benefits of film over digital?

[flyinion]

Hi all, so I know you might have seen me posting around that I'm going to be buying a DSLR but reading up on film has me intrigued. I'm wondering what the benefits of film over digital are? Basically I'm wondering if I should just hold off on digital for now. I have a Canon 1000F/N, specs here http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/c...s&page=eos&p=2 I've had it for probably about 14 years now but I haven't really used it in probably 5 or 6.

I never really knew what I was doing with it other than learning a few basic things and taking some ok pics. I don't plan on getting rid of it even if I do transition to digital, just kind of curious what types of things I would want to use it for. I only have the "stock" 35-80mm lens for it. Basically I've kind of gotten interested in photography especially with a pending trip to Ireland in October. I'm just not to sure if I should jump into a DSLR or take some time to really learn some things first since I already have a SLR format camera and can play with things right now for just the cost of a few rolls of film and developing.

[Franglais]

A film fan could probably find more advantages:

1. Film burns out the highlights more gracefully. On a sunny day with white clouds in the sky the clouds usually look more natural on film
2. If you're used to the look of film then you will probably prefer the look of film over digital (but you get used to digital quickly)
3. Film cameras are cheaper to buy (but then you have to pay for film and development)

If you'd asked for the list of advantages of digital over film the list would have been much longer. For instance, if you want to learn then digital gives you the result instantly on the LCD screen and you can redo the shot straight away again and again till you've figured it out, and all for free. There is no contest, in my opinion.

[LightBright]

Franglais makes good points.

Also I think its better to learn on film, even though film and digital seem worlds apart, the concepts translates smoothly to the other. For examples photoshop can be done in film photography in fact it invented it.

Film makes you think and previsualize your photo before you click the shutter. I find this helps me take better photographs. But to be fair, this can be done with digital just as well with discipline and not just clicking away and chimping lol.

Also you can process your own stuff very cheaply. For B&W you will need a dark room, a processing 35mm tank, developer, fixer, a sink, and somewhere to hang dry your film. It really is fun. I never done color but I think its the same concept just different chemicals. Than when you have your film processed your self you can scan them, so you get the best of both worlds.

But I strongly believe both digital and film are equally good. Its just a matter of preference. I personally shoot both digital and film. Good luck

[brmill26]

B&W film still produces a certain "look" that no digital camera or software has yet to truly replicate. That's probably the biggest difference I notice. Secondly, my color slides always seem to be much more rich and colorful than digital, no matter what I do to the digital image. Maybe it's just my personal taste, but I prefer the look of film for my nature work. Sports, portraits, and general work I shoot digital, though.

[photophorous]

Since we are a visual group, I will add some photos to the discussion. One of things I consider to be a big benefit for film is the variety of unique cameras and films that are available, some for very cheap.

My favorite camera is very small and a blast to use:


It also allows me to use one of the coolest lenses I've ever had, a Voigtlander Heliar Classic 50mm f/2. It is also quite small:


I love the look of the images I get from this lens, especially with such classic films as Kodak Tri-X:


Another great small camera that I got for $25 is the Canonet QL-17:


It's so small it's easy to pack on vacation, it takes great photos, and no camera has less shutter lag than a leaf shutter rangefinder:


If you still prefer SLRs, there are some great Minoltas that can be had for cheap. This combo was about $45.


Add a roll of Velvia slide film and it can make photos with colors like this:


Being the only other photographer in the family, my grandmother made sure to give me my Grandpa's old camera when she found it:


I like to think he'd be glad to see it getting some use:


Shooting old film cameras means you have access to tons of old film camera lenses that are dirt cheap. I think I got this 58mm f/1.4 for about $14.


Shooting at f/1.4 on full 35mm frame size, you can blur out the background more than you can with a crop sensor DSLR. Also, you can shoot grainy 3200 ISO film like this Kodak Tmax:


And last but not least, you can play with $30 plastic lens toy cameras, like this Holga:


Holgas let you get crazy looking photos like this:


This is just a little taste of the variety offered by shooting film, and except for the Voigtlander, all of this stuff can be had for very cheap. Of course, I should probably also mention that this little presentation wouldn't have been possible with out my DSLR, because who's going to waste film taking photos of their cameras?

