Simple argument, if your in business and have many clients shoot digital. If your doing it for personal work shoot film and enjoy the good ol days of analog! I am not happy coz I will never get the detail back! I shoot all digital.. I think that people should stop comparing resolution, the popular Joker Movie was filmed on 35mm and then mastered in 4k. Film gives you a more artistic look, and less worry about settings like white balance, auto focus, raw or jpeg.
Film looks good if you know what you are doing right out of the camera. I like not worrying about anything but composition, and not needing batteries, or having to edit photos.
Plus the cost of digital to get quality photos cost thousands or at the least hundreds of dollars if you are thrifty. For the year with the cameras and development, I will spend under , and can always go to medium format, or large format.
Try buying a cheap digital medium format camera, is about 60mm so ten under IMAX standards. Digital may look technically correct, or sharper edge definition, or colour rendition. But it is not as artistic, and post editing takes the art out of creation, editing numbers, and values, not air brushes, or toners, or even the film type. Film is coming back in a big way, I would say higher than Vinyl records. Timothy Leary. Film is more artistic? Resolution is highly dependant on grain of film stock used.
The recurring costs of film photography add up. Gear acquisition syndrome driving camera upgrades every 2 years only effects those who fall for it. The D produces excellent quality images. To be clear, my point re the d is it can be acquired for very little these days. Even better example would be a used D or D or even an old Canon 20D.
I started my photogrphy journey with film and sold my SLR, lenses and tripods after a relatively short period of time. It was pre-photoshop, scanning and digital manipulation. The cost of film, cost of processing and zero control over how film was processed just made the hobby inaccessible to me. Not to mention my little M10 weighs nothing compared to my OM10 which always felt like a brick around my neck and a pain to carry. Very good comparison of a digital and film photo showing what can be achieved straight from the camera.
I have owned full frame digital nikon and now an xt2 but have always missed what I got from film back in the day so have just gone back to an F5 mainly for black and white. Does anyone really believes that this comparison I legit the person clearly shoot with a flat picture profile and used a canon 6d which does not have the IQ that other Digital camera have like the d S on this comparison.
I am good, very, very good at computers technologies and been in digital for over 10 solid years now. Still so much of the world is in digital, how can we really avoid it. Converting film, much less prints, to digital so that I have a digital version of what I did, is slow and costly as its not common today.
With film I cannot go shoot and within minutes or less give somebody a jpg copy to check out. That ease of use has value. The digital is not as good, but the effect of getting a draft into 20 peoples hands editors, etc 20 minutes after shooting it gets a some respect, not to mention high demand. Their values are a dichotomy to me, that neither can be brushed away or solved by the other.
No offense but what you describe is not digital vs film but a completely different matter. This is an endless debate, and one which will, by definition, divide us into different camps.
Pretty low I would guess. Happy shooting to you all. For me, 35mm film connects me to my past. Also, I wanted my young daughter to have a physical photo album. Shooting with a film camera is also very satisfying. I love to hear the clockwork mechanism on slow speeds. Also, yes the images just simply look nicer. I have been suggesting to Google that they include a mechanical shutter sound for their phone camera. Hey Jeffrey this is Stormie. Glad to see you are back.
Very fun article to watch. The sword was my favorite. Hope you keep them coming. Happy New Year. Only in the hands of those with the patience, skill and dedication, will a film camera likely yield superior results to a digital one.
I was 10 when I got my first camera for Christmas in It was an Ansco Panda. I took a hiatus from film beginning in and am just getting back to it. A few years ago I jumped in fully with serious digital equipment. What really amazed me when I purchased and started using Vintage TLRs and folding 6x6s was how much photography — and me — had changed.
It took me awhile to remember to set the speed and aperture, focus, cock the shutter, shoot and advance the film. In all cases now my end product is digital — either direct from the camera or from scanned film. This gives me the chance to enhance, crop, manipulate any image. I love it. Keep in mind that film photography is more expensive, but the photos often look better. See if […]. Great article. Not a professional by any means, but nothing beats film.
That is, when in the hands of the right developer. I can use a digital to scout areas I want to shoot, and record comments. With a digital I can shoot, record comments about when I think will be the right time for that special composition. For the most part, digital is the more common method of taking pictures, but there are benefits to […].
Whichever gives you the happiest experience. When it comes to commercial shooting the client needs will determine what platforms you are able to bring to the table, but when doing it for your own reward — try out all kinds and see what suits you. I shoot both. I only use film when I want a slow day, ie.
Heck trying to focus on them running around is enough to drive one to some bad habits. Point is, both has there place. Film photographers have to learn aperture, shutter speed etc. I want to see what my eye through the lens saw, not a manipulated Light room version of. She knew the beauty and soul of film. For me, this was a request I could keep.
