View Full Version : Why do you use film:
Bill Pierce
03-25-2012, 17:49
Is the Leica a film camera? Many of the most enthusiastic Leica users on this forum are using Leica film cameras - many of those cameras are older models, many of them purchased used. Digital cameras, unlike film cameras, are evolving and improving rapidly and have a relatively short life at the top of the heap. The M9 had a sensor that was a bit behind the times when it was introduced, but my ancient M3 is still producing pictures whose quality is indistinguishable from its younger brethren?
It’s hard to use film. Darkroom equipment and supplies are becoming scarcer. Good film scanners are expensive. And,yet, even after I sold my digital Leicas, I kept three film bodies because I couldn’t put three old friends out in the cold. I know all the arguments against film. What I’d like to know from the folks on the forum that qualify is WHY DO YOU USE FILM?
Hi Bill,
I like the feel of the film cameras. This is maybe what is most important to me. It so happens that while my wife likes modern things, she likes images made by film cameras more than images made by digital cameras.
I do not develop my film, so this is not a reason for me to keep using film cameras.
Bob Michaels
03-25-2012, 18:00
Bill, I am reading some implicit assumptions into your question. Like the expanded question is "why are you still using film, after all digital is better"
Now I do not think I am being defensive.
So my response would be: I am still using film for the reasons I have always used film.
For two reasons: the process and the look.
The process: I slow down, pay more attention to my surroundings, and feel more connected to the scene when I'm using film. It isn't a binary function where I don't feel this way when shooting digital. It's just that the feeling is more prevalent when I shoot film. I also like not being able to see what I just shoot until hours, days or weeks later. I get excited when I either develop black and white or when color film comes back from the processor.
The look: It's just different than digital. Neither better nor worse, in my opinion. I like the look of grain. I like the tonality. I like the contrast.
I shoot digital and film; the film gets scanned (though I am right now re-learning how to print in a darkroom), and I print both at home digitally. Different tools for different looks and uses. I like them both, but there is something soothing about shooting film.
Just my two cents worth.
In no particular order:
1. It gives me a break from my usual business messing with computers.
2. There's something special about being able to hold a negative/positive transparency – perhaps a sense of permanence.
3. Older professional level film cameras tend to be cheaper than their digital counterpart – I like to feel of smooth, solid (usually professional) cameras.
4. Despite what some say, film isn't cheap to me – it's not expensive, but it's not to be wasted. This makes me less likely to shoot off a load of awful shots that I'll likely hoard for no good reason.
I like mechanical things. My older film 35mm cameras, M4-2, OM-1, Pen F are all mechanical, feel nice in the hand, make soothing sounds, and don't require batteries. The plasto-blob Ni-Ca-Oly-Tax digital SLR's (no way can I afford an M9) have no appeal at all and as far as I'm concerned are completely interchangeable in their mundane dullness.
pschauss
03-25-2012, 18:06
I use film because I enjoy the process of bulk loading film into cartridges, developing it, and making traditional prints in the darkroom. When I post pictures on the web, I scan them from 5x7 prints with my HP printer/fax/scanner.
TXForester
03-25-2012, 18:12
I like the looks of film, but I use digital cameras too.
If you are willing to look around and wait for deals, there are good film cameras and lenses to be had for relatively little money.
I love older stuff. Cameras, trucks, aircraft, guns etc. Most of that I can't afford, but older cameras allow me a tie to personal history and photographic history. And, I love history. Plus I'm a Luddite wannabe. :)
redisburning
03-25-2012, 18:13
I get a better end result using slow film and any of my film cameras than I get with my dSLR.
TXForester
03-25-2012, 18:16
I like mechanical things.
I didn't think about this one, but I agree. Finely crafted mechanical things with moving parts have a soul. Not much aside from the shutter moves in a soulless digital camera. :angel:
I dislike sensor dust.
And simple functions buried in menus.
And the look of overly processed files.
And love changing my "sensor" at whim.
And most of all, love that I can make photos, simply.
One more rant.
Fer crying out loud! Why can't these stupid camera companies make a DSLR with a shutter speed dial, aperture ring and smooth manual focus ring, oh, and don't forget the DOF scale on the lens!
And, those dials and rings would perform that ONE FUNCTION ONLY! They can put the other controls on a button studded back if they want to but not basic exposure and focus. But no. We have cameras designed by computer geeks now. They have to load on every feature ever invented. I wouldn't be surprised if I hit the wrong command and a toothbrush sprang from the bottom!
OK, calm down...clam down...
Think I'll pop the cap on an IPA and chill.....
Pfreddee
03-25-2012, 18:24
I like the look of film, both B/W and colour, in my case, Ektar 100. I also really like my odd-ball rangefinder cameras from Russia, and my Yashica TLR. I enjoy the process of reading the light, both with a light meter and my Mk 1 Eyeball. I have fun processing my own black-and-white film. I have used film for 60 years, and whille I am also using digital, I'll continue to use film for my most important reason: It's FUN!
With best regards.
Pfreddee(Stephen)
Brian Puccio
03-25-2012, 18:24
I love the look of slide film. And I can't wait to project. I can't afford an M9 while I can afford a few dozen rolls of E6. Adox CMS 20 is fun to play with.
Everything everyone has said above.
TXForester
03-25-2012, 18:30
One more rant.
Fer crying out loud! Why can't these stupid camera companies make a DSLR with a shutter speed dial, aperture ring and smooth manual focus ring, oh, and don't forget the DOF scale on the lens!
And, those dials and rings would perform that ONE FUNCTION ONLY!I feel like I'm reading my own post. :D
helenhill
03-25-2012, 18:36
For me it is an ESCAPE ... From the Frantic Pace of everyday Life
it's Simplicity in Ergonomics makes Shooting Relaxed & Simple
Even with All its Imperfections
it's Subtleties in Rendering the Play of Shadow, Light, Texture & Tone
makes me Drunk with Joy...
sreed2006
03-25-2012, 18:38
Because that's the way, uh-huh, uh-huh, I like it.
finguanzo
03-25-2012, 18:39
Because ccd and cmos sensors don't react very well to fixer... :)
From the image quality point of view, digital has provided with us an obvious advantage compared to film: Higher resolution. However for other aspects regarding aesthetics and artistic values, film IMHO is still holding its traditional place.
I have learned more by looking at the photographs of others than the ones I called my own. It was decades ago while trying to squeeze the most out of my photographic equipment and process I have realized that using a Linhof would definitely not be making a certain HCB any greater than what he was.. I have also learned that being so meticulous about fine details and accomplishing the highest fidelity in rendering of what he put on the canvas could not help Johannes Vermeer in ranking any higher than what Rembrandt or Renoir regarded as to be. Art and aesthetical concerns do not regard lines per millimeter resolution as a prime virtue.
Cost per shot, convenience, prompt results, extensive manipulation possibilities of digital are not to be denied as I use the digital photography lovingly. However even all these conveniences, most of the time, fall short of duplicating the tonality, highlights and overall gradation of a frame shot on the HP5+ and developed in a formula available since 1927. That's why I will be shooting film as long as it would be available.
tstermitz
03-25-2012, 18:47
Grain. I've posted this before from my PhotoKinesis.info "Glory of Velvia" gallery (http://photokinesis.info)... Velvia 100 with 90mm elmar-M.
The lens provides wonderful contrast, plasticity and detail. The image cast by the lens is sampled by the film emulsion. I like the random grain which shows luminance-noise but not color-noise. I'd be willing to look closely at a large print with this grain characteristic (aside from the little hair!) Notice how the graininess displays the shades of purple, and also captures the glow in the yellow and the saturation in the pinks and reds. The shadow goes black with this high-contrast film, but there's no sensor noise in the shadow.
http://www.photokinesis.info/Landscapes/Sunsets/i-TwPtwTX/0/XL/lillypad-XL.jpg
nikon_sam
03-25-2012, 18:51
I use film because that's what my cameras need...not trying to be silly here...I, as yet, still don't own a digital camera...
That being said...I love the whole film process...shooting, developing film, printing...
It's like Christmas morning when I open that film tank and see the images on the film...and there's something about seeing the image come up in the developer tray...
It's all the fuss over developing, rinsing, checking for any dust when printing, getting the right exposure time and seeing the final print and then the reaction from viewers of my images...
And you're right...It's hard to use film...
Knowing I have to get the exposure, composition, the timing, image just right when I trip the shutter takes years to learn...Yeah, I know even when using a digital camera I have to use the same experience but if I don't get it right with film it can get costly real quick and that is a great motivator to do it right the first time...
kshapero
03-25-2012, 18:55
Although I have never been a painter, I imagine that shooting film is quite the same. For me (and I know this is different for others) shooting digital is like running my dishwasher, nothing exciting or intimate but gets the job done. If I had an M9 I might feel different, but I doubt it.
mfunnell
03-25-2012, 18:56
Multiple reasons, but the two major ones are:
I get B&W results I like better from film and scanning than I do from converting digital files. I could probably work to get better conversions as that's probably a failure of technique on my part. But since I get results I like from film, I mostly think "why bother?"
I like old cameras - I like using them, and I like using different kinds of cameras. There are more different kinds of old cameras out there than there are kinds of digital cameras, and they can be obtained at prices I can afford. Those old cameras need film, so I use film in them.
These days getting colour film developed (especially 120) has become quite inconvenient for me, so I pretty much use digital for colour and film for black and white. That suits me fine. I just have to work on reducing/eliminating the drying marks I get on my film. I've made progress on that, but I'm not quite there yet... (Oh, and I have high hopes for the soon-to-be released Plustek 120 scanner: my flatbed is OK for scanning medium format but I'd like to do better.)
...Mike
mynikonf2
03-25-2012, 19:10
I like it... works for me. :D
newsgrunt
03-25-2012, 19:14
Grew up on Panatomic X and Ethol Blue. Waiting on budgetary approval for a pair of D4's and I use digital professionally for work here and abroad in the newspaper environment.
