File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hey /p/, this is the first time I have been to this part of 4chan and am going to ask a question because I'm generally interested.
What kind of camera/s do you own? Do you prefer to shoot film or digital, and why?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:11:21 22:45:58Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width404Image Height318
>> you guess Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Fuji Pro 800 x 2
Provia 100 x 1
Superia 100 x 1
Velvia x 1
Ilfod 3200 x 1
Ilford XP2 400 x 3
Kodak Max 400 x 1
TMAX 3200 x 3
TMAX 100 x 5
>> Anonymous
I love film. It's easier to get a higher quality image out of film. It's cheaper to get a 1:1 ratio. Grain looks a lot better than noise. And there's just something about the process itself. Oh, and film is the only way you'll get a true black and while image.
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
Nikon D50
Pentax K1000

I prefer both (MINDFUCK?), but I use the D50 more often.
>> Anonymous
I have a Canon EOS 400D/Rebel XTi.

I prefer digital.
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
D40, Lomo Lc-A, EOS 650. I do loves me some film, but it's such a hassel sometimes.
>> Anonymous
Canon Digital Rebel

I prefer digital. Easier to know if a shot came out, no downtime every 24/36 shots, no chemicals.

Developing is also a lot easier and cleaner.
>> AndroidAlchemist
Canon EOS 350D/Rebel Kiss

don't know how to use film, lol...
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Digital only. I like experimenting with various lenses and shooting techniques, so film is out of the question.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot G9Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.2Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:02:09 14:11:31Exposure Time4 secF-Numberf/4.0ISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length14.78 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2000Image Height1333RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
Panasonic FX55. Digital.
>> Gurka !!1FGiaTI46rX
D70. Digital because I'm cheap.
Would love to shoot some film though, but atm I can't afford it.
>> Anonymous
40D and Lomo Fisheye. I prefer digital, for the control that I can get.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
what the fuck is this shit?
>> Anonymous
yashica tl electro-x, holga, balda baldixette, kodak easyshare c360.. i prefer film, because my digital camera is very limited. might change my mind if i'g get a nice dslr in my hands :D
>> Anonymous
>>123367
An eyepiece that turns a M42 screwmount lens into a (rather shitty) telescope.
>> Anonymous
Panasonic Lumix FZ-18 and sony cybershot DSC-W1. The sony i've had for years and stays in my bag at all times *just in case*. I got the lumix for the zoom and acess to more control, it was meant to replace the sony, but its a bit too big to take around everywhere.

I like the idea of SLR but theyre not really that practical for me personally. I dont have hundreds of pounds to spend on equiptment, especially since i only really use my camera for reference shots and textures.
>> Anonymous
Fuji S6000fd and an Olympus 35RC. I use film for black and white and experimenting, for everything else, digital.
>> Anonymous
>>123336I like experimenting with various lenses and shooting techniques, so film is out of the question.

Yeah, because one can't experiment with film. Give me a fucking break.
>> Anonymous
>>123386
you can, but it's expensive.
>> Anonymous
>>123387

It can be if you buy expensive film, have it developed at an expensive lab, and just walk around with your shutter button held down shooting continuously all the time.

You can make your choice of film and processing part of the experiment too. Use expired or oddball film and process it yourself. You can get the cost per roll down to a few cents if you put in a little effort.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with digital. I use a DSLR about 50% of the time. I just find it irritating that people automatically rule out film because it's "expensive" without actually giving it a try. And by try, I don't mean one or two rolls.

As far as "experimenting" is concerned, there is one big thing you can do to save some money... Stop and think about what you're doing before you take the picture. If you do that rather than just randomly snapping thousands of pics in the name of experimentation you will improve your overall success rate, you will learn more from your experiments, and you will take fewer (bad) photos.

Believe it or not, people learned to take photos with film before digital cameras existed and it didn't bankrupt them. People even experimented a little.
>> Anonymous
>>123387
and slow.
and often requires a complex light meter.
and you don't know if you fucked up something trivial until you develop the film next day.

