Support NeoGAF

[SD-Ness]

Yeah, so a popular debate in photography is whether to use film or digital. I think it basically comes to personal preference. Nevertheless, which do you prefer?

I can see digital as being more convenient as one could upload the pictures directly to his computer. It might also be sharper, I don't know. Whatever, my Dad's giving me his old film camera, which is still in very good condition, unused, so I guess I'll use that for now.

(Note: I'm leaning more towards artistic photography.)

 

[XMonkey]

Digital for the simple fact that I can take hundreds of pictures without swapping a new film roll in and that I can instantly review the picture I took to see if the exposure was correct, etc.

I don't think I'd be willing to experiment with lots of different angles and shots if I had to use film.

 

[DarkAngelYuna]

Noooooo not this again.
Neither are better. Just use whatever you like. Whee *waits for film idiots and digital idiots to start battle*

 

[Futureman]

Film definitely has that certain "quality" that digital lacks.

If I could use my film camera and then plug it into my camera after I was done I would definitely go with film. Digital looks a little too sharp and clear for me.

In the end though, I have to go with digital since it is SO much less money.

 

[aoi tsuki]

Film has generally greater resolution and wider dynamic range compared to digital. There's a few other advantages where film beats digital, but it's not worth getting into and i'd be doing little more than copying and pasting from some article i read.

Digital is definitely more convenient if you've got a computer. Even without a computer, it's far more convenient to shoot in digital and not have to worry about carrying a dozen rolls of film at varying ISOs. It's also easier to take a test shot, view the results, then modify your settings on the fly without having to guess. Having said that, i always have respect for the old film guys who can magically make a shot under questionable conditions come out looking great.

i often prefer the film look as it can add a lot of character and feel to a scene, whether it's in pictures or video. The film look is one advantage certain Nikon SLRs have over Canon SLRs, but in the end, it can be added in post.

Each medium has it's pros and cons, and i can't say that one's greater than the other. It really comes down to what works for you.

 

[SD-Ness]

About artistic photography: I'm not sure if anyone is interested in it here, but I want to at least attempt it. However, my premise is not that inspiring. I just want to try it out because it's another means of expression. I remember reading an article in The New Yorker that displayed some photographs in an artistic style and I was somewhat intrigued. Can anyone direct me to a renowned photographer so I can taste a bit of what this is like?

Edit: "See" instead of "taste." :lol

 

[lovelyarsenic]

well, as far as the whole 'art' of photography goes id have to say that it's all in the process a photographer goes through to get his/her end result (the photo) rather than in the media he/she uses. although digital may be somewhat easier, the photographer will miss out on a lot of that >darkroom< experience, etc. then again, it's all based on personal choice...

 

[Sho Nuff]

Change your ISO whenever you want.

Nuff said

 

[chaostrophy]

Film is great if you have access to a darkroom or have the space and money to put one together. If you don't, go digital- because if you're planning on doing artistic photography complete control over your prints is a necessity, and you'll only get that from a darkroom or a computer, not a photo lab.

If I were you I'd try to get darkroom access somehow, through a photography course or something, before deciding to go digital. Just so you'll know what printing from film is like, and be better equipped to decide what you eventually want to do.

 

[MaverickX9]

I prefer digital just because it is so much easier.

However, I have to say that film looks better, in my opinion.

I hate loading cameras, too.

 

[Diablos]

Digital Cameras are getting better. Besides, if you take a 5.0MP pic and shrink it to the size of a typical picture (or even a little larger than that), it looks fine.

 

[Warm Machine]

I shot on a Pentax MZ 7 film for 4 years and I have recently switched to my Pentax *IstDS 6Mp digital camera.

http://groups.msn.com/negativetranslucent

Every time I would hit that shutter button on my film camera I'd be flipping a dollar out the window. Film, neg developing, and printing cost me every click.

Also, there are far too many steps in the ladder for film where things can go wrong.

1: Roll of film, good or bad quality?
2: ISO on roll of film appropriate for random light and weather?
3: Bad exposure...you wont know until...
4: Developing the film where problems really start. Labs are not Bullet Proof
5: Printing the film...most Printers have no idea what you exposed for so they make it up themselves. You can have the best exposure ever but if the Printer has no idea what you did they'll rail you.
6: Scanning the Neg or the Print. Either way you lose detail.

With digital you bear the entire responsibility to how the image turns out so you get better as a result and learn from your mistakes quicker.

Also, think about where the destination of your images is going to be anyway. If you want to make huge albums of prints perhaps film is still for you. If you want nice crisp high res images that you'll want to look at on your PC or on the internet go digital.

 

[miyuru]

Digital cameras are replacing film cameras *sort of* like how DVD replaced VHS.

However, unlike VHS, film still has it's advantages, though it's become more niche versus, well, the only choice there was

 

[gblues]

Digital photography still depends on a lot of analog components. If you have a 100 megapixel CCD, it isn't worth crap if you're using crappy optics. You simply have a crappy photo with insane detail.

Nathan