So ironically, I use film because I like the 'forced' limitations placed upon me by 12 or 36 exposures per roll and that which goes with it. Hard to explain really. The look of film (read grain, tones) is not so much a thing for me anymore and the 'slowing down thing' I find is getting too tired to trot out as a reason, for me at least, so ymmv.
N.delaRua
03-25-2012, 19:17
I grew up with film and I am only 24... I stared with the high school yearbook with a Nikon N90s then an F100.... Doomsday came in the form of a Nikon D100 and I hated it. It was slow, laggy, and jammed a couple of times in really important moments. I shot my first and last paid wedding with it... It felt like a toy. However, it made it easy to update the website and that is what they wanted.
My father had a camera collection and like a bad stock advisor never saw the digital revolution coming. So I shot through his collection and discovered his Leica's.
The Leica's, specifically the M3, revealed a very simple approach to photography. I mean there were no settings other than aperture, shutter, and focus. No meter, but a beautifully manufactured and incredibly dense 50 mm summicron DR with goggles. I was hooked.
When my graduation college graduation came up, I had shot a lot of film and I was very poor as a college student hell bent on staying as independent as possible. Film is expensive... but upfront digital is way more.
I knew what I wanted, a small, well built, high performance digital camera but they did not exist. Right around graduation came the Olympus Pen series: a revelation. Upon holding with it, I just couldn't fathom composing via an LCD or EVF; Sacrilege!
The Oly Pen series with a good lens and VF was equivalent to an M6 TTL.... I got an M6 TLL... I figured it will last longer, and I'll just bite the bullet and pay for the film till I get a real job and can afford a digital camera that ticks the boxes. Not that I really mind... I could live with Portra and TMAX for the rest of my life...
However, I will never sell the M6. Nothing beats a true optical wet print on real paper. Nothing. Nothing beats the process. Dodging and burning is not like dodging and burning in the darkroom. The immediate gratification of digital is never as good as waiting for those prints from the lab.
It is a hassle to travel with film internationally.... but man nail the exposure and focus, and just wait a couple of days to see the results.
All that being said.... I have serious uncontrollable GAS, in fact flatulence, for the Fujifilm X100, because other than a digital M or some other unobtainable or outdate digital body it is the only digital camera on the market with a shutter speed dial and aperture ring.... A revelation. Can't wait to shoot it as my wide body next to the M6...
I guess I really don't know why I shoot film, but when a student of mine asked me if I knew anything about photography I unleashed my passionate opinion and tried to explain to him why he need not spend $1500 of his hard dollars on the an L series lens and body because the internet told him to do so. He told me he was interested in the "art" of photography, so I suggested KEH.com and a cheap manual SLR with a roll of film. To convince him of my logic, I am even going to let him borrow my FM2 so he can learn how easy the art is when you don't have to worry about sRGB color space, white balance, RAW vs. JPEG, 12500 ISO, lightening speed autofocus, mega zooms, lightroom, photoshop CS 9, and weather sealing.
Exposure, composition, and thought. That is why I like film.
I use film, because I have negative files going back to the mid-60's - and they have never been "re-formatted"- occasionally re-filed, but thats all.
I also started with film, more years ago than I like to think about (50+) and I am used to it.
I tried digital, beta tested RD1 and M8 and however impressive they are, they did not do it for me. Not so much the end result which is quite good, but in the process of "thinking" about a shot. With digital it is too easy to shoot too much - with film you have a natural limit - usually 36-37 frames!
I also like processing and the anticipation of hanging up a batch of films to dry and quickly look at them.
All this works for me - BUT if I had to go back and do this for a living - I would shoot digital, particularly color where I think digital can do an equal or better job than film.
So far I have not found digital bl/w very satisfactory - and printing technology still lags behind a good fiber based prints.
With something like 10 000 ft of film in the freeer, I dont think I will switch soon either.
Film dino
03-25-2012, 19:20
I use film because (for me) its intuitive & much easier than learning digital camera menus. Most of the time only 2 of 3 variables operate- aperture & shutter speed. Maybe I'm lazy..
I like my film cameras too much to give them up, plus I still haven't gotten this film shooting & developing bit down to a science yet & won't ever switch til I do. Besides digital camera's have too many settings I don't understand or care to fool with.
I will say that the look of film is becoming easier to emulate in post production, so soon that will matter less. Presets, people, presets.
I have several reasons to still use film. I feel my film camera is ergonomically perfect, and all controls are simple and clear. Shooting with my rangefinder is a careful and precise process, probably because I use film (I should learn to be like this all the time though). Finally, spending three hours in the dark in peace and quiet developing film is incredibly calming.
Because nothing consistently does B&W like B&W film...
I grew up with film and have been using it for close to 50 years. I've used and own Leicas, Nikons and Canons, Fuji's, Mamiya's and more recently, a 500c (not crazy about it). I also have a lovely Pentax DSLR with outstanding color fidelity. When I'm shooting a wedding or an event, I'll use the Pentax--it's more economical and I'm not limited to 36 frames. When I'm shooting for the sheer joy of it and self expression,I use film. I process my own B&W and color (C-41) and love my results. I love pressing the shutter on my Leica or Mamiya and it simply works--it doesn't beep at me about focus points, or exposure or anything else. If the shot doesn't come out, I can only blame myself. I love having negatives of my images that do not deteriorate , even after 40 years or so. I wonder if in 2052 whether my digital files (or cameras) will still be around. There is a permanence in film that is inescapable. I sometimes feel sorry for those photographers who have never experienced the singular joy of "reading" a negative without the assistance of a histogram. Basically for me, film with all of it's accoutrements is just plain fun!
Why I still use film ?
... because there is still no satisfying alternative for me. :)
paulfish4570
03-25-2012, 20:13
i like what i get with BW film.
i like the simple cameras i use to shoot film.
digital is good in its own way - with color. but the cameras ain't simple. they are so needy ...
traveler_101
03-25-2012, 21:04
Why do I use film? Well first I must say that I have turned to film in the past year or so, in part because I discovered b & w images and realized that film gives me the chance to express feelings about how I see the world that I cannot manage with digital images. I say "chance": I am still learning, which is nice in itself. Film is subtle, film is textural, film is tactile, film is real. Using film is a statement.
selloutboy
03-25-2012, 22:18
I chose film when I was 19 back in '08 out of bitterness from an Ex-girlfriend who cheated on me. She always use a 40D on auto. I vow to be better than her.
One thing I didn't count on was that I would fell in love with Rangefinders :)
I saved (and oftentimes starved myself :P) to get my current M4-P
Friends who use digital say I could switch to the X100 [M9 and X-Pro 1 is financially out of reach :( ]. Tempting but the lack of negative, advanced lever, and rangefinder patch is off putting :(
So I guess I'm sticking with film because I'm used to it until an actual affordable digital rangefinder comes out that is :P
celluloidprop
03-25-2012, 22:23
I really don't know. Nostalgia, maybe, and just for a change of pace.
I don't have the best scanning rig (Plustek and V700) so it's not like I can pull all the detail out of a B&W negative, and I don't have any of the feelings associated with film being 'more rounded,' 'deeper,' etc.. Mostly I remember slaving away in a darkroom the night before a project was due and how much washing and drying fiber prints in a gang darkroom sucked.
I've got ~75 rolls of 400-speed B&W and 25-30 rolls of Portra 400 in 120. I aim to shoot them all by mid-summer. After that, I don't know if I'll shoot film again.
J. Borger
03-25-2012, 22:39
Because nothing consistently does B&W like B&W film...
+ 1. The main reason for me too.
Above that i prefer the whole workflow: especially not knowing what you have got till development.
As a person who spends most of his working day behind a computer screen i also enjoy shaking some film in the bathroom! Time spend on computer for scanning and applying some curves in PS is minimal compared to the efforts necessary for getting a half way descent looking B&W picture out of a digital fiile.
Last but not least: I enjoy using full mechanical analog camera's like Leica's or Hasselblads much more than digital camera's with all their menu's and buttons. It's a completely different experience for me.
George Bonanno
03-25-2012, 23:28
Because...
No. 1... I'm a lazy thinker.
No. 2... I'm a moron.
No. 3... I don't know why.
No. 4... Gerald Slota is my friend.
DSkjaeve
03-25-2012, 23:38
The process, look of film and feel of cameras.
Freedom from batteries is one reason, but the main reason I like film is the smell. :)
I tried to like digital, I really did, and with a Sigma SD15, I almost succeeded.
I enjoy the process of shooting and developing, especially medium format, those big negs have an appeal that an SD card can never match.
I also have a confidence in MF film, if I get a great shot, and want to make a massive print, I can, unless I spend a fortune on digital MF, I can't.
Cost is also a factor, I can get a wonderful film camera like a Rolleiflex, for under £500, in digital world, I get a plasticky piece of c**p.
I could buy an m9 I guess, but for that kind of money I can thing of 10 other things I would rather buy.
michaelbialecki
03-26-2012, 00:18
It is what my cameras need to take photos......I can't put an SD card in my Leicas (that's a joke)........
I like the look of film and I do not find it difficult to use at all....I develop my own black and white film and make prints in my darkroom and I enjoy that process a lot......for color, I just drop off my kodak pro image 100 rolls at my local lab to get them developed and scanned....
cheers, michael
For me digital cameras seem like an extension of computing, which is my other hobby, and also my job. That means digital seems old hat to me, and also I just see all the silly design problems and gimmicks that are so common in computing now.
Also, I don't like chimping, not just from me, but others, who want to take a look at the back of the camera after each shot, film solves that.
I like the look and feel of film, I like the great colours compared to digital. Sure, you can achieve great colours on digital in post, but I spend enough time on computers as it is.
I find it easy to get all the film/equipment I need buying online, it's vastly easier to get unusual stuff now that it was 15 years ago.
Film camera tend to be so much better designed than digital, I mean, it's common now to have cameras which don't even have a finder! Simplicity of operation came before gimmicks/modes.
