• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Why did you move from film to digital?

I can't find a role for digital techniques. My picture making efforts consist of embedding optical images in light sensitive surfaces and gazing at the marks that emerge there as a result. If digital technology could usefully contribute to this work flow I'd probably try it. But I don't see how. A similar problem afflicts people who do, say, water-colour landscapes, or oil-paint on canvas portraits, or hand-sewn quilts. How do you digitise this stuff?
 
I moved from digital to film. Digital can be ultra sharp but it's too clinical for my tastes. Film has character, no chromatic abberration and grain can be beautiful unlike digital noise. Film gear can also be very inexpensive. The darkroom is a lot of work but the results worth it.
 
Because so many of my favorite emulsions are discontinued in the formats/lengths I like to shoot.
Because good, consistent high quality E-6 processing is a disappearing service
Because film is largely limited to situations suited for ho higher than ISO 400
Because one of my favorite processes for printing selected color slides is discontinued (Cibachrome/a.k.a. Ilfochrome)

I was forced into the change, although I still own all of my film equipment and darkroom equipment it is idled for the above reasons. I wish that were not so!!!
 
Hi BradS
I see what you mean, but if one makes a PRINT ( machine print at a lab, xerox print OHP negative > alt process or silver print ) it ends up not being as ephemeral as it might be.
Also, if one sends their film to FUJI LABS through wallys or a drug store department store &c drop off / mail out service there are no negatives returned, whats the difference ?
John
 


John,

You make a very good point about PRINTS. and I completely agree....and I'm still really upset that labs think its ok to toss my negatives in the trash...it seems criminal...like I've been robbed. I still take my color film to a local place that has and operates a fuji frontier on site. They D&P and return the negatives.

Thanks.
 
in my case, I can honestly say: Imoved to digital only because of my stroke in 2011.after that, I was paralysed on the left side of my body and darkroom work became a real shore, while learning PS and how to print was still possible with the right. I did so with a heavy heart and haven't given it up completely but don't do much than hoping others in our local club.Should I ever fully recover, I'm back in he darkroom and my inkjet printer will be for sale.that said, I can now produce a print of equal quality in the lightroom and can give darkroom workers a run for the money.Something I didn't think possible for a long time.
 
Like others no switch I use both. Curiosity at first then the convenience. Still feel nothing beats a gelatin print for that "look."
 
You guys do know that a CDR (and DVD+R/DVD-R) had a lifespan of 100-200 years. That's right up there with film. And unlike film, it can be perfectly copied every 100 years or so to preserve it for eons. That's hardly what I would call ephemeral.

Most issues with CD longevity circle around overuse and abuse. But with a CD, you can keep the photos on multiple discs and store them at multiple locations. And if the formats change, just burn a new disc in the new format. Just like film, the secret to longevity is in the storage methods and curation. Its a lot easier to keep 100 photos preserved than 100,000.
 
guangong said:
Who is ever going to look at 70 still images. I ask the same question about videos of marriage ceremonies followed by party, are they ever played back?
Click to expand...

Maybe 100 years from now. They they go over every scrap. At least that is how it seems to go with the eBay pickers and the collectors. But you are pretty much right. The families seldom look at the old vids much.
 
I looked at digital several times and stayed with film. First of all I can buy a lot of high quality film equipment for the price of the top of the line Canon or Nikon DSLR cameras and lenses. Second of all I could never learn to chimp because I always know whether or not I got the photograph.
 

Yes, I've been trying to get in on the M Disk. It is etched permanently and not dye. But can't find any good external M drives. Seems kinda underground and not mainstream. DVD's do poorly in strong light. Keep them in the dark. Just tested a CD stored for 15 years and played every few years. Worked fine. A DVD put in the sun for 30 days failed. Although the gold DVD had readable file names but would not read the files after 30 days. The silver DVD would not read at all.

Both are silver DVD's. Top one had sun for 30 days.

 
Like others, I didn't switch - I just added digital and still shoot film. Basically, I'll shoot with anything that records an image. I don't shoot as much as I used to, but that's schedule related, not format related. Mostly, I prefer film for B&W and digital for color, but it's not written in stone. I'm more likely to shoot snapshots on digital - and, yes, I get a decent number of them printed.
 
Because of instability of dyes, some of my dvds are already not viewable. As I understand, Germany does not put state documents on cd. The gold dvds made by Kodak claimed that dyes were impervious to organism that destroys dyes in regular dvds. Gold is stale. Kodak claimed they lasted 300 years. The aluminum of regular dvds also deteriorates over time. I still have a few unused Kodak dvds, but have not seen them for sale for a long time. The gold TDK dvds say nothing about using a resistant dye.
Commercial dvds are etched. Don’t see how this is possible at home.
Large commercial productions buy insurance to protect against the unforeseen. Insurance companies require three monitors and personnel for each for a production using digital, because touching a wrong button can cause all to go puff! How many of us have mistakenly pushed the “Format-yes” button for the wrong sad card?
Does anyone really believe that these dvds will be watched a century from now? With film you can actually see what is on negative. A dvd must be played to view. And if technology moves on, as it will, will there be DVD players a century from now? If need be, a good mechanic could make a projector or enlarger from scratch.
There is a place for digital, but archival is not one of them.
 
