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

I'm officially done with digital.

Discussion in 'Everything Film' started by ryancolin, Jul 30, 2021.

  1. ryancolin

    ryancolin Active Member

    The eureka moment came when I was on a weekend away with the family and I decided to take the same or similar photos with my Olympus PEN F (modern, not 1970s) and my Google Pixel 3a. Nothing challenging, just tourist landmarks and people, all in good light.

    I simply could not tell the difference. (There IS a difference, of course, but it sure as heck wasn't worth €1,500.)

    Now, I'm not saying digital SLR/mirrorless cameras are unnecessary. Obviously they are indispensable for some things, e.g. sports, nature photography, and indeed any application where quality really matters. But for holidays, family occasions, that sort of thing - no. My phone is plenty good enough.

    My dad recently gifted me an old film body (Leica R4 with a couple of zooms which are frankly not the best). It was like discovering a toy from my childhood... Yes, I know film costs the earth these days and so does processing, but back in the days of film, whenever you pressed the shutter, IT MATTERED, because every shutter press cost you about 20p, and you never, ever forgot it.

    So from now on, all my "photography" (as opposed to just recording what I see) will be on film, I think.

    (And the simplicity of the old film cameras!!)
  2. gray1720

    gray1720 Well-Known Member

    Another one comes over to the dark slide...
    swanseadave, John Farrell and Zou like this.
  3. ryancolin

    ryancolin Active Member

    Do you have cookies?
  4. zx9r

    zx9r Well-Known Member

    Week before last we were in Dorset staying in a rented cottage doing South coast tourist things, beaches fossils that sort of thing. I did take my EOS M and my Leica M2 with 35, 50 and 75 mm lenses, the EOS was used at Bovington and on a trip to Seaton but most of the week my Photography was done with the film camera. There were times when I needed to take a picture with colour so I used my iPhone, so far what have I printed? Two iPhone pictures and one from the film camera.
  5. Petrochemist

    Petrochemist Well-Known Member

    So the fact you can't tell between 2 different digital cameras (Olympus & Google) for a non challenging situation means you won't use either? If you continue using the phone you are not through with digital.

    I don't dislike film & will (perhaps) use it occasionally, but that doesn't stop me using digital as well. I wouldn't normally use a camera phone, as I like to control the camera & play with lenses etc. Even when the phone can manage to produce identical results there's no joy in the process for me.

    FWIW My last foray into analogue photography was doing cyanotypes (not quite film) & I hope to try this again soon with reagents I've prepared myself. I don't think I'll get it to work well in my 5x4 camera but with sensitisation it might be possible...
  6. John Farrell

    John Farrell Well-Known Member

    If you bulk load your own monochrome film, and process it yourself, you will find that film is not expensive.
  7. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    I still have my Nikon F5 bodies so slipping back into film wouldn’t be a problem in practical terms but running costs are another matter. The F5 takes 8AA cells for a start, then there’s the cost of film, most of what I shoot needs colour.

    A phone can do amazing things these days but it can’t do what I want so, for various reasons I will stay with digital cameras.

    You have to do what works in your circumstances, enjoy your return to film.
    zx9r likes this.
  8. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Ah! The wild eyed enthusiasm of the new convert.
    See? The doubt is setting in already... :D
    ryancolin likes this.
  9. pixelpuffin

    pixelpuffin Well-Known Member

    Besides sports and macro (using flash) the iPhone is all I need. Yes, the purists will turn up their nose. But for me image content rather than image quality is the overriding factor.
  10. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    People keep saying this, but I still haven't seen anyone on this forum actually turn their nose up at the use of smart phone photography.
    Petrochemist likes this.
  11. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Can do if you want!

    During lockdown we got to see grandkids via Zoom and Smartphone pics. The “point and shoot” over-compressed smartphone pic can be horrible. I dare say an experienced photographer can make optimum use of the camera on a smartphone but, excepting the odd gem of moment captured, it makes a rubbish point and click tool.
  12. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    My memories of the the 70's, 80's and 90's are based on absolutely terrible prints because most people can't take good photographs, it's not the tool that's the problem.
    Geren, Zou and zx9r like this.
  13. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    I’d like to think that members of this forum were, in general, capable of getting a decent result from a smartphone camera.
    zx9r likes this.
  14. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    One person's work of art is another person's "don't like that" ... and vice versa.
  15. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    Where did I suggest otherwise?
  16. ryancolin

    ryancolin Active Member

    Sorry, I should have been clearer. I'll continue using my phone, but I don't really count that as photography per se. I just use it to record what I see. For actual photography as art, I'm moving to film.

    Having said that, I'm reluctant to part with the Olympus PEN F... It is a beautiful object in its own right. The retro look is amazing, it's a design masterpiece. And it has something that every digital camera should have - a dedicated exposure compensation dial. Having to press a button first before then dialling in my exp compensation really irked me.

    I suppose I could continue with digital AND film...
  17. Petrochemist

    Petrochemist Well-Known Member

    Sounds like the ideal solution to me. :)
    peterba, zx9r and RogerMac like this.
  18. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    Your mobile has replaced the 'snapshot' 35 mm or 126 compacts popular in the 1960s and 1970s, and as you say is probably more than adequate for that purpose. Does the €1,500 figure refer to the cost of a camera or the cost of the mobile telephone? The cost of some smartphones quoted in AP reviews are that high, but most customers don't realise it because they buy them on a 'rental' contract. If you want a small digital camera without the cost of a smartphone, a 10 or 15 year old 5-10 megapixel compacts can be found for a few pounds.

    The last time I was able to buy 36 exposure Kodachrome 200 (2007) each shot cost about thirty pence. When first using an SLR in 1973, a roll of 36 exposure Kodachrome 64 cost about the same as I earned by assembling transformers for a whole day in a job in the school holidays: a great incentive to read helpful books and learn how to use the camera before loading it.
    zx9r likes this.
  19. Petrochemist

    Petrochemist Well-Known Member

    I certainly read it as the camera. None of my camera bodies have been even close to that (except perhaps the full frame IR converted one which was just under £1000 with the conversion) but with a moderately expensive lens they might get close.
    Nowhere near as cheap as those antique compacts but reasonable interchangeable lens bodies can easily be found for £250 (I've managed within that budget in 4 different digital camera mounts, my second 5x4 film camera also scraped within that budget but did need a few bits added to the original purchase)
  20. IvorETower

    IvorETower Little Buttercup

    If you're thinking of selling the Pen-F..............

Share This Page