Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Film Or Digital?  
User currently offlineBrisbaneShooter From Australia, joined May 2013, 1 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5030 times:

Wondering what everyone's thoughts are on shooting the odd roll of film on aviation flypasts. Is it worth the risk or has digital totally removed all film photographers?

Who still shoots with film?

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 334 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5013 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

I guess nowadays the cost of film photography is too high (films, processing, scanning), not really bringing enough benefits to justify the extra cost.

User currently offlineMattWarrell From Australia, joined May 2013, 1 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5006 times:

I agree. I think if you nail the film roll then you're fine, but it's just too risky for things that move that fast. I only do film photography for things that are less risky.

User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4975 times:

My feeling is that film should now be thought of as another creative media. I don't really see any technical benefits in using film for 99% of applications, but it does have a unique look to it, and of course the process of working with film can be in itself quite rewarding.

I think of it this way - painters don't generally choose between watercolours or oils because one is better than the other, but because each has a particular look and technique associated with it.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineepten From Macedonia, joined Sep 2007, 184 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4959 times:

Film is inferior to DSLR in all aspects. There's no rational reason why anyone would use film today.

If, for some odd reason, you like imperfections, you can more-or-less create them digitally later. But if you simply want a perfect capture, then there's no room for film.


User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5678 posts, RR: 45
Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4950 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting epten (Reply 4):
Film is inferior to DSLR in all aspects.

I guess everyone is entitled to an opinion and that is yours.. an opinion that is all certianly not fact.

Quoting epten (Reply 4):
But if you simply want a perfect capture

What the hell is that, anyone claims to have achieved that is smoking something!

If you have a film camera, put a roll of film in.. go out and shoot some pics.. you might actually find out you shoot differently and get different results. I have spent some time speaking with "youngsters" that grew up with digital .. when they pick up a film camera they know they do not have x00 frames to get it right.. they start to think about THE image.. not how many they can get! ***

Might put some film in the EOS 50 sitting next to my desk and head out to the airport and see what I come up with!!

Quoting MattWarrell (Reply 2):
but it's just too risky for things that move that fast.

Some might recognise this old hobby horse of mine.. Aircraft don't "move fast"!!!

Everything Colin said..     

Cheers

*** Might just be me but many film cameras just feel nicer to use!



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4947 times:

Quoting stealthz (Reply 5):
If you have a film camera, put a roll of film in.. go out and shoot some pics.. you might actually find out you shoot differently and get different results. I have spent some time speaking with "youngsters" that grew up with digital .. when they pick up a film camera they know they do not have x00 frames to get it right.. they start to think about THE image.. not how many they can get! ***

Unfortunately the 'digital kids' seem to have had it planted in them that film is crap and bred useless photographers who took mediocre photos (I'll refrain from using the word 'image' as it for me relates more to digital photography). I remember learning the techniques with film as a 12-year-old and it was sure hard to get it exactly right with no Photoshop to save your bacon! Also, there was no internet and no forum to run to to seek advice - you were on your own (unless you were lucky enough to have guidance from someone experienced) and you perfected your art by trial and error. Sure, a lot of your work was fit only for the bin but at the end of it all you stood proud knowing that you were responsible for own achievements.

Quoting epten (Reply 4):
Film is inferior to DSLR in all aspects

It was good enough for 100 years! And it's more proven than digital. When you factor in how advanced film was at its conception - and how long it's been around - I'd say film wins hands down! You probably have used film/slide in the past but comments like that usually come from those who haven't the first clue about 35mm media.

Karl


User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4916 times:

Quoting epten (Reply 4):
Film is inferior to DSLR in all aspects. There's no rational reason why anyone would use film today.

