Film Vs Digital Which camp are you?

[Maybe Skate Team 0]

I am on the way to order my Canon Digital Rebel XT with the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM lense and really see the digital camera world! I personally think that film cameras are good to learn with and become more experienced in and then move on over to digital dslr. But then again with the dslr you can see and understand your mistakes for free as to film where you have to pay to develope or spend some quality time in the dark room!

[chiiyo 0]

Hmm, I took some time off to really think about why I like film so much and why I really don't like digital so much, talked to a few photography friends, discussed at length with my good photography buddy, and here's a (still rather confused and disjointed I'm afraid) opinion about film and digital in general. Please don't get offended in any way.

This rant/opinion is mostly triggered by ykf's post. One factor was the rather damning link that he had posted up talking about how digital quality is now better than 35mm film, and is now comparable to medium-format slide film. The other factor was the rather smarting comment (at least to me) of:

It's real funny to see yet another film vs digital debate. Actually, the choice is already clear, even in 2 years ago, that digital already win when compare to flexibility, usability, quality and dynamic range (yes, quality and dynamic range!).

I cannot deny that the facts are that digital quality is now indeed better than film in some ways, the resolution bit at least (I don't quite agree with dynamic range), but as I thought through the facts and tried to straighten out my own reasoning of why I still stick to my trusty Nikon FM2 and film, it became more and more convoluted. To spare you the confusion I went through, my final conclusion after talking to other people, is that I choose film and chose film, NOT because it had offered me better quality and resolution at that point of time, but because of the feel of the entire film idea versus the digital idea. I mean, digital quality catching up and surpassing film quality is inevitable. Technology and research for digital continues on whereas nobody is trying to make better quality films. When one side's research ends and the other continues, it's obvious to anyone that one day digital will surpass film in terms of technical quality. That has already been done, apparently, and that I shall not argue anymore.

What I wanted to bring up is the idea of film and the idea of digital photography. I'm a great believer of "capturing the moment", of minimal manipulation of the photograph after actually taking the picture. A great legend of the photography world passed away not too long ago, he took only black and white photographs and he never cropped his pictures, because he believed that his photographs are perfect when he took them, that his composition is exactly what he wanted his photo to turn out. I never cropped my own pictures, not because I'm expert like him, but because I believe the same thing. If you have to crop your picture after you take it, there would be a certain lack of photography spirit in how you take your photographs.

But I'm digressing. What I really want to say is, the good point about digital is the amount of instant feedback you get. You take a picture, you can see it immediately, and see whether it was okay or not. If it isn't okay, you can go ahead and take another one, and correct yourself immediately. This is great for beginners, but I somehow feel that this instant feedback has created a loss of professionalism, no, the true photography spirit as I see it. Being a film photographer, I know that I would only get to see my photos in maybe a day's time at best. There is no instant feedback. I have to make sure each and every photo counts, because I'm working on film, and I don't carry too many rolls with me. I have to make sure that in one photo, I manage to really capture what I saw and felt inspired by when I wanted to photograph the scene. I have to make sure my focus is correct, my composition is perfect, my exposure is what I want it to be, all these small but important details must be in place, because unless I bracket, I might never get the same scene to photograph again. In a way, this makes me more in tune with the spirit of photography as I see it, as in "capture the moment".

There are lots of professional and really good photographers that use digital, and still have this spirit of photography in them, and I respect them. But it's the growing amount of photographers who became good at their art because they know how to finetune their pictures to make it look good, either by digital manipulation after, or by actually on the spot fine-tuning their composition or exposure after the instant feedback that they have, that truly disturbs me, that truly makes me dislike digital photography in a sense. Photographers who truly understand the pros and cons of both film and digital, and then choose to go one way or the other, these are the people I respect. But it's the photographers who were weaned on digital, never touched a film camera before, and believe in the power that higher and higher resolution and instant feedback brings to their art, those are the ones that disturb me.