I like the slight unpredictability, sometimes I'll take a shot and be surprised/pleased with the results on film. Digital can surprise too of course, but it's short lived, not drawn out over days. Bluntly, I like the delayed gratification.
Medium format. If I had to only shoot one format, it would be 120. You've got to spend $10,000+ to rival a $600 film system in MF, even then you're plagued with noise in long exposure.
The benefit of digital is low ongoing cost (with the downside of high initial cost), and convenience. Neither of those things appeal to me greatly, so I won't bother with digital for the moment.
Bobfrance
03-26-2012, 01:13
Because I can tell the difference even if others can't and I don't what to compromise.
.
a10101100
03-26-2012, 01:15
I love tech gadgets.. really.. and i love my digital gear..
but film cameras, they have a certain something.. they have soul... not comparing costs per picture.. but film has character.. it's a way to slow yourself down.. I have my gel pens and my ballpens but i am very in love with my fountain pens and for me.. film cameras are the same..
pros and cons.. it doesnt matter.. it's just different.. and irreplaceable!
... and my cameras seem work better with film in them
Bobfrance
03-26-2012, 01:24
... and my cameras seem work better with film in them
I think that's where you're going wring with your GRD Stewart. :p
I think that's where you're going wring with your GRD Stewart. :p
... yep, that one is particularly difficult to load! mind, it's not as bad as that bloody Minox 35
kossi008
03-26-2012, 01:30
My reasons have all been stated, but here goes anyway:
I still use film because
(a) I'm just too dense to ge the same kind of b/w rendering out of digital.
(b) I just immensely prefer using my Zeiss Ikon to using my Nex. The simplicity of operation is just soothing to my soul. And my heart sings when I look through that finder.
(c) I find that I value each shot much more than with digital, and this makes me compose more carefully.
Jan Van Laethem
03-26-2012, 01:51
I think there is something tangible using the analogue systems. Loading your film, pressing the shutter of a fine mechanical camera and winding on to the next frame is a very satisfying experience that no digital camera has ever come close to.
Waiting to see your results is another factor that has already been mentioned here. I find it a big advantage, it allows you to stand back so to speak and put some distance between the taking stage and viewing stage.
Getting out an old contact sheet and viewing negatives on a light box is another experience I really enjoy.
And my four year old daughter is fascinated by her daddy's old cameras "that don't need batteries to work", as she rightly puts it. That's as good a reason as any. Now she wants me to give her a camera she can use with film. Not sure which one it will be.
Cyriljay
03-26-2012, 02:23
My knowledge in Photography was based on learning through Film cameras. It is very sensible to say I was grown into a photographer through films and
I owe a M8 camera and M6 and a Hasselblad system and other analog cameras. So I am a die hard negative user because......when using negatives..it soothes me in to the process and the discipline of photography .
I like the process and the concept when using Film cameras than the Digital cameras as it slows down you to think and work more precisely on composing , control , visualise carefully and accurately.
Though the using films are becoming more expensive due to disappearance of it availability of the facilities like scanning and developing etc. But due to the fact of it quality and the long term archiving is more secured , the film is still having it's level of popularity in photography.
I like the smell of negatives the true tones and grainy look of B&W films and feel of the film cameras in my hand.
It is feels funny when you load the m8 with the SD card and when you load the M6 with a film opening the bottom plate and use both cameras the same way.
I Prefer of course the smell of my Film when I do it on the M6
literiter
03-26-2012, 02:27
The Nikon D800 has pretty much decided for many people the technical advantages of digital capture. I've even heard a boast that the sensor will exceed the capabilities of most lenses or it is the equivalent of a medium format negative.
After this it is pretty much anyone's guess what comes after. Bigger, smaller, faster, more pixels, better batteries, more tonal range........all that.
I'm at the age where I'm not really too interested in upgrading every time technology changes, unless I have to.
I feel a certain confidence with, say, my 50+ year old Leica M2 because of it's inherent simplicity and the fact that after all these years of using it I understand what I can do with it.
When I buy a 1/4 inch drill bit the intent is pretty much to drill 1/4 inch holes. Until I break it, or loose it, I may not need another. When I buy a camera the intent might be to take photographs.
Charlie Lemay
03-26-2012, 02:40
I still shoot B&w film. The tones I get from using the zone system, rating Fuji Acros at ISO 6 gives me F 1.4 at 1/1000 which allows me to use my fast lenses in broad daylight (check the ZoneSimple section of my website for the details and free downloads of instructions for how to do this) .When I scan the negatives I immerse myself in the enlarged grain in a way that I never coukd in the darkoom. The tomes are so rich and the little particles make me feel like I am visceraliy manimulating the stuff of creation when I spot the dust and imperfections with the clone stamp in Photoshop. After a few minutes of this I get to know every inch of the image in a much more intimate way than I ever could in a darkroom. I think I was a decent wet printer, but in Photoshop, I can select anything and control everything and have become so much better at realizing the potential of my images.
I know this hybrid approach is not for everyone, but it was made for me. Film is the esential part. When I shoot digital, it's mostly on cloudy days for b+w or when I shoot color. it costs next to nothing to store film and i can always rescan it to take advantag of improved technology in the future, unlike digital, which will always be of it's time.
Remember:
(F) Film = Fun.
(D) Digital = Dull.
Jan Van Laethem
03-26-2012, 02:46
The tones I get from using the zone system, rating Fuji Acros at ISO 6 gives me F 1.4 at 1/1000 which allows me to use my fast lenses in broad daylight (check the ZoneSimple section of my website for the details and free downloads of instructions for how to do this).
Charlie,
I'd love to know more about this. Could you please provide a link to your website?
Thanks
jsrockit
03-26-2012, 05:02
The only reason I use film these days is when I get an itch to use a particular film camera.
ColSebastianMoran
03-26-2012, 05:29
I asked a similar question in another forum (http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00W6XX). "Why are you shooting Medium Format film?"
After a while the answers became pretty clear, and the number-one was: "Because I love my gear."
After that was, "For a particular look."
jsrockit
03-26-2012, 05:44
Remember:
(F) Film = Fun.
(D) Digital = Dull.
Shouldn't it be photography equals fun?
burancap
03-26-2012, 05:50
I like the smell of negatives the true tones and grainy look of B&W films and feel of the film cameras in my hand.
Yes.
The difference to me is sensory. The sights, the smells, the sounds, the feel, maybe the taste??? Film from start to finish is just more intimate.
I suppose it is like comparing instant "flavor" crystals nuked in a cup to hand-grinding, tamping, and awaiting a proper coffee.
Yes.
The difference to me is sensory. The sights, the smells, the sounds, the feel, maybe the taste??? Film from start to finish is just more intimate.
I suppose it is like comparing instant "flavor" crystals nuked in a cup to hand-grinding, tamping, and awaiting a proper coffee.
The taste? one can't set film in aspic you know ... oh, hang on ...
dogbunny
03-26-2012, 06:04
1) I like that I can't chimp.
2) I like that there is a methodical process involved.
3) I like that there is a certain amount of digestion time from shutter click to finished product.
4) The result of the b&w film just has something special about it.
5) It's my hobby, why does it have to be fast, instant gratification? It's the journey, not the destination.
6) I like when someone asks me to show them the picture I just took of them and I say I can't but if it turns out well I will share it with them.
7) I like that each click counts and that it can't be deleted or done over. I got it or I didn't.
I'm sure there are some more reasons, but (hopefully) you get the point.
db
I think that if I were going to do some commercial photography and be paid for it I would probably opt for digital.
Luckily for me I'm not paid to take photographs so I shoot on film.
And shooting on film is addictive. Only thirty six exposures to try to find something special and record that moment. And then the image is hidden. The barely conscious sense that something special might have been captured makes me impatient to get to the processing. The fresh negs get me straight to the scanner. Even second rate images get a second look and perhaps a scan. Fiddling in LR or PS is fun - but nothing is ever totally virtual. I can return to the neg any time I like.
I sometimes look at the pattern, side-on, of a negative - where the emulsion has been removed and where it is left and think- light made that impression - on the day, at the second the shutter was opened and in the very place recorded in those pictures. The negative is an artefact - a real record, something tangible which links images to experiences. Think of Capa's overheated negs for example - they were there, those little strips, on the beaches on that June day. Their partial destruction, their imperfection, is somehow as important a part of history as the images which can be printed from them.
Capa's overheated SD card might not have the same romance!
Cheers
anjoca76
03-26-2012, 06:47
I use film because, though I own one, a digital camera brings me no joy. If I were a professional who needed to make sure I had the shot, I would rely on digital, I suppose. But I am not, and I take pride in loading up an old manual camera with film and using what skill set I have, or do not have, to try to take pictures that hopefully come out the way I want them to, if not better. With digital, I shoot to many pictures and don't think about exposure and the technical side so much because I can immediately see if I got the shot or not. Blurry? Overblown highlights? Too dark? Shoot it again until I get it right. There's nothing wrong with that, but it brings me no joy.
Other reasons: I enjoy the feel of film cameras. I enjoy deciding on which film or films to bring me based on what I expect the light to be like when I get out there. Lastly, though I am hardly a luddite--I love electronic gizmos just as much as the next guy, I also do things like bake my own bread, brew my own beer, roll out my own fresh pasta. I brined my own corned beef for St. Paddy's Day. I make my own sausage. And so on. I like to experience how things were back in the day, so to speak. I like history. It helps me stay grounded--or something like that. I can't explain why that appeals to me, I guess; it just does.
emraphoto
03-26-2012, 06:52
I use film for a particular look.
I use film when I don't want to worry about access to electricity for recharging.
I use film because that's what my M6 uses. And it's a really cool camera.
I use film to appear strictly 'amateur' sometimes.
'who are you with'?
