Film vs Digital

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Pumper Hinkle, Mar 23, 2008.

  1. I am an amateur and I've been shooting with an SLR for over 40 years. In
    that time I have picked up some sense of good photographic techniques. I
    use photography to illustrate techniques and document processes as well as
    the usual snapshots of family and friends.

    When my trusty old Spotmatic died from severe trauma, and couldn't be
    repaired, I didn't know quite where to turn next. I ended up getting a
    Nikon N-80 to see if I wanted to go Nikon. That led to Nikon accessories
    such as lenses and flashes and eventually an FM3a (which I dearly love but
    now rarely use). Then I picked up a D-100. At first I bounced between
    film and digital but now I only use the digital and am beginning to covet an
    upgrade to the D300 and I don't anticipate ever shooting film again.

    At this point I think it would probably be wise of me to sell off my film
    cameras for whatever I can get and use that towards the D300 and an SB800.

    So, For those of you who have abandoned film in favor of the chip, and
    have gotten rid of their film cameras, what regrets do you have? If any?

    Ralph
     
    Pumper Hinkle, Mar 23, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Pumper Hinkle

    Marvin Guest

    I have none. When I bought my wife her first digicam, she
    said she would keep using her film camera with the digicam,
    but all she did with the film camera was to finish the roll
    of film that was in it.

    You will hear from others with different opinions. To my
    thinking, film and digital should be seen as different
    media, along the line of oils vs. watercolors for painting.
    As a practical matter, it will be increasingly difficult to
    get new film cameras and repairs for the old ones, and to
    get the variety of films that you are used to.

    One reason I was an early user of digicams (although they
    were pretty bad at first) was that I could do things on my
    computer that previously required a darkroom and its
    equipment.
     
    Marvin, Mar 23, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Pumper Hinkle

    Frank Arthur Guest

    Buy a roll of 35mm Film and add to that the cost of Processing into
    slides and waiting a week or more to see the results. Compare that to
    the cost of 36 digital images and how long it takes to process. Here's
    the answer why I haven't bought any fil in years.
     
    Frank Arthur, Mar 23, 2008
    #3
  4. Pumper Hinkle

    jimkramer Guest

    Get what ever you want to use, but don't expect the older film equipment to
    help pay for it much. If you sell your film camera the only thing you will
    really regret is how little it is worth, monetarily.

    About the only thing I use the film camera now for is black and white.
    Still got a roll of Velvia around here some where, I suppose I should use it
    up...

    Jim
     
    jimkramer, Mar 23, 2008
    #4
  5. Same history as you, Pumper...but my Spotmatic is still soldiering on. At
    least it was the last time I pulled it out to put a fresh battery in it, a
    couple years ago. :) (Ditto my Mamiya C3...there's not even any battery
    there to worry about.)
     
    Blinky the Shark, Mar 23, 2008
    #5
  6. If quality of image is not a consideration go strictly digital. It is
    more convenient and less costly.
     
    Roy Jose Lorr, Mar 23, 2008
    #6
  7. Pumper Hinkle

    jimkramer Guest

    Unless the OP is shooting MF, a 6MP DSLR is going to produce equal or better
    images then most commonly available (consumer) 35mm films. Where this is
    not the case is very fine grained slow silver B&W print films and the
    better, i.e. more expensive, slide films. At 10-12 MP It's pretty much a
    dead heat.

    Jim
     
    jimkramer, Mar 23, 2008
    #7
  8. Pumper Hinkle

    Frank Arthur Guest

    Then after you develop your film don't you scan the images to use them
    in Photoshop or similar program? Isn't that back to digital again?
     
    Frank Arthur, Mar 23, 2008
    #8
  9. Pumper Hinkle

    Joel Guest

    I don't pay much attention to the name to remember the name(s), but I read
    someone here comparing film to 30MP digital camera. Of course I have no
    idea where s/he get the idea but it's pretty interesting to find someone has
     
    Joel, Mar 23, 2008
    #9
  10. Pumper Hinkle

    jimkramer Guest

    For the very finest grain slowest B&W film with the very best lens maybe you
    could scratch out 30 MP of real image data on a drum scanner. But after
    spending all that for the image I'd wonder why it wasn't done in medium or
    large format.

    The real issues with people who claim to be able to get large MP out of film
    is that they have special equipment and the very finest of emulsions to work
    with. The average consumer grade film is basically garbage to generate 4x6"
    prints. A 1MP camera will make an acceptable 4x6 print and a 3MP will make
    a great 4x6 print.

    Roger N. Clark posted some nice comparisons between digital and film
    "MegaPixels"
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html
    and
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

    And of course you need to consider the people that think you should only
    compare prints. Prints made with the finest optical system mind you. :)

    Jim
     
    jimkramer, Mar 23, 2008
    #10
  11. Pumper Hinkle

    Peter Guest


    None
    When I first converted I went with a P&SO but soon became frustrated and
    went back to my old F3. I picked up a D200 and haven't looked back.
    I am now using a D200 and am torn between the D3 and the D300.
     
    Peter, Mar 23, 2008
    #11
  12. Pumper Hinkle

    Peter Guest

    I am hoping not to get into a religious war, but IMNVHO good quality digital
    has arrived.
    Digital is now being used by many professional photo artists and medical
    documentators. The only dinosaur area left is is advertising and one well
    known creative director I know well tells me their photographers are
    starting to go digital. (think Hasselblad.)
     
    Peter, Mar 23, 2008
    #12
  13. The difference is like that between LPs and CDs.
     
    Roy Jose Lorr, Mar 24, 2008
    #13
  14. The differences is like that between LPs and CDs, oils and inks, film
    and tape.
     
    Roy Jose Lorr, Mar 24, 2008
    #14
  15. Yep, the world is dumbing down. Can't wait for the next digital nose
    picker.
     
    Roy Jose Lorr, Mar 24, 2008
    #15
  16. Frank Arthur wrote:

    DNA. Haven't yet shot any film since getting digital.
     
    Blinky the Shark, Mar 24, 2008
    #16
  17. Pumper Hinkle

    Scott W Guest

    I kept my film cameras, I have not used them in years but I kept them.

    I see no reason to ever shoot film again, but don't see much point is
    parting with my old film cameras.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Mar 24, 2008
    #17
  18. Pumper Hinkle

    ray Guest

    Right. I'd like to see a 3x4 foot print from a 6mp camera!!
     
    ray, Mar 24, 2008
    #18
  19. Pumper Hinkle

    Burt Johnson Guest

    We must be married to the same woman -- same experience here. :)

    I finally through out our entire stock of film about 5 years later, when
    she finally admitted she would never use it. Given the extent of her
    pack-rat habits, that was a major admission fo her.
     
    Burt Johnson, Mar 24, 2008
    #19
  20. Pumper Hinkle

    Joel Guest

    Hehehe you may better hope those day-dreamers get a real job when the
    interviewer asks about the difference between 35mm film vs digital camea
    <bg>
     
    Joel, Mar 24, 2008
    #20
    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.