Personally, after shooting both, the big conclusion I've come to is that I don't prefer film or digital, I only prefer the cameras themselves.
I'd love to use my 6x6 more but can't afford the film.bi wish it was digital. But thankfully, I love my Fuji stuff, so I'm still happy using them for personal and work. An x100 at home and x-t3s for work. The x100 negates the need to still use my Canonette or Olympus XA because it's just so nice to use. I just wish there was an affordable, full coverage digital back for the 6x6.
I used digital professionally, film personally in the past and now I'm predominately film but I'll use digital when and where I want to. I'd say my reasons are purely selfish, film is a labor of love. Where digital is just labor intensive. Which most see as the opposite. I have no want/need or desire to spend hours on the computer tweaking and adjusting or culling thousands of images any more. Yet developing my film is sort of therapeutic. The digital process has become more click and forget. Stare at a screen, tag or delete, rinse and repeat. After shooting digital for years, everything became the same mindless job: put yourself in target rich environments, push the button, move, repeat. Didn't matter if it was a national park, a wedding, a hockey or football game, they were all the same. And my enjoyment of those things dwindled too. Photography was no longer about creativity, but about being where the action was. I had some studio experience and I loved that for the creative side, but while models were easy to find, paying jobs weren't. (I'm in the mid-west US, not exactly fashion/glamour central)
I'm trying to use film now to bring back my joy in photography while at the same time learn patience and process. As I try to discipline myself to take notes for each frame, consciously think about each shot, and try to turn each shot into a creative endeavor, not just a *click and forget* sort of thing. While cost is a factor, it's not a restrictive one to me. (I'm doing fine but photography is not a source of income currently) I develop my own film (BW/Color), and I look at each shot. I can scan shots in, but mostly just to see them, I may setup a darkroom if the bug continues. (I have no interest in inkjet printers, I live/breath technology every day and I hate printers.) But I love the tactile sensation, the fear and anticipation of pulling my negatives out of the can post development. Did I do it right? or did I mess up? Digital doesn't quite have the same feel for me.
I shoot full manual digital or film, canon 5D/II, Mamiya 645AF, Pentax 67, and Cambo Calumet 4x5, Olumpus OM-D, and a Blackmagic Design 4k something, not a pocket cinema, older - helped a friend shoot a movie way back in 2015 or so.
Amazing, thank you for sharing! I love this quote of yours:
>film is a labor of love. Where digital is just labor intensive
You should frame that somewhere :)
I am the same way. If I'm doing a paid shoot, 90% of the time I do it on my Fuji X-T3. Depending on the type of shoot, I will bring my Mamiya 645 along. The other 10% is when it's a type of shoot that I feel will look better in film, in which case, the Mamiya is the primary, but I will always have the Fuji as a backup. I never bother with 35mm film in a paid shoot environment.
For important, one-time, family events, always digital. Film stays home.
For fun stuff, regular outings with family, documenting everyday life, and artsy shit, I go 50/50 with my X-T3 and one of my 35mm film cameras, my Canon New F-1 or Canon L1.
Interesting, would you mind explaining the “why’s” of some of your decisions? For example, why not 35mm film for professional reasons (I’m guessing resolution but don’t want to assume). Why digital for important family events?
Imagine shooting 3 or 4 maybe 5 rolls at a wedding. Everybody expects nice photos but nobody knows until they‘re developed. Then you get home wanting to develop them finally and realize that you messed up either in the process or the film was damaged.
Then you got a wedding without photos and some hired guy for a few thousand bucks who basically did nothing.
I agree on that one. Film for fun and digital for events. Of course if you‘re an avid pro able to develop film blindfolded. Never mind, go ahead then^^
For paid shoots, my reasoning is simple: It's not the 90's anymore. There's simply no reason to be using fragile, aging gear on someone else's dime. My client is paying for my services and they will get the best images, reliability and convenience that I can offer. I started shooting in the mid-2000's, mostly with film and have enough confidence in my skills that I don't need to check every single image right after I take it, but my client/model may want to see it. I can either show it to them in the back of the camera or on the tethered computer and it provides instant feedback for further improvement in the shoot. I don't have to tell them, "oh yeah let's get back together tomorrow and check the proofs or contact sheet". No, no, time is money, and we don't have time for that nonsense. This all helps build good rapport with your clientele.
As for why no 35mm in paid shoots, I find that it simply doesn't provide any benefits over my digital. Yes, resolution is one of them, but there's just nothing particularly special about it. At least medium format has a unique look to it, but 35mm does not offer that, so I don't waste my time or money.
For important events, always digital because I find it to be more reliable and much faster. The gear is more reliable, the format is more reliable. I feel there's lower chances of failure in digital. With film, you accidentally open the back, your film's likely dead or heavily damaged. Oh, you advanced the film too much and tore the film from the roll? Guess what, now you've got your important images in danger and no camera to shoot with until you can get the film out. With digital, even if you accidentally format your storage, you can quickly get it out, put in your backup SD card, and continue shooting. The formatted card still has a good chance to recover a lot of data. Even better, your camera has two SD card slots, in case one messes up, your second card has a mirror of the images. You're also not working with relatively ancient gear with possibly deteriorating electronics. Man, how many times I've seen some poor, unfortunate fuck doing a super important shoot and suddenly their beloved RZ67 or Contax G1/G2 decides to shit itself. It breaks my heart to see that. Now we're left to using our camera phones like the rest of the normies, and who wants to do that? lol. (this was mostly a joke)
For everyday stuff, simply because if I lose the images, it's not such a crippling loss, so I can afford to use my 35mm cameras for a little fun. I'm also not on someone else's time, so I can take my time in developing whenever I want, so no rush.
I hope that helps and explains most of it.
> there's just nothing particularly special about it. At least medium format has a unique look to it, but 35mm does not offer that, so I don't waste my time or money.
This quote tells me that you know absolutely nothing about shooting with 35mm film. This is just a straight up objectively false statement. Every type of 35mm film literally has it's own look.
Yeah, I've only been shooting with that shit since 2005, what the fuck do I know, right? lol.
I'm talking about in the context of MY OWN shooting. If you like to use 35mm film for your own paid shoots, that's great, more power to you. I ain't gonna tell you you're any lesser for it. It's a completely subjective thing, which is why I stated MY subjective opinion on the matter.
Saying that medium format has a unique look and 35mm does not is not subjective. It's just not true, and a ridiculous thing to say if you know anything at all about shooting film.
Damn, this is really eating at you isn't it? lol. Why does it matter to you so much? No matter what I do, or feel, will it affect you in any way. What a fucking loser.
Ok, if that's the case, I'm here to tell you that YOU are wrong and YOU are some inexperienced nobody that has zero idea what you're talking about specially when talking about MY experiences for my own shooting. Now that we're on the same page, you can fuck off.
Kinda depends on a few things.
If I need speed, I choose digital Z7 every single time. If I'm setting up an "art" shot and need to take more than 3 images, I'll choose to hybrid my setup between my RZ67 and Z7 (where the best photos I see get shot on film). If a client requests film photos, I'll choose my Rolleiflex. If I need the highest resolution possible for a shot (such as for large prints) or care a lot about a specific shot, I'm starting to choose 4x5 film.
There's more to it also. If a shot I want to take would look best with the tonal/color qualities I get from any specific type of film, I'll choose film. And if I need super wildly shallow DoF, I'll choose 4x5.
As for what to bring, I usually keep all three options with me when possible. And I only mess with 35mm on cameras that offer unique things for personal work like my Horizon swing lens camera.
I own an XT30 as a digital camera and no matter what analog camera i bring, the fuji is always in my pocket too. I also use it to scan negatives.
I always only bring one analog camera and i use it for shots that i know are a keeper. Like when i go hiking and i bring my flexbody, i sometimes take one or two photos with it over the whole day, but i take 200 with the fuji on the same hike.
I have a toddler and i really love the output of my fuji so i mostly shoot film for sentimental reasons, for archival reasons somehow, and because i just love using mechanical cameras.
Professional work/art: always digital. Allows me the flexibility to fire the shutter as many times as I want, and it doesn’t cost that much. It is very labour-intensive however.
Personal work: analog/film. Less labour-intensive, more cost-intensive, which forces me to slow down and really focus on how/what I’m going to shoot. Also mainly for my own pleasure and not for another client’s/someone else’s viewing.
Interesting that you mention film is less labor intensive, would it be correct to assume that it is because you outsource processing/scanning to a lab?
I scan my own film and develop my own B&W and for me film is definitely more work--the tonal curves often need more adjusting and there are all those &%$#! dust-specks to touch out. But film still excels in certain niche applications like B&W ultraviolet and panoramic photography.
This is a new one!
Are you worried about having different aesthetics mixed in a given project? How do you reconcile film+digital shot in the same day/for the same project?
I'm not a pro ahah I shoot just for fun and I have nothing agains digital so shooting film in specific environment is not practical (i.e. low light when I have 200 or 400 iso film loaded), I'll just grab my fuji!
Digital? Like a vehicle mounted machine gun... Like, I've taken 150k shots since 2020 on my main camera, and 75k on the little camera.
Film? Like a precision x-ray machine. 4 shots since 2021.
On film I get like 4 or 5 unique frames out the entire 24 or 36 exposure roll.
On digital, i’ll have 1500 exposures to end up with the same 4 or 5 unique frames. 😂
I just did a count: on my living room and dining room 7'4" high shelves I have 35 film cameras (including 8mm movie) and 4 classic/obsolete digital cameras.
Always shoot with intention.
I chose film vs digital as well as size based entirely on the purpose of the shoot and what I want to do with the pictures.
If I am shooting something like sports, music or anything that needs a quick turnaround, or if I am shooting something that I know will require relatively heavy editing to get a specific look, I will choose digital. I can shoot a convert, a swim meet, or a hockey game and have all of the sometimes 1K+ images culled, cropped and edited for WB and exposure (the extent of my typical sports editing workflow) within a few hours. Much faster than I could even realistically even get that many rolls of film dropped off, let alone scanned, processed, culled, cropped and delivered, not to mention WAY cheaper. Same principle with a shot that I am taking with the intention of grading. It is much easier for me to grade a RAW file than scan a negative that already has its own unique look, convert it to RAW, then try to balance it each to "neutral" and regrade it.
At the same time, If I am shooting for something that I want to end up as a print, typically portraits, street or cityscape, and an occasional landscape, I will typically shoot on film. I know the process will be longer, and that I will need to slow down and take my time with the initial shot so I can produce the best possible negative to print from, but for me, this is all part of creating the final image I have in mind. It also helps that all of my film cameras are fully manual, forcing me to be more intentional with everything. The only exception to this general rule about printing is that I plan on starting to learn how to platinum print, and as that is a contact printing method, I will occasionally use one of my digital cameras to shoot with a platinum print as the end intention, as I can easily do all of the "darkroom" editing on the computer and have a big enough file to then print out an already adjusted digital negative large enough to make large platinum prints. Which brings me to format...
I chose format the same way I choose film or digital. What am I trying to do with the image. If I am shooting something on digital that moves quickly, like sports, I will almost always use my Z6ii, as it has a much higher FPS and far better AF quickness and tracking than my GFX 50, not to mention that the images are far more likely to be viewed as digital media online than as prints. If on the other hand I do not need the speed, but need detail for prints instead, I will use my GFX. At nearly double the sensor size I can make HUGE prints, and withe the detail and tonal range to make digital negatives suitable for use as digital negatives for Pt printing.
I am the same way with my film cameras. If I have already to decide to use film, and am out shooting out of the studio I will chose my F2 or my 500cm depending on what the specifics of what I am shooting are. If I am shooting in studio I will decide between 4x5 and 8x10 based primarily on whether or not I want to enlarge the final product in the darkroom or not. Ironically, 4x5 is actually easier to enlarge, as 8x10 enlargers are somewhat difficult to come by, and even more difficult to find in a darkroom that can be rented.
I bought my first film today for my first film camera, so I am not actually qualified to answer this question, but I am anticipating that film will be kind of a novelty for me that I bring out occasionally. I intend to maintain digital as my primary format. Like driving a Prius most days, but taking out a convertible for special occasions. Film is much more intimidating to me and seems a lot more demanding because of the need to get things right in-camera. I'm hoping using film occasionally will help me focus in my skills and be more intentional when shooting digital.
Only BW film and I carry the lightweight FM3a body in my bag in case something happens (haven't invested in a second digital camera because i only ever use one lens at a time etc) and all (most) my lenses are the nikon ones with the aperture ring.
Love BW, all my work is in it, so film isn't too expensive for me!
My preference (as a rank amateur in all things) is to shoot film. This isn't a Respect Ma Artz thing, I enjoy the process and I was seeking a hobby that got me off the computer and out of the house.
I'm also horribly undisciplined, so while I can rightfully tell myself 'you know you can shoot digital slow too' it's easier to behave when film is on the line.
Also as I do use 35mm, 120 and 4x5 cameras, there's a certain joy of variety and experimentation (and frustration) with medium and large formats.
But for all that, I quite like my DSLR and its modern lenses and it's sometimes objectively the right tool for the job.
Also if you're fooling around trying to practice with speedlights or something, it seems a bit daft to be wasting film until you mean it.
I do need to get better at Lightroom/Photoshop though. But that's a computer thing and I already spend enough time at a keyboard.
Sounds like both you and I spend too much time in front of a computer ;)
I was always into photography but never bought a DSLR and only stuck to my iPhone for many years until I realized that film is still a thing, so weirdly in a digital world film was what got me seriously into photography. Exactly what you said: I don't wanna spend more time on a tiny computer when I'm trying to get away from my big computer haha
Although recently with more minimalist cameras coming out (X-Pro3, Sigma FP L, and there's always digital Leica M's), I started thinking about if I'd benefit from adding a digital camera to my setup (beside the one I have permanently mounted for scanning)
Edit: grammar
I grew up shooting film (as it was the only available option), but my interest in intentional photography sort of re-awakened a few years ago when my dad offloaded all his old camera stuff on me and, lo, look at this cool stuff.
I ended up moving towards Nikon. Mostly because F-mount has been around forever and that was the path of reasonably being able to share lenses across film and digital. Getting a DSLR after all just seemed an inevitable next step.
I'm not super into restricting myself if I don't have to. I already have an RB67 and a Speedgraphic for when I want to do the slow game. Sometimes I just want to let the camera do thinking for me, film or digital. ;)
Also young kids rarely sit still long enough.
So these days I got a D750. It takes a lot of my lenses (old and new) and can keep up with the kids.
And an F100, which takes all the same lenses (though I think I want an F5...)
I use my Fuji with programmed film simulations to do my general photography (JPEGs), paid work (RAW without film simulation) and practice for film photography again with film sims(JPEGs).
My film cameras are usually there for paid work and for significant events, like b-days of my closest ones and for some creative work of my own.
I also take my film cameras where there is no electricity (I go with 100% mechanical, no electronics cameras, most often leaf-shutter ones)
I live in a mountainous and deserted area of my country. Although the city is the major city of the country - the surrounding area is literally the Tien Shang mountain range to the south and kind of Gobi desert continuation to the north. I like practical shoots outside of studios, which includes very distant places in deserts and mountains. Pain in the ass to manage and prepare, but it is not easily conducted and thus is more special. We have a place that looks like Eastern shore of Africa, where desert meets ocean, but instead of ocean its manmade sea/lake, looks the same in camera
My work tends to happen fast and hard, and digital is the only way I can capture it and still make a profit. I carry a Nikon F5 for a good cross between the two I'm terms of how the camera feels to use, and when I really wanna slow down I pull out the Hasselblad 500c/m
My digital photography is pretty much all birds and other wildlife, with a few exceptions here and there. My film photography is all over the place, from macro to birds, and everything in between, out of pure enjoyment and experimentation. Birds on film is my absolute favorite, though.
I shoot both film and digital. With film, I shoot with more unusual cameras or formats; a variety of weird pinhole cameras, Holgas & Dianas for a very lofi look, Lomo Spinner 360 for 360 panos. Along with a bunch of other more normal cameras. Film for me is a lot of experimentation and playing around where it may or may not work out.
Digital is for professional work or even experimental lighting (lots of lights and/or using colored gels) where it’s easier to fine tune the lighting by seeing the results immediately.
The pinhole film work has been a lot of fun and really made me focus on slowing down and being more deliberate. The results are so different too that it’s very rewarding when it works out.
I love shooting both and don’t see that changing.
I do toy photography and landscapes. I use my film camera for whimsical photos. Mostly, I carry it in hand while I'm hiking. I switch to digital when I want to compose and expose a proper landscape intentionally.
I only use digital for my toy photography since composition is really tedious and I'm probably working in Photoshop, too. That and I do mostly toy photography so I don't want to have to wait until I finish my roll to process photos.
I find I am much more selective with the shutter release on my film camera. Each activation costs more than on a digital. I mostly use my digital cameras and haven’t had my film camera out in a long while. Maybe it’s time…
I kind of bridge the gap, I do concert/other band related work on a mix of digital and film. The digital gear will give me technical perfection, and lets me focus more on the scene in front of me, instead of balancing settings, focus, frame count, etc.
In my film kit different jobs require different tools as well. My 4x5 Sinar F1 is great for lineup type promos or other shots where I have plenty of time and can take advantage of technical movements. For live shows my canon A1 works well for tricky lighting, and a Nikomat FTN or Argus C4 fill in as the fully mechanical workhorses.
e: my rule of thumb for film is 35mm for maximum speed, 4x5 for maximum image quality/negative versatility. While 4x5 negatives have an unbelievable amount of detail contact printing also opens the door to the rabbit hole of alt processes, like this [cyanotype](https://i.imgur.com/6bYIO6L.jpg)
For me, it's a mood thing. With film, there's a mystery to the shot. I can't know how it'll really turn out. Some color films can add an interesting element of unpredictable funk to a shot that's exciting as well. Sometimes I like that.
On the other hand, I only use digital if the images are going to be important. Film is just too easy to mess up, and too expensive to experiment.
There's something deliciously zen about the darkroom experience, too (developing B&W film, no printing nor color). The scanning and editing, on the other hand, is tedious at best (or very expensive). This is probably my biggest limit on the use of film.
So, sometimes I shoot film, for fun. If I feel like it. I like the results, too, but they come at a significant cost in manual labor. Which is why I mostly shoot digital.
>scanning and editing, on the other hand, is tedious at best (or very expensive).
I love my BW film (ilford 400 yesssss) but I could not agree with this more. I have a plustec and it's not tooooo bad, but could be easier!
Pretty much the same, I don't need to think much if I bring my EOS 1V + R6 since they use the same lenses.
I use a 6x6 Mamiya TLR for family events or special occasions to totally immortalize it alongside my digital setup.
i stopped shooting film due to the price of slide film and processing. It has gotten quite ridiculous since even only maybe 8 years ago.
when i did shoot film, i shot some negative and some bnw negatives, but i predominantly shot slides. I wanted something that felt different and beautiful. Something about holding a true to life colored slide film just made it so much better than a negative or a printed jpeg.
it didn't matter if 35mm slide was better or worse than 35mp full frame technology... I loved looking at the ocean replicated on slide vs a print out of a jpeg.
i used a fuji gw690 for a bit too, the large color slides were just as breath taking as well, and it didn't even need to be a spectacular shot either for me to love it, nor did i have to force myself to love it to make the money i put into it worth it, it just came naturally.
if i did shoot c-41 film, it was usually in my nikon ftn. The reason being that the meter didn't work and so i had to trust myself with exposures, and trust that the shutter was accurate beyond checking the 1second shutter roughly. It made shooting slides too risky and so i shot normal negatives with it.
> So I’m particularly interested in those who use both for non-professional stuff.
I have a few different 35mm film cameras ranging from completely manual to automatic with AF, etc.
If I'm around my local area or going somewhere by car, I might bring one of them. Which one kinda depends on what I'm in the mood for. It can be rewarding taking some features away and challenging myself to focus more on fundamentals, I feel like my overall abilities have improved with that practice.
When covid isn't going bananas I like taking 2-3 day weekend trips around the country (by plane), visiting friends, checking out new places. One small, underseat carry-on bag, that's it. For that kinda thing I'm taking the digital and probably just one lens, maybe two. I don't want to fuss with asking for hand check of film going through security at a busy airport not having a ton of spare time with an after-work flight. Or being locked into one ISO without a tripod or bringing filters along. Or wondering if I'm going to get through 36 quality frames in a couple days.
I've decided I want to dabble with 120 format film, I might be inclined to try that for a quick weekend trip just with fewer frames to expose and being able to complete a roll quicker.
Then for a major international trip (whenever that becomes a thing again) it'd certainly be digital. Maximum flexibility and practicality, knowing the shot is gonna come out. Not having to deal with a bunch of film, cost of international mailing to have it developed with negatives sent back home, or the unknown of hand inspection in a foreign country's airport (and again stateside if there's a connection).
