Sick of Digital, Going back to Film?


Status
Not open for further replies.
Nov 21, 2002
166
0
0
Visit site
#1
Alright,

Who's with me here? Right now, I'm getting quite sick of the never-ending advances in digital photography. Comes to a point when you start asking yourself if digital is "getting there" yet. It seems that when everyone is saying that digital is on par with film cameras, some new digital model comes out which beats the rest of the models in the market. :dunno:

ANd the costs in keeping up with digital technology! wah biang eh.... :bheart:

I'm sure film cameras are still the best. What with "modern tech" in scanning, I'm sure the workflow will not change much.

I'm 80% sure I wanna go back to film. Anyone with me?
 

xmen2003

New Member
Mar 23, 2003
463
0
0
Singapore
Visit site
#2
Why do you have to keep up with digital technology? If the digital camera is serving you well, there is no need to upgrade in the first place.
 

gtsoh

New Member
Jan 28, 2004
74
0
0
#3
Eventually that will happen. Digital allows newcomers to learn quickly (and old users to experiment ) because of its instant review and other technical advancements. But people will migrate back to film sometime down the road. There will, at the end of the day, two roads- the digi and film- running side by side and IMHO it need not be mutaully exclusive. My belief is that there is room for both. Put it this way - with digi, many people will take up photography and will make great improvements. They will one day try out film (and its technology will not be at a standstill) and will also get hook.

Look at the watch industry's Quartz v Mechanical > both got a place in the watch world. Nobody ever said that quartz will replace mechcanical movement anymore. [As an old timer, this was something we hear ever so often 30 years ago].

Cheers
 

Nov 21, 2002
166
0
0
Visit site
#4
The post-editing for digital is very time consuming. White balance is always a problem.
 

gadrian

New Member
May 24, 2003
1,242
0
0
42
Singapore
www.snauzzer.com
#5
engineermunn said:
The post-editing for digital is very time consuming. White balance is always a problem.
yes do agree on that.. I still have over 3K images not process from the last 4 days..

But i feel that the post-editing process has actually given me more control of my output..

By being somewhat conscious of your shooting situation.. white balance can be easily tweaked on the spot..
 

Apr 19, 2003
349
0
0
www.jinyinmo.com
#6
Always been with film.

I just find digital useful for those clients who want _instant_ results. What's worse... I have to borrow a digital camera for just this type of folks. :D
 

Nov 21, 2002
166
0
0
Visit site
#7
The very nature of the "convenience" factor in digital photography -- freedom to keep snapping w/o waste in film is in itself a disadvantage.

Once all the trigger-happy shooting is complete, the problems come from the uploading process onwards.

photshop edit, white balance, clean off blemishes, etc.... can be quite shack if doing a wedding or an event that is photo-intensive.

For film, you're forced to compose. Post process just have to send for developing and scanning into CD. Post editing only if necesasry.
 

coke21

New Member
May 12, 2003
706
0
0
42
East
Visit site
#8
engineermunn said:
The very nature of the "convenience" factor in digital photography -- freedom to keep snapping w/o waste in film is in itself a disadvantage.

Once all the trigger-happy shooting is complete, the problems come from the uploading process onwards.

photshop edit, white balance, clean off blemishes, etc.... can be quite shack if doing a wedding or an event that is photo-intensive.

For film, you're forced to compose. Post process just have to send for developing and scanning into CD. Post editing only if necesasry.
What if you took the time to compose etc before snapping when using a DSLR? Sounds to me more like the photographer is ill disciplined rather then the "disadvantage" of a DSLR itself...
 

whoelse

Senior Member
Oct 17, 2003
1,227
0
36
#9
I step back even more. I'm using manual slr even though I have quite a complete EOS system which I like a lot. I'm now enjoying the fun of a Pentax KX fully manual camera + couple of manual lens. Maybe I will look for some even older slr that has more character since I find using gear that are outdated and still able to produce is fun :-D

I feel enjoyed, playing kinda mood. Advance camera make me feel like I'm working and everyone out there shooting have something similar handing on their neck. When I play, which is most of the time, I use classic vintage slr. Need something fast and shoot more -> my more advance EOS.

