Digital? been there, done that, but no thx...

[henavs]

I'm not sure if this topic has been raised b4...Anyway...

Intro...
With the emergence of digital photography, DSLR or digicam has become increasingly affordable...Now tat 300D is as cheap as $2K w/lens...More & more ppl has shift towards the other side of the scale...Leaving traditional film/slides less to desire...

Question is,
Does anyone here actually go back or "prefer" film/slides after experiencing digital photography?

This thread is to find out whether and why there are still ppl who prefer the traditional way when digital has provided much more convenience, time and cost savings in the long run...

It is not a debate whether film or digital is better...Both are equally good and equally bad, it depends! So equipment troll and newbie who swear by digital pls keep ur head low...

 

[meng]

been thru a HP 1MP simple cam. Then Canon A40, then Film SLR.
I still prefer the feeling and satisfaction of film and slides and of course, now I'm shooting B&W more than ever. Waiting to try out various films and slides and different techniques.

henavs, true, the convenience, time and cost savings in the long run is a major advantage of digital photography. But in the short run, costs might be lower for film users. Thus, I still keep my A40 for leisure and some events shoot when I need the fast turn-around time and the luxury of just pressing the shutter continously without having to worry for costs.

Summing it up, I'll still shoot both digital and film but film will not leave my heart

 

[tush]

I went back to film....to be more exact, back to 'old school' fully manual. Its more of a personal preference... I seem to enjoy handling and taking pics with a fully manual camera. Currently using FM2 and Rollei 35 LED.
Thinking of getting a pre-owned Minox 35...(My F801 is gathering dust in the drybox)
Heh... maybe I'm going thru the 'back to basics' phase...
The digital I used are budget Canon A20 and Sony DSC-P2 (Not willing to blow $$ to get DSLR lah...). Digital is convenient esp when one can see the pics on the spot..... but somehow I dont feel as satisfied using digicams... weird huh?

 

[henavs]

been thru a HP 1MP simple cam. Then Canon A40, then Film SLR.
I still prefer the feeling and satisfaction of film and slides and of course, now I'm shooting B&W more than ever. Waiting to try out various films and slides and different techniques.

henavs, true, the convenience, time and cost savings in the long run is a major advantage of digital photography. But in the short run, costs might be lower for film users. Thus, I still keep my A40 for leisure and some events shoot when I need the fast turn-around time and the luxury of just pressing the shutter continously without having to worry for costs.

Summing it up, I'll still shoot both digital and film but film will not leave my heart

Ur experience almost identical to mine ...

I started with slides for a few yrs, then went to 2mp, 3mp, 4mp, prosumer, E-10 up to D30...After that go back to film/slides until now...

Same as u, I do keep a small digicam for leisure & event photos...
When I need to take some outings photos with frens or family, I'll whipped out my Ixus S400 for convenience, cheap & fast turn around time...

But when I'm out to fire some serious shots, I'll bring my trustee film camera with me...

My reason for not goin hi-end digicam or DSLR is:
1. The nostalgic feeling of using film/slides, I developed my own b&w photo last time...But not anymore, tho

2. I feel more satisfied when using film/slides...The excitement of nailing a keeper from few wasted rolls just can't be compare with loading up ur jpgs on ur screen...

3. Cost, yup...i'm poor...So shooting just once or twice in a fortnight with 2-3 rolls of film/slides still just can't justified the hi-cost of DSLR for me...

 

[kex]

i fell in love with photography becoz the feel of a manual camera clicking away is DEFINITELY 10000000times better than DSLR or like..
i enjoy slowly metering the scene,turning the Aperture ring and adjusting the shutter speed dial alot more than juz P&S with a top of the range camera with those F*** accurate metering mode..they just take away all the *magic* in photography.
70% of my income still comes from 2 digital cam,i use them only for work,
i use my film cameras for all my leisure purposes,nothing beats a nicely exposed 6x7 slides on a lightbox.. :thumbsup:
i see my self shooting slides as long as they are still in production..
i enjoy alot more shooting SLR than DSLR,thats y i never convert to digital..