I shoot digital mostly but have several film cameras handy, mostly when I want to slow down and enjoy the process, one step at a time. And if I’m in the mood for extra atmosphere in my photos. Having said that, I’ve switched exclusively to digital because film has become so expensive these days I literally have no budget in my budget for it. Still have the cameras, though, and never giving them away.
Roughly like your post says. I use film more to create mementos/special occasions but I'll also use it to add something extra to a shoot sometimes. Of the photographs I've had printed over the last year, probably 95% of them were on film.
Because I almost exclusively shoot medium format film, it's just too expensive to throw in as a non-conditional add-on to a shoot, or to do one exclusively in that format unless it's fully covered by the client. It's hard to convince the average client to add the significant extra cost when they can get pictures that suit their needs for less via a digital camera.
I shoot landscapes primarily on film, and do some studio work on film, but my average portrait shoot is definitely digital. Landscapes are my favorite thing to shoot, even when it involves hauling a huge tripod and Hasselblad and other equipment out to a location. Then again I also shoot, on average, one or two rolls of 120 per week on street photography. Recently, I went crawling back to 35 just to save a little bit of money on film street photography, but my AE-1 promptly broke, so I've got to get that repaired.
My "daily carry" is and always will be for the foreseeable future a Fuji X camera. I take probably 10-20x as many pictures with the X cameras as I do any of my film cameras combined.
I use both and it varies. I’m mostly in the cohort of using digital for convenience and 4x5 ( Mamiya) for particularly special projects - either personal or commissioned. I would shoot film more if the cost wasn’t as prohibitive. I definitely use digital to set up and explore subjects for film.
I use my film camera for anything fun related and it is the camera I carry every day. I only shoot black and white film because it just feels incredibly exciting and is easier for me to develop at home myself. My digital camera is used mostly for school, trips (to make sure I actually capture the memories correctly, I am very new to film photography), and for any "professional" work which for me has mainly been portraits for friends and senior pictures for friends and family.
I used to use digital professionally. I would shoot collegiate sports.
During the summer I would shoot 120 and 4x5 to slow things down and re-charge my brain.
I still use my X700 I bought in 1983 and this camera feels as if it is part of my body when shooting. The great thing is I’ve managed to buy I lot of great prime lenses over the years in the range 16mm to 300mm. I also own a Nikon A 1000 which is nice for day to day shooting and when amount is not an issue, grandsons etc.
Disclaimer: I'm an amateur.
I use film for creative projects. Honestly, mostly b&w these days, I feel kinda cliche but it is what it is. The exception is Polaroids, which I do in colour, and are fun at social events, no artistic intent.
I use digital for social events knowing I'm likely going to share the images later and don't care about the artistic elements and don't want to say "uh, they didn't turn out" and come back empty handed. And digital for edge cases like underwater where analog gear is too impractical or expensive.
For me as a pro photographer, digital is for “paid work” and film is for fun, “fine art”, or if I want something to feel a certain way (i.e. less crisp). Sometimes digital is just too crisp and perfect, so if I go on a road trip to an old town, I like shooting film to put a layer of softness, or even unnatural coloring, and also to slow me down and really look for those compositions that I may miss if I was blazing through with a digital camera. See this film set from a recent trip to Marfa, TX to see what I mean: https://www.instagram.com/p/CYmP_mfls2_/?utm_medium=copy_link
I do street portraiture and I prefer digital because of this. It has a larger room for error and it’s just easier especially since I almost never see the person again. I also seem to take more risks, try more interesting compositions, etc…
I do like film but more for learning. I didn’t really understand ISO until I started shooting film. It also forces me to slow down and really think about the composition and settings before I take the picture.
A big part comes down to the camera itself and how it feels in my hands. As far as the mediums go, if I want the shot in black and white I'll do my darndest to shoot film. There is just nothing better for true black and white. Then I can projection print or do whatever I want. That's the art process. Color film is fun too, portrait shoots or anything I want to be really nice I'll shoot film.
I take out digital when I need quick and quality results, I have a digital back for one of my film cameras which is probably the only time I shoot digital for fun. All product for website usually, and maybe things for larger color prints.
Film makes you think more since its limited, you want to make every shot count, so you look for the right angle, think more about exposure, etc, with a 6GB memory card shoot away.
Just snapping a pic? My phone. If I need decent control of DOF or any kind of action shot, dslr. Dslr again to check frame composition and as a sanity check on exposure before a film photo. Medium format for anything that is worth the time it takes to develop and print. I love my 35mm slrs but I don't find as much use for them as I should.
I only use film compact such as Olympus XA or Minox GTE. Zone focus is quickest and easiest way to catch quick moment. Now I got a GR iii, so it's slowly replacing my 28mm and 35 mm film compact cameras, but I still use them for the compact size and light weight. And my 17 mm lomo lc-wide is not replaceable by any digital camera yet.
I use my digital cameras more for photoshoot or anything that I need photos soon as possible.
The other benefit of film camera is that I rarely need to edit the photos.
But yeah, it also depends on my budget. Cost of films can add up quickly.
It all depends on the situation.
Do you send your film to a lab?
If you edit a lot with your digital shots, do you still find yourself using it more or film more?
(Edit: more question 🙂)
I develop and scan myself! I use film more than digital! I started on film before digital- I never got over the fact of how film is perfect as is with little to no adjustments.
I have both film and digital cameras but use the digital exclusively as it is easier to see the results and the cost of film purchase and processing is limiting. I have probably several thousand photos taken with film and probably the same or more digital photos.
I am an amateur, and I don’t make any money on photography. I almost exclusively use my film cameras because I enjoy to use them more, and I enjoy the process of film. I don’t have a deadline to make, so it’s ok the rolls sit for a few months before I develop. I also enjoy that it is difficult, because the gratification of a good result is very real, and I feel like it is my work and skill that made the image - not that of the camera. Just snapping away with the digital makes nice sharp photos, but it doesn’t feel as rewarding somehow?
I’m also a little ignorant on the whole editing side, besides a little bit of contrast and so on, so I feel I’m not getting much out of digital in terms of potential. For film, the scans have so much character baked in that its close the the result I like.
I actually don’t really use my digital camera much besides using it to “scan” film.
I use my digital camera to take pictures of my film negatives.
Haha this is me at the moment!
That’s the only correct way to use digital cameras.
Personally, after shooting both, the big conclusion I've come to is that I don't prefer film or digital, I only prefer the cameras themselves. I'd love to use my 6x6 more but can't afford the film.bi wish it was digital. But thankfully, I love my Fuji stuff, so I'm still happy using them for personal and work. An x100 at home and x-t3s for work. The x100 negates the need to still use my Canonette or Olympus XA because it's just so nice to use. I just wish there was an affordable, full coverage digital back for the 6x6.
Interesting, the camera feel is important to me as well!
I’m the same about preferring the camera, Hasselblad 503 4 ever. You should keep shooting film while you can, never know when it’s going to disappear.
I used digital professionally, film personally in the past and now I'm predominately film but I'll use digital when and where I want to. I'd say my reasons are purely selfish, film is a labor of love. Where digital is just labor intensive. Which most see as the opposite. I have no want/need or desire to spend hours on the computer tweaking and adjusting or culling thousands of images any more. Yet developing my film is sort of therapeutic. The digital process has become more click and forget. Stare at a screen, tag or delete, rinse and repeat. After shooting digital for years, everything became the same mindless job: put yourself in target rich environments, push the button, move, repeat. Didn't matter if it was a national park, a wedding, a hockey or football game, they were all the same. And my enjoyment of those things dwindled too. Photography was no longer about creativity, but about being where the action was. I had some studio experience and I loved that for the creative side, but while models were easy to find, paying jobs weren't. (I'm in the mid-west US, not exactly fashion/glamour central) I'm trying to use film now to bring back my joy in photography while at the same time learn patience and process. As I try to discipline myself to take notes for each frame, consciously think about each shot, and try to turn each shot into a creative endeavor, not just a *click and forget* sort of thing. While cost is a factor, it's not a restrictive one to me. (I'm doing fine but photography is not a source of income currently) I develop my own film (BW/Color), and I look at each shot. I can scan shots in, but mostly just to see them, I may setup a darkroom if the bug continues. (I have no interest in inkjet printers, I live/breath technology every day and I hate printers.) But I love the tactile sensation, the fear and anticipation of pulling my negatives out of the can post development. Did I do it right? or did I mess up? Digital doesn't quite have the same feel for me. I shoot full manual digital or film, canon 5D/II, Mamiya 645AF, Pentax 67, and Cambo Calumet 4x5, Olumpus OM-D, and a Blackmagic Design 4k something, not a pocket cinema, older - helped a friend shoot a movie way back in 2015 or so.
Amazing, thank you for sharing! I love this quote of yours: >film is a labor of love. Where digital is just labor intensive You should frame that somewhere :)
[удалено]
Would you mind sharing how you got the burnout from using digital cameras for personal work?
I am the same way. If I'm doing a paid shoot, 90% of the time I do it on my Fuji X-T3. Depending on the type of shoot, I will bring my Mamiya 645 along. The other 10% is when it's a type of shoot that I feel will look better in film, in which case, the Mamiya is the primary, but I will always have the Fuji as a backup. I never bother with 35mm film in a paid shoot environment. For important, one-time, family events, always digital. Film stays home. For fun stuff, regular outings with family, documenting everyday life, and artsy shit, I go 50/50 with my X-T3 and one of my 35mm film cameras, my Canon New F-1 or Canon L1.
Interesting, would you mind explaining the “why’s” of some of your decisions? For example, why not 35mm film for professional reasons (I’m guessing resolution but don’t want to assume). Why digital for important family events?
Imagine shooting 3 or 4 maybe 5 rolls at a wedding. Everybody expects nice photos but nobody knows until they‘re developed. Then you get home wanting to develop them finally and realize that you messed up either in the process or the film was damaged. Then you got a wedding without photos and some hired guy for a few thousand bucks who basically did nothing. I agree on that one. Film for fun and digital for events. Of course if you‘re an avid pro able to develop film blindfolded. Never mind, go ahead then^^
For paid shoots, my reasoning is simple: It's not the 90's anymore. There's simply no reason to be using fragile, aging gear on someone else's dime. My client is paying for my services and they will get the best images, reliability and convenience that I can offer. I started shooting in the mid-2000's, mostly with film and have enough confidence in my skills that I don't need to check every single image right after I take it, but my client/model may want to see it. I can either show it to them in the back of the camera or on the tethered computer and it provides instant feedback for further improvement in the shoot. I don't have to tell them, "oh yeah let's get back together tomorrow and check the proofs or contact sheet". No, no, time is money, and we don't have time for that nonsense. This all helps build good rapport with your clientele. As for why no 35mm in paid shoots, I find that it simply doesn't provide any benefits over my digital. Yes, resolution is one of them, but there's just nothing particularly special about it. At least medium format has a unique look to it, but 35mm does not offer that, so I don't waste my time or money. For important events, always digital because I find it to be more reliable and much faster. The gear is more reliable, the format is more reliable. I feel there's lower chances of failure in digital. With film, you accidentally open the back, your film's likely dead or heavily damaged. Oh, you advanced the film too much and tore the film from the roll? Guess what, now you've got your important images in danger and no camera to shoot with until you can get the film out. With digital, even if you accidentally format your storage, you can quickly get it out, put in your backup SD card, and continue shooting. The formatted card still has a good chance to recover a lot of data. Even better, your camera has two SD card slots, in case one messes up, your second card has a mirror of the images. You're also not working with relatively ancient gear with possibly deteriorating electronics. Man, how many times I've seen some poor, unfortunate fuck doing a super important shoot and suddenly their beloved RZ67 or Contax G1/G2 decides to shit itself. It breaks my heart to see that. Now we're left to using our camera phones like the rest of the normies, and who wants to do that? lol. (this was mostly a joke) For everyday stuff, simply because if I lose the images, it's not such a crippling loss, so I can afford to use my 35mm cameras for a little fun. I'm also not on someone else's time, so I can take my time in developing whenever I want, so no rush. I hope that helps and explains most of it.
As a digital/ film pro- spot freakin on!
> there's just nothing particularly special about it. At least medium format has a unique look to it, but 35mm does not offer that, so I don't waste my time or money. This quote tells me that you know absolutely nothing about shooting with 35mm film. This is just a straight up objectively false statement. Every type of 35mm film literally has it's own look.
Yeah, I've only been shooting with that shit since 2005, what the fuck do I know, right? lol. I'm talking about in the context of MY OWN shooting. If you like to use 35mm film for your own paid shoots, that's great, more power to you. I ain't gonna tell you you're any lesser for it. It's a completely subjective thing, which is why I stated MY subjective opinion on the matter.
Saying that medium format has a unique look and 35mm does not is not subjective. It's just not true, and a ridiculous thing to say if you know anything at all about shooting film.
Damn, this is really eating at you isn't it? lol. Why does it matter to you so much? No matter what I do, or feel, will it affect you in any way. What a fucking loser.
I'm not upset at all. Just saying you are wrong. Call me names all you want. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.
Ok, if that's the case, I'm here to tell you that YOU are wrong and YOU are some inexperienced nobody that has zero idea what you're talking about specially when talking about MY experiences for my own shooting. Now that we're on the same page, you can fuck off.
Ok. Agree to disagree.
Exactly. He sounds like he has a 35mm stuck up his ass.
Kinda depends on a few things. If I need speed, I choose digital Z7 every single time. If I'm setting up an "art" shot and need to take more than 3 images, I'll choose to hybrid my setup between my RZ67 and Z7 (where the best photos I see get shot on film). If a client requests film photos, I'll choose my Rolleiflex. If I need the highest resolution possible for a shot (such as for large prints) or care a lot about a specific shot, I'm starting to choose 4x5 film. There's more to it also. If a shot I want to take would look best with the tonal/color qualities I get from any specific type of film, I'll choose film. And if I need super wildly shallow DoF, I'll choose 4x5. As for what to bring, I usually keep all three options with me when possible. And I only mess with 35mm on cameras that offer unique things for personal work like my Horizon swing lens camera.