Why there are machine gun today and handgun or rifle still have it's application? Cos, although they all can kill, the application is different. Cant give all NSmen a short auto-machine gun to charge jungle right? Can't give a M16 to police patroling on street right? Otherwise, before police came, the robber will know cos they can see police with hugh M16 and although machine-gun can sweep, probably the soldiers will die of back breaking carring the ammonition :D and no longer know how to shoot precisely with M16.

Then again, use what u like and enjoy of it's you who enjoy and not others. If someone can only produce with state-of-the-art gears then he should have his skill seriously access himself :)

Why I not shooting digital? Cos for my personality it's not fun. I like junk gears :D

Shoot more and never forget to ask ourself, what have we produce lately. Are we having more gears and yet produce nothing but talking?

Just casual remarks lah, not saying anyone :-D
 

kcky

New Member
Jan 29, 2004
74
0
0
44
Sembawang
#10
I find that shooting digital tends to make me lazy, always knowing that I can erase the previous shots and re-shoot. The only limit in this case is your camera battery! :bsmilie:
Furthermore, I agree that post-production work on your shots is a nightmare if you intend to print your results. Plus spending more money on good printers, PC RAMs, hard-disk, etc. :cry:

At least with film, I find that I have to do it slowly and can't be trigger happy. You have to think and compose each shot and overally, I get more satisifed looking at the prints from the lab. Besides, each 4R print is approx 0.30 to $0.40 and you can enlarge that special shot or two. Pretty much hassle-free other than finding a good lab that you can trust.

Both styles have their pros & cons and each guides you to photography enlightenment in different manners... :sweatsm:

BTW, I use both 35mm and MF films but also have a little Canon G3 (small in size when compared to the other bodies :embrass: ), which I love to use it for candid shots. :bsmilie:
 

nightpiper

Senior Member
Oct 20, 2003
2,152
0
0
#11
i m still using film. but can't deny that i will be 'digitized'along the way. the only problem i had with film is storage. i still like film & the colour & look can't be forgotten. remember ekta25, kodachrome 64, fuji proivia & velvia? go shoot a roll & see if it brings back memories. :)
 

whoelse

Senior Member
Oct 17, 2003
1,227
0
36
#12
i shoot film and have the lab scan to cd. See them on screen, those i dunlike throw inside a air tight box wif silicon. Cut out for those I like, accumulate enuf and send to print 4R. My small dry box can store so many pile of film :D

Save cost in not printing all those junk shots too and no need to store them. Ofcos, my method lah.

Total cost? Film $3.00, develop $3.00, scan cdr $2.50 total $8.50 cheap cheap.
 

ST1100

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2003
1,785
0
0
Singapore, Bedok
#13
Hey, you've got to be fair about this: film is complicated too.

Different brands of film, different speeds with different grain size (inconsistent btw manufacturers and product lines), different reponse curves to colour saturation - vivid, natural, what-not; reciprocity failure (and diff for each brand/speed/type, and for each colour channel!), different skin tones on diff film, etc etc etc. And when you bring in BW film, the processing, timing, chemicals, etc all get thrown in, along with the traditional printing process.

i used to shoot film, got a little overwhelmed by so many types. i eventually settled down to one or two favourite types, telling myself i would try a new type every few months just to experiment. Thankfully, digital came along before i got very far in my experiment. Phew. :D (And it didn't help that new films were still being introduced now and then.)



engineermunn said:
Alright,

Who's with me here? Right now, I'm getting quite sick of the never-ending advances in digital photography. Comes to a point when you start asking yourself if digital is "getting there" yet. It seems that when everyone is saying that digital is on par with film cameras, some new digital model comes out which beats the rest of the models in the market. :dunno:

ANd the costs in keeping up with digital technology! wah biang eh.... :bheart:

I'm sure film cameras are still the best. What with "modern tech" in scanning, I'm sure the workflow will not change much.

