The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Personal thoughts on Film vs Digital

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I've no use for film
But I have. Food for thought:
I used an Olympus OM-1 as my main camera body for 30 years, and a few OM-10 bodies for backup plus an OM-2S where the electronics failed after a couple of years. Although I was tempted buy other cameras along the way, I never felt that they would represent a major improvement of my photography. So I didn't upgrade until 2003, when I bought a used OM-3. There was no change in image quality from the OM-1 to the OM-3, but metering was better and the OM-1 was broken.

Since I converted to digital 12 years ago, I've had Fuji S3 and S5, Nikon D80, D300, D2Xs, D700 and D810, Olympus E-1 and E-M1, and Panasonic L1, GH1, GH2, GH3, GM5 and GX8. Technical image quality and feature set have improved more or less for each model. But if my Fuji bodies were good enough 10 years ago, why aren't they good enough anymore? I see to my horror that my favourite activity has turned into consumerism of the worst kind. That never was the aim of my photography, and it's scary that this happens in spite of me being well beyond my teens. I've always believed that people slow down as they are getting older. Apparently we aren't.

After I converted to digital, I've owned a Contax RX and a Nikon F6, both of them great cameras and both of them with better ergonomics than any digital camera that I have used. The Contax unfortunately won't power on anymore, but the F6 works like a charm. I also have a new-in-box Nikon F80 that I paid less than $100 for. The Nikon bodies will probably be good for many years, and no upgrade will improve on their image quality. I also have all my Olympus gear still.

After the dawn of digital photography, several new film types have entered the market. In addition, older films are being upgraded and renewed. A good example is Kodak Portra that was launched as late as 1998, and upgraded in 2006, 2010 and 2011. After having tried Portra 400 for the first time, and had it processed at a good lab, I've started wondering why I mainly use digital cameras. For some kinds of photography, digital vastly superior, particularly when a large number of exposures are needed or high ISO is unavoidable. But I rarely need a large number of exposures, and even when shooting night scenes, I'm mostly comfortable with ISO 800. That's what large aperture lenses are for.

With film, the latest sensor technology is included with every purchase.

So I've ordered more film and will, at least for a while, shoot digital only when it's needed for practical reasons. Will it be more expensive to mostly shoot film? Possibly, but I'm not sure. If it is, that's a luxury that I'm willing to pay for. Just having to wait a few days or a week for my photos will make it worthwhile.

One more thing: I keep hearing that digital photography is good because it makes things simpler. To start with, I don't need simpler, I need to develop my skills. Secondly, as cameras get increasingly advanced, they get more complicated and more difficult to utilize fully. Even the very advanced F6 is kid's play compared to most amateur digital cameras. I don't want to spend time figuring out how my camera works. I want to spend time taking photos and again: to improve my skills.
 

jdphoto

Well-known member
Great points.
For me, the intrinsic value of film as an art form is what inspires me to shoot it. Digital is convenience...
Digital has made many things more convenient, but at the same time desensitized and diluted us.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
...
One more thing: I keep hearing that digital photography is good because it makes things simpler. To start with, I don't need simpler, I need to develop my skills. Secondly, as cameras get increasingly advanced, they get more complicated and more difficult to utilize fully. Even the very advanced F6 is kid's play compared to most amateur digital cameras. I don't want to spend time figuring out how my camera works. I want to spend time taking photos and again: to improve my skills.
I don't know where you keep hearing that. Everyone I talk to in my photo workshop tells me that they find digital photography is much more complicated. Eh?! :D

I now have just two digital cameras: the Leica SL and the Leica M-D typ 262. They are antipodes in the digital world. The SL is an ultra-modern, do-almost-anything camera with bunches of features including motion capture. The M-D is the purest digital expression of the Leica M: it has almost no features at all beyond what a film Leica M7 has, that is, a meter, film advance, focus, aperture, shutter speed settings, and aperture priority AE (the M-D has a continuous drive mode as well; I've never used it). Both of them are simple to use in their own context, and both of them can be as complicated to produce a master photograph as any rendering process might be, regardless of being film or digital capture.

G

"Cameras make exposures. Photographers make photographs."
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I don't know where you keep hearing that. Everyone I talk to in my photo workshop tells me that they find digital photography is much more complicated. Eh?! :D

I now have just two digital cameras: the Leica SL and the Leica M-D typ 262. They are antipodes in the digital world. The SL is an ultra-modern, do-almost-anything camera with bunches of features including motion capture. The M-D is the purest digital expression of the Leica M: it has almost no features at all beyond what a film Leica M7 has, that is, a meter, film advance, focus, aperture, shutter speed settings, and aperture priority AE (the M-D has a continuous drive mode as well; I've never used it). Both of them are simple to use in their own context, and both of them can be as complicated to produce a master photograph as any rendering process might be, regardless of being film or digital capture.

G

"Cameras make exposures. Photographers make photographs."
I wouldn't mind having an M-D, but it's way beyond my budget, as are the lenses for it. Also, I do prefer SLR cameras, mostly because that is what I've been using for the last 40+ years. It's an interesting paradox that this simplistic camera is so expensive, while a few hundred dollars will buy you a camera that has more features than any average photographer will ever bother to figure out, even less use.

But also Leica is a passenger on the upgrade carousel. If we count all models, there have been 16 M film bodies in 60 years, but 12 M digital bodies in only 10 (according to Wikipedia).

It's important to remember also that most camera manufacturers don't really have a choice when it comes to upgrade cycles. During the initial phase of digital cameras, they increased production and thereby also production capacity to figures that were unheard of when products stayed in the market for 10 years or more. Longer product cycles today would mean downsizing, something few companies would consider. To be able to sell the new products, innovation and new features are needed. If it makes photography better is really irrelevant to the company as long as the customers can be sold on the idea that it's progress.

Of the photos that I sell, most are taken with 5-12 MP cameras with lousy high ISO. One of the top sellers is taken at night in 2004 with a Canon A95 point and shoot. My GX8 takes excellent 4K video, but the TV at my home is HD 720, and I've never even considered the fact that it should in any way inferior to my needs. Most of the DVDs on the market in this part of the world is 720 anyway. I'm not sure what I need 4K for. The F6 solves that dilemma of course.

Lately, I've been looking at portfolios of photographers who have returned to film, and some who never left it behind. Interestingly, many wedding photographers have done that, but also some concert and portrait photographers. Most of the portfolios are rather impressive. Although some of them have a distinct "film signature", film is obviously not the reason for the high quality, it's always the photographer. It's interesting then that a number of very skilled photographers seem to prefer film as a media over digital.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
What I really miss about film, except for the variety of camera types, is the variety of formats. Digital is kind of dull with just 3:2 and 4:3.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I'm all for nostalgia but one thing that the M-D definitely doesn't have is film advance!! :facesmack:
Um, it doesn't need a "film advance" since it doesn't use film. It has motorized shutter cocking, if that's what you mean. Okay, it's the equivalent of an M7 plus Winder. :toocool:

G
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
What I really miss about film, except for the variety of camera types, is the variety of formats. Digital is kind of dull with just 3:2 and 4:3.
In one way, that's natural. Electronics are only cheap when produced in large numbers. On the other hand, I'm quite sure that it's possible to design production systems that make imaging chips in all kinds of shapes and sizes. It probably wouldn't be as profitable, since there's a limit as to how much photographers would be willing to pay for a digital Xpan or square Anycamera, but clearly possible.

Luckily, most odd formats can still be had... on film :D
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
What I really miss about film, except for the variety of camera types, is the variety of formats. Digital is kind of dull with just 3:2 and 4:3.
That statement presumes that you always and only shoot full sensor frame format, constraining yourself to the proportions of the original media.

I capture and produce photographs in 3:2, 4:2, 2:1, 1:1, 16:9, 16:10, and any other format that makes sense for the work I'm doing. Just like when I used 35mm film and 120 6x6 cameras I printed 11x15, 10x15, 5x7, 4x6, 9x9, and other print formats. This IS much easier to do with digital cameras than it ever was with film cameras, but it's a small point.

