Does digital photography kills film photography?

Sections New Your

Photography

#PHOTOGRAPHY PHILOSOPHY

Robert PRO

12 years ago

How many of you do make film and how much compared to digital?

What does film photography means to you compared to digital?

How many rolls you shoot in a average per month?

How much film photography from older times influences your digital photography?

For your photography does knowledge about film photography helps you in digital photography?

How do you feel having a old dark room picture in your hand compared to a digital print?

Phyllis Clarke CREW

12 years ago — Moderator

Robert,

I just saw this topic...

You have asked very good questions. I will answer only a few...

I should start by saying that I love digital photography because it peaked my interest in photography again, and that was around 2000. I never stopped taking pictures, but it was not my main source of interest, when I stopped using the darkroom. So, I am very glad to have digital and all the wonderful things that come with it which we all know.

At the same time when I hold a photo that I did myself in the darkroom I am I feel like I 'made' it.....so I am attached to it in a different way. It seems to hold more value to me. There are probably many reasons for this, but in large part I think it is because each photo required a good deal of thought before shooting, and then so much time spent creating one unique photograph.

Then there is the 'look' of film...In film photos especially of people and street scenes things rarely look 'perfect'...The paper itself has a slight texture (matte I mean) and then when you have grain..it is artistic grain...beautiful giving the image depth. Often we see a lot of light, which today we might think of as over exposed..but on film..it looks just right. Film b/w photos are often atmospheric ..and some people are quite good a recreating this with Photoshop...but most of the time it is not the same..'look'....as film.

Film is delicious you savor it - Digital is cool, you always want more.

Well, of course shooting with an SLR helps with a DSLR..many things are the same..the basics I mean. If you understand the terminology of using an SLR it translates to a DSLR - in most cases. Also, knowing how to do very simple things in a darkroom like burning and dodging..help when using Photoshop..

My first digital camera was not a DSLR but a compact camera. I bought the Coolpix 990. 3 mega pixels. It was State of the Art in 2000 for compact cameras! Well, when I saw the first group of photos I had a mixed reaction. First it was WOW...I just took these pictures and now they are here on my computer...l, 2, 3.

My second reaction was how horrible they were. I could 'see' things like pores in the faces of people, and small details on buildings that made them look like a drawing. This did not seem quite right to me....This changed when I bought a DSLR and give work with different lenses. I also realize now after these almost 13 years...that my film pictures look blurry. :)

The worst part of digital for me, is that I don't print most of my pictures that I have completed. Then there are just too many of them. When I go to FB I am just overwhelmed by so many...and because I enjoy looking at pictures..I use a lot of time like this..... Even here at lx I don't like missing a day of not seeing the photos. Sometimes everything starts to blur...into one big picture...:)

Phyllis

Gianni Giatilis

12 years ago

How many of you do make film and how much compared to digital?

What does film photography means to you compared to digital?

How many rolls you shoot in a average per month?

How much film photography from older times influences your digital photography?

For your photography does knowledge about film photography helps you in digital photography?

How do you feel having a old dark room picture in your hand compared to a digital print?

Good topic Robert, in the same order of your questions:

I shoot both but only shot 2 rolls of film for the last 6 months, this may be because I only started digital seriously 6-7 months ago and I want to know everything about it.

Shooting thousands of rolls of film is of great value so I can do things in digital much faster and easier following the same rules without thinking of the cost. Digital is extremely easy, convenient, cheap, fast and impressive. Treatment with imaging software can produce HDR, panoramas and all sorts of different effects, so this gave it a boost and made it more "trendy" for many people.

On the other side a print from a negative has more value in my hands thinking the work and time needed to finally come to this result. Magic is gone like darkroom experience, for those who did it, is irreplaceable. Like many other things in life film is heading to a closed group activity, it will get even more expensive and the end will be similar to the vinyl VS CD story. From one side I feel sorry for this, thinking what Phyllis said, even the defects on an analogue print, look somehow very attractive today. Digital Photography is like a woman who takes off her clothes too fast and easy, for some this is good while some others still prefer the rewards of anticipation.

Gianni

Phyllis Clarke CREW

12 years ago — Moderator

Digital Photography is like a woman who takes off her clothes too fast and easy, for some this is good while some others still prefer the rewards of anticipation.

