Reasons to or not to go digital

[SteveYork]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm struggling with whether to take the plunge into the digital arena. I suppose the fact that I'm struggling may be an indication that the timing is off, but how did you other folks decide whether or not to go digital? With both the R-D1 and M8 there are really options out there for rangefinder users, but there is almost literally a ton of other digital options out there.

 

I've slimmed my equipment a little down to one body and three lenses (35-50-90). I think I just sold a lens I should have kept if digital is in the horizon (35mm Summilux). I probably shoot 125-150 rolls of film a year of travel, friends, family. The 50mm focal length is my favorite by far, by leaps and bounds actually. Films getting expensive -- about $15-$20 per roll for purchase and processing and the number of keepers fluctuates from 4-15, but probably averages around 6-9, and I have pretty high standards. I shoot only B&W.

 

I'm not keen on buying a digital camera or feeling the need to upgrade 2-3 years from now. I know nothing about digital (o'kay very little) and I don't like computers. They don't seem to like me either.

 

My lab just lost two rolls of my film. I found a new lab.

 

I lkie the analog controls of the R-D1, but am leary of the QC problems. I don't know what a megapixel is, but I'm sure the R-D1 has enough of them for me given that the max enlargement is likely to be an 8x10. The M8 seems very digital, very advanced and very expensive.

 

In my odd logic I sometimes think that maybe I should continue to shoot film because someday I'll be forced maybe to digital anyway. Might as well use film while it's here.

 

So what were the perrtinent reasons why folks went either way?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Guest guy_mancuso]

One word MONEY. Really the only way i can stay in business is to be digital and that has been going for 12 years now. My clients simply demand it

[Rolo]

??

 

Steve, how many reasons do you need to stay 100% film ? I counted 27 in your post.

 

I suggest you dip your toe in the water first with something like a D50, just to become familiar with the digi processes. If it doesn't work out, you've got a nice camera for eBay sales.

 

Digi is really good once you've got to grips with it, but B&W prints are better with film, IMO and that's your main activity.

[AShearer]

Going digital does not have to mean not using film anymore. I shoot both right now. That may change when the M8 comes. I use Nikon DSLR's when the situation calls for an SLR and I use Leica MP and various Leica lenses, mainly with B&W as my "street" camera. I'm looking forward to the M8.

 

There's no doubt in my mind, digital is easier, faster and can be cheaper on a per shot basis, if you use a LOT of film. If you factor in the cost of the camera, memory and maybe even an external hard drive, it would take about 260 rolls of film to recoup.

 

Several questions come up. What do you do with your photographs? If you take 125-150 rolls a year, you must have a lot of negatives and maybe prints too. But, how many of those do you REALLy do anything with? If I print 1 out of 100 as an enlargement, it's a lot. Digital storage is smaller and easier.

 

Some more things to think about.

 

No more going to the lab.

You can shoot the same shot at various exposures etc, without feeling like you're wasting money, because the photos are just digital information.

You can do what you want to with the shot without relying on a lab tech to get it right.

You can put 500 exposures on a card the size of a book of matches.

You can switch from color to B&W at any time without changing cameras, re-loading film etc.

 

 

I disagree that you have to be a computer genius. I certainly am not. I dump my flash card onto the computer, select the shots I want to print, upload it to Adorama and a few days later I get a high quality print on good paper. That's just one of many ways to get good prints. Yes, I have learned to crop and adjust exposure and contrast levels, but it's really not hard.

 

With where we are in the cycle, I do not believe the need to upgrade every 2-3 years will continue. How much better can it get?

 

I owned Nikon film cameras for years and never felt the need to upgrade. I think the initial digital "pro" quality cameras needed to catch up to where we are now. But, now that we have pro quality, 10-12 megapixel sensors, extremely good in camera processing, great lenses, I think there will be more stability. Sure there will always be a newer bigger and better gizmo, but the increased benefit from upgrading will be nominal going forward.

 

FWIW

 

AS

[johnastovall]

??

 

Steve, how many reasons do you need to stay 100% film ? I counted 27 in your post.

 

I suggest you dip your toe in the water first with something like a D50, just to become familiar with the digi processes. If it doesn't work out, you've got a nice camera for eBay sales.

 

Digi is really good once you've got to grips with it, but B&W prints are better with film, IMO and that's your main activity.

 

You can get film quality B&W prints if you go with a dedicated B&W printing system with Carbon based inks, use RIP and high quality rag matte papers.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

You can get film quality B&W prints if you go with a dedicated B&W printing system with Carbon based inks, use RIP and high quality rag matte papers.

 

 

I agree you can still get great B&W stuff with good technique

[rob_x2004]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Welcome to the forum Dublin John. Look forward to seeing some of your stuff in picture and reading your comments in film forum.

 

And, on topic;

 

Last night for the first time in ages I cracked open the P300. Friends round with minimum 20yr old slides and stuff and I ran them through. The character of Kodachrome, Ekta, and Agfa slide with or without dust and aging and the connection it engendered has rendered digital a lame dead duck.

Screw the digitalformaldehyde, bring on the light. Epiphany? Well revelation.

[jrgeoffrion]

I've slimmed my equipment a little down to one body and three lenses (35-50-90). I think I just sold a lens I should have kept if digital is in the horizon (35mm Summilux). I probably shoot 125-150 rolls of film a year of travel, friends, family. The 50mm focal length is my favorite by far, by leaps and bounds actually. Films getting expensive -- about $15-$20 per roll for purchase and processing and the number of keepers fluctuates from 4-15, but probably averages around 6-9, and I have pretty high standards. I shoot only B&W.

 

So what were the perrtinent reasons why folks went either way?

 

Steve,

 

The fact is that you spend $1,875 to $3,000 in film/processing in a year alone.

 

I don't think it's a "all or nothing" option. Given the information you have provided, I would probably say, stick with film but switch to C41 B&W to reduce your costs. You may also be able to find a lab that will provide you with high quality scans. This would make you 50% digital. If you already do that, you're half way there.

 

Despite what everyone thinks and says, making the transition is not as simple and easy as it seems. You'll have to learn a bunch of things that are probably irrelevant to you with film since it's part of the film "workflow". You'll have to re-learn all that.

 

Don't forget you'll have to invest in some software, not to mention the time to learn, miss, redo, etc. until the images meet your standards. And we all know that time is money.

 

I think that many digital virgin will 'jump' to the M8 and may be surprise at the learning curve ahead.

 

As for the reasons I switched to digital, fairly simple: CONTROL.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Let me add to JR's comments there is a LOT of time behind the keyboard. This is a major transition for many folks. The willingness to learn here is great, and the learning curve is a long road

[Guest malland]

You can get film quality B&W prints if you go with a dedicated B&W printing system with Carbon based inks, use RIP and high quality rag matte papers.

 

On matte papers: as in the darekroom, matte papers don't have the dynamic rabge of glossy-type papers because, owing to the physics of light, the blacks are much less deep. Here is what Ansel Adams wrote in his book, "The Print" (p. 45):

 

Maximum image brilliance is obtained on a smooth, glossy-surfaced paper, which can have a reflectance range of up to 1: 100 and higher...The matte papers have much lower brilliance, with a reflection-density range of about 1:25...I use glossy papers comparable to Kodak's "F"- surface. Unferrotyped, these papers give a smooth semi-gloss finish with long tonal range.

 

When people started using pigment inks (as opposed to dye inks that were not archival) two things happened: first, these inks could only be used on matte papers and, second, some people fell in love with various textured, or heavy, "art" papers for their tactile feel. Also, B&W prints on matte paper can have a long tonal range in the mid-tones which is similar to a platinum print.

 

But that isn't my preference, as I am after deep, rich blacks and brilliance, which you can now get from the new Epson printers with "K3" inks, the x8xx, series. Printing on a easily-available paper like Epson Luster, the blacks are now very deep and rich.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

[humanized_form]

i went the other direction. i think the reasons i changed from digital to analog (slide film) was all the stuff that just kinda goes along with digital imaging.

 

a big thing for me was that analog photography doesn't involve using computers until i want to use them. that might sound funny, but i use computers every day all day at work. so a creative pursuit that doesn't need a computer (until the scanning/printing stage) is awesome fun.

 

i also found that i really like analog camera design. the cameras are so simple and they just don't get in the way. analog cameras seem so much more fun than the digital ones do, least to me.

 

i really like thinking through the exposure in camera knowing that it's all up to me and the choices i'm making at the time i'm taking the picture. i think of that as my post processing. i like trying to imagine the results from my exposure settings. i discovered that not seeing the results with the instant review and histogram display was actually helpful, as it freed me from trying to make the photo "perfect". then again i take pictures for personal enjoyment, a commercial photographer i'm not.

 

also after a couple years of digital i just didn't really see anything elegant about the "digital workflow" thing. i know that it takes skill to post process digital images, but the process just seemed hollow to me after a while. i think post processing can suck the life out of images. why does everything have to look "perfect"? perfectly exposed. perfectly noise free. perfectly sharp etc. i wonder if the the photos that i like so much from my favorite analog photographers would even exist if they had had the power of instant review.

 

i don't really feel a need to put every image online, so scanning isn't even an issue. i mostly just get images scanned which i want made into prints. this costs about $35 dollars for drum scan and 11X14 Chromira print. i can live with that.

 

plus, a very important thing for me is that slides are just really really cool to look at. they are amazing. they remind me of being a kid and looking at a Viewmaster. haha..

[waileong]

Lets not do another film v digital debate. I love my darkroom, but to each his own, ok?

[Guest malland]

Lets not do another film v digital debate. I love my darkroom, but to each his own, ok?

 

There is nothing wrong with this discussion, nor with the original poster's desire to want to know why people would go one way or the other. I never understand people's desire to stop discussion.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

[Guest flatfour]

I am sure everyone goes through this phase - I'm currently at the halfway house - using digital for colour and film for B&W. I don't get anywhere near the satisfaction using a digital camera but the Digilux 2 produces such good immediate colour pictures that I can tolerate it. But B&W is another matter. I still think my M6 excels here, but this is just a personal view. I cannot see myself giving up on B&W film for some time - but then I haven't tried the M8.

[Rolo]

I agree you can still get great B&W stuff with good technique

Guy,

 

I'm sure you can get 'great B&W stuff' using digital. I can myself.

 

My comment, and it was IMO, was that film provides 'better B&W'. I'm not in any doubt about that, but I've taken the time to aquire good darkroom skills and can recognise and appreciate the work of other good printers. There are lots of mediocre and poor printers in both 'rooms', but I pesume we are not talkng of that.

 

I've seen some good digitally printed images, including some really good colour stuff, but have yet to see a B&W where the printing was stunning. I've seen thousands of B&W fibre based exhibition prints that take my breath away with their sheer beauty.

 

It is not a concession for me to agree that PhotoShop is the best tool available for manipulating prints and hopefully one day soon, ink based printing will close the gap further on real silver.

 

Most of us are aware that the use of 'matte papers' and water colour papers with digital printing are used to hide the image quality behind the exquisite surface finishes available. Printers using those today rarely used the Kentmere 'Art Classic' papers.

 

I've got 50 boxes of graded, glossy, fibre based, Oriental Seagull in stock if there's a contest looming.

[vic vic]

u do b/w mainly??

then no questions... it is only film.. sorry for being such a not-open-minded abou tit but b/w = film ... a real film... all the rest is bulshhet... grey-scale photography.

if u have money to put on digital then u better get a few tools that will allow u to develop the film yourself.. study it and u will get the best...

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I think were the limitation is with B&W is in the paper with digital and that mojo that we see from the wet get's lost a little. All this depends on what your doing also. If it is gallery work than film may still be the best here.

[vic vic]

guy - and what about the character of the film??? the texture of film.. the unique gradations... sorry - it is not only about papers.. by the way... i dont have it myself of course.. but there are enlarging darkroom heads that print from digital files on the silver-gelatin paper :-))) so if u want to give up on one of the most beutifull things in b/w - the film character and annoyed with the quality diffarances between silver paper and digi paer than get that enlarging head :-))))

[mwilliamsphotography]

Here's a consideration: there are two ways to get your feet wet with digital: get a P&S and have fun. Get a dedicated scanner and scan the best of your film stuff. Scanning will teach you all the stuff you need to know when you do go with a seriously expensive digital camera. Photoshop is photoshop whether you're working on a digital capture shot or a scanned film shot.

 

Most of us have thousands of images done on film, a scanner allows you to bring those shots into the digital domain ... so it's a great way to introduce yourself to the desktop darkroom and get into the digital learning curve.

 

As far as "The Need To Go Digital": I think it differs person to person, situation to situation.

 

Guy is a commercial photographer. I also do commercial photography. Digital has become the rule in this type of work, not the exception. Most reproduction of commercial images (like printing of magazine ads, brochures and posters) is now digital, so digital files have to be provided. Digital capture has revolutionized commercial photography.

 

I also shoot weddings, which involves high volumes of images for every job. Digital is raging through that industry also. But the advantages are not as clear cut as with commercial work. Processing 600 RAW files, even using every automation trick in the book, is time consuming and frequently boring. Huge cost savings with digital is a myth. The actual savings with digital is the difference in the price of the film and processing ... the proofs from digital or film are the same price. Factor in the cost of digital gear compared to film gear and it's not all it's cracked up to be.

 

Film still has it's own character and charms, some of which can't quite be duplicated with digital capture. These are subjective qualities that each photographer has to determine themselves. For me, I will shoot film along side digital for as long as possible ... which I believe will be longer than most think ... because it is beautiful in it's own way even when scanned and printed digitally.

 

Now, for absolutely no reason except local pride, here's a scanned film shot of a MoTown BBQ ... GO TIGERS!!!!!!

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I have not shot film in many years but i think the film look can be in digital also, I would just put more weight in the paper is harder to duplicate. I have seen some great B&W work in digital so we can't just ignore it can't be done good but I still think the film house has the edge in B&W.

 

Just to be clear i am not a film hater in anyway shape or form. i simply have lost the interest in walking back in a darkroom and for me being electronic is the demand I have. My hobby is golf were i can take the time to enjoy it. Photography is my life and need to be efficient with my time. Little different prespective because i am in the commercial arena, so things are different for me than the shooter doing fine art work and actually selling a print. So reason i said some of this does depends on what your audience is on making a choice to be digital or film based