G
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
That statement presumes that you always and only shoot full sensor frame format, constraining yourself to the proportions of the original media.

I capture and produce photographs in 3:2, 4:2, 2:1, 1:1, 16:9, 16:10, and any other format that makes sense for the work I'm doing. Just like when I used 35mm film and 120 6x6 cameras I printed 11x15, 10x15, 5x7, 4x6, 9x9, and other print formats. This IS much easier to do with digital cameras than it ever was with film cameras, but it's a small point.

G
It's not the same, Godfrey. Composing a photo in a camera is photography. Doing it on a computer afterwards is graphic design. That's what I used to do for a living.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
...
But also Leica is a passenger on the upgrade carousel. If we count all models, there have been 16 M film bodies in 60 years, but 12 M digital bodies in only 10 (according to Wikipedia).
...
An interesting if somewhat misleading statement. The digital Ms have been:

M8, with two minor variations
M9, with three minor and one major variation (M9-P, M9 Titanium, M-E; MM)
M typ 240, with one minor and one major variation (M-P; M246)
M typ 262, with one minor variation (M, M-D)
M10

Variations like this existed throughout the M3, M2, M1, M4, M5, M4-2, M4-P, M6, M7, MP, M-A film camera production runs. For example, the debate over which is more desirable: M3 single stroke or double stroke? M2 in black enamel or chrome? M6 or M6TTL? etc.

Such variations cater to market desires for things that differentiate one camera from another. A piece of sapphire glass does not constitute a wholly new camera, nor does adding a bit of buffer space.

With the digital Ms, the reason for the relatively fast cycling of models has been the speed at which the underlying imaging technology improved whereas with the film Ms, many small, incremental, year to year differences were incorporated (and ballyhooed in the annual press releases...) without people taking much notice until they started looking at the parts books.

The same thing is true for Nikons, Olympus, and other cameras. I recall a period of time when Rollei had four different TLR models on the market, each of them MOSTLY the same but with small differentiations the translated to a price point differing by as little as $25. It mattered , then...

Just counting base models distributed over time doesn't tell you very much.

And just saying that a lot of fine photographers seem to like film is kinda like saying "Carl Sagan liked astronomy and mathematics." It doesn't mean anything useful from which to draw a conclusion.

G
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
In one way, that's natural. Electronics are only cheap when produced in large numbers. On the other hand, I'm quite sure that it's possible to design production systems that make imaging chips in all kinds of shapes and sizes. It probably wouldn't be as profitable, since there's a limit as to how much photographers would be willing to pay for a digital Xpan or square Anycamera, but clearly possible.

Luckily, most odd formats can still be had... on film :D
But maybe this is exactly the point. Look at the "newest, greatest" D850. It's a fine camera indeed, but when reading the marketing hype, one is lead to believe that a grand, new concept of photography has been invented. However, slightly more megapixels, somewhat better high ISO performance, a viewfinder that is a few percent larger and a tiltable LCD that is almost as good as the fully articulated one that I had on my Canon p&s in 2004 don't make for a photographic revolution. In addition, the large and rather expensive CF cards that were needed for the predecessor, the 3 year older D810, won't even fit with the new camera. The vertical grip from the D810 can't be used either, even though the two cameras are more or less the same size.

Shouldn't I still be happy that Nikon launches a new and better camera? Yeah, it's fine. But where's the innovation? Where's all the innovative stuff we had with film and the other stuff that electronics would allow? Where's the stitched 90 MP panorama sensor a la Xpan? Where's the hybrid viewfinder? Where's the barebones camera that takes up the heritage of the FM, something Leica manages to do with the M-D? Leica can, apparently. Is it because it's only possible on a small scale? In that case, something has changed. Nikon made the F4 and the FM at the same time, and it didn't seem like a problem then. Maybe it didn't even start with digital sensors, but with electronic cameras, like the Canon EOS, that took Canon to a concept that was, and still is, uniform across the range.