In a day of photographing, two rolls of film would be considered a lot. I am a quiet photographer, and wait for the moment of connection with my subject, or when I let my own defenses down. I have nothing to compare film to digital aside from my iPhone, but will forever be an analog photographer. A few years ago I purchased a used Leica M 8. Long story short, I spent lots of time learning how to process digital files, post-process, etc.
Today, I use the digital M8. Some of these images find their way into work that I use … most do not. Having a relatively inexpensive and quick sketchpad has proven valuable to me. For the bulk of what I do deliver, show, etc. I rely on films. Pure and simple. Of the two workflows, film is slower and more expensive but therein lies its hidden strength. I bought my first 35mm SLR while in high school. Got a mm telephoto lens for it as well.
But could you enlarge the resulting photos to a huge size even after cropping and get super sharp and beautiful prints on glossy paper. Once married the wife wanted color so I mostly shot speed Kodak film. Prints seemed to fade so did a lot of slides for many years. Most ended up stored for years in boxes I am just starting to go through now. Here is what I am finding out now. Many of the color prints are fading, etc.
And professional photographers keep the negatives so there is no way for me to reprint them. So much for lasting for decades or even hundreds of years. I just opened a box of slides and discovered pictures of a day trip I remembered well but had forgotten I had taken pictures at it. But the slides have deteriorated to the point that in many much of the image is just washed out, gone forever. Most likely the processing was poor but there is no way to know at the time that the lab cut corners.
Is film superior? Maybe, but I am 68 and at this point in my life i have other things to do than spend hours in a darkroom to get a few finished prints. Had that happen a few times…. Found myself not carrying the SLRs places because of the weight and bulk…. I have multiple backups including one external hard drive I store off site so even if my house burned down I still have them. Hard drive even has scanned PDFs of all important financial, legal, etc documents. Try doing that practically with paper.
I should be able to make new prints of any digital photos at any time in the future with no loss in quality from the original. Above this desk is a print measuring 20 x 30 inches of a stunning landscape taken out the window of our car while my wife was driving and where there was NO safe place to pull over.
Several others we decorated our house with are even larger. You are obviously selling a product, so your bias comes as no surprise. But nevertheless, yes, film is great, just like analog guitar pedals sound for the most part better than their digital counterparts. However, picking on fuji for doing a bad job with their sims is really unwarranted, nobody else has even come close to providing something that looks just as great as analog than their Pro Neg Hi at iso Also, analog is really, really bad for the environment.
Does it look exactly the same? Is it worse or better? Hard to say. I always find myself rolling my eyes when I see these debates, even more so on a site that has a clearly vested interested in one format over another. The fact of the matter is that different tools work better for different people.
I can produce work that keeps my clients and customers happy — from assignment work for the likes of National Geographic and New European magazines, to my various documentary photography exhibitions and photobooks released and sold over the years. I will happily shoot and produce work in either film or digital.
I also find it funny when some suggest film photographers know how to compose better, that they work more methodically and so on. All I really see in these debates is one side trying to one-up the other using silly straw clutching arguments. The deciding factor in the quality of your work is you and your brain, your eye for a good image.
Shooting film is not going to magically give you that, just the same as digital will not. Lastly, film is cheap? I live in the UK now I am from the Netherlands however and own 2 digital, and 2 film cameras. These cameras ARE of a vintage that they will start having problems. Takeaway point here should be: Both are great, both work perfectly well but only if you apply the creativity and hard work to produce a winning image.
It is pleasant to see that hobbies and professions could stir up such emotive passion. During films heyday I could not find one 35mm product to give me the sharpness and the lack of grain that I felt I needed at the time for the portraits I took over the forty odd years as an amateur hobbyist. It could be because 35mm was a compromise format initially intended for movie use. Having attended various exhibitions and won various awards for my portrait work during last century, I like to think that despite my age and gradually failing eyesight I could still tell a good picture from a mediocre, in terms of image fidelity.
Over the decades many of us have parted with vast amounts of money in many cases enough to buy an additional home in pursuit of our hobbies so we will always be ready to justify this expenditure and vigorously defend it, no matter what.
Nostalgia is now a lucrative niche business thanks to the fact that as our senses get curtailed with age, our emotions and loyalty to our traditional ways strengthen along with our bank balances. I use mine exactly as I use my film camera, aim, focus, set exposure, recheck composition. If in a situation you can not control, digital is nice because I can take many more and hop for the best, but these situations are not my style.
I enjoy the process of slowing down and actually thinking about the photo. Let me get this straight… you compare a film photo with a raw file and then say a mm film negative has more detail that a 35mm digital camera? Yes, because your article would fall apart. The bias here is absolutely staggering. If you love film, I get it.
