File :-(, x, )
film vs digital alex
hi /p/ I acquired a Minolta X-GM series camera about a year ago, in mint condition, and have since invested 75 dollars for a sigma 28-200mm mint condition zoom lens, some filters for 2 bucks each and a lot of film.
I would like to know if it is pointless investing in film, considering prices are dropping exponentially, or is it my opportunity to pick up some great gear. Like just this week I bought a Canon Eos Mark III 1D, for 180 dollars almost new condition, the person I bought it from was an idiot :), these things are worth thousands.

So far I have taken a lot of good photos, two even won 2nd place at a photography convention in australia, but for generic photos (notebooks, mobiles, keyrings, grass, etc) I think that I need a digital to get instant results.
Sometimes I take the same photo with both film and crappy Fuji S5600 which I own to see what I got.

And my last question is, should I invest and buy colour photo printing gear, or at least black and white, or should i just go and buy a Canon 400d or something (dSLR).

Cheers /p/
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelFinePix S5600Camera SoftwareDigital Camera FinePix S5600 Ver1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.2Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaMaker Note Version0130Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:05:29 19:27:09RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownExposure Time0.2 secF-Numberf/3.2Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/3.2Brightness-0.8 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length6.30 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2592Image Height1944SharpnessNormalWhite BalanceAutoChroma SaturationNormalFlash ModeOffMacro ModeOffFocus ModeAutoSlow Synchro ModeOffPicture ModeAutoContinuous/Bracketing ModeOffBlur StatusBlur WarningFocus StatusOut of FocusAuto Exposure StatusOK
>> Anonymous
I find digital photography to be very convenient, but I still miss the older ways of the film. If I had the money, I'd probably be doing the same thing you are.
>> Anonymous
In before flame war.
>> Anonymous
Advantages of Digital:
Instant feedback
More readily variable ISO
Image manipulation in PS
Ease of copying/backup
Disadvantages:
Noise (geting better, but hour long noise free shots are still a way off)
Reduced frame sensors
Heavier (although with modern bodies being plastic this is debatable)
Intangable (ie, no physical item to hold, requires special viewing apparatis)

Film Advantages
Variety in grain.
Speciality films (eg Veltia)
Best resolution (so far. 35mm has been surpassed, Med format still miles ahead)
Disadvantages:
On going costs (processing, film)
Fades with time
Difficult to archive (copying results in degredation)

Its up to you to work out if shooting film is worth the disadvantages. IMO, shooting 35mm film or smaller is not worth it (except for specialist apps, such as astro photography). Med format and larger film however is still the resolution king.
>> Anonymous
I Love analog cameras!!! in that moment I`m saving my money to buy a dia scanner so i can schan the negatives myself it`s way cheaper... i have 2 minoltas, one east german modell and a LOMO the best partycam on this planet
>> deleted
>>55509
A few comments:
>Reduced frame sensors
are a mixed bag, not an outright disadvantage. They make one's WA lens have to be larger, but make one's telephoto lens able to be smaller. They increase noise, but also increase depth of field, which can be an advantage or disadvantage depending on what one is doing.

It's different, not better/worse.

>Speciality films (eg Veltia)
The same speciality looks of different films can be gotten (in a digital version of the look) in Photoshop. Up the saturation and probably change a few other things and you've a "digital Velvia."

Those things said, I am considering buying some cheap medium format camera and would go film quite often in 35mm and equivalent digital formats (for the "film look," if nothing else) if I could chimp with film. IMO, chimping is the best thing about digital.

(In before Polaroid back.)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>55537
Fun Fact: I chimp with my film cameras. Not as often as I used to, since I've been shooting a lot more film, but I still take a peek at the back of my camera every third or fourth shot or so.

Then I feel like a complete moron.
>> street-pirate
>>55509
Advantages of Digital:
free pictures
Instant feedback
free pictures
More readily variable ISO
free pictures
Image manipulation in PS
free pictures
Ease of copying/backup
free pictures

fixed.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>55540
There's something to be said for pictures that cost you a measurable amount of money for each one. I always put a lot more thought and effort into each shot I take on film, because I know it's costing me. The result is that I get a much higher win-to-fail percentage when I go through a roll of film than when I fill a card.