 

[henavs]

I went back to film....to be more exact, back to 'old school' fully manual. Its more of a personal preference... I seem to enjoy handling and taking pics with a fully manual camera. Currently using FM2 and Rollei 35 LED.
Thinking of getting a pre-owned Minox 35...(My F801 is gathering dust in the drybox)
Heh... maybe I'm going thru the 'back to basics' phase...
The digital I used are budget Canon A20 and Sony DSC-P2 (Not willing to blow $$ to get DSLR lah...). Digital is convenient esp when one can see the pics on the spot..... but somehow I dont feel as satisfied using digicams... weird huh?

Manual is good, I used FM2 & FM10 for a few yrs, somehow u feel more involved in the whole photo taking process...

 

[meng]

yeah..still remember my first roll of film was on a camera loaned from a friend in primary school - the film was a different one from the normal 35mm...not sure what's it called though..

wah..u had so many digicams before

Ur experience almost identical to mine ...

I started with slides for a few yrs, then went to 2mp, 3mp, 4mp, prosumer, E-10 up to D30...After that go back to film/slides until now...

Same as u, I do keep a small digicam for leisure & event photos...
When I need to take some outings photos with frens or family, I'll whipped out my Ixus S400 for convenience, cheap & fast turn around time...

But when I'm out to fire some serious shots, I'll bring my trustee film camera with me...

My reason for not goin hi-end digicam or DSLR is:
1. The nostalgic feeling of using film/slides, I developed my own b&w photo last time...But not anymore, tho

2. I feel more satisfied when using film/slides...The excitement of nailing a keeper from few wasted rolls just can't be compare with loading up ur jpgs on ur screen...

3. Cost, yup...i'm poor...So shooting just once or twice in a fortnight with 2-3 rolls of film/slides still just can't justified the hi-cost of DSLR for me...

 

[henavs]

wah..u had so many digicams before

Yeah, at tat time I kept upgrading coz I just couldn't satisfied with those digicams, at the end I found out tat I just prefer film/slides more, tats why I couldn't settle, even a DSLR wont do for me...

Wasted a lot of money for tat...regret tat, tats why try to encourage other not to do same mistake...

 

[OpenLens]

There just seems to be more of a physical "connection" with film...the same way that, even though I've got a HP Jornada PDA I still prefer to sit on a plane with a good paperback book instead of "browsing" the equivalent eBook. I just use the PDA to listen to music and play SimCity ;p. Something that's "physical" holds more emotional value because we are physical beings.

 

[Azure]

Wasted a lot of money for tat...regret tat, tats why try to encourage other not to do same mistake...

That applies, whether you are a digital or film shooter or a mix. But I believe your words/posts may be falling on deaf ears.

I have been the Equipment/Upgrade-crazed nutcase many many years back - WASTED LOTS OF $$$ then too. For when PCs still held some mystique to the general populace. But where photography is concerned, I started more of a recorder - recording images for memory sake before going into enjoy the shot and the happiness of seeing a nice shot taken.

Maybe it's because I started pure digital. Have never seen a need to switch to film or SLR. Watching people go the same silly upgrade/EW/EM path only makes me pity them. I'd rather stick to enjoying the shoot.

Personally, I hope some will listen, and by the same token, spend their finite resources more prudently.

(BTW, Henavs, I like your Desaru shots. Nice.)

 

[sehsuan]

i've used compact digicams before, i'm using a dslr right now. never tried film before though. BUT i do agree with the "elitism" of being a film photographer - that sure kicks up the adrenaline level!

but frankly, i would like to try film someday to see how much my experimentation with the dslr has taught me, not forgetting trying out the WIDE angles that my current lens offer but is "unused" by the dslr...

 

[patch17]

there's one thing i love about film/slides that digital will never replace... it's the anticipation of what will comeout of that roll of plastic and chemicals you've just developed. everytime i send a roll or two for processing, the waiting kills me, but i love it none the less.

