Which do you prefer, Film or Digital?

Question

I've shot digital for years and obviously shot film before that. But after a long hiatus with film I recently started shooting it again and developing my own black and white.

To me, there seems something so much more satisfying with film vs. digital. I find that having the ability to see my images immediately somehow cheapens the photography. The involvement from the point of loading the film to the final rinse in the developer tank puts me at a more involved level with the photos and the anticipation of seeing the negatives is like a kid on Christmas morning.

Not to mention I am still of the mindset that there is no way any digital camera can compete with a 120 roll of Ilford PanF, ISO 50.

Anyway, this is just a general question and wanted to get a feel for other's opinions. Especially with the influx of digital photography somehow "cheapening" the art of photography as a whole.

Answer 1

Definitely film. I have a collection of vintage 35mm rangefinder cameras and a few Twin Lens Reflex cameras that use 120 film. They all work great. There is something about using a real metal, mechanical camera and hearing the snap of a real shutter. The wimpy beep of a digital camera just doesn't compare. Also, the shutter delay on a digital camera drives me crazy.



Also, you're right that a digital camera can never compare with the pictures you can get with a sharp, low ISO 120 film. I take mostly landscape photos, and my favorite black and white film is Kodak Plus-X. I can get pictures with my Yashica A that completely blow away any pictures I've ever taken with a digital camera. It takes awesome, razor sharp photos. With some photos that I've taken with 120 film, I've been able to enlarge and magnify them and read signs that were 2 blocks away. My 8 megapixel digital camera can't come anywhere near that.



I mostly just use my digital camera for quick snapshots whem I'm out with my friends. I use film for REAL photography.



Also, I develop my own black and white film and prints myself too. You're right that it's a fascinating experience. I will never forget the day that I developed my own film for the first time. I got so excited when I opened the tank and I saw that there were real images on the film! Then I had another new and exciting experience when I set up a darkroom in the garage and I started developing my own pictures. I love film photography. It's awesome. You just don't get the same experience with digital. Digital is BORING.



And yes, in some ways digital cameras are definitely cheapening photography. I know I'm going to get voted thumbs down for saying that, but I don't care. The problem is the mentality most people have when they use a digital camera. People don't even know how to use a camera anymore. They don't even know basic, common sense things that most people used to know 5 -10 years ago...like that you have to hold the camera steady, or you have to be sure there is enough light. If you just do a random search on Google, you will see how many blurry and underexposed pictures there are. And you can see how people ask here everyday "how do you fix a blurry picture?" They think that they can fix ANYTHING on a computer, and that everything is "photoshopped."



And what drives me crazy with digital cameras is that every emo kid with a cheap point and shoot digital camera thinks they can take a lame blurry, underexposed pixelated picture in front of a bathroom mirror and call it "photography."



So yes, the problem with digital cameras is not just the lack of discipline, but it's also the mentality. A lot of people think that photography is just using a point and shoot digital camera and "photoshopping" it to make it look "cool." Film forces you to be more careful and really put more thought into your pictures. You're less likely to waste a bunch of film taking lame MySpace "pics" if every frame costs you money.



I took better pictures with film when I was 10 years old than most of the pictures I've seen online these days.

Answer 2

I don't care if a photo was shot with digital, but I prefer using film. Especially on my limited budget, I'm hard pressed to create a good picture with one release. Of course that doesn't mean I'll GET a good picture, but trying again and again to get a picture by constantly changing settings seems redundant to me rather than having the forethought to get it done right at first. Not that there aren't people like that who use digital. I mean, you do need to get the picture at some point no matter what your medium. So you learn to get it done anyway.



Film also has a sense of nostalgia for me. I appreciate the advance of technology, but I like to remember the old technology too. I have a couple typewriters next to me as I type. Hmm, I have a piece of flint and steel in front of me too. Probably a few other things. My room is a mess. Anyway, it just seems a little more impressive to me, older technology. Because it uses different methods that current technology has completely forgotten about in lieu of something faster, more efficient, and with more versatility.

Answer 3

1. I am NOT a professional photographer. My current involvment, beyond my own hobby shooting is only as an adjunct to my graphic design business.



2. When I did shoot film, I maintained a darkroom and did most of my own processing. While I shot a LOT of film, and managed to get, perhaps a half dozen images published at one time or another, I never considered myself a pro. More of a talented amateur.



Having made those disclaimers, I offer you this opinion. From a strictly practical standpoint, I MUCH prefer digital. I don't feel that immediate feedback and gratification cheapens the process in any way. To even read that reminds me of those shutterbugs who get off of the tour bus, snap a dozen shots and get back in to eat their box lunches, waiting to be taken to the next photo op. They get the pictures, but never get the benefit of BEING at the location. They's rather live the experience through their photo albums than to experience their own lives.



Yes, I got a lot of satisfaction from the hands on work done in the darkroom, but there is NOTHING wrong with viewing the image at the moment to make sure I got the shot I needed. I can recall plenty of times when I flicked the switch on my enlarger and see that my subject moved, had her eyes closed, or something came between me and my subject. And, several hours or days AFTER the event, there is no option of going back to reshoot. (Mario Andretti is NOT going back to Laguna Seca to race past my lens, just because I didn't get the shot.)



I did get quite good at framing and composition and shooting from the hip, and these skill still serve me now. And I got a fairly decent skill set of photographic effects skills in the darkroom, which helped me create some darn good art and to repair some marginal exposures. At this point in my career and life, I can't say that I am proud to be able to depend on the digital tools, like Photoshop, to fall back on, but I am glad my system is there and ready to do my bidding. And, I'm glad that I can do in minutes what used to take me hours of sweaty darkroom work.



And, the quality of my work? I don't care how I got it there. My clients wants the end results and, frankly, so do I. When National Geographic calls me on the phone and tells me, "Vince, we LOVE your work but we won't publish it until you go back to film." THEN I'll spring for a decent medium format film SLR. Until then, I'm fine with my digital equipment.

Answer 4

* For landscape and "fine art" I overwhelming prefer the acuity and tonality of film.



* For portrait, either, depending on the desired image to be made.



* For sports and wildlife I overwhelming prefer digital.

Answer 5

they are both great, for most stuff i shoot dig, for stuff i really care about i get out the rb or rz