| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/28/2004 05:55:41 PM · #1 |
Hello.
I have a question for those of you who still shoot film. If you're on this site, you obviously shoot digital as well. My question is, when do you shoot film and when do you shoot digital? How do you decide? After trying various styles, I've come to the conclusion that "studio" work is not for me. I like traveling and beign outside, interacting with the locals. So, I've come to the conclusion that my favorite "discipline", to call it something, is more or less photojournalism. I've never shot film, with the execption of regular family snapshots a long time ago, so I don't have any experience with it. Since most photojournalists I've read about still use film, I figure I'd better shoot some film too if I ever expect to get into it for real. I just thought I could an answer to the previously stated questions. Thank in advance for your help.
June
|
|
|
|
07/28/2004 05:58:14 PM · #2 |
I only shoot film when I need a 35mm slide for some reason. Other times I shoot film are when I'm playing with old cameras.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2004 06:00:42 PM · #3 |
| I use my Praktica when I can't persuade Kavey to give me the Nikon :-) |
|
|
|
07/28/2004 06:06:44 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by chiqui74:
Since most photojournalists I've read about still use film, I figure I'd better shoot some film too if I ever expect to get into it for real. |
What would make you say that? Almost all news organization are completely digital these days, primarily so that photographers in the field can send images almost immediately instead of waiting for delivery of film via courier, then waiting to have it developed, then squinting at slides on a lightbox, etc...
I realize this is sports related, but you can read about SI's digital workflow here, I'm fairly certain most news organizations operate similarly.
Message edited by author 2004-07-28 18:09:20. |
|
|
|
07/28/2004 06:07:39 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I only shoot film when I need a 35mm slide for some reason. Other times I shoot film are when I'm playing with old cameras. |
So, if you went on a trip to say...Africa...would you bring a film as well as a digital camera? Also, living in the barracks I have no room for a darkroom even if I knew what the hell I was doing, do you trust others to correctly develope your film?
June
|
|
|
|
08/07/2004 02:10:50 AM · #6 |
|
|
|
08/07/2004 02:17:48 AM · #7 |
I'd say almost all photojournalism is digital these days, it's much easier to process and most digitals have more than enough resolution for newsprint.
For portraiture, landscape, and some magazine photos, most of the phtographers are using medium or large format film (I belive a 6x4.5cm negative is equivalent to around 63megapixels, although they are now selling medium format backs for $10-$30 grand).
Personally, I shoot medium format on occasion using a Mamiya 645 as well as 35mm using my Zenit EM. But for all practical purposes I stick with digital. :) |
|
|
|
08/07/2004 05:30:02 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by chiqui74:
So, if you went on a trip to say...Africa... |
As long as I can get my batteries recharged (plug, car, solar, whatever) I'd prefer digital in Africa. No lugging around film that doesn't like heat, no trouble getting film trough airport security, no changing rolls after every 36 exposures (and you want to bracket exposures, that's 12 shots per roll! And you'll shoot a lot.)
The best use for film imho is for situations where your digital can't handle the dynamic range of the scene or is incapable of resolving the wanted detail.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2004 05:37:41 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by chiqui74:
[quote=jmsetzler]
So, if you went on a trip to say...Africa...would you bring a film as well as a digital camera? Also, living in the barracks I have no room for a darkroom even if I knew what the hell I was doing, do you trust others to correctly develope your film?
June |
I would shoot digital unless I had a specific requirement for film. Color film processing (C-41 and E-6) are not hand crafts anymore. Most major film labs process this stuff automatically. There is very little variation in the processing because of this. The only concern is that you choose a film lab that maintains their equipment and keeps the chemicals in the processor clean.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2004 07:12:07 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by chiqui74:
So, if you went on a trip to say...Africa... |
We bought the D70 specifically to go to Africa, because frankly the savings on development cost paid for it. Battery life wasn't an issue because the battery on a D70 is just awesome (changed 4 times, I think, in a two-month trip).
That said, we also had two film bodies and a stack of film for backup. |
|
|
|
08/07/2004 09:03:35 AM · #11 |
| I shoot film when it's raining, and don't want a digital camera to get wet. I also use film as a backup, which isn't too frequent. Very handy when my FZ10 was being repaired though. |
|
|
|
08/07/2004 10:05:47 AM · #12 |
Check out this good article on a photojournalist in Iraq, he shoots all digital. I read somewhere that Nat Geo is one of the few places to have their photographers shoot film, allthough one photographer recently shot an assignment digitally for them.
//www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6456-7033
//www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6450-6561 |
|
|
|
08/07/2004 10:21:15 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by chiqui74:
Hello.
