Does anyone still use film to take photos nowadays?

[jones24]

Is it true that the new digital cameras are as good or even better than photos produced on film?


I am a newbie and a noob and i can think of a few advantages digi cams have over film cams.

Able to preview the photos taken on a digi cam and then save them or discard them, with a film camera once u have taken the photo that's it. Unless u have a dark room to develop the photos u need to take them to some film store and get them developed and if they are no good well too bad.

Actually the above reason is good enough as to why digi cams are better than film cameras.


Second reason: Privacy of the photos. Suppose you do not want a 3rd party to view your photos. Again unless you have your own dark room, a person with a camera that uses film will need a store to develop them. A person with a digital cam does not need that.

 

[daredevil123]

Is it true that the new digital cameras are as good or even better than photos produced on film?


I am a newbie and a noob and i can think of a few advantages digi cams have over film cams.

Able to preview the photos taken on a digi cam and then save them or discard them, with a film camera once u have taken the photo that's it. Unless u have a dark room to develop the photos u need to take them to some film store and get them developed and if they are no good well too bad.

Actually the above reason is good enough as to why digi cams are better than film cameras.


Second reason: Privacy of the photos. Suppose you do not want a 3rd party to view your photos. Again unless you have your own dark room, a person with a camera that uses film will need a store to develop them. A person with a digital cam does not need that.

Actually, film is making a comeback among serious photographers (professionals and hobbyists). If you look around in CS or on the streets, you will see many folks starting to shoot film again. Digital is good yes, but there is just something about film that make people come back for more. I'll leave if to you to find out more (and/or the other brothers to tell you).

 

[J-Chan]

regarding the first point about not being able to see what your shots instantly is somewhat the joys of shooting film.. it sorts of forces you to slow down and compose your subject, think about the settings, the moment etc.. of cos you could also use a 1V and rip through a whole roll of film in abt 4 seconds..

 

[catchlights]

Is it true that the new digital cameras are as good or even better than photos produced on film?

don't you ever start beating dead horse again.

I am a newbie and a noob and i can think of a few advantages digi cams have over film cams.

well it depends on the user.

Able to preview the photos taken on a digi cam and then save them or discard them, with a film camera once u have taken the photo that's it. Unless u have a dark room to develop the photos u need to take them to some film store and get them developed and if they are no good well too bad.

some people like it some people don't like it, so again, depends on the user.

Actually the above reason is good enough as to why digi cams are better than film cameras.

here you go again, don't ever start it.

Second reason: Privacy of the photos. Suppose you do not want a 3rd party to view your photos. Again unless you have your own dark room, a person with a camera that uses film will need a store to develop them. A person with a digital cam does not need that.

oh dear, you forget the story about Edison Chen???

 

[jones24]

don't you ever start beating dead horse again.


well it depends on the user.

some people like it some people don't like it, so again, depends on the user.

here you go again, don't ever start it.


oh dear, you forget the story about Edison Chen???

Seeing ur replies i can come to the conclusion that it's due to personal preference and nostalgia. Something like maybe how some people still use those old wind up record players to play music rather than a cd player. There's no way it can bet a new Hi fi player with a cd player.



The story of edison chen is due to his own mistake. He saved those photos digitally taken on his broken down laptop to get his lappie repaired.

Now if he had used a film camera to take his photos, i doubt he would ever have a chance to develop the photos unless of course he uses his own room.

 

[Daedalus Trent]

Something like maybe how some people still use those old wind up record players to play music rather than a cd player.

There's no way it can beat a new Hi fi player with a cd player.

A-Ha...that's where you're wrong

Here's an interesting link. Not the most reliable of sources but he does make a very good point, imho



Furthermore, I definitely agree with what J-Chan mentioned. In digital, i can easily waste away 100s of shots in just one outing. I'm still painfully newbie at film but i'll be hard-pressed to shot anymore than 1-2 rolls of film in one outing, haha. Which forces me to focus more on what i'm shooting and value the limited resources i have. Sure, digital gives me more frames to snap, but photography is about capturing impactful visual images, not about how many 100s of shots your camera is capable of firing :think:

 

[karnage]

I use film again because nowadays, everyone is going around with a dSLR slung around their neck. Haha!

Digital is so yesterday... =PPP

Anyways, yeah, to use or not to use is up to the individual. Of course, digital's advantage for a newbie is that you can learn about photography much faster, and the instant feedback and stuff. Film still has a certain appeal though... If don't like, then don't use lor. =)

 

[catchlights]

Seeing ur replies i can come to the conclusion that it's due to personal preference and nostalgia. Something like maybe how some people still use those old wind up record players to play music rather than a cd player. There's no way it can bet a new Hi fi player with a cd player.



The story of edison chen is due to his own mistake. He saved those photos digitally taken on his broken down laptop to get his lappie repaired.

Now if he had used a film camera to take his photos, i doubt he would ever have a chance to develop the photos unless of course he uses his own room.

you can start a thread ask "who is still shooting film" but not start a thread of "comparing film or digital which is better".

the later is a troll, thread will be locked if flame war starts.

 

[adamadam]

I like using film

 

[jones24]

A-Ha...that's where you're wrong

Here's an interesting link. Not the most reliable of sources but he does make a very good point, imho

U know i read that link and i found the reasons he gave not very convincing like he was avoiding the subject. How could he say taking digital photos and traditional photos to be totally different?

