digital or traditional photography?

Question

Which do you prefer and why?

Answer 1

Not this question again!!...



Once again I will use my textbook answer (copied and pasted from a previous answer, but it saves me typing it all out again.)



I shoot 99% film, but I still know the usefulness of digital. I have 20 film cameras and 1 DSLR, I will not sell it because when I need to take a shot of something with instant results to either email or upload online, then I know I can do it with my DSLR. Call me crazy but part of the enjoyment of film photography for me is not having the instant results. I love the thought of taking a shot and imagining it on the negative, then finishing the roll, handing it in for developing and transfer to CD then viewing them later. That magic (and it is a great feeling) is thoroughly lost with digital. There is also the feeling of holding in your hands a camera that is actually built to last a lifetime, not just a few years.



I could go on and on with reasons, but the truth is that I have answered too many questions like this on this site (and others). I'm going to give you the main reason why I prefer to shoot film. You may think this is a little strange, possibly cheesy, but I just don't have the same feelings with images that I shoot on digital, I have no passion for them. I look at images that I shoot on film and I am filled with a huge sense of pride and excitement. When I shoot with my DSLR and I look at the images I just don't get anywhere near the same feelings, if any feelings at all.



So to put it bluntly, I am happier shooting film. I don't give a damn about cost, I take my time with every shot I take, I shoot usually one roll of film a week, 36 shots. I often hear people who shoot solely digital talk about taking 100 shots of a subject and then 'picking' the best shot.. That's just ridiculous.. Taking 100 shots then 'picking' a best shot is exactly the opposite of what a good photographer does, gets it right first time!. So if I use one roll of film a week, I buy in bulk so they cost me roughly £2 each, and develop only (I can do my own scanning now) costs £3. So each year I spend roughly £260 on film and developing, that's nothing!, that's £21 a month!. How many hobbies do you know that are that cheap!. If I start doing my own developing at home then it will be even more cheaper (and something I would enjoy). The main cameras that I use cost between £1-£50 (I buy second hand from eBay) and my mainly used camera (Olympus Trip 35) cost me £17 and will still be working long after even I'm gone, it doesn't even need batteries. I am tired of people who say that film photography is expensive, it certainly is not.



At the end of the day if somebody is happy with digital and producing images that they love (and feel passionate about) then that is all that matters, and vice versa with film. Saying that any one format is 'inferior' or 'wrong' is just ridiculous.



I have to admit though, on one final note... I have got to the point now where I find it hilarious seeing all the silly unnecessary gadgets, gizmos and gimmicks that camera manufacturers are including in their cameras now to try and keep ahead of the competition. GPS tagging, video mode, live view, 18 megapixels +, huge LCD screens, etc.. It is just so unnecessary to have all these gadgets and yet consumers are lapping it up. I'm happy with just a fast prime lens and (when necessary) control over aperture/ISO/shutter speed and a viewfinder.... That's all you need.





++



EDIT: Since typing this a few weeks ago I have now sold my entire DSLR setup. I just had no interest in using it and it had been practically untouched for nearly a year. I have bought a compact digital (Canon G9) for some digital use when the need arises, and every so often digital is very handy, sometimes essential (such as taking photos of things to list on eBay). But as for pure enjoyment of photography, and producing the images that I want, I will certainly stick to film.



.

Answer 2

You can use all the skills you learned in school ... but no darkroom work. The other half of digital photography is all about computer skills and learning how to use digital darkroom programs like Photoshop. On the money side, digital photography is far more expensive than film photography ... You can buy a good professional 35mm SLR and it will last for decades ... all the film you shoot for clients is purchased by them and they pay for all the processing. Digital cameras have to be replaced every three or four years (at between $5000 to $8000 each) and while the lenses for the 35mm cameras will work just fine on the DSLR, you are stuck with buying two computers every three to four years too (one for the office and a notebook for location shoots) So you can see that for a photographer, the overhead using digital cameras has gone up, while the perception is that it costs less to produce digital images ... The cost of school is still about the same, ($75,000 to $100,000 a year for two years).

Answer 3

Modern digital cameras are cheap, compact, accessible and work beautifully to record what's happening. And I can play with the results in Photoshop, add all the 'art' effects that I ever could using film, with a fraction of the time and effort.



I stopped bothering with film cameras once digitals went over 10mp (I just ended up scanning the results anyway). Film now is mostly for arty types, or those who think the process is more important than the result. Unfortunately photography teachers in schools often fall into this category, turning kids away from the sort of creative image making that digital can allow.



With a digital camera you still need develop your understanding of lighting, composition etc to take great pictures. Then you can chose to play creatively with fstops and iso settings and apertures and so on, or you can just set the camera to automatic and just snap - and still get a pretty good result.



Digital for me.

Answer 4

Digital lets you see everything right away and you can snap away and just delete later.

Film you need to be precise and carry around rolls of film etc.. But, if you develop your own negatives and print your own pictures on fiber paper they can last 500 years if taken care of properly. Which any photo taken with a digital camera will be printed with ink and will eventually fade.

So, it depends on what you are looking for! Ease or longevity. I like both, I love printing and I love the ease of digital.

Answer 5

I like traditional photography better. To me the pictures look better. It is cheaper in the long because, you are always upgrading with digital. I like hands on in the darkroom. Digital is just boring.

Answer 6

Throughout this course you will learn concepts that range in scope from beginner photography all the way to advanced topics in post production, composition, and light. https://tr.im/3ApPW

You can start right now. Like right this very moment! The course is all online. There are no deadlines or timelines for you to follow. Set your own pace! Go slowly through the course or blaze through it.

Answer 7

Digital.

Cheap. Once you have the camera it costs a few cents to charge the batteries.

Instant results. Check the LCD. Adjust. Retake if necessary.



Film. (Okay, cheaper camera to start.)

Expensive. Well, I think $10 for 24 pictures (good or bad) is expensive.

Results tomorrow or next week (unless you pay extra). Adjust? What were those settings again? Everybody's gone home. The weather's changed.



Digital has the edge :-)

Answer 8

1

Answer 9

Digital because it is easy and Digital You can see previews and plus you can upload it to the computer really fast

Answer 10

digital is easier... (though "traditional" comes in many shapes and sizes - film, plate, etc...)

Answer 11

I shoot film 100% of the time. I'm not a prolific shooter and have no delusions about "going pro".

Answer 12

i like them both - is that wrong?



Edit: only idiots get into the arguement, good photographers use the best medium for the job, film or digi