The Argument of EOS Film over Digital

I know POTN is all about digital, however i came across this interesting article on the merits of a 35mm Film SLR over an equivalent digital EOS camera.

Obviously the first thing is cost, its just so expensive to get into FF digital, whilst film SLR's are relatively so cheap to start off with. Sometimes we all get too obsessed with the latest and greatest, but for the sake of the craft and artform which photography is, its just as beneficial to start or go back to film. This is especially pertinent for those with a small budget and are just starting out. As the captures that i have seen from film are just mind blowing.

Anyhow food for thought here is the article, i think it imparts a lot of value in this day and age.

http://lilserenity.wor​dpress.com …on-eos-3-review-part-iii/

Comments, Opinions??

Well for the body, yes, but quality FF lenses are not any cheaper for film. If you are on a limited budget you can do just as well or better (and likely cheaper) with a digital crop sensor camera.

You can get a budget film camera with basic lenses for $100-300 used, but then you aren't going to get any better IQ than a rebel and you are going to lose out on developing costs and film.

I wanted a rangefinder and a full frame SLR (I despise the crop factor); plus, I wanted to try out medium format. To do all of the above digitally would have set me back around US$30,000. I think by choosing film, I saved enough money to handle the purchasing and processing costs of film for some time to come.

Also, currently, no digital twin-lens reflex (TLRs), large format, and so on…

That writer's "cost" argument falls apart when it's time to have film processed and printed.

DC Fan wrote in post #6929397
That writer's "cost" argument falls apart when it's time to have film processed and printed.

What is this "film" thing, the cmos sensor?

DC Fan wrote in post #6929397
That writer's "cost" argument falls apart when it's time to have film processed and printed.

BINGO! Let's be generous - say you spend £0.33 per frame for film and processing. That's 3 prints per £. He was citing a £1050 difference in price, so 3150 frames. That's fewer than 90 rolls of film. How long would it take you to go through that much film? I was doing that or more annually in my film days.

DC Fan wrote in post #6929397
That writer's "cost" argument falls apart when it's time to have film processed and printed.

Not in my case (see above), which I realize is not applicable to most other folks...anyway, I print my own with an inkjet, and at some point (as I just started this film venture in March), I'll develop my own negatives, lowering expenses even further.

Plus, don't forget the cost of upgrading digital bodies; it's not a necessity, but most folks into DSLR's do it, what, about every three to five years.

Since I do not own a FF camera, I feel like I have gone from 35mm to Kodak Disc!!!

LOL...remember THOSE!!

Jon wrote in post #6929437
BINGO! Let's be generous - say you spend £0.33 per frame for film and processing. That's 3 prints per £. He was citing a £1050 difference in price, so 3150 frames. That's fewer than 90 rolls of film. How long would it take you to go through that much film? I was doing that or more annually in my film days.

Once again, purely anecdotal, but as an amateur, I don't blast through rolls of films, maybe five to seven a month, and at roughly US$4.00 a roll plus processing, it's manageable. For me, no film, no rangefinder, no fun, that simple.

The instant gratification of digital (shoot it, then see it immediately), the option to do our own semi-professional to professional retouching & printing make digital far, far better in my opinion than film . So much of it is about control; we no longer need to rely on someone else to retouch & print our images they way we want them to.

I realized too, when I was learning, I would get prints back from the lab which looked horrible...and being a novice, thought it was all my fault. As I looked back at my negatives in my later years, realized most of the 'crap' I shot was purely bad printing! With digital, a novice has a better opportunity in my opinion to see exactly what they've shot and can make realistic adjustments.

And obviously DC Fan hit the nail on the head as far as cost goes. Besides, it sucks waiting for the images to be done, then having to hop in the car to pick them up during business hours, etc. Very inconvenient.

jefzilla wrote in post #6929583
The instant gratification of digital (shoot it, then see it immediately), the option to do our own semi-professional to professional retouching & printing make digital far, far better in my opinion than film . So much of it is about control; we no longer need to rely on someone else to retouch & print our images they way we want them to.

I realized too, when I was learning, I would get prints back from the lab which looked horrible...and being a novice, thought it was all my fault. As I looked back at my negatives in my later years, realized most of the 'crap' I shot was purely bad printing! With digital, a novice has a better opportunity in my opinion to see exactly what they've shot and can make realistic adjustments.

And obviously DC Fan hit the nail on the head as far as cost goes. Besides, it sucks waiting for the images to be done, then having to hop in the car to pick them up during business hours, etc. Very inconvenient.

Although I shot film throughout my youth, I didn't know what ISO, f-stop, focal length, or any of the other fundamentals meant until just before purchasing a DSLR; basically, I started digital.

Finally knowing what ISO actually meant, I couldn't believe that the film folks were saddled with just one option (for the most part) until using up a roll. And no histogram, how could you know if the shot was properly exposed?. And then there is the instant gratification, let alone the instant ability to spot a mistake and re-shoot. All good arguments that I firmly held.

