With the digital photography rapidly taking over film photography, which camp do you belong to? There are those who use digital cameras and scoff at film, and there are those who straddle the two, using both technologies, appreciating both camps, and of course, there are the "old hardies" who cling onto film. Give your opinion about what you believe in, and the experiences you have had with your chosen media...

For me, I'm a stoid film user. I have a fully manual 35mm SLR camera, with several prime lenses. In my university photography club, I'm one of the only few who still uses film, not to mention a manual camera. I like to shoot in film because correct colour rendering is important for me, especially when it comes to skin tones. There's just some reassurance that if I ever screw up my digital copies of my photos, I still have the original film (like how I just realised I lost the scans for the last two rolls of film I shot... but fortunately I can always go and rescan them).

But I also like to scan my film in, and digitally manipulate them before I send them off to print. I know there are a lot of digital camera users who don't like to print photos, but for me it's quite important to have several copies of my photos.

Other reasons why I stick to film... Grain instead of pixels. The ability to choose between normal colour film, black and whites, and slides. The enforced discipline that a film roll offers, because I can't just shoot ten shots, move into a dark place, and change the ISO, my ISO is fixed for 36 shots, and so I have to work around it. Often I find that working around things creates more creativity than having all the options laid out. Also I try to make every shot count (don't really like to bracket), because it costs money to get the film developed. (I am looking into buying a professional dedicated film scanner with my friend so we can save on the film scanning costs.)

How about you guys? I know a lot of you have cameras (from the other camera topic) so share your opinions and insights!

It really depends on the type of use.

A professional photographer will always stick to film because of the high resolution quality. Not only that, but a Film does has many more advantages. The high resolution capacity of photographic films is simply unmatched. There is still research going on for developing very high res. photographic plates to be used in digital cameras.

A normal user, who just want to just take some family snaps and scenery might not opt for a film based camera. Even a resolution of 2048 is more than enough. Digital cameras are much more portable and have a larger capacity. They do not have any problems regarding the films and can be managed very easily.

As for me, I fall into second category, so I better go with Digital ones.

I'm a pretty decent photographer (if I may say so) - and I'd go for film flat out. While digicams give you the immense flexibility of keeping or rejecting any shot rightafter, the color latitude & gradients that you get on film are still unbeatable even by high end high megapixel digicams that we have today.

Somehow the color perception of digicams have always been a little different than film - and if you're using Transparency (Slide Film) - landscapes invariably come out with such vivid and brilliant color ranges.

I've got a digicam though - most of the time I use it to compose my shots, take a few shots and see how the framing has come out and then take the best shot again with my SLR. Prior to digicams I used a polaroid along with my SLR to achieve this effect. While I'm not a film extremist, I think I'm going to stick to films as long as they survive. Besides the whole process of developing your own films and then printing them (seeing the picture fade in on that piece of blank paper) has a complete different thrill to it, which Photoshop can never impart. It's literally like giving birth to your own creation. I've been an avid photographer since I was in my 5th grade and I taught myself everything on my own. I've even got my full-blown color enlarger and a mini development lab with all the accessories you can imagine. Long live film

Oh wow! That's more than I'll ever be, really. Yeah! Someone out there who loves film even more than I do!

I can't believe you have your own colour enlarger and mini development lab! That's like how cool? Must be really expensive... I was wondering about getting my own colour film developer and stuff, but the costs of getting and maintaining it is like O_o. too much for me.

I used to do black and white photography, and I know what you mean by seeing the picture fade in on that piece of blank paper. I love my hours spent in the darkroom, developing film, and getting that exposure of that print just right, hanging the papers up after that. I really miss that... *muse*

Any good advice on how to get started on doing my own films and prints? I know the basics for black and white photography but O_o at colour.

A digital camera man here. Before I got a digital camera, I barely never photographed anything.

I mainly photograph 10-30mm miniatures I, or someone else, has painted. For this task a digital camera with macro mode is the way to go. Resolution is not a problem as long as you have at least 2 megapixels. I usualyl take pics at 1600x1200 resolution and then scale down them heavily. It is kind of pointless having the picture several times the size of the actual model. Thus the resolution is more than enough.

Then of course there's the fact that I publish my stuff at web. Digital camera elimanates the scanning phase of the process.

I agree with some previously stated arguments as to the use. Really each medium has it's pros and cons. Obviously if you want to touch things up - you are going to want to go the electronic route and if you are 'le artiste' you may be more prone to go the film only route. Whichever route you choose I think it's at least important to realize there are more differences between the mediums than just sheer preference - each has it's individual uses.

    [/tab]It's not difficult at all chiiyo. Infact it'll be very easy for you to shift, since you already have prior experience in B & W development. The process is very similar, except that for colour (depending on the quality of developer you're using) - you get 3-4 different chemicals that you've to dip the film in, in a certain order. Only after that you use the fixer. In contrast B&W uses only one developer (we used to get this universal developer from Kodak in India - really cheap, about $1.5, that developed both negatives and paper).