I'm 80% sure I wanna go back to film. Anyone with me?
 

nightpiper

Senior Member
Oct 20, 2003
2,152
0
0
#14
i find the complex part of film is also the beauty of it. look at slides under a light box & the image seems to spring out, like 3D. magnify it with a loupe & u get to see alot of details. of cos plpe can argue that its eye straining & cost alot more to make into prints, but the image qualities film holds is just too amazing. the best part is, u can buy different brands & model with the same 'white balance' colour temperature but the results all look so different. its really magical to a certain extend. well at least to me... :) any film user feel the same?
 

jbma

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2003
3,287
0
0
Tampines
#15
I was from film and now gone digital. However I still keep my old trusty Canon manual camera. All that said and done....I love digital and have no intention of going back to full film. Just because I shoot digital doesn't mean that I machine gun my shots. On the contrary, with my experience in film I have this habit of getting the right fstop, shutter speed, lightings etc before I shoot. Old habit die hard. Wheather digital or film it takes skill to get a good shot. So basically it's the man behind the lens that counts...not the camera. And please do not force yourself to upgrade just because a new model with new features has just been released. You don't buy a car and then buy a new one just because a new model is released, do you? You need passion for photography not the technology.
 

showtime

New Member
May 2, 2003
984
0
0
39
Singapore
Visit site
#16
engineermunn said:
The very nature of the "convenience" factor in digital photography -- freedom to keep snapping w/o waste in film is in itself a disadvantage.

Once all the trigger-happy shooting is complete, the problems come from the uploading process onwards.

photshop edit, white balance, clean off blemishes, etc.... can be quite shack if doing a wedding or an event that is photo-intensive.

For film, you're forced to compose. Post process just have to send for developing and scanning into CD. Post editing only if necesasry.
ok since its so troublesome, dont do any post production. dont clean off the blemishes, take things straight form the camera... so thats equivlent to film.

or do you mean to say you want the lab to color correct everyting for you?
 

AJ23

Senior Member
Jun 12, 2003
12,716
0
0
101
Town of Queens doing PORT-9YOU
#17
If can shoot it correctly at that instant, why bother about post-processing? :)

"Technology is here to assist, no to enslave. Abuse the technology and it will bound to haunt you."
 

#18
coke21 said:
What if you took the time to compose etc before snapping when using a DSLR? Sounds to me more like the photographer is ill disciplined rather then the "disadvantage" of a DSLR itself...

Sadly for our dear thread-starter.. I have to agree with this point... :)
 

Dennis

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2002
3,881
0
0
Singapore
8dennis8.fotki.com
#19
I for one think that digital will replace film (Analogy of a quartz and mechanical watch do not work here), Film may be good but digital gives better self control over final image and that is key. The reason why film is still around is probably some still have a film body and the misconception that digital cannot match film resolution. Look at what all the manufacturer are producing these days, DSLR at budget price and I expect it to further improve on it. They are not producing film camera anymore and in time to come everyone will be forced to switch weather you like it or not. Pro are also switching to digital, just take a look at medium format, the slowest to change because of technology limitations. There are more and more digital backs like Phase One, Leaf, Sinar, Kodak etc for them now. All in all the advantage of digital outweights the advantage of film.
 

nightpiper

Senior Member
Oct 20, 2003
2,152
0
0
#20
Dennis said:
I for one think that digital will replace film (Analogy of a quartz and mechanical watch do not work here), Film may be good but digital gives better self control over final image and that is key. The reason why film is still around is probably some still have a film body and the misconception that digital cannot match film resolution. Look at what all the manufacturer are producing these days, DSLR at budget price and I expect it to further improve on it. They are not producing film camera anymore and in time to come everyone will be forced to switch weather you like it or not. Pro are also switching to digital, just take a look at medium format, the slowest to change because of technology limitations. There are more and more digital backs like Phase One, Leaf, Sinar, Kodak etc for them now. All in all the advantage of digital outweights the advantage of film.

how about vinyl records vs cd? no doubt cd is accepted in the vast majority, but LP didn't die. if u care to take 5mins & listen to a properly setup vinyl system, u will realise that LP still has some sparkles. technically, the 6MP on DSLR still can't match film, but in practice, that 6MP is above our acceptance threshold. that's what make plpe think that its better than film. why not try using a 6MP image file & blow it up to 16x20? u will see that 35mm film produces a much more pleasent & forgiving look. sure, u can use a 22MP m.format to do it but at what cost?

i must agree that as time goes by, film user will be force to migrate to the digital camp, myself included. but at the mean time, let those who miss film enjoy its last glorious moments. :)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom