Comment on "why film"

[btgc]

Yesterday night I saw fragment form interview with Goran Bregovic, you know, he always is bit of sad, and he is so emphatic.

In moment I came into room he explained why he likes military trumpets in his orchestra - "they rarely are adjusted and because of this they sound...is very human".

Bang! So I thought about why I mess with film when digital on all accounts is very good to use. As far as I have tried digitals, they are just too complicated for me. This days I even don't use AF - not because it's bad or I do MF better - no, simply I like process itself, how straightforward it is and there's so thin layer of technology (if we omit fact how thick layer is film/chemicals itself).

I'm happy amateur having privilege having crappy pictures and not scared if I miss exposure or focus. So, I just like analogous nature. I like fact I can make mistakes, I can be imperfect, I can miss shots. Digital for me looks like precision, too much determination. This speaks more about me, not digital.

If I'd be professional wedding or what else photographer, sure I'd use digital - at least I think so.

[mfogiel]

For me, film is still winner hands down in B&W, and then film let's you use cameras that are actually much nicer to use than the DSLR's. Film cameras are an evolution of around 150 years of small incremental steps - the digital cameras just start getting improved.

[btgc]

film let's you use cameras that are actually much nicer to use than the DSLR's.

I'm even not discussing this :eek:

well, DSLR can be good....I don't have experience with them, but in few words - when I shot only P&S and RF's I thought SRL is evil - heavy, loud cyclope. Now I have two SLR bodies and find use for them. They aren't worse or better - they are weaker or stronger on some sides. So why not DSLR....I just like handling, feel, materials, way of use of old cameras.

There are people who smoke tobacco pipe and ignore cigarettes. Not necessary to live in wooden house and wear self-made clothes to smoke pipe.

[nrb]

My best weapon for street photography is hands down a rangefinder and film. And film can be converted to digital easily, and as many times as it may be convenient. You can scan anew all your films when a better scanner or software arises, but you get stuck with the technology you used to make your digital images forever.

[Keith]

[I'm happy amateur having privilege having crappy pictures and not scared if I miss exposure or focus. So, I just like analogous nature. I like fact I can make mistakes, I can be imperfect, I can miss shots. Digital for me looks like precision, too much determination. This speaks more about me, not digital.]


I agree with this to a point ... but I've discovered my M8 can deliver images occasionally that are far from perfect exposure wise and if shot at high ISO start to develop a character of their own when you post process them. I was working on some chronically underexposed shots the other night and trying to see what could be salvaged to save the image. What lurks in the shadows in raw files can be amazing at times and in the process of attempting to get detail from these potential write offs with extraction and various filters you can finish up with something that wasn't really what you intended but is still visually appealing.

My M8 has shown me that digital doesn't have to have a sterile look if you're prepared to experiment a little. Don't get me wrong here ... film still has my vote but I'm starting to realise that if you're willing to push the limits with digital it can have a personallity that is all it's own.

[__hh]

[I][

My M8 has shown me that digital doesn't have to have a sterile look if you're prepared to experiment a little. Don't get me wrong here ... film still has my vote but I'm starting to realise that if you're willing to push the limits with digital it can have a personallity that is all it's own.

This is so true for me. It's taken me a long time to realize that I don't have to have perfectly sharp photos taken at ISO100 every time. I find myself using the 5D/R-D1s at ISO 800 and even 1600 without any worries about noise.

[noimmunity]

As an amateur, I, too, prefer film, both for the look and the handling.

[ClaremontPhoto]

A bunch of twentysomethings two nights ago, having dinner, partying too, asked me to photograph them.

I did the photos, and arranged to return to the same place on Thursday with prints.

They all had camera phones themselves.

[maddoc]

I'm happy amateur having privilege having crappy pictures and not scared if I miss exposure or focus. So, I just like analogous nature. I like fact I can make mistakes, I can be imperfect, I can miss shots. Digital for me looks like precision, too much determination. This speaks more about me, not digital.

This sounds more like a debate "auto-everything" vs. "strictly-manual" to me ... ;) For sure you can get the same crappy, blurred, and wrong exposed with a high-end DSLR and some effort by just setting it to all-manual.

Why I prefer film is because "digital" looks plastic to me. Not perfect or precise just "all spruced up" (if this is the correct expression). Additionally, film survives for some decades (at least BW when properly processed) while electronically archived data may either be gone or not accessible in the near future.

Most important, film is more fun ! The process of developing (and wet-printing) adds to creating a photo. :)

[telenous]

I was thinking the other day something very similar to Maddoc's 'spruced up' view: in both media images are composites from discrete units (i.e. grain and pixels). In the case of digital the units are evenly allocated and are even in size. While with film they are uneven in both cases. Which accounts for a kind of difference that you cannot actually point in some area of the image to make apparent to the naked and unaided eye - but one that becomes apparent when you look at the image as a whole, in the way it 'feels'.

