GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - For those of you who still love shooting with film...

ltl · 01-19-2004, 11:03 AM

I use both film and digital as I like both for different reasons. A while back I took the same glamour pics shot on digital and film and put both up side by side retouched and finished for the web and ran a poll on my users :-

Results:

Nobody could tell the difference (close to 50/50 - 50% thought the digital pic was film and the film was digital while the other 50% got it right).

Most (around 80%) did not express a preference to one over the other. Of the remaining 20% some said they liked the digital picture better while others said they liked the film picture better. There wasn't a significant leaning one way or the other.

Around 300 people voted (I have more members then that but those were the ones who were interested in the experiment).

As regards traditional publishing; until I bought a DSLR a few months ago, I was using a Nikon Coolpix 990 which is quite old and only 3 megapixel. I've had pictures accepted from it as cover shots for glossy mags though. Overall about the same amount of 3 megapixel digital pics made it into mags last year as my film pics (around 20 or 30 in the last year as I don't try and actively sell to magazines).

So the above things for me make an absolutely convincing case from a business perspective.

Now from an artistic perspective it's a different matter. If I wanted to shoot a large fine art print for gallery display I'd probably use medium format film as that would be my preference for THAT particular purpose. For the web though I am happy with mostly digital and a few film shots for fun.

Copyright needn't be expensive with digital. Here's what you do. Make a CD of the pics and post it to yourself recorded delivery. Keep all the paperwork and make sure the package cannot be opened without it being obvious. Store the package unopened after you get it back.

Alternatively (and better) register with the copyright office in Washington if you are in the US and send them copies. That's the preferred legal process.

What it boils down to:

If you take snapshots with film - don't take any care about composition, lighting or anything else - you can easily turn out crap like many people do with digital cameras too. Just more expensively

(which is probably why there is less film crap around).

Similarly if you take no care with digital and don't take time to learn how to get the best results from it you will produce crap in even vaster quantities then you would with film as the cost (which is non-existant) won't put you off.

Crap sometimes sells - the idea is often more important then quality in this business.

So I think - use film or digital as you personally prefer. But the reality is you can get good or bad results with both - it's just a question of how good or bad a photographer you are NOT what kind of equipment you are using. For business reasons in this sector digital probably wins - but that doesn't matter if you prefer to use film anyway.

01-19-2004, 11:03 AM
ltl Registered User Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 34	I use both film and digital as I like both for different reasons. A while back I took the same glamour pics shot on digital and film and put both up side by side retouched and finished for the web and ran a poll on my users :- Results: Nobody could tell the difference (close to 50/50 - 50% thought the digital pic was film and the film was digital while the other 50% got it right). Most (around 80%) did not express a preference to one over the other. Of the remaining 20% some said they liked the digital picture better while others said they liked the film picture better. There wasn't a significant leaning one way or the other. Around 300 people voted (I have more members then that but those were the ones who were interested in the experiment). As regards traditional publishing; until I bought a DSLR a few months ago, I was using a Nikon Coolpix 990 which is quite old and only 3 megapixel. I've had pictures accepted from it as cover shots for glossy mags though. Overall about the same amount of 3 megapixel digital pics made it into mags last year as my film pics (around 20 or 30 in the last year as I don't try and actively sell to magazines). So the above things for me make an absolutely convincing case from a business perspective. Now from an artistic perspective it's a different matter. If I wanted to shoot a large fine art print for gallery display I'd probably use medium format film as that would be my preference for THAT particular purpose. For the web though I am happy with mostly digital and a few film shots for fun. Copyright needn't be expensive with digital. Here's what you do. Make a CD of the pics and post it to yourself recorded delivery. Keep all the paperwork and make sure the package cannot be opened without it being obvious. Store the package unopened after you get it back. Alternatively (and better) register with the copyright office in Washington if you are in the US and send them copies. That's the preferred legal process. What it boils down to: If you take snapshots with film - don't take any care about composition, lighting or anything else - you can easily turn out crap like many people do with digital cameras too. Just more expensively (which is probably why there is less film crap around). Similarly if you take no care with digital and don't take time to learn how to get the best results from it you will produce crap in even vaster quantities then you would with film as the cost (which is non-existant) won't put you off. Crap sometimes sells - the idea is often more important then quality in this business. So I think - use film or digital as you personally prefer. But the reality is you can get good or bad results with both - it's just a question of how good or bad a photographer you are NOT what kind of equipment you are using. For business reasons in this sector digital probably wins - but that doesn't matter if you prefer to use film anyway.