What's been your main reason going digital?

[phule]

<p>[[All my friends have gone digital literally.]]</p>

<p>Holy cow, you're friends with Kevin Flynn?!</p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Image quality and practicality. What I like especially is the ability to alter the look of raw images after the fact, particularly white balance. With the event of FX format cameras there isn't much reason for me to shoot 35mm film. I still do so occasionally, for the "look". And I also shoot a little 6x7 film. Most of the film I shoot these days is black and white. But about 98% of my images are captured digitally.</p>

[KenPapai]

<blockquote>

<p><em><strong>"</strong></em><strong><em><strong>What's been your main reason going digital?"</strong></em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>A: Nearly TOTAL COMPLETE control of the output. Film required a Pro Lab. Plus, I am VERY adept at computer systems. Been 98% digital for nearly 10 years now.</p>

<p>Oh yeah -- the instant gratification aspect was very important. After all these years it is a huge quality improvement too over 35mm film -- both from my POV as well as the modern DSLR cameras (N & C) of the past 2-3 year, <strong>35mm has nothing on them</strong> anymore.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>One advantage and reason I prefer digital not mentioned here is the ability to embed EXIF data that records lens specs and exposure details. I haven't found a film camera I can afford that can do that.</p>

[photo_galleries]

<p>When I shoot street/documentary, I prefer an RF with B&W film. Of course, I can use a DRF, but I prefer the "total experience" of shooting and processing B&W film.</p>

<p>Changing ISO from 200-6400 (with a D700) from shot to shot is a HUGE advantage for digital.</p>

<p>Also, for the things for which I would use an SLR (sports, wildlife, macro), a DSLR is just a lot more convenient than a film SLR. Also, for any color photos, I have, for the most part, forsaken C41 or E6 (although the bug still hits me every so often).</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>Cost, convenience, and confidence that you are not coming home with a blank roll.</p>

[johnny_anderson]

<p>Picture quality, ability to make sure of getting the picture - not getting half a roll of bad pictures, I can now shoot as many pictures as I want - something I could never afford with film. I shot film for over 35 years but love digital, and the lenses and cameras are amazing.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>- Much more control over processing.<br>

- More output options: web pages, printers, print-on-demand books, slideshows on 24" screens or big-screen TV, and so on.<br>

- Easier to organize and archive.<br>

- Duplicate thousands of "negatives" at the push of a button.<br>

- Change ISO on the fly.<br>

- Cheaper, no changing rolls in the middle of a sequence.<br>

- Instant feedback and the associated learning curve. Aperture and other data in header.<br>

- And, now, we have video at the push of a button!</p>

[zane1664879013]

<p>It's not the film I like, it's the old film cameras. But for many things digital makes more sense to me -- sports, experimentation, big enlargements.</p>

[katey_kay]

<p>1) instant feedback, 2) vast control over important parameters, 3) capacity of memory cards, 4) post processing convenience, 4) storage and organization, 5) photo transfer via email, web, etc., 6) ever increasing image quality, 7) medium is less afected by temperature variations or airport scanners, 8) wide range of ISO possibilities, 9)program and auto modes are becoming more effective, permitting quality photography by non-technogeeks, 10) panoramic modes, 11) movie modes getting better, 12) macro photography, 13) built-in flash in a pinch, 14) incorporation of GPS data, and finally, 14, something that should be further up the list but I just thought of it now, the EXIF info that stores a vast amount of data, some of t useful, and obviates the need for data backs.<br>

It is getting to the only point where film is superior is the beautiful workmanship of the classic camera era such as Leica screwmounts and M-series, Zeiss Contax, Nikon F and F2, Retina IIIC, etc.</p>

[katey_kay]

<p>I should have added the ability to perform rapid burst rates and the ability to command bracketting with various parameters being employed, but I rarely employ such techniques.</p>

<p>I was associated with the NRO (spy satellites) many years ago. I was debriefed in the mid-70s so I have no current information, but can draw some obvious conclusions. (You can read about a fascinating program that has been declassified years ago if you google "nro corona".)</p>

<p>In my era, film was the medium, and film capsules were ejected from the satellites in the vicinity of Hawaii, came down on parachutes, and were snatched in mid-air by specially equipped aircraft. Due to limitations such as film capacity, power, etc., the useful life of a satellite was a couple of weeks(!) and given their low orbits (to increase resolution), the orbits would degrade and spiral into the atmosphere and be destroyed. Such missions are now accomplished by satellites that are apparently long-lived. Wouldn't one surmise that digital techniques are now employed? Unless they have developed a technique to grow organic film while in orbit. Do you really think that your imagery demands are more stringent than those of the NRO? <br>

<br />And if your photography budget exceeds that of the NRO, please consider making me your heir.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>First the ability to verify the exposure on the rear display with a histogram instead of wondering if you have the shot. Then there is the latitude of the raw shot including the ability to adjust the color balance in post processing. Then there is the freedom to take 1 shot or 200 shots instead of having to use up the fixed length rolls of film. Then there is the freedom not to stop at a 1 hour processing place and trust my film to some clerk who occasionally screws it up. Then there is the freedom not to pay $20 for the priviledge of that processing. Then I don't have to spend 3 hours feeding all the negatives to my Nikon scanner. And the result? I get good results either way, but the digital track is a lot easier.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Perhaps I am the oddball out. If I go overseas with digital, I only shoot 25/ day. My 2004 dSLR has under 5,000 clicks. </p>

