[johnaalex]

I am 53, the first camera I used was a Brownie Box and if I recall correctly I took one or two half decent photos with it (well, for a 10 year old they were OK).

Then came a photographic revolution in the guise of the Kodak Instamatic with its easy to load film cartridges and flash cubes.

When I started work in the 70s some of the guys had Zenit SLRs, at the time the “mut’s nuts” for the enthusiastic amateur. Also, the really serious guys shot slides rather than normal prints and that of course bought a whole new set of equipment into the equation (projectors, slide boxes, screens etc). In the early 80’s I started to travel and bought a Nikon SLR (or took my first step on the road to ruin, depending on your viewpoint). I still have large albums of photos I took on trips, but rarely look at them. Then came the Nikon 990, my first step into digital photography and as the saying goes, I have not looked back.

For those of you who have only known the “Digital Age” you might find it interesting or amusing (hopefully both) to understand the benefits we now have over the days of film:

1) Instant gratification – take a picture, see the result and delete or keep. Compare this to take a picture, wait until you have used the complete film roll, take it to Boots or send it somewhere and then see the results a few days after the event.

2) Colour or Monochrome – that used to depend on which roll of film you used, now with PP software you can have the best and worst of both from the same photo!

3) What ISO/ASA rating should I use – as with the colour/monochrome point, this depended on the roll of film you used, being able to change on a shot by shot basis was not an option.

4) The costs of processing – here the digital age really starts to show financial benefits. With film every picture cost you more as you paid for processing and film (remember you often took more shots than you needed to be sure of getting the shot you wanted as you did not know the result until the film was developed and printed). With digital every picture costs you less! Consider you spend 1,000 Pounds on equipment and take 100 picture – the coats per picture is 10 Pounds. But take a 1000 pictures and the cost is 1 Pound per picture – so shoot more to bring the costs down.

5) Editing, enlarging and copying – unless you had your own dark room and lots of free time this was not an easy option with film. Now all you need is PC and some software (even free software will do) and you have more control over your pictures than ever before.

6) Cataloguing your photos – what a PITA this was with film, writing on the back of the print, logging the negatives, mounting pictures in albums etc. Now with digital let the software organise your photos. The benefits her are not just around noting the the shot was taken at your Granny’s 80th birthday party, but you also have full access to the camera settings in the used in the EXIF data (so maybe you won’t make the same mistake next time).

7) Sharing your photos – no more turning up on your neighbour’s door step with a lobster type tan, a bulging album and a bottle of Vino Collapso from the Costa Packet in the hope they would let you in and not yawn too much as you explained what a great a time you had. Now you can use flickr and a host of other sites and direct e-mail to bore them stiff with the need for face to face conversation and crap wine. Other options include CDs, DVDs, digital picture frames, HD TVs and projectors which you can set up to bore the whole neighbourhood with.

8) Save the planet – just think how many trees have been saved as the need to print gets reduced as we fill up hard discs with all our “Kodak Moments”.

9) Improved capacity – film rolls of 36 shots are now replaced with memory cards capable of holding 100s of pictures (remember the more picture you take the cheaper it gets).

10) Space saving – instead of all those bulky albums or boxes of slides you can store all your pictures on a PC which does not get bigger or heavier when you take more pictures.

Film or digital? I think you know where I stand on that issue!

[Liquid101]

Great post. I agree with pretty much all you say.

Just one thing though.

Occasionally, I get out my files of film and flick through the pages; holding them up to the light and squinting at their tiny negative images. I remember the time I packed the film into my bag, sometimes in lead lined cases to protect their nakedness from damaging airport X rays. Then I recall lovingly loading it into my battered Nikon F3 - the sound of the shutter clanking, and the friction of the film as I wound it on. Then, like a hunter returning from the killing fields, I'd disappear into the darkroom and coax an imagine from the film. The best bit was holding the wet film up to the light, fixer running down my arm, long before the film even saw the drying cabinet and reading the negative, visualising the print. Oh the anticipation! as I'd wait for the film to dry - then loading into the enlarger. Eventually i'd have tested, exposed and gently eased the print into the dev, and impatiently rock the tray, hoping to speed it up. Then the thumb would be in the tray rubbing away on the highlights to warm them up, to drag more detail out. When the print is dry, i'd be out into the natural light - happy that i'd actually created something.

I look at those negs, and feel they've been on a journey with me. The film was with me, next to my nose when I made the photograph. It's just not the same with a RAW file and an SD card.

