Originally Posted by jnanian
I shoot digital and 35mm about the same. I'd rather get as much right in the camera and edit as much in my head as I can, than have lots of bad frames to edit/sort/store later, whether film or pixels.
If my film camera has some "dead pixels" a new roll of film is less than $10
Originally Posted by hoffy
It does remind me of the old Married With Children episode when Peg bought a computer and "saved" money by purchasing more peripherals. Even if the digital quality appealed to me and I used it five times as much as film, it would still be more expensive for me in the long run.
There is also the upgrade hamster-wheel, which few have the resolve to avoid. It is good that you do, but I can't afford a digital camera with the quality I'd be satisfied with five years down the road.
Presently I'm in a similar car situation. My 2003 used car is really making me angry. For what I've put into it I could have restored two early 70s GMs that I truly wanted, met my criteria, and have fewer things to go wrong - plus I'd not have to worry about them for about a decade.
To me shooting film like digital means taking lots of sub average photos that I will not even want to look at again. To me that's not even worth taking the time to take the photo. With film I'm much better at composing, anticipating the moment and taking good photos. Photos that I will want to look at over and over again. To me that's what photography is all about.
I guess the biggest difference for me between the mediums are the viewfinders. The ones on my film cameras are bigger and brighter and it's much easier to see if the photo will work and I can compose it much better.
To give you an example, last year I went on an overseas holiday to Okinawa for 2 weeks. I took lots of random photos, 3500 of them to be exact and majority of them was total junk. I had about 40 good photos in there.
Few weeks ago I went to Nepal for 2 weeks and I took my film gear. I took all up 240 MF and 216 36mm in C41, E6 and B&W photos. Quiet large percentage is bracketing E6 photos in this group, because of difficult lighting conditions. But as a result of more thoughtful composing and thinking about every shot like it matters, I got 60 photos that I'm really happy with. Now I wish that I took my film gear to Okinawa last year, especially because of the much higher keeper rate of 13% vs 1%.
I should also mention that I had a lot more time to enjoy holiday and looking through my own eyes instead of viewfinder.
Back in the day when I was a commercial photographer burning through 120, with two assistants to load backs and no financial or logistical limit to the amount I could shoot, I didn't shoot really much more or less than I did later with digital. I might have shot a tad more with digital simply because film is so much more trustworthy with exposure, but that would be about it. I hate overshooting. It's just simply more work for the same result, or worse, a dilution of effort and subsequent sub par performance resultant from overshooting whilst under thinking. It was always the young guys who wanted 900 half baked shots. I usually got around to firing them.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
What are we actually debating here? The ability to machine gun a bunch of stuff and sort it all out later? Machine gun when it's necessary because of something happening so quickly. But to do it as standard is just bad discipline in the first place. Plenty of shots should never be taken but people do it anyway "just in case!". That mentality is flawed and reduces discipline.
Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.
If you are professionally trained or classically trained in visual art, e.g. photography, the use of digital or analogue will produce the same result with the same skills with the only difference being the means: analogue is film, digital is a mathematical interpolation of colour and space. The format (size) is a secondary consideration. There should be no waste with either method. The thought and conscious study of the subject you photograph will be carried through equally irrespective of analogue or digital. The workflow will differ: digital is a skilled, ordered discipline no less so than going to work in the darkroom and printing. I don't buy this bullshit where analogue is better than digital, or digital is better than analogue for whatever purpose. As things stand, lots of us here on APUG can stand up and say we use both means to enjoy what we are doing and that's the happy medium.
“The photographer must determine how he wants the finished print to look before he exposes the negative.
Before releasing the shutter, he must seek 'the flame of recognition,' a sense that the picture would reveal
the greater mystery of things...more clearly than the eyes see." ~Edward Weston, 1922.
When I first got started in photography, in the early 90s, I burned through hundreds of rolls of film. I bulk-loaded black and white (which I could process at school myself), and for color I shot slides, buying expired rolls of Kodachrome and Extachrome for $1 each at local camera shops. At that time my school would process E6 films as part of the course fee, so I took advantage of that and effectively had my E6 done for free. And the Kodachrome? I lucked out and found myself the proud owner of dozens of prepaid processing mailers. The point of my telling this story is that I went crazy, producing many, many bad photographs, not unlike what we often see with digital photographers. The same thing happened when I first got into digital; I found myself shooting like crazy, all the time, and often made many not-very-good images. After a few years with either medium, my quality improved and I settled down into a more contemplative approach to photography. Of course, digital does allow more "waste" but it's not necessary. I think it has more to do with the learning curve than the traits of either medium, at least that was my experience. These days, even with my cell phone camera, I rarely take more than those shots that really get my attention, and I post almost nothing online.
A real concern for me is that the costs of shooting color slides has more than doubled during the last three years. A five pack of Astia did cost 16 Euro in 2010. Today, there is no Astia anymore and a pack of Provia 100F or 400X does cost around 30 Euro. In 2010 my lab took me 1,59 Euro to process a roll of 120, today they charge me 3 Euro. The result is that I shoot less slide film and think more carefully about what I shoot and how much film I use.
I don´t own a digital camera myself but every now and then people hand me their compact to take a picture. I made the experience that I tend to frame and focus more carefully with digital, like I would do it with film. This usually leads to less wasted shots. So I think using film and especially medium format has improved the way I take pictures in general, regardless of the medium.
I hate overshooting too.
Originally Posted by JBrunner
Came to the realization that regardless of how many shots I shoot there are only so many places to put the prints I make.
Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin