The Argument of EOS Film over Digital

I was shooting film *35 years* ago.

I never got good at it, and I never enjoyed it. Knowing that each roll was a significant cost (in comparison to my annual salary) kept me from shooting the thousands of frames that I needed to shoot before I learned what I wanted, and needed to do.

When I tried to get good prints, I ended up paying $8.00 per 8"x12" (in 1980-something dollars!), from a 'pro' lab, and the processing was awful.

Digital gave me the freedom to learn, and the ability to use editors and inkjet printers gave me the capability to *hugely* exceed the results of that pro lab. It costs me less than $5.00 in 2008 dollars (~3.00 in 1980's?) to print 13"x19"!

By buying the best equipment on my 1st upgrade, I now own a full-frame DSLR and lenses that are good enough to last me the rest of my life.

Naturalist wrote in post #6929481
Since I do not own a FF camera, I feel like I have gone from 35mm to Kodak Disc!!!

LOL...remember THOSE!!

Yes, just about...

skid00skid00 wrote in post #6929884
I was shooting film *35 years* ago.

I never got good at it, and I never enjoyed it. Knowing that each roll was a significant cost (in comparison to my annual salary) kept me from shooting the thousands of frames that I needed to shoot before I learned what I wanted, and needed to do.

When I tried to get good prints, I ended up paying $8.00 per 8"x12" (in 1980-something dollars!), from a 'pro' lab, and the processing was awful.

Digital gave me the freedom to learn, and the ability to use editors and inkjet printers gave me the capability to *hugely* exceed the results of that pro lab. It costs me less than $5.00 in 2008 dollars (~3.00 in 1980's?) to print 13"x19"!

By buying the best equipment on my 1st upgrade, I now own a full-frame DSLR and lenses that are good enough to last me the rest of my life.

You got about 5 years on me! Back in the day, proper knowledge of exposure was key. Now you can snap a few/chimp/post process.

Gawd I love this day and age, even with knowledge

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.

Agreed, totally. For most, film is very expensive. Very. I'm not shooting much at the moment, but over the past 3 years I've probably shot close to 30k shots. Sure, not all of them have been printed, but even so, it's a significant saving going digital. The only way I'd go back to film is with a rangefinder (eyeing up a Voigtlander bessa). And that's only cos digital rangefinders just don't exist (the epson is far too expensive for a 3 year old, out of date camera, and the Leica is just ridiculous over priced by a HUGE margin, like all Leica gear imho).

Dave

another vote for B&W film. i develop my own silver-based, shooting with a rangefinder or an EOS 3. can take the chromogenics in and have the shop dev 'em for $3 per roll, uncut, if home development isn't your thing. if i really wanted to save i could use the arista films. i think i manage for about 6 or 8 cents per frame, maybe less.

it's a lot of fun walking around with my M2, a fifty-year old lens, and some film to burn.

As you said... each to their own....

I shot film for decades and don't miss it one bit. The lack of immediate feedback (did they have their eyes closed, did I miss the ski jumper as he did his trick off the ramp, did I get the exposure right on her face with the sun in the frame.... coming back from Spain and going through 800 slides and realising all but 12 were worth keeping, since the rest were totally boring and repetitive although in focus and well exposed. I threw them in the garbage. Then there was the lack of control since I didn't print color...sent those out, but did my own B&W.

I had am opportinity to revisit the past when I started salvaging negatives for other people in 2002. Scanning is tedious.... then there is the "grain". It can look nice in B&W (I shot a lot of TRI-X) but absolutely sucks in color. Scanning seems to bring it out. The hours trying to get a negative to print well.... screw it.

Give me digital anyday.... instant feedback, I can edit the way I want and I do my own printing. If you want to save money... go to a Kodak kiosk and print your digital images for cheaper than you can print negatives in your own lab (let's not forget the price of lab equipment, and chemicals).

Buy a digital camera, shoot and print in color..... no computer, no lab, no printer, if you chose.... cheaper than the film days.

If you need to shoot medium frame, then by all means shoot film since MF digital backs are rather expensive as are scanners.

Na, the future is digital and the future is now.

All this film talk is making me want to go out there and buy a horse and carriage...

Yes the Eos 3 is a pretty impressive camera for what you get now days.

I own both film and digital bodies, in terms of barriers to entry to purchase a 35mm FF film body is without doubt cheaper to enter look on ebay and its there for all to see, noted the on going cost of film may limit some.

But i think its more a fact that in our digital age, especially for those that have predominately learnt their craft on digital, probably just find the learning curve on film just too much of a hassle.

