File :-(, x, )
Film vs. Digital Anonymous
I have a question /p/

Why are so many on /p/ using film cameras?

I mean, is it the shitty old photography classes in the colleges in the USA that forces people to go buy one?

Or is it just because people on /p/ are nostalgic?

Either way the film cameras were out-dated long ago. In the future there will be no one using them, except from the neo-hippie guys, who do not want to rely on batteries.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:04:09 00:14:17Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width800Image Height400
>> Anonymous
Film isn't dead. Many people also cannot afford $1000 digital bodies. Some discontinued systems (like canon fd) have really nice lenses that go for much cheaper than their modern equivalents. There are pros and cons for each system. If you're good with digital, doesn't mean you're good with film, however, someone good with film is good with digital.
>> Anonymous
uh oh, in b4 shitstorm and you better not be a troll
>> Anonymous
Because film is just so much fun
>> Anonymous
I shoot film because i can get my hands to pro level bodies for less than most p&s cameras cost these days.

I love the process involved in film photography. Theres nothing better than 50mm lens and some good old tri-x.

Also medium and large format is still way superior to your shitty digital D3.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
ITT Troll feeding.
>> Anonymous
my camera is better than your camera raaargaaghahg
>> Anonymous
OP here.

Well I can see you all love your old film cameras, but what can it do that a digital cannot?
Why stick with an old, slow and expensive way of developing photos?
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>156939
It can do it without batteries, for one thing.

I dunno, there's something organic and visceral about shooting film. You wind it yourself. You manually focus those butter-smooth old AI or K or FD lenses. It really makes you feel every frame. When you develop it (which you can do yourself, cheaply) you really feel like you're creating the frames out of darkness. Hanging up those soapy strands of film to dry is really amazing. Looking at the contact sheet, red crayon-ing your edits... it's a ritual. It's all a really nice ritual.

It also helps that good B&W film has a huuuuuge exposure latitude compared to digital. I also like the feel of my film cameras.

Also, truth about the cost: I got a nice medium format kit for like, $150 total.
>> Anonymous
>>156939
It can keep my wallet full. I did the math and it's actually cheaper for me to get great shots with film compared to digital. Not easier but cheaper and better.

Also, S shaped photosensitivity curve rather than linear.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>156939
How about a 27 megapixel full-frame digital SLR for $30 plus $130 for the film scanner?
>> Anonymous
>>156939
Film fucking sucks. Film cameras on the other hand, are awesome.

If they made digital cameras like they made awesome film cameras, I'd stick my dick in one.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>156949
Maybe try the Epson RD-1? It went so far as to make you cock the shutter manually between shots.
>> Anonymous
>>156949
So i guess Leica M doesnt count as awesome film camera?
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
I love digital and shoot it daily, but I love shooting film. It works very, very well for me. What other reason do I need?
>> Anonymous
>It works very, very well for me. What other reason do I need?

This is the only good reason to do adopt any working method for anything.
>> Nikon !!eX1E3IhZL8k
Digital has its practical uses, that's for sure. It's quicker, more flexible, portable and definately cheaper to develop (duh!), but high end DSLR bodies cost an arm and a leg. On the other hand, high end SLR film cameras are now much cheaper than their digital counterparts and thus an attractive option for bargain hunters.

For the photog enthusiast on a budget, film is definately the way to go without breaking the bank.

Just my two cents
>> Anonymous
When shooting digital, I stop caring about each shot since it's in RAW and RAW is like cheating after you've developed and edited in a darkroom. When I go back to shooting film, whether with an SLR or rangefinder (leica f1.0 baby :D), I think, I mean REALLY think and consider every angle and exposure with each shot. Just the feeling. Digital = Easy whereas Film = Photography. Although I love both, Im gonna have to side with film on this one. Although I am afraid it will die eventually, hopefully after I'm dead. Just 2 years ago I could walk 2 blocks to the nearest darkroom and spend hours working. Now I have to make a trip of it to San Francisco if I feel that urge since devlopment centers are shutting down. ON TOP OF THAT, my favorite film is discontinued >.<

BTW OP, go take a photo class and develop at least once. Then you can say you hate it and would rather shoot digital.
>> Anonymous
156972 Here.

