Film or digital? (Page 10): I still shoot black and white 4x5 and also,digital. B&W still viable and it takes work get the negative optimized with film speed and light meter to get an...

Wally in Austin Loc: Austin, TX

I still shoot black and white 4x5 and also,digital. B&W still viable and it takes work get the negative optimized with film speed and light meter to get an optimized negative. Then you move into the darkroom to work on the print burning and dodging and this takes work and time.

Shoot color and use graduated neutral density filters and you can make great images too.

I find that digital post production is easier than all of the work it takes for film BUT film does have greater dynamic range and unless you spend a small fortune on larger FF camera bodies you can't print as big as film.

Pro friend of mine told me he takes 1500 images on assignment and spends all weekend in post processing and commented that I take one or two shots and spend all weekend in the darkroom in image creation.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Lizzy, I think you can see that there is, and probably will always be, very diverse opinions or thoughts on this subject. I think SharpShooter says it best in that, film or digital, it the results that count in the long run.

msmith44

Apaflo wrote:

Your professor is wasting your time and money, ass... (show quote)

Arts education curricula and pedagogies most often differ substantially from STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) training.

For the photography student, starting in film has the benefits of learning fundamentals without the shortcuts inherent in digital. Many photography teachers insist that students shoot film in manual mode for at least a quarter/semester. Darkroom work teaches patience and attention to detail that working in Photoshop can't duplicate for students at the beginning level of study.

While I may disagree with the Professor's dogmatic assertions on the artistic superiority of film, I can't disagree with this using film as a starting off point for the education of photographers. The position from which I make my comments is 46 years of higher education teaching and leadership in art education.

Nikon Graphic Nut Loc: Fremont, California

Kevin R. Roberts wrote:

If convenience is your hot button, then go digital... (show quote)

I agree but am going to DSLR soon, but still plan on my second camera being my Nikon FA or F3.

Nikon Graphic Nut Loc: Fremont, California

Nikon Graphic Nut wrote:

I agree but am going to DSLR soon, but still plan on my second camera being my Nikon FA or F3.

AND MY 4x5 GRAPHIC VIEW

AntonioReyna Loc: Los Angeles, California

You can find some incredible deals on medium format on Craigslist, on Mamiya, Hasselblad, Pentax, even Rollieflex.

Cdouthitt wrote:

I'm trying to get into medium format film. For me the 645 is a nice size and a happy medium between that and my m4/3 body.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

AntonioReyna wrote:

You can find some incredible deals on medium format on Craigslist, on Mamiya, Hasselblad, Pentax, even Rollieflex.

I currently have a m645 that I'm cleaning up right now (all the light seals need replacing). I'm hoping to have it up and running and tested by mid next week.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

romanticf16 wrote:

I too believe a fully manual film camera, either rangefinder or SLR is a superior tool for learning the craft of photography if it includes the understanding of how light effects the silver in film, and how processing can control that effect. Both camera and darkroom technique are part of the learning process to master exposure, lighting, composition and the other basics of photography.

With the price of film and processing these days (can be up to $15 per 36-exposure roll of film PLUS another $15 for the processing, if you want them to to print everything out). $30 can buy you a nice SD card, which will hold THOUSANDS of images!

BUT with film, especially with a manual auto-nothing camera, it forces you to learn how to get the shot, to get it right, the first time. With film, there are no do-overs. You wont know, until you get the film back, whether or not the shot came out as you expected. You cant go back and do it again. One shot (pardon the pun) to get it.

With digital, as has been said, you can take a thousand shots and some of them will work out great. Who cares? You can always delete the bad ones. With film, you are literally paying for each shot, so you have to learn what it takes to make it work each and every time.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

kb6kgx wrote:

With the price of film and processing these days (can be up to $15 per 36-exposure roll of film PLUS another $15 for the processing, if you want them to to print everything out). $30 can buy you a nice SD card, which will hold THOUSANDS of images!

You're paying way too much for processing. The lab in my city processes a roll of 135 film for $3 + tax, and I pay anywhere between $2-5 per roll of the film, depending on brand and type. Yes, there are some very expensive films out there, but the lower priced stuff is perfectly good for most situations if you're on a tight budget.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

TheDman wrote:

There are digital Hasselblads.

And I know one person who has one. Alas, its only the 40 MP model. (heavy sigh)

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

rook2c4 wrote:

You're paying way too much for processing. The lab in my city processes a roll of 135 film for $3 + tax, and I pay anywhere between $2-5 per roll of the film, depending on brand and type. Yes, there are some very expensive films out there, but the lower priced stuff is perfectly good for most situations if you're on a tight budget.

The processing, where I go, is about $10, including everything on a CD (and a contact sheet), if I dont want the individual prints. I refuse to go to one hour photo places.

donald johnson Loc: Carlsbad CA

Erik_H wrote:

I have an old Nikkormat FT2 that I still shoot fairly regularly. It's nice to slow down and really concentrate on getting the shot right. Yes, I do take my time with digital but it seems different when you know that you only get one chance to get it right in the camera like you do with film. I even enjoy the suspense of waiting for the film to come back from the lab.

The advantage of the digital is not having to wait to set up for the shots. the disadvantage is when you don't wait you then have to self criticize immediately and re-shoot. oh good the subject hasn't left yet ;-). the real bummer with film is that it is so exposure sensitive whereas with digital you can miss by 5 or 6 stops and still get very good shots.
Don

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

kb6kgx wrote:

The processing, where I go, is about $10, including everything on a CD (and a contact sheet), if I dont want the individual prints. I refuse to go to one hour photo places.

That's actually not a bad deal if you're getting a CD with it. For the $3 I pay, all I get is a strip of uncut negatives which I scan myself. I don't think "one hour places" exist anymore where I live. Not that I'm ever that much in a hurry anyway.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

rook2c4 wrote:

I don't think "one hour places" exist anymore where I live. Not that I'm ever that much in a hurry anyway.

No, I havent seen any recently, either. But some places, like Costco and CVS pharmacies, have a one-hour photo thing in the stores. Havent used those in ages, though.

Yes, I could save a few bucks by scanning my own negs, but my scanner only takes one strip at a time, and Im always unsure of which way the neg strip should be placed, emulsion up or down.

Having the photo shop scan them for me is just so much easier. But the really bad part is having to wait until the next day to see if my shots worked or not.

blackest Loc: Ireland

rook2c4 wrote:

That's actually not a bad deal if you're getting a CD with it. For the $3 I pay, all I get is a strip of uncut negatives which I scan myself. I don't think "one hour places" exist anymore where I live. Not that I'm ever that much in a hurry anyway.

Check the resolution of those digitized images! The processing machines scan your negative as part of producing prints, its almost a byproduct.
However if your only printing a 6 by 4 you don't need a high resolution but for a large print you do. The machines used can produce higher quality scans but its slower which means they get less prints an hour from the machine.

So long story short ask nicely what resolution they can scan your negatives at, they might charge more, might refuse, or might just do it for you at the standard price for a regular customer.