DSLR Digital Photography Vs. SLR Film Photography

Mike-DT6 wrote in post #9081677
I miss covert peeing in the darkroom sink.

It's great......you don't have to remember to put the seat down

Even if I wanted to use film I don't think I could I would not feel so great about all that chemical use especially now that we have an functional alternative.

Quad wrote in post #9085666
Even if I wanted to use film I don't think I could I would not feel so great about all that chemical use especially now that we have an functional alternative.

You're not alone, many of the changes to the film processes were environmentally driven, including Kodachrome. If I ever shot film again it would be large format B&W, to me digital has surpassed anything color film has to offer.

Mike-DT6 wrote in post #9081677
I miss covert peeing in the darkroom sink.

The equivalent action performed on a modern day digital processing set-up would cause a lot of damage.

Hey, who peed in the sink?

Mike-DT6 wrote in post #9081677
I miss covert peeing in the darkroom sink.

The equivalent action performed on a modern day digital processing set-up would cause a lot of damage.

What a meaningful contribution to the thread.

I still shoot film regularly in both 35mm and medium format and enjoy them very much. No doubt that the availability of digital editing tools allows photographers to do way more to the images than was available to us years ago. I do find way too many photographers just shoot with the attitude that they have the option of fixing it later. Shooting film makes you think about your shots, is your exposure right, do you like the composition. Shooting film doesn't make you a better photographer but I do believe it makes you think more before you press the shutter. Its nice to have exif but I can honestly say that I very rarely write down what my shot settings were when I shoot film.

I think it is great that there are some film only shooters participate here. It gives another perspective on this medium. One is most definitely more convenient than the other but I don't think you say one is any better than the other. It is all a matter of personal choice.

Just got back from shooting with my Hasselblad 201F today, finished off a roll of Fujifilm Velvia 100, Kodak Portra 160VC and Ilford Delta 100. I've been liking the results I'm getting with medium format over digital and for some reason shooting with film is more enjoyable. I feel more connected to what I'm shooting.

That's what the sheet film guys said about the roll film guys and what the roll film guys said about the 35mm guys.

I used to have a lot of fun with film, basically I didn't have any choice because there was no alternative. But despite agreeing that there are genuinely instances where film almost certainly is "nicer" (for want of a better description), I just can't see any real reason that I'd go back to it.

From a purely "gearhead" point of view there are some cameras that I'd just love to use again (some rangefinders, my OM1n and definitely my Hassleblad) but the cost of film and processing is relatively prohibitive, I can't be arsed to wait for the processing, and digital is now so good that the real world differences are negligible.

I've still got a couple of film cameras just for nostalgia really, and I see no harm in that. But go back? Never.

One look at a projected medium format Provia slide anybody can see digital in any format does not even approach slide film. (note I wrote "projected" not "printed"; no print method can display the range of slide film, either!)

Not even 35mm slide film -- sure dslr now have 14-bit dynamic range, but that does not translate into 14 stops because there are only 2 colors at dslr stop 1; film captures all colors at all 7-9 stops for MUCH more detail in darker portions of image.

nphsbuckeye wrote in post #9079804
Go back? I just discovered 35mm last spring! I can't wait to have my own darkroom to develop and print myself!

If you're interested in a complete darkroom setup (stainless tanks, enlarger, all the tools you'd need), PM me. I could use the storage space for something else.

siriusdogstar wrote in post #9088115
One look at a projected medium format Provia slide anybody can see digital in any format does not even approach slide film. (note I wrote "projected" not "printed"; no print method can display the range of slide film, either!)

Not even 35mm slide film -- sure dslr now have 14-bit dynamic range, but that does not translate into 14 stops because there are only 2 colors at dslr stop 1; film captures all colors at all 7-9 stops for MUCH more detail in darker portions of image.

Digital shooters have no idea how spectacular a projected slide from medium format is, and not even a more modest projected 35mm slide. Digital projection is pathetic in resolution, unless you spend a small fortune that only the blessed can afford. Ordinary mortals can, at best, get 2 Mpixel projectors, grossly underperforming even entry level dSLRs

Wilt wrote in post #9089362
Digital shooters have no idea how spectacular a projected slide from medium format is, and not even a more modest projected 35mm slide. Digital projection is pathetic in resolution, unless you spend a small fortune that only the blessed can afford. Ordinary mortals can, at best, get 2 Mpixel projectors, grossly underperforming even entry level dSLRs

However, most photographers--even before digital--did not project slides, and even fewer will do so in the future.

RDKirk wrote in post #9089470
However, most photographers--even before digital--did not project slides, and even fewer will do so in the future.

True, but if you ever participated in photography workshops, where each participant would pick three shots to present to the other workshop participants via projection, the results were spectacular. You should witness Ernst Wildi presentation of Hasselblad slides at seminars presented nationally. Relative to slides, the web sharing we have on our digital monitors is pathetic as well, and photographers are turning a blind and complacent eye to what they are missing and should demand better stuff from manufacturers. It can't even match our cameras! But then again, people listen to the MP3 P.O.S. decimated quality music rather than the CD quality, too. So if they settle for second best in music, it is no surprise that second best is good enough for graphic arts, too.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #9074934
To me, the entire process of using film (and using it well) is/was a much more intimate experience than I find digital to be.

The really talented film photographers rose above the rabble because they knew the film itself is a tool and choice of film/speed/grain could impact the image nearly as much as the quality of light itself. The little tricks and tweaks that could be done in a darkroom were also a part of the overall equation. Now, there's a NIK Filter for this or an Action for that. It's much less crafted and much more programmed.

I think photography is sliding away from an art where people want to learn and perfect a craft to the photographic equivalent of 1000 Chimps with Typewriters hoping to luck into the complete works of Shakespeare.

But then again, I've always been something of an optimist...

Top post

The mrs won't let me have another room to set my darkroom gear up in

I'm thinking about buying a new house

RDKirk wrote in post #9087931
That's what the sheet film guys said about the roll film guys and what the roll film guys said about the 35mm guys.

That's true, there is nothing inherent about digital that forces one to shoot from the hip as the LF guys use to call 35mm shooting. The photographer has a choice, as a former LF and MF shooter I still shoot much the same way as I did then, but with the option of shooting from the hip if I choose to. Sure, an 8x10 transparency looks magnificent on a light table but shooting 8x10 is like wrestling a gorilla in comparison to shooting a digital camera.