Indeed, there are things that are done better with film, like multi-exposure tricks, but I don't find them interesting enough to have a separate film system.
>> Anonymous
>>123388
post your experiments with film
>> Anonymous
Digital whore all the way. The Olympus evolt 510 series is pretty good.
>> Anonymous
>>123391
Typical attitude of the current generation:

"If I can't have it in 1 second, it's not worth the wait."
>> Anonymous
>>123420
inb4 "Back in my days... walk miles... feet of snow...WWII"
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>123420
The ability to view your photos the same day, not to mention knowing right away if the shot was blurry or whatever, makes a huge difference, especially as a beginner.
Otherwise,>>123391is wrong. If you buy a reasonably modern film slr, it will be just as fast to use as a dslr, and have a good light meter built-in.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>123420
Typical attitude from crotchety old people. "I had to wait, so they should have to wait even if there's no reason for it."
>> Anonymous
>>123420
There's a lot of cases where going by trial and error is the most efficient or even the only way. Shooting splashing water, for example, or stuff with complex strobe lighting which renders the in-camera meter useless.
On the other hand, I can't name many photographic techniques which are slower and more complex with digital than with film apart from multi-exposure.
>> Anonymous
>>123464
Yeah, and digital lets one know when he finally gets it right so he doesn't waste time and film shooting ten more frames after that. Also, external light meters are a lot less useful with histograms available.

Excluding LF sheet film, digital outresolves film and offers more processing flexibility for each shot. It's more convenient, too, but the processing flexibility is the main reason for me. The only reason to shoot sub-LF film these days is to get the look of a specific film, or if one wants a particular type of camera that has too prohibitive an entry cost or flat out doesn't exist in digital. (Rangefinders, TLRs, etc.)
>> Anonymous
>>123392post your experiments with film
Every photo I take is an experiment, and I have posted a few on this board. On the other hand, I have nothing to prove to a bunch of pre-adolescent jackoffs, so I'm not going to post any in this thread.

>>123391
I didn't say you would be better off shooting film, I just said that there is no reason you can't do it. I tire of how everybody in this society is obsessed with everything always being "better" than something else. If it works, it works.

As for slowness, yeah it's a little slower. You can develop your film the same day, it only takes a few minutes to do. You won't die of anticipation, and maybe it'll be a good exercise in memory.

I personally don't find the LCD that helpful anyway. Sure I can look at a photo right after I took it, but it never looks quite the same as once it's on the monitor and it's difficult to be certain about sharpness and shadow detail. I almost never even look at the LCD, I just check it out when I get home and upload the photos.

>>123461Typical attitude from crotchety old people
I don't think that's what anybody is saying. I think we are saying that it's dumb to whine and scream about how sloooooow film is when it really isn't, it makes no difference in the end results, and you could probably benefit from a little patience anyway.
>> deleted
     File :-(, x)
Film: Nikon 35mm FM2.

Digital: Nikon D80, SB800, 18-135mm kit lens, 50mm f/1.8, and a sigma 10-20mm (obtained today)

Nikon ftw.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSC-W50Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:02:09 22:11:56Exposure Time1/40 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating80Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, Compulsory, Return DetectedFocal Length6.30 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width563Image Height423RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> Anonymous
>>123420

If there is no reason to wait, why should they?
>> Anonymous
>>123461
There you go. Typical knee-jerk reaction to a simple statement. It shows just how empty headed and shallow your existence is. Once again, typical current generational attitude:

"If I can't come up with an answer in less than a second, it's not worth my time."

One shiny little bauble and you're off like a shot. Total attention deficit loser. In before: "tl;dr".
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>123480
>I almost never even look at the LCD, I just check it out when I get home and upload the photos.
^Uses the auto mode dial m i rite?
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>123484
Do you know how stupid you sound? That's some quality trolling if I do say so myself <3
>> Anonymous
>>123484
I'm of the generation you're talking about, and you do have a point about many of us, but that doesn't mean you're not being a tool.

FWIW, I hardly ever look at the back screen as
I'm shooting except to check the histogram. But I look at it sort of like a less convenient but more precise version of being able to see the scene through a RF viewfinder as the exposure is going. Nothing wrong with it, except if it breaks up a person's shooting rhythm.
>> Anonymous
>>123492
And by "many of us," I don't mean ac. His post was perfectly reasonable. Just to be clear.
>> Anonymous
>>123480
>I didn't say you would be better off shooting film, I just said that there is no reason you can't do it.
Of course I can. I can also get to work every day by a horse-driven carriage, which would be super classy, but somehow I choose not to.

>You can develop your film the same day, it only takes a few minutes to do
Only if you're shooting B&W and have your own darkroom. E-6 takes an hour of work (not including drying) and just reading the list of chemicals makes my head hurt.

>I almost never even look at the LCD,
Your inability to use digital technology isn't its drawback. Anyway, reviewing pictures on a computer is still faster than going to a darkroom.

