The MOTHER of all Film vs. Digital debates

[Dawid Loubser]

Hi,

I am not sure if any of you hang out at photo.net, but this is worth a read, if only for the laughs.
This thread is so huge, it will actually be a problem for those of you on slow connections, and has also reportedly cause Microsoft Internet Exploder to... umm... explode in some cases, so if you have a better web browser like Firefox, Opera or Safari, use it to read:

http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00ROOo

 

[Mike Shimwell]

DAvid, I jumped to the end to see the conclusion, but there isn't one.

Anyone?!

Mike

 

[Daniel Buck]

DAvid, I jumped to the end to see the conclusion, but there isn't one.

Anyone?!

Mike

I don't think there is a conclusion. Depends on what you want to shoot, how you want to shoot it, and what your final output needs to be used for. That's the way I determine if I'm going to shoot digital or film. As far as I'm conserned, it's a personal preference, both sides having their strengths and weaknesses

 

[Asher Kelman]

I don't think there is a conclusion. Depends on what you want to shoot, how you want to shoot it, and what your final output needs to be used for. That's the way I determine if I'm going to shoot digital or film. As far as I'm conserned, it's a personal preference, both sides having their strengths and weaknesses

Daniel,

I started to read the thread and it's interesting but needs a lot of time. For me, film is a pensive, luxurious, self-absorbed slow down of work and a cost saver for low volume especially detail-rich work or for just fun and artistry of using an analog medium.

For large volume work, where the costs can't be shifted to someone else, film is just too expensive a luxury, even if one likes it!

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Daniel,

I started to read the thread and it's interesting but needs a lot of time. For me, film is a pensive, luxurious, self-absorbed slow down of work and a cost saver for low volume especially detail-rich work or for just fun and artistry of using an analog medium.

Let me state this in a more positive form. Film gives one the most economical way of shooting the most stunning pictures where the finest detail and very large size is needed. Next it has continuous tones and a texture for each film type that adds a particular character.

Asher

 

[Mike Shimwell]

Let me state this in a more positive form. Film gives one the most economical way of shooting the most stunning pictures where the finest detail and very large size is needed. Next it has continuous tones and a texture for each film type that adds a particular character.

Asher

Of course Asher, that's shooting with the 8 by 10 - 35mm is not so detail rich!

Mike

 

[Asher Kelman]

Of course Asher, that's shooting with the 8 by 10 - 35mm is not so detail rich!

Mike

Mike,

It is so inexpensive to use an 8x10 camera. They are available for next to nothing on eBay or KEH.com and it will last for ever. There are no firmware updates needed! No other camera can deliver the resolution!

Asher

 

[Erie Patsellis]

Of course Asher, that's shooting with the 8 by 10 - 35mm is not so detail rich!

Mike

Mike,
Though I rarely shoot 35mm much anymore, it has it's own charms, and detail can still be surprisingly good. Sometimes forgoing some detail to be able to more clearly express a concept is a good thing. I use both film and digital, though my preference is with film, preferably the larger the better, but it's hard to use the 8x10 camera (or even the Hassy or RB) to take images like:

Even the 300 was a little short at times, the second pic is a slight crop from full frame, I would have preferred a 400 2.8 or 600 4.0, but the wife is under the impression that food and a roof over our head is more important than a couple of silly, overpriced lenses. In case you didn't know, that's Edgar Winter in the above pics.

erie