DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Film vs digital camera pros and cons

I realize this is thread has gone from Contax vs. Canon to Film vs. Digital - Dirk, you may want to split the thread :). But it is an interesting and fruitful discussion.

Frankly, I believe digital is allowing you the freedom to be yourself more so than film, specifically because it is removing certain constraints imposed by film, such as cost and time. It is as if a tree branch had been bent by a weight - when the weight is removed the branch assumes its natural position.

Shooting digital doesn't make you sloppier - it just lets you assume a sloppy tendency that is there to start with. Don't blame the tool, please!

I basically agree with Marc. Just because you can crop, adjust perspective or image contrast / brightness / saturation doesn't make it cheating! PULEEZE! That stuff has been done in darkrooms for years, and the mark of a dedicated photographer trying to manifest a perticular vision. The main thing that is really changing is how you work, not what you do, although of course things that were almost impossible to do before are now possible.

Digital photographers don't use filters ... well duh! And anyway, does using filters (or not) make you a better or worse photographer? I'd much rather worry about capturing the actual moment NOW and worry about color balance or fake color enhancement later (and I hate fake color enhancement anyway).

Do I regret that spotting negatives is a thing of the past? Hell no! I thank Photoshop every time I use it to clean up dark spots! And yes, once or twice I have removed an offending twig or power line from a landscape.

Ultimately, it's the image that speaks for itself, that image that ultimately is the intended product of the photographer, by whatever means it was done. What does it do for you as a viewer, and what did it do for the photographer while he produced it?

Just please, refrain from adding fake sheep to the countryside unless they are dressed up in fine linen ...

DJ
 
Okay, I lied.

How's this for digital work flow:

Shot 2 weddings last week end. Downloaded 7 gig of images (500 + shots) on Friday night. Took less than half an hour. Backup copied them to a second $125 hard drive in half that time. All together, about the amount of time it would take me to drive to the lab and back. Wrote a PS action, and batch corrected 500+ images while I went to bed. Next day set off for a second wedding shoot with reformatted CF cards, and repeated the above process that night with even more images.

Sent select prints for 2 different albums (80 prints total) after spot knocking them in PS. Let the printer work for half the day while I was doing other work (including other jobs on the same computer via background printing option). Wasted prints? 5 out of 80 that I decided to reprint. I have my printing profiles pretty much down pat. Burned DVDs of both weddings, again while I was doing something else. (On my shelf next to me are 80 weddings on CDs and DVDs. All filed by the wedding date. it takes me one minute to find all 500-600 images shot at any given wedding, slap it in the reader, locate any image in seconds via the PS-7 browser, and send it to the printer for any reprints ordered).

It's now Thursday and I have two complete orders done and ready to be picked up. The B&Gs aren't even back from their honeymoon yet and I'm on to the next project.

Cost? After depreciating the gear, and figuring the price premium over film gear, then adding the CF card costs, then subtracting film, processing and prints for the same amount of delivered goods...I'm ahead considerably, especially considering that for each wedding the cost of the digital gear lessens where film costs would remain constant. BUT, most importantly...the money went to me not the lab.
 
The reports of film's death are greatly exaggerated?! Trust an American company to get it wrong again (Kodak). :)

You know, digicams wouldn't be so bad if it were not for that LCD screen I keep smudging with my nose. I'm a clean freak, and getting that LCD smudged every time I use it really, really freaks me out. I also can't see the electronic vf in my digicam after twilight. It's a good thing the lens has a huge DOF because I have to end up pointing to where I think things are - the lens defaults to wherever it defaults to with a little AF(!) mark and I hit the "shutter" release, the flash fires, and there is a picture. It's an interesting way to compose...

I think Leica is on the right track with their R9 backs and this new digicam with the manual controls.

They stopped developing Tri-X?

Dana
 
Michael,
I did use a rangefinder for a while. I had a black G2 kit, which i sold to buy a D60. When i decided to leave digital because i couldn't 'emulate' Tri-X, i bought a Leica M7. But, after a year, i realized i didn't like the abstract/indefinite cropping visualization exercises with the framelines....

I'm not considering dumping the N1 strictly because of the lack of a 35mm 1.4/2 prime (i'd also want a 28mm....) But, that AND the unspecified digital future, in combination, are factors. I bought into Contax because of the lens characteristics. But, while i had the M7, i realized that Leica glass also gives me a signature that i like. It's just a matter of not wanting to keep two and a half different 35mm systems. I still have Canon lenses, even though i sold the bodies. The Leica R8 has the lens range i want, and a more definite digital future. The N1 has neither of those things, and doesn't offer AF functionality good enough to keep it for that reason alone. I haven't found the N1 50mm 1.4 to be better than either the Canon or Leica Summicron, so really the only reason to keep it is for the 85mm, which i love. But, is it better than a Canon 85mm 1.2, or Leica 90mm/2 or 80mm 1.4? Not so much.