'oh, just a hobbyist'
Charles S
03-26-2012, 07:09
Because my M8 has to go back to Solms
DougFord
03-26-2012, 07:33
I think there is something tangible using the analogue systems. Loading your film, pressing the shutter of a fine mechanical camera and winding on to the next frame is a very satisfying experience that no digital camera has ever come close to.
Waiting to see your results is another factor that has already been mentioned here.
The short answer is it's 'experiential'.
The machine aspect, gears, spools, cams, ratchets, dragging the physical film media through the machine via the mechanicals along with the physical and photochemical nature of b&w film makes for quite a unique experience. For me this experience is integral to the results.
Paul Luscher
03-26-2012, 08:13
Because I still dig it, man. And I dig all my film cameras, too
Peter Wijninga
03-26-2012, 08:20
Handling of the cameras: the Leica M, the Zeiss-Ikon. But I also love to take pictures with the Nikon F3HP and FM3A.
Shouldn't it be photography equals fun?Yes, you are absolutely right. It is very much personal thing, take Ronnies input as his (hers) personal view.
Maybe should we create a new word: "phun" = fun from photography ?
I shoot film as I have more phun doing the real thing, not a virtual.
umcelinho
03-26-2012, 08:32
I prefer the look of film. But more and more it's been hard to find places where I live that will develop film with proper care. I only shoot C41 color negs and getting a Jobo isn't an option... I went back to scanning my own negs but it's so time consuming that it really puts me off.
I have an X100 (compact and silent 35mm equiv, but I prefer RF focusing) and an R-D1 (RF, amazing camera but the crop factor compromises my 35s and 50s), so I also shoot digital. More and more i've ben shooting digital and lately when I get my negs scanned I have been thinking that a digital file (RAW) would allow me so much more maneuverability than film, since I don't print often I don't get all of film's benefits on the darkroom.
So nowadays I shoot film because I haven't got myself a full frame rangefinder, yet. Waiting for the M10 to decide if I'll get an M9 or go for an M10. It'll be weird to walk around with such an expensive camera, but I'll have it insured so that doesn't bother me as much.
If there was a lab where I live that would develop and scan with great quality, then 2012 would probably not be my last year shooting film.
Charlie,
I'd love to know more about this. Could you please provide a link to your website?
Thanks
Maybe this ?
http://www.charlielemay.net/
jsrockit
03-26-2012, 08:54
I shoot film as I have more phun doing the real thing, not a virtual.
Real thing? ... jeez, this place kills me sometimes. If you truly want the real thing, you'd surely have to be using photos produced on a polished pewter plate covered with a petroleum derivative called Bitumen of Judea, which you'd then dissolved in white petroleum. Anything less is not the real thing. :bang:
shadowfox
03-26-2012, 09:05
I took both digital and film cameras on a recent trip.
I still like the photos I took with the film camera even though the digital one outnumbers it *purely* due to convenience.
And I still remember how much I enjoyed shooting with a manual camera on the trip.
And I enjoy holding and viewing the negatives. And I haven't even re-setup my darkroom yet due to moving yet. Now I really start to miss it.
So I guess I just like film. That's why I use it. Big surprise, huh?
Real thing? ... jeez, this place kills me sometimes. If you truly want the real thing, you'd surely have to be using photos produced on a polished pewter plate covered with a petroleum derivative called Bitumen of Judea, which you'd then dissolved in white petroleum. Anything less is not the real thing. :bang:
Be easy with banging head against the wall, is dangerous ...
I wonder why are you always so offended by my stance. You must be very touchy and really unsure about yourself. Maybe you should attend 1x.com. It is a place, where digital photographers find never ending praise for their deeds, film is not mentioned.
And yes, there is a growing number of people using wet plate or constructing own LF cameras.
gyuribacsi
03-26-2012, 11:39
First of all, with film I know in advance what I´ll get (if all tecnical preliminaries are done correctly). And then it´s the look of the picture even if scanned. Sure, the resolution of a digital camera is far higher. But the pictures are too clean and "sharp". A matter of taste, right.
George
Richard G
03-26-2012, 11:40
Archival record.
I like using my film Ms. (e.g. No real attachment to my OM. But attached to Hexar...)
I take more care.
Fixed ISO.
All manual controls.
So little battery dependence.
More certainty of final result.
Less time at computer.
But:
I hate misloads - only the M5 has defeated me and I think I'm now on top.
I hate fixed ISO.
I hate scratched negatives.
I hate dust and lint on negatives.
I hate scanning.
jsrockit
03-26-2012, 11:56
Be easy with banging head against the wall, is dangerous ... I wonder why are you always so offended by my stance. You must be very touchy and really unsure about yourself.
But the more I keep hitting my head against the wall, the better it feels when I stop. :eek: True, I'm a bit touchy...but I am secure. That has nothing to do with this matter though. To me, photography is photography... great work has been made in all mediums and formats and that has not changed with digital. This notion that digital is fake photography is just so silly that you keep roping me in. Next time, I'll just realize it's you posting again and ignore it.
Real thing? ... jeez, this place kills me sometimes. If you truly want the real thing, you'd surely have to be using photos produced on a polished pewter plate covered with a petroleum derivative called Bitumen of Judea, which you'd then dissolved in white petroleum. Anything less is not the real thing. :bang:
C'mon, you know the real thing is pulling your drapes and living in a camera obscura. No virtual there!
Benjamin Marks
03-26-2012, 12:47
I use film because that's what my cameras need...not trying to be silly here...I, as yet, still don't own a digital camera...
That being said...I love the whole film process...shooting, developing film, printing...
It's like Christmas morning when I open that film tank and see the images on the film...and there's something about seeing the image come up in the developer tray...
It's all the fuss over developing, rinsing, checking for any dust when printing, getting the right exposure time and seeing the final print and then the reaction from viewers of my images...
Ha HA! Yes. Precisely. Oh this is good. I was going to write: "because that is what goes in my cameras . . ." but thought that Bill might think it too snarky an answer. Truth to tell, Helen has nailed it too. My silver prints are a joy to look at. Perhaps it is the very imperfections visible at a billion-percent that make it so lovely. Every time I think I have digital B&W down, I look at my best stuff on good old silver chloride paper and my head wants to explode!
Speedfreak
03-26-2012, 12:49
WHY DO YOU USE FILM?
Loving mechanical cameras and manual lenses. Love the results (Ilford black and white for me).
When I brought three rolls in for developing to the local lab today there was another photographer unloading maybe thirty (!) rolls of 35mm and a bunch of larger format films.
Seeing this, I dont worry about the future of film.
jsrockit
03-26-2012, 12:50
C'mon, you know the real thing is pulling your drapes and living in a camera obscura. No virtual there!
But no photograph is produced... that would be more for camera lovers!
Charlie Lemay
03-26-2012, 12:50
Thanks for posting my website Timor,
I didn't post it here because just clicking on my name lets you choose to go to my web site. If you google my name, it comes up first as well.
Charlie
Why do I shoot film?
I love the process of using old cameras;
I love processing film;
And most important aspect - I love the output from film better than digital. Maybe one day I will fall in love with digital, but not yet. I keep on looking at test pictures from M8, M9, now x100, xp1 etc. etc. that you guys post here - it just does not look the way I like (unless a lot of post processing is done to simulate a film). Not yet.
Thanks for posting my website Timor,
I didn't post it here because just clicking on my name lets you choose to go to my web site. If you google my name, it comes up first as well.
Charlie
That, how I found it. Now I am looking at your instructions. Looks like great stuff worth trying.
Because its not as easy to build a digital camera with plywood. Duh!
A)
- I love the look of FP4+, Delta 100 as well as Kodak Elite Chrome (I know, need to stock up).
- Film is so smoooth....
B) Easier to handle. Yes!
I come home from a trip, develop my negatives (4 roll-tank), and scan with Epson 4990 & Silverfast LE. FP4+/HP5+ profiles work fine (b/w) for me now. Scan, apply profile, adjust curves slightly, then a few adjustments in LR3. Takes me less time on average than fixing up an M8 or DP2s file in LR3 and Silver Efex.
Photos I need to have published/printed large I sent to a high-quality scan service (Hasselblad X1) where a pro knows what I want. They are essentially ready-to-print when I get them back.
C) Gear....
- my favourite focal length is 50mm and my favourite lens is the 50mm Sonnar C. I cannot handle the crop of the M8 or X-Pro 1, and cannot afford an M9.
- I shoot in a lot in cold mountain ranges. My M6 and Contax T3 simply work.
- The lens characteristics and rendering of the Sonnar on the Contax T3 loaded with slide film or Delta 100 have not been surpassed by any digital. So I stick with it when I need a very compact performer for double-page spreads.
- I can afford to shoot medium format with it. Rolleiflex...yummie.
I use film because it is light sensitive and can record an image that I can turn into a photograph.
newsgrunt
03-26-2012, 14:13
...To me, photography is photography... great work has been made in all mediums and formats and that has not changed with digital. This notion that digital is fake photography is just so silly that you keep roping me in...
yuuup, uh huh.
ColSebastianMoran
03-26-2012, 15:07
I bought a state of the art film camera last week for $150.
As did I. And many others. I think it will be fun. That's reason enough.
Jubb Jubb
03-26-2012, 15:21
But the more I keep hitting my head against the wall, the better it feels when I stop. :eek: True, I'm a bit touchy...but I am secure. That has nothing to do with this matter though. To me, photography is photography... great work has been made in all mediums and formats and that has not changed with digital. This notion that digital is fake photography is just so silly that you keep roping me in. Next time, I'll just realize it's you posting again and ignore it.
Well, film kinda is the "real" thing. You can touch it, hold it, hold your neg/slide up to the light.. try doing that with your memory card.
Whenever I shoot film, I always feel more involved in the photography process than what i do when shooting digital.
This notion that digital is fake photography is just so silly that you keep roping me in. Next time, I'll just realize it's you posting again and ignore it.
I never said that digital is a fake photography, I said it is not a photography, it is something else, a digital capture which similarity to photography ends with the shutter. Behind that exists totally different, algorithm driven virtual world of information. I know, there are hybrid technologies, where you can print "digital negative" and then in the darkroom a real, baryta photograph could be made. But for that digital camera is not needed, any computer generated graphic file will do. Digital camera is just the quickest way to acquire the initial image. This is never less wonderful technology with great potential and is good, that we have it. I just don't use it for my hobby.
When comes to "roping" you are doing it yourself, initially in this thread I agreed with you, I don't think that "digital=dull", very much the opposite.
newsgrunt
03-26-2012, 16:25
...I said it is not a photography, it is something else...
I'm very curious to know why you don't consider it photography ? I know the words people use but I fail to understand the reasoning.
and to add further confusion, there's a thread about Thomas Dworzak using an X100. Does this mean he and Alex Majoli for example, aren't making photographs ? If not, what are they making ?
Aw com'on, let's not go there again.
newsgrunt
03-26-2012, 16:38
I'm being sincere Frank, I simply can't understand the rationale. As long as this view is being put forth, I want to understand it. I think this is germane to the thread but I understand your concern as to which path this can go.
TXForester
03-26-2012, 16:54
Because that's the way, uh-huh, uh-huh, I like it.You have a mirrored ball hanging from the living room ceiling, don't ya? :D
I'm being sincere Frank, I simply can't understand the rationale. As long as this view is being put forth, I want to understand it. I think this is germane to the thread but I understand your concern as to which path this can go.
It is merely semantics. Photography to some people means traditional film. For those people, digital capture is not real (traditional) photography. (and it is a different process to acheive an image) It's just how they choose to define the words. No biggie. No need to get twisted up.
I like mechanical things. My older film 35mm cameras, M4-2, OM-1, Pen F are all mechanical, feel nice in the hand, make soothing sounds, and don't require batteries. The plasto-blob Ni-Ca-Oly-Tax digital SLR's (no way can I afford an M9) have no appeal at all and as far as I'm concerned are completely interchangeable in their mundane dullness.
For the same reasons as Zuiko85. I couldn't have said it better. In addition, I like the look of film. Digital looks clinical to me.
I use film because (for me) its intuitive & much easier than learning digital camera menus. Most of the time only 2 of 3 variables operate- aperture & shutter speed. Maybe I'm lazy..
Ah yes. I gotta add that to my reasons. No menus!
Glass plates are too heavy.
Ronald M
03-26-2012, 22:07
Film, thats the emulsion on plastic stuff. I remember it. The darkroom is still set up,all 7 enlargers, safe lights, large format , various Focomats, trays. I never had to update any to keep working. Never sold any of the film cameras, all Leicas except for 4x5.
Went to mostly digital 6 years ago and thought it was cool. Still do. Have a couple full frame Nikons and some DX ones and a M8 so I can use all my old lenses. All the latest and greatest Nikor lenses and a newish 27" iMac ,i7, 16 GB ram, color calibrated screen, photoshop CS5.
Computer came with Snow Leoperd and I spent weeks setting it up chasing drivers from obscure websites so I could continue to use my Minolta 5400 scanner, a Kodak printer, Epson flatbed, and a few other devices. Now I am ready for the fun part.
Wrong! Lion OS comes along. Don`t need it as the new computer is for photos ONLY.
Wrong again! CS6 requires 64 bit Lion OS. OK I don`t mind $100 upgrade to Lion and I can use the disk for 3 computers. Here is the issue. The film scanner will not be supported by Minolta and I will be chasing drivers for the rest which I may or may not find. I just went thru all this 15 months ago.
Does Kodak make film 1 mm wider every year forcing new cameras ? Heck no. 4x5 is still 4x5. I can feed the Leicas 35 mm just like always.
Adobe will not support 32 bit on Mac so Adobe thinks they can force me to upgrade to Lion and then I get screwed by everything else. And they expect every new CS to be upgraded, OK so I resigned to to paying $200 every few years, but I`ll be dammed if I will buy a new computer, scanners, printer etc.
What do I get as a photographer for all this new OS stuff? Nothing. Just a bunch of trouble.
Digital photography is nothing but a money pit.
Jan Van Laethem
03-27-2012, 01:56
Thanks for posting my website Timor,
I didn't post it here because just clicking on my name lets you choose to go to my web site. If you google my name, it comes up first as well.
Charlie
Thank you Timor. I must admit I should have tried that myself before asking.
Charlie, I had a brief look at your website yesterday and bookmarked it to have a read later today.
Teuthida
03-27-2012, 02:33
I like the smell of film. And Fixer.
I love the little click my M5 shutter makes.
Jubb Jubb
03-27-2012, 03:39
Digital photography is nothing but a money pit.
Well. I'd say film is more of a money pit. Sure you don't have to upgrade your digital kit every few years, however think of all that money spent on film/development/scanning.
I just bought 100 rolls of film. Close to $1000. This will last me a few months. So in a year using and spending all that on film and development, it certainly does make digital less of a money pit than film.
Many hobbies are money pits.
jsrockit
03-27-2012, 04:39
Well, film kinda is the "real" thing. You can touch it, hold it, hold your neg/slide up to the light.. try doing that with your memory card. Whenever I shoot film, I always feel more involved in the photography process than what i do when shooting digital.
I always thought it was the photos that mattered... generally speaking, people are going to look at the photo and not your process. That said, I can understand loving the wet darkroom. I did... but I also love the digital process as well. I just love photography in general.
Why would I want to hold my memory card up to the light? I can just chimp the images on my camera... ;)
Teuthida
03-27-2012, 04:55
Well. I'd say film is more of a money pit. Sure you don't have to upgrade your digital kit every few years, however think of all that money spent on film/development/scanning.
I just bought 100 rolls of film. Close to $1000. This will last me a few months. So in a year using and spending all that on film and development, it certainly does make digital less of a money pit than film.
Thats $10 a roll. That's nuts especially if you're buying in bulk.
Rolling my own bulk film costs me about $2.50 a roll for B&W on average. I understand that color may be more, but still...
Because I still dig it, man. And I dig all my film cameras, too
So you Dig it all :D Sorry couldnt resist
Brian Puccio
03-27-2012, 05:45
Thats $10 a roll. That's nuts especially if you're buying in bulk.
Rolling my own bulk film costs me about $2.50 a roll for B&W on average. I understand that color may be more, but still...
Have you seen how much a roll of Provia 400x in 35mm goes for these days? Over $10 everywhere you look.
Thankfully I shoot less than 50 rolls per year and try to use 100 speed slide film.
shadowfox
03-27-2012, 08:56
Because its not as easy to build a digital camera with plywood. Duh!
Ah yes, and I won't be able to pick up a digital camera with an obsolete sensor and duct-tape a bigger back and get a larger sensor camera in the end :D
(In case that's not clear, I was describing my hacking a Polaroid Pathfinder 110 with a 4x5 back, got shots from it too, after taping shut the last light-leak, that is :) ).
I always thought it was the photos that mattered... generally speaking, people are going to look at the photo and not your process.
But different processes yield different results. Even if they can produce the same image in a technical sense, different operational sequences have divergent decision trees, and tend to yield different artistic results. Not better, necessarily, but different.
There are good and valid artistic reasons why people still do stone litho, linocuts, woodcuts, silkscreen, etchings, etc. Same goes for the various photographic approaches.
I always thought it was the photos that mattered... That's the mix-up maybe. For hobbyist not always the final effect matters, is more the activity which brings some fun and relax.
Ken_Watson
03-27-2012, 13:21
I was looking at some old photographs last year that my parents took when I was a child.
They looked great for all their flaws. It's like they'd aged like a quality piece of furniture or a good wine. Looking at the images made me want to pick up a film camera again. I've always wanted a rangefinder (having used a film SLR many years ago). So last year I bought an old M6 and a couple of lenses and have since derived great pleasure out of everything from inserting the film to thinking about the exposure, the composition, the light. Emotionally it felt great to create some kind of continuity, to follow in my father's footsteps as I capture images of my 15 month old son and record the places we've explored and the things we've enjoyed doing. Simple but valued moments in time, carefully and lovingly recorded on the Leica in the same way and for the same reasons that my father did before me. The whole process has been a rich one including the beautiful fine grained end product.
Film is special on many technical, artistic and emotional levels. I'm hooked again.
Digital has it's place as a precision tool and the immediacy of the results accelerate the learning curve for an amateur like myself. I still use digital, in fact I'm waiting to take delivery of a new digital camera tomorrow. But when I want to slow things down, savour the moment and create something meaningful (to me), I reach for my beautiful M6.
That's why I like film :-)
Jubb Jubb
03-27-2012, 17:41
Rolling my own bulk film costs me about $2.50 a roll for B&W on average. I understand that color may be more, but still...
You haven't bought film in the past few years have you...
Kodak Ektachrome costs $10 per roll, and other neg films cost around $7.
BW sure, you can get it a lot cheaper. I have never seen a bulk deal around, anywhere. BH sell everything by the roll, which is where i get my film from.
Sure digital photography can be expensive with gear, but you aren't really paying for every single photo you take with the camera.
1) I prefer the process. Celluloid negatives and darkroom printing rather than pixels and a computer.
2) I much prefer useing film cameras.
That's the mix-up maybe. For hobbyist not always the final effect matters, is more the activity which brings some fun and relax.
Quite right. To me its more fun to develop and print in a darkroom than sitting in front of a computer.
Best regards
shimokita
03-28-2012, 00:32
Martin Parr's recent blog entry titled The Facebook Problem... If you believe the numbers he quotes (and if I understand them correctly)... I calculate that if every frame of a 36 exposure roll is a keeper than we would be looking at 166.7 million rolls of film per month (500 million rolls at 12 good exposures of 120 format film).
Okay, I guess the pace of film and the price of excellent quality lenses and equipment. I found (by walking around) a factory Ai-ed Nikkor-H Auto 1:3.5 f=28mm for about USD 50... I enjoyed that find and the rolls of film exposed using it. In that same time I could have pumped out and uploaded a thousand or so dSLR images, but then we would be back to that old discussion (again...).
