Go Back   RetouchPRO > Technique > Photography
Register Blogs FAQ Site Nav Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Photography Both digital and film. Discussions about cameras, gear, exposure, technique, and sharing your photography

Film vs. Digital

View Poll Results: Do you shoot film or digital?
Film exclusively 2 2.63%
Digital exclusively 53 69.74%
Both, but mostly film 6 7.89%
Both, but mostly digital 15 19.74%
Voters: 76. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Old 10-05-2006, 03:56 PM
Racc Iria's Avatar
Racc Iria Racc Iria is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Rockville, MD USA
Posts: 252
Re: Film vs. Digital

We all determine the quality of our digital cameras largely by the number of megapixels the imaging CCD has. Because, as we all know, the more pixels that can sample the light the more detailed and high resolution the images will be.

Now, in a giant backward leap forward they're looking into creating single pixel cameras. One single pixel on the CCD (not millions) to sample the light and capture all the data.

Check it out:

Reply With Quote top
Old 01-02-2007, 04:20 PM
ingafinch's Avatar
ingafinch ingafinch is offline
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: tallahassee, florida
Posts: 2
Re: Film vs. Digital

i used to be a snob and i always thought digtal was a cheaters way. i bought my first digital used from a photographer...the canon d60. loved it! my dark room became storage immediately.
Reply With Quote top
Old 01-03-2007, 11:31 PM
plugsnpixels's Avatar
plugsnpixels plugsnpixels is offline
RetouchPRO LIVE Guest Artist
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: LA area
Posts: 2,027
Thumbs down Re: Film vs. Digital

Digital all the way! Here's my story:

I shot my first film photos back in 1974. Just prior to that I played with blue sun prints made from my grandfather's old box camera negs. From that same time I learned to develop my own B&W film and prints (while also trying to develop color slide film and Cibachrome prints).

I continued the same Tri-X film/RC paper combo straight through high school (while also working as a photographer for the local paper) and college (MANY yearbook-related shoot and print jobs). My last use of my own darkroom was in 1997, even though I worked in education afterward and had a nice one available to me for several years after that. Never used it!

My first experience with digital was about 1992, with the Sony Pro-Mavica and little Canon discs ($10 each). I went full-time digital about 5 years ago, and have only shot film for the rare family portrait assignment (medium format).

After all those years in the darkroom, I have no desire to ever set foot in one again! Hot, dark, smelly, expensive, environmentally unfriendly. It's great to shoot digital like a wild man with no concern for cost, pop the disc into the computer, and instantly be looking at and experimenting with the day's shots.

I use to shoot a lot of weddings in 35mm, and half of the stress (after the effort of physically taking the shots and sweating out the exposure, etc.) was hoping the lab didn't trash the shots in the soup.

And it's been stated several years ago (by Jeff Schewe) that digital has surpassed film in resolving quality, so it's only gotten better since.

Speaking of digital's ease-of-use, here's a shot I took yesterday at The Grove/Farmer's Market in Hollywood. Had I shot this on film, chances are the half-finished roll would still be in the camera, and you would never see the image until I got around to processing/scanning it.

I did not alter the content of the shot (a cool building roof with reflection from another building and surprise chemtrail plane --I was working the shot before he arrived!) except to enhance the detail with LucisArt and reduce the resulting grittiness with Noiseware. I further treated the shot with Kubota Artistic Actions' Hollywood Glow (fittingly enough!).

I should also add that there are several plug-ins and actions that offer film grain, color effects, etc., should you miss the old stock ;-).
Attached Images
File Type: jpg hollywoodabstract.jpg (33.5 KB, 16 views)

Last edited by plugsnpixels; 01-03-2007 at 11:38 PM.
Reply With Quote top
Old 01-04-2007, 05:33 PM
DannyRaphael's Avatar
DannyRaphael DannyRaphael is offline
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near Seattle, Washington, USA
Posts: 6,300
Interesting thread at DPReview

Lots of opinions, pros/cons on film and digital here:
Reply With Quote top
Old 03-03-2007, 04:49 AM
petercook80 petercook80 is offline
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 21
Re: Film vs. Digital

Film still - I think that while its obvious that digital is taking over I think the cost of moving to digital and being able to do the same things as Film is never mentioned .....
1. Projecting slides-what can beat looking at projected slides for impact etc. has everyone forgoten this? you can only do similar with a digital projector which has a very high cost both to buy and with spare lamps and the quality is not anywhere near as good. (TV is an option but only if you have a large and very expensive HD TV will you get near slide projection)
2. Having to take a large storage method when going on a long trip ie: lots of cards (expensive) A laptop (expensive and heavy) or a portable drive (expensive) - I know these are one off costs and it can be argued that you would also need a film scanner for film but you can also get you best shots scanned at shop etc. which gets around the costs of a scanner.
3. The future? what will happen to our images when say in 50 years time a grandson unearths some funny shiny disc and has nothing to put it in to see whats on it coupled with Jpegs and Tiffs being long dead, all these things will become obsolete weather you like it or not, Film will only die out because we let it.
I think that digitals bigest drawback is the very high cost of all the other bits needed to run it and the fact that you are limiting yourself to one format - The Print! I prefer to keep my options open which I can do with film.
Reply With Quote top
Old 03-11-2007, 01:40 PM
Paul Goutiere Paul Goutiere is offline
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canadian Rockies
Posts: 1
Re: Film vs. Digital

I remain with film, for now, but am not concerned with the advent of digital photography. Both formats will fulfill various requirements I'm sure.

The primary concern for me is the longevity of the original image. Digital processes have not entirely addressed the issue of permanence.
I'm sure prints may be archival but there is no permanent storage systems like negatives. Hard drives and CDs just do not cut it. These methods have not been proven archival.

We own a gallery and images are often submitted. Limited edition digital prints are cautiously accepted but we prefer traditional black and white. We find quite a bit of interest in old photos of historic places and people therefore, I am concerned with the loss of records like wedding photos, famous people, etc.

If I require a good permanent image I can only use film, I cannot take the chance with digital's impermanence.

Reply With Quote top

  RetouchPRO > Technique > Photography

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Free Action Set for Digital Noise Removal gmitchel Photo Restoration 5 11-17-2013 08:20 AM
making digital photos look like film Faust Photo Retouching 9 10-27-2006 03:11 AM
Film vs. digital Alvaretto Photography 4 10-11-2005 08:01 AM
Digital Vs Analog christo Hardware 4 04-19-2005 09:56 PM
8mm Film to Digital thomasgeorge Input/Output/Workflow 1 12-12-2001 09:52 PM

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2016 Doug Nelson. All Rights Reserved