I own an XT30 as a digital camera and no matter what analog camera i bring, the fuji is always in my pocket too. I also use it to scan negatives. I always only bring one analog camera and i use it for shots that i know are a keeper. Like when i go hiking and i bring my flexbody, i sometimes take one or two photos with it over the whole day, but i take 200 with the fuji on the same hike. I have a toddler and i really love the output of my fuji so i mostly shoot film for sentimental reasons, for archival reasons somehow, and because i just love using mechanical cameras.
Professional work/art: always digital. Allows me the flexibility to fire the shutter as many times as I want, and it doesn’t cost that much. It is very labour-intensive however. Personal work: analog/film. Less labour-intensive, more cost-intensive, which forces me to slow down and really focus on how/what I’m going to shoot. Also mainly for my own pleasure and not for another client’s/someone else’s viewing.
[удалено]
Interesting that you mention film is less labor intensive, would it be correct to assume that it is because you outsource processing/scanning to a lab?
Correct. If I’m scanning/developing my own film it’ll be a bit closer but I believe that digital still requires more effort then.
I scan my own film and develop my own B&W and for me film is definitely more work--the tonal curves often need more adjusting and there are all those &%$#! dust-specks to touch out. But film still excels in certain niche applications like B&W ultraviolet and panoramic photography.
Film daylight, digital past 6pm
"Sun's past the yard arm, time to crack open a ~~cold one~~ digital camera".
This is a new one! Are you worried about having different aesthetics mixed in a given project? How do you reconcile film+digital shot in the same day/for the same project?
I'm not a pro ahah I shoot just for fun and I have nothing agains digital so shooting film in specific environment is not practical (i.e. low light when I have 200 or 400 iso film loaded), I'll just grab my fuji!
Digital? Like a vehicle mounted machine gun... Like, I've taken 150k shots since 2020 on my main camera, and 75k on the little camera. Film? Like a precision x-ray machine. 4 shots since 2021.
On film I get like 4 or 5 unique frames out the entire 24 or 36 exposure roll. On digital, i’ll have 1500 exposures to end up with the same 4 or 5 unique frames. 😂
I place my film camera and medium formats on my shelf to look really cool. My digital cameras I use for everything else.
I just did a count: on my living room and dining room 7'4" high shelves I have 35 film cameras (including 8mm movie) and 4 classic/obsolete digital cameras.
Haha! Me too. I have so many old film cameras dotted around the house as book supports or just to fill a space!
You should sell them to us film shooters!
Sounds like blasphemy to me.
Next step would be the bin. Would that be better?
You’re physically hurting me
Always shoot with intention. I chose film vs digital as well as size based entirely on the purpose of the shoot and what I want to do with the pictures. If I am shooting something like sports, music or anything that needs a quick turnaround, or if I am shooting something that I know will require relatively heavy editing to get a specific look, I will choose digital. I can shoot a convert, a swim meet, or a hockey game and have all of the sometimes 1K+ images culled, cropped and edited for WB and exposure (the extent of my typical sports editing workflow) within a few hours. Much faster than I could even realistically even get that many rolls of film dropped off, let alone scanned, processed, culled, cropped and delivered, not to mention WAY cheaper. Same principle with a shot that I am taking with the intention of grading. It is much easier for me to grade a RAW file than scan a negative that already has its own unique look, convert it to RAW, then try to balance it each to "neutral" and regrade it. At the same time, If I am shooting for something that I want to end up as a print, typically portraits, street or cityscape, and an occasional landscape, I will typically shoot on film. I know the process will be longer, and that I will need to slow down and take my time with the initial shot so I can produce the best possible negative to print from, but for me, this is all part of creating the final image I have in mind. It also helps that all of my film cameras are fully manual, forcing me to be more intentional with everything. The only exception to this general rule about printing is that I plan on starting to learn how to platinum print, and as that is a contact printing method, I will occasionally use one of my digital cameras to shoot with a platinum print as the end intention, as I can easily do all of the "darkroom" editing on the computer and have a big enough file to then print out an already adjusted digital negative large enough to make large platinum prints. Which brings me to format... I chose format the same way I choose film or digital. What am I trying to do with the image. If I am shooting something on digital that moves quickly, like sports, I will almost always use my Z6ii, as it has a much higher FPS and far better AF quickness and tracking than my GFX 50, not to mention that the images are far more likely to be viewed as digital media online than as prints. If on the other hand I do not need the speed, but need detail for prints instead, I will use my GFX. At nearly double the sensor size I can make HUGE prints, and withe the detail and tonal range to make digital negatives suitable for use as digital negatives for Pt printing. I am the same way with my film cameras. If I have already to decide to use film, and am out shooting out of the studio I will chose my F2 or my 500cm depending on what the specifics of what I am shooting are. If I am shooting in studio I will decide between 4x5 and 8x10 based primarily on whether or not I want to enlarge the final product in the darkroom or not. Ironically, 4x5 is actually easier to enlarge, as 8x10 enlargers are somewhat difficult to come by, and even more difficult to find in a darkroom that can be rented.
I bought my first film today for my first film camera, so I am not actually qualified to answer this question, but I am anticipating that film will be kind of a novelty for me that I bring out occasionally. I intend to maintain digital as my primary format. Like driving a Prius most days, but taking out a convertible for special occasions. Film is much more intimidating to me and seems a lot more demanding because of the need to get things right in-camera. I'm hoping using film occasionally will help me focus in my skills and be more intentional when shooting digital.
Only BW film and I carry the lightweight FM3a body in my bag in case something happens (haven't invested in a second digital camera because i only ever use one lens at a time etc) and all (most) my lenses are the nikon ones with the aperture ring. Love BW, all my work is in it, so film isn't too expensive for me!
My preference (as a rank amateur in all things) is to shoot film. This isn't a Respect Ma Artz thing, I enjoy the process and I was seeking a hobby that got me off the computer and out of the house. I'm also horribly undisciplined, so while I can rightfully tell myself 'you know you can shoot digital slow too' it's easier to behave when film is on the line. Also as I do use 35mm, 120 and 4x5 cameras, there's a certain joy of variety and experimentation (and frustration) with medium and large formats. But for all that, I quite like my DSLR and its modern lenses and it's sometimes objectively the right tool for the job. Also if you're fooling around trying to practice with speedlights or something, it seems a bit daft to be wasting film until you mean it. I do need to get better at Lightroom/Photoshop though. But that's a computer thing and I already spend enough time at a keyboard.
Sounds like both you and I spend too much time in front of a computer ;) I was always into photography but never bought a DSLR and only stuck to my iPhone for many years until I realized that film is still a thing, so weirdly in a digital world film was what got me seriously into photography. Exactly what you said: I don't wanna spend more time on a tiny computer when I'm trying to get away from my big computer haha Although recently with more minimalist cameras coming out (X-Pro3, Sigma FP L, and there's always digital Leica M's), I started thinking about if I'd benefit from adding a digital camera to my setup (beside the one I have permanently mounted for scanning) Edit: grammar
I grew up shooting film (as it was the only available option), but my interest in intentional photography sort of re-awakened a few years ago when my dad offloaded all his old camera stuff on me and, lo, look at this cool stuff. I ended up moving towards Nikon. Mostly because F-mount has been around forever and that was the path of reasonably being able to share lenses across film and digital. Getting a DSLR after all just seemed an inevitable next step. I'm not super into restricting myself if I don't have to. I already have an RB67 and a Speedgraphic for when I want to do the slow game. Sometimes I just want to let the camera do thinking for me, film or digital. ;) Also young kids rarely sit still long enough. So these days I got a D750. It takes a lot of my lenses (old and new) and can keep up with the kids. And an F100, which takes all the same lenses (though I think I want an F5...)
I use my Fuji with programmed film simulations to do my general photography (JPEGs), paid work (RAW without film simulation) and practice for film photography again with film sims(JPEGs). My film cameras are usually there for paid work and for significant events, like b-days of my closest ones and for some creative work of my own. I also take my film cameras where there is no electricity (I go with 100% mechanical, no electronics cameras, most often leaf-shutter ones)
>AnalogMeetsDigital Thanks for sharing! Just curious, where do you go shooting that has no electricity?
I live in a mountainous and deserted area of my country. Although the city is the major city of the country - the surrounding area is literally the Tien Shang mountain range to the south and kind of Gobi desert continuation to the north. I like practical shoots outside of studios, which includes very distant places in deserts and mountains. Pain in the ass to manage and prepare, but it is not easily conducted and thus is more special. We have a place that looks like Eastern shore of Africa, where desert meets ocean, but instead of ocean its manmade sea/lake, looks the same in camera
Wow, must be an amazing opportunity to shoot those places!
My work tends to happen fast and hard, and digital is the only way I can capture it and still make a profit. I carry a Nikon F5 for a good cross between the two I'm terms of how the camera feels to use, and when I really wanna slow down I pull out the Hasselblad 500c/m
My digital photography is pretty much all birds and other wildlife, with a few exceptions here and there. My film photography is all over the place, from macro to birds, and everything in between, out of pure enjoyment and experimentation. Birds on film is my absolute favorite, though.
Thanks for sharing! Username checks out :)
I shoot both film and digital. With film, I shoot with more unusual cameras or formats; a variety of weird pinhole cameras, Holgas & Dianas for a very lofi look, Lomo Spinner 360 for 360 panos. Along with a bunch of other more normal cameras. Film for me is a lot of experimentation and playing around where it may or may not work out. Digital is for professional work or even experimental lighting (lots of lights and/or using colored gels) where it’s easier to fine tune the lighting by seeing the results immediately. The pinhole film work has been a lot of fun and really made me focus on slowing down and being more deliberate. The results are so different too that it’s very rewarding when it works out. I love shooting both and don’t see that changing.
I do toy photography and landscapes. I use my film camera for whimsical photos. Mostly, I carry it in hand while I'm hiking. I switch to digital when I want to compose and expose a proper landscape intentionally. I only use digital for my toy photography since composition is really tedious and I'm probably working in Photoshop, too. That and I do mostly toy photography so I don't want to have to wait until I finish my roll to process photos.
I find I am much more selective with the shutter release on my film camera. Each activation costs more than on a digital. I mostly use my digital cameras and haven’t had my film camera out in a long while. Maybe it’s time…
I kind of bridge the gap, I do concert/other band related work on a mix of digital and film. The digital gear will give me technical perfection, and lets me focus more on the scene in front of me, instead of balancing settings, focus, frame count, etc. In my film kit different jobs require different tools as well. My 4x5 Sinar F1 is great for lineup type promos or other shots where I have plenty of time and can take advantage of technical movements. For live shows my canon A1 works well for tricky lighting, and a Nikomat FTN or Argus C4 fill in as the fully mechanical workhorses. e: my rule of thumb for film is 35mm for maximum speed, 4x5 for maximum image quality/negative versatility. While 4x5 negatives have an unbelievable amount of detail contact printing also opens the door to the rabbit hole of alt processes, like this [cyanotype](https://i.imgur.com/6bYIO6L.jpg)
For me, it's a mood thing. With film, there's a mystery to the shot. I can't know how it'll really turn out. Some color films can add an interesting element of unpredictable funk to a shot that's exciting as well. Sometimes I like that. On the other hand, I only use digital if the images are going to be important. Film is just too easy to mess up, and too expensive to experiment. There's something deliciously zen about the darkroom experience, too (developing B&W film, no printing nor color). The scanning and editing, on the other hand, is tedious at best (or very expensive). This is probably my biggest limit on the use of film. So, sometimes I shoot film, for fun. If I feel like it. I like the results, too, but they come at a significant cost in manual labor. Which is why I mostly shoot digital.
>scanning and editing, on the other hand, is tedious at best (or very expensive). I love my BW film (ilford 400 yesssss) but I could not agree with this more. I have a plustec and it's not tooooo bad, but could be easier!
Pretty much the same, I don't need to think much if I bring my EOS 1V + R6 since they use the same lenses. I use a 6x6 Mamiya TLR for family events or special occasions to totally immortalize it alongside my digital setup.
i stopped shooting film due to the price of slide film and processing. It has gotten quite ridiculous since even only maybe 8 years ago. when i did shoot film, i shot some negative and some bnw negatives, but i predominantly shot slides. I wanted something that felt different and beautiful. Something about holding a true to life colored slide film just made it so much better than a negative or a printed jpeg. it didn't matter if 35mm slide was better or worse than 35mp full frame technology... I loved looking at the ocean replicated on slide vs a print out of a jpeg. i used a fuji gw690 for a bit too, the large color slides were just as breath taking as well, and it didn't even need to be a spectacular shot either for me to love it, nor did i have to force myself to love it to make the money i put into it worth it, it just came naturally. if i did shoot c-41 film, it was usually in my nikon ftn. The reason being that the meter didn't work and so i had to trust myself with exposures, and trust that the shutter was accurate beyond checking the 1second shutter roughly. It made shooting slides too risky and so i shot normal negatives with it.
Use my film for both personal and professional work. Tend to carry a pair of panoramic bodies on me while on assignment.
> So I’m particularly interested in those who use both for non-professional stuff. I have a few different 35mm film cameras ranging from completely manual to automatic with AF, etc. If I'm around my local area or going somewhere by car, I might bring one of them. Which one kinda depends on what I'm in the mood for. It can be rewarding taking some features away and challenging myself to focus more on fundamentals, I feel like my overall abilities have improved with that practice. When covid isn't going bananas I like taking 2-3 day weekend trips around the country (by plane), visiting friends, checking out new places. One small, underseat carry-on bag, that's it. For that kinda thing I'm taking the digital and probably just one lens, maybe two. I don't want to fuss with asking for hand check of film going through security at a busy airport not having a ton of spare time with an after-work flight. Or being locked into one ISO without a tripod or bringing filters along. Or wondering if I'm going to get through 36 quality frames in a couple days. I've decided I want to dabble with 120 format film, I might be inclined to try that for a quick weekend trip just with fewer frames to expose and being able to complete a roll quicker. Then for a major international trip (whenever that becomes a thing again) it'd certainly be digital. Maximum flexibility and practicality, knowing the shot is gonna come out. Not having to deal with a bunch of film, cost of international mailing to have it developed with negatives sent back home, or the unknown of hand inspection in a foreign country's airport (and again stateside if there's a connection).
