Laughing City

Which do you prefer?
Film
45%
 45%  [ 10 ]
Digital
54%
 54%  [ 12 ]
I'm not really into photography.
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 22

Author Message
CaughtOnFilm
Laughing Citizen


This has been bugging me lately. I've started working with this photographer, which is good... it's a job, and I get to play with nice expensive cameras.

But this guy never went to school for photography. He's never even used a manual camera! He certainly has an eye for photos and detail. It just bugs me he doesnt know the foundations of photography such as the darkroom and FILM. He says film is a dying industry. I don't think so AT ALL. Film is coming around once again. People are appreciating a real photo on real photo paper over a digital picture on their screen. Honestly, I think he is just relying on his expensive cameras to get the good shots.

So i was just wondering what all you eisley heads think.

Do you prefer digital or film? And why.

I enjoy digital, I really do. And I think it's great for things like wedding photography and the like. But honestly nothing beats film, for me. As far as fine art photography is considered. Nothing is better than film. Nothing. Digital photography becomes repetative. But this is just my opinion. I want to know what you all think. But maybe I'm just biased because I'm a photo major....

_________________
www.allisongill.net
www.myspace.com/silverbugs
www.last.fm/users/allisoncostello
www.imahuman.tumblr.com
www.isitreallysostrange.wordpress.com
[i spend too much time on the internet, apparently.]

Joined: 29 Jan 2004 | Posts: 1562 | Location: da souf
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Saellys
Vintage Newbie


I much prefer film because the pictures I get from my Mom's old Minolta look so exceptionally rich and crisp. I can't afford film very often though and that Minolta can be a pain to lug around, so I usually take digital shots. When I went to London I brought both and took a bunch of black & white film shots. Then I lost a roll. Sad
_________________
INTELLECT AND ROMANCE
OVER BRUTE FORCE AND CYNICISM

Smokemonster
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 | Posts: 14510 | Location: Alone on an airplane, fallin' asleep against the windowpane...
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
CaughtOnFilm
Laughing Citizen


Saellys wrote:
I much prefer film because the pictures I get from my Mom's old Minolta look so exceptionally rich and crisp. I can't afford film very often though and that Minolta can be a pain to lug around, so I usually take digital shots. When I went to London I brought both and took a bunch of black & white film shots. Then I lost a roll. Sad


I agree with you on the fact that film is becoming expensive. It's frustrating really. If money wasn't an object... I don't even want to think about it. Haha.

_________________
www.allisongill.net
www.myspace.com/silverbugs
www.last.fm/users/allisoncostello
www.imahuman.tumblr.com
www.isitreallysostrange.wordpress.com
[i spend too much time on the internet, apparently.]

Joined: 29 Jan 2004 | Posts: 1562 | Location: da souf
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
TheAntrider
Protocol Droid


I prefer digital, though it has not always quite reached the richness of film. I think other factors outweigh that, in most cases. It won't be long until digital can match that in the same or similar ways, though. There are things that digital can do that film can't, and there are things that film can do that digital can't. Discarding one format or the other is a mistake.

Try matching medium and large formats with a digital ... you better be rich. And it's still not the same.

I could go on ... I personally will shoot mostly with digital, but I'll definitely use some film along the way. I think it's criminal to not understand photography from its roots. History is important to the skills we learn, and it's vital for art, too.

_________________
My photography:www.jamiemphoto.com

You can't spell awesome without emo...backwards! -Julie
definingawesome (11:44:11 PM): Eisley shivers our timbers
Joined: 15 Aug 2003 | Posts: 25184 | Location: East Texas
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
CaughtOnFilm
Laughing Citizen


TheAntrider wrote:


I could go on ... I personally will shoot mostly with digital, but I'll definitely use some film along the way. I think it's criminal to not understand photography from its roots. History is important to the skills we learn, and it's vital for art, too.


I agree. I just don't like the fact that he completely ignores the foundations and basics of photography. There are times when film is better, and there are time with digital is better. I just hate that people don't take the time to at least learn a little more about the history. Blah.

_________________
www.allisongill.net
www.myspace.com/silverbugs
www.last.fm/users/allisoncostello
www.imahuman.tumblr.com
www.isitreallysostrange.wordpress.com
[i spend too much time on the internet, apparently.]

Joined: 29 Jan 2004 | Posts: 1562 | Location: da souf
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
TheAntrider
Protocol Droid


CaughtOnFilm wrote:
I just hate that people don't take the time to at least learn a little more about the history. Blah.


It bothers me so much when people do that with anything. It's so disrespectful and promotes ignorance.