I hope you don't feel as if i'm trying to 'insult' your choice of equipment. After all, we both made the same choice. I don't consider my choice to have been a mistake. I bought it when i had enough money to use it for specific purposes, and also with the hope/expectation that the lens line was still expanding. I haven't seen that. As well, i expected the digital line to continue. So far, the only body has been discontinued, and nothing further is known. I just can't afford to stay on the Equipment Merry-go-round. I'd like to settle with a couple of systems, and relax.... I'm not there yet.
 
I find that I take most of my best pictures with medium format when I have to take more care because of the working methods and the cost. I dare say large format would be better still but I haven't tried that yet. Large format pictures I see in print are usually far superior in quality to digital or smaller formats.
Look at Joe Cornish's amazing landscape work with a 5x4 or even Frank Meadow Sutcliffe from the turn of the last century.
John
 
Lynn,

To add oil to fire, if we're talking about inkjet printers, there is another nasty thing. Despite all the efforts of Canon, EPSON, etc, the colors change due to many factors. Every time you change the inks, colors change a little. So, you have to recalibrate it. When your printing heads get a little dirtier - same thing, plus you have to clean them and the whole printer (like say rollers or "parking" area for the printing heads). And sometimes, the only thing you can do is bring it to service center for cleaning and HOPE that they will do a good job (considering that guys there make barely $8/hr, I don't see how that would happen). Also, now they have archival inks and and archival paper. The problem though - how do you REALLY know they're archival when they have been less than 3 years on the market? I know what Wilhelm Research says, but what about the test of real time?

Another problem is also your monitor. LCD and CRT screens tend to change their properties (colors, saturation) due to simple use and aging. So, you will need to recalibrate it as well and might need to get one of these hardware tools (another $300 or so). They also have power supplies, that sometimes fail. The l&s (LCD) that fail. And, in most cases, you have to "warm" it up for like 15 minutes or so, before all colors and saturation stabilizes.

O, and of course, printers and monitors are electronic devices. Which means - probably dead or useless in 5 years or less.

For those of us who have traditional darkroom equipment at home (I don't), this whole idea might look crazy. I don't think anyone that does his own developing/printing ever thought about buying new enlarger every 5 years or anything else of this sort. Not to mention, printing your own photographs using traditional methods is basically a craft that you learn. Using all-digital "darkroom" also requires constantly battling software bugs and hoping that the results will be right. Besides, about "instant" gratification thing of digital process. How can you possibly judge the photo by looking on that 1.5" LCD screen? And when you to send it over to the lab, you can only hope it will turn out right (even if you send it to be printed on lightjet and use their profiles, it still involves many steps where things can go wrong. That's why they make proofs first). And if it's inkjet - you're not guaranteed any repeatability of results. Any lab will tell you that they can't do "color matching" on inkjets.

And about B&W film. That's right on money, AND modern B&W film beats the hell out of older B&W films and modern color film in terms of tonality and resolution. And all that without requiring new lenses, new printers, new software, new hardware, new accessories, new batteries new whatever! Just pop in the film, shoot, send to the lab. End of story.

And automobile analogy is cool too. Add motorcycles to it. Nobody could possibly want to have motorcycle now, right?
happy.gif
Harley Davidson thinks otherwise.

Marc,

Yes, digital and film-based cameras are both tools. With significant differences. It's like new Chevrolet trucks vs. new Ford F-150. Chevys have more horsepower allright, but not a whole lot of torque. Which means that yeah, it can run faster on flat nice road unloaded without cops around, but once you load it up, it will need F-150 to help it climb up that dirt road up the hill. So is with digital vs. film. Both have their purpose and best are used when applied properly. "Digital way" makes sense on the prints in my opinion and even then only on proof prints. But enlargements are best done on optical printer with good quality enlargement lenses.
Why? Because even lightjet can't deliver the same colors and contrast as truly optical printer will. Because it uses 3 RGB lasers, of certain wavelength and thus uncapable of exposing the photographic paper in the same way that normal light will. Not to mention that resolution (305dpi) is insufficient to provide a truly uniform print (I can see the white unexposed dots!)

So, the whole point is, digital might be good for one thing and bad for the other. But it's not the same as film.

Mike.
 
> Marc,

Regarding costs. I shot a wedding last week. I was there for the rehearsal, rehearsal dinner, day before the wedding photos of the bride. Church ceremony, Big reception.

I shot, all together:

4 rolls of 220 (128 exposures) 1 roll of black and white (36 exposure) 12 rolls of color (36 exposures each) for a total of 432 exposures. 60 digital shots.

Total of: 748 shots.

The processing/scanning costs for developing, double prints at the local pro lab was $800.00.

If this was my full time gig, I would have just developed the shots and scanned them. Then I would have done all the printing digitally. But ... alas, I had to outsource the printing.

