Film or digital?

[Austin766]

Alright, this is most certainly off-topic for this forum, though if what I saw at this year's OHS convention was any indication, it may not be as far afield as it may seem

[Clarion]

It has been7 yearssince my kidz bought me my firstrinky-dink little 2 mp digital camera for my birthday for $550.00!! [:|] Asguy whoused tospend hisSaturday afternoons in thedarkroom, I've never looked back. I really love the digital medium!

[bossbandbob]

You would probably get different results on a Photography forum,
esp. about which medium is more archival but there is little doubt that
digital color prints, when done right, keep their color much longer
than those printed with most chemical darkroom processes. Although time
will ultimately tell, that is what accelerated light tests have
indicated. Although color lab photography is almost dead now there are
still many people working with B&W film and paper making some
wonderful images.

The immediacy about seeing your images instantly on a digital
camera can improve your exposure technique somewhat, but a poor
composition is just that on either film or a memory card- just like a
poorly played song will sound bad whether it is a digital/virtual or
analog organ. Also as the the sound between the two types of keyboards
is getting more and more indiscernable so is the difference between the
two forms of photography.

Digital certainly is more time, cost
and communication efficient, but the magic of seeing your image come up
in the developing bath is surely missed!

Just like I play both types of keyboards, I do both types of photography but must confess much more digital now!

[myorgan]

Yes!

[soubasse32]

[quote user="myorgan"]Yes![/quote]I'll go with Michael's answer too. []

I am 100% digital these days, but there is a lot to be said for the skill and artistryof the darkroom process.

The digitalprocessis perhapsa bit tooconvenient; taking athousand insipid images is not quite assatisfying ascrafting artistic resultsusingtime-honored processes.

When I had to go out and buyfilm, chemicals, and paper... and had to travel to a busy darkroom I knew my shots had to be worth the time, effort, and expense. [8-|]

[Johan64']

Thanks for the poll, Austin! I'd argue about the point of film being more archival; I shoot digital and have instant access to all my photos. I have negatives filed away in my desk... somewhere. I bought a digital SLR two years ago and use it with six lenses. (No, I'm not kidding.) [] If you're interested, some of my photography is on my blog at www.shutterbugjohan.blogspot.com. I don't yet have a post on it about organs or even music, but I'm currently working on a post on organs that should be up within a few days.

[toodles]

Black & white chemical-based photography is probably the most archival medium we can get. As far as digital, it is NOT archival--magnetic memory media can get data errors over time and even be erased, and electronics can fail. And by the way, can you find an 8-1/2 inch or 5-1/2 inch floppy drive these days, much less a 3-1/2" one. The media keeps changing, and if you don't migrate to different media, you no longer have your image. Everytime you migrate, you risk data errors.

While I MUCHprefer using a film camera (completely manual control, please) as everything for me is intuitive about it, and I HATE digital cameras because I always have to refer to the manual for something or other (last night the autofocus zone got stuck in the wrong zone and I had to manually reset the camera to get it to work)and because youvirtually MUST use auto focus to get a sharp picture) I appreciate the flexibility and ease of transmitting digital photographs. Note it's the digital cameras I don't like, not digital photographs! Give me a digicam that works like a film camera, and I'll be much happier!

My digital work is for work--product photographs--and I am virtually forced to use digital (I'd have trouble finding a processor for 4x5 or 120 film anywhere near where I work). My personal work is on film, and probably always will be for anything serious.

FYI, Film is also better at recording images of greater contrast range than is digital. Saturate the image cell and you get pure white. Whereas film shoulders off for a long long ways.

Toodles

[andyg]

100% digital here for some years now, currently on my second Canon DSLR. Still have a Pentax ME Super but can't imagine using it now.

I used to shoot Kodachrome and Agfachrome, so exposure and composition were things I had to learn and try to perfect. I still apply the same techniques now, but I do enjoy the extra freedom offered by the 'digital darkroom'.

Film still has a place, but I'm sure that, one day, digital will be capable of the contrast range that Toodles mentions. At that point, we'll be in the hands of the film manufacturers. In fact, their decisions will probably precede that point if film usage becomes low enough.

Andy

[bossbandbob]

[quote user="andyg"]

Film still has a place, but I'm sure that, one
day, digital will be capable of the contrast range that Toodles
mentions. At that point, we'll be in the hands of the film
manufacturers. In fact, their decisions will probably precede that
point if film usage becomes low enough.

Andy

[/quote]

Quite right, Andy,

As you know they have already had their say about slide film! Mama Kodak "took my Kodachrome away."

Bob

[Clarion]

[quote user="toodles"]Black & white chemical-based photography is probably the most archival medium we can get. [/quote]

While B&W has stood the test of a hundred years or so; in this day and age, who really wants B&W photos? Colour photos are not nearly as hardy, and prone to fading andcolour change at an irregular rate. In the following 30 year old Spring-Time-in-Ontario photo, notice how the edges of thisphotographic negative (2-1/4 sq) has changed colour over 30 years, compared to the the somewhat more-protected centre:

Of course, after converting the image to digital, you can do all sorts ofweird and wonderful fun things with thisphoto in a few minutes/hours, that you could never do with a week in a darkroom: