Forgive me as I have sinned.

Lanline · Sep 11, 2010

In 1999 I was totally in digital. A friend asked me to try a film camera in 2007 and I scoffed at him and declared film was dead. 2008 I shot a film camera and got re-addicted again. I totally ignored the digital craze from 2008 until recently. I bought another DSLR out of guilt/want/feeling left out/wanting to be in

I have to say that I can shoot 12 FILM frames and get 9 keepers (IMHO). I shot 150+ digital today and didn't get anything I liked. In fact, if I had not lost that dammed lens cap... I would have returned the dslr today.

I feel like I wasted $830 on a digital. I do SO MUCH BETTER WITH FILM.

Is it just me or do others struggle with DIGITAL/FILM? I went to a photo show last night and the photos were described as DIGITAL NEGATIVES and INKJET PRINTS! What? Turns out that is the new phrase for shot it with a digital and printed it with a inkjet.

5stringdeath · Sep 11, 2010

I shoot with both. But I do different things with digital. No, not HDR But I haven't touched my 5D since January. Was out with friends today and one of them asked "what are you doing?" when he saw me changing film, haha. Love that. He was taking pictures with his cellphone

There are a lot of labels you can put on a wall to describe prints. I remember when I used to think "Silver Gelatin Print" was pretentious, hehe. Technically a DNG is a "digital negative" file, but really its just a file extention.

I'll tag mine as Archival Inkjet Prints. I mean, what's wrong with describing the output method? People who want to buy art do want to know its going to be archival. Oddly enough, a lot of people who print digitally don't use archival materials. Eh, who cares ... its the galleries responsibility

Conversely, you could improperly fix a nice B&W print and piss off a buyer in a few years as well.

Just out of curiosity, what camera did you buy? You can always eBay it, hehe.

BTW, its not a sin to shoot digital. It's a sin to sell your film gear to buy digital.

zenlibra · Sep 11, 2010

I have similar feelings regarding shooting film and a high ratio of shots I like. In fact, even if I shoot a roll that is a dud, I still feel like I accomplished something. From choosing my film to shooting it and developing it, the process is so much more rewarding than shooting digital.

Lanline · Sep 12, 2010

I bought a SONY 550L... it accepts my MINOLTA lenses and flashes. Yes, I said MINOLTA. My 50mm f1.7 Maxxum lens is sharp and I love it! There is an example in my images here. I will not sell my film gear, I prefer to be buried with it and 1 gallon of D-76 and a few rolls of Neopan.

Nikanon · Sep 12, 2010

I've been playing the game for about 3 years now. I was about 17 when i started, just turning 18, and I got a DSLR because at the time, that was the market and thats all I knew photography to be. Were it not for seeing some Ansel Adams prints, I may not have learned about films potential for a while. I had seen many digital prints before then that impressed me, but nothing touched Ansel's prints, nor any other darkroom print from the greats. There are many factors to what make film and digital different and but makes one more desirable to an individual is what you hold as a value. Mostly digital shooters out talking down film appear to have some sort of fear, as if advertising they shoot digital makes them feel better about some sort of guilt they have from doing so. Film holds a value for me in philosophical and physical terms that digital can only attempt to replicate. It is, however, good to know your enemy, whomever he may be.

Nikanon

chriscrawfordphoto · Sep 12, 2010

A digital camera has its uses, even for those of us who shoot all film for our artistic work. Need to sell some gear? Use the digital to photograph it for ebay or the APUG classifieds. Need a quick shot of something, digital's perfect for that. Great for snapshots of your pets and kids too. I gave my Nikon D70 to my son 2 yrs ago when he was 11 yrs old and he is 13 and still using it and having fun. He's using the photos to make stop-motion animations with Lego bricks...digital's perfect for that too. I sometimes borrow it to shoot stuff for ebay, but aside from that I'm all film.

codester · Sep 12, 2010

I too jumped all in with digital in 2003. At the time I was working for a newspaper so it made sense, sort of. After the initial gee whiz wore off, I found myself liking photography less and less. My photographs stopped appealing to me. There was something missing in them. Don't get me wrong. I did shoot some really great stuff over the three years I shot digital but like the OP my usable shots were less and less.
Then I got my gear stolen while traveling in Europe. The thief took all my digital gear leaving behind an FM2 and an F3 and a pair of manual focus lenses. I fell in love with photography again.
In 2008, I again joined a newspaper and jumped back into digital. My heart was never in it from the beginning and seven months later I left. I haven't shot a single frame of digital since.
I understand what people say about digital having its uses, especially in newspaper and deadline journalism (although I could argue against digital even in those fields) but I guess some of us just don't fit into the automation. I feel comfortable using film. It's a process which works for me 99 per cent of the time.

