Comments on: Jump into film or digital photography?

By: Bryan Villarin

Bryan Villarin — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 05:20:30 +0000

Wow, excellent additions – thanks guys!

By: the_wolf_brigade

the_wolf_brigade — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 02:57:13 +0000

Thanks for the link

You wrote: “In addition, you don’t have the luxury of on-the-fly ISO switching”

This is true to a certain degree, though some films such as Ilford XP2 and BW400CN have a wide exposure latitude. For example Xp2 has a response range of 160ASA through to 800ASA. Granted the photos taken at 800 tend to lack contrast, but this can always be fixed in post.

Then there is the case of negative films having such a high latitude to begin with.

Finally there is/was Fuji slide film 100/1000. As I understand it you can shoot anywhere between those speeds as long as you don’t change the ISO mid roll like you can with XP2, so in the even that you might be heading to a location with unknown lighting conditions.

Or you could rewind mid roll and exchange the canisters for a higher/lower speed, or even just decide to “push” (compensate in developing for underexposing) the film.

There are always ways. And as Brian showed in his $50 camera project, the startup cost on film is substantially lower!

By: Brian Auer

Brian Auer — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 01:21:40 +0000

I agree with Marcus — old film cameras plus the right film creates something that no amount of Photoshopping can produce. Since I started shooting film, I’ve even cut way back on my digital b/w conversions because I get such better results from actual b/w film.

So yup, both have their merits… which is why I usually take my digital plus a couple of film cameras when I go shooting.

By: Marcus

Marcus — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 01:04:02 +0000

Both have their strengths! I use both. I must say though, there is just something about film and old cameras that you just can’t get out of a DSLR, no matter how expensive it is.