Paul

[CaraRose]

Shooting old film cameras means you have access to tons of old film camera lenses that are dirt cheap. I think I got this 58mm f/1.4 for about $14.

I love that lens. I have it on my SRT-101. The glass is incredible.

[flyinion]

Thanks all, I did decide to get the XSi in the end, but I'm keeping my old film "rebel" EOS 1000F/N as well. Bonus is that when I bought the XSi I picked up a "regular" EF mount lens to go with the kit lens and because it's EF I now have a second lense I can use on the film SLR as well Haven't figured out for sure what I might use the film camera for still, but I will still have the option.

[photophorous]

Thanks all, I did decide to get the XSi in the end, but I'm keeping my old film "rebel" EOS 1000F/N as well. Bonus is that when I bought the XSi I picked up a "regular" EF mount lens to go with the kit lens and because it's EF I now have a second lense I can use on the film SLR as well Haven't figured out for sure what I might use the film camera for still, but I will still have the option.

The XSi is a great camera. That's what I have. If you're just starting to learn about photography, then digital will definitely help you learn faster. What other EF lens did you get? For your film camera, I recommend trying some B&W film.

Paul

[flyinion]

The XSi is a great camera. That's what I have. If you're just starting to learn about photography, then digital will definitely help you learn faster. What other EF lens did you get? For your film camera, I recommend trying some B&W film.

Paul

Yeah B&W film was definitely on my mind when I decided to keep it. I got the 75-300mm EF. It's the "cheapy" $200 non-USM one but for starting out I'm happy to use it. I've read about its quirks so I kind of have an idea of stuff to watch for when using it, and it was on sale for $100 with the camera so really kind of a "gimme" at that point. Yeah I knew some basics about photography, and some of what I did know I'd forgotten since I started leaving the film SLR on the shelf, but I've learned quite a bit in the last few weeks already. More than I knew before, and most of it from doing research on what to buy :lol:

[Skyman]

mood mood mood - there is a certain something about the way film renders an image that is different to digital, and the individual quirks of different types of film also add to this effect. Ask any holga user and they will tell you that the imperfections are often what makes them unique. This is true of film. Sure you can recreate these effects in the computer, but there is a feeling from a lovingly printed film shot that is harder to reproduce with digital than you would think. also there are literally hundreds of years of development in the processes that go behind film photography, so our visual history is writ in film and often our eye is simply "used to the film look" I don't shoot film anymore as I am loving the convenience of digital however the other night I was really wishing for a roll of agfa ultra 50!

[Dave6223]

mood mood mood - there is a certain something about the way film renders an image that is different to digital, and the individual quirks of different types of film also add to this effect. Ask any holga user and they will tell you that the imperfections are often what makes them unique. This is true of film. Sure you can recreate these effects in the computer, but there is a feeling from a lovingly printed film shot that is harder to reproduce with digital than you would think. also there are literally hundreds of years of development in the processes that go behind film photography, so our visual history is writ in film and often our eye is simply "used to the film look" I don't shoot film anymore as I am loving the convenience of digital however the other night I was really wishing for a roll of agfa ultra 50!

I am soooooooooooooo glad you said that. People always used to chat to me about photography once they found out about my hobby and often asked what difference between film and digital, and I always replied that I thought digital seemed to lose something. I believed it then and I believe it now. Don't get me wrong, I believe digital to be awesome, but some of the photo's I've seen on film just take my breath away, even if they don't seem as clinical as digital. Ansel Adams, for example.......

