Why did you move from film to digital?

[Down Under]

No, this isn't a poll. Comments are surely more interesting to a majority of us than ticked boxes.

At home recovering from (thankfully minor) surgery this week, I've had some free time to ponder this (and many other) interesting questions. I've also discussed this with other friends who are into photography, and the comments we have come up with have been varied and interesting.

So what made you decide to move from film, either party or entirely away from film, and into digital?

For me (and for once I will be brief with this, full knowing I can add more comments later as I go and as, I hope, this thread evolves), it was in 2008 when Nikon came out with the D90.

A friend kindly loaned me his D90 and after doing a few test shoots, for the first time I realized Nikon had FINALLY produced a 'prosumer' (= not requiring me to refinance my house mortgage to buy one) camera with results to a level of quality I was happy with. I quickly bought one and a few years later, a second as a backup.

I've now moved to the D700 but my D90s remain my backups and the DSLR my partner prefers to use for family and travel shots. A few good lenses have been added but my SO is happy with the 18-55, the VR-ED version which I paid way too much for when new. Now all Nikon DX 18-55 kit lenses have some ED glass. VR, what is it? I've never used it. .

For B&W, my backups are film.cameras - five or six Nikkormat FT2s and ELs and two F65s. All produce the goods to my complete satisfaction, although involving the necessity of maintaning a home darkroom,which I enjoy, and no end of evenings spent scanning (and imbibing good Tasmanian Pinot, about which I cannot say enough good things), which I enjoy rather less (the scanning, that is) but needs must,

I also shoot MF, mostly with Rollei TLRs but now and then with a Perkeo I folder. When my architecture practice began showing modest profits in 2000 I blew my budget on Hasselblads. Alas, I never did bond with this camera, mostly due to the complex loading system, slap-up mirror and other minor aggravations, and after retiring in 2012 I sold off the entire lot, a 500M and CM plus lenses and a carton of film backs and other fiddly bits, in time to make a small profit before the downturn in 'blad gear prices in Australia. I still use the Rolleis even if 120 film prices Down Under are too much for a retiree and well into the upper niche market.

I am first and foremost a documentary shooter (retired architect, nowadays mostly shooting old architecture) and I find the results from my film work varies according to a list of 'variables'. The scanning can be a pain and often I have to redo a 'difficult negative several times, fiddling with scanner settings, to get the result I want or acceptable to a client. Sharpness can be a problem with scans.

With digital color, I have no such worry. My post processing involves little by way of adjustments beyond some color cast changes, a little sharpening when needed to spiff up RAW images, and now and then an attempt at being "arty", usually discarded at the end of the session. I had two years of making sepia copies of color images, but I've now given this up as basically taking me no place.

I enjoy processing and some printing (not so much the scanning), but digital photography has freed me from what I've long regarded as the enjoyable tyranny of film and the darkroom. At 71, I have less time left in life and I prefer to make the best of my days by seeing friends, being outdoors and travel - my nearly six decades of agitating Nikkor tanks, hovering over my Leitz Focomat enlarger or eyeballing my developing prints through the gloom of a 15W safelight, are now behind me. Age has wearied me, and needs must.

I did say "brief" (I really must look up that word in Google), so I'll say no more for now . Over to you all. Many others, I hope. As always, I greatly look forward to your comments.

 

[mshchem]

I still cling to film for black and white, color slides, medium and a little large format. However I'm on my 3rd generation of digital stuff. The cameras and software have really improved. I picked up a mint D5 to replace my D800. Low light, blazing fast. I take pictures of my cats indoors with window light with Nikon's first AF-I 400mm f2.8 It's the heaviest auto focus lens Nikon has made to date. Amazing stuff. My other cat camera lens combination is a D850 with the old 70-180mm Micro Nikkor . Totally impossible to do with film.
I'm 62, my amazing, gathered over 50 years, darkroom, still sees use, and will for some time to come. But the digital cameras of today, and easy to use software, inkjet printers are so much fun.

 

[mshchem]

Oh and other than scanning old color slides, I don't scan much.

I understand film, but I don't understand why someone would shoot 35mm film over full frame digital. Of course you can buy an amazing used film camera for peanuts so that's a darn good reason. And if you didn't grow up with film, I can understand the need to experience all manner of film. Even if that means scanning to see your results.

 

[Ian Grant]

I never moved from film to digital, that implies leaving film behind. I went to using digital alongside film and darkroom prints.

The main reasons were need to provide digital files to printers etc for work, produce publicity materials for exhibitions etc and of course the advent of the WWW and the ability to post images on a website etc. Also I did (still do but a bit less) a lot of graphic design for work and my own use integrating images.

