taxslave

I started in photography in 1972 with a Pentax Spotmatic II and a Super Takumar 50mm f1.4. I took thousands of photos with this rig along with a Pentax 35mm wide angle and a Lentar Zoom lens. I went digital 15 years ago buying a Canon XT 8 megapixel body and some kind of zoom lens that I do not remember. Currently I have a Canon 90d with a 24-105L. I also have a couple other lenses to fill in the focal lengths before and after that lens.

Digital photography is great - instant viewing of the image to show composition, sharpness, exposure and DOF. But the thing I love most about digital photography is the ability to reset ISO on the go. In the old film days a roll of film had a given ISO (ASA in those days) and you could not change it until the roll of film was complete. And of course the film types of different ISO’s were limited - 25, 64, 100, 125 speeds were common. TriX which was B&W was 400. These limited ISO’s are the reason most cameras came with a prime lens with a large aperture, f1.4 -2.0 were very common. You could push some films to 1000 if you needed to but then you experienced lots of noise. Today you can set the ISO as high as 3000-4000 without a significant amount of noise. I’ve heard of some people using ISO 10,000 and lowering noise in post. What did we do in the old days when we had 3 exposures left on the roll and the sun was fading? We did not get the shot.

I understand 35mm film photography is making a comeback. I don’t understand that. I will never go back. How about you?

Robertl594 Loc: Bloomfield Hills, Michigan and Nantucket

Have not shot film since getting my first Nikon D1 in November of 1999. I just cleaned out some drawers of new rolls of 35mm film. I totally agree with you comment regarding being able to change ISO (formerly ASA haha) per image. Such a great benefit. Digital has come a long way and I do not see myself ever going back to film, although I do still keep my F5 because it is such a beautiful bit of engineering.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The only people shooting film in 2021 are fossils, the idle rich and hipsters from Brooklyn.

wetreed

I went into digital photography kicking and screaming, but you could not pay me to go back to film.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I like the fineness of images from film more, but not enough to supersede the convenience and versatility of digital. I haven't shot film in over 25 years.

photostephen

In 1970 I purchased my first SLR, a Minolta 101 with a 50 mm prime lens. I loved that camera for years.
Later I added a Telezoom lens (I think 80-180 f/3.5). Loved that lens also.

Then in 2001 I purchased my first Digital Camera. (Not a DSLR), and I loved the flexibility Digital offered. I loved the Post Processing options, I loved not having to spend lots of money on film and developing.

Once I went Digital, I never went back to film.

I have since acquired a few DSLR cameras and many lenses. I love my digital camera gear and my post processing software.

When I hear people say they are going "back to film", I wish them luck. But for me, been there, done that, and I will not go back to film as long as Digital (DSLR or maybe in the future Mirrorless) options exist.

Great Post, thanks for sharing.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

I only shot slide film and I really lamented the end of that era. The colors --- the pallets of the various films were exquisitely beautiful. But with Nikon and their Picture Controls, I can closely approximate the "Look" that I want with digital. Way more "Pros" than "Cons" with digital vs film.

MrMophoto Loc: Rhode Island "The biggest little"

I started With photography in college around 1972, it was all B&W. I was an education major and concentrated in photography and graphic design. I always wanted to explore the possibilities of using a graphic arts process camera for photography but never got the opportunity.
Today, I can do infinitely more with my DSLR and Photoshop on my PC than I could have even imagined doing had I had the most well equipped darkroom back in the day.
There is a certain look that chemical photography has that is (IMHO) impossible to achieve with digital prints. However, I consider myself an abstract and surrealist artist and my interests lye with the aspects of image manipulation.
To answer your question, no, I could never go back, I'm having way too much fun.

tradio Loc: Oxford, Ohio

Been there, done that....it's over.
Digital all the way.
I still shoot digital like it was film though.. try to make every shot a keeper- can't get used to the spray and pray method.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

I started back around '76 with a Minolta SRT101, or was it the 100? Went digital in 2005, an EOS XT. It renewed my enthusiasm for photography. I hadn't used an SLR in ages and won't go back. I now primarily use my 80D, 'tho the SX50HS, T2i, and ZS100 also get used.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

Acrylics didn't replace oils. Photography didn't replace painting. Increasingly with everything being digital and processed and viewed on computers, there is a desire for tangibility. Not only is film making a small come back but the past decade has seen a renaissance for alternative and historic processes.