Correction: stable, not stale. So much for iPad spell check!
 
Enh -- in essence I didn't really "move from" film, I "expanded to" digital; primarily a matter of convenience. I was doing a website for an art club I being to, and other activities where I needed digital images, often with fairly quick turnaround. Needlessly finishing off a roll of film, getting it processed, and scanning it, all to put two or three images online is a lot of time and expense when one is doing a volunteer job. But that said, in the last decade or so I've probably shot more B&W film images than in the previous three decades. That's my "artistic hobby."

My last few forays into color film were disappointing in quality, expensive, and had long processing turn-around. As such I've pretty much gone with digital for color work. Yeah, I know I could do C41 or E6 at home, but in my haphazard use, I doubt I could achieve the economic efficiency of doing B&W in one-shot HC-110. Most of my color shooting, primarily travel these days, ends up online to share with family and friends so it's ultimately digital no matter how it originates.
 
Inexpensive and convenient ephemeral images are two of the several advantages of digital equipment. I shoot many nearly redundant images of sports because each shot cannot be perfectly planned in advance, and because no two are ever identical. Also, a newspaper or yearbook editor will have different criteria for selecting from a rich variety of photos. As for a CD going Poof, and then oblivion, how about CD copies of an old photo album distributed to a hundred living descendants of the album's subjects? Such family history can thus be preserved treasured. We should make the best use of whatever technology is available and affordable, even if it breaks with tradition. I lived through many of the "good old days," and never want to be restricted to such inefficient technology again.
 
guangong said:
There is a place for digital, but archival is not one of them
Click to expand...

I don't know. Nearly ALL the US State Historic Preservation Offices only collect DVD and Pigment Prints for State Level HABS/HAER Recordations. The Federal Program has moved closer to Digital ever since Jack Boucher passed away. When I spoke with him on the phone many years ago he was adamant not to use any digital ( files or pigment images ) but I am not sure what has happened in the last few years. From what I understand while they still require FILM negatives they are also accepting Pigment on Card prints for HABS Submissions. I did my first digital submission to a State Habs Collection in 2007, and nearly every one since then has been a digital submission ( submitting another one soon ). Many years ago the US Federal Government has has a massive PUSH with Digital Initiatives and a lot of states did not have the room to archive negatives and prints so they joined in. I have no clue what will happen down the road and chances are I will be dead by the time they need my files. I guess, maybe as long as something is backed up and there is something that is able to open the file it can be considered archival? I just hope Bob Denver from Far Out Space Nuts doesn't corrupt my files cause I won't have any files to re-submit.
 
Last edited:
I haven't moved. I consider it more like having an apartment in the city and a cabin on a lake.

I started to use digital for convenience mainly. Also, I think we're to the point that the image quality of the cameras I have rivals that of 35mm film.
 
jim10219 said:
You guys do know that a CDR (and DVD+R/DVD-R) had a lifespan of 100-200 years. That's right up there with film. And unlike film, it can be perfectly copied every 100 years or so to preserve it for eons. That's hardly what I would call ephemeral.
Click to expand...

I don't know ANYONE who still archives their digital images on DVDs - they all rely on spinning disc hard drives, which are guaranteed to fail after a number of years. The oldest hard drive I have that is still accessible is eleven years old - all others older than that have either failed completely or have bad sectors that make reading them impossible. If folks believe that archiving on traditional (spinning disc) drives is in any way "permanent" then they are fooling themselves.
 
I never switched, but I did add a cheapo digisnapper so I could photo the items I'm selling. I only shoot one format any more, 5x7,and not much of that.
 
I use 35mm and shoot color negative film since 1977 and I am happy with that. I didn't want to change either to larger format nor to digital. The reasons I did switch are:
1. It's difficult to get my film developed. I generally have my film developed by a local lab and then make the prints myself in my darkroom. There are no more local lab in my area.
2. I can still send my film out for processing but the chemicals and paper for RA-4 prices went up quite a lot and also some vendors do not ship the chemicals. I can't buy them locally any more like I used to.
4. I moved in to a new house which is a better house but smaller house and my wife wouldn't let me have the space to set up the darkroom any more.
5. I am a Nikon user so the D3 caught my eyes although I didn't buy it. It's expensive and it's more like the Nikon F5 that I have which I don't like as much as the F3. So when Nikon introduced the Df I found that it would be the right digital camera for me if I want to switch. I picked the 35mm format since I started. I didn't have the desire to go larger and I do not have the desire to go smaller either. So the digital camera I have must be 24x36mm format.

I still use my film cameras but now I only shoot slide film and project them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register