1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Old poll - you odd lot!

Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Damien_Demolder, May 2, 2007.

  1. Damien_Demolder

    Damien_Demolder Well-Known Member

    Well you are a funny bunch! Last week we discovered that 49% of you believe film gives better results than digital cameras can (37%), but that you don't really rate shooting on film and scanning as a decent option (14%).

    Now I see that 73% of you use a digital camera more often than a film camera. So while you know film is better you go ahead and shoot digitally. Where's the sense in that? Are you too lazy to make the effort to shoot for best quality, or does the convenience of digital photography outweigh quality issues? Maybe you don't need best quality all the time. Or maybe your have all been brain washed.

    :D

    damien
     
  2. Norman

    Norman Well-Known Member

    Got it in one. Of course, it may be that different people voted this time. ;)
     
  3. ermintrude

    ermintrude Hinkypuff

    Crikey you didnt leave 'ere till 10 last night and youre back again at half seven! :eek: :eek:

    Digital? I am just too lazy to do film :eek: , it's just more convenient as well as quicker and cheaper to upload them when I get home.

    Besides my pictures are not up to the quality to need to choose the best, as I end up editing them to make them look OK anyway... :eek:
     
  4. bradalax

    bradalax Well-Known Member

    I'm with Erm on this one! Agree with all of the above. Digital is a great way of learning. If I shot film I'd be bankrupt by now with the amount of shots I can take (and delete :eek:) on my D50.
     
  5. bagpuss

    bagpuss Well-Known Member

    This is why there should have been a 50/50 option.

    Personally, in situations where I know I am going to have a lot of wasted frames (e.g. the shoot on Sunday at Minsmere), or do a lot of post-production, I use digital.

    However, for something I'd want to blow up to A3 or bigger, or need a good-quality hand-printed end result, I use film - be it 35mm or 120, colour, mono, or IR.
     
  6. Ian_A

    Ian_A Well-Known Member

    I'm going back to film for black and white. The best bit of photography for me was seeing my images coming up in the developer, and as I do photography mainly as a hobby, there's no reason why I shouldn't take the more leisurely route to get my photos printed. I won't be getting any funny colour casts or rapid fading either.

    Digital is fine for colour though in my book.
     
  7. AGW

    AGW Well-Known Member

    I'll go with this....but I'm affraid I dont have any issues over the quality of digital. Its an all round winner for me.
     
  8. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    In the all-film days, everyone knew that you get the best quality by shooting Large Format - but how many people did? The question is more one of acceptable quality - Roger Hicks's "quality threshold". I'm absolutely clear that compared to 35mm for the majority of shooting, digital gives better quality for my uses. But I still use medium format, and some colour slide in 35mm, and some B&W, the latter simply because it looks different.
     
  9. MickLL

    MickLL Well-Known Member

    Agreed.

    1. See digital as polaroid thread.
    2. I take hundreds of 'snaps' of the grandchildren where quality is really not an issue.
    3. If I think that I've got a 'winner' then I'll switch to film. I should mention that film, for me, is transparency film. I haven't even considered buying a print film since I bought the DSLR.

    MickLL
     
  10. crymble

    crymble Well-Known Member

    You got it. Film while it gives better results is a lot more hassle to get back - and you don't get the instant results that you do with digital.

    For example I went out last night to take some shots for the firstview (and one of a bench!) Within 30 minutes of taking the shots I had them off the camera, run through GIMP and posted on here (and ready to be printed.) If I was working on film it would be days before I got the shots back.

    K
     
  11. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Up to 5:30pm you can get films done in 30 minutes at lots of places in Edinburgh...not ready to print...printed :cool:
     
  12. Matt_Hunt

    Matt_Hunt Well-Known Member

    Re the cost factor (and speed). The two things that are mkaing me consider digitala are the film cost (I've spent £300 on film and developing under 12 months) and at times, the speed factor would be useful, but not critical.

    Having said that, because there are some prints I would like to enlarge to 12"x 8" or more, a Nikon DSLR that I like would be too expensive for an outright purchase :(
     
  13. Per

    Per Well-Known Member

    A little story might help highlight that best quality is highly dependent on circumstances:

    Recently, my small business worked on a user guide for a bank note sorting machine. We took hundreds of digital photographs while a machine was stripped down and reassembled, of every conceivable angle, so that a technical illustrator could produce line drawings for the manual.

    A small 3MP compact was chosen for the task as its size and automation made it ideal for working in small spaces. Ease of use and speed to CD/email was more important than resolution or print quality.
     
  14. crymble

    crymble Well-Known Member

    Aye, if you work in the middle of town! I work out in the pit that is Sighthill, and I'm not finished until 5:30! (Though I can sometimes get to Trumps just before 6pm)

    K
     
  15. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    My commiserations! :eek:
     
  16. crymble

    crymble Well-Known Member

    I know - but I'm moving soon!

    K
     
  17. APchris

    APchris Well-Known Member

    I'm with the consensus too - digital is by far the most convenient which makes it the outright winner...

    ...but playing with digital has encouraged me to have another go at film and I've recently made some cheap film kit purchases on eBay so I can try out Chromogenic B&W film and also some cross processing, following the excellent Bruno Moyen Letter from NYC article in last weeks AP. (I still have the roll of Kodak Elite Chrome 100 that came free with AP, back in 2003 I think, at least that's the 'process by' date on it! It's time I put it to good use! ;))
     
  18. TerryS

    TerryS Well-Known Member

    Damien_Demolder wrote:
    Well I was entirely consistent in my voting - in your earlier poll I voted that digital cameras give better results than film (for reasons please see here), whilst in your latest poll I voted that I use a digital camera more often than a film camera. In fact I haven't used a film camera for about three years now - after about 30 years shooting film (mostly 35mm) I started the switch to digital in 2000 and now shoot exclusively digital. I do not anticipate using film again.

    Terry.
     
  19. BigWill

    BigWill Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff

    In short..............digital may not be the "best" but it's pretty darned good enough...............and a LOT less of a faff!

    BigWill
     
  20. Lounge Lizard

    Lounge Lizard Well-Known Member

    What the poll showed is that a large number of digital shooters haven't yet understood how to get the optimum quality out of digital hence their answer. However, many of them like the convenience of digital and are keen to practice with digital to perfect their technique.

    Of course, there might be the odd shooter that proofs on digital and then gets the 10x8 camera out for a single shot masterpiece...
     

Share This Page