Wrong!...Resolution of film far superior, at least the medium format I still use. DSLR's are good and a convenient tool however I have found the post processing work to have too many variables. A fine Hasselblad and 100 ISO film...nothing comes close...still. If you know enough about what you are doing your color balance would be corrected on the lens during the shoot. Also for interior work, Kodak made an indoor tungsten film that had incredible latitude. This is an area I have found digital photography to fall short on. In interiors, shadow areas in digital have a bad color shift while this film maintained the basic and true colors in the shadow areas with minimal color shift. Currently though my use of each...Digital 98%/,Film 2%.


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12362 posts, RR: 47
Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4916 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting epten (Reply 4):
Film is inferior to DSLR in all aspects. There's no rational reason why anyone would use film today.

My daughter is a professional photographer working with some of the best fashion and portrait photographers in the World. They're all laughing at your statement.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 6):
You probably have used film/slide in the past but comments like that usually come from those who haven't the first clue about 35mm media.

Even less about medium or large format film cameras.   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4895 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 8):
My daughter is a professional photographer working with some of the best fashion and portrait photographers in the World. They're all laughing at your statement.

To be fair there is a lot of unsupportable prejudice on both sides. I've met pro film shooters who scorn digital ... but also have very little experience with it. A lot of long standing film users will try and shoot digital the way they shoot film and are disappointed. Getting the best of either medium takes a certain amount of expertise.

In general a film specialist will get better results from film than digital ... and visa versa.

And of course don't forget that the final result also depends on you skill in postprocessing/scanning/printing - what comes out the camera is a starting point. I've met photographers whose dislike of digital is really a dislike of computers. Similarly to produce a quality B&W print from film is an artform in its own right.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4891 times:

As always excellent points Colin - I never seem to think of the right words or phrases to express exactly what I mean, then you come along and say it perfectly!

Quoting ckw (Reply 9):
A lot of long standing film users will try and shoot digital the way they shoot film and are disappointed

This was definitely me - so much so that I actually temporarily 'retired' my brand new EOS 350D a few weeks after I bought it (preferring instead to briefly revert to film), such was my disappointment. I now love digital but 35mm film/slide will always be my number one.

Quoting ckw (Reply 9):
I've met photographers whose dislike of digital is really a dislike of computers

In my case not a dislike of computers - although I can empathise fully with what you're saying - but a dislike of Photoshop and its ilk. I know we've been through this a thousand times and it's a necessary evil but for me it has a taboo power of making bad images look good. I know you could use darkroom techniques that practically emulated some features of Photoshop but I and many others never had access to such techniques.

Karl


User currently offlinemegatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4879 times:

I've often thought about picking up a used F100. Seems like an excellent film body and would have been a great step up from my old FM2.

That said, just last week, I went with my mother to drop off her film at a local pharmacy that she had been using. I just happened to go the day they were getting rid of the developer. "I'm sorry ma'am, CVS no longer develops any film." You should have seen the look on her face when she said "but, where am I supposed to get my pictures made?" I've tried to help her switch over but she is sticking to what is familiar to her.

Film still does a beautiful job, however, DESPITE post #4.


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12362 posts, RR: 47
Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4850 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ckw (Reply 9):
I've met pro film shooters who scorn digital ... but also have very little experience with it.

I didn't mean to suggest they never use digital, they do. But, they also use film when they know it's the better medium for the job they're doing.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4832 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 12):
I didn't mean to suggest they never use digital, they do. But, they also use film when they know it's the better medium for the job they're doing.

Yes - well its a huge sliding scale - I was referring to more extreme ends, but there's lots of variations. In my view the film vs digital debate is about as meaningful as Canon vs Nikon. Use what works for you - a great image is a great image regardless of the media.

But there is a 'process' to film which can be very appealing - hence I guess the growing popularity of lomography (I found a fantastic Lomography shop in Paris and had to be physically restrained from buying a significant proportion of its contents). Against that there is the sheer 'practicality' of digital - I don't think I could do as much as I do if I was still shooting film.