Most of my work is on film and conventional darkroom prints, some by necessity had to move to digital because firstly digital files were required, the films I was using were the first to be discontinued and the time and cost of a lot of analog to digital conversion was excessive. A few years ago I was shooting 3 or 4 concerts a week, using film was out of the question.

Edwin Land predicted a fluid hybrid work flow many years ago and he was right.

Ian

 

[Ces1um]

I haven't made the switch yet but I am finding myself getting ready to. I've lost my own darkroom, my lab isn't producing the quality I expect, I'm tired of fighting dust and scratches, and the cost of developing film is starting to seem like a waste of money. I also hate the fact that some photos are "trapped" on that roll of film until I have a chance to shoot the rest of the roll, which lately has taken weeks to do.

What's kept me from moving on is the poor quality of materials used to make a camera (My k1000 is all metal, most new cameras are clad in plastic with plastic lens mounts). I also am tired of interacting with screens all day. The cost of new camera bodies also is keeping me from making a move (I know it's a false economy. I probably could have bought 5 cameras for the cost of what I've spent out in developing film).

I'm currently in the process of letting some of my film cameras go and with the money I make that'll help fund my new camera.

 

[slackercrurster]

Many reasons contributed to why I made the switch to digital from film. I had shot film from the late 1960’s to the mid 2000’s. Living is very expensive nowadays and as the cost of living rose, I didn’t have any room for a darkroom any more. I used to have a darkroom in a garage and did color and BW. But real estate prices soared and landlords started to convert garages with water and electric for people to live in, so could not afford to rent a garage anymore.

I gave up on the color darkroom and did my BW darkroom in the kitchen and bathroom, then got a roommate and could not hog the single bathroom or kitchen any more. Too many fights, plus lots of wasted time setting up darkroom gear, enlarger, etc. and breaking it down and stowing under the bed.

Once I got a taste of digital, it opened up a whole different set of abilities to me. I used to like shooting IR film, then they discontinued it. Film and paper became more of a pain to get. No close by cam stores.

One day got fed up. With digital I could switch ISO on demand which was very helpful as I move outdoors to indoors a lot with my shooting. Saves the trouble of carrying 2 cams with 2 ISO's. I started to make the switch slowly to digital as I knew nothing about it, but would still shoot some film along with digital, mostly color, that I would have commercially developed.

Then I got into inkjet printing and found I could pop out photo books like popcorn. I had made one artist's book back in the 1970s with wet prints. I would dry mount the prints back to back and spiral bound. Terrible amount of work to print 2 silver print books. For the same time I can print dozens and dozens of books with inkjet.

I still work with lots of film in my archive of found photos and small gauge film. But have no room to work properly, so it is worked on piece meal. I visit the storage locker, pull out some material and work on it before exchanging it for a new batch of material. Although the archival work has been put on hiatus as I need to work on cleaning out my own digital work which has piled up.

Two Blind Beggars - Hollywood, Ca 1972

 

[guangong]

I use digital on occasion, both for digital photography and video for certain projects. Video images are a lot easier and cheaper when considering manipulation of images for the desktop producer using prosumer equipment. For professional work in video, as far as capturing the image, video can be a lot more expensive than film. Otherwise, I prefer film for photography and cinematography. What seem to be limitations for film makes one cautious and thoughtful. No SD card with 500 images. Also, I enjoy the whole process...shooting, processing, etc rather than sitting and staring at a monitor.
To each his own. If you don’t enjoy the photographic process, by all means go digital.

 

[nsurit]

I added digital as a tool. At one time I was doing a good bit of nature and wildlife photography (mainly birds) with a group of like minded people. On one shoot, a friend did 600+ images with her digital camera. I did the math on what that would have cost me with film and processing. It started me thinking. I now continue to use both methods of capture

 

[removed account4]

I haven't switched.. I was given a Casio Digital Camera back in around 1997 or 8. I started scanning around IDK 96-95? I still do both and film and make emulsion from scratch and sun prints and other stuff. I also use digital negatives made at a xerox shop. I use my 6? year old phone too.

 

[DonJ]

1) Time - full-time job plus family obligations leaves little time for long darkroom sessions.

2) Near-instant feedback - my vision, composition, and exposure decisions have improved quite a bit since going mostly digital. I don't have to wait weeks to find out what I should have done differently.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I use both. Digital when I'm vacationing. I like to make "slide shows" that I play on my large UHDTV with background music, narrative, etc. Film when I'm in a contemplative mood. It;'s slow pulling out the medium format film camera, light meter etc.., and spending time lining up the shot. I can contemplate my navel with film.

 

[NB23]

I switched to digital because I much prefer to be sitting at a computer and swiffle through files.

Also, the low and unsatisfactory image aesthetic of digital imagery is exactly what I was looking for.

 

[msage]

I still shoot film occasionally but most is digital.
Embracing digital opened up possibilities that really expanded my photography in ways that I didn't think was possible (creatively and technically)!
Increased quality, lower cost in time and money, and so on in digital.

I do enjoy printing in the darkroom but never saw the question as either/or (film or digital). I am a photographer, not a film photographer or digital photographer but a photographer.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I use digital occasionally, but prefer film. I'll never switch over entirely.

 

[Old_Dick]

Went off topic

 

[4season]

For me, the real shift happened when the Leica M8 arrived: Very handy, since Leica M was my primary system at the time. It didn't provide real-time TTL viewing, but it did the next best thing: Provide immediate feedback. Many times, I used it P&S style, composing from the LCD with camera held high overhead or at arm's length to get perspectives that were impossible with the optical finder alone. And it's sensor was big enough that I wasn't stuck with infinite depth of field. It was about this time that I sold off all of the film gear. I might have liked to keep a few film items, but at almost 5000 USD, the M8 was very costly to me.

I did get back into film a few years ago, but it's just for fun, more Lomo than Leica, more Zenit than Zeiss.

 

[Jim Jones]

I miss film after using it since the 1940s, but digital is far more practical for my present day photography. For example, tonight I'll photograph a hometown basketball team in the post-season playoffs. Perhaps 200 shots will be culled down to about 70 and distributed to the end users on CDs at low cost. They can then be digitally redistributed to many other interested parties. The images will be color JPGs at about 3000x5000 pixels, good enough for all intended purposes. The lighting in a small town school gym permits shooting at ISO 6400, 1/250 second, and maybe f/3.5. Editing digital images is far easier than doing it in the dark.

In comparison, 10 years ago I would have shot maybe one or two rolls of Kodak T-Max P3200 at ISO 1000 to retain decent shadow detail, Exposure was typically 1/250 second at f/2, precluding the use of affordable zooms. If the darkroom was ready to go, developing the film might take half an hour start to finish. After the film was dry, selecting and making maybe a dozen 8x10 prints might take over an hour. They had to be hand delivered to the school the next day. There was the cost of material and equipment to consider. My first Leica with one basic lens cost over a month's pay in 1953. My basic DSLR with three lenses and a few other accessories cost well under a month's retirement income. With careful use, the Leica was capable of better photographs than the DSLR, but lacked convenience with no built-in light meter, no autofocus, no image stabilization, and no zoom. Today's digital photography is good enough to make film impractical for most of us. I hope film will remain available for those who need the advantages it still retains, and those who enjoy the craftsmanship that we needed in those "good old days."

 

[jim10219]

Better control and higher quality is why I switched to digital. Price eventually factored in as well.

Oddly enough, better control and higher quality is also why I got back into film, via large format. Other than for fun, or creating slides, I see no reason to use 35mm film in this day and age. I have a bunch of 35mm cameras and I still use them, but only for fun.

 

[Frank53]

No, this isn't a poll. Comments are surely more interesting to a majority of us than ticked boxes.

At home recovering from (thankfully minor) surgery this week, I've had some free time to ponder this (and many other) interesting questions. I've also discussed this with other friends who are into photography, and the comments we have come up with have been varied and interesting.

So what made you decide to move from film, either party or entirely away from film, and into digital?

For me (and for once I will be brief with this, full knowing I can add more comments later as I go and as, I hope, this thread evolves), it was in 2008 when Nikon came out with the D90.

A friend kindly loaned me his D90 and after doing a few test shoots, for the first time I realized Nikon had FINALLY produced a 'prosumer' (= not requiring me to refinance my house mortgage to buy one) camera with results to a level of quality I was happy with. I quickly bought one and a few years later, a second as a backup.

I've now moved to the D700 but my D90s remain my backups and the DSLR my partner prefers to use for family and travel shots. A few good lenses have been added but my SO is happy with the 18-55, the VR-ED version which I paid way too much for when new. Now all Nikon DX 18-55 kit lenses have some ED glass. VR, what is it? I've never used it. .