Casey
I started out with film 14 years ago, learned how to develop and print, and now I just want to keep the technical side constant so that I can concentrate on the photograph. I also never thought there was anything wrong with film, so why should I switch? Constantly upgrading SW would frustrate me immensely. Even scanning pictures with a flatbed for the web is utterly boring. Mind you, I’m an amateur, so there’s no pressure to switch to digital.
May I also quote David Burnett from an interview at TOP:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/03/burnett.html
“ Early July I was in Florida for the last of the Space Shuttle launches, and found myself on the same beach where, 42 years earlier, I'd photographed the departure of Apollo XI to the moon.
A few good pictures this time, but living in the age of TV/internet/twitter/Facebook, it all feels like it passes far too quickly. The velocity of photos and images that society has created and runs through on a daily basis means it's very difficult for a great image to stand out. It still happens, but I think we are all being deluged with imagery, and not enough time to appreciate them"
Food for thought…
stratcat
03-28-2012, 14:06
Because I like it! Because it demands involvement to prepare the chemicals, carefully develop, cut, scan, etc. Because it's physical and I can touch the rolls, the negatives, the tank, etc.
That's just me. Others get much more artistical shots than I do with their digicams and have their fun that way. I have my fun with bulk loading, rewinding, developing, scanning, etc.
I always thought it was the photos that mattered... generally speaking, people are going to look at the photo and not your process. That said, I can understand loving the wet darkroom. I did... but I also love the digital process as well. I just love photography in general.
Why would I want to hold my memory card up to the light? I can just chimp the images on my camera... ;)
If only the result and not the proces of getting there mattered it wouldn't be a hobby it would be work. You could also ask why bother carvin somthing or metalworking, sawing and grinding when CNC machines does it so much better
Best regards
Lots of reasons (in no particular order)
- every shot costs real money (as opposed to the depreciation of my DSLRs as soon as I open the box), which subconsciously or not makes me take a different approach
- in 35mm the viewfinders and (IMO) haptics are so far beyond the most top-end digital gear it makes me weep to look through a viewfinder
- film cameras are light and small and somehow still manage to do what I need ;)
- B&W. Oh, black and white! Adding grain even with the best software to a B&W conversion of a digital image destroys information; with B&W film, grain creates the image - I can't think of a more fundamental difference. The fact that products such as Silver EFEX Pro are so popular shows just how much people still like that "look"
- financial issues aside, there's just something about the process, from composing the shot to getting the negs/slides/scans that is different from digital in a way I can't really put my finger on
- you can buy perfectly good used film gear for a fraction of what you'd spend on a DSLR, get beautiful results and maybe even not lose any money on the equipment
I could go on but you get the idea. This coming from someone who just shelled out some serious $ (for me anyway) for a 5DIII. Yep, I still love film... I just wish I shot more of it!
Regards,
Scott
I have never got what I wanted from a digital black and white print, I prefer the colours I get from Portra 160nc. I could possibly get the same colours off a digital file but I get it right away with film. Maybe most importantly, the process of developing and then printing a monochrome print feel a far greater skill than moving a few virtual sliders. The whole darkroom work process feels more of a craft and when I have a decent print I feel like I have achieved something. Film is full of pleasant surprises as some times it will take me 2 or more wks to develop the film, will have forgotten some of the things I decided to put on the film by then. The cameras feel like quality things from the heft of a MF slr/tlr to the smooth engineering of the OM1&2. Film causes breaks in the shooting rhythm like the turning over of a record. No parasitical member of my family can say it won't cost me anything to take a photograph of her (told them I sold off digital) and expect me to do it for free. The negative and the print is a tangible thing, only a print with digital until then it is just a series of 0's and 1's, fibre based paper feels awesome in the hand.
Because of the nice gear and the good feeling:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ronnypersson/6880123004/in/photostream/lightbox/
Bike Tourist
03-29-2012, 10:17
To answer your question in the negative, as much as I have fits of nostalgia about film, when it comes to the practical use and payment for all aspects of the film experience and then the requisite waiting time, I don't use the stuff.
As if that weren't bad enough, now I give you three very different examples of current cameras that probably ought to make you abandon film if you are not completely hard core:
A. Sony ALPHA NEX-7
B. Fujifilm X-PRO1
C. Nikon D800
And Bill, if you are still using medium format, film OR digital, then you are a dinosaur.
Bill Pierce
03-29-2012, 11:45
To answer your question in the negative, as much as I have fits of nostalgia about film, when it comes to the practical use and payment for all aspects of the film experience and then the requisite waiting time, I don't use the stuff.
As if that weren't bad enough, now I give you three very different examples of current cameras that probably ought to make you abandon film if you are not completely hard core:
A. Sony ALPHA NEX-7
B. Fujifilm X-PRO1
C. Nikon D800
And Bill, if you are still using medium format, film OR digital, then you are a dinosaur.
Dick -
The film I use the most is 8x10 sheet film. I use it in a studio with, believe it or not, a huge strobe that once belonged to Richard Avedon. The second most used film is 4x5 on a reducing back on the 8x10 view. These particular usages aren't of too much interest to this forum. But, if you already own the gear, it does eliminate much of the need for a many megapixel medium format digital. And the film is so big, you can get great scans from a relatively cheap flatbed scanner. (And I do use an X-Pro. Another interesting and relatively new camera is the Ricoh A12 module for M mount lenses. Not a lot of megapixels, but no AA filter and capable of pretty impressive image quality.)
I bought a DSLR a few years back but was never very happy with the results compared to the slides I shot before. Two or three years ago I started scanning old family Kodachromes and was knocked out by the colour, and quality after 40 to 50 years. I sold my digital body and bought back a film one deciding slides and scanning was the way to stay.
At the same time discovered 120 folding cameras and always wanted to shoot medium format film. Again with a simple £30 camera I was blown by the tonal range, detail, colour balance and almost 3D quality of some photos. I've been on a medium format quest since now using more modern, well at least 10 years old equipment. In digital terms I can get a 30 plus megapixel image from a simple camera worth less than £100.
I have always kept and used my Olympus rangefinder cameras and on a recent trip to India my 35RD with Ektachrome produced the sharpest, perfectly exposed photos compared to my SLR. In all my previous travels my XA has often produced the best pictures, perhaps not in complete quality with edge light fall off but because it is so handy to carry and use at a moment. If I could have found a digital version of the XA, simple controls, quick to use, quality results I would have bought it. I did try a Canon G something, 7 or 9, Ok controls ,lousy viewfinder and only OK results with fringing and other artefacts. Well an X100 now might fit the bill but not the price.
Things finally seem to be changing where digital cameras (not including SLRS) you can use with familiarity and control and get good results are arriving albeit expensively. I will probably get a NEX-7 to replace my present film SLR and indeed for 35mm digital makes sense.
I will continue using medium format film and my rangefinders, it suits my style, selecting the scene, composing the shot then firing instead of indiscriminately shooting then looking for that instant result. I like the process of waiting for the result, the unexpected element you did not notice in the composition, the joy when it works and the 'oh well I could have framed that better’ result but you are only capturing a moment and it passes so you may never have got it anyway.
I also like the physical element. I have something tangible my hands I can see the image on a light table or even project it. I scan and print the keepers and love flicking through the albums from time to time. I have the best of both worlds. The reliance of computer storage worries me. A friend has just spent hundreds trying to recover images from a disk that failed. A lot of people rely on digital storage and never actually get prints made.
Also at an exhibition of a photographer last year which spanned his film work and later digital you could easily tell the difference between the two. I overheard a couple commenting on one landscape shot about the weird green colours of the digital print, so it wasn't just me. I also had the impression of over sharpening in the digital scenes, like each pixel was trying to jump out and have noticed this in other exhibitions, it looks so artificial.
In short:
Quality, high dynamic and smooth tonal range and detail, colour balance.
Using equipment simply designed to capture images rather than process them.
Longevity and flexibility of use. Archival quality.
Range of film types for different results and immense flexibility with black and white.
Only film makes me print... I never printed any of my digital images.
Currently that and the reason for the only M compatible full frame body costing more than my full education fund.
So, analog, darkroom, enlarging till i score some oil or a gold mine :D
I've passed a Canon 40D, 50D, 5dmkII, Pentax K5 and finally came to rest with a pack of Leica M3's ...
amateriat
03-29-2012, 12:10
I suppose the simplest answer for me is that the thought never occurred to me to stop shooting film.
The cameras I work best with - my pair of Hexar RFs, my Contax Tvs, my ersatz-view-camera Olympus OM-2n, and, yes, even my funky little Holga 135 - obviously use film. The film types I prefer to use - Kodak Portra, Ektar 100, BW400CN, and assorted conventional black-and-white films - aren't in any imminent danger of disappearing. (Too bad about E6, though.) My hybrid method of image-making - shoot film, scan film, digitally edit/manage/print - has been in place for nearly fourteen years and has served me well.
And the one digital camera I do have and use - a Nikon Coolpix P6000 - does what I need to do when I specifically need a digital camera to do it.
I don't do big-ass dSLRs; I moved to RFs a decade ago because I was getting sick of big-ass film SLRs and their stovepipe zooms, great performers however they were.
Film, put squarely, is relevant to my work, and my method. There's nothing romantic about my use of it. When it ceases to be relevant to me, I'll simply stop using it. For now, it remains my mainstay.
- Barrett
robbeiflex
03-29-2012, 12:18
Shouldn't it be photography equals fun?
No, the rules of alliteration tell us it should be Fotography is Fun, or Photography is Phun. :D
jsolanzo
03-29-2012, 12:19
Element of Surprise
Digital is kinda boring IMO
Phil_F_NM
03-29-2012, 12:23
The buffer time on film's recording is still the fastest in visual media.
Phil Forrest
amateriat
03-29-2012, 12:48
The buffer time on film's recording is still the fastest in visual media.
