# Film vs. Digital



## bryntintin (Feb 17, 2014)

I'm conducting a poll for a school project.  I would like to know of film camera users, how much more often on a weekly basis do you use film over digital cameras?


----------



## Gavjenks (Feb 17, 2014)

1) These threads usually just get locked, because anything film vs. digital usually ends up instantly coutnerproductive.
2) You didn't actually make a poll, even though there's a poll option on the forum, making it unnecessarily inefficient, etc. even if it does stay open.


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 17, 2014)

Huh.. this looks oddly familiar.  Ok, well here's a new take on the subject.






If your going to shoot film, I say have fun with it!  Lol


----------



## limr (Feb 17, 2014)

If it's a simple poll and there's no need to explain answers (and if people play nice...), then perhaps this one will actually stay open!

For my answer:
I generally shoot 90% film, 10% digital.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 17, 2014)

For me, it's a ratio of about 1 part film to 500 parts digital.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Feb 17, 2014)

I'd say about 10% film, 90% digital. That being said, I shoot film for fun, digital for work mostly (occasionally fun).


----------



## Mike_E (Feb 18, 2014)

Film for fun and these days that's about all i shoot.

My digital kit weighs more than my large format kit (admittedly a simple one).  The quest for quality in digital really weighs you down.


----------



## Helen B (Feb 18, 2014)

It depends how you count. In time, because I am a commercial photographer, it is probably 1 film : 4 digital. In terms of finished images it is probably about 50:50. In terms of shutter actuations it is probably more like 10 film : 90 digital. A single film shot (two to four sheets) uses say 10 Polaroids or Fujiroids during setup, while a digital shot will have up to about 100 test shots (varies a lot) and this shows in the final image quality. It also means that a digital shot may take longer than a film shot, which also skews the proportions. My personal work is still predominantly on film, mainly for non-technical reasons, in most formats from 35 mm to 8x10, pretty much just as it has been for the past 40 years. All in all I still shoot a huge amount of film and instant film. The re-emergence of Type 55 as New55 will probably mean that I shoot even more instant film.


----------



## webestang64 (Feb 18, 2014)

100% film.....!!!!!..............the only time I use my very old Nikon 3mp dig cam is to sell or show stuff on the internet.


----------



## vimwiz (Feb 18, 2014)

1-2 36 exp rolls film a week @~80% keep rate
vs ~300 on digital @ ~50% keep rate

For me,

Film exclusively for hobby/wildlife etc... photography.
Digital mainly for events, with film as a backup for special shots.
Digital via my phone when out and about and wasnt planning anything but an opportunity arose.


----------



## Joxby (Feb 18, 2014)

Yep, I'm 100% film too, I don't use digital for anything I care about, I do use it for convenience, Ebay, reference...that sort of thing..


----------



## timor (Feb 18, 2014)

bryntintin said:


> I'm conducting a poll for a school project.  I would like to know of film camera users, how much more often on a weekly basis do you use film over digital cameras?


I would say there is a problem with your question. Photographers are divided on professionals and others and even professionals are not one coherent group. There are 100% pros and less, then 100%, semipros. Making money with photography requires use of digital technology. Again, ask average Joe on the street and he will be also 100% digital as he doesn't remember film anymore. The question should be about passionate use of camera, to fulfill own need to create pictures, without immediate or any prospect of sale. About, how the pros are saying: *Personal Work*, without mixing in it weddings or family gatherings.
For my PW 100% film.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 18, 2014)

100% film, digital is sterile


----------



## gsgary (Feb 18, 2014)

timor said:


> bryntintin said:
> 
> 
> > I'm conducting a poll for a school project.  I would like to know of film camera users, how much more often on a weekly basis do you use film over digital cameras?
> ...



There are quite a few pro's shooting film especially Art


----------



## timor (Feb 18, 2014)

gsgary said:


> especially Art


This is, what I have on mind.


----------



## 71M (Feb 18, 2014)

bryntintin said:


> I'm conducting a poll for a school project.  I would like to know of film camera users, how much more often on a weekly basis do you use film over digital cameras?



1980:     50 hours/year film,         0 hours digital
1990:    100 hours/year film,        0 hours digital
2000:  1000 hours/year film, 1000 hours digital 
2010:   100 hours/year film,  2000 hours digital

That's including all activity related to making pictures, (i.e. shooting, reviewing and developing/editing), +/- 20%, amateur snapshooter/photo artist.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 18, 2014)

I'd say something like 98% film.


