Digital or Film?

FB

Not my cup of cake
Valued Member
This might seem a strange question given how prevalent digital cameras are these days but I'm seriously considering a return to film. I recently invested in a cheap negative scanner and the results (even on this cheap model) are astonishing. A return to film would allow me to invest in some incredible equipment at relatively low prices - as long as you don't mind equipment a few years old - and a better scanner would give all the benefits of computer aided image manipulation.

Does anyone here still shoot with 35mm? Anyone else using a negative scanner as I'd appreciate any advice on the best model to upgrade to.
 

Brogan

🦶 Leg end
Staff Member
I sold all my film equipment and took a sabbatical for a few years.
I had an A3 flatbed, negative and print scanner.

I recently purchased a digital SLR and there is no way I would ever go back to film.
Being able to shoot as many images as I want and see the results instantly far outweighs anything film could offer.

Sometimes I wouldn't even get a single usable print from a whole roll of film, making it an expensive and pointless exercise.
 

Speshal

World Champion
Valued Member
What Bro said, and fairly soon you won't be able to get film for it.

I work in audio and to me (and many of my peers) analogue tape sounds far superior to digital but you just can't get it these days unless you pay silly money e.g. 10 years ago it was about £70 for a reel and now it's nearer £200
 

Bill Boddy

Professional layabout
Contributor
I'm an intermittent member of a camera club. We get some speakers who swear by digital, very often because of the ease of image manipulation. There are still some speakers though who swear by film. I remember one who had created all sorts of effects by clever use of his camera. His photos were superb, he thought before he shot instead of afterwards.
 

FB

Not my cup of cake
Valued Member
It's a bit like the argument about zoom or prime lenses. Those who swear by primes claim you have to frame the picture and get it right, those who insist on zoom like the ease and simplicity it offers. Think I might invest in some new (old) film kit but keep the digital going as well. Just use film for B&W when I'm feeling artistic.
 

Dizzi

Podium Finisher
If you intend taking photos in any extreme conditions (going to the arctic or something) then film is far superior. I found my digital camera lasted for about 5 takes before it gave up whereas my old 35mm I'd taken as back-up kept going & I got some brilliant pictures. The biggest problem is getting film.
Generally I'm a digital convert but sometimes I like using film, escpecially good for B&W.
May I ask which negative scanner you have? I'm looking to get one soon.
 

sportsman

Sidecar racers have the biggest cojones
Contributor
If you intend taking photos in any extreme conditions (going to the arctic or something) then film is far superior. I found my digital camera lasted for about 5 takes before it gave up whereas my old 35mm I'd taken as back-up kept going & I got some brilliant pictures. The biggest problem is getting film.
Generally I'm a digital convert but sometimes I like using film, escpecially good for B&W.
May I ask which negative scanner you have? I'm looking to get one soon.
I don't own a negative scanner.I have a friend who is a pro photog and he looks after that for me.I don't know what he uses.
Wish I could help.I will ask him but I suspect he will have topline pro model.
 

FB

Not my cup of cake
Valued Member
Yeah, I've seen some Nikon scanners which are several thousands of pounds which are well outside of my reach. The scanner I got was less than £20 from Aldi, just to see what it could do, and it has reawakened my interest in film, to the point where I bought a Canon A1 with some lenses on ebay last night. Now to keep an eye out for a scanner in my price range...
 

sportsman

Sidecar racers have the biggest cojones
Contributor
Good choice that.Mine is a Canon 100 which I bougt new.It came with 28/80 zoom and also75/300 zoom lenses.Over the years I have picked up endless filters.Mine has this command dail.
I understand Dizzi's problem.Here we have very severe winters currently -17 C up from an overnight low of -21C
120px-CanonEOS100TopLeft.JPG
 

Brogan

🦶 Leg end
Staff Member
My old Canon EOS worked faithfully in -25 C in Kazakhstan.
I can't say the same for my own muscles :D

It also worked fine for the total solar eclipse back in 2000, something you can't shoot with a digital camera as it burns out the sensor when you point it at the sun for an extended period of time.
 

FB

Not my cup of cake
Valued Member
I specifically chose the A1 as I had one before moving to digital (still trying to remeber why I sold it, think it was a part ex for an early EOS digital) and it uses FD lenses which are cheaper to buy second hand than EOS auto focus glass. Now just have to track down a supply of Ilford FP4 and HP5 and get some ID11. I used to make my own, wonder if I can order the chemicals on line without getting a visit from Homeland Security...
 

FB

Not my cup of cake
Valued Member
Just to scare you, I was an early adopter of digital which makes my move back to film even more bizarre. This was my first digital camera, the Sony Mavica FD7. It saved the images on to a 3.5" floppy disc and you could get 20 pictures per disc (640x480 resolution). Superb camera, shame the image quality wasn't up to much.

 

sportsman

Sidecar racers have the biggest cojones
Contributor
That was a few years ago.Mid nineties I think.These days I mostly use a small Olympus compact which I frequently forget to take with me as I have grown so used to using my Iphone which I always carry that I never remember to take a camera with me.
 

snowy

Champion Elect
I think I prefer film from an aesthetic point of view but I could not possibly imagine ever taking these photos without the aid of digital. It would have taken me years and cost me thousands of pounds! With digital it took me just three months to get from complete macro novice to almost proficient.


IMG_3102 by snomanda, on Flickr


I'm pretty sure the Moon would have been out of my reach too:

IMG_3696 by snomanda, on Flickr
 
Top Bottom