I love cars with mechanical gearboxes. And as far as the color science, reproducing the color rendition of a specific film is not gimmicky. Tarantino fashioned his newest effort as a capital-E Event in the tradition of the spectacle films of yore; the 70mm format and its dazzlingly rich colors, lush sound, and ravishingly detailed image were originally used to lift epics such as Ben-Hur and Lawrence of Arabia to godly proportions.
Seeing a film on 70mm is a transcendent experience for the senses, but the expenses and scarcity of equipment required for projection have been prohibitive for most theaters that would like to give it a whirl.
For the most part, America's projectionists seem to be handling this well — though there have been problems. The other dimension of what a movie looks like by the time it springs onto the silver screen is its aspect ratio , the measurement expressing the height and width of a film image.
Some films are projected as rectangles, some are projected as longer rectangles, and some are projected as squares. But all of this can be manipulated digitally with modern technology. Most real-deal movies screen in a width-to-height ratio of either 1. But every month seems to produce new exceptions to the rule. The French-Canadian drama Mommy the movie Netflix UK was displaying improperly above stood out from the pack due to its unorthodox ratio that mimicked an Instagram photo until one exhilarating sequence expanded to wider proportions.
Another way to understand this is in the difference between old, box-like standard-definition televisions, which had an aspect ratio of , and modern, high-definition TVs, which have an aspect ratio of Standard definition was closer to a square than our current widescreens.
That, however, is not nearly as hazardous as home exhibition can be, where TV sets are liable to cut off, distend, or otherwise spoil the image. Usually a Blu-ray or DVD case will dictate the proper television settings for viewing the complete image, but the instinct to make use of the full TV screen can still result in an omission of important visual information.
Having this information not only creates the satisfaction of assigning a name to recognizable parts of the film experience, but it also equips you to maximize the quality of the same. The right to a moving picture, in its most apropos and complete form, is one of those unalienable rights of moviegoers, like the right to whip unpopped popcorn kernels at the heads of people using cellphones. Thus, a ticket purchased is a vote cast, a tacit sign of support behind a specific film, a specific theater, and specific mode of exhibition.
The least moviegoers can do before casting that vote of crucial importance is arm themselves with knowledge. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower through understanding. Financial contributions from our readers are a critical part of supporting our resource-intensive work and help us keep our journalism free for all. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today to help us keep our work free for all.
Cookie banner We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audiences come from. By choosing I Accept , you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies. Film vs. Reddit Pocket Flipboard Email. Jennifer Jason Leigh stars in The Hateful Eight, which has become the current center of a long-running debate over the virtues of shooting on film versus shooting on digital.
The individual size of these filmstrips results in the quality, clarity, and detail of the image. Thus, 70mm allows for the crispest image, while 8mm has the fuzziest.
Next Up In Explainers. Delivered Fridays. The main difference is in the Depth of Field. Since digital sensors are smaller in size than a 35mm film the depth of field will be much higher and in fact in most compact digital cameras almost infinite.
The result is that blur backgrounds can not be created. The cost of a photo: Photos taken with a digital camera literally cost nothing. The photos are kept in erasable memory and thus can always be discarded at no cost. Also the photos you would like to keep can be copied to digital media such as a computer's hard disk. With storage prices going down the cost of saving a photo on disk is practically zero.
Film does cost money. With a film camera you have to pay for the roll of film, for developing the negative and for printing the photo. Every time you press the shutter button you spend money.
The capacity: With ever growing storage capacities digital cameras today can hold hundreds and sometimes thousands of photos on a single media. You can always have a few more in your pocket and changing is very fast. The result is that a digital camera has practically infinite capacity.
You can shoot as many photos as you want and at the end of the day just dump them on your computer's disk. Film cameras' capacity is very limited. A roll of 36 photos can only hold 36 photos. After a roll is used changing to a new roll can take time and is not easy to do in scenarios such as darkness or a harsh environment. For that reason many professional journalists carry a few cameras on them and instead of changing rolls they turn and use another camera just so that they do not miss a shooting opportunity.
The feedback: One of the most important features of the digital camera is instant feedback. Almost all digital cameras include a small LCD screen. Once a photo is shot you can go back and watch it on that screen.
The ability to see how the photo looks like results in better photos. If the photo is not good you can take another one. Being able to see the photos on the spot results in an educated decision how to fix a photo or how to better compose it.
It takes a lot of the guessing away from photography. With film cameras there is no way to know how the photo on the film will look like when printed. New shooting angles: Just a few days ago I took a great photo with my digital camera that I would have never taken with my film one. I shot a cat that was resting on little rock. I held the camera in my hand and positioned it down where it almost touched the ground and I started shooting. I probably took 50 or more photos.
0コメント