Gianni

Now that must be added to the quote group?? What do you say? :))

Lewis Hine

He is one of my favorite old timers...in photography..if you click on he thumbnails they get big.

http://www.lewishinephotographs.com/thumbnails

Eliza Powell

12 years ago

Digital Photography is like a woman who takes off her clothes too fast and easy, for some this is good while some others still prefer the rewards of anticipation.

Gianni

Oh my God, this is a classic :) I totally agree with Phyllis that that must be the group quote/strapline :)

Good questions and I need a bit of time to answer, but I will....as I also have shot film (years ago) and now digital. Phyllis sums up much of what I feel though, particularly as I have hard drives of stuff that I will never print, as opposed to old Ilford paper boxes that are filled with photographic treasures. More to follow....

Deleted User

12 years ago

For this kind of stuff it already has:

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/06/heres-the-craziest-video-youll-watch-all-day/

For what I and my mates do professionally, it already has:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BliTQcK3tA0&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PLRUSbbQynOdFCMFrOP_2AGzusJcF2jdRx

For what I do for fun, it has not and probably will not:

http://1x.com/photo/190219/all:user:1972

To answer the questions:

How many of you do make film and how much compared to digital?

I do shoot film, probably over a years time, @50-50

What does film photography means to you compared to digital?

More fun, "better" image quality, more thinking than hoping

How many rolls you shoot in a average per month?

It varies wildly as does my overall shooting of any form. As low as 0 and as high as 15

How much film photography from older times influences your digital photography?

100% - BUT so does film photography from newer times too

For your photography does knowledge about film photography helps you in digital photography?

Absolutely

How do you feel having a old dark room picture in your hand compared to a digital print?

Haven't printed in a darkroom in decades. My current film workflow involves shooting and developing film and scanning to NEF files. From there my workflow is "digital", including printing.

Deleted User

12 years ago

It seems this Topic is very similar to another one that Martin has had going for a while now. Not sure this conversation couldn't or shouldn't have just been there.

But for the sake of duplication:

Interesting semi-parallel discussion on FB this morning:

David J. Nightingale:

More seriously, I agree, there's a lot of photography out there that doesn't strike me as especially interesting, but I think it's lack of character is more a product of the inherent sterility of the digital medium rather than anything to do with technical perfection or over production. Digital cameras, for the most part, lack character.

Kenneth Wong:

Not sure if it's the medium, but I think it could be mentality. It's easy to bring a digital camera up and snap the moment (god, i hate that phrase, but in this case it's apt) than to take the time to craft the image in one'e head before bringing the camera to one's eye. Impulsive photography vs contemplative photography?

David J. Nightingale:

Yep, that's a factor too, but it's still the case that no amount of contemplation changes the fact that most digital cameras produce very similar results. Hence my overarching interest in post-production: it's a way to add back the mood and character that you might have previously determined, at least in part, through your choice of film.

Jeannie Pasch:

If I could add that since I changed over to digital I just can't "feel it" anymore. I have a few excellent digital cameras, but I dunno, the shots don't look or feel the same somehow. I have to get into the post production much more, but it takes time to feel that too! Not that David J. Nightingale hasn't done everything he can to make that available. Maybe some day soon I'll start snapping again with more consistency - I hope I can make it fun again... All those menus...ugh!

David J. Nightingale:

Jeannie, I know the feeling, they don't have anywhere near the same character as images shot with a film camera, but it is possible to recreate that character after the fact. As you mention though, there's a whole other learning curve to climb up first. It's definitely worth the effort though

Erkan Camlilar

12 years ago

correct analogy there is no more today.

everything is digitized, there are a few that develop their own movie on traditonele example.

it's like the change from analog tape to cd ...

we still see people riding with her horse from bankok to berlin?? no!!

analogy will die, that is as safe as the Amen in the church

Remo Rufer

12 years ago

How many of you do make film and how much compared to digital?

I only shoot film.

What does film photography means to you compared to digital?

it means not to save your files on several harddisks to prevent to loose your original file. also with a negative i can make both: wetprinting and scaning and use it as a digital file. so it means 2 in 1.

How many rolls you shoot in a average per month?

1 roll maybe

How much film photography from older times influences your digital photography?

I did start with digital which was the best. as a beginner you can shoot a lot without paying lots of money for the films. also you can have a look at your photos and look at the exif data. you can learn better with digital.