benjiboy · Sep 12, 2010

The only digital camera I own is in my cell phone and I've only used it once, after more than fifty years I'm still trying to understand and appreciate the beautiful simplicity of the the action of light on film and photographic paper, I've been shooting film all my adult life, and although I could afford to re-equip myself for digital photography I have neither the inclination or the patience to start learning photography all over again, in fact my commitment to continuing using film is such that in the last year I have had all my cameras professionally serviced, and I will be happy to continue using them for as long as I live.

railwayman3 · Sep 12, 2010

I got quite excited when I first used a digital...instant results, no film costs, unlimited shots to choose the best. But this wained, I never got round to printing and there was just something unsatisfying about the whole thing.
So it was back to film, and a new enthusiasm and enjoyment in taking time to try to get "quality" pictures and meeting the challenges of the media. The pocket digital has been relegated to being a "notebook" for ephemeral records for work and personal, so the best of both worlds.

stradibarrius · Sep 12, 2010

I got into photography to take photos of my violins to help me sell and market them. As I grew in photography film came on the scene and for me film is so much more enjoyable. the whole process is more enjoyable for me. I think more about the shot with film and I think my best photographs have been with my Nikon FE. But digital still makes color product shots much easier. When a potiental client asked for photos of a violin, I can go set up my lights snap a few, run them through PS and send the off. But again for me there is no romance in the process. For me film is more of an art form digital is more of a recording device.
I wish I could make film work for my travel photography...again for me digital seems to be easier for that. But I can not help but wonder what some of my travel shot would be like if I had taken them with film???

railwayman3 · Sep 12, 2010

stradibarrius said:
I wish I could make film work for my travel photography...again for me digital seems to be easier for that. But I can not help but wonder what some of my travel shot would be like if I had taken them with film???

Digital is undoubtedly easier for travel photography if you want a record of anything and everything which you see on your trips. Years ago, pre-digital, I used to shoot dozens of pics of everything which I saw on holiday trips, but I realised later that I was only getting one or two worth enlarging and keeping, and all the rest finished up in drawers full of slides, negs and small prints which were never looked at again!
I now enjoy much more just taking much fewer and better (or, at least more satisfying to me!) pictures. At times when all I really need is a good record of where I've been, I sometimes think it's best to buy a guidebook or card, where the illustrations have been made in the best conditions, rather than waste precious holiday time in trying to make my pictures in unsuitable weather or impossible crowds of other visitors!

5stringdeath · Sep 12, 2010

railwayman3 said:
rather than waste precious holiday time in trying to make my pictures in unsuitable weather or impossible crowds of other visitors!

Unless one likes photographing impossible crowds of other visitors

(i do)

I'll add that we used to run a dual facility where I work teaching both B&W and Color ... yes, we had a great wet color darkroom with a nice Sitte Tischer paper processor,etc. I am slightly color blind and was never a great color printer -- it was fairly frustrating, but as I didn't shoot a lot of color film not really the end of the world

So I do any/all my color work digital. My Mac and Epsons aren't color blind, hehe. However I just appreciate the B&W aesthetic more which is why I continue to shoot mostly film.

stradibarrius · Sep 12, 2010

5stringdeath said:
Unless one likes photographing impossible crowds of other visitors

(i do)

I'll add that we used to run a dual facility where I work teaching both B&W and Color ... yes, we had a great wet color darkroom with a nice Sitte Tischer paper processor,etc. I am slightly color blind and was never a great color printer -- it was fairly frustrating, but as I didn't shoot a lot of color film not really the end of the world

So I do any/all my color work digital. My Mac and Epsons aren't color blind, hehe. However I just appreciate the B&W aesthetic more which is why I continue to shoot mostly film.