_________________
My photography:www.jamiemphoto.com

You can't spell awesome without emo...backwards! -Julie
definingawesome (11:44:11 PM): Eisley shivers our timbers
Joined: 15 Aug 2003 | Posts: 25184 | Location: East Texas
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
vivalaspopie
Vintage Newbie


I love digitaling... but, now that i've had my go with film digital almost seems like cheating. I've spent so much time tinkering with lenses, ruining film, experimenting with prints, etc. not to appreciate the glory of producing your own print.

So yeah, I picked film.

_________________
Joined: 21 May 2005 | Posts: 5051 | Location: TX/NYC
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
ride4Jesus
Vintage Newbie


i love both, but i prefer digital. it's instant and easier. i do think film looks better though. it also has the same feeling like putting on some vinyl instead of a cd...like you're preserving history or something. i dont know, i like most forms of art.
_________________
www.flickr.com/photos/somecallmeallie
www.envelopesandeggnog.blogspot.com
www.somecallmeallie.deviantart.com
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 | Posts: 2482 | Location: San Diego, California
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
boone
Vintage Newbie


I prefer film. Film has better latitude, contrast, and is more flexible. That and I can use my 20+ year old manual camera, and it looks just as good as a camera made yesterday because they have the same film. I like the texture of film more, too. Film grain is very gritty when it's present, and digital noise is more like multicolored Jell-o.

That said, I'd like to have a digital camera to mess around with, but I'm not a fan of the way they posterize in the highlights. I don't want my highlights to clip, even though a lot of people like that look.

_________________
Scriptozoology, a screenwriting blog .. Facebook
Joined: 04 Mar 2004 | Posts: 11753 | Location: Toledo, OR
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
amidthestars
Vintage Newbie


i prefer digital simply because it is more practical for me, and because i enjoy working with the settings to see what kind of shot i can get, not hoping that i did it right, then getting film developed and finding out that i didn't... my problem is really that i lack the knowledge to properly use film.
i do like both, though, and think they both have a place in photography. i personally prefer to use digital, though. (mainly because i don't consider photography my "passion" but a great hobby)

_________________
Saellys wrote:
Thank God for Arielle Very Happy


all your kind, they're coming clean
they shut their eyes
their mess, their scene
Joined: 02 Jul 2004 | Posts: 5273 | Location: i forget
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
hisownshot
Vintage Newbie


I took photography class as a feshman, and I wanted to take Photography 2 next year... but I didn't have the time.

Anyway, I like both. I loooove working in the darkroom, but that's really impractical for me because I don't have one. I think the darkroom is one of the most relaxing places to be, and film is a lot of fun because the pictures just feel more personal.

However, digital is my weapon of choice because I: don't have money for film, don't have a darkroom, don't have very good skills with manuel, don't have money to have my pictures developed

But it doesn't bother me that other people don't look into manuel stuff... for most people it's just a hobby, and if they're doing fine with digital, then there really is no reason for them to have to spend the money and time on the history.

_________________
my name's carrie and i love a good sandwich
so if you have a sandwich, come roll with me!


i'm gonna marry the mars volta.
Joined: 01 Nov 2003 | Posts: 8260 | Location: new hampshire
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
granpaturtle
Vintage Newbie


digital. why? cost effective.

also its really altered the status of the "amateur photographer" Its not some weird kid who found a darkroom in his high school and started working for the school paper, its anybody with 200 bucks to their name. Anyone can be a digital photographer and that opens up a lot of possibilities for interesting and different expressions of the art form. Whenever something gets opened to the masses, new geniuses emerge. Of course there are like...5 geniuses in a sea of 300 million morons, but that's still revolutionary to an art form.
Joined: 18 Mar 2004 | Posts: 8693 | 
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
dont_panic
Vintage Newbie


in terms of asthetics, i prefer film. i think the overall quality of the photo is so much better. of course, digital is catching up. i think digital is good for people who just want to take quick pictures. those that are invested in photography as a career or as a part-time artist should look at both film and digital.
_________________
http://thegirlinthebearhat.tumblr.com/
Joined: 04 Dec 2004 | Posts: 2702 | Location: central new york, massachusetts, london (soon)
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
TheAntrider
Protocol Droid


The one thing with digital that has not quite satisfied me is that there is no truly satisfying answer to getting the edge of the negative on the picture. There are plenty of frames and all, but it's just not the same. But I still use it when I really want to.
_________________
My photography:www.jamiemphoto.com

You can't spell awesome without emo...backwards! -Julie
definingawesome (11:44:11 PM): Eisley shivers our timbers
Joined: 15 Aug 2003 | Posts: 25184 | Location: East Texas
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Post new topic   Reply to topic

Display posts from previous:   



You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB, coffee, and Eisley fans worldwide.
phpBB is © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group