# Digital vs Analogue Photography...?



## memoss (May 21, 2014)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not hating either style... i'm a fan of both
but i just wanted to know why people choose to spend hundreds of dollars to buy more film and/or develop at a photo lab rather than a micro SD card for their $500 DSLR camera?

like i said, i love film photography! but it's so dang expensive!! haha. if only i learned to develop my own film. plus i need a certain type of scanner to scan my photos...and there are scanning masks to help scan the film...yep. i've spend almost a thousand USD so far >.<

i just wanted to know other ppls opinion..thnx!


----------



## limr (May 21, 2014)

Oh dear.




I'm sorry, I don't mean to seem rude because you seem genuinely interested in the answer. It's just that this discussion tends to go very south very quickly. I don't know - perhaps folks can keep it civilized now.

All I'll say is that it's simply a matter of priorities. Everyone has their own. I spend my money on film photography because I prefer the film process. Others feel very differently from me. They find value in the digital gear/process so they spend their money on that. 

Whatever kind of photography you like is only as expensive as you want it to be. What I might be spending on film, others are spending on gear. An entry-level DSLR would cost me several hundred dollars. I can get a LOT of film for that, plus a couple of cameras. Film scanners can be had for a couple hundred dollars and developing chemicals are cheap. And printing costs money no matter how the image was created.

To each their own. Don't sweat anyone else's expenditures. Just do what you like to do, spend your money the way you like to spend it, and enjoy whatever you get for that money.


----------



## ThinBlueLine (May 21, 2014)

There was a thread I read here about a year ago where someone posted a film photo which they scanned and the threads tone was pretty much how digital could never
replicate the image in said thread. 

As it turned out, the photo was actually shot with a DSLR full frame camera, and simply had some photoshop adjustments. Pretty good experiment, and also evidence that 
you can make digital look like film. Now, while this may seem slightly off topic, the point I'm trying to make is not. 

If you like shooting film, by all means, there's no reason for you not to do so. But at the end of the day, it's pretty much the photography equivalent to taking the scenic route.


----------



## IzzieK (May 21, 2014)

Who cares what sort of medium you like to do your shots at? The most important is that you enjoy the process -- shooting, post processing, etc.


----------



## photoguy99 (May 21, 2014)

Film vs digital doesn't really have any direct effect on the final result.

The different ways of working may well have a huge impact on the artist, and thence on the work, however. Mostly, commercial people who use film are working a marketing gimmick and amateurs are just enjoying a different hobby, but a few people actually need one process or the other to produce really good photos.


----------



## Overread (May 21, 2014)

Some people like riding horses even though we have cars
Some people like rowing even though we have motor boats
Some people like walking even though we've got segways


Sometimes there are refinements where some methods, even if they are older, are still superior to newer methods. Other times its just more practical. Some people also grew up doing the old thing so its familiar and easy for them to do. Other times they simply enjoy the different process.

Each person is different, some enjoy doing wet plate photography, others film, some digital. 

Each to their own


----------



## Solarflare (May 21, 2014)

I'd love to get a large format camera.  Its just that you have to eBay such stuff nowadays, and thats a huge hassle.

Either way, even 4x5 has more resolution than any digital camera (excluding military ones which can reach gigapixel, but require a ton of optics and sensors and are anything but transportable).

Also, of course, chemical film has interesting behavior, for example in "Blown out" areas. For digital, this is just overexposed, turning white. For film, depending upon the type, it still can contain some color information. Its more "pleasing", so to say.

And Ken Rockwell claims that film records more color information: 





> Ha! I also shot it in my Nikon 35Ti on Fuji Velvia 50. Not only does it look better than the digital cameras after being scanned, the original film looks even better on the light table or projected; it knocks the digital stuff out the window. Any scan is a sad attempt to reproduce what's on the film, whose 10,000:1 dynamic range (4.0 D log 10) exceeds any digital monitor like what you're viewing right now.
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...


----------



## imagemaker46 (May 21, 2014)

I just take pictures. I shot and processed film for three decades, I've been shooting digital 14 years. How I shoot hasn't changed at all. The gear I used to use was always the best gear, the gear I use now is also the best gear. There are times that I miss working in a darkroom, it was more satisfying and relaxing, than sitting at a computer.  It's all just photography, same principles, using the same light, shooting the same subjects.  I still enjoy what I do, and that's really all that matters.


----------



## Steve5D (May 21, 2014)

I miss the process of exposing a sheet of paper, running it through from tray to tray... watching the image appear.