 

[Parchiao]

The only reason why I love digital SLRs so much is that because of them, the prices of manual focus camera bodies and lenses have become even more depressed as of late, as such, a lot of these manual focus bodies and very very very excellent prime lenses have become much much more cheaper to acquire!

 

[cheechee]

The only reason why I love digital SLRs so much is that because of them, the prices of manual focus camera bodies and lenses have become even more depressed as of late, as such, a lot of these manual focus bodies and very very very excellent prime lenses have become much much more cheaper to acquire!

:thumbsup: good saying :devil:
started film, on the way tried ixus, canon a40 and go back to slides on slr. wun be venturing to the digital slr realm though, maybe still cant find a justified reason to spend so much whilst am still studying.

but recently while looking ard for a nikon mech slr for my younger brother, tried out some of the models like fm2 etc. oh my! the feel is so good and everything back to basic.... tempted!! :embrass:

I like slides, especially when i projected it on huge walls. The feeling is damn good.

 

[Caspere]

Ok, who has done pre-portable-digital-camera digital photgraphic work?

In 1993-95, I used a slide/neg/film printer (a USD16,000 AGFA gadget with a nikon film body the size of three dell minitowers) connected SCSI (1st version) to a powermac 6800 21 inch CRTs with pantone (to match pro-shop prints) to transfer my digitised images (aka manipulated images) to slides. We could then print archival prints, projection for presentations, etc. We already had film scanners costing USD2000 no decent color consumer photoprinters. During this time, we were mainly using digital as an alternative medium for creative expression (??), just like watercolor or acrylic or lithography. Then, Photoshop was just Photoshop (aka no version 1 or 2 etc).

Nowadays, we talk about white balancing and "true" colors. I notice digital photography now is (marketing) like film but better/ faster/ convenient.

As technology progresses, we (or marketing) will find new uses for the extra bandwidth and gigahertz. So don't worry about switching to the "best". These are just tools, means to an end. It is the "end" here we should be concerned with.

Personally, I see myself and my creative work straddling between these tools; whatever helps my creative work will see more use.

 

[kiwi2]

Maybe it's because I started pure digital. Have never seen a need to switch to film or SLR. Watching people go the same silly upgrade/EW/EM path only makes me pity them. I'd rather stick to enjoying the shoot.

Personally, I hope some will listen, and by the same token, spend their finite resources more prudently.

I think it's not so much as silly in the strictest sense of the word. Buying electronic items is more than just a consideration of functionality. It's "keeping up with the times" and consumers' urge to get the latest which could be something smaller, lighter, more and more functions, etc. Unfortunately, digital (or AF SLR for that matter) photography falls in this same category.

As a 3rd person observing amateurs constantly scratching their heads on which new digicam to get, which new lens to go for, this could be seen as a waste of money, because they don't earn formally from their hobby. Furthermore, the same over-used comments always surface: "Good photography is largely dependent on the photographer. Shoot more and enjoy! It's not so much in the camera." But for pros, it could mean getting the job done more easily or with their objectives met. For eg, I don't see why a pro would upgrade from a D60 to 10D if he can afford a 1Ds and recoup the money spent soon.

I could never understand why people (teenagers included!) keep upgrading their cell phones. They spend like hundreds or so $ and less than 1/2 yr later, they sell them away to get another one, presumably "better". And what some of them tend to do most often with it is only to exercise their thumbs on the buttons. To me, the phone is just to call out when needed. Using my earlier analogy with photography, I choose to believe that a good phone is one that is portable and allows me to make calls out with good reception. Period. Do I really want to spend a few hundreds more (again!) just because a smaller model is out or that it has a tiny camera built-in? NOT for me -- others do!

But when I think about how cell phones is a modern electronic gadget, and how consumers have an urge to want newer things, I can empathize better. As long as we have money to spend (not necesarily meaning we are financially wise in doing so), we'll find ways to do it. For amateur digital photography, this "philosophy" of thinking is no exception either.

