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

Film VS Digital is surly a thing of the past?

Discussion in 'General Equipment Chat & Advice' started by AJUK, Aug 30, 2020.

  1. AJUK

    AJUK Well-Known Member

    Back in the days when there was a film vs digital was raging, I can't help but thinking there were different extremes.
    I think there were those who were a type doing photography that wasn't particularly lend it's self to early digital cameras like landscapes, where quantity isn't high, but quality is important, I think there was one guy ho ditched 35mm and slide film for a Canon G6 and the results looked awful. Although I do remember one person who claimed in the early 2000s such as the Fuji F10 compact could out resolve film even a drum scanned transparency from a Leica.
    On the other end there maybe people shooting birds or sports on 35mm long after 2010.

    I first got a DSLR in 2008 but it's quality in terms of look and resolution look, was never up to that of a good scan of Ektar form my night photography so it was my light meter, that changed when I got my D5300, but I still like to take a few Ektar shots at night in London and one of them became my most popular photo of the year in 2018. I do like the way that the film shots normally come out already looking good, the same reason I still used Portra at a friends wedding, and I still like B&W street photos.


    As for now, I don't think anyone does anyone actually go digital any-more I always thought it was a bit of a false dichotomy. Like how some people bought a digital camera back in the day and immediately ditched all their film equipment even though at the time the film was probably still useful for times when quality was more important.
     
  2. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Film vs Digital or rather Digital vs Film was a different discussion 20 years ago. Now it is difficult to say that digital is less good in any real way.

    I had the opposite experience to you. I bought my first digital camera in 2007, a Canon 5D with 24-105 L lens. IQ was astoundingly better than my 35 mm film camera although that was mainly down to the glass as I was using budget 28-80, 75-300 lenses. More importantly, at modest print sizes (I was having 9x9” prints made from 120) it gave my 6x6 kit a run for the money. The utility of digital vs 12 exposures per film was a clear winner.

    I didn’t ditch my film gear, it is sitting in a camera bag. The 6x6 has a half used film in one back and unused film in the spare back. All my Canon lenses fit my 50 E, because I stuck with 5 series cameras and EF lenses. I wonder every now and again about getting the film gear out again, but do I really want the expense and hassle? Some day soon maybe. A lot of the family photographs, commercial 6x4, from 40 years ago have not kept well. If I get a decent scanner to digitise them then maybe I’ll go back to use some FP-4 but I won’t resurrect the darkroom. In terms of resurrecting the past experience I’m more interested in a larger than 35 mm format digital but that is still a bit pricy. The rush to “full frame” for mirrorless suggests that, however nonsensical* it may seem, many people prefer using longer focal length lenses as I do.

    BTW. Last week’s AP film edition was interesting reading. It seems (ignoring 20+ years of inflation) my 6x6 is now “worth” more than I paid for it.

    *I use Fuji APS-C too, since 2014 I think, and the results are perfectly good. I can’t really explain why 24 mm on 35 mm looks more natural to me than 16 mm on APS-C , or why I believe 35 mm (or whatever it is) on a Fuji GX would be more so.
     
  3. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    The frame area of the Fuji GX system is not in reality a whole lot larger than a FF sensor.

    I still use the occasional roll of film, I do enjoy using it, there is a somewhat different mindset applies.
     
  4. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    If you want to use film, use film. If you want to use digital, use digital. Just don't claim that your choice is better than the alternative because (a) you're wrong and (b) it's rude.
     
    ChrisNewman likes this.
  5. John Farrell

    John Farrell Well-Known Member

    I use both - and I'm not surly....
     
    neilt3 likes this.
  6. Stephen Rundle

    Stephen Rundle In the Stop Bath

    Was there really, in reality other than just the press a "film v digital" any more than sports car v off road v mpv

    DSCN0893.jpg Image4.jpg paint.jpg
     
  7. AJUK

    AJUK Well-Known Member

    Where did I make that claim? I think that in the early days there may have been a clamber to go digital just to have the latest gear, regardless of weather or not in it's infancy it was really better or not, but that happens across a lot of technologies, think of early music to use drum machines for example.
     