Having said that the EOS range of film bodies canon have produced in the last decade can fully exploit that L series glass, just sitting there on a crop sensor. It goes without saying that we all drool over what a FF 5D can do with a 85L, this can be replicated on an EOS 3 for example.

I read the article. It doesn't seem like he's saying film has any merit over digital. All it says is that he likes shooting film better than he likes shooting digital, and he gives the reasons why. He enjoys picking out the film, he likes that he doesn't have to use a computer, and he can justify the cost (with what looks like some creativity, but whatever; it's his reasoning, for himself). He even gives an entire section over to one reason being, because it's film and not digital! Basically, he's saying that film has merit over digital because he likes it better!

Bully for that guy, I say. I bet he turns out a nice picture. Because in the end, that's all that matters. If he turns out a beautiful, original image, I don't care if he paints it in watercolor.

Use what you like. Because that's what is best FOR YOU.

I shoot sports. I use 10fps when needed in sports. I shot 35k last year. At 36 exposures a roll you are looking at 1000 rolls. There is no dark room i can use or make in my area. I shoot iso 800 and above for 90% of my stuff both in sports and not (more b-ball than field sports). ISO 800 and above film is at least 2/roll. Developing is at least 2/roll. 4000+1600 for a 1v is 1200 more than I paid for my MKIII. I still shoot with my mkiii and have about 15k this year. Lets not get into the reasons why this guy's blog has nothing in common with my case and simply state:
"It all depends on what, how much, and for who you shoot photos for. If you shoot little, of things that need low ISO, for yourself or a client that doesn't mind extra time cost or resolution reduction of high ISO photography, then film is an alternative you should consider. If you don't fit into those three cases, then digital offers more for your case than film does"

Mosca wrote in post #6930307
I read the article. It doesn't seem like he's saying film has any merit over digital. All it says is that he likes shooting film better than he likes shooting digital, and he gives the reasons why. He enjoys picking out the film, he likes that he doesn't have to use a computer, and he can justify the cost (with what looks like some creativity, but whatever; it's his reasoning, for himself). He even gives an entire section over to one reason being, because it's film and not digital! Basically, he's saying that film has merit over digital because he likes it better!

Bully for that guy, I say. I bet he turns out a nice picture. Because in the end, that's all that matters. If he turns out a beautiful, original image, I don't care if he paints it in watercolor.

Use what you like. Because that's what is best FOR YOU.

totally said it right mosca, its horses for courses.

You don't technically need a computer for digital photography. My aunt doesn't own one; she takes her camera to a Walgreen's kiosk, loads up the card, reduces redeye/crops/whatever else they offer, and turns out some nice prints from her P&S.

I shot film for years. Turned out some fine prints. But, I never knew it until I received them. I remember my dad being shocked to see some of my prints, and he was there when I took the shots. I also turned out a lot of crap. Never knew it until I had paid for the prints.

Then there was the "I have to use up these last 10 shots of ISO 1600 that I needed for the race". Try shooting that film when you don't necessarily need high ISO. Grainy prints, when I could have shot ISO 100.

I say, if you're shooting digital, pixel-peeping and complaining about minor noise, print some of your shots. You'll find that most of your issues on-monitor (besides good focus, which can never really be obtained from an OOF image) disappear when you print. I was shocked at my first prints from my XSi. Ugly shots onscreen can be beautiful when properly printed.

I do miss the tactical virtues of film though, and that surprise when flipping through prints and finding that WOW image. Kodachrome was a fantastic thing.

I shoot both . Digital was great for convenience and cost but film was best for quality and richness of color etc . Now Ive got a full frame Digital in the 5dmarkII Im convined Digital is now at film quality especially in regard to richness of colors and exposure range. Only thing I wish for now is a 6x17cm equivalent in digital that doesnt cost me an arm and a leg as the seitz does.

Mosca wrote in post #6930307
I read the article. It doesn't seem like he's saying film has any merit over digital. All it says is that he likes shooting film better than he likes shooting digital, and he gives the reasons why. He enjoys picking out the film, he likes that he doesn't have to use a computer, and he can justify the cost (with what looks like some creativity, but whatever; it's his reasoning, for himself). He even gives an entire section over to one reason being, because it's film and not digital! Basically, he's saying that film has merit over digital because he likes it better!

Bully for that guy, I say. I bet he turns out a nice picture. Because in the end, that's all that matters. If he turns out a beautiful, original image, I don't care if he paints it in watercolor.

Use what you like. Because that's what is best FOR YOU.

i agree, and it sure won't be film .

ed rader

I like my digital, but I may have to get a few rolls of the Velvia to see what its's all about.