George H Loc: Brooklyn, New York

Now I laugh at my reluctance to switch. I remember my buddy asking me to come shoot a fashion show. I used my F1 to shoot it and three rolls of film 108 shots. I went through that in just about six minutes. I asked my buddy what he was shooting with, a D70. Well I lit into him about the film vs digital issue. Since to equate to film it requires 28MP. Now I would not think twice since I have switched to digital for almost all my photography. Underwater I still use my Nikonos Vs.

Mudshark Loc: Illinois

In the early 1950's, my Dad would take me to the darkroom at our small country weekly newspaper. I now suspect this was to relieve my Mother...
I would be very bored sitting there while he made negatives...can remember the joy of the lights finally coming on. But eventually we would make prints. Dad would pick me up and stand me on an old chair with a Sear's catalog on it so I could "stand" at the counter. I was fascinated with the negative image projected on the easel. He'd focus, then get out a sheet of paper under the orange lights, and project the negative image.
That plain ole piece of white paper would get tossed in a tray of Dektol and he'd start counting "thousand-one, thousand two...." I'd watch in total amazement as an image would appear from the white paper. WOW!!! Eventually he'd throw the print in the hypo tray...THAT WAS MY TRAY! My job was to rock the tray and keep the prints moving. I thought it was a huge responsibility...
It was PURE MAGIC and it has been with me for a lifetime in photojournalism and photography.
Have said that...I was dragged kicking and screaming into digital. I love it and can not imagine returning to film...EVER!
What a joy to be able to switch film speeds for every shot if needed or to color correct at the click of a mouse and on and on and on...
WOWEEE...ZOWEEE!!!

SpeedyWilson Loc: Upstate South Carolina

George -- a question for you.

Why do you use film for underwater photography? I'm asking this out of complete ignorance of underwater photography. Now I can learn from a master.

alaskanfrog Loc: Alaska

This isn't trouble, no trouble at all... this is an intellectual question worthy of consideration and pondering.

regarding your question about film... Well there is a lot to say as you can obviously tell. Many people reading and partaking in this forum aren't old enough to remember when film was the norm and digital photography hadn't even been considered or conceived as an idea yet. I'm fortunate to have had the opportunity to explore both. I started in photography when film was king. Sadly, film has all but gone by way of the dinosaur and that may yet happen.

Digital photography for all its wonders, development and advancements, still cannot rival the quality of a good film photo. Even the old fixed focus film cameras were capable of capturing high resolution images that rival and even surpass today's best digital camera. Film is considerably more complex and challenging to use, but the rewards are immeasurable. Despite film limitations, digital cameras still cannot come close to touching the quality of a good film image.

Just so you know, there are photographers, amateur and professional alike, who would still prefer film over digital. Because of cost expense, I use a digital camera now. However if it ever became feasible and affordable, I would gladly switch and trade my digital camera for a film camera any day. In fact I have a collection of old school film cameras at my disposal. It's too bad that Kodak fazed out it's "Kodachrome" film because there was nothing better for photographing the best and most beautiful color photos. The rich colors, crisp values and the creative process of shooting film, especially with Kodachrome, is something that cannot be explained, it has to be experienced. I also had the pleasure of shooting in "Ectachrome" as well, which was a film medium used for shooting slide photos.

Some of the new developments are good, but some things should never have been changed or allowed to slip into obscurity as film is obviously doing. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy my digital camera, but there are days when I wish I could afford to shoot in film. Shooting film photography is a true creative expression, with challenges that can test you, but at the same time, leave you amazed with results, and happy with the knowledge that can make you say to yourself "I did this..."

Is this nothing more than wishful thinking and poetic rhetoric? It probably is, but these are my thoughts and feelings about this question... Thanks for posting it.

Alaskanfrog

MPratter Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

I didn't care for digital. I shot digital for about three months, and never fell in love.

Then I switched back to film and am passionate about every moment of photography.

I love using a hand meter because my camera doesn't have a meter built in. I love focusing with a split prism. I love loading film into tanks and developing it. I love printing with an enlarger.

I even don't mind scanning film as much as I did post-processing all the digital shots I took.

I was sloppy and uninspired on digital. I'm focused and in love with film. I'm never switching back.

You may not know because you probably haven't bought film in a while, but there's a LOT of it available, and it's nowhere near dead. It's just not leading the market anymore.

dragonfist Loc: Stafford, N.Y.

I think digital has brought photography to a lot of folks that never would have tried it otherwise. It was a natural extension of the computer age. I used film until 2003 and after I got my first digital I never looked back, as I am sure many people didn't look back at daguerrotypes, ambrotypes, tintypes, and glass negatives, (imagine storing those) after George Eastman invented film. Digital is just the natural progression in the process of storing images.

vpittman

I am new to this group. I've been watching it for some time now and when I read your question about digital medium I knew this was my chance to get some information. I am very new to photography and know very, very little but naturally have a good eye for a nice shot. I just recently moved on over to digital b/c I broke my film camera (which I dearly loved). I am one of those old dogs by the way. Is there a digital camera that takes quicks shots like film...I am having such a problem with the delay that you get with digital. I can no longer snap a shot the split second that I see it... and it is showing in my work.

Sundog Loc: Sedona, Arizona

My first camera: Kodak Duaflex II (image attached)

620 roll film (huh?!)

My father let me use his 35mm Kodak Signet with a hand held meter.

I moved to an Canon FTB 35mm SLR until water got in it while I lived in Alaska.

No camera for me for many years as I was busy with LIFE™

I was excited when I saw the possibilities of digital. No more undeveloped rolls of film in my refrigerator ! But I waited many years for this medium to come into it's own.

Finally purchased a 4MP pocket camera have have steadily moved up. Now in an Olympus e 620 DSLR.

Next year I am looking for a Pro level camera, but nothing to chose yet until the Canon refresh that should be due next year.

In the meantime I am also learning about Nikon Pro level cams too.

I may revisit film one day but for now I love this art form and the Digital Darkroom.

I may not be an alpha adopter but I love new tech.

Like this new idea https://www.lytro.com/

jenny Loc: in hiding:)

Steve40..love you too! It was "delicious anticipation"
waiting for the slide film to come back. We don't have
some creativity (e.g. multi-exp.) with digital. I was
"never-ever" going to digital..began to do watercolor
painting instead. Now feeling more or less forced to do
digital,still a lot to miss and always will.

jenny Loc: in hiding:)

Steve40..love you too! It was "delicious anticipation"
waiting for the slide film to come back. We don't have
some creativity (e.g. multi-exp.) with digital. I was
"never-ever" going to digital..began to do watercolor
painting instead. Now feeling more or less forced to do
digital,still a lot to miss and always will.

George H Loc: Brooklyn, New York

Well as it stands now Digital does not have the same clarity, color saturation or depth of field unless I want to take a H3 underwater, and that I would not recommend since flooding of housed cameras still exists. I still use slide film, since I can process it myself.

jackinkc Loc: Kansas City

I was using a Hasselblad 503CW and a Contax RTSiii when somebody loaned me a 2.5 MP Nikon CoolPix. I immediately bought a Canon D6 and never looked back.

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

One salient point about the film vs digital conflict, that hasn't come up in this particular thread, is that one can't honestly compare the two formats and make decisions about quality, image depth, color, warmth, etc etc while viewing images on a computer screen. You must be able to view comparable images LIVE, in person, on appropriate media to be able to accurately judge any differences. Whether or not they are actually there is a matter for personal judgement, but looking at any image, no matter how high quality the original is, on a computer screen, and saying "this one is better than that one" is foolish - there are too many variables and compromises between the original and your monitor to enable accurate reproduction.

SpeedyWilson Loc: Upstate South Carolina

So digital can be used underwater, but it's just not as good as film?

The closest I'll come to underwater photography will be taking a picture of fish in a tank. Actually, I might try that sometime. A local seafood restaurant has a very large tank with all kinds of colorful fish, and even some small sharks.

skier Loc: Minnesota

I went to digital in 2000 with purchase of an Olympus UZ 2100. I was amazed at what 2.1 megapixels would produce. However, I still use film for stereo pictures. To date I have not seen anything digital that can compare to what my old Revere camera in both detail and depth.