I know - I've already shot my wad posting tonight (blame it on Anheiser Busch(sp?) - ANYWAY: I, being an old-school shooter still using film, was curious as to the percentage of "film" shooters vs. "digital" shooters involved in this forum. AND, being a "film" shooter, do my "old school ways" hold up in a modern "digital" world?

OK hands up film shooters, me. But I must confess to having a digi too. Film still good, you got to be having a laugh, the digi word is still in new toy territory I grant you its all new and very exciting and fantastic for some applications but you cant beat a good photographic print. :O)

Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing. Salvador Dali

OK OK....ok....I confess....I...I have......I OWN A DIGITAL CAMERA (boy, I feel better getting THAT out)....but it's an old Canon that only gets 640x480....and I only use it to get texture maps...PLEASE don't tell mom! (OK - I'm off the beer - and have given up the grape juice and vodka...I think I'll try a Coke and a BC powder.)

LOL! :) Honestly, I think that 99% of all digital cameras are just toys for people who are too lazy to learn photography. It's an easy gain at first, but when you get more serious you'll soon notice your shortcommings if you never shot on film with an all manual camera. I had the pleasure of recently trying a Hassie FlexBody with digital back (Heidelberg) and shooting that whole day in a studio the color polaroids for the test shots where all much better than any of the shots we did with the digital back. And at something like $50,000 I think it's a bit dissapointing. I guess it's just a very personal choice and it'll depend on what you want and why you want it, but whatever people might say, real film and high quality old fashioned prints just have that extra thing to them. Techincally speaking digital will always have an gap/difference compared to analog methods, just for the sake of always coming from a series of 1's and 0's. But I can imagine that digital is a blessing for beginning or intermediate photographers.

Same as Alpha and Mysnapz. ;-) cheers Thomas

I am in the same boat as Alpha, mysnapz and Zardoz (stop rocking the boat guys) Pass the pretzels Jeff... Film is good, Digi is instant gratification...Lazy Rork? (You bet! chuckle) ;-)>

Who ever said you were a photographer ? Errr...lazy ? (Just kidding ;) But seriously, I said (or tried to say) that a lot of people just buy digital camera's for fun, to show off with, but they never take the time to learn a lot about photography. On the other hand, people who spend time on a forum like this are ofcourse nothing like that :) I was just thinking of the 'old' days when you bought a Yashica with no automatic stuff whatsoever, so that DID invite you more to learn about photography. And DigitalDisbeliever, don't use words like 'silly', cause I wasn't attacking anyone personal. I was only saying that to me personally digital isn't good enough for work (it might be sufficient for pleasure though) and that in general digital photography makes less active photographers, cause you don't need to push yourself as much to get satisfying results - without saying that one is wrong or the other is right. It's just different and shouldn't be compared.

Morning folks, I, like most of the other respondents, shoot both. But when I can, I tend to shoot film. Digi has its uses, and I use the heck out of it, but I still favor the film based cameras. Not only that, but recently Ive found myself taking the old manual SLR out more and more. For the auto (film) cameras, I have recently purchased several full manual lenses, so I shoot manual all the way down. I find it slows me down enough to start thinking more about the composition, DOF, ect instead of just clicking away

hi, hmm interesting...i'm a straight film shooter... ok, ok i admit it...i'm digi curious :-)

Pictures appear to me, I shoot them.   Elliot Erwitt

Well... I really started with digital, and all my pictures on rosity have been digital, but I do use film quite a bit as well, I just think that really what you need is both, theres things you learn from both of them and each has its shortcomings and um, forthcomings? heh... its early.

relieved to find out it's not ANOTHER debate on digi vs film LOL I am a film user, too, but I have no qualms of using digi. My only reason for not using one is that I can't afford one at the mo. blah. (hehe) (*

I own both, a nikon(film) and a sony(digital)and shoot manual with both. Being a (trained) Photographer for 25 years, I welcome digital! (no more chemicals! I can still smell Dektol & Rapid Fix!) The results from the the 5 megapixel in my opinion are comparable to 4x5 film - no grain and sharp! :-) I recently shot a group (50+ people) with the sony and the resulting 11 x 14 I printed from my canon s9000 is far superior than the group shot done previously with a 2 1/4 and conventional photo printing. In the end I picked up a new client by using the digital.