Still, I like film better, much better.

Also, I scan my negatives, and as far as processing, I have complete control via Photoshop just as anyone else does digitally. If I wasn't scanning, I would be in the darkroom. Control over the final print is hardly exclusive to digital; see Ansel Adams and such…

sjones wrote in post #6929499
Once again, purely anecdotal, but as an amateur, I don't blast through rolls of films, maybe five to seven a month, and at roughly US$4.00 a roll plus processing, it's manageable. For me, no film, no rangefinder, no fun, that simple.

Well it works out for you because you don't shoot a lot, and shoot various formats which is probably on the lesser side of 'average digital hobbyist'. MF is on the expensive side, and finding places to develop/scan if you shoot more than a couple rolls a month is getting harder depending on where you live. RF/35mm much less so, but film is getting more expensive as less of it is available (slowly).

Digital makes much more sense for me (I do miss RF/MF shooting, but I dont miss developing or paying for someone else to do it), AND no chemicals. By the time you facotr in a good scanner and film costs for 3 formats, Id rather have more fun shooting with a DSLR. As always needs vary and what works for you best is what works for you best.

As for start up costs, you can just as easily buy a used digital camera to start out as you can a used film camera and significantly drop initial costs. Even if you need a computer a 2nd hand computer can be had for minimal expense. When digital was still newish it was certainly more expensive, but now it really isn't.

All that said I got to shoot with my friends Hassy and Contax for the first time in a long time, it was nice using gear that's as old as I am (well, some of it) that still puts out the goods and does a fine job doing it.

DC Fan wrote in post #6929397
That writer's "cost" argument falls apart when it's time to have film processed and printed.

One way to look at cost is merely 'when you have to pay'. With digital, you need up front costs...PC, program to view and print, printer, and the camera. While more and more households have a PC, particularly if they have kids in school, not everyone owns a PC and printer. To someone on a limited income (retiree, a self-supporting student, someone on welfare), affording $100-150 for a camera is much more achievable than the up front costs of all of the items I mentioned. And while you do pay for film and processing, it is $10 here, $10 there, not a big all-at-once expense!
If you compare the depreciation expense of a digital camera $200-400 for an entry level camera depreciation pays for a lot of film and processing.

Certainly arguments put forth by nadtz make a lot of sense...just not for everyone!

I LOVE film for black and white photography. I don't think any conversion I've seen in Photoshop comes close.

However, after spending a semester doing color photography using the color darkroom, I will never do it again. It's miserable. Utterly miserable.

nadtz wrote in post #6929665
Well it works out for you because you don't shoot a lot, and shoot various formats which is probably on the lesser side of 'average digital hobbyist'. MF is on the expensive side, and finding places to develop/scan if you shoot more than a couple rolls a month is getting harder depending on where you live. RF/35mm much less so, but film is getting more expensive as less of it is available (slowly).

Digital makes much more sense for me (I do miss RF/MF shooting, but I dont miss developing or paying for someone else to do it), AND no chemicals. By the time you facotr in a good scanner and film costs for 3 formats, Id rather have more fun shooting with a DSLR. As always needs vary and what works for you best is what works for you best.

As for start up costs, you can just as easily buy a used digital camera to start out as you can a used film camera and significantly drop initial costs. Even if you need a computer a 2nd hand computer can be had for minimal expense. When digital was still newish it was certainly more expensive, but now it really isn't.

All that said I got to shoot with my friends Hassy and Contax for the first time in a long time, it was nice using gear that's as old as I am (well, some of it) that still puts out the goods and does a fine job doing it.

Yes, I fully realize that my situation is uncommon, and I am not trying to sway people any particular way, but I am just pointing out for me (and perhaps I am the only that this applies to), switching to film has actually saved me money. And from my angle, I would rather be shooting a rangefinder now than waiting for an affordable digital one that may or may never materialize. Even used digital rangefinders and full frame DSLRs are still, in combination, pretty pricey, and medium format is beyond obtainable. And, as noted, some systems that I would like to try might never appear in digital format.

Plus, another reason why I switched to film was grain; I do not like digital noise, but I love the grain of Tri-X, and attempts to replicate the look with my digital-only files became tedious (plus, there was just something disingenuous about it). I only shoot black & white, and at this stage, I prefer the way film handles it over digital…this might change as digital progresses, but still, it goes back to grain (which, I understand, some folks hate).

And then there is the process. Even when I was using the 350D, I had slapped on a manual focus only lens, and from that point, swore off auto focus and for that matter, zooms. Consequently, even before ever considering shooting film, I was already taking an anachronistic path. I just like the slow, deliberate process of shooting film, the tactile feel of the aperture ring or film advance---the intangibles.

Once again, I am not trying to argue one over the other, it's a personal decision, and I'm still keeping my eye on how digital advances.