Which is I guess also another way of saying what Bregovic said, in his case for music.

[infrequent]

@telenous - also apparent in cinemas. the newer crop of movies using digital production vs movies shot on film. look at 'starwars - episode 3' and 'the painted veil' for instance. very different feel and ambience.

[telenous]

@telenous - also apparent in cinemas. the newer crop of movies using digital production vs movies shot on film. look at 'starwars - episode 3' and 'the painted veil' for instance. very different feel and ambience.

As I understand it Lucas is a big proponent of digital for cinema. Spielberg on the other hand, isn't. I think he went at great length to convince Lucas to shoot the latest Indy on film stock. The reason was, among other things (e.g. Spielberg's love for film in a way that is not entirely foreign to members of this forum) that he thought he could recreate more faithfully the filmic look of colour movies from the 50's.

[photophorous]

There are many reasons, but the biggest for me is that it forces me to slow down and think about what I'm doing, and as a result, I take better photos. Manual focus is part of that. Yeah, I know, I could do that with digital, but I usually don't. Second reason is rangefinders...I can't afford a digital one, but I love the size to quality ratio. Third reason is that I like the look of film, especially black and white. I like the variety of different "looks" you can get from different films. I also like the anticipation of not knowing what I got until I get it developed. I hated that when I was first learning, but once I understood the fundamentals, that became a good thing.

Paul

[Encinalense]

I agree with a lot of what folks have already said -- and I especially enjoy the element of anticipation noted by photophorous -- but the attraction to film is for me also rooted in the real, physical connection between the subject and the film. That relationship, though it may indeed be mediated by layers of chemistry I only partially understand, is fundamentally direct and tactile. The route from the imaging chip -- a phenomenally cool bit of tech, I admit -- to the lcd alone winds through ponderously inhuman canals of digits, the image having been recorded as non-physical information inaccessible to me and then translated back so that I might better understand it than I do rows upon rows of ones and zeros.

But then I'm the type of guy who takes things apart to see how they work. And that's never any fun with digital cameras.

[Tuolumne]

Ultimately the "why" of film comes down to liking the journey more than the destination. Ever since the 100-year old Kodak motto, "You press the button, we do the rest", picture taking has been headed for the nirvana of digital photography: "You press the button and there is nothing left to do". For those of us for whom the method of photography is as important as the final result, film will continue to be important.

There was an interesting article in the WSJ yesterday about Lufthansa refurbishing old airliners and selling tickets to joy riders who relish the old-fashioned experience of flying in a vintage aircraft. Except for those who prefer the look of film over digital, and really I think that is a small and shrinking number, especially since there are fewer and fewer who have even seen film(!), the main reason for shooting film is relishing the experience of using the medium and the fine "old-fashioned" products that made it possible. There's nothing wrong with that, as Lufthansa has learned. It is also interesting to note that the article refers to the German mastery of mechanical engineering as being a core competence that Lufthansa can draw on in refurbishing these vintage planes.

Lufthansa's Labor of Love:
Restoring Some Really Old Junkers

Antique Aircraft Are a Company Sideline;
A Salvage Mission to Auburn, Maine
By DANIEL MICHAELS
June 16, 2008; Page A1

