Any photographers out there still prefer 35mm film to digital?

I used to work as a clapper loader in the movies and I have a romantic attachment to film. Is digital better yet in terms of image quality?|||Clients still need images on film. I shoot film mostly for magazines and advertising agencies with a few scientific/medical clients.





Digital has become the primary shooting media for "deadline" clients (newspapers and sports magazines to name a few) as well as web based businesses.





In the field of fine art photography, film is still the preferred medium. Now else does one produce a piece of art that has not been controlled by the artist, from composition, exposure, development of the film (some using personal techniques) and printing on fiber-based paper and processed as an archival print?





Link to Ken Rockwells piece on film and digital imagery.





http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.鈥?/a>


and


http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmgoin鈥?/a>





And Just for fun:


http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200/d2鈥?/a>|||I agree, you can do more with digital images, but there is a sort of "charm" around actually seeing the picture not on a screen.|||I' a hobby photographer and I much prefer film. In fact, I don't like digital|||Most digital is worse. Colour negatives have a better dynamic range (I will call it relative range.)





On printing bigger than A4, the differences gradually appear, with the digital pictures gradually falling behind.|||I finally made the switch a few months ago. I still prefer the idea of film to digital. Digital takes all the guess work out of the quality of your image, being able to reshoot an image until you are happy removes the art from the process. With film you never know what you have until you develop. With digital the results are instantly available to be scrutinized. The reason I finally switched was the cost of film and processing. It has become cost prohibitive to use film for non-commercial enterprises.|||I have a little cheapie Canon Powershot, which I can get decent results out of when I take the time with it. It's just incredibly frustrating to use, however I picked this particular model because it was the least expensive digicam I could find that offered full manual(including manual focus) as well as shutter and aperture priority. I generally always use it in either shutter priority or manual.





I use that camera for Ebay photos and as a light meter for my Rolleiflex.





Aside from that, the majority of my photography is done with either my 35mm cameras or my Rolleiflex.





I have a really nice 35mm system, with a Canon F-1, two F-1Ns(motor drives for both), a T90, an AE-1, A-1, and an FTb. I also have Canon brand prime lenses in every focal available from 20mm through 400mm, with maximum apertures of 2.8 or larger for everything from 20mm though 200mm. A good many of them are f2 or faster, including my prized 135mm f2 and 24mm f2. All of this cost me less than a new Canon 5D.





Frankly, I'd be stupid to give a system this nice, especially since I couldn't begin to afford to replicate that system in an autofocus digital system.





I also have a Rolleiflex and a Rolleicord, both very nice medium format cameras which I enjoy using greatly. I plan to at some point in the near future pick up either a Bronica SQ-A system or a Mamiya RB67, both of which are selling for nothing these days.





The bottom line for me is that I get results I'm happy with from film. At this point, I don't think that I could get better results from digital since there's no way I could afford to replace my most used lenses, especially my 135mm f2.|||Digital is my guilty pleasure but film will always be my love.|||Film Film Film or


Time Time Time (wasted at your computer sharpening,adjusting setting color profiles ect.ect.ect.)


I'd take the Film, and spend more time in the field.


Just my op.


EDIT : No you cannot duplicate the effect of the polarizer in image editing programs. If your a "pro" you really ought to know that...|||From a techincal standpoint higher end DSLR cameras are able to exceed the quality of 35mm film and chromes, in terms of their reduced noise, and increased tonal range etc. Compared to larger film formats 35mm was not noted for its quality, but more for its speed, and portability which digital frankly does better.


This is not to say that I hate film, on the contrary I like it, I just never felt anything special for the 35mm format other than I like what it does for cinematography. Most of my personal photography involves shooting still-life so a medium format, or a large format camera works really well for what I do, and because i am not shooting action, I can usually get the shot that I need in 1 or 2 shots. working with film, in particular your larger formats is a cerebral experience, quite unlike the "dynamite fishing" approach that some digital photographers employ, shooting photos en-masse to get 1 single image. As for the idea of quality, there are both subjective and objective ways of looking at it. Objectively speaking digital has the potential to exceed 400megapixels, and in this case can exceed the film quality of 4x5, 5x7 film, but in all honesty, it is a different quality compared to film. Some of those flaws that film has, like the noise, is sometimes not a flaw whatsoever.|||Not to start a fight, but people who insist film is better because it has a unique colour, feel etc, just doesn't know how to use digital. You can reproduce anything on digital that you can achieve on film. Even true black and white film look.|||i do architecture, mostly i shot during the change of light - to dark, often my exposures are 8-30 seconds or more





you cant reproduce reproprosity failure in a computer, no matter what photoshoppers say





link to a reproprosity failure image :





http://flickr.com/photos/martini2005/193鈥?/a>








for the above digital just dont do it. while film has reproprosity failure, digital has noise ------- i dont need noise........





when speed is needed and the iso must be bumped up - film gives grain - digi gives noise--------i prefer grain





the size of the files one can get from film from a professional scanner is so much larger and better than a raw digi file --------- eg from 35mm film on a "lamba" scanner i can get 2gb files





i was trained and schooled on film, when i make an image on film i know exactly what i will get back from the lab, most "new kids" that have only used digi have no idea what they have until they look the images up on a screen





the fine art fotogs use film - that should sum it up really





digi is convienient, great for speed, great for the masses, great for those that lack real skills, great for thosed cant use film, great for those dont understand film - and yes i shoot it 95% of the time except for the shots that really matter





a|||image quality is produced by a image maker not a process|||I mostly use digital but still go back to analogue!





Digital has improved a lot over the years but the very best digital cameras are out of the reach of most photographers unless they are professional.





Low end digital is still no match for a good medium format or large format negative. By low end digital I mean anything with a small sensor and under 12MP even if it has Raw capabilities.





Digital is expensive because of all the digital equipment needed and the expertise to go with it. Analogue is less complicated and fairly low cost in the big scheme.|||I use a digital Sony A100 and A700 with WA from 11mm to 300mm. The quality is fine and clients expect to see results yesterday.





However my personal preference is for Film from Alpa reflex


Hasselblad and Linhof and scanned in if I want digital. I think the film base results in an image with more character.





Perhaps that is also romanticism .