedicated

film scanners. Even when both digital captures and scanned films are printed on an inkjet

printer, I see a distinct difference in image characteristics. You just have to determine if

you also do, and which you prefer. Then you'll know what to do.

 

IMO, in the end it should be about the photographs and how they look and feel

emotionally to you, not the process. How we got there isn't the product we sell, it's the

final images... no one wants to see how the sausage was made, they just want to enjoy it.

[gaetano catelli]

i was developing my own 35mm b&w 35 years ago. so, i was very skeptical about digital.

<p>

then i bought my first digicam, in march 2004. even with 4 megapixels jammed into a tiny sensor, it blew away my 35mm cameras (Nikons, fwiw) from the start. i haven't used 35mm since.

<p>

i still use 2-1/4 x 2-3/4, 4 x 5, and, recently, i began using 8 x 10.

<p>

i now have a Canon 20D. so, unless a friend or client wants the exposed film as soon as the shoot is over, i don't foresee ever using 35mm again.

<p>

<center><img src="http://www.r-s-r.org/rsr/images/lina/IMG_1872-1aa-cr750.jpg"><br><b>Father of the Bride</b><br><i>Canon 20D, 24-70mm f2.8L, ISO 1600 handheld, available light</i></center>

[fotografz]

Gaetano's nice photograph demonstrates the core essence at the heart of the matter

concerning image characteristics.

 

Some folks seek that smooth, almost MF or Large format film image look, to their smaller

format work. That it can be achieved with a small sensor digital camera is quite amazing

really.

 

However, as demonstrated by Gaetano's image, that amazing digital smoothness

sometimes comes at a price. Skin that can take on a waxy feel, and the shorter dynamic

range of digital can block up the highlights like in the bride's hair, the Dad's shirt and his

flower. But, in all fairness, this image is a high ISO shot that would be a bit more difficult

with film unless you knew exactly what you are doing.

 

I regularily use a 20D as well as a 1DsMKII. But I also shoot with their film counterpart, the

Canon EOS 1V (using exactly the same lenses in exactly the same conditions). I see a

difference in how skin is handled and in the dynamic range... all of which keeps the film

cameras still in the mix, and in fact coming back strong in my bag for no other reason

than the end result ... more natural looking skin tones and greater detail due to the

dynamic range in the final prints.

 

But to each his or her own. Only you can determine your own personal criteria.<div></div>

[steve_levine]

If 8-10 rolls D&P'd cost more than 10% of your gross per wedding, raise your prices!

[gaetano catelli]

my number one complaint about digital is one of the drawbacks mentioned by Marc: blown highlights. i was lucky in the shot above. but, in many cases, there is something really nasty about the way digital blows highlights -- almost as if someone had burned a hole in the image with a cigarette lighter.

 

and, i have seen some pretty 'loopy' colors with digital.

 

that said, i have never been overly enamored with the way color *film* renders flesh tones.

 

but, i couldn't agree more with Marc's bottom line conclusion: "... [T]o each his or her own. Only you can determine your own personal criteria."

[paul_sokal___dallas__tx]

I second Dan's comments. And with CS2 and ACR 3.1's auto features, most of my RAW files need little or no tweaking when I open them. When I was a film shooter (Nikon FTN, phones still had dials) it was wonderous, but expensive and time consuming to play with images in the wet darkroom. In the digital darkroom, all that fun is instantaneous, mostly free and definitely non-toxic.

[gaetano catelli]

a footnote: in fairness to digital, the shot i posted above was run thru Neat Image 4.0 -- twice -- in order to enhance what i hope is a "dream-like" quality. hence, the "waxiness" of the fleshtones.

 

the pre-Photoshop original image is quite a bit darker. had a

low-light image such as this been captured with any 35mm ISO 1600 color film i have ever used, increasing the "Exposure" in Photoshop as much as i did (about +1.0) would have created such a mess of multi-colored grain that i'd have had to convert the image to b&w.

 

one of my idiosyncracies is that i almost never use flash, casual parties being the occasional exception. (can you imagine shooting flash into the face of the father pictured above at a moment like that?) so, the fact that the 20D can get commercially acceptable results at ISO 1600 was a very strong selling point for me.

 

all of which just goes to reinforce what i understand to be Marc's basic point: film or digital or both -- there are so many variables that it winds up being a personal choice.