At least this discussion is worlds better than hearing pretentious fucks argue over B&W vs color photography. HAW!
>> Anonymous
Personally speaking I just like the look and feel of film better. There's something about the way film grain looks on a really crisp print that's got a warmer feeling than digital photographs.

Sure, you can digitally alter your photos to add grain and whatnot, but for B&W work digital just doesn't have the same feeling.

That said, I shoot 99.9% digital now. The convenience of digital outweighs the negatives of the format, and I only shoot film when I'm playing with an old camera or need a very specific look..
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
i really have no idea why i still shoot film, other than the fact that i don't want to go pay two grand for a camera that's not a 4x5 or hasselblad. i don't even have a scanner so that i can show people online. in fact, i don't really show anyone my photography. i don't know why i even shoot, other than some clandestine cosmic compulsion.

but, i don't shoot film because i'm cheap, since it's probably costing me upwards of two or three grand a year. so i honestly have no idea why i still shoot film, other than 1) i really fucking love getting my slides back and looking at them on the way home 2) fuji superia is just such a pretty, inexpensive film. 3) i lub me sum darkrooms.
>> Anonymous
>>156988
>i really have no idea why i still shoot film, other than the fact that i don't want to go pay two grand for a camera that's not a 4x5 or hasselblad.

Get an $800 prosumer DSLR, toolbox.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>156990

i considered it briefly, just to offset some of my film costs that go towards bullshit snapshots, experiments, etc. but, nah....
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>156902

HAHAHA!
>> Anonymous
oh man, I had to go that route since I dumped $$$ on my leica f1.0 lens. Never went digital before, so i started with a nikon d80. Thinking back I think I could've saved more money by going the d40 route to learn the format, then investing in a d200 or something down the road.

Rangefinders are fun as all fuck though ^^
>> Anonymous
Well, I shoot digital because I am a noob that has a lot to learn. I can make up for quality with quantity. Take 70 pictures to get 5 that are decent. I still have a cannon AE1 that I love and have developed off of, but I only get it out when I have a project in mind. (2 hour drive to the nearest dark room ;_;)
>> Anonymous
I have a DSLR with a few lenses and I'm even considering getting a film body.

I guess part of the attraction in film is actually not always knowing how stuff is going to turn out. Colors are very pretty, even when they're not as 'natural' as a digital one lets you achieve with ease. Maybe it's, to a point, the lack of control that I'm liking.

If I'm doing something with work in mind, I'll grab the digital one. There's something a little romantic about the impredictability of film.

Who knows, it's plain fun! Maybe the anticipation till you see the picture helps! Perhaps I chimp too much!
>> Anonymous
'exotic' cameras are also very nice.
>> Anonymous
>>156907

I'd agree but there are drawbacks. To properly have control of film requires a darkroom. (almost as much fun as sex)
Also need a film scanner and good ones cost.
>> Anonymous
>>156951
Saving for one now.
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
I just developed a roll of tri-x, and I gotta tell you, it felt good.

I shot 24 pics with a Nikon FM2 today, and about 200 with my D40, and I can honestly say I feel I accomplised more with the film.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>157486
i cant say i've ever shot that many photos in oneday with my D70 ever!
the most i've done would be a pro-pack of 400VC with my F5
>> I||ICIT !!mknjFN/v/49
film just isnt my things.

i have "tried" it, i brought a canonet ql19 rangefinder and i put a roll of film through it.

reasons i didnt like it:
fucking cost, why the fuck do i wanna pay 8-15 bucks for a roll of film when i can get 400 shots on something the size of a single 35mm slide, and re-use that same "slide" for many years.
oh, and then i gotta develop the bastard, now dont get me wrong, im a real hands on guy, but i simply dont want to/have the time to develop film everytime ive done 36 shots. and the cost of the chemicals, setting up the darkroom etc.
TBH, i spent 80bucks on chemicals and a developing tank and i havent even opened any of it... i even have a roll ready to be done sitting on my sidetable. in the meantime ive taken probably 20+ really nice "keeper" shots on my digital.

