 Liz M. Jensen |
Please tell me film is still in I am taking a photography class w/in the next couple weeks and I plan on buying a Nikon N75 SLR I have been told by some, that i'm waisting my time and money by going to film and I will get no where w/ freelance work w/o a digital SLR I've been told by others that film is still the "way to go" Please help! :)
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
Please read my article entitled 'Film v. Digital at my website. Tell me what you think. Thank you. Walrath Photographic Imaging
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Debbie Del Tejo |
Your article was very good Chris.....I USED to shoot with film and was one of the first photographers in my area to go digital. I realized that time creates new tecknology and I better hop to it. I am a professional and most iof not all my cmmercial jobs require me to show them the work right then and there on a laptop and/or they require a CD with all the images. The turnaround is amazing.......no more waiting for a week for a black and white roll to be developed by hand at my lab to make a choice. Now I can do it INSTANTLY so my clients can make a choice. Yes, say what you may about the greatness of film but I LOVE THE AGE OF DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY and the freedom it has given me....THE SKY'S THE LIMIT! Thanks for your articles Chris and I hope I helped, Liz.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
Film is still the way to go. So is digital. It is really all a matter of personal preference and a matter of what type of photography you want to do. Some clients do want instant results. Some don't mind the wait. If you want to do B&W, film is by far the way to go.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Liz M. Jensen |
very good article Chris!! Thank you
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Justin G. |
of course it is, why not? lol I personally believe that buying a film camera will slow you down and get you to think more. between buying film and developing you won't be swayed to shoot millions of pics but stop, compose and slowly shoot. you will also have to be more strict to yourself due to the pain of error. I personally believe that with digital, (MOST of the time but not always) that if you make a mistake the pain isn't as harsh because you really haven't wasted anything. just delete and start over. with film its get another roll and shoot again. more pain, more of a reason to THINK before you shoot.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Forrest C. Wilkinson |
Perhaps, but the person talking to Liz was most likely referring to the future. Remember that the Digital SLR market is still on the rise, and before long, a standard dSLR is going to shoot more that 16 megapixels which cannot be matched by scanning in quality or size. Yes, learning photography is the same in both styles, and I agree with Justin on the amount of stress put into a single shot. But I would not consider it to be of the Eustress variety. It is stress, so under no circumstances would I consider it to be good, although you may pay more attention to your shot; there is nothing more disappointing then coming home after an event to find that your shots are all too dark, too light, blurred, etc. Also keep in mind that in the coming years that Digital will become the way to go. Digital is slowly going to take over the media industry. Movies will begin to be shot in the digital format because it will become uneconomical to buy the film when you can produce the same results in Digital. The only thing stoping them from doing it now is that the movie theatres still have film projectors. But this will soon change with the digital world, movies will be downloaded online, as they are starting to be anyways. And still photography will be just the same. If you are talking about being in photography for the long run, Digital is the way to go. But if it's something short term, you can still work with film. But do realize that scanning is not going to give you the same results as shooting in digital. Especially in 3 or 4 years when dSLR's are shooting at 20-30+ megapixels. Look at what you're planning to do, not just what you are going to do right away. If all you want is to take some pictures for yourself, then film has no downside. But if you are going professional, the digital market will inevitably take over still and motion photography; there's nothing that can stop that with the increasing technology. I would also say that digital is a better way to learn because you are seeing the result as you shoot it. You will know right away when you make a mistake, and you wont ever go home empty handed. Hope this helps.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Liz M. Jensen |
um Thanks guys....... sucks to be poor
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Liz M. Jensen |
*adding in* what I meant was, I am far from able to afford a good/decent SLR digital camera..... but I think ya'll for your opinions
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Liz M. Jensen |
*adding in* what I meant was, I am far from able to afford a good/decent SLR digital camera..... but I think ya'll for your opinions
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Justin G. |
Forrest please don't take any offense to this I'm just playing devil's advocate. Of course scanning isn't going to give you as good results BUT who says that the photo is MANDATED to be put on the computer or through photoshop. I've been shooting all B&W lately and doing my own darkroom stuff. Of the last 10 rolls of film I've shot not a single pic has been put on my computer for printing purposes. The only reason I've scanned the ones in my gallery is purely for ... this gallery. I scanned them at 300 dpi which is over-doing it for the internet. Anyways what I'm saying is that I've been shooting a lot and printing a TON and not one has gone through the dry darkroom. I guess it's hard to type what I'm thinking. Scanning will give you below-par results but every shot taken does NOT have to be put on the computer for photoshop work if it's shot correctly in the first place.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
I know what a darkroom is but what is Photoshop - a place to buy photos?
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Liz M. Jensen |
photoshop is a way to edit and fix up photos -- some use them to make them look better
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
Just being facetious. The folks who have been around here a while (like Justin) know I am a die-hard film shooter with a wierd sense of humor (and no editing skills).
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Justin G. |
Kerry Photoshop is used to make ANYONE a good graphic artist. oh shoot wait did I say graphic artist and not photographer. crap I feel so bad :-( lol
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Liz M. Jensen |
Justin and kerry, thank you , you made me feel better for chosing to use film and not digital I admit I have a digital camera -- for family trips and such but i'll always carry my 35mm with me :)
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Justin G. |
Good girl. And a smart one too. Kerry's there, and I'm getting closer but if you could ever save up for a medium format, apparently its a whole other world for detail and clarity. I've heard once (don't remember the source) that a medium format yields something like 50-60 megapixels. I'm sure its more but its crazy. Hey then by the time they get digital surpassing medium format quality, then just get a large format 4x5 or 8x10. Then us 3 can just sit there and laugh at them when their computers crash! Note: I'm only playing all you digitalites!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
Justin, you are correct about the resolution of MF. Plus, the dynamic range is awesome!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Justin G. |
Kerry will monochrome film capture all 9 zones or just certain films? I believe that most B&W film has this tonal right, right?
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
Different monochrome films have different ranges. (With the Zone System you are actually referring to the exposure latitude, not the tonal range.) Tri-X has the widest exposure latitude, the entire 9 stops of the Zone System. Most others will not, especially the newer films. The problem you will run into with Tri-X, other than the grain, is the fact that the printing paper does not have the same latitude as the film, only about 5 stops. Plus-X will also exceed the latitude of the paper. Newer films, like T-Max will not. I am sure that the older versions of the Ilford films are similar to the Kodaks, but I am not sure.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Justin G. |
ooooooohhhhhh I see. I get confused about all this stuff but it seems detrimental to learn because as I love shooting photography, I also love understanding the chemistry involved with the lighting and the silver hallide (correct term?). someday i'll understand it all. kerry does it say in the tech data how wide the exposure lattitude is. I recently fell in love with fuji acros 100 and i'm just curious as to it's values.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
I am not sure. Check out Fuji's site for the technical data and it may tell you.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Taunya M. Ackerman |
I am still new to all this... but so far I use both. digital is great when I dont want to lug around gear. but there is something so soft about fil that I love. i bought another 35 on ebay for $20. ( minolta srt 101, yeah I know. it is an oldie but a goodie)
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Justin G. |
I've heard you can get interesting effects (but not reversable) when you process E-6 in C-41 or C-41 in E-6. Anyone know what can result and if it's a neat effect. My instructor gave me a 100ft roll of Ektachrome so I thought I'd use it for experimenting and learning. Any ideas what's gonna happen if I develop in C-41?
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Bob Cammarata |
I couldn't help interjecting my own personal opinions.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
|||||||||||