HAMBURG, Germany -- After inspecting the latest addition to Lufthansa's fleet, veteran airplane mechanic Jürgen Rohwer braced himself for hard work ahead.
"This is the most complicated aircraft we could get," said the silver-haired 67-year-old engineer, studying pictures of cockpit controls and wiring at the headquarters of Deutsche Lufthansa (http://online.wsj.com/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=LHA) AG's maintenance unit here.
WSJ's Dan Michaels reports how German carrier Lufthansa refurbished a 1936 Junkers 52 propeller plane and then sold thousands of tickets to people wanting an old-fashioned joyride. But Mr. Rohwer isn't working on a cutting-edge Airbus or Boeing jetliner. The task at hand demands far more ingenuity: resurrecting a grounded Eisenhower-era Lockheed propeller plane.
Lufthansa flies some of the world's newest jetliners. But it also has a unique sideline rebuilding and flying antique aircraft. Enthusiasts wait months and pay €259 ($400) for a bumpy hourlong ride on a 1936 Junkers-52 propeller plane that Lufthansa bought in 1986. The 16-seat Ju-52 is so delicate that engineers rebuild it each winter to ensure safety.
Work is starting now on the Lockheed 1649A Super Constellation "Starliner," which Mr. Rohwer's bosses bought at a bankruptcy auction in Maine last December. They hope to start flying it in 2010.
Once, many carriers maintained their antiques to show off, but years of financial pressure have put an end to most of that. Today, it's mainly consumer companies like Swiss watchmaker Breitling SA and Austrian energy-drink maker Red Bull GmbH that pay to recondition aviation relics as flying billboards.
Lufthansa, whose jetliner operations are profitable, can afford its costly projects partly because active and retired employees volunteer to reconstruct, maintain and fly the old planes. In a country that produces some of the world's finest cars, sleekest home appliances and most-precise industrial tools, mechanical savviness is a badge of honor.
Capt. Georg Spieth, 51, is one of 20 top Lufthansa pilots who fly the Ju-52 in their spare time. "We're quite lucky to do this," he said before taking it up recently. "There's a really long list of captains waiting to fly it."
Capt. Spieth's wife, Ingrid, volunteers as the plane's flight attendant.
Maintenance Crew
Mr. Rohwer, whose two sons are Lufthansa mechanics, was selected from dozens of volunteers to help resuscitate the Starliner. In addition to decades of work modernizing jetliner cockpits for Lufthansa, the old-timer has a special qualification: He served on crews maintaining Lufthansa's Starliners in the 1960s.
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-BI020_supers_20080421160000.jpg (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120880712097332159.html)Lufthansa The standard Starliner carried 86 passengers, but a swankier version could carry just 30 high-flyers in supreme luxury. Back then, Lufthansa marketed the Starliner as its "Super Star." A Starliner flew the longest-duration scheduled flight ever, a 23-hour-19-minute trip from London to San Francisco -- a hop jetliners now cover in less than half the time.
Lufthansa's standard Starliner flew 86 passengers, but a swankier version carried 30 highfliers in luxury. Some slept in beds, behind curtains. Newfangled in-flight entertainment included tape players and loudspeakers.
Onboard Chef
An onboard chef, squeezed into a small kitchen, whipped up meals to suit passengers' whims. German delicacies served included potato pancakes, "a dish highly appreciated and frequently requested by passengers," according to Lufthansa's corporate history.
The Starliner, introduced in 1956, was the last of many Constellation versions Lockheed built over 16 years. Each had increasingly elaborate equipment such as autopilot systems, hydraulic pumps and windscreen defrosters.
The complicated four-engine Starliner had lots of problems, Mr. Rohwer recalls. The plane's massive 3,000-horsepower engines -- designed for optimal performance high in the sky -- overheated regularly on the ground. The plane's violent vibration snapped wires. Spark plugs crusted over. Starliners frequently returned to the airfield shortly after takeoff because of technical difficulties. None of the planes ever crashed.
"We had lots of trouble with that aircraft," recalled Mr. Rohwer, who joined Lufthansa in 1957 at age 16 and retired from the airline's maintenance arm, Lufthansa Technik, two years ago.
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/nowides03202003164521.gif ON THE JOB

Engineering Veteran Plays Key Role (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121319460970364371.html?mod=A-hed)

"Some people say this was the best three-engine plane ever, because one engine was always out," chuckled Mr. Rohwer.
Starliners last flew in the 1970s, but the iconic plane continued attracting fans. In the 1980s, Maurice Roundy, a 63-year-old pilot, aircraft mechanic and airfield manager in Auburn, Maine, bought three Starliners for their scrap value. He started rebuilding them, but after spending $500,000 of his own money on the effort, he ran out of cash and last year filed for bankruptcy-court protection.
"I think the airplanes owned me," said Mr. Roundy, who paid his debts by getting rid of the planes.
Headed to Auction
When Lufthansa Technik Chief Executive August Henningsen heard that three Starliners would go under the gavel, he jumped into action. After inspecting the planes last November in Maine and Florida, Mr. Henningsen sent his deputies to the auction in December. Slowed by a Maine snowstorm, they arrived just in time to land the three planes for a bid of $745,000.50.
Lufthansa now plans to fully restore one Starliner in Auburn, using parts cannibalized from the other two.
To prepare, Mr. Rohwer spent two weeks in January in Auburn and at the offices of Lockheed Martin (http://online.wsj.com/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=lmt) Corp. in Texas. Lockheed archivists found 11,000 boxes of the plane's engineering drawings, certification documents and maintenance records that Mr. Rohwer and his colleagues will use for their work.
Mr. Rohwer, a private pilot who builds model steam trains for fun, will handle the Starliner's cockpit. To get the plane certified by air-safety regulators in the U.S. and Europe, Lufthansa will install modern flight controls, as it has done on the Junkers.
New Control Panel
For safety's sake, Mr. Rohwer must include similar consoles, dials and switches as a giant Boeing 747 has on its flight deck. To cram them into the Starliner's far smaller space, Mr. Rohwer says he will use a handful of digital screens that can replicate dozens of different control panels.
Since the Starliner sits an ocean away in Maine, Mr. Rohwer's team will first install equipment in a cockpit mock-up in Hamburg. Then they'll ship that to Maine and rewire it directly to cables and hydraulic pumps that other engineers are refurbishing.
While the cockpit will glow with modern electronics, the passenger cabin will evoke a bygone era. Walls will be covered in beige leather. The large round windows will have fabric curtains.
"The cabin will look like the 1950s -- but with seat belts," promises Bernhard Conrad, who is running the project and also is chairman of the Lufthansa nonprofit foundation that owns the old planes.
Mr. Rohwer says he isn't interested in flying on the Starliner. He'd rather just hear the engines' low rumble as the plane cruises slowly by.
"The most unusual thing is the sound," recalls the mechanic. "It's much more interesting than being onboard."