Phil Forrest
Yeah, that too. :)
- Barrett
mfunnell
03-29-2012, 12:52
The buffer time on film's recording is still the fastest in visual media.Writing to the buffer is fast. From buffer to JPEG? Not so much.
...Mike
Jubb Jubb
03-29-2012, 12:53
And Bill, if you are still using medium format, film OR digital, then you are a dinosaur.
What a ridiculous statement...
Why?
Leica M5
Canon VI-T
Hasselblad 501c/m
Pentax 6x7
Zone VI
Linhof Technika V
None of the above came with a digital sensor.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Wayne
isoterica
03-29-2012, 14:28
Why film? Because I can use the camera my father handed down to me if I use film. It survived the Korean war, it went to Japan, came to the United States and if I wasn't so afraid it would be lost or stolen I would have taken it to Australia. Why else? Because I am relatively new at photography and using film cameras is teaching me a lot. I have to think rather than the camera doing it for me. Sure there is going fully manual but having to understand Sunny 16 etc.. is teaching me a lot more about lighting than my DSLR meter. I do have digital, but when I am holding one of these old film cameras that I have [from rangefinder to twin lens reflex] I feel like there is an aura about them from the people that used them before me down to myself that makes them special. I don't know how many hands they passed through, how many lives they touched, but I know someone was just as fond of them at some point just as I am now.
I am a b/w shooter and as much as I love the low light superiority and convenience of digital I just can not get the look of film with a digital camera. If I shot color I would switch in a heart beat. Digital b/w to my eyes looks fake.
It's not so much film being the reason... I just prefer the way my TLR and rangefinders work over anything I have used thus far with a digital sensor... also the lack of batteries is very liberating knowing that at any moment I can press the shutter and it will work.
mfunnell
03-29-2012, 19:39
And Bill, if you are still using medium format, film OR digital, then you are a dinosaur.Bill has answered for himself. Me, I do use medium format film. If that makes me a dinosaur then so be it. An extremely successful group of animals :D Their descendants are with us to this day (another very successful group of animals).
...Mike
umcelinho
03-29-2012, 20:06
Archival record.
I like using my film Ms. (e.g. No real attachment to my OM. But attached to Hexar...)
I take more care.
Fixed ISO.
All manual controls.
So little battery dependence.
More certainty of final result.
Less time at computer.
But:
I hate misloads - only the M5 has defeated me and I think I'm now on top.
I hate fixed ISO.
I hate scratched negatives.
I hate dust and lint on negatives.
I hate scanning.
likewise...
emraphoto
03-29-2012, 20:30
I'm very curious to know why you don't consider it photography ? I know the words people use but I fail to understand the reasoning.
and to add further confusion, there's a thread about Thomas Dworzak using an X100. Does this mean he and Alex Majoli for example, aren't making photographs ? If not, what are they making ?
add Peter Van Agtmael
Bike Tourist
03-30-2012, 03:34
What a ridiculous statement...
I suppose so. It was meant in the context that MF, even MF with digital backs is not necessary for the quality demanded by almost any application. The special film "look", the visceral satisfaction some people derive from working with film and even the wonderful optical/mechanical characteristics achieved by some older cameras are, of course, dinosaurs of a different color!
And, as Mike pointed out, dinosaurs were a very successful group of animals, enduring much longer than we have so far. So, don't be offended by my ridiculous statement, Jubb Jubb. It probably won't be the last.
paulfish4570
03-30-2012, 04:16
besides, it was meant in fun ... :)
To answer your question in the negative, as much as I have fits of nostalgia about film, when it comes to the practical use and payment for all aspects of the film experience and then the requisite waiting time, I don't use the stuff.
As if that weren't bad enough, now I give you three very different examples of current cameras that probably ought to make you abandon film if you are not completely hard core:
A. Sony ALPHA NEX-7
B. Fujifilm X-PRO1
C. Nikon D800
And Bill, if you are still using medium format, film OR digital, then you are a dinosaur.
Not sure if you're joking here, but in case you're not:
The 3 cameras you list are cool, to be sure, but they're all still fairly typical digital at heart, all menus and modes, not simple at all.
I started on medium format maybe 18 months ago, feels a lot longer though. The quality available on 6x6 or 6x9 like I'm using now will wipe the floor with 99% of digital cameras. If you want to beat medium format on resolution, then you've got to spend more money than I'm prepared to.
Digital cameras were not made to make better quality photos, they were made so companies could profit. If you stand back from the marketing etc. it's easy to see why often newer is not better. The fact is that you can spend a few hundred on a medium format camera and get resolution that costs thousands in digital.
If you like the convenience and very low ongoing cost of digital, fine, but film can offer stunning results for little initial outlay, and probably offer a technically better image in 99% of cases.
newsgrunt
03-30-2012, 04:39
Hmm, if MF, film or digital = dinosaur. What does that make me if I use 8x10 and larger ;)
c.poulton
03-30-2012, 04:40
I just find that for me images created with film have a certain 'depth' to them that digital just doesn't have.....
To my eyes, digital just appears to be too clinical, too 'sharp, too clean. I've seen many many images created recently with the M9(P) and although, granted, the sharpness and resolution is simply outstanding, I still prefer film......
None of the above came with a digital sensor.
WayneThere is no such a thing. Camera sensors are as analog as it gets.
When comes to dinosaurs, I think it was way to say that film and film users are technologically backward. And that from a guy who is biking around California. Doesn't he know we have cars now ? For the past hundred years or so ?
Primarily I still use film, now mostly large format B&W, for several aesthetic reasons, many already mentioned here. But also for the fact that it provides a distinct point of difference both aesthetically and philosophically in my work.
I find statements like film and film users are technically inferior to digital totally ridiculous? If so then what does that say about painting and painters? This type of statement makes about as much sense as saying a new Toyota car is better than a tasty naval orange!
Bike Tourist
03-31-2012, 03:24
Let me respectfully disagree with comments from timor:
There is no such a thing (as a digital sensor). Camera sensors are as analog as it gets.
I'm not sure where this comes from. No reason is offered. Actually, when the photochemical analog process is taken to the quantum level, everything becomes digital. The universe, really.
When (it) comes to dinosaurs, I think it was (his) way to say that film and film users are technologically backward.
Some are including themselves with the technology! Let's separate "film" from "fim users". Film is nothing but an older technology. The fact that it's older has no bearing on its worth or the satisfaction derived from it's use. A "film user" is not "technologically backward", only someone who, for their own good reason, uses film. But that reason no longer needs to be to get superior results.
And that from a guy who is biking around California. Doesn't he know we have cars now ? For the past hundred years or so ?
Ha, ha. Guilty! I say I'm car free, but I can borrow my wife's if I need to. So, yes, I know we have cars and in my long life I have probably had too many. Speaking of dinosaurs, those inconsiderate animals did not die in sufficient numbers to supply our happy motoring suburban lifestyle forever.
As an amateur, there are a lot of good reasons. (A high-volume shooting pro has different needs.)
Mechanical/Build/Design/Operation
There is only one expensive choice. This beef pre-dates digital (which refined the concept of "just hit the button" by adding "and, simply fix major problems later in photoshop").
It seems that today only Leica is be able to separate imaging technology from simple operation and decent build. If I have to go to an obscure tips and tricks blog to find out how to perform a basic function properly, I'm holding the wrong camera.
Cost
We can buy the best imaging technology for peanuts. A D800 with the right lens set will be at least $7k.
Results
It's not as fast to process as digital, but the quality cannot be beaten. MF and large maintain an affordable distance with digital.
Downside
Slow processing.
Intangible
The processing, handling, communication and storage of digital files is easier and faster than film and all of these are practical attributes for missile targeting systems and commercial photographers. But, the digital process is simply too synthetic for my liking or needs.
- Charlie
Substitute you for my mum
At least I'll get my washing done
Some are including themselves with the technology! Let's separate "film" from "fim users". Film is nothing but an older technology. The fact that it's older has no bearing on its worth or the satisfaction derived from it's use. A "film user" is not "technologically backward", only someone who, for their own good reason, uses film. But that reason no longer needs to be to get superior results.
Film is certainly an older technology, but I don't think that can have any bearing on whether a technology is better or worse. IBM's OS/2 was wiped out by Microsoft Windows, an inferior technology in every way.
At the moment, for the ultimate in technical resolution, I think we can agree that it's either use large format film, or spend an enormous amount on a digital scanning back or something.
Right now, respectfully, I think film is the superior technology. My career is in computing, and digital is far more second-nature to me than film. However, I think that all things being equal, the simpler solution is the better one, and film is that for me.
Arguments about technical superiority are, in the absence of a specific artistic, journalistic, or scientific problem or goal, vacuous.
if you are still using medium format, film OR digital, then you are a dinosaur.
Only if you view photography as a technical exercise rather than as an expressive art.
Your argument is tantamount to saying that people who do stone lithography rather than using a photocopier are dinosaurs.
It is a vacuous argument.
willie_901
03-31-2012, 14:11
Let me respectfully disagree with comments from timor:
There is no such a thing (as a digital sensor). Camera sensors are as analog as it gets.
I'm not sure where this comes from. No reason is offered. Actually, when the photochemical analog process is taken to the quantum level, everything becomes digital. The universe, really.
This interesting.
A single Photon behaves as discrete particles. Ensembles of photons often behave as if they are waves. Photons have speed and momentum which are linear (analog) Newtonian concepts. But you can not predict how photons behave using Newtonian physics... you need quantum mechanics and discrete states.
Phone energy states are completely discrete. So in a sense they are digital. Victor F. Weisskopf called this behavior the Heisenberg Certainty Principle. That is not a typo. The photon is in one energy level or another, but never in both. Gaining or losing energy causes a change in state, but this change appears to be perfectly digital.
A sensor produces an analog voltage/current which is eventually digitized by a analog to digital converter. Yet at some point the photons' interaction with the sensor site requires quantum mechanics to describe how the voltage/current is created. Finally, the transistors in the sensor circuits wouldn't work if it wasn't for quantum mechanic tunneling.
