Why is this forum only digital photography?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by princealfie, Mar 15, 2007.

  1. princealfie macrumors 68030

    princealfie

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Location:
    Salt Lake City UT
    #1
    I am thinking about shooting more film this year and I was wondering why this forum is only digital?
     
  2. Buschmaster macrumors 65816

    Buschmaster

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #2
    It really isn't, film comes up now and then and no one thinks twice about it.

    It's probably named digital photography because digital photography can often entail a Mac side.
     
  3. Sdashiki macrumors 68040

    Sdashiki

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    Behind the lens
    #3
    Shoot more film, the world needs it.

    Instant gratification is so, i dont know, childish.

    ::ducks for cover::

    :D
     
  4. princealfie thread starter macrumors 68030

    princealfie

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Location:
    Salt Lake City UT
    #4
    For some odd reason, my Leica M6 is still the best camera I own in my house.
     
  5. .JahJahwarrior. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    #5
    99% of the pictures I've posted here were film. However, I have digital prints of them....I just get the "pictures on cd" because I have a nice photo printer (sony dye-sub). You cannot really put film on the internet. And if you put up a picture, it's digital. Regardless of whether or not it was taken on film, it's been converted to digital information. :)
     
  6. filmamigo macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #6
    One of the reasons I like this forum is because nobody gets weird when real film comes up.

    I shoot some digital and some medium format film. I recently started shooting a lot of 35mm. I enjoyed 35mm so much that I even bought a new-ish Nikon SLR. When I shoot film, I still use my Mac for all my "darkroom" work.

    The world is big enough for analog and digital to live side by side - especially when scanning film is so easy.
     
  7. atari1356 macrumors 68000

    atari1356

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    #7
    I've been tempted to buy a film SLR, just to use with my 17-40mm lens at it's proper focal length (it ends up being around 27-64mm on my Digital Rebel XT).

    But then I think about all the money I'd end up spending on film - and having that film processed - and come to my senses. :p

    I'm sure film is wonderful and all... but I'd rather be saving my pennies for a Canon 5D or whatever model replaces it.

    Getting back on topic though... I've seen plenty of discussions of film photography in this forum, and I don't think anybody has a problem with that. Besides, once you scan a film negative or print onto your computer - it's digital. So, most discussions end up centering on digital imaging anyways, even if the original photo was taken with a film camera.
     
  8. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #8
    Film is NOT expensive. It's cheaper than digital for most people. What did you pay for that Canon DSLR? Say $700? You could buy a good used Canon film Rebel for $75. So you paid $625 up front so as to avoid buying film later. I can shoot film for $10 per roll easy. (I can shoot black and white for $3 per roll) So only after 62 rolls of film do I break even. Most consummers do not shoot 60 rolls in three years but they will replace their digital camera and spend far more on new cameras then they ever would have on film. I serious amatuer will shoot thousands of images per year and might make digital pay but not if he is shooting a high end DLR

    One thing about buying used film bodies -- The list of features don't matter. If the shutter works that's all you need. All the technolgy is in the film the body only has to hold the film flat and have a working shutter. Nothing else matters as far as image quality is concerned. My 1970's vintage Nikon still outperforms my new DSLR

    One thing my film SLR can do I can't with DSLR is shoot slides. People are now so used to seeing computer projectors and TV screens they have accepted to limited quality. When you show them a projected 35mm slide they are just blown away by the quality. I's worth it buy a cheap film body just for a few rolls or slides per year.

    Over all I think you pay a premium for going digital but you gain the fast turn around and the images are easy to find and catralog and post on the web and all. To me it's worth the premium

    But I'll not give up film for when I need it. It fact I'm shopping for 4x5 equipment. I don't see much need for 35mm film as it is so close to DSLR. 4x5 is very complementarty and the quality is unsurpased
     
  9. Clix Pix macrumors demi-goddess

    Clix Pix

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    8 miles from the Apple Store at Tysons (VA)
    #9
    Wonderful as digital imaging is, and convenient as it is to be able to post-process images right in the computer in the comfort of one's own home, no chemicals needed....that can never replace film: shooting film, processing film, standing in the darkroom at an enlarger, standing in the darkroom gently rocking trays filled with chemicals, watching as the image begins to appear on what had been a blank piece of paper....

    Also, in my opinion nothing can replace the stunning quality of a well-done black-and-white photograph which has been carefully printed on high-quality paper to bring out all the tonal graduations....

    For Mr or Mrs Consumer who is perfectly happy taking snapshots of the family in front of various historic monuments or swimming at the community pool, a digital P&S nicely fits the bill in terms of instant gratification and offers some savings in the ability to delete poor images so that one doesn't have to pay for them at the time of printing, etc.

    Serious amateurs/enthusiasts and professional photographers now have so many options available when it comes to expressing artistic creativity, and that is just really neat! It's been a long time since I've been in the darkroom -- I'm hooked on digital now -- but I still have a great appreciation for film and the beautiful results it can produce.
     
