Why did you move from film to digital?

[jtk]

yes i know ... but i disagree that it is a simple process that anyone can do.
no, it is it is anything but a simple, quick process.
sure i agree lots on a page that's kind of a common sense .. its not like today where someone can cut and paste 20 things on a page, flatten the image, save it as a 16x20 canvas, invert it, and make separation negatives in like 45 seconds ...

From my perspective it is indeed a "simple" multi-step process (no worse than E3) but certainly not "quick." I'd guess very precise "cut and paste" was handled conveniently by the process camera operators that were employed by newspapers in most cities..who had to do precise location of images for every edition. But I'm in speculative territory here (time does fly). Certainly those newspaper guys were crucial for the photo-silkscreen artists that sprang from most college art programs..a 1971 portrait subject used the Santa Rosa Press Democrat (California) process camera people to produce the very large ("double truck") negatives she needed to make her multi-color screens.

You're right that it's "not like today" ...and unfortunately photo silkscreen has almost vanished from art-school curricula, tho very sophisticated and demanding, and very slow alternatives live on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamarind_Institute

 

[Pieter12]

not so sure about that.

It's all bunk.

The appeal of digital for me is that I can instantly see the rough results of my shot if needed, make as many exposures as quickly as needed, change the ISO on the fly. Corrections and alterations can easily be made in PS if you have the skills and experience, plus the fact that you can preview and undo the results speeds everything up tremendously.

The appeal of analog is that I make all the decisions leading to the final print: choice of film, developer, paper, etc. No algorithms, no presets, just my skill and judgment. I feel it is a closer, more personal expression of my art.

 

[removed account4]

It's all bunk.

I'm not so sure its all bunk...

 

[faberryman]

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.

I have a room full of boxes of poof.

 

[Pieter12]

I have a room full of boxes of poof.

Lots of poof in galleries and museums, too.

 

[James Bleifus]

I bought my first digital camera around 2002. I think it was a Canon Digital Rebel. Before long I dumped it and was back shooting 8x10. Then I left photography for a while, came back to shoot 4x5, 8x10, Hassys, etc. then I left again.

When I started traveling I rediscovered my love of photography and bought an Olympus Pen F Digital. Then I bought some 120 cameras, and a 4x5.

But I was having a hard time getting film,paper, and chemicals. I couldn’t find a lot of material locally (read: in the whole country), and the X-ray machines in the airports were a concern. Some of the countries I visit don’t use the swab to check for suspicious chemicals, so my choices were to have them open my 4x5 film boxes or put the film through the X-ray. Of course I chose the latter. Travel is a great reason to shoot digital.

Then I had a realization. It’s not film that I miss but film cameras. I loved the old 1960s Nikons and the non-AI lenses, which had the cool metal focusing rings. The Nikons felt solid, and you could use them to help change a tire or whallop a crook.

With that realization I went out and bought a Fuji X-T2. It doesn’t have a bazillion buttons, and makes sense to me ergonomically. The EVF often lags, and the magnesium feels different than a brass camera (not as good!), but it has very little craptastic plastic, at least compared to many other contemporary cameras. I shoot with a modified Acros profile, and turn off in-camera noise reduction and have the sharpness set to minus 2.

I don’t chimp, so I don’t know what my images look like until I import them. That keeps life suspenseful.

I’ve always shot with prime lenses in the past, and one of the great realizations I’ve had is that the Fuji zooms are darn good. I take advantage of the extended DR and often shoot into the light with little or no flare.

I have an Epson P-807 on the way. I agree with many of the other posters who say that digital images feel ethereal. I want to print my work.

 

[jtk]

Another great reason to shoot digital is stabilization. At least two extra stops
with long lenses.

 

[MattKing]

Another great reason to shoot digital is stabilization. At least two extra stops
with long lenses.

The lens based stabilization systems - found in particular in some Canon EF lenses - work on film bodies as well as digital bodies.

 

[wyofilm]

The lens based stabilization systems - found in particular in some Canon EF lenses - work on film bodies as well as digital bodies.

Ditto for Nikon and Minolta/Sony, I believe.

 

[jtk]

Happily Pentax has relied on in-body stabilization for a long, long time. The early Pentax K10 and K20 stabilized everything you could mount on them. We were already shooting digital instead of film at the time because it got us sharper images.

 

[jtk]

...and, btw, Leica recognized that chimping wasn't any more necessary for many than it was for fillum. I doubt many digital photographers rely on chimping, tho they may occasionally use it.

 

[rayonline_nz]

I shoot film for fun. There are things that is suited to digital. Social events esp with groups attendees and city events when you need to take more or cost is prohibitive. Wildlife and sports which I don't do. Digital also works better with ND filters with film or the earlier Nikon D70/90 and D2h IME it gets color cast. Going lightweight esp with travel and the ease of use in that situation and with the high ISO capability. Night markets would be challenging to do with film even with a image stabilised lens with a film camera.

 

[alanrockwood]

I haven't moved from film to digital, at least not 100%, although I mostly use digital cameras now.

There are multiple reasons for this. The first is the cost of film and developing. The cost of the digital equipment largely offsets the savings on film and developing, but for various reasons my digital equipment was sunk cost anyway, so yes, digital is saving me a lot of money.

The second is the ability to have instant feedback on the result, chimping to use the derogatory term. I don't see any advantage to waiting for film to be developed to see the pictures, and I see a lot of disadvantages to waiting. The instant feedback lets me know if I need to take one or more additional shots, by adjusting exposure, trying a different angle, better posing of the subject, adjusting the white balance, changing the lighting balance, etc. Not everyone agrees with this. Some people like waiting for their photos, but instant feedback works for me. (By the way, in my opinion a digital camera makes a great accessory for analog photography as well. It can help in getting exposure, light balance, white balance, composition, etc. right before taking a shot on film.)

The third is convenience with regard to changing white balance, changing iso, and so forth. This is related to my second point, but is not quite the same thing.

Basically, life is just much easier when using digital cameras, at least for the most part.

I still like using film, but I like digital photography too.