Film vs. Digital

[MonorailMan]

I know there are at least a few other photogs out there, so I thought I'd post this to get some opinions/feedback. This is going to be sort of a rant, so brace yourselves.

I'm a professional photographer who's at a crossroads--I have 3 film cameras and love to shoot with them because I'm one of those people who still feels as though the quality of image I can get with film is far greater than what I can get with a digital SLR.

*dodges flying tomatoes*

Unfortunately, I can no longer shoot film for clients simply due to 2 things: They don't want to pay for additional processing charges, and they don't want to wait for processing. Where I live, the processing fees that places charge are more than double what they used to be 5 years ago. To top it off, the 2 places that sell medium format film in my city only sell 2 or 3 kinds now.....and lemme tell ya.....they're not the good kinds. There is a film processing place down the street from me that specializes in commercial and professional clientelle, but unfortunately, they're going to be closing soon due to the "digital revolution". I can no longer shoot film unless I want to either shoot work for my own enjoyment or if I'm going to have a gallery show, which probably won't be happening any time soon due to my schedule. I have my own film scanner, but I've become so put off about using it because it literally takes about 10 minutes to just scan one 6x7 frame (medium format film).

I have a good digital SLR, but I'm just not as excited about using it as I was when I used film cameras. I'm thinking about selling my film cameras, but at the same time it'd be hard to since I've gotten most of my best work with them.

That makes me think about something else: I talk to several digital photographers online. They sometimes spend hours in Photoshop working on a single image. Can these people actually be considered photographers, or are they digital artists?

Sorry about the rant. I'm just afraid that unless someone has the time and money to shoot it, film is probably going to become a thing of the past.


.....We now return you to your regularly-scheduled program.

 

[Disney_Villain]

Hey there, MonorailMan!

My DH was in the same boat as you, but he went with digital SLRs a while back - due to the costs of printing his 1000+ pics of each vacation (not to mention storage issues). It wasn't an easy sell for him, but he's stayed with digital SLRs.

On the other hand, as amatuer videographer, I still use tape-based cams (until I can't buy mini-DV tapes anymore). I did own a prosumer HDD cam model two years ago and ditched it as the quirks of HDD drove me nuts.

 

[MonorailMan]

Hey there, MonorailMan!

My DH was in the same boat as you, but he went with digital SLRs a while back - due to the costs of printing his 1000+ pics of each vacation (not to mentioning storage issues). It wasn't an easy sell for him, but he's stayed with digital SLRs.

On the other hand, as amatuer videographer, I still use tape-based cams (until I can't buy mini-DV tapes anymore). I did own a prosumer HDD cam model two years ago and ditched it as the quirks of HDD drove me nuts.

Yeah, the cost is definitely a factor here. Although making large prints (over 2'x3') from digital files can get pretty expensive too. A friend of mine has a large format printer, but the paper itself can cost quite a bit since it's on a roll. (What can I say? When it comes to printing, I'm a size queen. )

Speaking of video cameras, I just put my Hi8 camera up on eBay today. I love the quality of these cameras, but if you plan on doing any editing it's hard to do unless you have the equipment for it. I've never owned a digital video camera, but I've also had people tell me they had issues with theirs.

 

[kingLouiethe1]

I'm sorry to tell you I switched to digital a few years ago. I loved film, but given the processing time and the nature of my work (graphic and web design) I don't have the time to develop or wait for something to be developed.

That being said I found a wedding photographer that still uses film and then scans the images and her work is awesome, and the fact she shot film did a lot to sell me on her.

 

[MonorailMan]

I'm sorry to tell you I switched to digital a few years ago. I loved film, but given the processing time and the nature of my work (graphic and web design) I don't have the time to develop or wait for something to be developed.

That being said I found a wedding photographer that still uses film and then scans the images and her work is awesome, and the fact she shot film did a lot to sell me on her.

The fact of whether someone shoots film or not can be a huge selling factor. In some of the galleries here I've known people to not want to buy prints simply because they were digital, regardless of how amazing the image was. It's a two-sided issue, I suppose. If you're going commercial, digital is a must....but if you're an art patron, film still apparently needs to be used.

 

[tiggr33]

No rant as far as I am concerned. I am an award winning amauter photographer. I shot both digital and slide. My primary body is a digital, only for ease and cost factors.

I am on the Board of Directors of the camera club I am a member of. I have come to within a hairs width of resigning both as a board member and as a general member over a similiar situation as what you said in the end of your message.

My club is finally going digital this coming competition year. The Board passed (I abstained) new rules that put photos that are straight from a digital camera with none or only global adjustments head to head with images that have up to 10 layers and full manipulations including color changes, adding items/removing items, etc. etc.. To me, there is a huge difference between a photo and an image.