A good friend who runs a photography studio once told me this story. He and his friends were at a shoot, all using film medium and large format cameras. On the other side were these really noisy and cocky photographers, all using super high-end DSLRs (not any of those Hasselbad digital backs though) and basically making fun of the amount of time and effort my friend and his friends were using to take one shot. Feeling slightly irked, my friend approached them, and basically challenged them to use their equipment to take just one shot. Verdict? They were all too scared to even touch the cameras.

Now my rant is not towards those people who use digital, only a small subset, the set that basically doesn't know and doesn't understand film, and diss it anyway, just because digital is "better". I'm a person that believes you should never diss anything that you don't already understand, and people who do so disgusts me...

>_< Sorry for the long rant/opinion thingy. But these are my true feelings towards this subject...

[ykf 0]

I cannot deny that the facts are that digital quality is now indeed better than film in some ways, the resolution bit at least (I don't quite agree with dynamic range), but as I thought through the facts and tried to straighten out my own reasoning of why I still stick to my trusty Nikon FM2 and film, it became more and more convoluted. To spare you the confusion I went through, my final conclusion after talking to other people, is that I choose film and chose film, NOT because it had offered me better quality and resolution at that point of time, but because of the feel of the entire film idea versus the digital idea. I mean, digital quality catching up and surpassing film quality is inevitable. Technology and research for digital continues on whereas nobody is trying to make better quality films. When one side's research ends and the other continues, it's obvious to anyone that one day digital will surpass film in terms of technical quality. That has already been done, apparently, and that I shall not argue anymore.

 

What I wanted to bring up is the idea of film and the idea of digital photography. I'm a great believer of "capturing the moment", of minimal manipulation of the photograph after actually taking the picture. A great legend of the photography world passed away not too long ago, he took only black and white photographs and he never cropped his pictures, because he believed that his photographs are perfect when he took them, that his composition is exactly what he wanted his photo to turn out. I never cropped my own pictures, not because I'm expert like him, but because I believe the same thing. If you have to crop your picture after you take it, there would be a certain lack of photography spirit in how you take your photographs.

 

But I'm digressing. What I really want to say is, the good point about digital is the amount of instant feedback you get. You take a picture, you can see it immediately, and see whether it was okay or not. If it isn't okay, you can go ahead and take another one, and correct yourself immediately. This is great for beginners, but I somehow feel that this instant feedback has created a loss of professionalism, no, the true photography spirit as I see it. Being a film photographer, I know that I would only get to see my photos in maybe a day's time at best. There is no instant feedback. I have to make sure each and every photo counts, because I'm working on film, and I don't carry too many rolls with me. I have to make sure that in one photo, I manage to really capture what I saw and felt inspired by when I wanted to photograph the scene. I have to make sure my focus is correct, my composition is perfect, my exposure is what I want it to be, all these small but important details must be in place, because unless I bracket, I might never get the same scene to photograph again. In a way, this makes me more in tune with the spirit of photography as I see it, as in "capture the moment".

 

There are lots of professional and really good photographers that use digital, and still have this spirit of photography in them, and I respect them. But it's the growing amount of photographers who became good at their art because they know how to finetune their pictures to make it look good, either by digital manipulation after, or by actually on the spot fine-tuning their composition or exposure after the instant feedback that they have, that truly disturbs me, that truly makes me dislike digital photography in a sense. Photographers who truly understand the pros and cons of both film and digital, and then choose to go one way or the other, these are the people I respect. But it's the photographers who were weaned on digital, never touched a film camera before, and believe in the power that higher and higher resolution and instant feedback brings to their art, those are the ones that disturb me.

 

A good friend who runs a photography studio once told me this story. He and his friends were at a shoot, all using film medium and large format cameras. On the other side were these really noisy and cocky photographers, all using super high-end DSLRs (not any of those Hasselbad digital backs though) and basically making fun of the amount of time and effort my friend and his friends were using to take one shot. Feeling slightly irked, my friend approached them, and basically challenged them to use their equipment to take just one shot. Verdict? They were all too scared to even touch the cameras.