I have a question for those of you who still shoot film. If you're on this site, you obviously shoot digital as well. My question is, when do you shoot film and when do you shoot digital? How do you decide? After trying various styles, I've come to the conclusion that "studio" work is not for me. I like traveling and beign outside, interacting with the locals. So, I've come to the conclusion that my favorite "discipline", to call it something, is more or less photojournalism. I've never shot film, with the execption of regular family snapshots a long time ago, so I don't have any experience with it. Since most photojournalists I've read about still use film, I figure I'd better shoot some film too if I ever expect to get into it for real. I just thought I could an answer to the previously stated questions. Thank in advance for your help.
June |
Well, I have a lot of film photography experience, but I shoot >90% digital. Mostly because I sold most of my film cameras to buy digital, partly because I can't afford to build a darkroom in the house to do B&W. If you get a chance, you should experiment with a roll or 2 of film.
Sounds like what your shooting could be called more "street photography" and not really journalism (I could be wrong). In street photography, film is still popular, mostly because there is still no digital equivalent to the classic Leica. (Yes, I know, Leica makes a digicam.)
Most journalism IS done with digital. This is mostly because it's now possible to get images from the most remote areas of the world back to the home office in a matter of minutes via satellite communication and not days like it used to be with film.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2004 10:28:31 AM · #14 |
I shoot film occasionally because:
I can get a decent wide angle result at an affordable price.
I can get decent black and whites with a much higher tonal differentiation than is possible with digital.
I can shoot with IR film without having ridiculously long exposures.
I like the discipline of not being able to see the results immediately and the emotional seperation that the developing time gives me when I look at the end results. I can evaluate the frames more dispassionately
I like the discipline of not having a histogram as a crutch to verify exposure - often I don't use the built in meter either.
I like the discipline of only having a few frames.
I want to be able to do enlargements beyond what is possible with digital in an affordable way.
I'm interested in doing my own developing and printing.
These are just some of the reasons I occasionally prefer film over digital. Some I think help improve my photography by forcing me in to different modes of operation - the things I learn there translate back well to digital shooting too. In other cases, I shoot film for the areas where it is superior than digital in its current form, at an affordable price point. |
|
|
|
08/07/2004 10:58:45 AM · #15 |
I've been shooting a little more film than digital lately, and I think the digital equipmen one owns can play a factor.
For instance, with film I have the option of shooting 3200 ISO while my digital camera can get nowhere near that speed, since I don't own a digital SLR camera that allows this.
In a similar point as Gordon's, I have a prime 200m lens that lets me get much closer than my digital camera can. (again, no SLR)
I don't have an expensive black and white printing system that allows me to take the kind of black and white shots that I have gotten with film. Its had to explain, but when you the creamy tones on a print you made on something like Ilford's satin paper with an ISO 50 film, there's just no comparison with anything I printed from my Olympus 3030Z. And film of course has more lattitude - can capture that greater tonal differentiation that Gordon spoke of.
That said, working in a darkroom is enjoyable, but still tiring for me, I like being able to edit my work the way Photoshop affords me, digital is still alive and well with me, especially when the shot needs to be in color.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2004 11:14:59 AM · #16 |
After shooting 35mm for two years with my Rebel and getting proofs from a minilab, I'd spent more money developing a thousand junk prints than I would have on a 300D. I don't have the time or space to do my own developing, so I've gone pure digital.
I tried a film scanner, which was cheaper than getting prints done from my fixed negatives, but the final digital print quality was too low and my negatives were getting destroyed from handling.
I'm very satisfied with the color digital prints I get from DPCP and being able to put my photos into an online portfolio for the world to see in a matter of hours while correcting small mistakes that would ruin a film print is more than liberating creatively.
Slightly upsampled, I can get huge prints from my 300D with better quality than I found with 35mm.
Message edited by author 2004-08-07 11:17:07.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2004 11:51:37 AM · #17 |
Juneisy,
1st let me say thank you for your service.
Last fall I converted from film to digital. I do not believe that I would have appreciated my D70 as much, if I hadn't spent so many years with film. I prefer "travel" photography, whether to the loacl market or overseas. It is the "journey" that I like to capture. A story written with pictures.
I believe that there are benefits to each. Film does allow for a greater "megapixel" rate. However, up to 11x17's it doesn't matter. Digital requires hours of "editing" which one typically does not have with film. If you enjoy editing, then shoot digital. If you simply want to generate photo albums, then film is easier IMO. My dark room work stopped in High School, so that is not in either of my equations.
I have 2 film bodies and 1 digital. Lenses fit both. Have taken less than a roll of film since last fall. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/13/2025 07:23:25 AM EDT.