I don't miss mixing chemicals, though...


----------



## runnah (May 21, 2014)

Overread said:


> Some people like walking even though we've got segways



How dare you compared digital users to segway riders! That's like saying j-walkers and mass murderers are the same because they both broke the law.

p.s. I don't know if they have j-walking in the yookay.


----------



## manaheim (May 21, 2014)

Overread said:


> Some people like riding horses even though we have cars
> Some people like rowing even though we have motor boats
> Some people like walking even though we've got segways
> 
> ...



As usual, Over nails it.

</thread>


----------



## ronlane (May 21, 2014)

Overread said:


> Some people like riding horses even though we have cars
> Some people like rowing even though we have motor boats
> Some people like walking even though we've got segways
> 
> ...



You left one out:

Some people like to do yoga, while some like to watch.


----------



## webestang64 (May 21, 2014)

One of the reason I still shoot film, mostly BW because I enjoy spending hours in the darkroom working on printing gorgeous fiber based prints. And since I work in a lab I can develop and scan my color ultra cheap. 

Would love to have a Canon Mark III....but don't have the money to blow on the body.


----------



## terri (May 21, 2014)

I'm a film shooter because the negative is what I'm after to work with.   I'm one of those who enjoy the tactile process of film and darkroom, and going further with alternative photographic techniques as creative outlet/exploration.   I really can't bear sitting at a computer hour after hour - too much like 9-5 drudgery for me!

But then, if I worked shooting events or sports like Scott and some of our other pros, workflow would mean very different things other than creative outlet and artistic expression - it IS work, and pays the bills, and I'd better be fast and efficient with my final product.   Digital must be an overwhelming relief in that regard.    

I love getting into the darkroom and shutting out the world while working.   I love the way all my senses are involved with that aspect of analog photography.  It slows me down, turns my thinking inward, and I'm in a completely different zone.    Same thing when I'm hand coloring a print or inking a bromoil.    It's always a thrill, and relaxing even while I'm seriously focused.


----------



## Derrel (May 21, 2014)

Noted Leica expert and author Erwin Putz wrote some simply fabulous essays on the difference between analogue photography, and digital imaging. Unfortunately, when he moved from his "old blog" to the new one, he did not migrate forward some of the best articles. If you really want some very considered insights, do a few days' worth of searching and researching looking for the various Erwin Putz articles. SOme of them still exist on the web.

Comments | The TAO of Leica

One of his main points is that a film image actually EXISTS, in a permanent, FIXED, tangible, visible-with-the-eye form, whereas a digital image exists as a series of binary code, invisible without the aid of a computer and OS and software. The analogue photo can have a fixed, permanent form, whereas the digital image is subject to infinite, almost instantaneous manipulation operations. The highest goal of analogue photography is to capture, to create, to MAKE, a fine photographic image using a camera. The goal of digital imaging is the creation of optimal "data", to be manipulated later, at the computer. Semantic gamesmanship not allowed, one is shooting for keeps, for permanence; the other is shooting for keeping one's options open. 

In analogue photography, many serious workers shoot B&W film, in order to create long-lasting B&W images; in digital, many people shoot in RAW, unsure what the final image might, some day, end up being...maybe color, maybe B&W, maybe selective color, maybe a montage with 4,5,6 other images, maybe FAKE HDR'd, and so on. Again--one has a goal of capturing a FIXED IMAGE, that can be HELD in the hand, and remain unchanged for up to hundreds of years; the newer type of imaging is not the same thing...the goal is different in a very fundamental manner.


----------



## KmH (May 21, 2014)

memoss said:


> *Digital vs Analogue Photography...?*


Digital cameras have analog pixels.

It's down stream from the pixels that the analog voltages pixels develop get changed to a digital number.

Analogue - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Analog - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Film is chemically developed and digital images are electronically developed.


----------



## Derrel (May 21, 2014)

KmH said:


> memoss said:
> 
> 
> > *Digital vs Analogue Photography...?*
> ...



I thought the OP was British, hence the use of the term *"analogue*" as opposed to analog.

See...one can find a dictionary from a place just across the ocean where millions of people speak English, and where the term "analogue photography means" making pictures *with a camera that uses film.*

analogue camera - definition of analogue camera by Macmillan Dictionary

Kind of like the word moustache or mustache... both are acceptable. This *is* an international forum, last time I checked. Maybe we need more spelling and grammar police to enforce the Amuuuuurican English spellings of all words?

