Anyone still exclusively with regular film anymore?

Discussion in 'Photography' started by LadySycamore, May 19, 2004.

  1. LadySycamore

    LadySycamore Guest

    *laughs* The reason I ask, is because everything seems to be digital
    now. Personally, I can't afford the technology at this time..heck, I can
    barely afford the regular technology.

    So, anyone strictly working with film? Just curious. Thanks.

    Co-Administrator For renal patients by renal patients

    "Until you have walked in my shoes, you do NOT have the right to tell me
    what route to walk".
    Dr. George Keller

    El Ciberbosque:
    "Sycamore's next step in the quest for world domination"
    LadySycamore, May 19, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. LadySycamore

    Mark Guest

    I am using film only (for now)... looking at Pentax digital SLR (ist*d)
    though .. that's why i asked if anyone can recommend any store with
    digital equipment...
    Mark, May 19, 2004
    1. Advertisements


    Yes I still use strictly digital film. I'm not quite sure why, especially
    because I'm one of those computer-savy geeks who knows every programming
    language in the world. Perhaps it's the cost, maybe I just think film works
    better, I'm not really sure. I'm just pretty sure I'll stay with film for
    the rest of my life...

    -- Matt
    Matthew Del Buono, May 19, 2004
  4. LadySycamore

    D.R. Guest

    I am relatively new to photography, and couldn't
    justify spending $1000 on a digital SLR at the
    present. I use a Nikon F80 film SLR with a cheap
    HP S20 photosmart 2400dpi film scanner. Suits me
    just fine at the present, until prices fall over
    the next few years. Where I live it is still much
    cheaper to make prints from film than from digital,
    so I am happy with film. Plus I plan to learn B&W
    darkroom stuff too. I figure that when I am ready
    to switch to digital, my lenses with fit the Nikon
    digital body.
    D.R., May 19, 2004
  5. LadySycamore

    Diluted Guest

    *laughs* The reason I ask, is because everything seems to be digital
    im a photography student, so I have to use film because we have to do the
    processing and printing ourselves.

    we do occasionally have digital assignments, but we shoot on film then use a
    film scanner.

    to be honest digital annoys me a bit, because it seems like you dont have to
    be any good with a camera, you can take any old shot, and fiddle with it no
    end in photoshop to make it look nice and call yourself a professional

    i may end up using digital as i have no space or money for a darkroom and
    all the consumables, but i think i will always prefer manual colour negative
    printing. theres more of a sense of achievement from it.

    Diluted, May 19, 2004
  6. LadySycamore

    freeda Guest

    *laughs* The reason I ask, is because everything seems to be digital
    I shoot on film, then scan the negs with a film scanner, then it's digital
    from then on. Once I can afford a D70, I will probably go completely digi.
    The main reason is that it taes so bloody long to scan film. I will miss the
    chunky feel and clunky shutter on my F90x though, in my opinion the best
    affordable Nikon ever made..
    freeda, May 19, 2004
  7. LadySycamore

    Chris Guest

    Well, aside from my tiny P&S digicam, which I only use as a webcam, I'm
    still exclusively film. In the next couple of months I plan to add a better
    digicam to my arsenal, but I'll still be using film when I can. Can't let
    all this knowledge in my head go to waste. ;-)
    Chris, May 19, 2004
  8. LadySycamore

    Chris Guest

    To expand alittle, I'm abit of a traditionalist, so I prefer the film camera
    where possible.

    I'm waiting for the darkroom supplies and equipment to bottom out in price,
    when everyone switches to digital after seeing that huge iceberg coming for
    us. Then I'll be laughing plenty. ;-)

    For now, It's a "classic" Canon AE-1p, soon to be augmented by either a
    Nikon FM2A, FE2, or another Canon, possible A1 this go around.

    I've also been looking into the old Leica Screwmount option. Cosina cameras
    are seeming very nice right now.
    Chris, May 19, 2004
  9. LadySycamore

    Rob Novak Guest

    I'm strictly film.

    Digital's neat and all, but I like using the properties of film to
    influence the final product, especially in monochromes. Transparency
    film gives me the best of all worlds for color photography, if a
    little less conveniently. I can archive them easily, scan them into
    digital images for web publishing, use high-res scans for making
    prints and enlargements, and submit them to juried

    In monochrome, I can get tonal and gradient effects with no effort
    that would take a lot of Photoshop tweaking with digital. Black &
    white film is really where the wetworks shine - the image properties
    of an Ilford HP5, Kodak TMax, Agfapan, Ilford Delta, Kodak Tri-X Pan,
    etc. offer such an interesting playground for experimentation.

    Apart from that, I like the challenge of traditional photography.
    Digital, even in SLR forms, turns the whole endeavor (for me, at
    least) into an exercise in point-n-shoot. To be honest, I
    intentionally have stuck with manual-focus Nikon bodies because I
    would rather do without the gadgetry.
    Rob Novak, May 19, 2004
  10. LadySycamore

    Travis Smith Guest

    Yes, my family business still uses film exclusivly. We actually bought a
    d70 when they came out, but decided it wasn't for us. More the digital
    technology in general, not the camera.

    Travis Smith
    Terry Allan Smith Photography
    Travis Smith, May 19, 2004
  11. LadySycamore

    Travis Smith Guest

    I totally agree here. I'm a photography student as well and it makes me sad
    that my school is going all digital in the fall semister :( Was mainly a
    fact of cost.... we found out that we had a lot of health code/safety code
    violations so we could either spend like 30,000 fixing the wet darkroom and
    making it safe, or spend 30,000 and outfit the darkroom to be totally
    digital. At least we're still keeping the b&w wet side, but I've got a b&w
    darkroom at home.