  8. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    I have FF digital giving a 24mp image and my flatbed film scanner will also give from 35mm film exactly the same. The digital out resoves film.
     
  9. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    Yes, a flatbed scanner is not the highest quality method for scanning film though.
     
    neilt3 likes this.
  10. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    True, but drum scanners are rather expensive. A flat bed scanner is probably the best all-rounder. I lose track of the reviews but the Epson V850 is probably OK, especially if there is a mix of formats to scan.
     
  11. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    Well the highest I can afford (or need for that matter).:)
     
    daft_biker likes this.
  12. Stephen Rundle

    Stephen Rundle In the Stop Bath


    VHS or Batamax ;)
     
  13. Stephen Rundle

    Stephen Rundle In the Stop Bath


    Me too
     
    daft_biker likes this.
  14. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    I wasn't saying you had. My comments were general and not particular.
     
  15. neilt3

    neilt3 Well-Known Member

    If you have a macro lens you can use your camera to convert the film to digital .
    Probably more time consuming , but you'll get better results . If you use your flatbed to do a contact print , then your camera to do a better job with the shots that are keepers .
    I use a combination of an Epsom flatbed scanner , a 35mm scanner ( Minolta Dimage Scan dual IV) and a camera with macro lens ( Sony a77ii ) to digitalise my film . 135 , 120 , 5x4 and 7x5 .Depending on what my needs are .
     
  16. neilt3

    neilt3 Well-Known Member

    I use film and digital .
    Some things I prefer to use digital for , some things I prefer to use film .
    The debate on which is best is long dead .
    Todays digital is as good as anyone needs image quality wise .
    Now it's down to preferences and the look you wish to achieve .
    In some cases it down to the processes used in using film cameras and developing your own film and such like , more than just the end result , that gives you the satisfaction .
     
    nimbus likes this.
  17. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    I have an Epsom Flatbed Scanner, a Minolta Scan Dual a Sony 100mm macro lens and an elderly Sony FF dSLR. have converted that way at times. Fact is I hardly use film at all now. Just occasionally - from nostalgia I think.
     
  18. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    You’ve got about 20 mins left to edit the post! Beware multi-quotes.
     
  19. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Whatever the benefits of film, I simply couldn't afford to go back to using it. When I was using film I probably got through 20 rolls on a holiday and around another 20 the rest of the year so may be 60 rolls of 36 slides each year or something just over 2000 exposures, cost today £1,000 give or take a bit. With digital I can shoot that many in two months but the difference is that I will now tackle subjects that I would have avoided with film. Bird for example, I can take a sequence of a hundred of a Red Kite and get expect the vast majority to be usable. With film I would have missed 70+ of those simply because of the 36 frame limitation although in truth I probably wouldn't have even attempted it. There are other subjects where the lack of feedback would have limited the number of shots I attempted.

    If I were to try to take as many shots as I do today with film as the medium it would cost over £6,000 a year, way beyond my budget. Digital technology has opened up photography to the masses far more than Kodak ever did. Film may not be extinct but it is a very long way from mainstream, indeed film is a niche market within a niche market.
     
    ChrisNewman likes this.
  20. SXH

    SXH Well-Known Member

    True; as I mentioned in an older post, “In about 2004, when prices were a bit lower, Patrick Lichfield said “I haven't shot a roll of film for five years. I'm saving £80-90,000 a year.”” Mind you, he did buy film by the crate; and his saving probably included getting rid of at least one of his minions...

    Anyway, as far as I can see, there are three main groups of film enthusiasts…
    1. Hipsters, who use it because it’s cool. They will no doubt move on to some other fad eventually.
    2. The LOMO brigade. With a bit of luck, they will eventually realise that making cr@p pictures is not particularly clever, but I don’t hold out much hope on that score.
    3. The oldies, those who learned everything they know with film and don’t want to (or can’t) learn anything new. These are related, for the same reason, to the ‘it must be full frame’ crowd, though that probably also includes youngsters who’ve been brainwashed by their elders and ‘betters’.

    ;)
     
    pixelpuffin and GeoffR like this.

Share This Page