OK nice thread, but just where is we going? I read with interest that we feel digi is a toy and I guess thats my opinion too. But that only because I cant afford that 14megapixal SLR that Alpha spotted (Try to stop drooling, going to bed with the speck under my pillow, never know the camera fairy might bring me one) I am sure those of us using digi professionally at the top end are getting the results they want but for the majority of us using what is affordable, it is still a toy and the results will sill not stand against a good photographic print. I just cant wait for them to get the price down, Hold on lads, Im going to be the first to jump ship. :O)

Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing. Salvador Dali

film film film, digital only when I borrow my friend's little 2 megapixel Fuji for snapshots.

Luddites!! (only kidding) ;-)>

Shot film for years. Now I have crossed over. Digital is the only thing I shot in the past 2 years. Film is still gives you more options and better pics (just slightly). Since I only do this as a hobby digital works great for me. (and is cheaper to boot)

aside from that initial cost of the camera, the money for memory cards, the 2000$ computer to put the pictures on, 700$ for photoshop, the printing paper, the ink for the printer, etc.....

Lets take a little left turn here, who prefers their Digital dark room to their wet one?

Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing. Salvador Dali

digital for colour, wet for b and w

I turn my back for 5 min. and I miss a very interesting discussion ! :-) I'm an enthousiatic digital cam user, having rediscovered photography after almost 20 years. I still remember those magical moments developing B/W pics in my fathers darkroom and -equally- remember the frustrating experience of developing colour pics in the same darkroom. The smell of the chemicals, the laboratory equipment, ... About 6 months ago, I finally decided to go for a digital camera and try to do something interesting with it. I had (and still have) to learn a lot about exposure, f-stops, white balance, ... while going from full-automatic to entirely manual operation of the camera. Am I playing ? Is my digital cam a toy ? Sure thing, I'm having a ball ! But the same would go for any traditional film cam I would have bought. In my view, this discussion is "only" about the technical aspect of our hobby/passion/profession; and doesn't even touch the essence, which is about what I call the "photographic eye" (composition, painting with light, conveying atmosphere, ...) In the hands of an experienced photographer, even a humble 2Mpix cam can produce pics that are far, far superior to the results i've seen from high-end SLR's. Technically, we can all see that digital is quite quickly overtaking traditional film in terms of quality and versatility. This has very little to do with the amount of Mpixels, but more with the quality (technology) of the CCD and the in-camera processing. Eventually, we'll get into a discussion similar to the one between audiophiles : CD or vynil record ? And yes, we tend to be protective of our investments (just read the discussions over at dpreview.com), we all want to think we have the best equipment (having invested thousands of $ or ), and we are very much set in our ways. I hope that in a couple of years I'll still be as enthousiastic with my camera as I am today and by that time, this whole discussion will have been settled comfourtably in favour of digital. Maybe with mixed feelings, but inevitably non the less...

I'm a digi guy.... I really don't think using digi or film to take the picture is as important as being satisfied with the result whether you are am amateur taking shots for fun or the full blown professional doing it for a living. Some argue that digi isn't as hard to do as film, but to some of us that haven't been shooting pics for as long as others, it's all still about the basics (lighting, DOF, focus, composition) of taking decent pics. But this is just my humble opinion....

I used to be sort of a Methodist, but don't practice anymore. They are tools, guys. Tools. I've seen what all the above posters can do with their tools of choice, and it is all quite impressive. You all should be very proud of what you do. At this point in time I use a 35mm SLR film camera. Usually with color negative film, Fuji Superia Realia ASA100 is my current favorite, but have been known to use others if the whim takes me. The camera is an old Canon EOS 650, about 20 years old. It is an autofocus automatic everything, which I sometimes I actually use that way. Lately, I have been using it on a tripod, in manual focus/aperature priority mode; slow process, but seems to give the best results. It has the normal canon 50mm which I haven't used in twenty years, a 35-70mm Canon zoom which gets a fair amount of use, a Sigma 180mm macro which is my favorite lens, and a Sigma 170-500mm which is a piece of crap. Haven't priced it recently, but is in a far lower tier than any of the $3000 lenses some folks use. Can't justify more expense because it is a hobby, not a profession. I scan the 35mm negatives using a Nikon LS-1000, which is tempermental, so I've been lusting after an upgrade. Really torn about upgrading all the way to the Nikon 8000, and digging my old 120 RB67 out of mothballs, which in truth was really a pain in the butt to use, but may be just counter-culture enough now to be fun. Or going the digital route altogether. On even days of the week I tend towards digital; on odd, towards analog. So, I find threads like this highly informative. I loved B&W wet darkroom work, and hated catagorically color wet darkroom work. What drove me out of the darkroom was DUST. And the difficulty of drying fibre prints. [Most of my plastic prints turned purple after ten years, and, yes, I did follow the washing instructions.] The product of most of my work now ends up on a computer screen, which is causing me to lean towards digital, but being an engineer, (and somewhat penny-pinching), something bothers me about buying such a big purchase which will soon be obsolete. If I was a professional, with different customer demands, I'd likely make different choices. For digital processing, I use Photoshop v5, and am slowly converting to learn version 7. Computers do get upgraded fairly often, as computers ARE my profession not a hobby. But still not the high-end graphics work-stations that some folks use. [That's one of the nicer things about digital; the end result does not depend altogether that much on the cost or brand of the equipment.]

OK first off I use both film and digital, and for me there are merits for both so thats why I use both, as for digital is for the lazy crap!! Well I dont hold with that or only for happy snappers! come on guys! I have taught many people to take photographs, and the ability of the digital medium for all to experiment with a variety of techniques without breaking the bank are obvious! Therefore it will as a result encourage people into the art of photography!! Did you not play with toy cars before you started driving!!

Danny O'Byrne  http://www.digitalartzone.co.uk/

"All the technique in the world doesn't compensate for the inability to notice" Eliott Erwitt

peterke said it mostly from my point of view. Film will always have its uses and there are areas where digital will not be practical. The "tipping point" occurs when pro type digital is priced the same as pro type film cameras. HAving spent several years learning wet darkroom techniques, both technical and artistic makes you appreciate the ease of pixels for a lot of tasks. At the fine art level film has an edge. Yet check out the Fred Miranda site. Bill

hmmmmm- holds current basic 35mm in one hand & a new digi in the other AAAAAAAHHHHHHH! I can't decide!!!

I had a speed graphic sheet film camera in high school and built a b/w lab. Then decided that 35mm was easier to travel with. Best 35 camera I had was a canon A1 for taking out on the ocean. Now I have a nikkon 6006 and hardly ever use it any more. Just got a digital camera a couple of months ago and love it. There's no beating a real photograph, but, the way technology is going, I'm pretty sure that we will be able to do a lot with digital and make good long lasting prints.

I just got my digital camera late in June, never really photographed anything before - never felt the need. But since I got it, I've taken almost 3000 pictures. The instant part of digital makes it so that learning is much easier, so that each shot can be better than the last. I read through some of the tutorials at the resource center and went and tried some stuff out, and I'm having great fun. I can go out and try something, and if I don't like how it turned out, I can delete and try again. I took the above picture tonight of a big truck with iso50 ,15 second shutter, and f8.0 - full size picture in gallery If I ever really get into photography, I think that I would have to go with film, but until then, I shall have great fun learning how to take pictures better with my digicam.

Just try to shoot wide angle with a digital......unless you have the new contax digital SLR.....good luck....dang CCD/CMOS..... -still waiting