When an OP uses an alternative spelling of a word, it's considered polite to use the OP's spelling, and not make a big,huge deal out of a public correction and humiliation effort. Especially when their word usage is accepted by millions and millions of people who ALSO speak "English".

Catalog. Catalogue. Check. Checque. Analog photography. Analogue photography.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 21, 2014)

limr said:


> Oh dear.
> 
> I'm sorry, I don't mean to seem rude because you seem genuinely interested in the answer. It's just that this discussion tends to go very south very quickly. I don't know - perhaps folks can keep it civilized now.




Greetings from the beautiful South. We are currently closed for renovations. Ya'll come back now, ya hear?


----------



## minicoop1985 (May 21, 2014)

Oh boy. This is actually going pretty well so far. Quite impressed-well done, everyone.

OK. Here's my input. Why do I spend money on film instead of a micro SD card? Well first, my Canon takes a compact flash, so the micro SD doesn't do me much good. Second, I have enough memory for the moment-I haven't had any shoots that have actually made me use more than 8 gigs, and I have two 8 gb cards just in case. I shoot plenty of digital photos, and two of them now hang in an art gallery. So why do I shoot film? I shoot film because I need to learn how to think things through. I need to sharpen my skills not in terms of exposure, but of knowing what it is I want in the end and getting from exposure to final image. With my 7D, I can point it at something, get it in the frame, and push the button-all the thinking could be done for me, and just accept the final product and move on with my life. I love to bring out my Hasselblad because it's allll mechanical. There's a process involved-there's an investment of time and thought that comes with every image out of that unreliable hulk of a beautiful thing. I find the composition or something I want to photograph, look through the finder to get to the right angle, meter, set the speed and aperture, compose the shot, focus, stop down the lens (it's manual), pull the dark slide because I forgot to do it before, then readjust and fire. Then wind, repeat process. It's so much more involved and you're limited to 12 shots, and that forces you to think about it, to consider your shot and what's going to come out of the negative.


----------



## ann (May 22, 2014)

As others have mentioned different strokes for different folks and where ever what ever is your passion , go for it but do it well.

When digital first appeared on the scene folks didn't mention that word in my presents. I am a seriously educated traditional photographer. 
Since that time I have changed my opinion, just proving old dogs can learn new tricks.  Basically, it was a business decision that I began to use digital and even then, it was only a few years ago I discovered that is was fun to learn new ways of thinking.

I still teach traditional methods and there is a certain since of peace when working in the darkroom and I like terri don't find sitting at the computer for long periods of time fun, however, when I get in the mood it does bring out a different type of thinking and of being creative.

What does drive me nuts is the "digital is cheaper" , now I must say I have never had my film processed at a lab and the cost for doing my own is very cheap. Including printing, however, if one never upgrades, etc. than it is cheaper. However, once we go down that "rabbit hole" it never seems to stop 

I have darkroom equipment that is 50 years old and the only cost has been a bulb. NOt to say setting up a well equip darkroom is cheap (well it is now) but not years ago.

I don't even like to think about the money I have spent in the last 10 years on software, upgrades etc. However, that is my choice and my decision, just as it should be others.

Do you makes you happy, not what I or others may think


----------



## TCampbell (May 22, 2014)

One might ask why artists bother to use canvas, brushes and paints rather than just taking a photograph.   Some people really enjoy the process of printing their own images in the darkroom.  When I did it, I felt like I was more directly responsible for the resulting image.

What I think is perhaps a stretch is the notion of shooting film, then sending it away to be processed and printing.  Now you have the time delay and expense ... but since a lab is processing the images you have no direct control over the results.


----------



## table1349 (May 22, 2014)

Brick vs Stone?
Gas fireplace vs wood burning fireplace? 
Ford vs Chevrolet?
Canon vs Nikon?
Oil vs water color?

If we were all the same, liked all the same, spent all the same and did all the same we would just be..................................





Personally I like and use both.  Why, who cares.  It's what I do.


----------



## LebronPhoto (May 22, 2014)

I spent years working in photo labs, buying film and processing images.  The best part of the process was capturing the image and making the final prints.  I hated processing the film.  I probably spent  tens of thousand of dollars over a 25 year period.  Digital photography has given me the freedom to focus on capturing the image and preparing the final image for either printing or posting. No film, no stink. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Walter1111 (May 23, 2014)

LebronPhoto said:


> I spent years working in photo labs, buying film and processing images.  The best part of the process was capturing the image and making the final prints.  I hated processing the film.  I probably spent  tens of thousand of dollars over a 25 year period.  Digital photography has given me the freedom to focus on capturing the image and preparing the final image for either printing or posting. No film, no stink.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I am totally agree with you. You are 100% good here that digital photography give us the freedom to focus on capturing the image and preparing the final image for either printing or posting.
And now digital photography gradually developing in the past few years. It work very well as compare with analogue.