<p>I shoot mostly on tripod, if you gave me a D700 Nikon I prob do the same. </p>

<p>I find Ektachrome 200 and Elite Chrome 100 just too ordinary. Velvia was awesome. Wait to that is projected but I agree that when they are scanned even on a drum scanner they don't look as great as a lightbox or projector. </p>

<p>I also find that when I used Kodak UC100 (neg film) that the roads have much more details where as with my dSLR which does not have a noise reduction feature in camera cos it it from 2004 and in Lightroom I never used noise reduction, it's just a 2 min job for me, a bit of conservative sharpening and curves, the auto WB is pretty much untouched too. dSLR to me is just too smooth or too clean look. </p>

<p>I can scan any film even 50 speed Velvia, at 4000 dpi, zoom out to 10% view and look at it, or even look at the film without a loupe with the window in the back, I can see the film base grain. When scanned the colors is not as sharp as digital, the colors are not as nicely separated or clear. </p>

<p>There is that something I like about film about its rustic look. I even like the grain off Fuji NPH 400.</p>

[steven_f1]

<p>Songtsen, one possible reason for the difference between your two last pictures is a mater of exposure. I am assuming you used negative print film. You picture has bright and dark areas in it. When the machines made the prints one saw the dark area and compensated by overexposing the print (which overexposed the sky). The other produced a more ballanced exposure when it made the print. When I was using film and saw this I switched to using slide film. It was a little harder to get prints but generally the results were closer to my original exposure.</p>

<p>The reason I switched was that it was getting more difficult and expensive getting my film developed. I also had more difficulty getting prints made. Most of the photo shops I was using at that time have since closed down. </p>

<p>Todays digital cameras have more than enough resolution to meet my needs, storing and organizing my photos is easier. The instant feedback has also been a big help in improving my skills. I have also found it is easier to share my pictures with friends and family.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Oh, here's another advantage to digital that just came to mind.</p>

<p>If someone comes at you to grab your camera for taking a picture they don't approve of (like a policeman or some idiot who doesn't know the law), the photographer can quickly pull the memory card from the camera before the camera is taken and run away.</p>

<p>When a film camera is confiscated, they either have it all or they can pull the film roll out and destroy all the exposures. </p>

[railphotog]

<p>Another reason that other posts have brought up is costs - I can recall having to pay 65 cents for color reprints for friends and family. And of course this meant two trips to the photo lab, one to take in the negs and one to pick up the prints. Now I can send digital images in online and pick them up an hour or so later, for 19 cents a print.<br>

<br />And of course I can make my own prints literally in seconds! I had a black and white darkroom for 25 or more years, and it was mostly a chore that I needed to do to partake in the hobby. Gave away my gear to a camera club several years ago.</p>

 

[stan_schurman1]

<p>Three reasons: 1) the immediacy of me and others being able to see what I've photographed. No waiting to use up the roll and then waiting for processing, 2) quality, i.e., not relying on some lab to batch process your film to some average standard along with thousands of others and 3) not wasting money for processing of dozens of prints of which fewer than 30% will be keepers. Oh, and 4) the histogram is pretty.</p>

[vrankin]

<p>Film processing in my neck of the woods has gone in the tank, and I'm not patient enough to wait for mail order anymore. Digital has spoiled me for many of the came reasons as others above: immediacy, cost, ease of editing, image quality.</p>

[stan_schurman1]

<p>Guess I should have also mentioned the ISO flexibility.</p>

[stp]

<p>So I can spend wonderful hours at the computer, so I can get sunsets that look like crap, so I don't have to print larger than 12x16 without extrapolating, and so I can spend far more on equipment than I ever dreamed of doing when shooting film.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>I went digital in 1994 because that is what then Hutchinson News editor Steve Whitmore insisted we do. I have gone back to film because at 16 years of using digital, it's not any better than film, it is just different. Digital rocks for fast turn around, film for everything else.</p>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>My film scanner was destroyed by a power surge and I don't feel like buying another one just yet.</p>

[railphotog]

<p>I keep coming up with more reasons - not needing more than one camera body to be able to shoot with different films. At one time I was hauling around three bodies, one for B&W, one for color prints, and another for color slides. Not now!</p>

<p> </p>

[SCL]

<p>I still shoot plenty of film. But digital, for me, is great in that it gives instant feedback...which allows for inexpensive experimentation in areas I in which I am not particularly competent. My goal is to translate the newfound experience and knowledge into my film endeavors, and it has been a wonderful experience so far.</p>

[george_peng1]

<p>At the end of 2008/beginning of 2009, I went digital with the Nikon D90. I hadn't shot for awhile, but I felt I needed it in order to shoot my newborn niece. I also picked up a Hasselblad and Rolleiflex over the next few months, but that's another story. In my mind, the D90 was to me the first camera I thought made decent sense from a cost/quality standpoint.</p>

<p>Why digital? Convenience, speed, instant feedback. While I'm not convinced that digital is equal to or better than analog, especially medium format, its simply unbeatable if you're in uncertain light and need to iterate in order to get the shot right. For impromptu, parties, social functions, I think it fits the job simply because pure quality is less of a concern and convenience is paramount. So it comes down to a debatable tradeoff between quality and convenience. Depending on where your need is on the continuum, you pick the right tool.</p>