Discussion in 'Everything Film' started by scott236, Apr 1, 2006.
1000 pictures, where you making animations?
No, I was on holiday
Why does everybody insist it must be film or digital
There is no reason not to have Film AND digital, except possibly the dreaded
Everybody dosn't, particularly on these forums. There are plenty of people who use both. Even me now!
Not me, but the question "was why shoot film?", not "why only shoot film?" It's funny though, I use both: mostly film, but I use digits if I need a picture quickly. I have never had a film user nag me not to use digital, but half the digi users I talk to try to talk me out of using film. Are they afraid they might be missing something
I'm film and digital, Just that I am not a particular fan of the sort of camera the thread starter uses. I don't see the point of being able to take loads of pictures if all I could take them on was a digital compact. If it was a one of opertunity type photo then I would take it regardless or if I was really poor.
I would rather have less shots on an SLR, I think thats is where my way of shooting comes in, I'll go out with a fresh roll loaded and a few more rolls to spare and come home with a few shots still left on the first roll, and even if I did run out of film I still have a digital compact in my bag if I am desperate, but from my experience anyway, I am more likely to run out of power than film.
Lucky you, there are enough of both types of idiot about.
Oh I have had that, I guy out shooting rolls of XP2 started telling me about APS-C size bridge cameras lmao!
Whoever has ever shot Velvia 50 or Provia 100 or 400F, Agfa Scala or Tri-X and scanned them, used a good DSLR or compact digital (my favourites are the Sigma SD10,Fujifilm S3, my Konica Minolta 7D, my Fujifilm S20pro compact) knows that they can't live without both mediums.
One of my most appreciated shots came from Ektachrome 64 (Fujifilm I feel dirty!!!) scanned in my film scanner.
Perhaps people shoot film for the quality i.e. it`s different qualities.
If you are used to shooting film and the sort that`s happy/able to wait & see what you`ll get (weren`t we all not so long ago?), and can afford the ongoing costs of film & developing, then the short answer is indeed "why not?"
Take a bog-standard 35mm zoom compact, say Olympus Mju 35-70mm Zoom, and a 6mp digital compact, say Olympus Mju600, and take shots at a party. Use 200ISO film in the compact and set the digital to 200ISO. Now fire away. Get your prints done at Boots and compare the results. In my experience, the results from the film compact are streets ahead of the digital - sharper, clearer, more detail, less grain - need I go on?
Don't take my word for it - but yourself a cheap compact on eBay, something quite simple like the Mju zoom can be bought for less than £10 + postage, then do a comparison with a £200 digital compact. I think you will answer your own question.
True, but funny you should mention parties as I am not so botherd about qulity I would probably be happy to use a digital, just that I am too paranoid about taking a camera that cost me £200 out with me, Although I am unsure if you are talking about the same sort of parties I am, I tell most people I know that digital is fine for holidays snaps candid moments ETC, but its still best to take a film camera to things like Weddings, gradutions reunions ETC.
Cost v quality.
I like digital, I use swmbo's Fuji Finepix for general snapshots and the quality is good... well actually it's ok unless I borrow an expensive printer at work or pay for commercial!
I use a Canon EOS300X. It's a very whizzy 35mm slr if you don't know it, 3 frames per second, autofocus or manual, a host of options right down to completely manual and a decent wide angle to zoom lens standard.
It costs £210 from Jessops just now, film costs about £3 a roll and processing when I develop myself is peanuts, I don't normally print unless there's something I particularly want and I scan my negs most of the time (free except for the electricity, our Epson scanner came with a neg scanner).
If I wanted comparable quality from a digital I'd have to spend something in the region of £1000 for the same quality. I can't afford that. If I couldn't afford the Canon I'd buy a second hand slr, they're almost offensively cheap at the moment.
If I was really skint I'd do what I did a while back and buy another Zenit C on ebay for a tenner. Yes they weigh a ton and they're bum basic but the image quality is fine, (oh and it worked fine and had no battery issues when used in sub minus 20 conditions ;-))I guess it just depends how much value you place on your image relative to the quality of the images you produce ;-)
Ok, ok, only joking about the last bit ;-)
Seriously, use what suits your budget and what sort of photography you want to do, above all else, enjoy it and don't get too hung up on the gear issues!
don't need to get a second hand one, Jessops are selling new Olympus mju 80 III for £35! got one for my girlfriends birthday the other day, she loves it, esspecially after paying £200 for a digi compact a year or two ago that packed up after about 100 shots
and if you do the maths (£2 film, £4 cheap p+d) thats 972 photos before you even get to the £200 price of a digi compact
To extend the maths argument... and F100 for £150 on hehebay or a D200 for £1200. That's over a £1000 worth of processing to be had! Hmmmm....
These are some reasons why I shoot film:
1) I like things simple, not made more complicated
2) I can't afford a good digital camera.
3) Monitors ruin your eyesight
4) I'm old fashioned
5) I used Photoshop for 10 years and the novelty wore off
6) Shutter lag!!
7) 'Colour management'
8) I love developing my own B&W flm
9) I'd rather have an archive of film than jpgs on CD/DVD/HDROM
10) To me inkjet prints are tacky
11) and the main reason - film is more fun!
In fairness,a lot of autofocus 35mm compacts suffer from shutter lag as badly as digital versions. I never have got on with autofocus, but don't really need it for the sort of work I do (mostly archaeological recording and air photography). Even SLRs have a degree of lag whilst the mirror swings out of the way which is, perhaps, one reason why rangefinders still have so many fans.
Digital is more fun! /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
In your opinion /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Separate names with a comma.