----------



## table1349 (May 23, 2014)

LebronPhoto said:


> I spent years working in photo labs, buying film and processing images.  The best part of the process was capturing the image and making the final prints.  I hated processing the film.  I probably spent  tens of thousand of dollars over a 25 year period.  Digital photography has given me the freedom to focus on capturing the image and preparing the final image for either printing or posting. No film, no stink.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Well apparently you never got the memo about what an aphrodisiac the odor of E-6 is on women.  Dark room, time on your hands, you can't leave because of the risk of light leak and a good woman by you side.  To quote a song..*
Those were they days my friend we thought they'd never end. 

     :mrgreen:  

*


----------



## Coasty (May 23, 2014)

I have recently upgraded from wet glass plates to tintype and I, for one, love the durability tin gives me over glass.


----------



## timor (May 23, 2014)

Walter1111 said:


> LebronPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Digital photography has given me the freedom to focus on capturing the image and preparing the final image
> ...


In which way film photography was holding you back with your "creativity" ? Maybe you guys are a bit short on passion rather. Passion doesn't judge amount of effort needed to reach the goal, doesn't complain about it.


----------



## LebronPhoto (May 23, 2014)

It's just different.  Developing film was part of the process, but with limited options for manipulation and creativity.  Dodging and burning, multiple exposures and other technics were there, but two things are  undeniably better.  Digital makes it cheaper to shoot more images and experiment.  Photoshop and other processing software provide many more creative options.  The speed at which you can capture and view an image allows you to adjust your technique and experiment other options much quicker. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## timor (May 23, 2014)

LebronPhoto said:


> It's just different.  Developing film was part of the process, but with limited options for manipulation and creativity.  Dodging and burning, multiple exposures and other technics were there, but two things are  undeniably better.  Digital makes it cheaper to shoot more images and experiment.  Photoshop and other processing software provide many more creative options.  The speed at which you can capture and view an image allows you to adjust your technic and experiment other options much quicker.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Are you commercial photographer ?


----------



## LebronPhoto (May 23, 2014)

No.  Years ago, beginning in the late 1970s, I did professional processing work and also worked as a photographer.  I photographed weddings and other events initially, then transitioned into travel photography for brochures and magazines.  Nowadays, photography is more of a hobby, although I occasionally do work for pay.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## timor (May 23, 2014)

So... what's your hurry ? In any case, how well you can judge from that tiny screen on the back of the camera which at the best  doesn't even have 1 megapixel ? Shouldn't be judging done on calibrated computer screen ?


----------



## AlanKlein (May 23, 2014)

I shoot film so people in my photo club look at me with a strange look like I'm a caveman.


----------



## limr (May 23, 2014)

Noooooooo! We were doing so well!

Can we stick to simply what we enjoy rather than try to convince each other that one way is better than the other? I have never ever ONCE felt that my creativity was stifled by using film and not digital, but other people are different. This is not inherent to the medium but to the person using the medium. If someone values speed and computer manipulation, and that stimulates creativity for that person that's great. If it's film that gets the juices going, that's great too.

Let's please not pass judgement over other people's choices and preference. Kumba-friggin-ya, people.


----------



## timor (May 23, 2014)

And where we doing so bad ?
It is not about choices but the "WHY" behind them. It is always about "why".


----------



## LebronPhoto (May 23, 2014)

Hey!  I just expressed why I use and prefer digital to the medium I used for over 25 years.  I am not criticizing people that still prefer film just as I won't criticize people if they chose an 8x10 camera with plate film or if they preferred a classic car to a modern one.  Freedom and choices are things I value. I've experienced both aspects of photography extensively. I  made my choices and others can make theirs. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## manaheim (May 23, 2014)

Whooooooooooooooooo caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaares?

"oh my god that person is doing something different! the world is coming to an end! aaaaaa!!!"


----------



## dxqcanada (May 23, 2014)

Obviously enough people care to get to the third page.


----------



## nzmacro (May 23, 2014)

Boring true story. 

In around 2003 I approached a local camera club here and I was using an early digital camera ( cost over $3,000 NZ at the time) and was told they did not accept digital cameras into the club. I still had my SLR's, but that put me right off. So the question is, I wonder what most of those members use now days . 