I know what you mean about film Vs. digital though. You can't beat the richness in some areas. And I know what you mean about the people who spend hours editing a single file. To me, it is no longer a photograph, once you go past global adjustments. It is an artistic image.

I wouldn't get rid of your good stuff. If you've done you best work with it, keep it. You can give your clients the option of the format they want, and continue doing your own stuff in medium format.

Down the line film/slides may go the wayside, but I'd worry about it when the press releases are released. It did take me a while to get the right combination of dSLR and lens to get shots I am happy with.

 

[tiggr33]

I admit, and a semi hijack.......

I will be giving a photo workshop for my club in the Spring called "Disney....it's more then a Mouse". So everyone feel free to send me via a reply or PM your tips/tricks/techniques/gear for shooting at Disney (WDW, DL, DCL, ABD...anything Disney)

 

[MonorailMan]

I admit, and a semi hijack.......

I will be giving a photo workshop for my club in the Spring called "Disney....it's more then a Mouse". So everyone feel free to send me via a reply or PM your tips/tricks/techniques/gear for shooting at Disney (WDW, DL, DCL, ABD...anything Disney)

It's all good. I think it'd be neat if this topic just turned into a not-so-specific photography topic.

I've never actually shot that many photos at any of the Disney resorts or parks. Ironically, my best/favorite photo I shot at WDW was of Cinderella Castle.....and it was with an reeeeeally cheap digital point-n-shoot camera from Sharper Image. (We're talking $25.) But it came out really sharp and the colors were pretty amazing considering what it was shot with.

 

[Saxton]

I switched to digital a few years ago when the seal on my old Minolta SLR turned to sludge, I looked into having it replaced but some friends that owned a camera store said they would have to send it out. I've gone through a few digitals since then and now I go between my SLR and a point and shoot.

For Disney shots one of the things I try to do is focus on architecture - I love details that most people don't even notice. One of my personal challenges is to take shots without people while I'm there, it takes time and patience but it can be done. The gardens are another great subject, especially if you want to play with a macro lens.

 

[TuckandStuiesMom]

I'm a professional photographer who's at a crossroads--I have 3 film cameras and love to shoot with them because I'm one of those people who still feels as though the quality of image I can get with film is far greater than what I can get with a digital SLR.
[/I]

Cuz' we's analog animals, my brother. Your eye does not lie...

I gotta confess -- I like digital but that's because I enjoy doing the photoshop thing you talk about.

 

[Disney_Villain]

(What can I say? When it comes to printing, I'm a size queen. ) I've never owned a digital video camera, but I've also had people tell me they had issues with theirs.

We're ALL size queens! Got DH the Sony Cybershot "Dark Angel" of SLRs a few years back (huge monster of a digital SLR, matches DH . . . 6'4").

The biggest issue I've had with digital cams is how HDD units record directly to MPG on the HDD (causing jitters, etc.). Recording direct to digital tape may have the odd frame drop, but that's about it.

 

[MonorailMan]

For Disney shots one of the things I try to do is focus on architecture - I love details that most people don't even notice. One of my personal challenges is to take shots without people while I'm there, it takes time and patience but it can be done. The gardens are another great subject, especially if you want to play with a macro lens.

My problem is wanting to take the time out to actually shoot anything. Since I only get to WDW every couple years or so I always forget about bringing a (decent) camera. I agree that the architecture lends itself to making some of the best images, though. Good shtuff.

Cuz' we's analog animals, my brother. Your eye does not lie...

I gotta confess -- I like digital but that's because I enjoy doing the photoshop thing you talk about.

Photoshop can be fun if I just want to create an image that didn't originally exist when I took the shot. I also sometimes take a new, blank document/canvas and do "digital paintings" with it since I don't feel like shelling out $800 for a good painting or illustration software. Let's keep this our little secret though, okay?

We're ALL size queens! Got DH the Sony Cybershot "Dark Angel" of SLRs a few years back (huge monster of a digital SLR, matches DH . . . 6'4").

The biggest issue I've had with digital cams is how HDD units record directly to MPG on the HDD (causing jitters, etc.). Recording direct to digital tape may have the odd frame drop, but that's about it.

I......uh....er.......
I'm going to leave that first comment alone for now. Wow.....6'4"....

I no longer make any serious videos, so I'll probably just pick up one of those Flip cameras. From what I've seen of my friend's, the quality is really good and it has a built-in USB plug that flips up and down so you can upload pretty easily. I'm not sure if they come in the HD variety yet or not. The only problem is I'd have to burn a DVD in order to watch any of the videos on my TV......I think.

Hey, I never said I was technologically savy.