Former Film Users?

Question

How has the switch to digital effected the WAY you shoot professionally or as a hobbiest? Did you hold on to your film equipment? If so, why?

Answer 1

I have kept my analogue equipment!

I am happy with digital but don't want to limit my creative tools. I know how to use analogue and film so why would I get rid of it. Its not worth anything in monetary terms.

Digital has meant I can shoot with as much as I want and it costs nothing more. What I tend to do is ditch images I don't want and save those I think I'll use now or in the future.

I don't print everything, just the very best or what I consider important. I do keep the files on disc.

Digital has meant I have had to expand my computer and compared to analogue its very expensive, and its a chemical free system, good for the environment ?

Answer 2

I got started out in film (with high school and college classes), 30 years ago, but went thru a 20 year period with hardly shooting anything. Just didnt have a lot of time to really get into it well enough to have fun. Started shooting digital in 2000, with a little point & shoot, and have since upgraded my camera and lighting.

I am strictly a hobbyist, though occasionally I have had paying jobs thrust upon me, by freinds, clients, and so on... IF I had digital, and a computer in the early 80's, I would have kept shooting. All the normal reasons apply. Ease of learning, and reviewing what came out of the camera. Ease of editting when necessary, whn I do mess up, or even editting to get something different. The artistic approach, I guess. Its all so much easier to do with digital.

I do wish that I still had my film equipment, but I have no idea where it has ended up, after handing it over to a cousin so long ago.

I wouldnt mind using both. Film offers specialty films that digital cant match at this time, B/W. IR, etc...., is what i would be most interested in. Digital offers its own things.

With film and digital, I used to shoot a lot, and about 10% was keepable. This makes film expensive. Over time, I have gotten better, doing this part time. About half of what I shoot, is presentable as is. Some of the rest, is workable in p'shop, IF I DESIRE, as corrections, or just playing and running it thru vaarious filters to see what I get..

Answer 3

mason lets hope you learn........try reproducing 3200 grain on a computer, amongst other things - and have it look good

95% of my work is on digital.........

i still use 35mm and medium format for work, i shoot architecture so work during the change of light alot,

film delivers reproprosity failure and grain - digi gives noise -------- im talking exposures over 8 seconds

they way film fails i prefer to they way digi burns out the highlights

i have others in my field ask how i got this effect or this colour or whatever and i reply i shoot transparencies.....they mutter something like dinosuar and then go and try to do it on a computer?? my advantage i can shoot both and know when to use which

i use digi 95% of the time.......however there are still occasions film does the job better

some clients specify tranparencies (mostly magazine) - so i dont argue and shoot film for them

i try to explain it like this........look at the old and new star trek, yes they are both digitized to digital beta, the source is different and it can be seen..........the new shows are sharper, the older captain kirk ones are "smoother" and have a different look ------- as a photographer isnt it professional to be able to deliver what best for the job......whatever medium that may be?

digi promotes poor habits sure, for the lazy its the best, for speed its the best, for convinience its the best - it still dont look like film, it dont have grain, it has noise, it doesnt give reproprosity failure it burns the highlights and gives noise

if i didnt specialist in the magic hours i would proberly only use film for pleasure.......so yeah digi is better for most applications..........to protect my niche and deliver results the others cant film still serves a purpose for me

im not for one or the other, i am for people having the abillity to proform on both and think people that limit themselves to one or the other need to consider if they are serious about offering clients what they want.........

a

Answer 4

It hasn't really changed the way I shoot. It's just that now I don't have boxes and boxes of new pictures. They're all on my hard drive now.

I traded in my F100, which was a bit big for my small hands anyway, for some lenses, and gave my FM2 to my daughter. Anyone want my old filters?

Answer 5

I still shoot and develop in B&W.
There is a tonal and creative quality about film and paper that digital can never reproduce.
I do shoot digital, but it is not my archival choice.
I am an expert in Photoshop, but nothing beats the darkroom.

Answer 6

Dude says digital could never reproduce B&W film and then goes on to say he's an expert in Photoshop. Nuff sed.

Answer 7

I shot 60,000 images on three DSLRs.

Then, when I was through practicing, I went back to film.