[al1966]

For me its simple i get the colour I want from film, although I have to admit I prefer using older cameras.

[WoolenMammoth]

I recently got back from a trip and finished processing 1400 ish frames of film. Ive slowly been scanning them for the last 3 weeks. In the last year I have exposed, developed and scanned now pushing 16,000 frames for a portrait project Im working on.

The INSTANT that digital cameras can provide me with a look Im satisfied with I will *gladly* never use film again. Looking at my budgeting, it would be a savings of THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of hours in labor of loading casettes, developing and scanning to just plug a video camera in and have the pictures on a hard drive.

Alas, they look totally different and for me in a who cares kind of way, so Im still shooting film. And despite my gripes, happy to be doing it.

In so far as shooting film in the movies is concerned (which is my day job) we are on the verge of that going away forever, certainly in the next 20 years. With the current technology all of the associated strobing on lateral movement is now gone and ever since some genius introduced the concept of hooking your video camera up to ground glass between the ccd and the lens, the depth of field issues of video have improved and just stand to get better. David Fincher has done his last two movies on video. I didnt know that Zodiac was not shot on film and it didnt occur to me that was the case when I saw the movie projected. Of course when you go back and look at it you can pick out some hot spots in the lattitude of the camera, but its still damn impressive. Apparently the Brad Pitt thing he did last year in NO is supposed to look even better. HD was a bomb for TV here in nyc, vitrtually everyone who switched was back on super 16 within two seasons, but the end is definitely near, its just a matter of economy.

[photogdave]

As I understand it Lucas is a big proponent of digital for cinema. Spielberg on the other hand, isn't. I think he went at great length to convince Lucas to shoot the latest Indy on film stock. The reason was, among other things (e.g. Spielberg's love for film in a way that is not entirely foreign to members of this forum) that he thought he could recreate more faithfully the filmic look of colour movies from the 50's.
Too bad he couldn't convince Lucas not to put in stupid CG rodents! :D

[NickTrop]

For me...

Film - tastes great
Digital - less filling...

I prefer the great taste of filum to the less filling digital sensors.
|

[Darren Abate]

As I understand it Lucas is a big proponent of digital for cinema. Spielberg on the other hand, isn't. I think he went at great length to convince Lucas to shoot the latest Indy on film stock. The reason was, among other things (e.g. Spielberg's love for film in a way that is not entirely foreign to members of this forum) that he thought he could recreate more faithfully the filmic look of colour movies from the 50's.


Unfortunately, though, Spielberg decided against doing the SFX in the Old Ways, and went with blue screens and CG instead of traditional matte painting and location photography. I saw an interview with him in which he stated that he originally wanted to do that, but in the end he decided that the story would be "better served" by going digital. It sounds to me like he let Lucas get to him instead of listening to his gut. I wish he hadn't done that.

[telenous]

Too bad he couldn't convince Lucas not to put in stupid CG rodents! :D

Agh! The only thing that was worse were the digitally created ants. And the jungle chase sequence. And nuking the fridge.

[thomasw_]

Agh! The only thing that was worse were the digitally created ants. And the jungle chase sequence. And nuking the fridge.

Indeed, a long haul away from Ikiru or The Lady from Shanghai ;)

[telenous]

Unfortunately, though, Spielberg decided against doing the SFX in the Old Ways, and went with blue screens and CG instead of traditional matte painting and location photography. I saw an interview with him in which he stated that he originally wanted to do that, but in the end he decided that the story would be "better served" by going digital. It sounds to me like he let Lucas get to him instead of listening to his gut. I wish he hadn't done that.


not so much...

http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story....38ER575&page=2

There is almost as much CGi in this film as the Transformers, it is so not an old fashioned film stock film, all the jungles are digtital!

I wish it had all been shot in the jungle, without so much CGI, but Lucas did write the story.

Darren, Fred,

You 're absolutely right about the use of CGI. I still think the movie was shot at least partly on film but I could be wrong. I can't find a reference, I 'll check again just for the record. Spielberg has said in the past that he's a film fan

Steven Spielberg has vowed to continue to make movies "the old fashioned way, " on celluloid rather than on hard disks. Speaking Wednesday night at the Smithsonian Institution's Baird Auditorium in Washington D.C., where he received the James Smithson Bicentennial Medal, Spielberg distanced himself from his longtime friend and sometime colleague George Lucas, who has announced plans to shoot his next Star Wars movie entirely on digital media. As reported in today's (Thursday) Washington Post, Spielberg told the Smithsonian audience: "I'm going to make all my films on film until they close the last lab down." The audience cheered.

from http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/1999-08-12

and there is material in the Indy KoCS official website where they show cameras with film compartments filming. Perhaps Mamooth who works in the industry can tell us if he knows.

I 've seen some very heated discussions on film vs digital in threads about movies. I had no idea that the rift is present there too. (There are people there who write, in a rather familiar manner, 'Aren't you sick of the film vs digital debate'. Puts some things in perspective).





.

[wayneb]

In terms of how it looks - grain is generally more interesting than pixels, chemistry generally behaves in more interesting ways than algorithms on a chip.

In terms of using it - digital can feel like plucking a frame from a video, you look at the screen and try again. Film advancing gives a sense of finality to a moment that will never happen again. If you missed it, you'll find out later and perhaps be disappointed, but you are already on to the next moment.

[btgc]

Huh, I see so many have shared their passion and thoughts. As for digital technology, I again note that I'm not distracting completely. And there are some models which people buy because they are good, like Fuji low-light shooters from F-series (10, 30) or Ricoh's GR, GX series. There for sure are another good digital cameras. People like their digital RF's, just fine.

I agree to good comments about grain vs pixels, as well as color. Once you get used to, it stays. Like one feels difference between coffee brewed in cup/glass pot/presso machine/instant powder/etc - they all have case to be used, but they certainly taste different.

And then beautiful story about Lufthansas` project. This proves me another time that "cold war" of tech and upgrades driven by selling/marketing united forces against customers, makes people, at least part of them, kind of nostalgic. I believe Clifford Saimac (and many other sci-fi authors) have spoken...written about this issue many years ago.

There's also big difference if you take, say, milk in sealed paper box from anonymous shelf in large store or go to market, chat with seller from whom you buy milk for years and watch how bottle is filled ?

but you are already on to the next moment

And this is also good comment. Modern lifestyle interrupts continuity of life. I'm not even talking about "tomorrow you can be thousands of miles away from your room" but rather "do it again do it again do it again" cycle. It helps in practical aspects and automates minds. Because you can do it again do it again do it again.

[amateriat]

From my experience, digital can have the "look" associated with film, but, ironically, it frequently takes too damn much work, post-shoot, to get things right, making the digital-capture workflow only moderately faster than working with film, as opposed to screamingly-faster.

But it's the cameras that ususally stop me cold, with their mediocre ergonomics. My old Minolta 9xi cameras were about as tech-heavy as I could stand, and as much as I (mostly) liked them then, I probably couldn't stand them now. Every dSLR I've used since then has struck me as worse. The sole remaining SLR in my roster is an Olympus OM-2n, which I like a lot, but still less than my RFs. (The 21-35 Sigma zoom gives it extra relevance here.) Working with my Hexars is virtually second-nature; they practically disappear when working with them.

As for film: I know certain film types pretty well by now. These film types are not likely to vanish in the next week, month, or year, at the very least. The shoot beautifully, soup easily, scan with minimal fuss, require relatively little futzing around in Photoshop, and print up quite nicely.

Someone, somewhere, will offer up a digital "solution" that I'll find palatable, eventually. For the moment, nobody's remotely in the ballpark. For me, it's all about the gestalt.

http://mysite.verizon.net/bwbenton/hexarno.jpg
Early 2001, At my agency desk. Hexar AF sacrificed for first Hexar RF body one year later.

- Barrett

[Chris101]

Ya. Cibachrome is like the Saturn V rocket that got us to the moon. They lost the plans ya know, and now it cannot be reproduced. The best technology on earth, replaced with something that works well, and does all sorts of whizzy things, but it's not the best.

I wonder if Rome was like that in the end. As goes film, so goes Rome.

[kram]

I now explain why I prefer film to digital (apart from all the usual pros and cons) like this:
Digial is like a 'cup of soup' meal, fulls up up (briefly), quick, easy to prepare (just add water), easy to wash up -job done (this relates to the image on the back of the camers or downloaded on to a PC -not fine tuned and printed- 'cos the average Jo just does that).
Film is like a roast meal; lots for prep, hours to cook, lots of washing up -but it is more satisfying:D.

[ClaremontPhoto]

Film is like a roast meal; lots for prep, hours to cook, lots of washing up -but it is more satisfying:D.

A roast lunch is the simplest meal ever.

Just warm the oven to max and put it all in.

Go for a beer or two, and come back to your meal.

A little under one hour.

[kram]

Jon, If you have a lump of meat to roast for 2 hours say, it means you can have more beers (or wine):)

[Sonny Boy Havidson]

For me the question is "why digital?". For me, a photograph is a print that just need your eyes to be seen. I spend all my week working on a computer and I dislike having to turn this on to see a specific serie of shot instead of taking the album of a shelve. If I want to do some modifications, I prefer spending time with my enlarger rather than playing with photoshop.

I donnot feel like having the need of seing instantly: I have entered my aperture and speed, I know mu DOF so if took time to chose these properly, I can expect to have what I want (with experience, of course). So 36 exposure and several rolls is sufficiant.

I hate having to browse menues and strike with buttons before being able to shot and I never managed to use an autofocus properly. I prefer to use feeling rather than programs so no, a digital camera does not suit me.

Last point, I mostly shot in B & W and I enjoy playing with the DOF or wide angles. Do these are managed properly by today sensors? I donnot think so.

[rolleistef]

Why film? Because of black and white. No digital camera has ever achieved a good b&w effect with a digital reflex : the grain, the rendition of the MF...

[rolleistef]

it happens in France too... a good rôtie takes about 4h to roast! (out topic)

[Chris101]

Don't you (generic you) find a certain irony in discussing anti-technology threads on a computer? They usually start with someone sitting at a computer late at night, typing "I work all day on the computer, I sure don't want to spend my evenings sitting at one editing photos." ;)Film photography is not inherently "anti-technology". It may be a non-digital technology, but it is a very complex process. Like computers, the difficult part is hidden from the user. All the interesting chemistry takes place in the manufacture of the the film, and we have only the user interface part - adding the last few chemicals in solution form - to mess with in our darkrooms.

Unless a digital photographer has made the sensor chip, and written the software used to read it and process the picture, they have the same level of interaction. One is controlled by software, the other by wetware.

You (generically speaking) must admit, the end products of these two disparate processes are remarkably similar, although subtle differences are unique to each.

[retnull]

Why film?

1__ Because film and older cameras and lenses produce unpredictable and final results. It is possible to have more happy accidents. These are unlikely to occur with digital.

2__ Because film has a long history, and film images refer to that history via their look and feel.

3__ Because it is NOT DIGITAL: film images are often clearly have something that would never come from the digital cameras EVERYONE uses in 2008. I want my images to look unusual, interesting, unique. Film images (even my crappy amateur images) exist in opposition to huge tidal wave of billions of new digital images tht appear every day.

[craygc]

1__ Because film and older cameras and lenses produce unpredictable and final results.

That level of unpredictability really depends on how well you know you film (and its development), the camera and lens :D

[Marsopa]

It's hard to explain my thougts as english is one of my "pending matters"...

As someone told in a previous thread I'm one with no photog. "vision", my best pics (at least for my taste) are just lucky shots... that fact makes me keep away from digital... too fast. If a load a roll and start shooting I've the feeling that some pics will be good enough and that lasts until I finish the roll, develop and scan it. All the time I wonder if I'll have some "10 points" pics in the roll... digital will be (is) a dissapointment every time I review the pics in the lcd.

I think I'm learning (with a very smooth learning curve) and in each roll I get more sattisfaying pics than before but every day I feel more confortable with "analogic" process.

(Please forgive the mistreat to the forum vast majority mother tongue, as with photography I'll try to improve)

[kshapero]

I am generally not a digital person for all the reasons stated, but this newly acquired R-D1 really has a character of its own. Now the choice is not so easy.
Shot from R-D1
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3014/2640274369_5a1b7f9c10.jpg?v=1215341879

Shot from Zeiss Ikon
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3278/2728115609_b52cb3fc63.jpg?v=0

It's all good to me.

[btgc]

Today dropped off some rolls for souping and coming back thought that I like using my old gear. I can imagine myself using digital gear, but while it's acceptable (by time and expenses) I stick to old film stuff.

Finally, it's not about this or that piece of camera, it's about feelings like with anything else I'm using. Others can feel different which leads them feeling better with digital. And those really wiser of us are really OK with film and digital together.

[retnull]

That level of unpredictability really depends on how well you know you film (and its development), the camera and lens :D

I use my 1937 Summar because it flares. I can predict when it will flare, but I cannot predict exactly how it will flare. That's really interesting, to me. It's not related to mastery of the tools.

[Chris101]

Absolutely. I just find it interesting that people will spend after work time at computers talking about how they don't want to spend after work time at computers.If they are like me, they spend their forum time while AT work! :eek:

[tmfabian]

I don't see the problem with using both. I refuse to choose between which one is better bla bla bla. They both act the same way as every other camera ever made, they let light in in a pre-determined quantity, they react to that light and form an image. And while I'm processing my film in my darkroom my computer is processing the files.

in either case, both cameras get the job done, and using one that's digital with a crop factor I get double duty out of my lenses, so that's a nice bonus as well.

Neither medium is better or worse. Between spending plenty of time setting up presets for my PP for digital and testing my films and development times I've managed to tweak both mediums to give very close results.

The point of my ramblings is that I don't care what medium I'm shooting, all I care about is that I'm out taking pictures.

[freeranger]

Why film?

Its like Christmas!

[Chris101]

I don't see the problem with using both. I refuse to choose between which one is better bla bla bla. They both act the same way as every other camera ever made, they let light in in a pre-determined quantity, they react to that light and form an image. ...