the "look", before i tries it, i heard so many people say "youll love the "look" of film, its so much nicer than digital." well i was pretty disapointed to see my b&w 400 negs looked like iso fuckin 1600 on my 30D. sod that shit. it honestly didnt look that different from a nicely processed raw, apart from the fuckin noise...

the simplicity
its so nice being able to go and take as many shots as i need to, to cover all the angles, DOF levels, exp levels etc, normally there goes half a roll.

to me, i simply cant do it, both mentally and financially.
it couls be that or the fact that i started off with a digital rebel300 and never ever shot a frame of film before that, except on my mums p/s film canon. brought the rebel when i was ~16, now 20 if it matters...
>> I||ICIT !!mknjFN/v/49
>>157490
oh, and i never took photog at school, im sure if i did things would be different.

also a huge off putting factor was that roll i put through my ql19, the results werent very amazing and it cost me ~$50 (15 for film, 12 for developing, and 22 god damn dollars for a crappy scan job! and this was all at a pro photo store...)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>157491
Christ, man, you got played there. What the hell film were you buying for $15/roll?
>> Anonymous
>>157491
I usually pay less than $10 for the film and processing.

Skip the scanning and buy a scanner.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>157495
note that its not US$

>>157491
get it developed at your local store or something, they normally do it for $6
>> Anonymous
What puts me off from film isn't the cost or anything mentioned here. And it's not film so much as rollfilm- having to process 12 or 24 or 36 shots all the same way, just because they were taken on the same roll. I'd love to have a 5x7 view camera for the tonality and everything of LF when I have the time to set it up.

Although I am considering getting an M3, for all the usual reasons.
>> des
>>157501
That's kind of silly, but you could always just make load shorter rolls
>> ME
Film is not, and will not be (for years at least)outdated. I work in a photolab. It's still the top choice of photographers =/. Any photographer will tell you that. Medium format cameras ftw
>> Anonymous
>>158103

Apart from all the droves moving over to digital?

Nowadays film is for fun, digital is for profit.
>> Anonymous
>>158062
How do you mean? Isn't the shortest 120 roll 12 and the shortest 135 roll 24? I mean outside of those really wide panoramic ones.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>158105
You can actually get 12-shot rolls of 135.

But I think what he was actually talking about, though, is bulk-loading your own film cartridges with smaller lengths.
>> Anonymous
>>157490
You can't possibly think that shooting one roll through a shitty 60's budget rangefinder is a valid assessment of the format "film" can you?

If somebody came to you and said they shot 30 pictures on some $200 P&S digital and they decided that all digital was useless bullshit, you probably wouldn't take them very seriously.
>> Anonymous
>>158105
Thats why I bulk roll, I can do a roll with a single frame if I wanted to
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>158115
>You can't possibly think that shooting one roll through a shitty 60's budget rangefinder is a valid assessment of the format "film" can you?
I don't think he was. He was just saying that, after shooting that one roll, he decided it wasn't for him. Note the multiple first-person pronouns throughout, including the first line:
>>film just isn't my thing.

It's perfectly valid. All of the reasons he gave for not enjoying the process are things that you pretty much have to accept with film--you're gonna have to pay for the film, you're gonna have to pay for developing, you're not gonna see the pictures until they're developed, etc.

So, not for him. Nothing wrong with that.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
>>158105
120 film is always the same length. How many shots you get on it depends on the format. 6x6cm gets you 12 shots on a roll, 645 15 or 16 shots (depends on the manufacturer), 6x7cm ten shots, etc
>> Anonymous
I pay 1 dollar for 36-frame rolls and 3 bucks for processing and printing. And that's it.

I tried it on a shitty toy camera from the 1970s and still love its results. It's also much less suspicious or attention-drawing than my DSLR.

I'm already looking forward to getting a compatible SLR to pair up with my DSLR.