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. Benchmark

    Benchmark Well-Known Member

    Digital is faster, cheaper and so much more convenient than film, and for most purposes, the quality is more than adequate.

    Nevertheless, for ultimate quality, film, and especially MF transparency film is unbeatable IMHO. Personally, I also enjoy using film much more than digital when I have the time, and find the results more 'pleasing'.

    However, when comparing film with digital we should not forget that nearly all high street film processors nowadays scan film to highly compressed, low-ish resolution digital files for printing, which in my experience results in noticable noise and loss of quality.

    At the end of the day, digital users have more control over the final output than film users ever had - unless of course they did the scanning and/or printing themselves - which I still do for my personal photography.
     
  2. TheFatControlleR

    TheFatControlleR :Devil's Advocaat: Forum Admin

    It's definitely the anti-faff factor that swings it for me - along with the fact I'm not a producer of excellence, in any arena. :(
     
  3. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    I didn't vote in the poll, cos there wasn't "only shoot film/digital" options - which would have been film in my case. Yep, I think you're correct though Damien, a TV dinner is more convenient than cooking from scratch, eh! ;)
     
  4. MickLL

    MickLL Well-Known Member

    David
    That's a completely unwarranted assumption.

    I'm not getting into the film/digital quality debate because much of the issue of quality is subjective (rather like the patina on old silver)but to 'state',effectively, that if you believe that A is better than B it's because you don't understand B is wrong.

    MickLL
     
  5. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    Quite so. If someone doesn't like that digital "look", then no amount of courses telling them how to do it is gonna change that.
     
  6. Benchmark

    Benchmark Well-Known Member

    I think it would also be fair to say that some digital cameras produce a 'different' look to others - even when using Raw image capture.
     
  7. Hotblack

    Hotblack Dead Horse Flogger

    Digital wins on nearly every front for me. It's quick, convenient and I have control of the whole process from beginning to end. I can work my images so that I can interpret a scene how I want to, something that was much harder when shooting 35mm colour and getting a lab to D&P it.

    As has been mentioned, the best is large format transparency which is expensive. Digital does what I want for a price I can afford and get damn good results from.

    It's not laziness, it's pragmatism.
     
  8. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    Indeed. But none of them have the same look and, IMHO, tactile quality that film does. Each to their own in the end, even though the digi-brigade are all wrong! ;)
     
  9. Benchmark

    Benchmark Well-Known Member

    And nothing quite compares with viewing medium format Velvia transparencies on a lightbox ....... :cool:
     
  10. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Don't agree at all. Try projecting 'em! :cool:
     
  11. Benchmark

    Benchmark Well-Known Member

    Mmmmm. You might just have a point there Nick, but 35 mm transparencies project rather better (and more cheaply) than digital images IMHO, (assuming they are exposed properly of course). ;)
     
  12. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Indeed they do, Nigel, and I've not got either a digital nor an MF projector anyway ( :(,, particularly for the MF one) on the other side - so for now, anything I want to project, I use 35mm for. However, that's pretty rare these days...
     
  13. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    That's the problem with slide for me....end result is just a little bit of plastic that's not a lot of use without a way to view it....kinda like the bigger plastic (cd) that digital pics end up on.

    I picked up some prints earlier and the only bit of equipment I used to view them was a comfy bench to sit on in the sunshine :cool:
     
  14. Seven

    Seven ..or eight

    lol and you've only just noticed ;)

    I was in a bit of a crisis a while ago with my photography not really sure which way to turn as having only been into photography for 4 years I stepped straight into the digital world and thought I should really go back to the routes of things thinking film would give me a lot more understanding of a good print.
    However many who's opinions I really value screamed 'what on earth would I want to do that for'

    Seems while everyone agrees digital still can't match a 'specialised' film print most also think it's not worth stepping back to film.
    Confused you are, so am I!! :)

    In answer to your question though Damien reason I do stick with digital is not particularly for the convenience but more for the lower cost.
     
  15. Lounge Lizard

    Lounge Lizard Well-Known Member

    You've hit the nail on the head - if it looks "digital" then they haven't got the technique right. A quality print should be one that you cannot tell whether it was shot on film or digital. If you can look at it and say it's definitely digital then it isn't the best example of digital quality. In the same way, if you look at a film print and you can see typical film characteristics then, again, it's not the best example of what may be achieved with film. Or do we accept film imperfactions because it's what we're used to? If we do, then it's a different question we are answering.
     
  16. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    I hate using my digital cameras at anything other than their lowest ISO setting but I'll use ISO 1600 film no worries :D

    I quite like the more subtle colours and grain from fast film but am not so keen on noise on the compact or my dSLR which shows noise in clear geometric shapes....yuk!!!
     
  17. AJUK

    AJUK Well-Known Member

    Well, I use film more but I take more shots digitally(If that makes sense?) , because I can, them theres looking at compositions bracketing ETC ETC ETC.
     
  18. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Well now, slow slide film out performs digital in many respects but the operative word here is SLOW. If I shoot digital I can have prints or usable images within an hour of getting home.
    Slide film on the other hand has to be either;
    Posted, 7 to 10 days turn-round
    Taken to a specialist lab, £10 train plus developing or
    Processed by hand, if the chemicals can be found and subject to having 6 to 10 rolls to do.

    There is nothing convenient about slide film but for a 20 x 30 print nothing else will give the required quality. Unfortunately few people want prints that big and most of what I do for work never gets off the computer screen and it is usually wanted, right NOW!

    So whilst I know that film gives the best quality, quality costs.
     
  19. Monobod

    Monobod Phantom of the forum

    I find digital is now giving me results that are very close to film. Transparency film does have the edge, just. But the cost implications of film, the delay in getting results back, especially if one is choosey about what one takes and the lack of opportunity to check if the exposure is correct all make digital the first choice for me. I can go out and take just three or four photos perhaps and download them instantly. I do not have to wait to finish the 36 exposures on the film.

    I will still take transparency film, but not in great numbers, simply because our club is continuing to hold slide competitions, so I need to enter to keep up with the points.
     

Share This Page