[jgredline]

Oh, Thanks guys. I did not think of that. I thought the rolls would still be good if frozen and air tight.

[mtags24]

It really depends on how you define "good simple film shot"

For my serious work I use the tool that gets the results I want the fastest and with the least amount of headaches. In other words, I use the simplest process. For anything serious, i am shooting digital. I have fun shooting digital because it gets results I want with instant gratification.

For "fun" I use my old olympus om-2n. I do not expect to sell many photos from this camera, mostly because I don't have the time to dick around with it, although it is capable of producing some remarkable stuff on velvia or good b&w film. I enjoy having the larger viewfinder, metal construction, and classic feel. I also LOVE having an aperture ring. It's more fun for the experience, like a classic car. Its going to get dusted by modern hotrods, but it's all about the ride in the classic.

So I guess it for me it depends on what kind of fun I want to have. I have good simple fun shooting both formats.

[dugrant153]

It probably sounds like a cop-out, but I shoot digital now because of the negligible overheard running cost if you discount the cost of amortizing body/lens costs over a fixed amount of time.

Yes, it's a more sterile than film, perhaps leads to knee-jerk shooting, but at the same time, has vastly improved my ability to "see" and predict how a composed shot will turn out simply because of the number of additional shots I have taken over the past 10 years.

Don't think it's a cop-out at all For some people, the digital medium works fine for what they do and it gets them the image they want. For others, the film medium gives them what they want so they use that.

I say it all comes down to what will get the photographer the picture that they want, and in what format they prefer it in. Arguably, it seems the professional design and photography field has gone mainly digital.

For difficult indoor lighting situations where I need ISO-changing ability and white-balance correction later, or where I know I will need to take a lot of shots, I will probably stick to the digital SLR. It's very useful and very convenient and in the end you still get a picture.

But something has to be said for the whole process of film. It's different. It's hands-on and it's more tangible in that... well, guess you can't really hold a "jpeg" in your hands if you know what I mean. And i think a lot of people like that.

[THAN THE SWORD]

I think of my film days as "resistance training". I learned on a $5 Minolta with a broken light meter. I recorded every shot in a notebook and studied the results when the film came back 2 weeks later.

I hard to learn photography one step at a time. I had used or borrowed equipment. I bought the cheapest film I could find and sent it out to York (do they still exist?). I built up my knowledge one bad shot at a time.

And then one day I got a digital camera!! The chains fell away, the weight was lifted. All of a sudden there were no cost concerns. I didn't have to wait to see what I had done. I could shoot "machine gun style". Previously I had only shot 2 or 3 rolls all at once using my auto-winder and they were for special events (the implosion of the Kingdome in Seattle). Now I have my K10D set to shoot as long as my finger is down.

I do feel somewhat superior to those who have never shot film. But I also feel superior to those who have never used a typewriter, a rotary dial phone or had to get up to change channels. That is the nature of technology. I paid my dues but you didn't. That being said I think there are those who haven't shot film that are better photographers than me.

[Ash]

I think of my film days as "resistance training".

Photographic boot camp - I like that!

And then one day I got a digital camera!! The chains fell away, the weight was lifted. Now I have my K10D set to shoot as long as my finger is down.

What a liberating feeling that must have been!

I do feel somewhat superior to those who have never shot film. But I also feel superior to those who have never used a typewriter, a rotary dial phone or had to get up to change channels. That is the nature of technology. I paid my dues but you didn't. That being said I think there are those who haven't shot film that are better photographers than me.

Natural to feel that way, whereas in the past skills needed to be learnt from first principles, learning each skill is now made easier today.

I'm not all that far down the track (or at least I think I'm not) and I despise the modern use of the calculator in maths class, which is used to do the simplest sums that we all learnt to do in our heads just a few years back. I'd given up tutoring maths some years ago out of this frustration...

The difference is nowadays there are a whole lot more people who just think they can do it 'just like the pros' because they have access to capable gear. They inflate the total number of photogs out there and reduce the overall quality of work (as debated elsewhere). Nevertheless, there will be those who learn the vocation in the 'new'/'easier' way who are just talented and are destined for fame in the industry.

[Venturi]

More and more, I tend to shoot digital when I'm making photos for other people and film when I'm making them for me. In all fairness though, a year ago I was just getting reacquainted with film after a very long absence from photography all together.

Shooting film is therapeutic for me, almost meditation. I get great satisfaction from actively working the entire process (I lack an enlarger still but that's in the works too). And I very much prefer B&W over color. I can and do develop both myself but I just don't enjoy color nearly as much. Ironic perhaps, but with digital I really don't care much for most monochromatic conversions and rarely do them myself.

I do find myself wanting or needing (I'm not really sure which is more accurate) to impose much more creativity to my digital photos in post than I do with film. I don't have a full wet darkroom yet so all my post-processing workflow is digital. I scan my negs to DNG and mostly just don't often feel the urge to tweak them past basic corrections; they stand on their own or they don't.

[Wheatfield]

I think of my film days as "resistance training". I learned on a $5 Minolta with a broken light meter. I recorded every shot in a notebook and studied the results when the film came back 2 weeks later.

I hard to learn photography one step at a time. I had used or borrowed equipment. I bought the cheapest film I could find and sent it out to York (do they still exist?). I built up my knowledge one bad shot at a time.

And then one day I got a digital camera!! The chains fell away, the weight was lifted. All of a sudden there were no cost concerns. I didn't have to wait to see what I had done. I could shoot "machine gun style". Previously I had only shot 2 or 3 rolls all at once using my auto-winder and they were for special events (the implosion of the Kingdome in Seattle). Now I have my K10D set to shoot as long as my finger is down.

I do feel somewhat superior to those who have never shot film. But I also feel superior to those who have never used a typewriter, a rotary dial phone or had to get up to change channels. That is the nature of technology. I paid my dues but you didn't. That being said I think there are those who haven't shot film that are better photographers than me.

If all you've learned how to do is push the button and pray, you haven't "paid your dues", you've merely learned to shift your knee jerk response to your index finger.
This isn't photography, this is baseball bat style brain surgery

[THAN THE SWORD]

Maybe I gave the wrong impression. I shoot more because I can while at the same time knowing what I am doing. I may shoot more of one scene but I change exposures, film speed or angles between shots to experiment. And I change settings mainly after getting the shot I had visioned in my mind. Lately I shoot less because I know that each good shot means time with CS4. Even simple curves and cropping can eat up the time.

I "machine gun" when the scene is dynamic. A base runner may get 15-20 shots where in the film days he might have gotten 2-3.

I don't pray when I shoot. I know what I am doing and don't need ethereal help.

[monochrome]

There's a real pleasure from a well taken shot that can be very 'simple'. Those that have shot or currently do, shoot film, realize that you actually have to have some skill to get a well exposed well framed shot.

With a digital camera and all the auto controls, you just fire away at the scene and keep looking at the LCD to see if you finally nailed the shot.

Digital shooters can have the "Film Fun"

1. Use Manual and manual lenses
2. Make the LCD preview period 3 seconds (so short as to be useless)
3. Choose to shoot slowly and one-shot per scene
4. Wait until PP to see how you did

[jgredline]

Really, there is still a certain majic that digital still can't and will never match film. There is reason why many folks buy plugins or add grain to make their digital images look like film myself included.

[flippedgazelle]

Really, there is still a certain majic that digital still can't and will never match film. There is reason why many folks buy plugins or add grain to make their digital images look like film myself included.

Just like there's a certain "magic" in a Daguerreotype that film will never match.

Much of that "magic" is based on nostalgia. Eventually, there's going to be an entire generation that has never seen a film image.

[bbluesman]

Oddly although I've done a miniscule amount of film work over the years-snap shots and none with an SLR I have been influenced by growing up with film. My point is even with DSLR I am very stingy with shots and basically do 99% of my shots in 1 take and ride with it. Just saying...

[jadedrakerider]

As much as I love my ME Super, and shooting Black and White I have to say I'd never take color film into the darkroom ever again if I can possibly avoid it. Say all you want about the artistry and the importance of the endeavor, but none of joy and pleasure I get from working in a B&W darkroom translates into color.

That being said, not every digital photographer chimps every shot. Personally, I like having an alternative to dumping 90$ into a flash meter. I always found the art to be in the vision of what could be, not in what it takes to do it.

And speaking from a customer service standpoint, being able to show your client what they're going to get has got to be a boon. And not exposing the same image to paper over and over again is wonderful. Photoshop is the joy while color darkroom is a misery. (for me, anyway)

That being said, I think a lot of modern photographers, especially students, are a lot lazier. They chimp instead of think.

I shoot B&W film for pleasure, but when something needs to get done I grab my digital.

[Nesster]

When chimping leads to thinking, things are good. After all, you need to understand what you're seeing on the tiny screen, understand the histogram and that you can see it, and understand which adjustments to make. Also, one needs to understand and accept that there are many 'good' exposures possible for a given photograph, not just the one set by the computer. Even on cameras with little or no manual control, there's the mode dial that one can and should learn to use.

Part of the problem is with all the automation and computerization and compensation, we often can get lazy and just shoot. (I feel the same way by the way about auto exposure film cams.) Nothing wrong with that, except if you then never go beyond this point and shootism to understand what controls you do have... which for people on boards like this, isn't really excusable

[Vertex Ninja]

Just like there's a certain "magic" in a Daguerreotype that film will never match.

Much of that "magic" is based on nostalgia. Eventually, there's going to be an entire generation that has never seen a film image.

I understand why you would think this but, I can't agree. Monet, Rembrant, etc. are long gone but far from forgotten. 100 years from now photographers will still know Ansel Adams, Dykinga, etc. Just because a medium is not mainstream does not mean it will be forgotten or entirely replaced. Not to mention that the majority of movies are still shot on negative film. If you compare a modern movie shot on film vs a highend digital such as a red, the differences are quite clear and have nothing to do with nostalgia.