selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Scanned to a TIFF you can post process.

wrangler5 Loc: Missouri

My 85,000+ digital images take up a LOT less space than that many film images, and I have several sets of duplicates on small, ever cheaper, USB drives that I keep in different places. I'm not too worried about JPEG and Nikon raw files becoming "unreadable" in my lifetime. And there are too many external USB drives in use around the world for that technology to disappear quickly (unlike the tape drives once used by a relative few for backup) while capacity seems to grow, almost without limit, year after year, and connection speeds get faster, but always with backward compatibility (unlike floppy disks.)

I am more comfortable with my multiple, dispersed, copies of images than I am with my single "archival" strips of film. And working through the past 10 years in Lightroom to find an image for an obituary notice (as I had to do recently) is absolute child's play compared to wading through binders of contact sheets to find a film image, and then trying to figure out how to get it printed (now that the darkroom has been dismantled.)

As far as taking and printing photos, digital has become a far more congenial way to work than the wet darkroom. I remember with some fondness the magic of the wet processes, but when we got home from a 2 week road trip across the country to visit the young grandson, the 2,000+ images my wife and I took were loaded into Lightroom, labeled and indexed within hours - dry, sitting down, in the light - and ready to review, edit and print whenever. It would have taken me WEEKS on my feet to process that much film and make contact sheets in the old darkroom. I remember it, but I don't miss it.

And I have a LOT more control over the print with Lightroom (and, when necessary, Photoshop or some other editor) than I ever did in the darkroom. I have (1) much greater "film" speed that the newer cameras offer - which I can select image by image instead of roll by roll, (2) very localized control over brightness and contrast of different areas of the image, sometimes in ways that could never be done with traditional burning and dodging under an enlarger, (3) after-the-fact contrast control of B&W images using 8 different color sliders rather than a single color/single density filter over the camera lens, (4) lens distortion correction, and perspective (keystoning) correction if I want to use it, and (5) "color" control of my B&W prints on a print-by-print basis without changing papers or chemistry - I usually apply a very light sepia to my prints because I think it looks better on the paper I use and in the light where they're usually viewed, but I can easily switch from very warm to very cool or anywhere in between with a choice or two in the printer panel of Lightroom.

And lots more. Your film camera lenses will work on digital Nikons - all of mine are from my film days. The cameras offer options not available with film, and you will have a learning curve there, but you can start with the basics and discover features at your own pace. And the options after pressing the shutter button are almost limitless. And you get to do it all dry. Sitting down. In the light.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Both. Favorite 35mm film camera: FM2; favorite 120: Fujica GSW; favorite digital: Fuji XE2s.
Ilford for black and white; Fuji for color transparencies. Don't shoot color print film.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

photocat Loc: Atlanta, Ga

most of post processing techniques started in the darkroom, they may take longer to learn and master but some of us love the printing process using a darkroom.

to each his/her own

BebuLamar

I just like to say thank you to all who use film for whatever reasons.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

My apologies in advance for going off topic. (This was meant to be a PM but I hadn't had coffee yet.)

You wouldn't want to do that with digital because it is fundamentally different. Yes, pulling B/W film, like shooting ASA400 film at ASA50 and cutting development offered more latitude and less grain. My personal favorite was Plus-X at ASA25, thought I needed a tripod a lot. But my impression that a RAW image (as long as it isn't overexposed) gave you even more range than film, even when film is pulled (overexposed) by 3 stops.

Do you mean blocked up highlights? I always worked (or played, since I am a hobbyist) based on detail loss being due to insufficient exposure for shadows and too much development with respect to highlights, unlike digital where highlights are lost at exposure and the lows saved in post. Unless you have time to do water-bath with cut sheet film, it was my impression that digital offered significantly greater possibilities for latitude when compared with film, especially with color. I did notice right away that I had to learn to shoot digital for the highlights and process for the shadows, unlike with film which was the opposite. That's why I was caught up with your statements that "you can't do that with film/digital." You can do that but in opposite ways, if that makes sense.

1963mca

This summer I've found myself using my F4 more than my D800 although my Leica M240 gets the most use as it is by far the easier/lighter camera to carry with me for just day-to-day walking around.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Film is not dead. Many photographers use film, especially medium format and large format photographers.
Digital is very convenient with superior technology and amazing editing programs that are only limited by our imagination.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

I asked the same question ten years ago.

DaveC1 Loc: South East US

Hey rpavich, thanks for the website.

jjyiii

I have found that the film camera is 100 times better if you are shooting fireworks vs digital. the one on top is Fugi 200, the fireworks hold their colors, but their is a softness from teh expanding lines. Now the bottom shows a harsher line with little softness in the exploding materials....Now may be its me, but that softness in the film is a little more dramatic...But to each individual, it is what they like

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Film is available. Good film labs are getting harder to find. If you do your own processing, no problem.

Whatever floats your boat is fine.

I gave up film in 2005... I don't miss it.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I have studied this extensively using RawDigger for the digital and plotting characteristic curves for film. See the second link on my About page: http://www.scotty-elmslie.com/about.html

As it turns out, I get a usable characteristic curve ranging from middle gray -5 EV to +6 EV (eleven full stops) with most films developed normally. Pushing film can reduce that range but pulling it can increase it. However, the characteristic curve for film is not straight like it is for digital.

With digital, even when using highest raw exposure zone, the range is from about -5 EV to +3 EV (eight stops). Above middle gray + 3 stops, digital blows out in the raw file with a value over 16,000 in the 14-bit file. But 5 stops below middle gray you start to see the intrusion of noise. You can, of course, go beyond -5 stops and clean up the noise later but the raw values are losing gradation.

For example, if middle gray is in the raw range of about 1000 to 2000, three stop brighter will be in the range 8000 to 16000. Five stops lower than 1000 to 2000 is about 32 to 64. It can't go much darker.

Highlights do not block up in film like they do in digital. The slope of the characteristic curve simply decreases (in the shoulder) until it becomes flat and eventually begins to go back down (solarization).

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Was the second image recorded as a raw file, or as a JPEG?