 

[henavs]

hello,

as i'm doing a thesis on digital and film photography, i thought that i can share some research and personal views on this topic.

i believe that film/slides will die off in the near future. die off as in consumer-consumption. everyone will move into digital photography.

but slides/film negatives will still be there and there will be this small elite group of ppl taking photographs using slides/films.

as is the case with fine arts painting, it has taken a 'step upwards' with the introduction of a Daguerreotype camera in 1839.

Painter Paul Delaroche, on seeing a Daguerreotype photographic image, exclaimed, "From today, painting is dead!"

but we all know that's not the case because fine arts paintings underwent a transition and now it is being viewed as 'high brow culture'.

that will be the case for film/slides fotography, i believe. technology will improve tremendously and it will become more affordable in the long run. even medium and large formats will be threatened. soon everyone on the streets will be walking around with a DSLR. Canon is making it possible. so too will old rivals Nikon.

yes, i love my FM2n and my F80.

i was losing out interest in film/slides at one stage until i discovered this brilliant shop that did justice to my photos. i thought the colours were rich, the photo-processing was the best i've ever seen.

i guess i still look forward to seeing how my last photo-shooting went. the developing $$ hurts... but the resultant images can help heal, unless it turns out all bad!

i've learnt to be really selective with what i want to shoot mainly because i do not want to pay for sub standard photos. the $$ is too much.. haha.

currently, even the best DSLRs or digital camera the industry can offer, is of no match to my humble 35mm SLRs. i am referring to the quality. :sweatsm:

Interesting thesis & comparison, Cheesecake...

I couldn't agree more, the traditional film/slides will be forced to take the same fate as Vynil LP & Tube amplifier...They will cost much more than their digital mass produce counterparts. However, some hobbyists/amateurs will swear by them and continue to use them until the last canister of film/slide disappear from the earth.

Well, in term of quality, Digital imaging has improved in recent years and its getting much better & cheaper in each generation...Not surprising that it will surpass the quality of film/slides pretty soon...

Film/slides may someday be brought down to its knee by digital... Whether u talking about quality or quantity, digital may win hands down...But somehow this old technology, just like Vynil & tube amp, will have something tat digital wont ever have...it feels "alive" & real, full of memories...:lovegrin: ...
And digital? Well...its made up of 01010101..."What is real? How do you define real??" asked Morpheus...

 

[henavs]

(BTW, Henavs, I like your Desaru shots. Nice.)

Thx,

It was taken with Dimage 7Hi, for some reason the 7Hi produced more good photos compare to my other digicams, including E-10 & D30...

 

[Prismatic]

Personally, I'm using both digital and film. Digital for my assignments, which as become so much more convenient cos my assignments are of journalism nature. The output is simply so much faster and consistent.

However, when I'm shooting during my free time or travelling, I will always prefer to shoot on film. I still find the colours and sharpness of slides unbeatable. True, you can probably get the same thing through Photoshop, but the results wouldn't feel as real as film. I alway believe that the best photos are those that you get right during the picture-taking stage. It also speak volumes about your skill as a photographer, rather than a photo manipulator.

Definitely, the quality of digital prints and photos have gotten better these days, so much closer to film already. But I think the gap has been shortening also by the poorer quality of prints from film these days. Do you know how difficult it is to find someone who still do optical prints for film? And I don't mean prints from Fuji Frontier machines, which simply scan your film and do a dgital print.

At the end of the day, I feel I still derive the most joy from projecting my slides onto the wall. Then I can see all the prefection of my pictures in all their glorious big sizes and the imprefections too. At least I know it will be my fault and not because of some dead pixels or white balance or slow AF. ;p

 

[kiwi2]

currently, even the best DSLRs or digital camera the industry can offer, is of no match to my humble 35mm SLRs. i am referring to the quality. :sweatsm:

Which "best" DSLR did you compare or shoot with and what exactly of the quality that it can't match with 35mm SLRs? Just curious...