*pours another glass of wine and wipes a tear away*

[richard plumb]

here is Liquid202's post from AVforums 2018

Originally Posted by Liquid101

Occasionally, I get out my DVD wallet and flick through the pages; slipping them into the drive and squinting at their tiny thumbnails. I remember the time I packed the SD cards into my bag, sometimes in lead lined cases to protect their nakedness from damaging airport X rays. Then I recall lovingly loading it into my battered Nikon D3 - the sound of the shutter clanking. Then, like a hunter returning from the killing fields, I'd disappear into the computer room and coax an imagine from the card reader. The best bit was importing the RAW into lightroom, the mouse cable running down my arm, long before the JPEG even saw the drying cabinet and reading the digital negative, visualising the print. Oh the anticipation! as I'd wait for the TIFF to render - then loading into photoshop. Eventually i'd have tested, exposed and gently eased the RAW into photoshop, and impatiently wiggle the mouse, hoping to speed it up. Then the mouse pointer would be in the tool tray rubbing away on the highlights to warm them up, to drag more detail out. When the print is dry from the printer, i'd be out into the natural light - happy that i'd actually created something.

I look at those DVDs, and feel they've been on a journey with me. The cards were with me, next to my nose when I made the photograph. It's just not the same with a holographic crystal

*pours another glass of wine and wipes a tear away*

its not really that different, is it? Many of the methods are the same, apart from perhaps the element of thought and preparation needed before taking the shot, as you can just chimp and delete.

[senu]

Intersting Post, John
Im not quite 53 (..Yet )and used film , starting too from the ,Box, ( Darkrooom was a garden shed) use a Zenit or 2 ( totally manual) , , stopped for awhile to study and got then picked it up later in University with Canons AE1 , A1 T90 ect making a Bob or 2 in Uni ( Folk would pay for decent Portraits ) ,the the EOS SLrs ending with the EOS 3(.. and now the 30/40D
Do I really miss film now ?, Hell no. for me that era has been and gone;

There really are too many positives with digital to not bother with negatives!( pun unintended)
I still do love Portraits from medium format film though: they scale fantastically well but medium format was never mainstream

Using a broadly similar analogy I do have vinyl and cassette tapes ( not really the same class although similar era) but have to admit Im stuck with CDs . i tunes and MP3 are a bit too compressed compared

[Liquid101]

Originally Posted by richard plumb

here is Liquid202's post from AVforums 2018

its not really that different, is it? .

Excellent

I suppose what I really mean is the physical presence film has. Digital photographs don't really exist in the same way.

Don't get me wrong though - I wouldn't ever go back, and shudder at the thought of all the processes.

[TarMoo]

Being of a similar age to John I would agree will all of his points.

My first SLR was a Pentax ME back in the 1970s followed by a semi-pro Pentax LX in the 1980s. In the 90s I had a couple of Canon EOS SLRs. My first digital camera was a rather expensive Sony compact back around 2000. Since then I bought 2 Canon IXUS compacts before the Nikon D300 digital SLR in 2008. I have thousands of 35mm slide pictures in a box somewhere and another box full of 35mm prints. I never look at any of these.

Back in 2001 I was doing a lot of studio workshops. At this time people were beginning to get into digital SLR, but these were around £2,000 any most people could not afford them. Since then there has been a revolution in photography with film cameras fast becoming an endangered species.

The biggest plus of digital SLRs is that "you can take better pictures". You can review each shot as you take it. Where the picture is good, you can take more like it to try and get a very special one. Where the picture is bad, you can delete it and try again.

I now shoot everything in RAW and use Bibble Labs Pro 4.10 to adjust these RAW images. Almost every image has some minor tweak like recovery of blown highlights, straightening or cropping. Anyone who still shoots JPEGs should seriously take a look at Bibble Labs. It will transform your pictures. I have tried Lightroom, but this is so much more difficult to learn than Bibble.

Flickr is a great was of sharing and receiving feedback on your pictures. You make like a picture and find that nobody else does and conversely you can find one of your pictures is a hit.

The digital photo revolution has allowed many people to rapidly improve there photography in a short period of time.

[senu]

I thought I was the only one who didnt instantly warm to Lightroom
Its great, mind you but folk seem to make out that is is dead easy to use

Digital does make you " a bit Lazy" but it also means you can get to perfection at your own pace without wasting film time and money
Also PP skills are effectively down to you, not the Lab

[johnaalex]

Originally Posted by senu

Also PP skills are effectively down to you, not the Lab

And if not the bloke in the lab, the spotty faced oik on work experience behind the counter in Boots

[ryart]

Originally Posted by richard plumb

its not really that different, is it? Many of the methods are the same, apart from perhaps the element of thought and preparation needed before taking the shot, as you can just chimp and delete.

I rather think you have that the wrong way round. The methods are very different but the one thing that is the same is the element of thought that needs to be put in before pressing the shutter... at least to get a decent shot .

[richard plumb]

Originally Posted by ryart

I rather think you have that the wrong way round. The methods are very different but the one thing that is the same is the element of thought that needs to be put in before pressing the shutter... at least to get a decent shot .

of course if you want a perfect shot you need to consider it. But with digital you can immediately see whether its good or not. If you have a basic understanding of your equipment and have a subject that doesn't require quick reactions, you can dial into a good photo slowly by chimping and adjusting your settings. You could never do that with film, as you didn't know what you'd just shot.

[ryart]

Originally Posted by richard plumb

You could never do that with film, as you didn't know what you'd just shot.

Hmm.... That's exactly what a photographer was expected to do, have enough understanding of their craft to be able to predict what would end up on the film, (must admit that the odd Polaroid could help with multiple lighting types and a studio subject). Even with digital it is a much better approach to get it right first time rather than have to keep chimping () and deleting. I'm not knocking digital, I think its great, but the thing is it can make one lazy and that is not the way to the best pictures.

[richard plumb]

I'm agreeing with you - I think.

Its the lazy part I was trying to get to. Potentially, digital can mean you use less discipline taking your shots. You still need that discipline as you say, but digital makes it tempting to shortcut.

I know I'm guilty of that. I think I could do with taking a course to try and give me some grounding in the proper way to approach photography. I'm new to this and digital only (well, 110 and APS film P&S developed at boots doesn't really count :P )

[senu]

Digital may not be an excuse to take shortcuts but even with the best of intentions ( and skill) your picture may turn out in an unexpected way
In order to compensate for this
, with film you would go through a roll or 2 to get that one perfect shot.. and not know which one it was till later when the film had been developed.
With digital ( and instant feedback) the learning process is a lot more interactive and the immediate chance to see what youve done makes learning a lot more productive , and any mistakes to be immediately corrected. And even if you wanted to take 50 shots to get one.. flash memory is reusable and.. no extra expense, and no long waiting times

Gone are the days when the "purist" would insist you didn't need any skill to get good photographs with digital.. It really is just a different skill with a common goal.
If you really want did want to tinker, DSLRs have a fully manual mode to experiment to your hearts delight but for that " Ive got to get that shot ..now" manual may be best not used
Life isn't about taking the "perfect" picture every single time and if the fun value of digital is getting to see what you've done right away, that cannot be a bad thing
The concepts of framing , "using the light" and choosing the right lens ( and focal length), and camera setting for exposure and creative effect are broadly similar in DSLRs and SLRs and in the end it is the result that counts
I think the recourse to shortcuts and occasional laziness are very small points compared to the huge advances in quality and the undeniable thrill of immediately getting a feedback that digital offers

[Gingerbillc]

What I have learned in 6 weeks would have taken 2 years with film. So as far as beginners go, no contest. I can instantly see what happens by changing aoerture, shutter speed white balance etc.I did try SLR photography in my teens, as far as compared to compact pics at the time the results were fantastic, but crap none the less with no way of knowing what I was doing wrong.
There should be no contest now as digital imagery has caught up to the quality of film. Went to Blackpool yesterday and fired off 100 shots without even realising it, would have been an (even more)expensive day in film. I was able to take indoor, outdoor, landscape and ended the day by catching the Red Arrows coming back to Lytham (although as I was eating my tea on the beach at the time, I missed the best shot as they came in directly over my head- saw a dot, heard a rumble and before I got camera out of bag, multicoloured smoke had been deployed over my head at ~200ft )

[ryart]

Originally Posted by richard plumb

I'm agreeing with you - I think.

Its the lazy part I was trying to get to. Potentially, digital can mean you use less discipline taking your shots. You still need that discipline as you say, but digital makes it tempting to shortcut.

Yes, I think we are in agreement . With film much more knowledge, experience and expertise was needed to get predictable pictures. As such I think more thought needed to put into the shot before taking it. With digital the trial and error approach can circumvent that initial thought. The best way nowadays is to put in the same amount of effort before the shot and then make use of digital for a final tweak.

There used to be a similar debate among sports photographers about whether it was better to use motor-drives or learn to press the shutter at just the right moment. With a motor drive you could get a near enough result all the time. Without a motor-drive you could get a superb result most of the time... needed a lot more skill though.

As Gingerbillc says, for learning about photography digital is of enormous benefit. The difference in quality between beginner/occasional photographer and enthusiast/pro photographer is much narrower these days.

I'm not sure that digital would have improved the photography of Cartier-Bresson, Bill Brandt, Ernst Hass, Edward Weston or Don McCullin though.

Cheers, Malcolm

[TarMoo]

Digital photography has been a great benefit to professional photographers as well as enthusiastic amateurs.

In the days of film it was common for professional photographers to take 4 copies of each shot, two on the "correct" exposure, one 1 stop over and one 1 stop under. The extra shots were for backup and in case the exposure was out slightly on any shot. Of course a polaroid may be used to check the lighting before shooting began. Once the job was complete the negatives were rushed by courier to the lab and collected a few hours later likewise.

With digital you can check instantly if the exposure is correct and adjust accordingly. Backups of the photos are easily made so the photos are more secure. The cost of the film, couriers, film processing all has to be added to the bill to give. To be able to do the same job in digital means that the professional photographer keeps cost down and can get quote lower prices to get more business.

[Steven]

I found out my uni has a film lab and if you bring in negatives will do all that for you for free, though I may have to pass it onto an art student if the technicians get touchy about me not being a strictly art student

I do fancy getting a cheap film camera. To satisfy curiosity and because digital is just not film

Even within my relatively short lifetime compare to some of you (), film is all I have mostly known until I purchased the G9 (January was it? )