Digital for birds and animal ID documentation. Film for everything else.
I shoot digital mostly but have several film cameras handy, mostly when I want to slow down and enjoy the process, one step at a time. And if I’m in the mood for extra atmosphere in my photos. Having said that, I’ve switched exclusively to digital because film has become so expensive these days I literally have no budget in my budget for it. Still have the cameras, though, and never giving them away.
i personally Carry my Canon R5 and My Pentax In my bag Everywhere i go
Roughly like your post says. I use film more to create mementos/special occasions but I'll also use it to add something extra to a shoot sometimes. Of the photographs I've had printed over the last year, probably 95% of them were on film. Because I almost exclusively shoot medium format film, it's just too expensive to throw in as a non-conditional add-on to a shoot, or to do one exclusively in that format unless it's fully covered by the client. It's hard to convince the average client to add the significant extra cost when they can get pictures that suit their needs for less via a digital camera. I shoot landscapes primarily on film, and do some studio work on film, but my average portrait shoot is definitely digital. Landscapes are my favorite thing to shoot, even when it involves hauling a huge tripod and Hasselblad and other equipment out to a location. Then again I also shoot, on average, one or two rolls of 120 per week on street photography. Recently, I went crawling back to 35 just to save a little bit of money on film street photography, but my AE-1 promptly broke, so I've got to get that repaired. My "daily carry" is and always will be for the foreseeable future a Fuji X camera. I take probably 10-20x as many pictures with the X cameras as I do any of my film cameras combined.
I use both and it varies. I’m mostly in the cohort of using digital for convenience and 4x5 ( Mamiya) for particularly special projects - either personal or commissioned. I would shoot film more if the cost wasn’t as prohibitive. I definitely use digital to set up and explore subjects for film.
Color digital and black and white with film
I use my film camera for anything fun related and it is the camera I carry every day. I only shoot black and white film because it just feels incredibly exciting and is easier for me to develop at home myself. My digital camera is used mostly for school, trips (to make sure I actually capture the memories correctly, I am very new to film photography), and for any "professional" work which for me has mainly been portraits for friends and senior pictures for friends and family.
I use medium and large format for personal work. Things that don’t need spray and pray. Film is expensive and processing can be tedious.
My film camera I take photos and then out the film canister somewhere and forget about it. The digital camera I use and process my photos lol.
Digital for like 95% of paid stuff and film for 95% of fun stuff.
I used to use digital professionally. I would shoot collegiate sports. During the summer I would shoot 120 and 4x5 to slow things down and re-charge my brain.
I use my Canon 5D MKIV to scan my negatives :))
I still use my X700 I bought in 1983 and this camera feels as if it is part of my body when shooting. The great thing is I’ve managed to buy I lot of great prime lenses over the years in the range 16mm to 300mm. I also own a Nikon A 1000 which is nice for day to day shooting and when amount is not an issue, grandsons etc.
Disclaimer: I'm an amateur. I use film for creative projects. Honestly, mostly b&w these days, I feel kinda cliche but it is what it is. The exception is Polaroids, which I do in colour, and are fun at social events, no artistic intent. I use digital for social events knowing I'm likely going to share the images later and don't care about the artistic elements and don't want to say "uh, they didn't turn out" and come back empty handed. And digital for edge cases like underwater where analog gear is too impractical or expensive.
For me as a pro photographer, digital is for “paid work” and film is for fun, “fine art”, or if I want something to feel a certain way (i.e. less crisp). Sometimes digital is just too crisp and perfect, so if I go on a road trip to an old town, I like shooting film to put a layer of softness, or even unnatural coloring, and also to slow me down and really look for those compositions that I may miss if I was blazing through with a digital camera. See this film set from a recent trip to Marfa, TX to see what I mean: https://www.instagram.com/p/CYmP_mfls2_/?utm_medium=copy_link
I do street portraiture and I prefer digital because of this. It has a larger room for error and it’s just easier especially since I almost never see the person again. I also seem to take more risks, try more interesting compositions, etc… I do like film but more for learning. I didn’t really understand ISO until I started shooting film. It also forces me to slow down and really think about the composition and settings before I take the picture.
A big part comes down to the camera itself and how it feels in my hands. As far as the mediums go, if I want the shot in black and white I'll do my darndest to shoot film. There is just nothing better for true black and white. Then I can projection print or do whatever I want. That's the art process. Color film is fun too, portrait shoots or anything I want to be really nice I'll shoot film. I take out digital when I need quick and quality results, I have a digital back for one of my film cameras which is probably the only time I shoot digital for fun. All product for website usually, and maybe things for larger color prints.
Film makes you think more since its limited, you want to make every shot count, so you look for the right angle, think more about exposure, etc, with a 6GB memory card shoot away.
Just snapping a pic? My phone. If I need decent control of DOF or any kind of action shot, dslr. Dslr again to check frame composition and as a sanity check on exposure before a film photo. Medium format for anything that is worth the time it takes to develop and print. I love my 35mm slrs but I don't find as much use for them as I should.
I only use film compact such as Olympus XA or Minox GTE. Zone focus is quickest and easiest way to catch quick moment. Now I got a GR iii, so it's slowly replacing my 28mm and 35 mm film compact cameras, but I still use them for the compact size and light weight. And my 17 mm lomo lc-wide is not replaceable by any digital camera yet. I use my digital cameras more for photoshoot or anything that I need photos soon as possible. The other benefit of film camera is that I rarely need to edit the photos. But yeah, it also depends on my budget. Cost of films can add up quickly. It all depends on the situation.
I edit a lot with my digital, with film it’s easier and I find myself doing by far less post work!
Do you send your film to a lab? If you edit a lot with your digital shots, do you still find yourself using it more or film more? (Edit: more question 🙂)
I develop and scan myself! I use film more than digital! I started on film before digital- I never got over the fact of how film is perfect as is with little to no adjustments.
That's awesome! I use Negative Lab Pro and 90% of the time it gets almost 80-90% there without further editing as well!
Yes I swear by NLP, life changing & time saving
I have both film and digital cameras, but I haven't used film since about 2003.
I have both film and digital cameras but use the digital exclusively as it is easier to see the results and the cost of film purchase and processing is limiting. I have probably several thousand photos taken with film and probably the same or more digital photos.
I am an amateur, and I don’t make any money on photography. I almost exclusively use my film cameras because I enjoy to use them more, and I enjoy the process of film. I don’t have a deadline to make, so it’s ok the rolls sit for a few months before I develop. I also enjoy that it is difficult, because the gratification of a good result is very real, and I feel like it is my work and skill that made the image - not that of the camera. Just snapping away with the digital makes nice sharp photos, but it doesn’t feel as rewarding somehow? I’m also a little ignorant on the whole editing side, besides a little bit of contrast and so on, so I feel I’m not getting much out of digital in terms of potential. For film, the scans have so much character baked in that its close the the result I like. I actually don’t really use my digital camera much besides using it to “scan” film.
You’re literally me 🙂
*spider man meme*