Why did you move from film to digital?

[Andrew O'Neill]

There's no poof and it's gone if it's an inkjet print. But what do I know? I've never made one.

 

[Maris]

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?

 

[1kgcoffee]

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.

 

[wiltw]

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!!!

 

[removed account4]

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.

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

 

[BradS]

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.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

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.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Like others no switch I use both. Curiosity at first then the convenience. Still feel nothing beats a gelatin print for that "look."

 

[jim10219]

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.

 

[slackercrurster]

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?

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

 

[slackercrurster]

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.

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.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

After you're dead, you wife's next husband will throw out all your stuff.

 

[winger]

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.

 

[guangong]

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.

 

[guangong]

Correction: stable, not stale. So much for iPad spell check!

 

[DWThomas]

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.

 

[Jim Jones]

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.

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.

 

[removed account4]

There is a place for digital, but archival is not one of them

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.

 

[dmr]

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.

 

[removedacct1]

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.

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.

 

[Rick A]

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.

 

[Chan Tran]

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.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Ah no one is interested in my stuff now. Why would it change when I check out? Meh.....

 

[Sirius Glass]

After you're dead, you wife's next husband will throw out all your stuff.

I threw out the ex, got the two children.
The ex got my dog.
The dog was really pissed.