    Oh well, I could complain for a long time about this move.

    Travis Smith, May 19, 2004
  12. "Diluted" skrev i en meddelelse
    I follow you. However, at the Danish School of Journalism (where photo
    journalists are educated, too - I am a journalist student myself), I recall
    one of the photo teachers saying: "Don't do in Photoshop what you can't do
    in a darkroom." And the students seem to respect this when using digital
    cameras - at least for media work ;-)
    Claus Hastrup, May 20, 2004
  13. LadySycamore

    Mark P. Guest

    I think this is the key point many people miss. To me, the *only* question
    in the digital/film debate for an enthusiast is this: which is the most fun?
    For me, the answer is film. Dragging a mouse around a computer all
    evening is not my idea of fun. For some people it is, and good for them.

    People need to ask themselves why they make photos.

    Mark P., May 20, 2004
  14. Exactly. The debate isn't the technology, and the quality of the
    formats are becoming so similar as to render that portion of the
    argument stale. What it really comes down to is this: What does the
    photographer prefer? Results are results.
    Brian C. Baird, May 20, 2004
  15. This is sound advice for just about anyone. The objective of Photoshop
    isn't to replace the entire creative process, instead it is to make
    those darkroom chores easier. In the case of digital photography, it
    replaces the darkroom but provides the same function.

    A word of caution to any film purists that have their work printed in by
    a magazine: We (the graphic designers of the word) almost always
    Photoshop your photos for the purpose of color correction!
    Brian C. Baird, May 20, 2004
  16. LadySycamore

    LadySycamore Guest

    See, and that's what I think also...about what you said about how easy
    it is to manipulate a shot and that's it. I like the idea of getting
    creative with the camera, lighting, etc.

    However, I suppose someday I may invest in digital, but right now, I'm
    happy with my film.

    Co-Administrator For renal patients by renal patients

    "Until you have walked in my shoes, you do NOT have the right to tell me
    what route to walk".
    Dr. George Keller

    El Ciberbosque:
    "Sycamore's next step in the quest for world domination"
    LadySycamore, May 20, 2004
  17. LadySycamore

    brian Guest

    Basicly I prefer film, but I might give digital a serious try when the
    technology levels out and the price comes close to film camera's, I have a
    Canon EOS 30, around £500 with a standard zoom lens, the nearest match in
    digital is the Canon EOS 300D, at around £900 with a standard zoom lens, or
    the EOS 10D at around £1600 with a standard lens, hardly an incentive to go
    digital. plus the fact that in about 6-12 months time they will be
    superceded by much more advanced models, the usual, more megapixels, for
    much the same money, thereby leaving you with a camera thats way behind and
    worth almost bugger all.
    Digital IS a good thing, but until it out-performs film and can be relied
    upon to stay at a level for longer than a few months, so that you dont have
    to continually update to keep up with the technology, I will stick with film
    Anyway I personally think its more fun and rewarding to develop and print
    your own.

    brian, May 21, 2004
  18. Digital film? That's a new one!

    Does each grain either expose fully or not expose at all?

    Some people claim that there's a woman to blame, but I think it's all...

    Richard's fault!

    Visit the Sounds of the cul-de-sac at
    richardsfault, May 22, 2004
  19. LadySycamore

    Gary Wright Guest

    Well, that's just plain wrong. On of the basic precepts of the computer
    age that someone figured out back the days of key punch is: GIGO -
    garbage in, garbage out.

    Photoshop can be a wonderful tool for correcting minor deficiencies in a
    good photo, but it won't turn straw into gold. PhotoShop is only a tool,
    and, as with any other tool, the end result will be no more creative and
    interesting than the mind that used it.

    I still shoot film exclusively, transparencies at that, so I've learned
    a lot about the importance of getting it right in the camera. Because
    slide film is such a demanding media, it would be good to make all photo
    students master it at some time during their education. Until recently,
    if you shoot slides, the creative process ended when you released the
    shutter - there was no way to improve composition or compensate
    exposure in the dark room. But now there is. If a tool is effective and
    available, why wouldn't you use it?

    I am amused by the 'purists' who moan and groan about how it can't be
    'art' if it's done with (insert new technology here), but every one of
    today's old fashioned wet dark room methods once once bleeding edge new
    technology, and some day PhotoShop will be as passe as Daguerreotypes,
    but there will always be a few talented individuals creating great
    images and a whole lot folks like you and me just talking about it.
    Gary Wright, Jun 2, 2004
  20. LadySycamore

    traveler Guest

    Yup, I've been shooting color negative film since the early seventies.
    I'm mainly interested in making enlargements, which is why I went
    with color neg film rather than transparency films. I don't go along
    with the crowd and never have. I'm not about to start now. I've got
    a scanner and someday will no doubt buy a film scanner. Chemistry IS
    expensive and tends to go bad if you don't use it fast enough, which
    is a problem for an old photographer with fading eyesight who isn't
    the hot shot he once was, taking all sorts of great pics on a regular
    basis. As for a digital camera, I understand they can be quite useful
    for some applications, like selling over ebay. But why would I pay
    thousands for a camera that shoots no better than a film camera that
    costs hundreds? Doesn't make sense to me.
    traveler, Jun 3, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.