But I'm off topic. Yes, I would have liked to have different sensor sizes and shapes, like we had and still have with film. I'm quite sure that the reason why we don't get it is purely financial. It won't be as profitable as churning out more of the same and then more of the same but with a different label and some tiny changes that make accessories incompatible. 35mm film with four perforations per frame became a standard in 1909 and became legendary for stills with Oskar Barnack in 1925. That's 92 years ago, and it's still dominating the film market. For digital, there are an abundance of card shapes, sizes and standards, and there's no end in sight. Progress? For who? Yes, it's very impressive that we can get 400GB of data into a 0.25g Micro SD card, particularly for someone who worked in the computer industry during the seventies. But that doesn't really cut it compared to a standard that has been consistently and continuously improved for 108 years, and in spite of having been declared dead repeatedly, is still thriving and improving.

I just ordered some more film :D
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
But maybe this is exactly the point. Look at the "newest, greatest" D850. It's a fine camera indeed, but when reading the marketing hype, one is lead to believe that a grand, new concept of photography has been invented. ...
And you read, and want to believe, "marketing hype"? Sheesh. If you don't, then why bring it up? Making a case against something based on self-described "marketing hype" is a contradiction. It's just hype designed to gull the gullible.

Marketing hype is noise and stupidity. I ignore it completely.

G
 

atanabe

Member
...Film requires patience, contemplation and theory. Something I just don't get from digital, so for me, there is no comparison, but I wish my darkroom skills were better!
Purposeful, is a word to describe film photography. There are 36 frames for 35 mm, each one has to count, no spray and pray for 100 frames hoping that one will be "the" one. Film photography required the photographer to master technique before mastering vision. It had a finite dynamic range, a finite ISO and no instant feedback, you just had to "feel it in your gut" that you got everything right. If you shot transparency film, when you presented it to your client, it had to be perfectly exposed, perfect color balance and free of any dust or extraneous objects on the set. Failing that, you may not see that client again. If you shot for a slide show presentation, each frame had to be composed to fit your subject, no cropping after the fact. So before you pressed the shutter, each mm of the frame was scanned, exposure checked numerous times on the highlights and shadows with mental calculations to make sure that the film will be capable of handling the dynamic range.

With digital, cameras today AF, Auto ISO, high dynamic range of the sensors and instant feedback can make a photographer lazy if they choose. You can fix it later, crop, color correct, increase the dynamic range all after the fact. Or you can be purposeful in your technique and wait for the light, compose with the intent of not cropping making every pixel count.

In the 70's there was an explosion of interest in photography, but only the ones who mastered technique survived. Today, everyone can take a technically perfect photo and now creative ability is what separates the photographers.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Purposeful, is a word to describe film photography. There are 36 frames for 35 mm, each one has to count, no spray and pray for 100 frames hoping that one will be "the" one. Film photography required the photographer to master technique before mastering vision. It had a finite dynamic range, a finite ISO and no instant feedback, you just had to "feel it in your gut" that you got everything right. If you shot transparency film, when you presented it to your client, it had to be perfectly exposed, perfect color balance and free of any dust or extraneous objects on the set. Failing that, you may not see that client again. If you shot for a slide show presentation, each frame had to be composed to fit your subject, no cropping after the fact. So before you pressed the shutter, each mm of the frame was scanned, exposure checked numerous times on the highlights and shadows with mental calculations to make sure that the film will be capable of handling the dynamic range.
...
Every single thing you say here can be said for digital capture just as well, except for the limitation on frames for a single load of recording media. Big f**king deal.

G
 

atanabe

Member
Every single thing you say here can be said for digital capture just as well, except for the limitation on frames for a single load of recording media. Big f**king deal.

G
Try shooting a motocross race with a Nikon F with Ektachrome 64 ISO side by side with say a Nikon D5, better yet give a five minute instruction to a kid who has never handled a camera. Set the D5 to P mode, AFc will you get a technically acceptable shot? Same exercise with the Nikon F what do you think the results will be?
Digital has opened the age of technically perfect photos with little need for formal technical training. You can shoot till your cards are full and edit the thousands of photos at your computer later and correct those mistakes. There is no chimping with film, you won't know if you got it right until after the film has processed. You could go an entire day of shooting only to find out that the aperture of the lens was not stopping down or the shutter took a crap and only find out after the film came back. If you shot Ektachrome at 1/2000th of a second, how much do you compensate for reciprocity? Or go the other way to long exposures, what will the color shift be? You have daylight film loaded, you are shooting in the shade, under an oak tree next to a red wall, how much filtration to add to balance the light? All of those concerns are gone, absent, non existent with digital.