For your photography does knowledge about film photography helps you in digital photography?

No.

How do you feel having a old dark room picture in your hand compared to a digital print?

Depends on the quality of the darkroom print. printing in darkroom needs a lot of skills to get out everything from a negative. but it is another feeling in it.

Lorenzo Rieg

12 years ago

How many of you do make film and how much compared to digital?

I shoot a bit of film, but not too much. At most 5% of my photos are on film.

What does film photography means to you compared to digital?

I think it is different in the way the shooting and the pictures feel. I also always carry a small analog camera (Olympus XA) and 3 rolls of film on expeditions, just as a backup in case i run out of batteries for my digital stuff.

How many rolls you shoot in a average per month?

About one in two months.

How much film photography from older times influences your digital photography?

Hard to say. I did a lot of film photography, but then i was quite young then...

For your photography does knowledge about film photography helps you in digital photography?

I think it does, but again hard to say. Digital is so easy technically...

How do you feel having a old dark room picture in your hand compared to a digital print?

As i said above, they feel different. I think they have some inherent craftsmanship...

Remo Rufer

12 years ago

robert, to come to your actual question "does digital photography kill film photography" i would say no. it just makes it so expencive no one can afford it :D

Deleted User

12 years ago

robert, to come to your actual question "does digital photography kill film photography" i would say no. it just makes it so expencive no one can afford it :D

I find it quite interesting how folks think film photography is so expensive these days. AND, yes I do understand that I live in a very different place than many of you. But for just the cost of my D7000 body alone, I could buy a mint condition FE, two or three Ai-S primes and pay for film and processing for about 5 years. I would probably have enough money left for a trip or two.

Costso will develop and scan c41 film for less than the cost of the roll of film.

To me, film photography is FAR less expensive than digital. But, because I can, I do both.

Lorenzo Rieg

12 years ago

well, no costco in europe.

over here, it has gotten quite expensive to have film developed. good scans are also expensive and are not even that easy to get.

film is only cheap if you develop and scan yourself...

Deleted User

12 years ago

Yes but the initial equipment is dramatically cheaper than digital and just as good if not better, especially if you shoot with manual focus primes like it do. Many of these lenses are far better even than "pro" zooms that are so popular now days and SOOOOO expensive. So when you counter the expense of equipment with film and processing and a decent scanner, I still think most would find that the film experience is actually cheaper.

Lorenzo Rieg

12 years ago

lets say body and lens live for ~36000 pics (just to make it easy to calculate), that would be 1000 films.

if i buy cheap films, that would cost me €2000.- but if i want to shoot fuji velvia that would be more like €7500.- (if i could get them cheap). Development would be another €1500.-

lets say i buy a decent scanner for €300.- and camera&lens for €200.- that would make a total of €4000.- not including the huge amount of time i would need for scanning 1000 slides/negatives.

Those 4000.- would also buy me a 5d mk3 with 2-3 nice lenses... of course i might shoot way more pics if i had a digital camera.

Deleted User

12 years ago

Of course

Phyllis Clarke CREW

12 years ago — Moderator

Those 4000.- would also buy me a 5d mk3 with 2-3 nice lenses... of course i might shoot way more pics if i had a digital camera.

Okay I am wondering if you have a film camera, what kind and for long you shot film? If so, do you have actual photographs made from the camera. Not necessarily printed by you, but sent out to be printed?

Thanks,

Phyllis

Lorenzo Rieg

12 years ago

hey,

yeah of course. i have an old canon slr with some lenses (i think that one is as old as me but i do not really use it anymore) and some rangefinders (which i am still using). I had a couple of other film cameras, but theyre either not working or i gave them away. i bought my first digital camera in 2009, so shot only film before, cant really say when i started, but i think around 15 years ago, so that should be 10 years of shooting film.

i never had my own darkroom, so i never did much printing/darkroom work myself, but i printed some stuff and had some more printed...

i am not arguing in the favor of "digital killed/kills film" here by the way, i am not even saying that i like digital more. i just wanted to express that shooting film has gotten way more expensive during the last 5 years. the bigger labs have either closed, increased prices or are not doing just development without (very bad) scanning etc. anymore.

i think in 2008 film was cheaper and i could get a roll developed in a day for €0.5, or for €2.- i got the roll developed, nice scans on a cd and contact prints. not anymore...

today if i drop of a film to develop here in austria, it gets send to germany to get developed, which might actually be a reason why it got kinda expensive.