Granted, a 2G cardfull of pictures gives me about the same win as a 36 exposure roll of film, but the full 2G card didn't cost me anything after the initial investment...
>> des
>>55541
>>a 2G cardfull of pictures gives me about the same win as a 36 exposure roll of film
damn son, leave the machine gun at the range :P
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>55542
I paid for 3fps, by God I'm gonna use it.
>> elf_man
I find the spray and pray method, while oddly satisfying, results in fewer good shots, due to less precise framing and unexpected blur. In the right circumstances I'm sure it's useful, but yeesh.
>> street-pirate
>>55541

They should make a film camera that makes a "ka-ching" sound every time you press the shutter. I bet that would slow you down even more. ;)

Seriously, I too think less about my shots with digitals, but the problem lies with people, not with the equipement. Nothing stops you from thinking about your shots with digitals.

And 'sides I save a lot of money when my friends borrow my camera and shoot a kazillion shitty pictures because they're impressed with the 3 fps. ;)
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
OP, i'd recommend going Hybrid if you like. Buy a scanner, scan in your negatives/slides, size the file and set the resolution you need to be at, then stick it on a CD. Voila; you have a digital file. It takes me less than - minutes to do a scan on my coolscan, or even shorter if i'm not looking for a completely dust-free one. If you like using the film, go for the film. If you dont' get the satisfaction from the film that I or other people who use other films get from it, then stay digital.

As most of you already know, I prefer slide film over digital any day. I will continue to use velvia and provia until it drops off the end of the earth. Note that I am specifically speaking about slide film, not negative (which i don't like)

I am not trying to start a flame war, but simply stating WHY I prefer slides.

-I've had some of my slide film out in the garage for 8 years, moved em cross country, etcetc there's no color fading or anything getting lost
-I keep my originals in the safety deposit box in case of fire, etc. The copy slides are the exact quality of the originals, with no loss of quality in the image.
-finer grain- better for extremely large prints
-less need to post-process once the photo was taken (i personally don't like the idea of photoshopping and "fixing" in photoshop, though i've nothing against those who do use photoshop to adjust, personal preference)
-better, bolder color without manipulation
-Your original is physically in your hand, not dependent on a file
-Easier to sort and store (i throw away the ones i don't like, i keep the ones I do.)
-I don't like the idea of depending on technology that doesn't necessarily know the proper exposures and settings for a 'mood' or color i'm trying to achieve, i'd rather do it by hand.
-The joy and satisfaction of looking through that little box of slides at the end, when you get your developing back (which, btw, i have as a one hour)
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>55547

Oh, and for the record I shoot film like AC shoots digital.
>> street-pirate
>>55547

You realize that it's only a question of time before digital completely trumps film in every way? Digital has only been around for ten years and it can already compete with film. Digital cameras' prices are freefalling while the quality is skyrocketing. Film camera have seen only minor improvements over the past two decades.

There is no sign that this tendency will reverse anytime soon, so I think film camera's days are numbered.

About large and medium format; you have to compare apples with apples. A large format film camera should be compared with a scanning back, not a DSLR, a medium format should be compared with a medium format camera back like a Phase One.

That being said, go post in the flickr weekly photo contest.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/4chanphaggots/
>> elf_man
I grew up shooting film, so that's still the mindset I use when shooting digital. I actually prefer the results of film, but digital was better for me for me for now, being new to slr's and the technical side of photography. I still plan to get a film body at some point, but having digital around is quite nice.
>-I don't like the idea of depending on technology that doesn't necessarily know the proper exposures and settings for a 'mood' or color i'm trying to achieve, i'd rather do it by hand.
That's why I shoot in manual and play around with the camera's image settings. Of course the ideal is to shoot raw format, at which point it isn't so much "fixing" as "developing", the darkroom metaphor is quite appropriate. Although that depends on the discipline and taste of the photographer to not skew it to hell and back. Otherwise I too greatly dislike postprocessing. Depending on how much of it you want to do, sticking with film might be a good idea.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>55552

I already did.

And whether you like it or not, film will never go away. In one way or another, even if they stop making film cameras, film will never fade away. It is specialized, yes, but compared to the output & quality i get from a digital vs what I get from film (believe me, i've tried both), slide film still wins. Digital has already beat out negative film, yes, I agree.

>>55553
and I know; that's why i encouraged you to get digital. :) If you're looking to learn, get experience and play around, then digital's the way to go.