----------



## Steve5D (Feb 19, 2014)

What is this "film" of which you speak?


----------



## gsgary (Feb 19, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> What is this "film" of which you speak?



Debbie does Dallas ? one of the first porno's i saw


----------



## wyogirl (Feb 19, 2014)

90% Digital and 10% Film overall.

But, Recently its been more like 50/50, but will most likely revert back to the above stat.


----------



## bhop (Feb 20, 2014)

I'm probably 80% film, but that's only because my X100 feels kinda like a film camera when i'm shooting it..otherwise my film ratio would be higher.


----------



## WhiteRaven22 (Apr 20, 2014)

webestang64 said:


> 100% film.....!!!!!..............the only time I use my very old Nikon 3mp dig cam is to sell or show stuff on the internet.



My answer to the question would be about the same.  Almost all film except for an old Kodak DC280 2MP camera I keep around for ebay and craigslist photos.



robbins.photo said:


> Huh.. this looks oddly familiar.  Ok, well here's a new take on the subject.
> If your going to shoot film, I say have fun with it!  Lol



My dad told me about how kids used to make stink bombs with vinegar and baking soda (seperated by a piece of construction paper) in a film canister when he was in high school.  He said the trick was to shake it really hard then throw it in someone's locker right as they closed it, so it was already too late by the time they had spun through their combination again and the smelly mess was all over the inside of their locker.  Unfortunately, in this day and age if someone pulled this trick it might result in the National Guard or S.W.A.T. showing up... :roll:


----------



## Derrel (Apr 20, 2014)

I JUST loaded up some of my old wedding gear...I put a roll of Ektar 100 color negative film into a 120-J back (AKA the 6x4.5 cm horizontal back); a roll of Ektar 100 into a 6x6 back; and a roll of my favorite B&W film, Kodak Tri-X 400 in a 6x6 back...dropped a brand new $6.00 battery into the Bronica SQ-Ai, checked the metering prism...it seems to be working great...

Last weekend I shot iPhone, and also my 1938 Miniature Speed Graphic with Ektar 100, two rolls of that, and three rolls of old, outdated-but-always-refrigerated Ektachrome Elite 100...the Graphic is new to me, and I was not all "that keen" on the look its lens gives, plus the rangefinder is old and hard to use...I think I'm gonna move up to 1980's technology for this week's film stuff.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 20, 2014)

gsgary said:


> 100% film, digital is sterile


But I have just bought a Sony A7 and it has changed my mind so I will be 80% film 20% digital


----------



## minicoop1985 (Apr 21, 2014)

Derrel said:


> I JUST loaded up some of my old wedding gear...I put a roll of Ektar 100 color negative film into a 120-J back (AKA the 6x4.5 cm horizontal back); a roll of Ektar 100 into a 6x6 back; and a roll of my favorite B&W film, Kodak Tri-X 400 in a 6x6 back...dropped a brand new $6.00 battery into the Bronica SQ-Ai, checked the metering prism...it seems to be working great...
> 
> Last weekend I shot iPhone, and also my 1938 Miniature Speed Graphic with Ektar 100, two rolls of that, and three rolls of old, outdated-but-always-refrigerated Ektachrome Elite 100...the Graphic is new to me, and I was not all "that keen" on the look its lens gives, plus the rangefinder is old and hard to use...I think I'm gonna move up to 1980's technology for this week's film stuff.



I have the same obsession with Ektar. What fantastic film. Brilliant colors, fantastic for just about everything I've used it for. When it comes to shooting film for myself in color (not testing something or using redscale), it's Ektar.


----------



## WhiteRaven22 (Apr 21, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > I JUST loaded up some of my old wedding gear...I put a roll of Ektar 100 color negative film into a 120-J back (AKA the 6x4.5 cm horizontal back); a roll of Ektar 100 into a 6x6 back; and a roll of my favorite B&W film, Kodak Tri-X 400 in a 6x6 back...dropped a brand new $6.00 battery into the Bronica SQ-Ai, checked the metering prism...it seems to be working great...
> ...