Both aim to capture something of the real world unto a canvas. One of them is more simplistic in reproducing the results. U can easily see the results of a digi cam, the other takes more effort in seeing the results. The use of a dark room.


There needs to be stronger reasoning.


Edit:


Okay they gave a good concrete reasoning, flim cameras produce better photos vs digital ones, but that was in 2005 in which cell phones whicxh took photos were just coming outl.

 

[aquilaa]

Although I shoot digital most of the time, I still shoot film. I shoot slides, colour negative and
BnW (I tried IR using BnW IR film as well).
I shoot film because I want to learn film shooting technic.

If you shoot film, you can go up to larger format (medium format or 4x5)
without spending too much. Full frame DSLR already very expensive, digital
medium format camera is much more expensive than FF.

 

[J-Chan]

yes, sure digital has given alot of convenience to users but film still has its merits.. for one, using MF film is definately much cheaper than a MF back..

 

[surrephoto]

1. Film Dynamic Range > Digital Dynamic Range

True; but time will come when digital can eventually match it. At the very minimum the curves in films and the "gradation" into highlights is certainly better*.

*Various digital in-camera enhancements such as D-Lighting already help to combat this actually.

2. Film Resolution > Digital Resolution (Comparison on same size medium).

True since film is analog. But do realize that unless you are shooting low ISO film, the grain size is going to kill it all.

You can flame me, but to my eyes even digital APS-C has already surpassed 35 mm film on higher ISOs.

3. Film Contrast/Colours vs Digital Contrast/Colours

Well, back in film days you can pick from hordes of various brands/series of film for various purposes.

The only difference is that now different brand sensors deal with colours differently. And we can't change our D-SLR sensors.

 

[jones24]

Although I shoot digital most of the time, I still shoot film. I shoot slides, colour negative and
BnW (I tried IR using BnW IR film as well).
I shoot film because I want to learn film shooting technic.

If you shoot film, you can go up to larger format (medium format or 4x5)
without spending too much. Full frame DSLR already very expensive, digital
medium format camera is much more expensive than FF.

thanks for this reason.


I dunno about you guys but i am just starting out, my job does not depend on photography.

I guess the majority of people are like me. Just want to take some normal photos of frens, family when they go on outings.

 

[daredevil123]

Seeing ur replies i can come to the conclusion that it's due to personal preference and nostalgia. Something like maybe how some people still use those old wind up record players to play music rather than a cd player. There's no way it can bet a new Hi fi player with a cd player.

You are saying vinyl records cannot beat CDs? Are you very very sure? :think:
Then, let me put the following to you: Even till this day, for people who are into extremely high end hi-fi equipment, they will only listen to vinyl records when it comes to opera and classical music and not CD. Have you ever thought of why?

The reason, these people say, is in the warmth that the record provides. CDs tend to be very "dry" though techincally superior and clearer. But vinyl records projects warmth and has more character. When listening to a CD, it sounds bland. For people preferring film to digital, it is for the similar reasons. This is in addition to the other little joys and surprises film brings to you.

 

[mrhobbit]

eh..... being in the audio hobby for the past few years.....

Let me assure you that the CD will NOT beat the vinyl if the Vinyl record is properly recorded and paired with the right system.

The world went CD(and now to MP3) not because of the fact that the audio quality improves, we went this way because the compromise of cost VS quality has improved.

And yes, most serious audiophiles i know( when i mean serious i mean a single power cable will cost them the price of a 70-200/2.8 and yes, thats a cable, we havent factored in speakers, amps, interconnects, floor stands etc etc) are on Vinyls.

As for film VS digital.....

Lets just say i went back to film and i am shooting better imo. Not because film has better qualities, but because the nature of the medium helps me improve.

Besides..... there is this something in Ilford 3200 that digital just cant seem to produce no matter how hard i try;p

 

[UandMe]

One thing that is confirmed is that photography will NEVER becomes so popular if there is no digital. And Clubsnap will probably have... like 53 members?

 

[jones24]

You are saying vinyl records cannot beat CDs? Are you very very sure? :think:
Then, let me put the following to you: Even till this day, for people who are into extremely high end hi-fi equipment, they will only listen to vinyl records when it comes to opera and classical music and not CD. Have you ever thought of why?

The reason, these people say, is in the warmth that the record provides. CDs tend to be very "dry" though techincally superior and clearer. But vinyl records projects warmth and has more character. When listening to a CD, it sounds bland. For people preferring film to digital, it is for the similar reasons. This is in addition to the other little joys and surprises film brings to you.

U know it's very very difficult to actually imagine what ur saying. Of course it's impossible to describe in words the differences IF THERE ARE ANY.


U see when one reads an article he needs to discern the differences. U say a vinyl player projects WARMTH while a cd player does not.


I would have no idea and i do now know what u say is true.

 

[Daedalus Trent]

Edit:
Okay they gave a good concrete reasoning, flim cameras produce better photos vs digital ones, but that was in 2005 in which cell phones whicxh took photos were just coming outl.

I doubt if even the lastest full-frame DSLRs can compete with large-format film....but yea, if you're talking about standard 35mm, guess you're right, haha. Contemporary DSLRs come pretty close and are waay more flexible, imho

And on another note, film definitely isn't a replacement for the enormous convenience digital has to offer. I'm sure many of the film users here on CS haven't dumped their DSLRs and have no intention of doing so! :bsmilie:

 

[Zeisser]

I still shoot film but have a digital PnS just to keep up with the trend....WB,High ISO,MPs,noise...blah...blah....blah.