Dave

[floydthebarber71]

i've just started using film, and i had to post a couple of points here. i had been shooting digital a bit before, to get into photography. that camera wasnt mine (nikon d80) and now it's unavailable...i now i have my dad's 1977 nikkormat ft2 film camera that i'm experimenting with. i loaded b/w film, and i was simply stunned by the results. damn.

you will NEVER get the tonal range with digital like you do with film. in direct sunlight, you'll be shocked by the shadow detail you can see. impossible with digital. well, hdr exists, but that's just lame, annoying, unrealistic and limiting. for me..

film grain is yummy. digital noise is not.

i'm still experimenting, but i'm enjoying taking photographs and doing all the manual work...the PROCESS of photography. didn't get that when i used digital. the hobby is just so much more enjoyable.

you really refine your skills quickly when you realise there's no delete button

after using the nikkormat for a little while, i took a few shots with the d80. the camera felt plastic :/ the viewfinder was tiny in comparison. and the images werent full frame!! arrgh!

developing and printing gets expensive, though. but the cameras are pretty cheap. good film isn't cheap

there's a time and place for both film and digital, but i'm happy i learned the basics with digital (plenty of experimental shots, immediate review). i'm just enjoying film so much more!

i'm far from being at a competent photgrapher level (sadly), but here are a few of the shots i've taken compared to the digital ones. i'm just enjoying doing it all with a camera rather than opening photoshop as a pre-requisite to a better image...for me.

http://floydthebarber71.deviantart.com/gallery/

cheers
z

edit: OH these were my initial impressions from using film over digital. i'm still very inexperienced with both, so these are just my opinions of my experience so far.

[AgingEyes]

you will NEVER get the tonal range with digital like you do with film. in direct sunlight, you'll be shocked by the shadow detail you can see. impossible with digital.

All depends on the tonal range at that point. It would be totally wrong to think film can give you details in the shadows every time under any conditions. Both media have its limit.

Still, in one of the issues of the UK magazine Black & White Photography, the same film was processed and printed in both the traditional darkroom way and the scanned, photoshop way. The one that was done in the darkroom cannot get the kind of details in the shadows that the other way can. The photographer took the photo with film and processed it himself in the darkroom. It took him very long time and a lot of dodges and burns and still couldn't get what the other guy could using photoshop from the scanned file. Certainly they have different looks. But that's all there is. For details, the scanned, processed with Photoshop one wins. Would more burning and dodging bring out the details in the shadows? May be. How long does it take though? That's an advantage?

HDR is lame? Merging photos were/are done in the darkroom, too. Would you call that lame, too?

film grain is yummy. digital noise is not.

Yummy or not is subjective. Many do not like to shoot at anything but the lowest ISO. How does film grain be an advantage?

i'm still experimenting, but i'm enjoying taking photographs and doing all the manual work...the PROCESS of photography. didn't get that when i used digital.

What you do not get from digital is the development and processing of film and likely the same when printing, essentially, the waiting process that you have no choice but to accept. How would that be an advantage film has over digital? How could that be an advantage at all? If that waiting for the result is an advantage, why would photographers shoot polaroids before the real shots? Besides, you can slow down, too, even when shooting with digital.

you really refine your skills quickly when you realise there's no delete button

In what way? Without seeing the results, how do you know what to refine? Just because you have to wait for the films to develop and/or the prints do not mean you will have better photographs? How exactly the slowing down makes you a better photographer? Or, how would a faster process makes you not a better photographer?

i took a few shots with the d80. the camera felt plastic :/ the viewfinder was tiny in comparison. and the images werent full frame!! arrgh!

That has more to do with the manufacturing of the camera and what camera Nikon wanted to make rather than film over digital though. There were plastic cameras in the old days, too. Like there are digital cameras made with metals today.


At the end of the day, IMO, most people, especially those who are new to photography, start to photo with films for subjective, personal reasons more than because film is better that digital, you know, mood, look, etc.. Or, to be different, perhaps. That's fine and dandy. But to argue that films can give you a better photograph or makes you a better photographer, learn more about photography, that argument is simply bull, imo. Benefits? Better? Nah.