[tab]Anyway, I don't know how expensive enlargers are in Japan (that's where you live, right ?) but in Thailand you get a full-blown enlarger with a damned good lens for about THB8,000 - that's around $200. And it's worth it Other than the enlarger you'd need the chemicals and some development tanks. You can either get the manual tanks where you've to slide and roll up the whole film onto a reel and immerse that inside the tank - then comes the hard part (rather, painstaking part) - keeping the reel in constant rotating motion for almost half-an-hour. Alternatively, you can get some mechanised drums with builtin motors - but they're damned expensive. The development time also depends on the dilution of the developer - if you dilute it to a great extent, the development process will be very slow and as I said, you got to roll the film in it constantly. In some cases I've even gone upto 45mins... massive advantage of this process is you great some brilliant colors and absolutely smooth gradients.. on the other hand you could use high-density developer (diluted very little) and get the film out in 15 mins flat. This will give you very very grainy images.

    [/tab]Bad part about color developers are that those chemicals hardly last more than 3 months (the less expensive ones) - it's either 3 months or about 60 film rolls (35mmx36shots) - whichever comes earlier. So you gotta use them real quick.

[tab]There are thousands of little tricks like this that I've picked up all this while.. If you're interested we could start some cool discussions threads here on the various aspects of photography and share them with the others. We could also share our work in here. Maybe I'll come up with a post outlining how to setup your own minilab in some corner of your house.. that'll be cool

All the best

(M^E, I'll set up another post about the whole self-development thing, it's a bit off-topic... besides, we NEED to populate the photography board. It's looking a little pitiful right now... And... =_=. I don't live in Japan ( I WISH!), I live in Singapore. I'm a chinese who loves the japanese culture, that's all...)

Wow! Now that's really amazing... O_o. Imagine if you had taken it with a 35mm camera! It'll be almost one-to-one! But yeah, digital would definitely be better in your case, especially if you only publish on the web. But is the colour correct? I mean, miniatures... must be important to have the right colour and stuff right? How do you control the lighting? Do you have a studio set-up, or just amateur shots? I want to see!


Is that really true?? O_o. Anyone thinks otherwise? I don't think film people necessary have to be more "artistic". I mean, Greg Gorman is a digital man, so are a lot of professional photographers... (though I don't really like Greg Gorman's work, but hey, he's the one making the big bucks, who am I to say he's not good?)


Yes, I totally agree with that. I had fully explored the option of going digital before turning around and going back to the basics instead. I don't hate digital, in fact I find it rather cool, and will pick it up someday... when i have the extra cash, but for right now, film is the way to go for me. What I am not so happy about are people who pick up a powerful digital professional camera and then think that they are so pro at taking pictures, but their pictures have all been exposure-adjusted, background-cut-out, cropped and edited in photoshop. *snorts* That's not a good photographer, that's a mighty good graphic manipulator. People who think like that should pick up a medium format camera or a large format camera! I myself, I know I'm really not that good. Always better to be humble in this case.

I have the both film and digital cameras . I am agree with OpaQue . In my opinion , not only the professional photographer perfer film camera but also the phototaking lover . As I have the both film and digital cameras , I always using my film camera the reason same as OpaQue talked .

Why I bought a digital cameras ? Because I think I can use it in snap shot .

I think the digital cameras during the developing period . In that time digital camera cannot instead of film camera . ( specially the cost ^^ )

In the problem of storage , buy a film scanner is high but I am doing design work so I can scan it in my office

While I love film (and always will), I switched over to digital about a year ago, and never looked back.

I was an avid slide shooter. I took a college darkroom lab class and started developing my own b+w prints. That was fun. But the majority of my work depended on Photoshop, and it's such a time waste to scan photos in using a film scanner. I've spend hours doing this, and decided it wasn't worth it. So I switched over and bought a Canon 10D. I love this thing, and it produces excellent files for what it is. Some people claim that 6mp isn't enough, but I've blown up photos to 20x30", and that's plenty big for me.

I hate digicams, so don't mistake what I use for a digicam. They're nice for casual family gatherings, but that's it. If you want something comparable to film, buy a DSLR.

Now, people are right when they say that most professionals still use film. However, it depends on what type of professional you're talking about. Film offers two significant advantages: increased detail and a wider dynamic range. The detail has been recently matched with Canon's 16.7 MP EOS 1Ds MkII camera, or many of the 22MP MF digital backs. The dynamic range question still exists. Personally, I'd kill to have more dynamic range on my camera. Oh, and finally, you can utilize the different characteristics of various film makes, but that's a minor point.

Digital has many advantages over film, and they only keep getting better. First, you get immediate results. That's good for clients who like to maintain a high level of control. Photographers can even send photos shot no more than 1 minute ago to a company half way around the world for review. Second, many of the film photos have only one original, whereas a digital file can be reproduced without loss many times over. Added security. Finally (not last, nor least), digital allows a much higher level of control on the editing side. If you don't like a shot, you know right away and can reshoot. If you don't like the color cast, change it in RAW. And so forth.

Film has a certain nostalgia that won't ever go away. However, people that poo poo on digital are either unaware of modern business conditions, or are in a state of denial.