Phyllis Clarke CREW

12 years ago — Moderator

hey,

i think in 2008 film was cheaper and i could get a roll developed in a day for €0.5, or for €2.- i got the roll developed, nice scans on a cd and contact prints. not anymore...

today if i drop of a film to develop here in austria, it gets send to germany to get developed, which might actually be a reason why it got kinda expensive.

Well, okay, now you have pointed out one very important factor - basically supply and demand. So the price of shooting and developing film has gone up and some films are no longer available as far as I have heard.

I guess Clyde would know what it would cost to process a roll of b/w film lets say..with small prints? I have not done it in years since I went digital about 2000.

However, there are so many other things that we never take into consideration.

The cameras - good ones..were a fraction of the cost. I believe my Nikon FE in 1978 - it was a new model was about $500.00. And until a couple of years ago it was working as good as the day I bought it. That is one long time. Over 20 years. I can get one now for about $150.00.

All these years of shooting with film...even without the darkroom the cost of buying film and developing it with prints from Kodak was very affordable. Slides even cheaper..and what else did you need? Some photo albums to store the pictures, and box for the negatives. and you actually had photographs in your hand.

Not long ago, my two older grandsons came by and I dragged out a box of photos of them...there were hundreds of them of course before 2000. They loved sitting there and going through the photos..one by one...:)

Now I have in front of me, two printers, one scanner, a big computer, five external hard drives, all the cable Internet connections, and a Wacom tablet. I have Photoshop and Lightroom , more plugins than I want to tell you about....and I have not gotten to the camera's yet. Of course this is the 4th computer I have owned and the second scanner and I have had two other color printers...

Since 2000 I have had four digital cameras, and I have bought maybe six or seven lenses. We are speaking now of thousands of dollars..just for the cameras without all the accessories. And the killer is that it is time now or a new camera...more money...

Then there is the time to deal with all of this...save files here and there and everywhere..on a cloud, under the bed...:) And best part is that I no longer have many prints. And BTW printing yourself is very expensive - even the 5 x 4 prints...far more than Kodak. Epson paper is expensive an the ink is absurd.

So, really how much I wonder does it cost to develop a roll of film in Germany?

I have found it is cheaper to send out any prints I want.

So even with the changes I would bet I never would have spent all these thousands of dollars on film.

Yet, I like my digital toys, and so I pay. Yet, I cannot convince myself it is cheaper.

Thanks for your answer.

Phyl

Deleted User

12 years ago

Very well said Phyllis! Exactly what I was talking about.

Digital photography is killing off film, of course it is. It the markets and, yes, supply and demand. Digital photography has made photography VERY pedestrian, literally! Just about every guy or gal walking around has a camera on them at all times. Cell phone cameras may be killing off "digital" photography too...think about that for a few...

Deleted User

12 years ago

For me, photography is alive and well in several forms. I shoot film and process negatives or transparencies and scan to the big computer system that Phyl describes. I shoot with a dslr and some very nice lenses, mostly prime and many of them older manual focus Nikon Ai-S. I shoot with a LX5 that I carry with me in a small backpack. But more and more I just take out the phone!

Ben Goossens ✝ PRO

12 years ago

Does digital photography kills film photography?

No, but has lifted photography to an other level IMO.

I was happy when the digital camera came, after many darkroom years, you start when you like and stops when you like.

I have seen the digital taken over since many years ago.

It was a must for most professional photographers, to work in an efficient way in the advertising world. They had to follow the evolution or they couldn't compete anymore.. Adobe was/is taking over more and more from Kodak, Agfa, Ilford etc

I agree, that a film experience will make you a better digital photographer.

Best, Ben

Robert PRO

12 years ago

No, but has lifted photography to an other level IMO.

Almost my words:-)

Thank you all very much! Very interesting to read. I do a good number of film by my self but since the digital photography is there i do more with that. Its more easy while traveling and you have a kind of quick and instant feeling while seeing your pictures immediate.

I do not think that digital will kill film photography soon but it will come definitely!

Of course film photography knowledge will help you for digital as except the sensor which is instead of the film all is the same physically background and also composition and so on will also not make a difference between digital and film.