[EricM]

And here we all go again :P

 

I wouldn't "go" digital. Integrate it slowly. There is no switch to click. It is not cheaper than film either. Digital is a can of worms. Just ask any of us that takes it seriously. Faster computers, a laptop, better monitors, hundreds of dollars in CF cards...etc etc. So, start slowly. Look at the skin tones of each manufacture. I personally don't like the in camera software of Canon that gives the waxy buttery skin tones. But I do like Canon's high iso performance. I don't like Canon's flash system, but love Nikon's. So take a D70s and a 20D out for a test drive and determine which you like better and then think of the flash system.

 

If you are not a conventional darkroom printer, then you might not adjust well to sitting on your butt in front of the computer. I, for one, love sitting on my butt. I love the control that digital gives me, the options. That's why I loved the traditional darkroom so much, as I never did like third party companies or humans touching my film and making printing choices. Many that do love the traditional darkroom easily accept digital.

 

And please, ask questions on every step of the way before you take it out and start doing formals with it. There's nothing more frustrating than to hear the same questions after the fact, like, why does the grooms tux look like it has dandruff all over it? There's lots of education involved with digital to get average results.

 

Digital is difficult to convert to b&w. Although I dislike seeing anything graphically that doesn't match or flow, I'm at peace that this genre of photography is acceptable as a hybrid practice of film and digital. But keep in mind, that digital converted to b&w in a proof album next to a c-41 b&W is going to cause frowns. Or should anyway. However, the colour of digital next to c-41 b&w is my favorable way to go for the event. Although it does interupt your workflow.

 

If all you have been shooting is negative, you might be in for a surprise in terms of exposure practices and adjustment. I cut my teeth on e-6, with flash, so it was no biggie for me. But, I still use a handheld light meter like it is e-6. This cuts down on the time adding or subtracting a bit here and there in photoshop.

 

Digital is not easy nor is it a money saver on the bank account and your time. Think about it first, accept and learn it while still shooting your film. Then you'll be okay when you can't get film anymore like we are accustomed to and be left in the dark.

[gwendlyn702]

Thanks to everyone for your help and comments, this was my first post and I was rather impressed with how everyone jumped right on in to help me out. Thank You! I am leaning towards purchasing the Canon 10D, and just letting my sidekick use the 35. Thanks again guys.

[merlin]

Here's one problem that I see with staying with film only at this point: Photography is now advancing at a very fast rate. and it's advancing in the digital relm. Al is right, Film technology has basically matured. While film is great and there's nothing wrong with using it. the longer that you put off switching to atleast a little digital the bigger the learning curve can become. I suggest a slow gradual transition. A complete switch can be overwhelming, I know from experience.

[jmichaelc]

I am leaning towards investing into some film gear for the outdoor formal work for the above mentioned reasons - lattitude and skin tones. Digital, for some reason, can not render natural looking skin tones. Believe me....i've tried to convince myself that digital can do it all but i am now realizing it can not. However, for indoor work, i think digital is unmatched. I've seen a lot of posts here from working pros who advocate both sides.......under unpredictable lighting, i truly feel digital has more lattitude and control. For example, here is a post shot in my office with lights turned off and pointed towards the only light source (very contrasty enviroment) and exposed intentionally at -2 stops. And yes, what you see there on the left side it is completely dark. Even though the correction is extremely grainy, do you think film could reveal the details in the shadows such as this RAW negative? Both systems have a lot to offer.<div></div>

[EricM]

"Digital, for some reason, can not render natural looking skin tones."

 

I don't buy this. What system are you refering too, Jammey?

[gwendlyn702]

From reading everyone's post I have heard the majority talk about skin tones not being the same for digital as film, so would the advice be on formal/closeup shots say at a wedding to use 35mm ratrher than digital? I dont care about sitting at my comp and editing I do that now I can do an entire wedding in just a few hours. you can click on my name and view some of the wedding photos I have shot if you want to.

[jmichaelc]

Compaired to film? All of them :) IMO

 

Close? Yes. But after looking at the final prints, i can honestly say that i can see a difference.

 

I use all canon systems, and your exactly right, no matter what you do, you can't avoid the smooth waxy look.

 

The only systems that i've found that comes close to rendering correct skin tones is the Fuji S2 & S3 systems; however, they still lag begind the way film renders it and i'm not sure that the properties of sensors and film will ever match up to where they render the same output. I love my digital workflow.......everything about it.....except for skin rendering. Maybe that's because no matter what i do with skin adjustment.....i'm still envious to the color of a disposable cameras, processed at wallgreens, skin tones. It has become quite frustrating but in the end.....it's simply a realization that this is one arena where i've accepted film to be better.

[gmahler5th]

Haven't posted in awhile, but not surprised to see another thread on digital vs film. I am surprised that so far this seems like a nice, civil discussion! Marc has his message refined so well it only take a few paragraphs now! :-)