Thought you would be interested. Seems like alot of shots, but I had not shot a wedding in years and just wanted to be "fer sure, fer sure".

Michael.
 
> Derek,

Your reasoning seems sound from the perspective I'm reading. No insult taken!

Michael.
 
Marc,

Your digital "work flow" is funny. Here is my workflow:

Shoot the film. Rewind. Pop inside prepaid A&I processing mailer along with notes how I want it printed (Frontier or optical printer). Drop in mailbox at my office. Receive pictures few days later by mail. Gas spent on "driving to the lab" - zero gallons and zero ounces. Time spent "driving to the lab" - zero minutes and zero seconds.

Also, I'm computer engineer, spending nearly 10 hours a day at work in front of computer. Do you really think I want to spend any extra minute in front of computer just to print some pictures? Let alone spending money on buying all this extra stuff? And I'm not alone - there are millions like me.

Besides, I don't make money by shooting weddings. I make it by working for a company that makes software, that helps other companies do their business and maybe even make digital cameras.

As about 7 Gigs in half an hour - most likely it was more than that and you simply didn't notice (if these are flash cards of course). And backup on DVD is nice. Until your cat decided to play with it and got one big scratch that is. And then both weddings are, oops, gone.

Computer didn't crash during the night? Good thing, but it doesn't always happen that way. Printer actually worked without any problem? Great! Nothing at all went wrong? Man, you're having a day of a lifetime then
happy.gif

And who pays electricity bills by the way? And then disposal fees when you get rid of that old electronic equipment? And who's TIME was it spent on all this? Equipment depreciation? Wait until 3 years and then you will see. I'm typing this email on the laptop I got for $300. It costed $2200 3 years ago. Recently I bought an old stock 17" Sony Trinitron monitor for $40. And three 2-year-old Canon BJC-6000 printers for another $30. Two broke in 3 months, one works (temporarily of course). Another pro-photographer I know just bought a new photo printer. It's the second one in less than 3 years that he gets (first one broke and no longer serviced).

So, digital works for you? Great. But it doesn't for me. That's all there is to it. You like your way of doing things - I've got no problem with that.

Mike.

P.S. Recently I shown few of my pictures at work. One guy commented "why did I pay $2000 for my digital wedding shots...".
The pictures I showed were made on Aria with P50. Both bought used. For less than $520. That's all that makes a difference for me - the final result.
 
Marc et alii,

I think we all agree that digital is currently most benefitial for pro-photographers. And I am delighted to see that there are obviously many pros here attending in this forum.

But I think it is also obvious that all brands can not live from pros only. The huge majority are hobby photographers and P&Sers. This counts for Contax, Canon, Nikon ... you name it...

Of course all brands want to give the impression that the pros are using their brand. Some do and some don't. But this is more a marketing-image strategy to be able to sell better other stuff to the mass market.

Your last ex&le with your two weddings is a very good ex&le - for a pro. But how many hobby photographers are shooting 1200 images on 2 days? And how many have them to be ready to be picked up after 5 days.

If everybody is asking this question for him/herself we will realize that (counting in 36 exposure films) the average private person shoots 1-5 rolls per month. But still some friends of mine argue with time-saving issues. I think this is also a life-style issue nowadays. People do not have time anymore - even not for their hobby. I do not think that this is a good direction for really appreciating a hobby.

So for me the question is what is the upside/downside for me as a hobbyphotographer, if I consider digital for my purposes. This might be different for everyone else. I just see for myself that I am happy with slides. And I am happy to pay 1.000 USD for a N1 which gives me probably the same image quality with a Velvia or Provia (ca. 6 Euro in Germany) as the Canon 1Ds for 10.000 USD.

Lets forget my scanner (which I love) and Computer. I agree with the note of Mike "...No need to have computer to see your images (how stupid is that to begin with?)..."

IMHO nothing can replace the satisfaction to see your slide in a projection. Film has in difficult light situation just more possibilities and slides especially. Because of the light waves of a light bow in a slide projector, you can see also colours that are simply not existing on a computer screen.

Therefore currently there is no upside potential for me, only downside potential.

But I know that digital will improve over te time. I have nothing against it. And I will probably start with serious digital photography for myself as an addition before it will be on par with professional film. Nothing wrong with that. My point is only that my life is not ending, if I do not shoot immediately with a digital SLR instead of a film SLR. The time is on my side. I have plenty of time. I do not want to rush in my hobby, I want to enjoy it consciously. Every second I can spend more on it, I enjoy it more. This is just different if you have to make a living with it, which I totally understand. I like my results in the past with film, in the present with film and also in the future with film.

Wait and see what comes up on the horizont for digital cameras in the next months - at least from Canon
happy.gif


There is no reason for me personally as a private photographer to rush into digital right now. Although I am now and then very attracted to it
happy.gif
 
Back
Top