Own digital but still use film?

If you own a digital camera but still use film whats your reason(s)?

You forgot to include my reason!!

Cannot afford a digital camera... :D

I voted "other" because the main reason I use film is I prefer the look!

I have a p&s digi that I use for quick snaps but the majority of my "serious"stuff is on film. Of the reasons you listed, the reasons I continue to engage in film: wider angle lenses; medium format (someday LARGE :D); black and white and the many variations of black and white there are; slides, read: VELVIA; and very long exposures, I often shoot night shots and moonlit landscapes and digital can't do that yet. 15 minute exposures are a ways off for digital yet ;)

Nice poll. Get ready for some debate though!

Rick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajuk

If you own a digital camera but still use film whats your reason(s)?

---

I kept my Pentax LX and a few lenses around fully intending to use them once in a while. They have been gathering dust untouched ever since I went digital. Besides being unable to afford the very high prices of film and processing, I now wonder how I ever managed to deal with the severe limitations of film for 30 years!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajuk

If you own a digital camera but still use film whats your reason(s)?

---

I like the look of digital for many things, in particular pictures of people. But in some circumstances it just doesn't come out right.

The prime example is when I'm out on a landscape trip. I use colour slides when the light is not too contrasty or when it's too dull (rain). I've tried to do it on a DSLR but the highlights tend to burn out disgracefully and I have less success.

I've seen lots of examples of good studio shots from DSLR but for my black-and-white I've just got used to doing studio shots on the Hasselblad and I don't want to change.

Charles

I voted for three (hope that's OK...), but I do use film pretty rarely anymore. B&W (for a different grainy look), away for a long time (like a kayaking trip) and long exposures are the ones I went for. There are some situations that digital just can't touch...

I voted for several also. B&W, wide angle, slides, and away for long periods. Digital has helped me learn a lot about photography, and since then I have gone back to film to experiment and see what the "look" is that certain films give. I am mostly digital, but I still love to experiment with dif. films that I wouldn't have even thought about a couple years ago.

Long live Velvia! :)

Servere? you do still print a lot right? Spose I can manage with film because I drive myself crazy taking too many pictures with my digital camera. The fact I can take as many pictures as I like is good though as managed to get a picture of fork lightning just seting my camera on the 3FPS setting and just letting it click untill I saw lightening, but to me thats the situation my digital camera is there for.

walterick, maybe you should've voted for slide film

When I had just a P&S I still would shoot film for anything important. I have 7 film cameras and have not shot one frame of film since I purchased the D70 in April of 2004.

I shoot double fisted, digicam in one hand film in the other. I like the feel of the film camera, it's big, heavy, and I have a pile of lens for it. I also like the fact that i can set the focus, and all the other settings myself.

Yeah, I agree this is a cool poll... :cool:

The only reason I continue to shoot film on occasion is that I have yet to find a way to duplicate great bw grain in photoshop. Sure, digital noise is becoming more and more accepted, even being used in national ad campaigns now, and I have become more and more accustomed to it, but it will NEVER have the same look and feel of beautiful film grain.

Also, bw film is relatively easy to scan into my system without having to worry about color balance and all that.

I also feel that shooting film (especially bw) will remain a desirable commercial skill in the future, and that it will surely enjoy a renaissance at some point. Those that have mastered it will most likely have a creative edge, even if it's only to a niche market...

For everything else, a DSLR is simply hands down easier and much more controllable...

still love the reala + my wife won't let me drop $30K to get a digital back from my MF camera.

Well, well, well...I have been trying to find the correct thread to place this post in and here, lo and behold, you folks placed it rychere.

Last year I broke from my own film reality and bought a Nikon D70s. Digital IS the up and coming usurper of film, correct? So, I have shot a myriad number of exposures with the digi and had some great results. I have learned most of the manipulation of all the buttons and menus. I find it a lot of fun. That's the rub. It's fun. I am not taking it seriously. I CAN"T take it seriously.

I have spent many years taking photos with my Nikon FTN and Mamiya m645. I've sold a few and done a lot of self-education through books such as "The Negative" and "The Print"(Ansel Adams) and a few LARGE Kodak photography tomes. I have worked in the darkroom for many,many hours. Developing highlights after exposing for shadow. Burning, dodging and inhaling the sweet nectar of hypos, developers and stop baths; all for an 8x10 print of a dead tree. Go figure.

Last week I took a look at my Nikon Digital, shrugged, and went out and bought a Mamiya RB67 Pro SD. I love film and every aspect of it. I love the manipulation of the lens, figuring f stop for the latitude of the film, loading the film, winding the film, hearing the click of a precision MECHANICAL shutter and toting that camera up into the hills or down into the city. I love to wait for processing and I love to watch the image start to show in the developer solution. I love drying a print and hanging negatives. This, to me, is photography. The whole process. Now, I haven't had to make a living under pressure of deadline to get my work out and I realize that I have a luxury not afforded the professional photographer. But, for me, digital was an experiment that did not pan out. There is no chemistry, no darkroom (don't bring up the Photoshop digi DR, not quite what I mean here) and very little chance of applying all the accumulated knowledge that I have spent so much time learning.

On every forum I attend there is a general rule that is either overlooked or not known by beginners. It always starts out with, "What's wrong with my camera, the photos didn't turn out?" (or the like) And I always advise them to pick up a book on photography and learn the basic principles that apply to taking photos. To a great many there is an attitude that has come about concerning digital cameras that all one has to do to make a great photo is spend a passel of money ,aquire an expensive digital camera and voila, you are a photographer. This bothers me to the extent that there is much to know other than the pushing of a button(s).

