Oh yeah. Digital is the way. And shooting 800+ pics and only developing the 100 photos you want, priceless.

 

But digital still has some very serious limitations. i realize it is convenient but getting film like texture and grain out of a digital is near impossible regardless of how much the camera cost.

 

I used to shoot a tremendous amount of film, and I still have a couple of favorites.

Ilford Pan F 50 ISO is an amazing film, particularly for long-exposure night shots. The tonality is very rich, even on RC paper. Its critical to bracket your exposures with this film though -- you'll see why when you get into the darkroom.

Ilford HP5 400 ISO is my favorite 400 speed B&W film, and I've tried LOTS of them. It isn't as forgiving as Tri-X 400, which is what most people seem to be learning on these days. With HP5 you'll need to be more careful about getting good exposures, but the results can be very satisfying, and englarged to REALLY big print sizes; the biggest I used it for was 20"x30".

T-Max 400 is nice, but HP5 is about the same price and much more fun to work with in the darkroom. T-Max 100 is good for situations where Pan F 50 is just too slow.

Tri-X 400 can, however, be push-processed up to 1600. Run it with T-Max developer for good results.

I have a little of my work posted here:
http://public.fotki.com/photoben

My film body is a Canon EOS A2, and its a workhorse. If you want a serious professional-grade film SLR and don't mind buying used equipment, an A2 could be for you. There is also the A2e which comes with eye-controlled focus, and the grey market version which is called the EOS 5. Its basically an A2e, but includes a couple of minor differences and one extra feature which is patented here in the US by Some Random Guy but not in Japan.

My digital body is an EOS D60, which I love. If you're getting into photography to get serious about it down the line, get yourself a 6+ megapixel digital SLR body. You'll save thousands in film and be able to tweak your work more effectively. I've shot about 18,000 frames on my D60 in the last year and a half without a single failure.

 

Nightshade,

I disagree with your assertion that you can't get texture and grain out of digital shots. It takes some work in photoshop, but there's a more important point here: why are texture and grain superior to the alternative?

Film research has always been geared toward producing *less* grainy film emulsions. Why, now that we can shoot with zero grain, would we shift back towards grain?

I personally think that there is a time when artistically, a photographer may desire the look of film, but that doesn't make it objectively better than digital.

 

Very nice shots Ben.

I am getting ready to load some Ilford 400 that is sitting in my fridge right now in the next day or so and am anxious to try it out. I have seen some awesome results with it and have also heard it isn't very forgiving in some cases.

I too have a D60 as well as an Olympus C-4000......wanna buy my D60 real cheap as a parts camera? Turns out the mainboard on it fried. I bought it used and didn't get much time on it before it went down but am going to try again with a 10D in the future.

I just seem to like film and want to get it down a bit more before I try jumping back into digital. The overall image quality is very good and the savings on film is awesome in the long run, but as I said there is just something about the feeling and warmth that film gives, not to mention the frame rate, that just can't be got with a digi.

 

Depends on what you are shooting and your style really. I mean a clean shot is always the desired result in the end most times....but how do you account for the thousands of Holga users? The Holga is crap from the start but the amazing images it produces are unique to it.

I also shoot Time Zero film in an old SX70 Polaroid for manipulations...why would I want to destroy a perfectly good shot by manipulating it?

Its all art in the end and personal preference is as much a part of it as is processing technique and antything else you can think of.

 

BTW benjamin you have a very nice portfolio and I especially like the shot of the Brooklyn Bridge you have.

*edit* my bad not the Brooklyn h:

 

I used to shoot with a FM2n, later FM3a and F100. Now I shot mainly with a Canon EOS 1V. But I prefer to shoot my EOS 10D for anything and everything.

After awhile the advantage and speed of digital outweigh the waiting and speculations of film. Not to mention the instaneous experimentation with digital. Not to mention the fact that I love to shoot an insane number of exposures (in one concert event I shot close to 3,000 photos). Film is just not possible when I want to shoot outside my work as a hobby. A more affordable way, which is digital, is a life saver. Not to mention the ease of storage in hard drive (back up on CD of course!)

I don't see digital has any real limitations now a day. It's blow ups are great, if not better than most 135 film I've shot. I don't really want grain in my shots. The latitude might be a problem to some, but if you know the exposure then it is not bad. Flash, however, is not user friendly unless you know what you are doing.

Well at least for color anyway. For black and white nothing beats Tri-X400. Hehehe. T-max was fine-grain but an ass to develop perfectly. But now aday I just transfer the digital files into BW and try my best to make it look BW with level in PS.

 

"Depends on what you are shooting and your style really. I mean a clean shot is always the desired result in the end most times....but how do you account for the thousands of Holga users? The Holga is crap from the start but the amazing images it produces are unique to it."

Thats easy -- Holgas cost about 20 bucks and the next least expensive medium format body is... what... $150? =) A Holga is a great way to experiment with 120 without spending hundreds on a body and a lens.

Film versus digital is the same argument as PC versus Mac. It ought to not be about which tool is superior, but which is superior for the job you're trying to get done.

 

Trust me I am the same way about the number of shots I take and experimentation. I will definitley be getting another digi soon for just that reason but when I do skate shots etc. I will be right back to film because of the framerate limitations and the fact that a fisheye doesn't work so hot on a digi.

Luckily all the glass I have will transfer back and forth between the two types of cameras so I won't have to reinvest in new glass when I do get my digi.