For B&W, my backups are film.cameras - five or six Nikkormat FT2s and ELs and two F65s. All produce the goods to my complete satisfaction, although involving the necessity of maintaning a home darkroom,which I enjoy, and no end of evenings spent scanning (and imbibing good Tasmanian Pinot, about which I cannot say enough good things), which I enjoy rather less (the scanning, that is) but needs must,

I also shoot MF, mostly with Rollei TLRs but now and then with a Perkeo I folder. When my architecture practice began showing modest profits in 2000 I blew my budget on Hasselblads. Alas, I never did bond with this camera, mostly due to the complex loading system, slap-up mirror and other minor aggravations, and after retiring in 2012 I sold off the entire lot, a 500M and CM plus lenses and a carton of film backs and other fiddly bits, in time to make a small profit before the downturn in 'blad gear prices in Australia. I still use the Rolleis even if 120 film prices Down Under are too much for a retiree and well into the upper niche market.

I am first and foremost a documentary shooter (retired architect, nowadays mostly shooting old architecture) and I find the results from my film work varies according to a list of 'variables'. The scanning can be a pain and often I have to redo a 'difficult negative several times, fiddling with scanner settings, to get the result I want or acceptable to a client. Sharpness can be a problem with scans.

With digital color, I have no such worry. My post processing involves little by way of adjustments beyond some color cast changes, a little sharpening when needed to spiff up RAW images, and now and then an attempt at being "arty", usually discarded at the end of the session. I had two years of making sepia copies of color images, but I've now given this up as basically taking me no place.

I enjoy processing and some printing (not so much the scanning), but digital photography has freed me from what I've long regarded as the enjoyable tyranny of film and the darkroom. At 71, I have less time left in life and I prefer to make the best of my days by seeing friends, being outdoors and travel - my nearly six decades of agitating Nikkor tanks, hovering over my Leitz Focomat enlarger or eyeballing my developing prints through the gloom of a 15W safelight, are now behind me. Age has wearied me, and needs must.

I did say "brief" (I really must look up that word in Google), so I'll say no more for now . Over to you all. Many others, I hope. As always, I greatly look forward to your comments.

Don’t know. Thought it would make it all a lot easier. Tried digital for about 15 years, but it never really satisfied me. Came back with a few 100 pictures from a citytrip, looked at them once and never twice. Came back to the darkroom about 2 years ago and I am happy again. It’s just not the real thing.
Regards,
Frank

 

[Ko.Fe.]

D90? How old is this thread?
My family switched from EOS 300 to EOS 500D (open box) in 2009. D90 was 200 cad more expensive.

Why? Who really needs to pay for film, processing, scanning and printing if digital cameras gives better images under less cost?
Very obvios reason if you have large family, isn't it? Try to get five passport photos with film rig.
With DSLR it makes sense.

Btw, Few years later, I looked at EOS 300 images and switched back to film . But just for myself. Joined apug to have no digital talks, as well

 

[Dali]

Did not switch so I cannot answer you.

 

[guangong]

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?

 

[MattKing]

I've added digital - because of the ease of sharing and the greater availability of inexpensive lab colour printing - but I certainly haven't moved (away) from film.

 

[rubbernglue]

I have loved to shoot and have had a camera since I was about ~7 i think (1989). A few years late I borrowed my parents Minbolta AF 5000 and at the time I loved their camera, but still it was not a very intuitive camera so I learnt nothing about times and exposure until I finally bought myself a Nikon D40X in 2007(?).

After having had the D40X for a few months I visited a friend who showed me a couple of pictures on his wall and he showed me the camera he used - it was a plasticy canon eos and I asked him why he used that and not a digital camera, but he said he liked it. I just couldn't understand.

Another few months passed and I started to learn the settings of my digital camera more and more until I realized that all ends up with the famous three: ISO/Aperture/Shutterspeed and so I started to look for a analog camera again, and bought myself a Nikon FA. I kept my digitals for regular shooting and experimenting but I always had more fun with the Nikon FA - it felt better and it made me take better pictures.

My dad had a darkroom put away in a closet during the 19 years I lived with them and I never thought it could actually have been used and wouldn't even know where to start. Now since at least 10 years I am all back to film and I recently built myself a darkroom and I do it all myself. My digital camera is only used for documenting stuff and digitizing my film.

If I will some day be forced to only shoot digital again, (that is if there is no more film to buy) I am likely to stop shooting all together. There are some things which will exist only for a very short period of time in the timespan of humans and I feel myself very fortune to live amongst analog film and (powerful!) petrol engines!!

 

[BradS]

I did not and will not. Digital images are ephemeral and really only useful in that light...for posting photos of something for sale on eBay, or communicating a failure in the field back to the enginnering team in the office...it serves its purpose in time and then...poof! its gone.