About 3 years ago I got an email from that club and not knowing who I was, I had all macro shots on my site at that time and they knew I was local, they loved my macro shots and asked for me to be a judge in their yearly competition for macro. Yep, time to get my own back. Replied "Sorry but all those shots you see are from a digital camera" !!!. Stupid, but it just felt sooooo good.

Danny.


----------



## timor (May 23, 2014)

LebronPhoto said:


> Hey!  I just expressed why I use and prefer digital to the medium I used for over 25 years.  I am not criticizing people that still prefer film just as I won't criticize people if they chose an 8x10 camera with plate film or if they preferred a classic car to a modern one.  Freedom and choices are things I value. I've experienced both aspects of photography extensively. I  made my choices and others can make theirs.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I am not criticizing you or anything, just want to know why, in detail. It helps me to revise my views and update them.  Sorry, if you felt grilled.


----------



## LebronPhoto (May 23, 2014)

I didn't feel grilled and your comment wasn't the only one my response addressed.  I personally don't understand why people would use film / old printing and processing (other than for very specific commercial or restoration purposes.) But that's only because I wouldn't.  The little 3" screens and viewing on the computer, enlarging small areas and working on those, etc.  works for me.  I've gone from medium format film to digital MFT, APC, FX and now to mirror less micro four thirds.  It works for me, I enjoy it and for whatever reasons, I know some people enjoy the film process.  That's okay too.  We are all photographers and that makes us have more things in common with respect to photography than not. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## manaheim (May 23, 2014)

Technically, digital cameras are analog.


----------



## timor (May 24, 2014)

manaheim said:


> Technically, digital cameras are analog.


I will remember that for future references.


----------



## timor (May 24, 2014)

LebronPhoto said:


> I didn't feel grilled and your comment wasn't the only one my response addressed.  I personally don't understand why people would use film / old printing and processing...


On the other hand do you understand people climbing Himalayas ? Or sailing solo around the world without as much as GPS ?


----------



## LebronPhoto (May 24, 2014)

Maybe that's the thing, when it comes to film photography I've "been there done that" and moved on to something else. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## manaheim (May 24, 2014)

dxqcanada said:


> Obviously enough people care to get to the third page.



My point... though evidently not pointed enough... was that people spend FAR too much time worrying about what other people do. If you're _curious_ why the other half lives the way they do, then by all means, ask them. 

"Hey. You're doing something different. I'm curious what about this attracts you?"

The problem is that, more often than not, people's feelings can be summarized as, "I am threatened by the fact that you are different, and therefore I must identify reasons to belittle your choices so I can feel better about my own."

It's just a silly waste of time.


----------



## timor (May 24, 2014)

LebronPhoto said:


> "been there done that" and moved on to something else.


 Popular "talk" lately.


----------



## LebronPhoto (May 24, 2014)

In photography, this happens all the time.  People  moved from  big field cameras with glass plate negatives to smaller film field cameras to medium format to 35mm and on.  Back when I started, I saw people gravitate back to the larger formats instead of staying with what some would consider the latest and greatest.  That's just human nature, preferences....  For those that do this for a living, whatever equipment it takes to get the job done.  For those that do this for hobby, whatever  gives them the joy and satisfaction they are looking for.   Those things may change over time.   Digital, film... The only thing that matters is that people are capturing images and pursuing photography. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## manaheim (May 24, 2014)

LebronPhoto said:


> In photography, this happens all the time.  People  moved from  big field cameras with glass plate negatives to smaller film field cameras to medium format to 35mm and on.  Back when I started, I saw people gravitate back to the larger formats instead of staying with what some would consider the latest and greatest.  That's just human nature, preferences....  For those that do this for a living, whatever equipment it takes to get the job done.  For those that do this for hobby, whatever  gives them the joy and satisfaction they are looking for.   Those things may change over time.   Digital, film... The only thing that matters is that people are capturing images and pursuing photography.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Nicely put.


----------



## hamlet (May 24, 2014)

As someone who does this whole photo thing purely as a hobby, i say that use what you love using. If your equipment is what was important, then we would have robots taking pictures instead of you and you wouldn't be needed to take any sort of picture. The fact is that machines aren't able to think like us yet, so i'm sorry to say that we still need you to shoot creatively until we can phase you out and replace you entirely. 


I can see the nikon commercial right now: 





> *I AM **REPLACING YOU*


----------