... I don't care what medium I'm shooting, all I care about is that I'm out taking pictures.

If you feel that there is no advantage to either , why do both. There is no doubt that digital imaging is much more convenient than film photography. If they both lead to the same place, do you use film soley for the experience?

I think there are qualitative differences between pictures made with film and those made digitally.

[tmfabian]

If you feel that there is no advantage to either , why do both. There is no doubt that digital imaging is much more convenient than film photography. If they both lead to the same place, do you use film soley for the experience?

I think there are qualitative differences between pictures made with film and those made digitally.

I use both for a few reasons.
When shooting both for the same job I use them to back each other up....Film backs up digital in case of file corruption, Digital backs up film in case of development error.
I get double duty out of my lenses
The m7 is very quiet and I use that when that is a necessity
If the job needs to be in color I shoot digital
If the job needs to be used online I shoot digital

I don't share your sentiment that digital is more convenient than film, I find both equally convenient as well as equally inconvenient...film has to be developed and dried and all that noise but getting a good b&w print out of film is a cake walk for me, Digital doesn't need to be developed or dried, but I had to purchase a 2TB server to store my images on, and that's already filling up and getting a good B&W print out of digital is finicky at best(I've had good results with the epson exhibition fiber paper, but even that needs to be viewed under the right light source to look b&w)


I never said there weren't differences...i believe i said "... I've managed to tweak both mediums to give very close results..." and by that I simply meant they can live together contently.

But yes, from time to time, I just really enjoy spending time in my darkroom.

[Chris101]

Your reasons for shooting both are very logical, especially the last two of the list. I used to use a film camera as a backup to digital, but now I just use a second digital camera when I need one (weddings, etc.) But I shoot film when I specifically want the film experience (which is often), and digital when I want it fast (which is becoming rarer.)

[remegius]

I was in a gallery the other day looking at some prints that were all shot digitally, and post-processed in the usual manner. Some of the work was incredibly compelling. A few days earlier I had been in a gallery looking at some prints that were all shot and printed in the traditional manner...all 35mm. I found the same thing---some very compelling work. Never once when when viewing these photographs, both captured using such different technologies, did I ever reflect on how they were captured. That info came from the brochures. A good photograph stands on its own two feet regardless of how it was captured.

---Rem

[NickTrop]

Just got some prints back taken with a 1936 Leica Summar with some light haze + some expired (2003) Kodak Gold 100. You can Photoshop till the cows come home, and nevah replicate the look of these photos - nevah!!! (Why you would want to is another question, entirely :) )

[Paul C. Perkins, MD]

Learn as much as you can about digital - because it will eventually prevail.
I'm a film shooter since 1960 and see no sane rational reason to resist digital. I'll still shoot film until it becames too big a PITA to continue . . . but I'll be shooting on the "Dark Side" as well. So long as my eyes cannot readly tell the difference between film or digital capture - digital will get the nod.
I still have two open reel tape decks . . . I just like to watch the reels go round and round ad hear music come out the speakers. . .
I have a couple cassette decks and a boatload of cassettes.
I'm not actively recording open reel or cassette.
I'm just resigning myself to reality - not without some regret or sadness - but there it is.
Deal with it. .

Paul

[David R Munson]

I have plenty of reasons to shoot both digital and film, and I do. But, after actually attempting to go mostly digital a couple years ago (albeit in a half-assed way), what I found is that I kept going back to shooting film because it works for me. I can make it do exactly what I want without even thinking about it, and having that kind of command of the tools you use is incredibly important. So, really, if what is already working for you really well is still working really well, why change it? Sure, be open to new tools, but film still does well what it has always done well.

[rover]

I realized that digital was the holy grail I'd been looking for all those years.



Jeeze, tough night? I just spent too much time reading your carpet bombing, RD1 sucks, newly announced digital technology sucks, film sucks. Give it a break.

Disagreement over everything, to what end?????

Oh, let me save you the trouble, I suck too.

[rover]

Old habits die hard?

[sjones]

In my youth, I had film cameras, but I did not get into photography, as in learning the fundamentals, until I picked up a Canon 350D. So I certainly have digital to thank for helping to crystallize my interest in photography. However, three factors redirected me to film:

-Lack of an affordable digital rangefinder
-Lack of an affordable full frame DSLR
-The engaging grain in Daido Moriyama's photos

I do not have any desire to go back to a digital camera now; it is not an issue of principle, as I use a digital scanner, but I love Tri-X and the overall process of using a film camera.

[Yammerman]

The anticpaition, the water, the chemicals, the darkness, the red light .....its the closest thing to magic I can do.:D

[literiter]

At my state of personal development I discover I have not the talent nor wit, to tell the difference between the product of a digital camera or a film camera. You'd think I could because the wife and I own a gallery, and we see the stuff all day.

I'm never really sure 'till I've read the artist's statement.

