The Argument of EOS Film over Digital

I stopped using film earlier this spring due to cost. I did enjoy the last few photos I took with my Canon A1 shots

gambit wrote in post #6928926
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??

Personally at least for me, digital is actually even LESS expensive than 35 mm DSRL photography.

Sure, going digital can require a larger initial investment. But hard drive space is getting cheaper these days, and an 8 GB CF card for my 40D cost about $100. How many shots can I fit on one 8 GB card, and how does that compare to the cost of a roll of 35 mm film? If I used 35 mm film primarily, how much money would I have to spend on a personal darkroom in order to get the control I want, vs going digital and using software to tweak my pictures? You buy editing software ONCE, but with film you keep having to buy chemicals over and over again. Also nice with digital is that I get to "develop" EACH IMAGE the way I want. I don't have to treat a 24 or 36 string of images the same, because it's not a single roll. They're individual images, I can treat them as individual images, and that helps. I save money in the long run, or keep from losing as many pictures. And keeping from losing as many pictures can save money in the long run.

OVERALL, I actually think that digital is less expensive than film. Might require more of an INITIAL investment. But once you get the actual "stuff", shooting is far more inexpensive than it was back during the days of film. Film can be expensive as hell, and the cost increases with every single shot. I first started becoming interested in photography about 10 years ago, and I remember cost being a huge prohibitive factor. I received a camera and some lenses as a gift, but the cost of film added up, and I simply couldn't afford to buy and maintain my own darkroom. I think that digital photography has actually made things a hell of a lot cheaper for most amateurs. Again, going digital might take a slightly large INITIAL investment. But once you pay the money it takes to get into it,I think the rest of the stuff actually ends up being cheaper.

gambit wrote in post #6928926
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??

The cost argument hasn't been valid since about 2004.

cdifoto wrote in post #6931318
The cost argument hasn't been valid since about 2004.

True, an argument none the less

film is actually the separation between (most) of my professional and personal work. I would much rather be working with film for art and digital for the kind of throughput efficiency required for professional image making.

however, I believe there is serious merit in learning on film. my bachelors degree was based on it, even though I just earned it a few weeks ago and digital (as you well know) is rampant in this day and age.

for one, you've got to be a lot more disciplined about previsualizing your shot and working through it. this is a composition thing, a depth of field thing, a motion stopping/extending thing, a white balancing thing, and a materials thing (film and paper(which have different contrast and color qualities), and filters(both corrective and creative)). It kind of reminds me especially of the guys in the forum that say "you can just shoot in raw and never worry about white balance problems." It's true with digital, but with color negatives it's a nightmare to fix that sort of issue in the darkroom. with slides, you might as well save yourself hours of headaches and scrap it, go out and reshoot. If you're on the wrong ISO, you can push or pull process anything but only at the consequence of severe grain and contrast issues. There's no sharpening or blurring options in the darkroom (I have, however, skewed buildings to stand straight!). Long story short, you've got much less room for error.

for two, you really have to baby each roll/sheet of film and each print in developing/archiving. I keep a running list of development plans for every different type of film I process personally; different dilutions, temperatures, processing times, agitation methods, etc. And you should see my compendium of technical notes for individual prints; if I lost my notebook, I'd be screwed on reproducing darkroom work because it'd be like starting over completely from scratch. And then to individually retouch each print with a paint brush and spot tone is an additional drain on the nerves and one that requires a day without coffee (because it makes my hand way too shaky), which is really hard to come by. When you shoot film, you end up with a lot less images over all, and not even all of them are necessarily useable, and then actively creating prints from the useable ones takes a staggering amount of patience, care, and methodology by comparison to digital.

so call it old fashioned, I really like film for the method it forces you to use. I think I'm a much more thoughtful and proficient photographer for having learned in the darkroom than on a computer. And as an artist, I really enjoy the physical involvement and technical mastery of craft required for darkroom work.

that being said, you'd be a fool not to use digital in the professional world for most applications. Batch processing, reduced noise, and dramatically reduced cost and time of throughput (memory is way more convenient and available than film, no dependency on pro labs except for prints, no darkroom trauma, no cost of chemistry, way faster turnaround time...). If I had to shoot film as a professional and try to keep up with the output and turnaround time demands of the current age, I'd quit and do something else with my life that was easier on the nerves.

so there are serious advantages in each for me. I don't foresee film ever disappearing (color negative maybe, color slides only after digital hasselblad backs become as cost efficient and effective as scanning 120mm transparencies, black and white probably not ever because there are just too many hobbyists/schools that use it). One of the biggest tragedies we're seeing right now is the gradual extinction of kodachrome.

and perhaps I should draw to some sort of conclusion now, but it's far too early in my day to conjure up a good final statement.

bric-a-brac wrote in post #6931992
film is actually the separation between (most) of my professional and personal work. I would much rather be working with film for art and digital for the kind of throughput efficiency required for professional image making.

however, I believe there is serious merit in learning on film. my bachelors degree was based on it, even though I just earned it a few weeks ago and digital (as you well know) is rampant in this day and age.

for one, you've got to be a lot more disciplined about previsualizing your shot and working through it. this is a composition thing, a depth of field thing, a motion stopping/extending thing, a white balancing thing, and a materials thing (film and paper(which have different contrast and color qualities), and filters(both corrective and creative))...

...so call it old fashioned, I really like film for the method it forces you to use. I think I'm a much more thoughtful and proficient photographer for having learned in the darkroom than on a computer. And as an artist, I really enjoy the physical involvement and technical mastery of craft required for darkroom work.
.

Well stated, and wonderful to hear someone newly minted with the BA or BFA list the value of using media like film to force one to Think about the technical aspects, and to Compose while considering the technical elements, rather that merely machine gunning your way thru 25k exposures per year!

Wilt wrote in post #6932391
Well stated, and wonderful to hear someone newly minted with the BA or BFA list the value of using media like film to force one to Think about the technical aspects, and to Compose while considering the technical elements, rather that merely machine gunning your way thru 25k exposures per year!

It doesn't require film to take that approach.

cdifoto wrote in post #6932396
It doesn't require film to take that approach.

Quite true, but unfortunately most brains do not apply the same care to 'free shots' vs. when they have to literally pay additional costs for each shot taken!

I've never shot a film camera in my life... don't ever plan on it either

ErikM wrote in post #6932613
I've never shot a film camera in my life... don't ever plan on it either

I have. I shot a Pentax Spotmatic. It sucked. I got like, 3 rolls out of it before giving it up as a pain in the ass not worth the hassle. It didn't teach me to be careful about my shots...it pissed me off.

By the way, that was three years after getting my first dSLR.

I like shooting film from time to time but it's cost me a bit of money. I bought a scanner, chemicals, film, camera body all for a little different look. I still enjoy using it though. I love walking around with my MF film camera just taking snap shots of this and that.

I appreciate what you've written, bric-a-brac.

But it seems to me like you're giving all the reasons why you prefer a chemical process to a digital one; because it fits who you are, not because it is intrinsically better. Both involve compromises, but you personally are more in tune with the compromises demanded by film. Therefore, you produce better art with film.

I can't help but think, though; all this talk about the lost art of processing film seems to me like lamenting the lost art of steering a horse and buggy. OK, so now you can maneuver a team of horses pulling a stagecoach; but, there goes the train!

In the end, there is only the image. Do what you need to do to make it worthwhile.

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

Agree. On a bird shoot I could by a new digital body for the film/processing costs I saved by shooting digital. I shot high grade slide film for 40 years before digital and the quality can't touch what I am producing today with digital.

Folks, the issue is not merely comparative cost. The issue is putting yourself into a frame of mind that CHANGES the way in which you visualize the world about you, and give some contemplative THOUGHT about what you shoot before you ever shoot it! It used to be, in the days before digital, that medium format and large format shooting changed the way 35mm photogs saw the world, then thought and took the shot, simply because of the relative expense...a single 4x5 was as expensive as an entire 36-exposure roll of film, both to buy and to process. For that reason, one did not 'waste shots'...it was not unheard of, to walk about all day seeking things to shoot, but to return home with a single 4x5 exposure. For bric-a-brac, film changes his/her way of thinking. It does not require film to be the catalyst of a different approach, merely an attitude that machine gunning shots is not the way to do it.