Please comment on the percentage of film and digital you use in total in your photography, and briefly describe why you might choose one or the other for certain types of subjects or scenes.

Please comment on the percentage of film and digital you use in total in your photography, and briefly describe why you might choose one or the other for certain types of subjects or scenes.
Do you still shoot with film but find you are using your digital camera more and more?
17% (9 votes)
Do you shoot primarily digital but shoot film now and again?
30% (16 votes)
Do you shoot primarily film but you're just beginning to explore digital?
26% (14 votes)
Do not use film anymore
28% (15 votes)
Total votes: 54

Jim Valentino's picture

Biggest problems with Digital are low archive quality (getting better) and too much time spent at computer instead of taking pictures.

Vinny V.'s picture

I use about 65% film and 35% digital. I tend to use digital if I'm going to shoot a lot of pictures but still think that film is the best way to go especially if you want to learn the technical aspects of photography.

Jimmy Suber's picture

I like the usage of shooting in RAW and doing the ajustments. Also find that the software Photoshop CS too expensive and use the software that came with my camera. Would love to get a copy of Adobe Photoshop CS someday too. Thanks

jim maybray's picture

Your poll reminded me that I need to get my old 35mm out and shoot a roll of film, it's been about 3 years since I paid for developing.

Mark Anderson's picture

I have been a photographer for years and have explored digital for the past year. Quality is not yet as good as with film but the adjustment abilities digital provides are great. Also the fact that no film is used allowing more shooting is wonderful not to mention the ability to shoot several hundred pictures without changing film as well as the conversion factor which makes my 400mm len into about a 600mm one. Next trip to a game park will definitely be on digital.

Chuck Wilson's picture

While digital works in many settings, film still has a role. Digital works well for a lot of the day-to-day work I do--such as speaker shots at meetings and conferences. However, film has a personality that makes it a good choice for photos of industrial processes and locations.

Terri Kimble's picture

I dearly love my Pentax K-1000, and had only planned for the new Nikon 4300 digital to replace my old beat up point & shoot (which I only used when I needed flash, wanted something I could stick in my pocket for one or two pics at dinner, etc). Instead, since getting used to the digital, and experiencing the quality, I'm rarely touching the Pentax!

Michael W.'s picture

In our business as historic architects, rich color, fine detail and geometric accuracy is of the utmost importance. We have an established collection of 35mm film equipment and want to get the most out of it. We use film for anything that has to be professionally prepared. But lately, we have been using a 4 megapixel Canon P&S for everyday job record photos. Not bad, but still no where near the quality level we require for our reports. I have tried a new 8 MP SLR and am starting to get intrigued. As long as we can get the geometric accuracy and manual controls we will likely move in that direction. I believe there has to be a more conscious effort to make sure the sensors in the digital cameras are as precise and flexible as what we have in film -- It is currently not the case, even at the high end. Bright areas in a high contrast scene still have a tendency to wash out the detail in those areas on digital images. Part is due to trying to mate older 35mm film bodies with newer digital guts. Re-think the form and function! the 4/3 format is weird if you ask me but maybe that is part of the solution...? When they produce digital-specialized lenses of comparable quality to current 35mm film models, that will be a big improvement, too. (Call me an old fart, but I'd love to see something digital comparable to the old manual only bare bones film cameras, like the K1000 or MX. It's the image dummy!)

D.  Brakele's picture

The discussion on whether digital is as good as film is very subjective. Digital if used to it's maximum advantage will outweigh film every time. The fact is that no-one can tell visually whether the end result came from a digital camera or film. Digital is much more storable and can be worked on more readily. It's only a matter of time that film will disappear in most forms.

G.  Johnson's picture

When I bought my first digital camera, the Nikon D70, I was absolutely, positively certain that I'd continue to use my Nikon N80 primarily for black and white photography, and particularly because I have a darkroom setup in my home. That has not been the case. I discovered that I can create black and white images with software with much more control on the computer than with the enlarger. The final sign that made me fully aware that I would not be using film anymore was when I was called to shoot an assignment for a local newspaper. I had my N80 in my car as a backup, but had an hour to wait before the assignment began. I began to think about shooting film, processing, waiting, then returning to my editor with the product. So, after some thought, I decided to go home to pick up my D70 and laptop... That was it! I have not touched my N80 for quite some time now. I now own 2 D70's 2 1/2 gigabytes of memory (spread out between 3 CF cards), and some really nice Nikon glass. Shooting with film is history for me. Digital is (IMHO) at least just as good and more convenient than film.

Brad Crews's picture

I use my D100 for most of my paid work or a subject that I know is going to need some touching up. I also use it if I know it's going to take alot of shots to get the one I want. For recreational shooting and Black and White work I still use my F100.

Mike Phillips's picture

I document local history and sports with a camera, to do this with film would break the bank. Latest camera is the Canon 10D and we are doing just fine. I believe I am averaging around 60,000 images a year and have been at it for 6 years now.

Jim Valentino's picture

Film seems better suited for our wedding and portrait photography business.

Willa Condy's picture

I take over a thousand pictures a year with my digital camera. I take the odd picture with film. Mostly I shoot digital now.

Ed Truitt's picture

I tend to use digital for snap-shot type photos, or when I need the image quickly. I also use digital for sports action I photograph karate tournaments as a hobby. During a tournament, I can shoot 800+ images. When I am looking for extra high quality, or when I want to leave the rapid-fire world of the 35mm / digital SLR behind, and take extra time/care with composition, I use a manual 6x6 TLR (Mamiya C330). This not only results in some very good images, but the process of making the photo is in and of itself relaxing. Someday, I hope to do some large format (4x5) work.

Duane Mullen's picture

I have shot 35mm since 1967. The advent of "purse" cameras and 1-hour processing has (in my mind) downgraded the quality of both the processing and the prints. Matte finish prints create obstacles to quality scanning. As digital cameras have climbed up the technology ladder they have allowed even low-end digitals (under 2 mp) to take acceptable "snapshots". Personally, I shoot a 4 mp camera with 10x optical zoom. It's about as big as the cluster of film cartriges I used to carry for my Nikon (and smaller than the Nikon's flash unit)! It took me two (expensive) lenses to get from 28mm - 210mm zoom; the digital gets me to the equivalent of >300, with the optical zoom alone. There are issues of autofocus, technique, shooting mode, and capture time with the digitals, but these can be "learned" into non-issues. I've shot with five digitals, ranging from <1 mp to >4 mp, in the past several years (two personal, three at work) and I am still learning stuff. There are things I can control with the 35mm system that are not available or not so easy with the digitals. My work digitals have been higher-end Nikons with capabilities for industrial detail. My personal digital cameras are both Kodaks, the latest being a satisfactory cross between capability and cost. My next big purchase will probably be an "affordable" (?) negative / transparency scanner to enable me to digitize 37+ years of film-based phototography; but that's another topic. I may never quit using my 35mm equipment; but already I find that some of those skills are getting rusty. I like the continuous tone of "real" photographs, but photo-quality printers are making that a non-issue, too. Total cost: camera, printer & supplies, software, etc. may make good digital photography a cost issue for many people.

Deborah A Hahn's picture

Actually none of the above. I shoot with film and scan. With new slide film and long term archivility and quality, I am committed to film instead of pixels.