ArtBistro

Don't even have to think about this one, digital is too convenient, fast, and adjustable to ever consider film.

It actually depends on the subject matter, but - I haven't really shot film in at least a year. One area where film is a bit better is in night photography: lightning, star trails, fireworks, etc. Digital is "noisy" compared to film, in these situations, although digital is getting better and will probably soon surpass film. For most things, Dylan is right, digital just has so many more benefits...

Larry

One factor I consider, when taking pictures is reliability of the system to produce the results I want. For example, when taking action pictures of children under low light conditions, I use a
Sunpak J120 at1/16 with a softbox with my D70 and a 20mm lens at f11/8 at 200ASA from about
0.6 to 1 meter manual focus or focus preset at 1 meter. I crop 70% of what I choose., because my
pictures have enough pixel depth to take such a smashing. Why all this detail? Contrast.Under similar low lighting conditions, I photograph sport or dancing at 4 to 8 fps at F2.8/1.4 at 6,400ASA ( the scanned negatives pushed somtimes to 3 to 4 times that ASA in Photoshop) with my F3 to produce slide montagues that simulate action through the aegas of Flash. Different strokes for
different presentational frameworks. Both them winners for me.

awinhold said:

I only like digital so I can manipulate images. But film is a such a wonderful medium to work with. It truly is an art to get the right image and then devlop it. Any one of those stages could go wrong.

I really like polaroids. At the time they were handy and not appreciated for the quality of the print, but now, the quality is so unusual that they stand apart.

It's almost a mute point. Unless you have a giant storage facility parked next to your darkroom, stacked with refrigerators and freezers stocked with all the film and paper you will need till you die, and shelves full of chemical base and replacement enlarger bulbs, digital is a foregone conclusion. One by one the paper companies are falling by the wayside and the companies that make film have all jumped headlong into digital technology while slowing or eliminating production of their film stock. NO MORE KODAK CAROUSEL PROJECTORS.

I began my days in a B&W darkroom and still get a rush every time I open a bottle of vinegar.

That said, while I too embrace a certain romantic nostalgia for the beauty of the darkroom and the amazing things a truly talented and clever individual could muster out of acetate, platinum and light I say the digital photography revolution is a wonderful thing. The equipment is improving by the minute and digital quality in terms of pure technical data now exceeds anything possible using film. Coupled with some amazing tools with which to turn that digital data into plausible images the possibilities are staggering.

But it's all about the artist and how they embrace the tools they have at their disposal. Sure digital is easier if all you want to do is point and shoot. But make no mistake, simplicity is only one relatively trite reason to choose digital. Call me a heretic, but I firmly believe that creating beautiful digital images can be every bit as time-consuming, labor-intensive, technically complex, skill-requiring and ultimately satisfying as film work.

I enjoyed the evolution of film over through the 1990's and really resisted digital. However, I feel much more connected to my work now that I do my own manipulations. I take on projects I never would have attempted on film and my clients receive a far better product much sooner.

I enjoyed using film, but digital is so much easier.

Ah, the fresh smell of a new roll of film. I still use film up to the point where the negatives are cut and sleeved. Then, I scan the negs and it's all digital from there on in. I guess that would make me a "Hybrid Photographer". The only things that have kept me from going all digital is because I've been working with a lot of vintage photo's and I don't want to settle for mediocrity. When I do go digital, and that is inevitable, I want to make sure that the camera I get will have the high end results I'm looking for.

positives of both- OF COURSE, digital is SO easy, fast, immediate results, you can see it right then... however, sometimes, depending upon the camera and megapixel ratio, the larger the blow up, the greater the risk of getting pixelated- especially it's a zoomed in shot. but, if you have a better camera, it's also no as much of a problem. the only thing is, you CAN'T beat working in a darkroom. the smells... the red lights... the CONTROL in production.... even if you're all digital, you HAVE to experience the darkroom. it is a truly unique and bewildering experience. you won't want to leave!

Honestly. I like photography traditional means... You have to have a good eye using digital and traditional film, but traditional is more hands on, plus the fact it keeps secrets. You take a roll of 36 pictures and use 20 of those, but in those unsuspecting five photos you happened to catch glance of the next president 10 years down the line or some neuonce (can't figure how to spell it) of detail that normally would be looked over at the moment. Film is a permanent record where as digital is a matter of convenience and disposable imagery, that is dumped because it's taking up too much memory. Some valuable records will be discarded because someone doesn't consider it to be relevant to the subject. Plus with traditional photographing, you truly have to know your medium and light exposure. It's like working with ink. One stroke and there's no going back.

But either takes an eye and a talent... still prefer the traditional aspects of art to technology where it is more profitable and efficient in its method, rather than the art of creating. We as a society take much for granted, and in our technological advancements and that are more subject to convenience rather than blood and spirit that is given in our art.

Scaramouche... in Twilight's Shadow... a Dream...

To me, each has their own set of pros and cons but I propose a different question. Ultimately, does it matter which medium is used? Isn't the end result, the picture, what is really important? Look at video, how many people do you see actually choosing analog over digital/HDTV for some reason or another? People are moving to digital and HDTV caring about the quality it gives the end result. If film is what gives you a better quality result then go with it! Film or digital shouldn't be an issue any longer. Film is sadly being phased out for the convenience of digital and I too have honestly made the switch and not gone back. I never could really get film to do what I want and I wasn't about to finally turn out good quality pictures until I used digital. Not sure why really and I truly do wish I could have been able to master film. For some reason, film has a mystique about it. It wasn't just something you could pick up and get right in 5 minutes. It took time to master and to learn the intricacies of and because of that it wasn't something that just anybody could do. Then again, because of that I probably wouldn't be doing photography...

Digital is great if your goal is a large amount of pictures, and it's really the way to go if you've been hired as a photographer. But for artistic work/just for you, nothing beats working in the darkroom and the sense of accomplishment you get when you finally get that perfect print. And what a lot of people dont realize is that a lot of the effects in photoshop can actually be done using a darkroom, camera filters, lighting, special lenses, etc. It's just a lot more time consuming in a darkroom.

I enjoy digital photography, but for me I'll always love working in the darkroom. For people who love photography but have never worked in a darkroom, I'd highly recommend it even if just for the experience of actually seeing the process of your print being developed.

I've started a group dedicated to those who appreciate traditional darkroom photography, if anyone is interested :)

http://www.artbistro.com/groups/97-darkroom-photographers

I love digital but film is so much more creative to me, its long but enjoyable. But for now im going with digital

Digital, I love the instant photo at my finger tips. Guess that's the way of the world, here and now.