Personally I like film cameras:
-I really like the idea that I can take credit for the picture and not some camera factory engineer. ie. I focused the camera, I set the shutter speed, I held the camera steady, I set the ISO, I chose the film, I composed and shot carefully knowing I only had 12 or 36 exposures.
-I like the simplicity of the cameras that use film. Think Leica M2, Nikon F2 etc. and the fact that these cameras are not battery dependent.
-I like the fact that you can pick up a old beater, perhaps a Pentax Spotmatic, that has been sitting on a shelf for 10 years and successfully run a roll of film through it.
-I like the fact that my Nikon F2, manufactured in 1971, will give images equal to a friends Nikon D200 (that he's already replaced after 2 years).
-I really like the fact that I know film has lasted 100 years and more. ( I don't know that digital will)

etc. etc.

[ruben]

Many good reasons have been given that apply to me too.

But My First reason is a simple issue of costs.

Cheers,
Ruben

[kevin m]

Anyone have a time machine to check on my theory?

I do, but I'm using it to ascertain how closely the move "Idiocracy" predicted the future, first. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyVNlvzzSFA&feature=related

[photogdave]

I do, but I'm using it to ascertain how closely the move "Idiocracy" predicted the future, first. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyVNlvzzSFA&feature=related
My time machine goes by the name Crown Royal. Sometimes I find myself suddenly many hours in the future in the seeming blink of an eye.
Unfortunately it only goes forward in time. More testing required!

[kevin m]

More testing required!

Indeed. Double check your work, then submit it for peer review. :D

[chris91387]

A good photograph stands on its own two feet regardless of how it was captured.

---Rem
Amen.

to answer the question though:
i shoot film because i like the "surprise" i get when i finally get to see the negatives for the first time. whether they're under/over exposed, out of focus, scratched, etc. when i shoot digital i spend too much time looking at the lcd screen and less time paying attention to what i'm shooting and looking for new photographic opportunities. i enjoy the anticipation in waiting those days/weeks it can take between taking a picture and seeing it processed. i find it fun to see images and say "oh, i forgot i took that".

i also like the limitations that a roll of film can give you with a certain number of available images and certain iso. my 4gb card on my nikon can take a hek of a lot of pictures but with 3 or 4 rolls in your pocket you're very limited and you have to be picky. and sometimes you just can't take a picture. if you've got 100 speed film in the camera and the meter is telling you a 1/4 second exposure wide open, guess what, you're pretty screwed. sure you could push the film but at the expense at everything else on the same roll.

maybe i'm just not disciplined enough with digital.

- chris

[Vics]

I very much like the sentiment expressed at the top of this thread. I'm glad to know that there are others who love the photographic "process." I do too, and like you, I don't think it has anything to do with digital imaging or the pros or cons. I just like working with film and a camera and one lens. No meter, no batteries, just the camera, the film and the subject, or my idea of the subject. Well you said it better than I ever could.
Thanks,
Vic

[thomasw_]

Absolutely. I just find it interesting that people will spend after work time at computers talking about how they don't want to spend after work time at computers.

off-topic...sorry OP.

Hehe, yes it is a paradox. But like any paradox the apparent contradiction dissolves upon a clear explanation. This case in point: the relaxed browsing of the Net and reading/writing about something we take delight in doing is quite different from the type of work most of us have to use our computers for at work. It is not about the means, rather the use of the means.

Analogously we can look at reading. I read a lot at home and at work; the type of reading I do at work is definitely not the type of reading I do at home: but they both involve decoding words or 'reading'. As I get sick of all the reading I do at work, it seems paradoxical that I would go home to read still more! Again it is not about the means; it is about the use of the means.

end off-topic....

Reasons to use Film...look of results, handling, the way it makes me think; the type of cameras/lenses I can use with film....

[imajypsee]

and I use each for different reasons. In fact, I gave all my film equipment away about three years ago only to realize that I like the look of film and now I own a whole lot of old analog cameras... for the FUN of it and the FUNK of film. The thing about film now is that I need to order the stuff that I can't buy locally. I'm traveling this summer and trying to store a stock of film and cameras loaded with film in the HOT sun in a HOT van (when it's parked out of the shade) is a major PIA. When I was getting ready for this trip I thought seriously about not bringing any film equipment... but, I did. (I use cheap foam coolers to store my cameras and film in the van.) And, since I'm scanning my own negatives I have to haul a scanner. Not so convenient, but times have changed.
I use my digital SLRs and digicams for convenience, but I often find I want a different look and that takes PSing it.
Thankfully, I have the opportunity to choose; and film is "hot" with young people and being used as advertising props (commodified).
See here:
http://www.pbase.com/image/101385095
http://www.pbase.com/jypsee/image/101385049
http://www.pbase.com/jypsee/image/101385046
http://www.pbase.com/jypsee/image/96185198

Mary in the UP of MI til hurricane season is over in FL