The chemical reactions in film also require quantum mechanics to fully understand what happens when film granules interact with light and more importantly how to invent improved photosensitive molecules. Of course the end result is a three-dimensional array of molecules that is purely analog. There is a continuous distribution of photosensitive molecules.
willie_901
03-31-2012, 14:22
....
It seems that today only Leica is be able to separate imaging technology from simple operation and decent build. If I have to go to an obscure tips and tricks blog to find out how to perform a basic function properly, I'm holding the wrong camera.
...[/I]
It is trivial to use dozens of different digital cameras in full manual mode. Operation can be as simple as any M camera. It's the photographer's choice.
A 30 second Google search will reveal numerous examples of digital cameras that have survived serious physical abuse implying robust build is not limited to one camera.
There are many reasons to prefer using a film camera, but I don't find either of these convincing.
This interesting.
A single Photon behaves as discrete particles.
Not quite.
Single photons (and other subatomic particles) behave as waves and as particles. In the double-slit experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment), you get interference patterns - an indication of wave-like behavior - even when photons go through the slits one at a time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Interference_of_individual_particl es). One of the freakiest results in all of science.
And if you put a particle detector at the slits, to see which slit each photon goes through, the interference pattern goes away.
Because every time I pick up my filmcamera it forces me to slow down and learn a bit more, think a bit further ...
Aristophanes
03-31-2012, 18:19
Film is certainly an older technology, but I don't think that can have any bearing on whether a technology is better or worse. IBM's OS/2 was wiped out by Microsoft Windows, an inferior technology in every way.
At the moment, for the ultimate in technical resolution, I think we can agree that it's either use large format film, or spend an enormous amount on a digital scanning back or something.
Right now, respectfully, I think film is the superior technology. My career is in computing, and digital is far more second-nature to me than film. However, I think that all things being equal, the simpler solution is the better one, and film is that for me.
The economics say otherwise for all products because there is no product nor development without economy. Inferior and superior arguments must factor that in. If not, the argument exists in a vacuum.
RBruceCR
05-04-2012, 05:16
I use film because I am acquainted with the process of making a picture, that is, of visualizing the print and then making the picture. I dislike the instant gratification of digital snapshots. I do, however, use my iPhone to document processes in the printing shop where I work and for snapshots of things that interest me when I walk or go mountain biking!
I find the digital cameras expensive, even used ones. With used ones, there is always the risk of buying something with planned obsolescence "programmed" inside. However, my original 1995 Minolta Maxxum 600si didn't outlive film, my Sigma lens stuck at infinity, in a symbolic way waving good bye at the great era of film.
I started seeing digital SLR's the last time I was on vacation in the USA, but found them complicated, the terminology complex, RAW, Lightroom, noise, etc. Then I found another 600si again on eBay and bought it, it was in mint condition, got an 18-35/4 Sigma lens, bought EIR in the UK, bought filters, books, etc! The photo bug had started again!
Then I found Flicker, where a group on Yashica Electro recruited me and I was able to find a technician to repair my first camera, after almost 35 years in oblivion.
Now I am learning on Leica's M3 and their lenses. This is a process that will take a while since I have a Mamiya Standard 23 Press camera and I am fixing the film backs. Thanks to a group on these cameras I found the parts to fix the film backs that leaked in light.
I have bought quite a few Kodak Technical Series books and a book on The Art of Photography by Bruce Barnaum. I am enjoying thoroughly this new stage in life!
My question is, will I outlive film?
willie_901
05-04-2012, 05:36
You already have outlived film.
I use film for several reasons.
1. I hate techno-geek world and fight it with all my being!!! Have you
tried to have a conversation with someone who possesses a
"Blackberry" lately???
2. No one has yet made a digital that feels like a LTM when I pick it up
3. I'm old and stubborn
4. It works and gives such lovely results, particularly in BW
5. All my heros used it
Very straight and honest. :)
Why do I still use film?
1. Because the best (most enjoyable to use) camera body ever made, the Leica M, takes film. (The M8 and M9 have inferior proportions and consequently inferior ergonomics. If they are M's, they are inferior substitutes for a proper film M.)
2. I like the way film images look (though the B&W I get out of the X-Pro1 is pretty damned nice).
3. Watching a wet print come up in the dev is still magic — every. single. time. Watching a print come out of an inkjet will never have that magic.
4. It can be good to not be able to chimp.
5. The best films ever made are currently available.
6. XTOL and red wine.
7. It kinda freaks people out when they discover you're shooting film.
8. The Leica's paid for.
9. Film is still cheap, and readily available.
10. #9 won't always be true.
Great thread.
I use film for much the same reason that I make my own ammunition.
To shoot things.
There is a magic to film, but it is difficult to argue that 35mm film can compete in any way with digital... except that some B&W has a look that I really like and I love Velvia. I also love having a limited number of chances to get things right. I also like waiting for the film to develop and then finding out that my skills were lacking, or not. I would rather lose a shot than drain a battery trying to get that same shot. I also wish to prevent my acquisition of a chimping addiction and then needing to join Chimpers Anonymous.
seakayaker1
06-15-2012, 20:58
For me it is an ESCAPE ...
Even with All its Imoerfections
it's Subtleties in Rendering the Play of Shadow, Light, Texture & Tone
makes me Drunk with Joy...
Helen your description reminds me of sufi poetry . . . . .
seakayaker1
06-15-2012, 21:05
I started back using film again last July when I attended a workshop and three photographers who attended were using film cameras. The last time I had used a film camera was at least a decade ago and seeing folks using film only sparked a fuse and I bought a used M7 within the week.
I enjoy the slow pace and enjoy the process of taking the photograph with a film camera vs. the digital. There are days when I still use the digital but the majority of time I am out and about with one of the film bodies.
I dunno.. I have a few digital cameras, and I use them regularly, but I just get more satisfaction from my photos that are shot on film.
heartattackandvine
06-15-2012, 21:16
I carefully read the entire thread, thought that there were some good points there, and then said to myself, "well, enough of this, let's read something else". And I went to the (Australian) ABC site to see what's news, clicked there on the Arts section, and the first thing I saw was:
"Rejecting digital photography - In Focus: Joni Sternbach’s nostalgic photography (http://www.abc.net.au/arts/blog/joni-sternbach-nostalgic-photography-120614/default.htm)"
loquax ludens
06-15-2012, 21:20
I do use digital for convenience and utilitarian reasons sometimes, but it doesn't hold excitement for me or especially captivate my interest the way that film does.
I use film because I like the processes involved in using film. I like the care and feeding of a wonderfully made mechanical marvel or a simple wooden camera. I enjoy going into my darkroom to develop film and make prints. The workflow is relaxing and fun. Seeing a gorgeous transparency emerge from my processor or an image form before my eyes in the developer tray seems magic, even though I know it's not.
I like the pace of shooting film. I think 36 frames on a roll of 135 is a lot, actually. I think a couple of film holders loaded with 8x10 film is a lot too. Twelve square images on a roll of 120 never fails to delight me. I always grab a spare roll or two to take along when I head out with one of my cameras, but even the tough decisions about what to spend my last few frames on are an interesting part of the game.
I like the look of wet prints from film. I like to select the film for the conditions I'll be shooting in, and for the look that the particular emulsion renders. I like to vary my processing or my printing to get the effect I want. I like trying to do things and to perfect processes that most people aren't doing anymore.
I think more than anything I like having that tangible piece of developed film at the end of the day. I can file it in a drawer, look at it on a light table, project it on a screen, or make a print from it with my enlarger. There is simply no satisfying way that I know of to handle a digital image.
One thing I really do not care about at all is the argument over which is "better" or "superior", film or digital images. That has no bearing on my preference for film. Photography is a hobby for me. I do not make my living from it, so things like productivity, fast turnaround, and cost really don't factor in to the equation. I shoot film because everything about it fascinates me, and I can get photographs I like from it.
amateriat
06-15-2012, 22:19
I use film for several reasons.
1. I hate techno-geek world and fight it with all my being!!! Have you
tried to have a conversation with someone who possesses a
"Blackberry" lately???
Whoa, there...I resemble that remark! ;) As someone who immerses himself in the tech world for some semblance of a living (and owns a BlackBerry), I'm damned good at conversation. Of course, I regard my gadgets more as tools than toys, so I'm not prone to bumping into lampposts or people on account of excess digital distraction.
2. No one has yet made a digital that feels like a LTM when I pick it up.Not entirely sure how true that is now...the M8/9 body is, of course, bigger than an a typical LTM body (an R-D1 comes a bit closer), but it still feels good in the hand and responds as I think a proper camera should. Can't afford one, though, but that's cool - my Hexars and little Contax Tvs keep me quite happy.
3. I'm old and stubbornI'm no spring chicken myself, but perhaps a bit less stubborn: my LP collection snuggles up cozily next to my CD collection, the latter of which has largely been ripped into iTunes, where it snuggles up nicely with my purchased digital downloads, and all play nicely on my iPod classic. As mentioned earlier, I still shoot film roughly 80% of the time, but I've been scanning and digitally printing from all that film almost exclusively for almost fifteen years,
4. It works and gives such lovely results, particularly in BWNo argument there!
5. All my heros used itDitto.
- Barrett
seakayaker1
06-15-2012, 22:30
I carefully read the entire thread, thought that there were some good points there, and then said to myself, "well, enough of this, let's read something else". And I went to the (Australian) ABC site to see what's news, clicked there on the Arts section, and the first thing I saw was:
"Rejecting digital photography - In Focus: Joni Sternbach’s nostalgic photography (http://www.abc.net.au/arts/blog/joni-sternbach-nostalgic-photography-120614/default.htm)"
. . . . . another video for wet collodian work for your viewing pleasure, Silver & Light: http://vimeo.com/39578584
Enjoyed the link you provide above.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.