I like doing my "darkroom" work in camera ;)
>> street-pirate
>>55554

"And whether you like it or not"

I don't like or dislike film. To me, a good picture is a good picture, film or digital. Film still beats digital for quite a number of applications, however I don't believe this is going to last long. Sure, there will always be purists shooting film, but they'll be exactly that; purists.

Me, I shoot digital because;
1. I'm learning.
2. I'm poor.
3. It's a hell of a lot more convenient for me.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>55564

which is perfectly fine. That's the convience of digital :c) anyone can do it and not have to pay for it.

I always end up questioning digital when people look at my pictures and go "oohh, how much did you photoshop that?" when there wasn't in photoshopping or post-processing aside from scanning done to it at all. I've nothing against either.

People still shooting film arent' necessarily purists. Not at all; i've encountered many who have switched from digital to film, and never looked back. I've seen others who switched from film to digital, then back to film. It isn't for the nostoligia, but the fact that they like the end product better.

Each side has their advantages and disadvantages; OP, like anyone else, needs to consider his options and decide which is best for him.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
     File :-(, x)
btw, here everyone, have a trippy photo.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNikonCamera ModelNikon SUPER COOLSCAN 5000 EDCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:06:13 20:03:12Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width914Image Height814
>> elf_man
That is an unfortunately common misconception. There's such a fine line between correction and flat-out manipulation, and people don't realize that many of their favorite film pictures are effectively "corrected" in the same way. Best way is to correct them on the nature of "photoshopping" and what it really means.
>> street-pirate
     File :-(, x)
>>55566

"People still shooting film arent' necessarily purists."

No, not right now, but if the non-stop improvement of digital doesn't slow down, soon they will be.

Of course I sound pretty cocky predicting the future like I'm some kind of prophet. Digital might encounter limitations nobody foresees now, or there may be a major breakthrough in film technology.

I admit I photoshop quite a lot, but it's mainly contrast/brightness and sometimes curves, so it's not that fake. Pic relate

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D80Camera SoftwareVer.1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern836Focal Length (35mm Equiv)42 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2006:04:06 04:03:13Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias-1/3 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length28.00 mmCommentSami GilbertColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3872Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastSoftSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeUnknownISO Speed Used200Color ModeCOLORImage QualityNORMALWhite BalanceAUTOImage SharpeningHIGHFocus ModeAF-SFlash SettingREAR SLOWFlash Compensation41.7 EVISO Speed Requested200Flash Bracket Compensation0.0 EVAE Bracket Compensation0.0 EVTone CompensationLOWLens TypeNikon D SeriesLens Range18.0 - 135.0 mm; f/3.5 - f/5.6Auto FocusDynamic Area, Right Selected, Unknown FocusedShooting/Bracketing ModeSingle Frame/OffColor ModeLandscape sRGBLighting TypeNATURALNoise ReductionOFFCamera Actuations8969Image OptimizationCUSTOMSaturation 2ENHANCED
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>55569

Digital gets all the improvements because there are things that need to be corrected in the technology, color sensors and so on. They're also figuring out how to get more megapixels, etcetc. It'll never slow down. Everyone is in a race to beat everyone else.

I also agree with Elf_man; i just prefer to do most of my work in camera.
>> street-pirate
     File :-(, x)
>>55575

Okay, third time's the charm.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D80Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern834Focal Length (35mm Equiv)42 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:06:14 12:22:07Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias-1/3 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length28.00 mmCommentSami GilbertColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1000Image Height524RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastSoftSaturationHighSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
     File :-(, x)
>>55577

Not bad... I think my main annoyance is with those who use digital, then completely manipulate their photos, add in elements that weren't originally there, add in completely new colors, change the complete look of the photo and so on, until it isn't even the original picture anymore. THAT's what i'm reffering to as post-processing, btw.

Oh, and sunset photo exactly how it looked and exactly how it came out of the camera. ;)
>> street-pirate
>>55578

I half-agree with you. As I've stated before, if it looks good it looks good. Of course, the kind extreme image manipulation you're describing isn't photography anymore, but it still takes a great deal of skill and hard work, and it's possible to create fantastic art with this method. It's just not really photography anymore.
>> street-pirate
>>55578

Oh, and great colors by the way.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>55579

yet those people call themselves photographers and they claim everything as their photography. Thanks btw
>> elf_man
>>55579
>>55588
It's unfortunate because it hurts both film and digital shooters when it's misrepresented like that.