>I think we are saying that it's dumb to whine and scream about how sloooooow film is when it really isn't,
It is. Why do you think most professionals switched to digital?
>> Anonymous
>>123484
someone responded to you in the same way you responded to someone else, but you call them out on it?
>> Anonymous
>>123496
>It is. Why do you think most professionals switched to digital?

With the exception of photojournalists, I think the main practical reason (as opposed to any of the non-workflow related reasons) most pros switched to digital was to cut overhead. A shot for an ad, a commissioned portrait, or a wedding album, etc. is fine if it takes a few days to develop.
>> Anonymous
Olympus E-500
Olympus E-330
Olympus E-3
Nikon F-401
Praktica BC-1

I do like both, but mostly use digital, as it's much easier to process.
>> Anonymous
>>123504
It doesn't take a few days to develop anyway. Both of the pro labs in my area have less than 24 hour turnaround on just about anything. C41 is back in an hour, E6, B&W, and common-sized prints are back in two hours, and oversized prints or specialty services are done in 24.

>>123496Why do you think most professionals switched to digital?
Because for high volume work it's much cheaper. For pros who send out their film for processing, and most did, turnaround time probably hasn't changed a whole lot. It's just now it's all done in house on a computer rather than at a lab and delivered the next morning. It also cuts overhead in archiving and image management. The time from camera to print isn't that important for most pros.

>>123496E-6 takes an hour of work (not including drying) and just reading the list of chemicals makes my head hurt.
Post processing digital images takes time too. And your inability to understand chemicals isn't their drawback.

For the third time, I'm not arguing that film is superior to digital or that it's faster than digital. I'm just arguing that it's not nearly as slow, inconvenient, or horribly expensive as people make it out to be.
>> Anonymous
OP here: Nice to see this thread has been carried on while I was asleep.
Now I'm going to read all the replies...
>> Anonymous
>>123346
are you happy with your 40d?
i am planning on getting one sometime, i own a 400d at the moment and have heard many great things about the 40d.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>123532
Only upgrade to the 40D if you will actually use liveview. Need faster fps. And need more durability.
Another nice thing about the 40D are the custom dials.

I'm only going to upgrade pretty soon because it'll only cost me around 450 us dollars.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>123520
>I'm just arguing that it's not nearly as slow, inconvenient, or horribly expensive as people make it out to be.
Let's look at it point by point:

(Time & Convenience)
Digital: Push button, receive picture
Film: Push button, get through 35 more shots so you can finish off the roll (taking more time for each shot because you're conscious of the per-frame cost). Then, it varies by film and location. If you're shooting C41 135, you can have it back in an hour. If you're shooting slide film and you're very lucky, you might have a one-hour lab that'll do it. Moderately lucky, next-day service. Unlucky, send it out to Fuji and get it back in a week. Shooting traditional B&W, you'll probably be developing it yourself, which means you can do it in about an hour... but the convenience drops exponentially. And if you're shooting something other than 135, it's even worse.

And if you want to add in the time spent postprocessing digital, make sure to also add in the scanning time for film. And cleaning dust and scratches and whatnot.

(Cost)
Digital: Per picture, $0
Film: Per picture, $>0.
So the cost of film compared to the cost of bits is immense. Not to mention the opportunity cost of great pictures you might miss with film because you wait too long thinking "Wait, is this picture really going to be good enough to spend a frame of film on?"

Caveat: I shoot a *lot* of film. But don't kid yourself that it's not slow, expensive, and inconvenient as fuck. It's just that it's also fun and rewarding.
>> Anonymous
Nikon D80 for the win, bitch is expensive, but great pictures.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>123562
Because as we all know, cost of gear translates directly into quality of images produced.
>> Anonymous
>>123596

Yes.
>> Anonymous
>>123596

...well generally yeah, you dumb bastard.

Notice that i said "BUT great pictures".
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
I find the D50 is the best camera I have for image quality. The D200 is great and all, but the D50's JPG's just seem to make better images for me (after editing and everything)
>> Anonymous
Canon FTb
Canon Powershot S5IS
Canon 40D

I prefer digital, only because it's been so long since I've actually used my FTb, I can't imagine having to buy and process film anymore. However, this man is right:

>>123323
>> Anonymous
All of you twats need to get your goddamn panties out fo a bunch over such trivial things. We all get that you're real tuff on the internet. Back on topic maybe?

D70, n75 and Pentax K1000, I prefer film because its something thats actually there. You can see it, feel it, hold it. Makes the whole process seem more real.