  10. Jovian9 macrumors 68000

    Jovian9

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Location:
    Planet Zebes
    #10
  11. .JahJahwarrior. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    #11
    I've shot something like 10 rolls of film last year. I would have shot more, but my film camera died :) (bought a replacement for $55 and spent another $25 on a used lense, so now I have 4 lenses) However, I do not have my own darkroom, or the time and money to make one. I'm fine paying Walmart to develop them, even though I know the quality isn't as good as if I took the time to do it well myself. And I don't want to pay $200 for a negative scanner when I could get a used digital SLR for $100 more.

    I love shooting film: I've never shot anything with an autofocus. I have several fast primes and I was left very upset with a borrowed D70 with a slow zoom. I switched it to manual focus, but still, the lense was so slow, the indoor shooting I was doing with it was pointless without a tripod. With my lenses, I can easily shoot indoors. And the thing is, most DSLR kits are selling with a slow zoom. I love knowing each shot costs me $.50 or so. I love setting up and then deciding it's not worth it. I hate watching people with a $400 camera just clicking away like it's going out of style, then pulling 3 good pictures out of a pile of 400. I also don't like getting back a roll of film only to find out every shot was just a bit out of focus. I will eventually move to digital, but not until I can afford it, and still I'll pull out my film. :)
     
  12. andiwm2003 macrumors 601

    andiwm2003

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #12
    i bought a minolta film slr for cheap when they went out of the business. and my sony a100 dslr uses in part the same lenses. so once in a while i go back and shoot some film.

    nowadays it's cheap and fast6 to get the film developed. i usually get the pics digital on cd. i have a scanner and scan the best pics myself with 20MP resolution again just for the fun of it.

    so if you have film then bring it on.

    i heard black and white film is far superior to digital. is that true?
     
  13. failsafe1 macrumors 6502a

    failsafe1

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    #13
    Speak of film the great equalizer and we will respond in hushed tones of reference. Just kidding. People talk of film here all the time.
     
  14. atari1356 macrumors 68000

    atari1356

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    #14
    Yep... but that's $75 plus a couple hundred dollars in film and processing (over time) that I wouldn't be saving for that Canon 5D. I've got my eye on the prize. ;)
     
  15. failsafe1 macrumors 6502a

    failsafe1

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    #15
    Funny comment about the film body performing better than the DSLR because all you need is the shutter. I remember having to go with a Nikon F3 and lamenting that loss of mechanical function other than a 60th of a second.
     
  16. failsafe1 macrumors 6502a

    failsafe1

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    #16
    I am a pro who went digital 10 years ago and have not looked back. I shoot news so view camera type images are not in my work flow. Perhaps if they were I would miss film. I can say our organization has saved a lot of money by not having to buy film and processing supplies. Also with digital we don't print things to show people our images. The web and servers has almost eliminated that need. As far as the investment in digital gear it has not been terrible. Our Nikon lenses still work, and we have only purchased two camera bodies in the last nine years. I am currently using a D2H. I am trying to convince my boss to invest in a new Canon system for some full frame gear. This would represent a big investment but so would new film cameras if we changed systems. When I worked at the newspaper and made a pitch to go digital 10 years ago we could get a camera body for 15K that sounded horrible at the time and it was but we were spending just over 15K a year on film and we were a small newspaper. Management did not go for it then I changed jobs and we went digital there. For me getting the image is what is important. Even when I was doing darkroom work I had to allow for time to do it and that cut into my shooting time. I can remember not wanting to be a darkroom junkie even then. I just want to shoot. There is an interesting plug in from Andromedea that looks like several film emulsions.
     
  17. ezekielrage_99 macrumors 68040

    ezekielrage_99

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    #17
    Over the last few years in dealing within an imagery field I doubt I've come across anything but digital, I really don't know anyone if any who still uses film for photography or video (from what I am doing). I like the look of film however if no one is willing to pay for it that limits the capacity of what can pay my bills.

    Film and digital both have pros and cons but what medium is used depends what is "industry" deems to be the most compatible and most commonly used.
     
  18. Jovian9 macrumors 68000

    Jovian9

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Location:
    Planet Zebes
    #18
    I have yet to buy a DSLR so I have no idea how much $ I could save doing so....but I do believe film is expensive. I've shot probably close to 40 rolls in the last year. Each roll of film(whether it's b&w or color) costs me around $5/roll. The paper I print on costs around $1/page. I average about 5 rolls per idea/concept I am shooting and end up with around 10 good prints (and around 30 not so good prints). That's about $60 per project. I have access to a university darkroom so I do not have those expenses.
    I do not shoot professionally, just a hobby, so I haven't felt the urge to go digital. Though the D50/D80 enters my thoughts everytime I pick up my film SLR :)
     
  19. Georgie macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio
    #19
    I would love to get a Leice M6. It's my dream. Do you think there's any way to get one for less than several thousand dollars? I consider myself an artistically-oriented pro-sumer and I'd love to use an M6, but I can't justify spending a few grand for a hobby to my fiance.
     

Share This Page