Can you be purposeful with digital, yes, but it is not a requirement.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Try shooting a motocross race with a Nikon F with Ektachrome 64 ISO side by side with say a Nikon D5, better yet give a five minute instruction to a kid who has never handled a camera. Set the D5 to P mode, AFc will you get a technically acceptable shot? Same exercise with the Nikon F what do you think the results will be?
Digital has opened the age of technically perfect photos with little need for formal technical training. You can shoot till your cards are full and edit the thousands of photos at your computer later and correct those mistakes. There is no chimping with film, you won't know if you got it right until after the film has processed. You could go an entire day of shooting only to find out that the aperture of the lens was not stopping down or the shutter took a crap and only find out after the film came back. If you shot Ektachrome at 1/2000th of a second, how much do you compensate for reciprocity? Or go the other way to long exposures, what will the color shift be? You have daylight film loaded, you are shooting in the shade, under an oak tree next to a red wall, how much filtration to add to balance the light? All of those concerns are gone, absent, non existent with digital.
I used to shoot such events with a Nikon F and Ektachrome in the early 1970s. I was 12-14 years old, some of my first shooting 'assignments'. Never had any problems, made a lot of good photographs. Over time and with practice, I wasted less film in the process.

Can you be purposeful with digital, yes, but it is not a requirement.
You can be as sloppy and casual as you want with film, just like with digital. You'll get crappy results in both cases. But if you want to be sloppy, you shouldn't also call yourself a photographer. A photographer should always be purposeful in using a camera. Always. Otherwise, what's the point of being a photographer? Anyone can take a picture, always could. My mom could take decent pictures and she never wanted to be a photographer. Same for countless other people.

A photographer should always want to make GOOD photographs that reflect intent, skill, and vision. If the criteria for being a photographer doesn't include this brief, well, I don't want to be a photographer either.

G
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I used to shoot such events with a Nikon F and Ektachrome in the early 1970s. I was 12-14 years old, some of my first shooting 'assignments'. Never had any problems, made a lot of good photographs. Over time and with practice, I wasted less film in the process.



You can be as sloppy and casual as you want with film, just like with digital. You'll get crappy results in both cases. But if you want to be sloppy, you shouldn't also call yourself a photographer. A photographer should always be purposeful in using a camera. Always. Otherwise, what's the point of being a photographer? Anyone can take a picture, always could. My mom could take decent pictures and she never wanted to be a photographer. Same for countless other people.

A photographer should always want to make GOOD photographs that reflect intent, skill, and vision. If the criteria for being a photographer doesn't include this brief, well, I don't want to be a photographer either.

G
For many young people, the word "should" translates into something like "What old people do, but I don't have to... where's my iPhone?".

Most people can't afford to be sloppy with film. At least I can't. With digital, it doesn't matter from a cost point of view. What matters in the end is always to get the shot. It never seizes to amaze me though, that I mostly get as many keepers from 36 exposures on film as I get on 10 times as many on a memory card, unless I've just shot film exclusively for a few days and then switches to digital. Then my digital hit rate increases to near that of film.

Interestingly, my hit rate also increases when I use a slow, old digital camera like the Fuji S3, or when I shoot with manual focus lenses. I always fear for the quality of my photos when I do that, but I always come out at the other end surprised. Sometimes, I get this weird idea that I might be smarter than my camera :wtf:
 
Last edited:

jdphoto

Well-known member
Every single thing you say here can be said for digital capture just as well, except for the limitation on frames for a single load of recording media. Big f**king deal.

G
You can say it, but it doesn't actually mean anything for digital.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
You can say it, but it doesn't actually mean anything for digital.
If it doesn't mean anything for digital, it doesn't mean anything for film either. With regard to the notions expressed, the two things are EXACTLY the same.

G
 
Top