Ektar 100 is my go-to film for all of my cameras and I have stockpiles of it in my freezer (in both 35mm and 120), however I've also recently played around with some Velvia 50 and Velvia 100 and I really like it for very bright and sunny landscapes.


----------



## JerryVenz (Apr 21, 2014)

As a full time portrait and wedding photographer: 100% Digital since 2001.  Using film would only add cost and slow the process of getting our clients back in our studio to see their images and place their orders.

When I did recently check to see about film availability to start using my favorite film camera (Mamiya RB-67 Pro-S) for some personal artistic work I found that ALL my favorite films are GONE!

What ya gonna do....?


----------



## timor (Apr 21, 2014)

JerryVenz said:


> As a full time portrait and wedding photographer: 100% Digital since 2001.  Using film would only add cost and slow the process of getting our clients back in our studio to see their images and place their orders.


You make living by taking pictures, sure you are 100% digital, we understand that and are forgiving you.  Good luck to you with the business.


----------



## limr (Apr 21, 2014)

JerryVenz said:


> As a full time portrait and wedding photographer: 100% Digital since 2001.  Using film would only add cost and slow the process of getting our clients back in our studio to see their images and place their orders.
> 
> When I did recently check to see about film availability to start using my favorite film camera (Mamiya RB-67 Pro-S) for some personal artistic work I found that ALL my favorite films are GONE!
> 
> *What ya gonna do*....?



Find new favorites!


----------



## minicoop1985 (Apr 21, 2014)

limr said:


> JerryVenz said:
> 
> 
> > As a full time portrait and wedding photographer: 100% Digital since 2001.  Using film would only add cost and slow the process of getting our clients back in our studio to see their images and place their orders.
> ...



Yes! Like Ektar! I can't say enough about it.

Small update: I'd say now I shoot about 80% film, 20% digital, in terms of time. I take way more digital shots than I do film, but I spend way more time with film cameras shooting than I do with digital.


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Apr 21, 2014)

frame vs frame I shoot a lot more digital than film but I spend a lot more time with my film gear. Id rather shoot film than digital but a lot of people just dont want to wait for the processing time.


----------



## terri (Apr 22, 2014)

Just an observation: the OP seems to have vanished after posting this, and a few other school- project type of threads here.       No biggie; the thread has stayed pleasant enough, but I am starting to doubt he will be back here to make any kind of tally of replies.   If there was a poll, it's gone now!   

We can keep the thread alive as a conversation piece as long as everyone plays nice.      To that end, I will answer that I only own a P&S digital camera for quick snaps, which I only seem to have use for less than 10% of my time.   For me it's more a question about playing between _film_ formats - I've shot more 35mm lately, all B&W, than I have in years.   I got so used to my manual Mamiya 645 1000S that picking up my (at the time) flagship Pentax MZ-S feels like cheating.      Dang, that thing makes it easy!   But those negatives look so tiny after working with 645 for so long.   

In other words: total film geek here.    And I wave that freak flag proudly!   No professional use to ruin my enjoyment, thank god.   No interest.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Apr 22, 2014)

Anyone ever shoot with a film camera and find it completely uninspiring? I tried out a Minolta Hi-Matic G (not a rangefinder, but others in the line are) last week. Just didn't click with it.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 22, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> Anyone ever shoot with a film camera and find it completely uninspiring? I tried out a Minolta Hi-Matic G (not a rangefinder, but others in the line are) last week. Just didn't click with it.



Thats the reason i bought my Leica's they are such a joy to use no other film camera compares


----------



## minicoop1985 (Apr 22, 2014)

gsgary said:


> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone ever shoot with a film camera and find it completely uninspiring? I tried out a Minolta Hi-Matic G (not a rangefinder, but others in the line are) last week. Just didn't click with it.
> ...



I feel that way about my Hasselblad and my Franka Rolfix. As for 35mm, I get that feeling a bit with my Nikon F, but I wanna get faster glass for it.


----------



## terri (Apr 23, 2014)

gsgary said:


> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone ever shoot with a film camera and find it completely uninspiring? I tried out a Minolta Hi-Matic G (not a rangefinder, but others in the line are) last week. Just didn't click with it.
> ...



Frankly, the one Leica I spent some time with left me completely cold.   Too much fiddling about and I disliked the film load process.   I wish I could tell you what model it was (several years ago) but I don't recall.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 23, 2014)

Well...my most-recent film camera, the 1938 Miniature Speed Graphic, is kind of a disappointment when shooting 120 rollfilm with the old Graflex rollfilm back...