My uncle, when I was a little guy, was a professional photographer. Uncle Steve was a master at the zone system and, thus, the darkroom. I would place his B and W prints up to Weston or Adams any day. He taught me the basics and I try to pass that principle on to beginners on these forums. Just the obvious, you can't take photos that are good unless you understand how the camera, lens and film, whichever medium, interact with each other. At least, on a basic level. If you buy a digital computerized camera that does everything for you you have shortchanged yourself from the larger world of photography and photographic success, even if that success is your own personal satisfaction. I just feel that film and camera IS photography. Setting up for an exposure that, at most, needs to be burned or dodged to bring out or hide detail. Not digitizing and photoshopping a group of pixels until one corrects all the mistakes that should not have been made in the first place. I'm sure EVERYONE agrees!;)

I have given this a lot of thought and have various reasons.

Digital for me looks bad all the time. I'm a bit of a wizz in photoshop and can make my pics look like film to some extent, but when printed I struggle to get that feeling I do looking at a really big C print of the same subject.

I can't afford a 22 megapixel back for my camera so can't get anywhere near as good a print as I can with a large format camera. This limits me to a 35mm style SLR (which I must say is very similar to my 35mm slr's)

I don't like the speed that digital lets me work at. I like to take my time and make sure the shot is right, that always results in the best possible picture, being able to bracket a million shots is great but it makes for a lazy and unhappy photographer when I get home and fire up the workstation to go through all the crappy shots.

To completely turn that on it;s head it's too slow, the frame rate on DSLR's does not compare to my 35mm SLR's

etc etc

My first camera was a Brownie Star Flash. After spending two summers with my Uncle Steve, a professional photographer, in Idaho and learning composition, camera and darkroom I was hooked. He only had time to teach me how to develop film, make prints and sun prints in the most basic manner. But I knew that I was going to be taking photos for the rest of my life after that.

When I was in the Navy I took the opportunity, while in Japan, to buy a Nikon FTN and a few lenses. I still use that camera on a regular basis.

Later I bought a YashicaMat and started on 120 film where I left off with the brownie. Only this time I developed my own film. About ten years ago I purchased a Mamiya m645 and loved the really nice lenses.

Then I bought the Nikon D70s. I enjoy the digital for the convenience of quick shots at informal gatherings or situations. But, just can't get behind the lackof process. Know what I mean?

As I stated, last week I bought an almost new but pristeen Mamiya RB67 Pro SD. NO electronics, no fast shooting. Just the process. I have just learned all the idiosyncracies of the camera but haven't exposed a frame yet. (It's pouring in Calif. now) I love the mere thought of the set up and focusing and the figuring of exposure and composition. I will be out with the camera at first sunlight after the rain stops. To me, this is what photography is. Can't wait to get in the darkroom and start developing.

Man get out in the rain :)

You'll start to swear at the RB after a day of carrying it around :) Sometimes I think I'm stupid the size of the cameras I use, although mostly I'll jsut take a Hassy and a meter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajuk

If you own a digital camera but still use film whats your reason(s)?

---

Fun.:D

I like "experimenting" with a little Kodak 835 Star AF.

Wow where did <i>this</i> thread come from? :D

I last posted here in 2005...wow...things have changed much.

Yes, I still shoot in 35mm, greatly reduced because since '05 I now have 2 dSLR bodies, primary being a D300.

I still shoot film so I can use my F80 and F3, to get the feel of the film. There's just something that even film simulators can't do. They're close but not perfect.

My reply today would be pretty much the same as my post from 3 years ago. I still shoot film on occasion, but not a lot. Just last week I got back a bunch of slide film that I had sent out for processing. It was kind of like Christmas because some of the film was a year old and it was a surprise to see the images. I had forgotten I had even taken them. I have 4 rolls of MF B&W sitting in my office that needs to be developed. I also sent off my first 2 rolls of Scala a couple weeks ago. I got them back on Friday, but they weren't mine! I sent them back and mine should be here today or tomorrow.

I still love looking at my slides on a light table, but I hate the process of getting a slide scanned and converted to digital so I can work on it and print it.

Because I do all my personal work with Holgas! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asylum Steve

The only reason I continue to shoot film on occasion is that I have yet to find a way to duplicate great bw grain in photoshop. Sure, digital noise is becoming more and more accepted, even being used in national ad campaigns now, and I have become more and more accustomed to it, but it will NEVER have the same look and feel of beautiful film grain.

---

Steve-
Have you checked out any of the film grain replicating plug-ins? I haven't used them because I am not that concerned with film grain. But some of them are supposed to be very good. I have Imagenomic's RealGrain Photoshop plug-in and it looks very capable. I also recently noticed that DxO sells a film-type replicator. If you've only tried doing it yourself in Photoshop, maybe you should try one of the pro plug-ins and see if they can do the job.

This is a great poll. If you haven't already, you should post links on the film forum and the digital camera and digital SLR forums.

Being part of the new generation, I got into digital first, and film second - medium format only. The main reason for me isn't on the poll. Film simply looks different than digital. I like both for certain applications, but the look of film just has a little something to it that you don't get out of digital. The other reason I use film is for the experience of using a TLR - a joy every photographer should experience!

I'm a bit like Brad, digital first and film second.

I have to say, I learnt a lot of what I know from film. I enjoy seeing the negatives come to life, but with film, it comes with its failures as well. I just enjoy shooting with film. Nothing more to it.

I have seen the DxO plugin's for PS, but have yet to try them.