We have always been extremely fond of photography. Starting in middle school, we had a film SLR and have been tinkering with our photography skills ever since. While we cannot claim to be professionals in any sense of the word, our photography has long been a passionate hobby. As we examined our camera after taking some photos, we began to contemplate our transformation to digital and why we still grab our trusty 35 mm SLR on certain occasions.
Often we reminisce about the days back when everything we took was on film. On our puny high school and early college budgets, we hesitated to take many photos due to development costs. Yet, our film photos always seem to turn out better. We are not sure if this is due to our camera or a more concentrated effort when crafting our images. As we analyzed our massive collection of digital images taken since 2005, we notice that the overall quality is dismal. There are defiantly some gems, but the hit rate is significantly less than when we still used film. Due to that revelation, we have been toting our film camera around more frequently and using it sparingly with excellent results. While we know our digital SLR is a bit dated, we cannot help but think that film forces us to be more deliberate and take better photos. The only other factor might be the fact that we were using a last generation film camera that was the culmination of nearly 100 years of development. Have you noticed that your photographic quality has decreased since you switched to digital?
(Top image: Flickr member Nesster, film image: Flickr member Uwe Hermann both licensed under Creative Commons)
Find Your Style: 20 Classic to Contemporary Kitchens to Add to Your Inspiration Board
Beth's Romantic & Retro Residence
Good Food to Share 
The Big Book of Small, Cool Spaces 
Apartment Therapy Presents 
The Eight-Step Home Cure 
Shaw's Original Fir...
10 Ways to Put a Muffin Pan to Good Use (Other Than Making Muffins!)
How To Cook Tender, Chewy Wheat Berries on the Stovetop
...back in the day when I used to shoot Kodachrome (really miss that stuff) I'd be happy if ONE of the 36 exposures resulted in something I was personally pleased with. Now, I might shoot a couple hundred digital images but my ratio of good/bad shots really hasn't changed much...
I think it's definitely because it's easy take shots with a digital camera. You hit it right on the head when you said "we hesitated to take many photos due to development costs".
I shoot both film and digital. I develop my own film, cuts on the cost. Then I scan it in to the computer. It's true that the cost makes you think, makes you slow down - but to get the same effect with my DSLR I shoot with a supper small compact flash card. You have limited space on the card and I don't allow myself to delete anything off it while out shooting. It makes me stop and think before I start snapping away.
Now, I hope I get lucky.... then, I made sure I got lucky.
agree with oldskoolarcade. my dad was a photographer and he taught me that you had to take a ton of pictures to get one good one. out of a roll of film, you'd hopefully get one or two winners. i would always take the time to carefully construct my images, though. i never hesitated to take a ton of pictures due to development costs, but maybe that's b/c i would process my own film, make a contact sheet and only choose to make prints of the winning images?
My TLR using 120 film makes magnificent photos. I guess having only 12 frames makes you really think. I probably need to invest in a better digital camera as the quality of the print always seemed better on film.
I agree with the above comments. Using film makes you stop and think a bit more about the shot because of the costs involved of processing it afterward. That said, the instant gratification of digital cannot be said enough. If nothing more, than you being able to make adjustments to an image right then and there.
For a number of years I was rattling off hundreds of shots digitally with only a handful of them coming out decent. I've since started shooting manual lenses which make me slow down, take in the scene, and get photos right the first time. I've found it's dramatically increased my photography.
i still only shoot film, and have been doing so for almost 5 years with my Nikon SLR. Up till now, I'm still to be convinced that digital is as good as film - my pictures seen almays better then any of my friends'.
still, about gratification: I do think that waiting to see the pictures, not knowing exactly how they turned out and amazing myself again by the same image I saw some days before when I shot it is very gratifying and part of the process of making pictures.
I just love to be amazed all over again!
It`s not about the media you record your pictures on, it`s about your attitude. I shoot mostly digital, because of the convenience, but never gave up on film, especially since small rangefinder or p&s cameras have no viable counterpart in the world of digicams. I had my "first digicam syndrome", shooting hundreds of pics every day, but got over it quickly and now I come back with about 10-30 frames shot during the day, just as I would if I shot with film. Being "raised" by classic film cameras, I learned to be picky and thoughtful (is this really worth a frame of an expensive slide film?). This attitude works great with a DSLR, plus extra perks like instant preview and ability to shoot a couple dozens of frames without remorse, when a subject is worth it. Bottom line: treat every frame as it costs real money and turn that burst mode off. Stop. Observe. Think. Compose. Decide whether to shoot or walk away. Press the shutter ONCE.
Really good post, +comments
Dang... so I got a little cheap film camera because I was all like "hey, this should turn off my inner critic and result in some fun for a while"
And then I discovered that no one develops film anymore, not even the serious photography places.
If film is still so popular (sure seems that way on the internet) where on earth do you take it? I had to have it mailed across the country and it cost about $20 for a roll.
Maybe I'm spoiled by the 19 cent digital prints, but didn't it used to be soooo much cheaper to print a simple roll of film?