[    DSC_5005_CROP BW_LG.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com    ]

I spent most ALL of this weekend scanning old film...1980's Tri-x 35mm, and some Yashica 635 120 square, and also a few rolls of both Ektar 100 color negative and Ektachrome Elite 100 VS (Very Saturated) that I shot with the Speed Graphic at the Oregon Coast on an absolutely GORGEOUS, wind-free, mist-free sunny afternoon on April 13...and the results out of the Speed Graphic are quite "mixed", to put it politely...the focal plane shutter seems to be VERY prone to vibration when the camera is shot hand-held...and the 1950's-era 101 Wollensak f/4.5 lens is...not all that sharp on 6x6, even with a tripod holding the camera steady and 1/700 second focal plane shutter speed in blinding light used...the focal plane shutter gojng off reminds me of a .22 pistol firing...it's a big "_*Whuuuuump!!!*_" sound each time that massive focal plane shutter exposes a frame.

Since all I have is the one, 101mm lens on 6x6, I have a very slight tele effect, but honestly, the LENS of my Yashica 635 twin lens reflex is better in resolving power, and the camera is smaller, lighter, and MUCH faster and easier to use, and the Yashica also spaces frames nicely, and perfectly, whereas the Graflex back on the Speed Graphic spaces frames poorly, or even laps them over maybe 1.4-2mm on occasion...still, if by God's grace, we get a sunny weekend this weekend, I am going to give the Graphic another chance, and see if using the FRONT shutter, the one in the lens, will help with the vibration issue which I think is hurting my sharpness. But in terms of a camera that's not really "helping me along", the Speed Graphic has got to be one of the worst camera systems I have tried for hand-held scenic work...the twin-lens reflexes of the late 1950's and early 1960's are simply MUCH faster and EASIER to work, in almost every single way.

However--the Graphic DID come with some 2.25 x 3.25 sheet film holders, and a groundglass back and pop-up finder hood, and it DOES have M-X-FP synch, so I am going to see how it shoots SHEET film, and I also bought a couple new 120 steel developing reels and steel developing tanks, and just mixed up a gallon of D-76 and a gallon of Kodak A-B fixer like 10 minutes ago in the kitchen!!! I also bought a brand new changing bag for loading said sheet film holders in daylight!


----------



## limr (Apr 23, 2014)

It does sound quite fussy, and you'd think the results would be worth it after all that trouble. But yes, maybe it's more suited to the sheet film. Looking forward to seeing what you get out of it!


----------



## timor (Apr 24, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> Anyone ever shoot with a film camera and find it completely uninspiring? I tried out a Minolta Hi-Matic G (not a rangefinder, but others in the line are) last week. Just didn't click with it.


  No wonder. But has nothing to do with film (the "clicking"). This camera itself is not very much inspiring.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 24, 2014)

terri said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > minicoop1985 said:
> ...



Probably not an M


----------



## minicoop1985 (Apr 25, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Well...my most-recent film camera, the 1938 Miniature Speed Graphic, is kind of a disappointment when shooting 120 rollfilm with the old Graflex rollfilm back...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you LIKE the idea of that, but would rather use something that only has a leaf shutter, try a Busch Pressman. I THINK a Graflex rollfilm adapter will bolt up, but I'm not 100% there. They're the same size (2x3 and in overall dimensions-roughly), but the Pressman is so much easier to use. No big focal plane shutter on top of the leaf shutter in the lens to screw around with. Just putting that out there.

Timor, that's what I mean. Sure there's uninspiring films (120 Lomo 100), but there's a ton of uninspiring cameras. I just played with a Minolta X-570. Felt nothing. Bored, even. No soul, just overly electronic for my taste. I'll have to play with the Nikon or Hassy tomorrow to cleanse the palate.


----------



## djacobox372 (Apr 25, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Well...my most-recent film camera, the 1938 Miniature Speed Graphic, is kind of a disappointment when shooting 120 rollfilm with the old Graflex rollfilm back...
> 
> [    DSC_5005_CROP BW_LG.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com    ]
> 
> ...



The focal plane shutter "thump" doesn't cause camera vibration because the "thump" happens after the exposure.


----------