While I'm happy shooting digital, I'm very glad I had many years experience shooting film - and I think the digital generation has perhaps missed out - there is something special about that perfect slide or darkroom print that you just don't get from a digital 'capture'. But that could just be age and nostalgia talking  

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlinespencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1635 posts, RR: 17
Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4785 times:

Here's a point I think most of us have said once in our digi lifetimes; I wish I had my digital back then...!  
Spencer



EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
User currently offlineviv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4776 times:

Quoting epten (Reply 4):
Film is inferior to DSLR in all aspects.

Not true. In some respects, film is very much superior. With film, you make a photo. With digital, you simply take a photo.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4686 times:

Quoting megatop412 (Reply 11):
sorry ma'am, CVS no longer develops any film."

And there you go...the future of film photography. It does not pay for film manufacturers to invest in film technology nor does it pay for labs as well. I champion film...but so it goes...Boohoo...   


User currently offlinederekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 904 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4677 times:

I'm detecting a few pairs of rose-tinted spectacles here.
I took photos film for 25years before moving to digital. Would I move back? Never.

I have about a dozen film SLRs in my collection, Olympus OM10, Canon AV-1, EOS1, Nikon F3, F80, FT-N, FG, Pentax MG, ME, Zenit EM, TTL and a few others and I enjoy running a film through each of them now and again but with the possible exception of the Nikon F3 and F80, I would never take them with me for a days shooting. The advantages of digital, the storage, the cost, the sheer number of images it allows you to take far outweigh any advantage in returning to use film.
There is no doubt that being an "analogue " medium film image quality could be better than digital but it often wasn't as anyone who uploaded old images to this site will know only too well.

We forget what it was like to wait on a star item arriving and looking to see "35" in the film counter. We forget about the lost opportunities while changing film and the take-up spool not engaging properly. We wax lyrical about Kodachrome 25 and forget that it needed a bright sunny day to be in any way useable, etc.......I could go on.
Sometimes nostalgia takes over and I pick up an old camera and take a few pictures but the novelty soon wears off.

I don't miss film at all.



Whatever.......
User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5678 posts, RR: 45
Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4675 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 16):
the future of film photography.

It ain't dead yet.. I know of a couple of places in Aus. ramping up their processing capacity... can understand why most the "drugstore" minilabs don't do film but some places see a continuing and growing market. I fully accept that that may be the "enthusiast" market being concentrated in fewer labs.
I know of one place selling and processing hundreds of rolls a day, maybe nothing like the thousands a day they were doing in the '80's but lot's more that the 10's a day they were doing a couple of years back.



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4664 times:

Like many new technologies, everyone jumps on the band wagon - and for most it is an improvement. But there are some who find its not all they expected or wanted.

Look at music - vinyl is making a small come back after its almost annihilation by CD. In fact I wonder if CD will ultimately be replaced by MP3, with audiophiles using vinyl.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9763 posts, RR: 27
Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4652 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ckw (Reply 13):
and I think the digital generation has perhaps missed out - there is something special about that perfect slide or darkroom print that you just don't get from a digital 'capture'.

I think every previous generation says there was something special about their technology versus current technology.  
Quoting ckw (Reply 19):
Look at music - vinyl is making a small come back after its almost annihilation by CD.

A small comeback among audiophiles, perhaps, but I don't think it ever actually left. I'm not sure that the average music listener is out buying record players and LPs any more than they did 20 years ago.

Quoting ckw (Reply 19):
CD will ultimately be replaced by MP3

Hasn't that already happened?   

Anyway, regarding film vs. digital, I've actually had the urge to go get a film camera recently, just for the heck of it. But I'm not sure I want to invest the time and money.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4647 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 20):
I think every previous generation says there was something special about their technology versus current technology.

I didn't mean that the technology as such was special, but rather the learning curve required to use it. As has been apparent from numerous posts here, many digital only users have no idea how a lightmeter works or possibly that it even exists. Had these people experienced shooting film on a manual camera, many of the questions seen here would be unnecessary.