 

Now my rant is not towards those people who use digital, only a small subset, the set that basically doesn't know and doesn't understand film, and diss it anyway, just because digital is "better". I'm a person that believes you should never diss anything that you don't already understand, and people who do so disgusts me...

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good point!

And actually your concern is mainly on the person behind who takes photographs, not the tools. Giving an excellent tool to a dumb person, misusing its capabilities wasn't really turns that excellent tool into a crap. Gladly I'm not that kind of person, but really I admit there're lots of them.

The bottom line is the photographer's mind that matters, not the tools.

[ykf 0]

Film is good, but digital is good too.  However, digital turns everything into pixels, whereas film is continous.  We learned a bit of this in my computer grahpics class.  Film has continuous tone, where digital mimics that by prinint with halftones.  I think that film is obviously better quality, and will be a smoother image, but it's not as versatile as digital.  Another good way to improve digital is to up the resolution.  The more pixels per inch you have, the better print quality you have.  I think digital is a bit better, but not by much, and only for it's versatility.  Film still has it's uses.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, film is also a digital media, using grains as its pixels. So its really not a continous device also.

[organicbmx 0]

I really agree with your rant chiiyo. I try to emulate the old masters when i take film photographs and not resize, recrop or after edit my photographs.I beleive that once you start to edit and crop photographs they sort of become less of a photograph and more an element in a graphic design piece. What im tring to get at is the way images and used in magzines and such, they are almost not photographs, even though they were taken with a camera, they are mearly images. There is nothing wrond with this and i often like the results. But i feel that this i not really what photography is about, you are right - it is about 'capturing a moment'.But ill propably take it all back when i want to get a job

[asaru 0]

Well, im really a film person B)I think digital is still on diapers in terms of high quality, i do use digital cameras and media for my photos but i don´t think the accuracy of colour is the best. Im kind of religious on color managing and i do color profiles for every shoot and every single time i work on digital.But i cant seem to leave behind film even if its becoming like the ugly duckling for most works, i prefer to do the shooting on 120mm with my RB 67 and then scan the negative and work from there. I even use 35mm for many works, and even 4x5.Im kind of old school so i like to develop and print most of my work B/W & color and even retouch and mount my own work, though it takes more time i like it better, but much of these work i just do it for myself or special jobs, but i really miss the old retouching, inks, oil, pencils, it gives the photo another sense and feeling, well for me. I have used many design programs and theyre great, but i still like to do most of the work with my digits instead of digital And the alternative processes i wouldnt change, im actually going to study some chemistry for photography, im just in love with all the process and theres nothing better for me than being on the dark room instead of being in front of the computer, computers are my second love, but i just prefer them for other stuff.Asaru

[bad-and-ugly 0]

It's only a matter of time when digital will totally take over film. It's very simple, we can't keep spending so much money on film and chemicals, and they produce a lot of toxic waste, and it's expensive to store them correctly.As of now, digital lacks good latitude.

[DAC1138 0]

I keep seeing this "film is better quality" argument, and it is true. But here's the deal: How many ordinary people out there will actually be able to notice the difference? Not many, I can tell you that. Not everyone on the planet stares and film/video clips all day. Has anyone seen superman returns? It was an all digital movie and it was absolutely amazing. Even the CGI needs some great recognition.
http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

This article is a great read and you can get some insights into both the FX and the film versus digital debate. George Lucas believes in digital, why don't you guys? I can't say the same for Spielberg (who I'm not a huge fan of anyway). He's being pompous and won't switch to digital just because he's used to doing things the old fashioned way. There are so many more advantages to using digital than using film. It's worth the quality loss, don't you guys think?