After working for 20+ hours a week in the darkroom, I took a break from it. However, with the ways things are much more of life involves screens especially with the rise of Zoom meetings for everything. Now my darkroom time is a welcomed break from the computer.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Definitely!!!

Well, maybe ocean waves on rocks. They're rather unpredictable.

That's why some people have to spend hours culling.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

This year, so far, I've shot more film than digital. That is partially the result of some testing. This has been mostly medium and large format.

As for instant viewing, I see my final image before I even look through a viewfinder or at a ground glass. If I can't see it, I don't actuate the shutter.

I don't look at it as a contest or, as you put it, "vs". It's two different mediums. Each, in some cases, can do something the other can't. It's two different tools. As for the 35mm film making a comeback, don't try to understand it. Just accept it.
--Bob

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Like you my first camera was a 35mm Pentax Spotmatic around 1975. Next was in the 80's with a Canon AE 1 I believe. Shot mostly slides. Still have both of them. They were expensive to run and had zero control over post editing. You had to wait days to see if what you did was right or wrong, and normal folks didn't really keep track of what they did so it was pretty much a SLOW learning curve with thousands of lousy exposures.

Next was a Kodak DC280 Zoom. Cost nothing to run, had total control over post processing. Instant feed back so learning curve was reduced to seconds rather than days or weeks, and photo taking was just the beginning of the fun instead of the end. Now you could spend 1/1000 of a second taking a picture, and minutes, hours, days or weeks massaging it to your perfection with robust photo editors. Went instantly from photo hell to photo heaven.

Next went to a Panasonic FZ18 which I loved, particularly the built in zoom. Then went to a Nikon D5200 which I've had a love/hate relationship with. Now, I've lost some interest in taking pictures, party because of the Nikon but mostly because I've already taken a zillion pics of everything that interests me. My real hobby is photo editing and I mostly do pictures I get of my granddaughter from my daughters cell phone. The cell phone pics are so good it sort of depresses me that a damned cell phone competes well with all my "real" camera's. Also my daughter, who has little apparent interest in photography takes better pictures with out trying with her cell than I can with my "real" gear. She's on the other side of the country now so the digital pics are great with instant access to them as if she were next door.

Anyway, photography sure has changed for the better, and today everyone with a modicum of interest can get into the act.
The other great thing is ALL your good and or favorite pics can be displayed on your big screen TV's. I have maybe 25-50 pictures displayed on my walls, but over 3000 displayed on my 55" TV for all to "enjoy". Well, I enjoy them that's for sure.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I only shoot film because my EOS 1v uses all my EF lenses, especially the IS-enabled models. The 45 AF points in the 1v body from 2000 are only slightly less than the 61 in my EOS 5DIII. I sold off all my manual-focus bodies when I recognized I was not able to obtain the same sharply focused results in film as I could easily obtain in digital.

A few other thoughts on Film vs Digital:

1) Digital photography is not a sport. And yet, we encounter 'old film shooters' who think they should play photography like golf trying for some sort of lowest score when shooting with their digital camera. The only score that counts is the final result, where in digital photography you should take as many frames as needed to assure you have the one (or more) 'best in show'. Personally, I want every frame to be the winner. But, the reality is that rarely 1 in 10 is worth anything more than the immediate <delete> key. I want at least one frame that represents why I bothered with the subject at all and represents the minimum of processing needs later.

2) Exposure technique is different in digital photography. You expose for the highlights and never seek to underexpose in any digital situation. The EOS 1v includes a 'data back' letting me extract and merge the EXIF data with the scanned JPEGs to better analyze and understand the success (or failure) of every frame. Without trying to spend other people's money, the most advanced film cameras are the most worthwhile for the effort of getting involved (again) with film.

3) Digital photographers should process your results and give up on the notion of Straight out of Camera (SOOC) perfection. You can get good enough results SOOC, but all digital images improve with even a modest amount of computer processing.

4) Scanned film are nothing more than digital files from a different type of camera. Although the scans retain the flavor of the original film, they should be processed as digital images to 'perfection' rather than taken as-is / SOOC from the scanner.

The four distinguishing items above are learned, developed and perfected via digital photography, not film-based photography.