[floydthebarber71]

woah lol. i didn't say some of those things were advantages over digital. waiting for an image to get developed is not an advantage. where did i say that? i just said i enjoyed setting everything on the camera instead of fiddling away in photoshop. its my personal experience, as i already stated.

hdr is lame to me. most of the photos look disgustingly unrealistic. TO ME.

i definitely refined my handheld technique and composition with film much quicker than with digital, because with that d80 i could take 10 snaps and delete 9 of the crap ones. thats my experience. i said i was happy i started on digital because of the instant review for when i had no clue what i was doing. by the way, that statement about refining you skills was a bit light-hearted, hence the smile.

you're right about the different camera builds. i've only tried a few. hence i said "nikon d80" instead of "all digital cameras". oh well.

i shared my initial impressions and experiences, describing the cameras i used and the differences i immediately noticed, and what worked for me. i did say there's a time and place for both digital and film, i dont hate digital. film works for me right now for the reasons i've stated. shrug.

oh, and that film i used gave way more shadow detail than i thought would ever be possible in direct sunlight. tried the same shot with digital and the shadows came out black. that's what i know for sure. it definitely handles high contrast situations much better, plus i dont need to sharpen images in photoshop because there's no bayer sensor and whatnot softening them.

sorry if i offended you or something weird, these were just my personal opinions on why i'm enjoying film over digital in my very limited experience. which i stated. forgive me for sharing. next time i'll be sure to cite papers and articles published, just to be sure i dont get flamed for having an opinion!

cheers.

[frank_men]

for me, first of all, film will help you learn more about composing your shots as every click will cost you. it's something that you wont experience with digital. and also, as some of the people there said, there's this feel in black and white photos from film that no digital black and white can match.

[JohnMoyer]

I bought a Nikon D80 with Sigma 17-70 about 18 months ago and switched from film cold-turkey due to the convenience of digital. Recently I went back to my F100 with 24-85 f/2.8-4.5 Nikkor, and FM3a with fast prime Nikkors, and now I have a valid comparison. Bottom line: I prefer the image quality, tonality and exposure latitude of film, hands-down. But the digital is so convenient these days. Conclusion: I will shoot in digital where I need to work with the images on a computer, such as sending emails (can't beat digital for that). Also I can shoot "a bazillion" images on digital at no cost and edit ruthlessly on the computer--great for sports photos. Viewing the shot immediately after exposurew is nice, but when shooting a lot of exposures of fast-moving subjects you don't have time for that anyway. When I want photos for the album and/or absolute best quality, film still rules.

[Loupey]

Seems the “look of film” is a major consideration by many people. I wonder if valid comparisons are taken into effect for this statement to be made.

As I’ve stated before and before everyone starts rolling their eyes, please follow me on my line of thought here:

Assumption #1: Most people print out digital images on their personal inkjet printers.

Assumption #2: Most people do not print color prints (from film) in their darkroom.

Assumption #3: Most people have enlargements from film made by a lab.

Conclusion: Perhaps we are comparing lab-produced film enlargements to those printed on consumer-grade printers?


I wonder if anyone here has had film AND digital images of the same scene printed by the SAME lab to make that comparison.

OK so B&W enlargements from film are easily produced in the home darkroom. But unless one has a true B&W capable inkjet printer, a good comparison can’t be drawn there either.

Just a thought

[ajuk]

If your looking to go to bigger formats, you havn't got much choice but to use film if your on a typical amature budget and LF forget about it, I think most pros still use film there.

Recently I shot a wedding I shot some digi and some film, the film pics were actually done first because I was so bone idle to go through the RAW files, so all the 35mm pics were on Facebook first!

[Bennett]

Hi,

Film cameras also offer an advantage during fast-changing and unpredictable photography scenarios. Unlike digital camera that uses batteries than can ran out in the most unexpected time, a 35mm camera can be easily switched on and ready for use whenever you need take a shot. Moreover, digital cameras usually take several seconds before you can use it which obviously is a disadvantage for photographers who wants to capture actions which can’t be repeated anymore.