The problem with automated systems is that very few (if any) work 100% under all conditions. If all you've ever known is the automated version, you're stuffed when it lets you down. I guess that's why we still have airline pilots  

As for vinyl - certainly making a comeback in the UK - "record" shops are actually selling records again. Sure a lot of its nostalgia, but different technologies all have their unique attributes - and these are being "discovered" by people who missed the technology the first time round.

Think of old cars - there is no earthly reason to drive a 50s sports car apart from the fact that it is an experience different to any you'll find on a modern car. Someone who has driven at speed on a twisty road without all the modern safety and stability features may not be a better driver, but they will certainly gain a better appreciation of what's involved (esp. if they end up in a ditch).

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlinemegatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4634 times:

Let's also not forget that there are now plugins(such as DxO Film Pack) which ever more increasingly approximate the grain structure of different films. Now one can have the 'look' of film without the wait time(if you drop it off somewhere) or all the chemicals(if doing it yourself). Almost no one can distinguish between a scanned negative/print and a digital image manipulated to look like film using one of these plugins, so on just the time saved alone, why would anyone agree to put up with waiting for your shots to be developed anymore.

User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4609 times:

Quoting megatop412 (Reply 22):
why would anyone agree to put up with waiting for your shots to be developed anymore

Why grind coffee beans when you can make instant?

Seriously, for some of us the journey can be as important as the destination. Now don't get me wrong, I'm die hard digital and have found sadly little time for film anymore (though I do run a roll of B&W through my old Canon F1 from time to time) - the reason being digital B&W just doesn't look quite right. I think its the roll-off on the highlights ... digital is just too abrupt. Though this is improving - my OMD does a pretty good job, the best digital B&W I've used so far.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineThumper45 From Canada, joined May 2013, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4539 times:

IMO learning on a film camera was probably the best thing for me. I spent hours learning about ISO, shutter speed ect ect. What made me grasp everything so much faster was the fact you really had to think about the shot, composition, light. You only have a set number of exposures to get that shot and each bad shot costs time and money.

Digital is the way to go for 99% of pro photographers as you remove many limitations you have with film. IMO film is now an art form. Most new photographers have no concept of how to take a picture they simply point and shoot and hope for one or two photos. With digital this is now easier than ever.

I still get out with my film stuff when I can to shoot purely for the enjoyment of it and I highly recommend people learn on film.


25 megatop412 : Because grinding your own beans leads to markedly better tasting coffee. I'm the furthest thing from a coffee snob there is, but instant coffee taste
26 Post contains images ckw : Perhaps with the new Adobe subscription plan they could do film processing as well Cheers, Colin
27 epten : This is not a good analogy, IMO. Imagine that instant coffee actualy tastes way better than grinded coffee beans. Because THAT's what's happening whe
28 ckw : My coffee beans comment was tongue in cheek - but there can be a certain satisfaction in doing things the hard way which is entirely separate to the
29 JakTrax : Yes. Film was momentous and has been with us for over 100 years - remaining relatively unchanged throughout. There may come a time when digital is eq
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
D60 And EOS3 Pictures Compared. Film Or Digital? posted Sun Oct 13 2002 03:59:57 by Fotodj
Transferring Film To Digital posted Tue Jan 17 2006 15:29:42 by Dcz00
Your History - Film & Digital posted Fri Aug 27 2004 22:07:46 by Ryangooner
SLR Or Digital? posted Fri Jul 19 2002 17:08:15 by Che
Film Vs Digital Again posted Fri Dec 7 2001 12:11:11 by Ckw
New SLR Or Digital At The Moment? posted Fri May 4 2001 17:11:39 by Blackened
Bad Film Or Camera? posted Thu Oct 19 2000 01:08:35 by Gocaps16
Flatbed, Film Scanner Or Pure Digital? posted Thu Jan 9 2003 20:53:12 by Janne
Digital Or Film Cameras? posted Sat Jun 8 2002 15:53:14 by Rolo987
35mm Film Quality Vs. Digital posted Thu Sep 15 2011 08:44:06 by JakTrax