[Arbitrary 0]

I really don't think most people care about quality. They just want to take their photographs, capture their "great moments in time" and then show it off somewhere or stash it for their memories. They really don't stress over every little factor of the picture; not everyone is a professional. Therefore, digital will win just because it's easier to use than film and ordinary people find ease of use to be more important than quality. So basically, each side has their conveniences, and whether you think film is better than digital or digital is better than film depends on what you're using it for. If you're a photographer, then there's no need to harp about the "greatness of film" to the ordinary folk as they more than likely won't care. And I agree with bad-and-ugly that digital is better for the environment. Less waste = a lot better.

[joe.k 0]

i cant say which one is better than the other ... each of film and digital has his own advantage and disadvantage and for regular people they dont really care about how good the RES is ,they only need a good photo,,as for profasional photographers digital is easier than film because when they use film they cant see what the have shot ,, what the shot look like (density,color .etc) and further more it use more chemicals to devlope it and print it and as for the Quality of the film which depened on the chimical ,age and the health(scratches).The Digital photos has some good thing which is they kept as data in side a memory and the qualiti depende on how much pixels in the photo , light ,focus ..etc all thing that reflect and effect the quality of photo which can be controled(most of the times) and you always can delete digital photos rather than films.i have been using analog and digitals cameras from Fuji S2 and S3 (digital) to canaon old series (analog).and for a fiar compare bettween films and digital ... i always find Digital is easy to creat , change and always hard and takes alots of time for preparing photos (retouching .... tec )

[unimatrix 0]

In the video world, there is still a world of difference between 2k/4k film using a Digital intermeadatory (DI) and DV. DV is great for broadcast, but looses a lot more than you'd think when projected on to a 40 foot screen. For the Stills world, I'd say that by 2010 Film will be about gone outside of hobby/enthusiasts. It practically is now for consumer use. Still there are some professionals that can't do quite the same work in Digital and prefer the chemical stuff.

[DAC1138 0]

People keep talking about 4k cameras, but people keep on forgetting it's not ALWAYS about the camera. People have to learn that the lens is another important artifact in the camera world. Crap going through the lens is going to look like crap to any image sensor. Also, hard drive space is going to be a huge factor. Better quality = bigger file size. Instead of being able to cut a movie on a 200 GB hard drive, if you're using a 4k camera you'll need to upgrade to get an 800GB, maybe even a few terrabyte drives. Has anyone seen those samples from that new Red camera? Any comments on them? I'd like to know what others think about Red. It's certainly no film camera killer, but damn!

[TeamEFX 0]

It's only a matter of time when digital will totally take over film. It's very simple, we can't keep spending so much money on film and chemicals, and they produce a lot of toxic waste, and it's expensive to store them correctly.
As of now, digital lacks good latitude.

I concur..

The idea is like: why use paper when you have computers..

Another plus is: you don't have to have a dark room =) (I think that's it is called).

eFX

[unimatrix 0]

Storage space is not an issue when you can pick up a 1TB external Firewire hard dive for $500. We have a 6TB RAID system for storage with fibre-channel cards. Storage is extremely cheap these days.

[DAC1138 0]

Storage space is not an issue when you can pick up a 1TB external Firewire hard dive for $500. We have a 6TB RAID system for storage with fibre-channel cards. Storage is extremely cheap these days.

Exactly. Not to mention as a solid state backup solution you can use Blu-Ray DVDs which can hold 50GB. Then there's those holographic data discs being developed that will come into play a few years from not. But yes, hard drives are getting cheap-cheap-CHEEEAP. Flash drives are also becoming barely a cost. And if you're still shooting on miniDV tapes, the tapes themselves are becoming cheaper and cheaper. 6 tapes costs about $8. I'm sure if you shop around you can get 6 tapes for about $3 for the bundle. I still prefer shooting on miniDV for archival purposes. Tapes are so cheap you can just label the tape (title, date, takes, etc...) and capture and store in a nice dry place. In the future, should anything happen to your digital backups you can revert back to your old tapes.