I have basically adopted the same idea. B&W is film. I can process it and print it. With color I can buy a C-41 kit and process it but I cannot print so I have to scan and then print.
A couple of weeks ago I bought a Nikon 45mm f/2.8P lens that is a pancake type Tessar design lens that makes my FE rangefinder small. On my next trip I am going to take the FE with the 45mmP as a walk around camera loaded with Neopan or Tri-X and see how it goes.

railwayman3 · Sep 12, 2010

5stringdeath said:
Unless one likes photographing impossible crowds of other visitors

(i do)
.

Well, there you are then....photograph the crowds on real film and your pictures will be even better!

5stringdeath · Sep 12, 2010

railwayman3 said:
Well, there you are then....photograph the crowds on real film and your pictures will be even better!

I do. That wasn't my point

jglass · Sep 12, 2010

5stringdeath said:
So I do any/all my color work digital. My Mac and Epsons aren't color blind, hehe. .

I know what you mean . . . BUT . . . Portra NC is also not color blind and neither is Fuji 400H! I also shoot mostly b&w, but I really love the look of C41 print films compared to digi. Beautiful rendition, even if you scan and print inkjet. If you have the money to put C41 through a good lab with a good scanning regimen, it's much more beautiful than digi and it's easy and quick (although a bit expensive).

Just sayin: don't let color film die either!

stradibarrius · Sep 12, 2010

I think a local drug store still processes C-41, 35mm??? I think I may shot some of my color film and let them process it and I can scan it.
I have been told my new Nikon 45mmP lens excels at color? I did shot a few digi color shots and it does look nice there but I want to try some of my Ektar 100.
You have motivated me...thanks.

dehk · Sep 12, 2010

I've shot Digital longer than film. For me, Digital is for 'easy money', Film is for 'myself'. I mainly do color work with digital, that is unless it is with my medium formats. Bw's are all film. I really haven't touch my digital since a wedding in August. As for the turn out rate, saying film is better over digital, same here. Simply because It takes more thoughts before I press the button. Plus half of my film gear are not TTL. Thing it is for me, I'm not going to shoot too with a trigger happy finger when i am using film, I'm not gonna spend 45 mins to develop a roll that I know its not gonna be interesting, that would be completely waste of time and money. About inkjet prints. Its just not as personal as silver gelatin, for film i take care of the whole process from loading the film to drying the print, far more personal.

Brian Legge · Sep 12, 2010

Why did you shoot 150 frames? Would you have used an equivalent number of rolls of film in the same situation?

pgomena · Sep 12, 2010

I would like to have a digital SLR, but only to replace 35mm. I like the spontaneity of a hand camera, but my eyes aren't what they used to be and autofocus would be nice. That coupled with the fact that there are no pro photo labs within 10 miles of where I live and my scanner doesn't like 35mm. I've been shooting MF and LF almost exclusively for several years now, and I miss being able to make a good grab shot or being able to react quickly in fast-changing light. I'm not about to give up film for electrons and digits. Not no way, not no how.

Peter Gomena

MaximusM3 · Sep 12, 2010

Lanny,

Hate to say it because Leica-haters don't like to hear it, but the only digital I have bought in the last 6 six years is the M9 and I am glad I did. I still shoot film 99.9% of the times but the M9 is the only digital that comes close to give me the same shooting approach and results. Of course it is expensive as hell but I already had all the lenses so what the heck
Did have a D700 but that only lasted a month with me. Just can't get into ANY DSLR.

lacavol · Sep 13, 2010

I have a digital camera on my cellphone and use it constantly. I will be walking along and hear a fake shutter sound. I have a whole digital portfolio of the inside of my pockets. Did I mention I really dislike cellphone cameras. I also like a camera that has five foolproof controls, Aperture, Shutter Speed, Focus, Shutter Release and Advance. I don't care about histograms, GPS, Time and Date; and Photoshop makes my eyes burn.

benjiboy · Sep 13, 2010

It also goes against the grain with me to spend more money on a digital camera whose technology will be so quickly outdated than I could buy a late model Hasselblad 500 CW model for.

Sirius Glass · Sep 13, 2010

benjiboy said:
It also goes against the grain with me to spend more money on a digital camera whose technology will be so quickly outdated than I could buy a late model Hasselblad 500 CW model for.

*2 !!

BetterSense · Sep 13, 2010

I wish I had a DSLR, only for duplicating prints and slides, and for testing shutter speeds in cameras. My wife's new, fancy cellphone is beyond good enough for anything else I need a digital camera for, like putting things on ebay.

Forgive me as I have sinned.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency