What is film-photography to you? [Archive]

Brian Sweeney

09-16-2010, 07:53

I still use my film cameras, I still use my digital cameras. Room in life for both.

I am exclusively Digital for Infrared, have been for a long time.

I am not scanning in many negatives/slides, prefer to view as prints. Just much easier/less time-consuming to use a Digital camera to view images on a computer.

I quit converting digital images to film quite a while ago. I used a Polaroid Pallette to convert to Slides and Prints. Before that, used a Matrix Film Recorder to convert Digital images to film. Color printers are pretty good now. So I am "done" with converting digital images to film.

sevo

09-16-2010, 09:29

Film is just another medium - but I do care for it, just like I care for any other medium.

atlcruiser

09-16-2010, 10:06

Old school digital :)

Daud

09-16-2010, 10:10

Film or digital is a bit like the Vinyl or CD question…..

From my perspective – we live in an analogue world so the best digital will always be analogue (the greater the bit rate the closer we get to analogue)
This whole digital thing seems to be a retrograde step in some respects; quality is forgotten in the pursuit of digital.

Example:-
In early CD’s the bit rate was so low it could not reproduce the higher harmonics so instruments just had a veiled dull sound or very stringent top notes.

Mp3 files – do not even mention them…..

Cameras that do not have optical view finders.

Blown highlights that no one seems to be bothered about; it is digital so must be good!

It seems to be like telling someone that they will only have one film type for the rest of the cameras life – do not even think about B&W verses colour.

When that nice new digital camera is taken out of the shop; forget about resale value. Have a look at the price of a Nikon D2x new and the used price. Then look at a good Nikon SP, F or F2 and compare.

I could go on; but to be fair digital has its place and in some respects has been a great reviver of photography.

For me the best option is Film, darkroom, scanner - best of all worlds.

But if you ask; it will be film every time as it gives many options.

David.
http://davidalockwood.wordpress.com (http://davidalockwood.wordpress.com/)

Ducky

09-16-2010, 14:10

will, your poll choices were all too direct for me.
Film is a process that I enjoy as a hobby, I enjoy it but I'm not devoted to it. It's a tradition that deserves respect but when/if it passes, people will move on.
It won't disappear in my lifetime, probably not yours either, so I'll continue to enjoy it. I'll also give it up, go back to it, give it ...well, you know.

thomob

09-16-2010, 22:00

film for me is the other side of photography that i find sparks my creativity a bit more, makes me feel like im learning something new again. Digital is dedicated to my proffesional career, digital is what makes me the money. Film is where that money made goes :P ha ha

shadowfox

09-17-2010, 09:06

Thanks for the responses.

I meant for this poll to help us finding our position in regards to film, so when we discuss it we can pinpoint our differences (or similarities) because we have a clear definition of what film means for ourselves.

A lot of unnecessary (a lot of times painful) debate could be averted if we are at least clear on where we stand.

I guess I need to be more clear on the title, I bet a lot of digital folks just ignore it because they think this is not for them.

shadowfox

09-17-2010, 09:09

For me the best option is Film, darkroom, scanner - best of all worlds.

But if you ask; it will be film every time as it gives many options.

David.
http://davidalockwood.wordpress.com (http://davidalockwood.wordpress.com/)

That's the kind of answer that I am looking for.

shadowfox

09-17-2010, 09:11

photophorous

09-17-2010, 18:08

Lately, I've only been shooting digital, because I'm just too busy to develop and scan my film. I still love the look of film, color and B&W, but what I like most about film is film cameras. I will shoot film again, when I can find the time. But in the mean time, I've gotten a lot better at getting results I like from my digital camera, with out too much time at the computer. So for now, I'll still say each has it's advantages. Which one is better depends on what I'm trying to achieve.

Neare

09-17-2010, 19:49

Best thing is that I don't have to rely on computers and batteries to take pictures.

And, that when certain technologies go obsolete as they will do without a doubt, film is film. Just hold it up to the light and there is your image.

sepiareverb

09-18-2010, 04:02

I shoot both. I love the craft aspect of film, the physical work of the darkroom and the object in the hand. I've been seduced by the image quality of digital color, helped along to an all digital workflow for color by the inconsistent supply of the color materials I was using and the M9.

Roger Hicks

09-18-2010, 04:24

I've just been looking at some MF B+W wet prints. Hard to dismiss film at that point.

But for me, film + scanner is the worst of both worlds.

Cheers,

R.

Daud

09-19-2010, 06:44

A little bird tells me that The National Media Museum in Bradford has been archiving a lot of its digital materials on to film.
I do not think we will see the end of it for quite some time.

David.

http://davidalockwood.wordpress.com (http://davidalockwood.wordpress.com/)

white.elephant

09-19-2010, 07:03

For me, what digital did was open up the door to printing color, an option which always intimidated me through traditional means. So, in my world, digital is used when I output to color, while film is used when I output in black & white.

Ducky

09-20-2010, 13:30

I forgot to mention in my earlier post one important fact. It was also not in your poll.

FILM can be a royal PITA.

Filson Back

09-20-2010, 18:23

I started out with digital and am doing a lot more film these days--scanning and manipulating film is the best of both worlds as people have already mentioned. If the tonal range of digital ever catches up to film for small or affordable sensors the gap might diminish. I find my favorite images are often film.

shadowfox

09-21-2010, 07:06

I've just been looking at some MF B+W wet prints. Hard to dismiss film at that point.

But for me, film + scanner is the worst of both worlds.

Cheers,

R.

I know, bigger negatives shines when printed.
One of my frustration is my inability to show through my website: how a 11x14 print from a 6x6 negatives really look like in person.

Scans just don't do it justice (your second point, Roger).

Although I find scans are vastly more useful than contact prints for previewing a roll, I dislike the process of scanning.

But with a reasonably fast computer, you still can do a lot of things while scanning.

shadowfox

09-21-2010, 07:07

I forgot to mention in my earlier post one important fact. It was also not in your poll.

FILM can be a royal PITA.

:D

Ah, but what other worthy craft isn't capable of being a PITA from time to time?

dazedgonebye

09-21-2010, 13:21

I have no animosity towards digital, but at the same time, I can't seem to come up with much enthusiasm for it.
I've often described a camera that I thought would move me to digital for what I now do with 35mm film (leaving medium format for other work) and now that Fuji seems ready to produce it, I just don't think I'll be going that way.

craygc

09-26-2010, 08:20

I think I might be just a little bit committed to film... :bang:

Love the mechanical cameras and love the process

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/11683193-md.jpg

crawdiddy

09-26-2010, 08:40

I have no animosity towards digital, but at the same time, I can't seem to come up with much enthusiasm for it.

This sums it up quite well for me.

I appreciate mechanical devices much more than electronic. I don't trust electronic devices-- when they break, you might as well toss them. They're designed with obsolescence in mind.

I have a Canon digital Elph, since 2004. About a year ago when I tried to use it, the sensor had apparently died. At first I was going to toss the camera, but it had actually been a decent performer, while it was alive, so I kept it. The other day, someone at a camera shop told me Canon was repairing these cameras with bad sensors free of charge. So, mine is currently in the shop, and hopefully will be back in my hands shortly. I must say, Canon has my respect for supporting their products to this degree. Most other companies wouldn't.

If I get my 6 year old camera back, I'll assume I dodged a bullet. But seriously, what do you think is the useful life of a digital camera? And by contrast, how long do analog cameras last? I have 80 year old analog cameras. They may not work quite as well as when new, but they work.

waltere

10-01-2010, 15:17

I've been all digital for about 6 years. Came from film and various formats, but got hooked on 8 x 10 & 8 X 20 & contact printing. Just getting around to planning a darkroom, probably about 6 months off. Looking forward to some B & W with the view camera's. Meanwhile, digital got kinda boring, and I bought a Contax G2 and am shooting Ektar 100 in it--I am having more fun than I every imagined with this!

sepiareverb

10-01-2010, 15:31

But for me, film + scanner is the worst of both worlds.

As much as I hate scanning film I do find an ink-jet print of a good, well processed scan from 35mm beats a C-print hands down every time. I've revisited several negatives since getting the 3880 and despite all the hours I've spent in the darkroom I like the ink-jet prints a whole lot more.

Something about a B&W baryta print that digital can't touch to my eye, but color ink-jet vs RC C-print? The ink-jet wins every time.

igi

10-05-2010, 05:56

I like the film experience ;)

ruslan

10-05-2010, 14:39

"film is obsolete" - Agreed 100%.

emasterphoto

10-07-2010, 20:11

For me, after growing up with film, then spending the last 11 years all digital, then coming back to film somewhat in the last few months, I learned that it's film cameras that I enjoy, but film itself could go up in a poof to Heaven and I could care less. As a medium, I find film puts too many restrictions on me when I shoot, becomes stifling, and as a result tends to kill my creativity. Still, I like the cameras, so film's a necessary evil. That said, looking at Fuji's X100, if it's really all it seems to be, then I'll probably pick one up then dump the film cameras.

sjw617

10-08-2010, 03:48

shadowfox

10-12-2010, 19:07

Film is not a craft but just a recording medium for the craft of photography. It is not something to pursue or a world on to itself. Odd concept. That's like saying paper is a world on to itself. It is the recording medium not the craft.

Steve

Steve, that's how you see film and you are entitled to it.
Others sees it as a life-ling pursuit because film to them are not just the medium, but the process and craft.

Nothing odd about it, really.

JayGannon

10-15-2010, 06:36

I've just been looking at some MF B+W wet prints. Hard to dismiss film at that point.

But for me, film + scanner is the worst of both worlds.

Cheers,

R.

Same here.
I work in film B&W and color digital mostly.

I proof my B&W on the scanner and print everything smaller than 8x10 on an Epson printer, then if I find a really nice neg I'll take it into the darkroom and play with it in there.

I do feel that B&W developing and printing is a craft though, much moreso than scanning/PS work, or at least its a more organic craft as opposed to a digital craft.

Each has their own place, one day film one day digital one day hybrid. Live and let live IMO.

JayGannon

10-15-2010, 06:38

That's like saying paper is a world on to itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papermaking

I'm sure papermakers would disagree with your assesment of their craft.

CSG123

10-15-2010, 09:13

I also grew up with film and only recently (last year) got more than a P&S digital camera, a D90. However, while i LOVE digital for all the reasons most of us do I found myself somehow finding it wanting. For color it's fine but for B&W it's not the same for me as film. Also, the old equipment is more elegant. I found myself pulling out my old rangefinders and OM and Minolta XG SLRs. Then, the film disease really hit and I acquired a Leica M4 and a couple old Leica lenses to get the classic Leica experience.

On the one hand, film is simply another medium but it's more than that. It's also a different way of making pictures. With digital, I snap more (the film and processing is free). With film I shoot less and take more time. Neither is better, just different ways of doing things.

I love the mechanics of cameras like the Leica M4 but pretty much hate the plastic and menus of the D90 even though it's a great camera. One is intuitive and elegant in its simplicity the other is not.

bensyverson

10-15-2010, 13:56

"Digital vs Film" is a false dichotomy. It's exactly like saying "Electric vs Acoustic."

I work with both for different reasons. Saying one is "better" is so vague it's meaningless.

With that said, I find myself being an advocate for film, because at this point, my kitchen fridge has a better selection of LF film than B&H. Digital doesn't need a cheerleader.

sjw617

10-15-2010, 15:09

Steve, that's how you see film and you are entitled to it.
Others sees it as a life-ling pursuit because film to them are not just the medium, but the process and craft.

Nothing odd about it, really.
Will,
I see photography as the craft and finding a good subject and good light as the process. It works the same if I am using film or a sensor to record the 'event'.

Steve

h_A_Z

10-25-2010, 06:15

eddie1960

10-25-2010, 06:56

Both are tools to express myself, both have their place. I love film, the results i get from my MF in b/w are hard for me to beat in digital (partially because i don't have the best printer in the world for b/w though i have seen some nice prints done at labs) Really for me it's about what inspires me to shoot.. lately that has been film or old lenses on my digital body. I still feel b/w is better on film, and given all the small companies producing b/w film i don't worry about it disappearing in my lifetime (though the chemicals may get harder to find - but you can always brew your own)

rbsinto

10-26-2010, 07:08

"Everybody does what they do. You do what you do. He does what he does. And I do what I do."
RBSinTo's Law.

I do slide film.

italy74

10-27-2010, 11:35

Really I hope film will still be available after 2012 when whatever happen will fry everything has a chip in it :P

Joking aside, while in digital I see the aseptyc perfection of a swiss clinic or a german engineer, completely targeted at the result, film, with its "fallibility" and aptitude to have slightly different results and handling lights and shadows in a different way is indeed closer to real life, like a dish of home made "tortelli" (italian egg-pasta), maybe not so perfect and healthy like the pills astronauts take but wow, sooooo good to eat !!!

shadowfox

10-28-2010, 14:24

"film is obsolete" - Agreed 100%.

Finally, a brave and honest one :D

thegman

11-01-2010, 01:35

I think even if you felt that digital was superior to film in every way, "obsolete" is not the right word I think. Film has uses which digital cannot compete with (yet). I would say that film is not obsolete in the super low end, like disposables, if you don't want to risk your main camera on a shark diving trip or something, just spend $10 on a disposable. Also, in the super high-end, digital can only compete with large format with extraordinarily expensive kit.

The Lomography company claims also to have 1 million members, presumably all shooting film. If we are to say film is obsolete based on this, then surely digital range finders are stone dead. Presumably also Phase One backs are dead in the water too. At dictionary.com, the first definition of "obsolete" means "no longer in general use". Clearly not true about film, unless you feel "general use" needs a broader user base than I do, and then of course it would cover a million things which nobody would consider obsolete.

RichC

11-01-2010, 08:52

I voted "Film is just another medium, I don't really care what happened to it".

Grown up with digital, my first camera (1999) was digital. Film? Who cares? Not me. Can't see the point, nor can my friends - we'll never use it, simply not interested.

Using film is like writing with a fountain pen or listening to vinyl in the 21st century: an affectation. I see a silver print and don't get it: I see nothing special at all. Certainly nothing I couldn't duplicate exactly with digital - not that I would. Why create a pastiche (like using one of those Photoshop plugins that turn a photo into an oil or watercolour painting - totally fake and pointless)?

I - and my digital-using friends - have talked about film vs. digital of course. Our conclusion is that the differences between film and digital are minuscule, and that digital outperforms film in every way. Some say that film sill has a few advantages like greater tonal range and a gentler fall off at the extremes (esp. highlights), but with technology advancing ever faster, in a few years digital (cameras and printers) will overcome even those.

At the end of the day, photography's about capturing an image that somehow communicates in an emotional way with the viewer. thus, only the final image counts, the end result: the viewer doesn't care how a photograph was taken or on what, or whether it's "straight" or Photoshopped. And nor do I.

So, photography's a means of communication, like writing. No writer I know gives a stuff what pen or paper or keyboard or computer they use: its the end result and the process of creation that's important to them - as it should be. Photographers should take a leaf out of their book!

Like a pen, a camera is just a tool. Why someone would feel attachment to a machine beats me!? I don't get this talk about mechanical objects and craft. (I don't get collectors either - what a weird idea, collecting objects!). Just buy the camera that will get you the image you want in the most efficient way. Today, that means a digital camera.

Today's digital camera is a disposal tool: you buy a camera - like a mobile phone - knowing it has a finite life of a few years before it's obsolete. Then you trash it and buy a new, better one... (Hopefully, cameras will end up being made of efficiently recyclable materials too - I grew up with built-in obsolescence, but we do need to balance that with environmental issues.)

Lastly, none of the above means that I want to see film disappear, and nor do I think it will. We still have fountain pens and vinyl records. What I would like to see disappear is the superior attitude that some photographers have, seeming to capitalise the word "Photography" when talking about film, implying that digital "photography" (which they lower case) is somehow inferior and not "proper" photography, that somehow a silver image is intrinsically of more worth than a digital image.

georg16nik

11-16-2010, 03:32

I voted for Film is not just a medium, it's a craft!
It is a way of life!!!
On the technical side of things.. film is a sensor and a card combined, on steroids.

excellent

11-19-2010, 12:43

I enjoy the process of it all. Also the craftsmanship of a Leica feels like no other. Never really owned a digi cam except for one on my phone.

Jamie Pillers

12-04-2010, 18:03

I follow the developments in digital gear daily. I love seeing the surprises that show up on dpreview, photokina, supermarket magazine racks, etc.. I've even owned a few of these modern marvels. But using film gear still has some sort of grasp on my aesthetic 'mind'.

Today I was out on the streets of the city with my quirky little Kodak Retina camera. When I took a café break to reload, I thought a bit about why I like this form of photography so much (and why I find it so difficult to move on to digital). I'm pretty sure I enjoy the film photography experience most because:

1) the deeply relaxing experience with the slowed-down film gear.... especially the manual-everything stuff;

2) constantly being 'in the moment' for hours on end (no chimping/editing); and

2) the happiness I feel when I get to spend a few hours just trusting my intuition.

I had a great time today and haven't even seen the photos yet!!

Soeren

12-17-2010, 10:34

Kinda like asking "what is air to you" :D
I like shooting film, loading and unloading cameras and sheetholders, I like the processing and spending time in the darkroom seeing the images emerge in the developer. Its a hobby to me (for which I for the time being have(has?) way to little time) and I don't mind that at my current level I could do a lot better pics using digital. It just doesn't rock my boat sitting in front of a computer in my sparetime too (most of my work is done in front of one)
Obsolete? inferior? I don't care, its fun.
Best regards

ChrisCummins

12-20-2010, 03:16

I feel cheated - none of the answers fully suited me!

I propose a composite of these two options

- Film is just another medium, I don't really care what happened to it
- Film is a world in itself, worthy of a lifetime pursuit

Now, I do care what 'happened to [film]', but that doesn't mean it's necessarily 'worthy of a lifetime pursuit'. Film suits me because I like the process and the aesthetic. Digital suits my father because he likes the convenience and the automated-everything. I don't beleive me or my father have better or worser opinions, but at the same time I don't think we have the same experience of photography. I'm 19 years old and discovered very early on that film was the choice for me but I don't discount or discredit digital or digital users. Personally I find it quite a bonus that people are selling up their old film cameras, as it makes for some great bargain hunting on ebay! :)

So:

'Film is just another medium, and is a world in itself'.

Best regards,
Chris

andreios

12-25-2010, 04:00

Some time ago I joined the Large Format Photography Forum and I've been welcomed with the words "Welcome to the group therapy." At first I wondered a bit, but after my first day shooting with the LF camera I understood what was meant by the "therapy". And I can say for me it is not only LF shooting, but everything concerning photography (since I am all analogue right now) that has quite a therapeutic effect on me, maybe apart from scanning, but even that can be viewed as a training in patience.. :)

jordanstarr

12-26-2010, 03:55

As digital becomes more and more of a computer art than print art (in my opinion), I find myself far more disconnected to it because I just can't enjoy the final result or the process as much. 'Film' to me can be summed up as a type of artist-lifestyle that I enjoy. To say that's obsolete is absurd.

israel_alanis

01-18-2011, 17:15

Im with you Soeren!
Film is a style of photography, everything is allow.
Imagine we said that prints of magazine, newspapers and more made with Heidelberg Printer are old and everything must be print with laser printer... no no

I love film for my photography.

Kinda like asking "what is air to you" :D
I like shooting film, loading and unloading cameras and sheetholders, I like the processing and spending time in the darkroom seeing the images emerge in the developer. Its a hobby to me (for which I for the time being have(has?) way to little time) and I don't mind that at my current level I could do a lot better pics using digital. It just doesn't rock my boat sitting in front of a computer in my sparetime too (most of my work is done in front of one)
Obsolete? inferior? I don't care, its fun.
Best regards

Griffin

01-30-2011, 04:21

As a hobbyist, after shooting digital for a year, shooting film has been my "going black". :cool:

Red Robin

02-10-2011, 06:50

Both seem to have a place. The marketplace is smiling on digital, that may never change but I for one enjoy the film niche. 99% of my photography is with film, 90% of that is currently with a rangefinder. Nearly 96% of that is with a Canon P, the other 4% going to a Bessa R and a variety of fixed lenses of different makes and models. Someone will continue to market film. The price may rise but I believe it'll still be around. Then there's always the freezer!

Shane

04-04-2011, 07:49

I learnt how to shoot with digital, it's only in the past 8 months that I've started shooting film. I'm never going back. I was always against film. But now I love it. Really love it. I like the surprise you get with film. I like that you think more because you don't want to waste film. I like that you have to really learn photography, not just your basic shutter, aperture and iso. I like that I have a solid copy of my photo. I like that I can print in the darkroom and go back and reprint, each print being completely unique. ( Even though I don't have access to a darkroom at the moment.) I like having to make sure my photo is going to come out how I want it to. I like fiddling around with the camera before I press the shutter. There's so much I like about film. I shot some digital the other day, I don't like it. It doesn't have the same feel when I'm taking the photo. I feel like I should have started with film. I'm 17 so I haven't really missed out on a great deal, but I have missed somethings, like kodachrome. Once I'd found out about it, it was too late. In my eyes film is real. Digital isn't, I'm not saying digital is fake, but it's hard to explain what I mean.

timor

08-21-2011, 06:13

In my eyes film is real. Digital isn't, I'm not saying digital is fake, but it's hard to explain what I mean.
Digital is virtual and don't really exists until hard copy is printed.
Film existence is independent. It is created as "hard copy". It doesn't need any other device or electricity to be viewed.
I shoot both, digi for family events (I have to), and film as my beloved hobby. I like to do it with my own hands and own feelings. I like to shape my own craft.
Someone said, that people look at the LCD in camera right after they take the shot for instant gratification. It is often the only time picture is viewed at all. Looks like our life is "polluted" with plethora of digitally created images, our hard drives jammed with it. In todays fashion is "to click", viewing is secondary. Twisted :bang:

thomob

08-21-2011, 18:03

I agree with Timor. Digital is for my client work. Film is for my personal work.

I love the way older film bodies feel and work, not to mention being slowed down and not trigger happy. Digital is great for its speediness, especially with needing to turn over work from shoot to client, its amazing.

Horses for different courses

Chris101

08-21-2011, 23:13

I agree with Timor. Digital is for my client work. Film is for my personal work.
...

I'd love to be so binary about it, but I use both digital and film for commercial jobs and for personal work. In fact, I tend to blur business and pleasure as well as my photographic processes. I think, photographically speaking, I'm a hybrid mutt!

dave lackey

10-10-2011, 03:19

This year, I have switched from hybrid to binary, film only for documentary work. I tried my best to get the character of my digital images to match the character of the small towns I am documenting but it was a complete failure.

So, I went with TriX and Ilford 100 for my latest documentary and...film fits the character of small towns rather nicely. In fact, the Mayor has asked that I have a gallery for November and December for those who cannot afford to buy the artist books which, unfortunately, are pricey:

http://www.adoramapix.com/davegt/book/meanwhile-in-grantville-georgia-1

SeanEsopenko

10-25-2011, 10:59

4x5 and 6x7 film has turned out to be an economical way to make good quality prints. The 4x5 I shoot with needs a $22k+ digital back along with a technical camera like a cambo WDS paired with good schneider/rodenstock lenses to match it's image quality and technical movement capabilities.

And frankly I can't think of a digital setup that matches a Mamiya 7II for IQ and size/weight.

But here's the kicker: all this gear was had at a great price (started getting into film just over a year ago) because it isn't as convenient as digital. This was professional gear dumped by professionals for D3x's, 1Ds's, and medium format backs & cameras because they need their photos yesterday and they don't have the freedom to spend hours in a darkroom churning out the final proof of a print.

For the hobbyist/fine-artist with time on their hands I think film's a great way to go. For those with tight deadlines purchasing, renting or leasing digital equipment is the only way to go.

zilch0

11-13-2011, 13:50

I shoot film because digital can't do what film can do...

No handheld or head-mounted digital display can compete with with the resolution offered by back-lit, 52x52mm, stereo (3D) chromes viewed at 4.2x magnification in a handheld, medium-format stereo viewer:

89328

If we can agree that a film like Fujichrome Velvia is capable of delivering subject detail at scan resolutions as high as 4000 dpi, the 52x52mm mask apertures in a medium format stereo mount can deliver a resolution of 64MP (8000x8000) to each eye - from original chromes, coming straight from the camera with nothing more than E-6 processing - with no digital workflow nor wet darkroom manipulation whatsoever. Everything has to be correct in-camera at the time of exposure, but the results are stunning.

Even if we assume that only 2000 dpi worth of subject detail can be scanned from a technically superb color or B&W reversal-processed chrome, we can claim a resolution of 16MP to each eye, using the analog, medium format stereo viewer, shown above.

Sony has announced a $780.00 head-mounted "Personal 3D Viewer" called HMZ-T1 with a resolution of only 1280x720 pixels per eye - that's 0.9MP - not 16MP (or 64MP), but 0.9MP:

http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/31/sony-3d-oled/

Thanks to the lack of high-resolution digital displays, no digital sensor - not even the Phase One IQ180 - can compete with my twin Mamiya 7ii's.

Attempts to convert digital captures to film (for use in analog stereo viewers) using film recorders like those made by Lasergraphics (at either 2k or 4k resolutions) simply don't look as good as the original chromes - not by a long shot!

http://www.lasergraphics.com/us/pages/directorfeatures.htm

So, until further notice, medium format film cameras reign supreme in the world of handheld 3D viewers.

Mike

c.poulton

11-20-2011, 08:17

..........I enjoy the film photography experience most because:

1) the deeply relaxing experience with the slowed-down film gear.... especially the manual-everything stuff;

2) constantly being 'in the moment' for hours on end (no chimping/editing); and

2) the happiness I feel when I get to spend a few hours just trusting my intuition.

I had a great time today and haven't even seen the photos yet!!

I'm totally here with you on this Jamie! And I really like having to stop, maybe have a coffee or a beer as an excuse to change film. (Of course I can do this on the move easily but if I have the time....)

I might be unusual in that I started out in the world of film (there wasn't any other option in the early 80's!) and have never moved onto digital apart from a few shots taken for work on a cheap digital P+S and the occasional 'crappy' iPhone snap I use for 'fun' online.

I did try out my niece's dSLR on one occasion but hated the whole experience, from information overload in the viewfinder, autofocus that dictates focus for me, and not the otherway round, damn rear screen that lights up the world and draws attention to me, shutter lag, and this is one thing that the first time it happened really screwed me up - autofocus when it's dark and the damn cam lights up the scene even when I explicitly 'told' the camera I don't want to use a flash!:bang::bang::bang:

Then there's digital images - OK I know this has been discussed to death, but to me most digital images tend to look too 'sharp', something I just cannot put my finger on but I personally don't like them. In the same vein, digital B+W - again, I can't explicitly say why but it's as there is 'something missing', it does just not 'feel' right to me. Now, when we look at post processing, especially use of software to emulate the look of film, well.... maybe that's the way to go, I don't know?

Each to their own though and I admit that I have seen some really great images produced with digital equipment, however it's just that it's not for me. Maybe one day, but not today.....

EdwardKaraa

11-20-2011, 08:59

Film for me is just the real thing. Digital is an imposter. I really tried to give it a chance. I moved all digital in 2003, switched back to film in 2006, digital again in 2008, and now back to film for good.

jody36

02-23-2012, 03:46

pros can do film equally as well as digital, ordinary people can't. digital is instant gratification even if its a bad photo. average people take average or better photos with digital most can't with film. why do I love film? because I'm average but demand better of myself and I can't stand not taking a good photo with film. So till the day I die I will continue to shoot film and try to learn. Besides, film cameras almost all of them, look better than any digital.

Teuthida

02-23-2012, 03:53

You do know that you don't 'have to' chimp with a DSLR, right? Just turn off the rear LCD and shoot. Presto.

Paul Jenkin

02-23-2012, 04:44

I have "done" film since the early 1970s and, so long as film remains, I will continue to "do" film until I shuffle off this mortal coil. I will also "do" digital as it's also bloody good fun. But I prefer film.

If I had to earn a crust from photography (which I don't - but I did have a go in the early 1980s) I would definitely use digital - solely due to the immediate feedback and ability to re-shoot there and then if necessary. Otherwise, it's film all he way for me.

mrrobleyleica

05-18-2012, 23:02

Film photography is something I used to love, and may love again.

xxloverxx

05-19-2012, 03:18

Film by itself is just a method of shooting. But with it comes a vast choice of cameras with a build-quality you don't really find in modern (especially digital) cameras. More choice of lens, fully mechanical options (especially handy on vacation), folders and the characteristics of different films.

Oh, and it's far easier to buy film cameras online just to play with than digital. And from my experience, they just last longer. So it's a way for me to experience many different cameras without going broke.

I just think you have so much more to choose from with film.

heartattackandvine

06-07-2012, 03:25

I'm totally here with you on this Jamie! And I really like having to stop, maybe have a coffee or a beer as an excuse to change film. (Of course I can do this on the move easily but if I have the time....)

I might be unusual in that I started out in the world of film (there wasn't any other option in the early 80's!) and have never moved onto digital apart from a few shots taken for work on a cheap digital P+S and the occasional 'crappy' iPhone snap I use for 'fun' online.

I did try out my niece's dSLR on one occasion but hated the whole experience, from information overload in the viewfinder, autofocus that dictates focus for me, and not the otherway round, damn rear screen that lights up the world and draws attention to me, shutter lag, and this is one thing that the first time it happened really screwed me up - autofocus when it's dark and the damn cam lights up the scene even when I explicitly 'told' the camera I don't want to use a flash!:bang::bang::bang:

Then there's digital images - OK I know this has been discussed to death, but to me most digital images tend to look too 'sharp', something I just cannot put my finger on but I personally don't like them. In the same vein, digital B+W - again, I can't explicitly say why but it's as there is 'something missing', it does just not 'feel' right to me. Now, when we look at post processing, especially use of software to emulate the look of film, well.... maybe that's the way to go, I don't know?

Each to their own though and I admit that I have seen some really great images produced with digital equipment, however it's just that it's not for me. Maybe one day, but not today.....
Some great responses here, including this one I quoted.

I've given digital a serious go over a number of years. Not just bought (for me) an expensive kit, but also spent time actually studying the manual, and in addition to that, perfecting my skills in Photoshop.

The results I've got range from "meh" to "good", but the overall experience has never been really enjoyable.

I've decided to gradually switch back not only to analogue photography, but also to simplify the whole process. Certainly I'm not the only "old timer" who remembers the old days fondly not only by quite possibly more meaningful and better photos, but (perhaps more importantly) as being more enjoyable.

Perhaps film will disappear at some time in the future (I sure hope not), but it's not likely to be in my lifetime. So, I'll be sticking with film, and probably with only one camera and one lens (two at most - wide + normal).

I am not making money from photography, and if I'm also not enjoying it, then what the heck am I doing with it anyway.

Film, all the way.

PS. One thing that I experienced today when concurrently shooting the same subject with both digital & film cameras: naturally I tend to retake the same shot with the digicam many times over (because I, doh, can). It occurred to me now that this is second-guessing your best intuition. No wonder that it doesn't produce the results one would like.

Photo_Smith

06-13-2012, 07:15

I shoot film and digital, I prefer film because of the tangible reality of seeing your shots hanging in the drying cabinet, delayed gratification giving distance from the shooting event. only having 12 shots etc.

sure you can tape up the LCD and shoot with 512mb flash cards as suggested by another poster, but in reality I shoot digital when I need that quick response, film is different and no digicam gives you the feel of using a TLR.
I don't think using digital like a film camera works, because you have the modern advantages you just use them, the Pandora's box is open.

One is like a quick TV dinner the other like relaxing meal with wine music and company.

Just a personal take, I hate to be without either, film to me is real not transient electronic signals–of course you can convert your digital to analogue by printing it, though it never feels the same :-)

Contarama

08-18-2012, 19:30

Digital is fantastic use it all the time but the problem is that things get boring at somewhere around a 1000 snaps. So I put it down and shoot with my film cameras until I can't afford it. I prefer my film camera over my digital camera not really because of the film but because of the camera itself...it is kind of like do you want to wear the Casio or the Rolex today? :)

Godfrey

09-03-2012, 06:19

I've been involved and entranced by photography since I was about six, and I'm 58 now, so photography was *all* about film for me until I was already in the game for 35 plus years.

Digital capture and image processing changed things, starting when I was doing image processing for NASA in the middle 1980s, but I didn't really make a serious effort to use it for my personal photography until about 2002, when I bought a quality 5Mpixel digital camera with a good lens. I concentrated almost entirely on digital capture and processing from then until late in 2010.

Now I'm shooting film once again, along with digital. I shoot more digital than film. They are two mediums, two different sets of constraints on my seeing, and I like using them both. I haven't shot any color in film since 2004 (other than some Impossible Project Polaroid SX70): that to my eye is something more usefully worked in digital capture. Black and white film negatives smash away so much capability that I find the constraints of the medium appealing to my creativity, and I do like the way it looks.

I shoot both and enjoy the challenge of making what I envision happen.

Good photography transcends format, even medium. It's all in what you see and how you express it. Little else really matters in the end.

..."Equipment is transient. Photographs endure."...

FoldingCamera

09-03-2012, 10:59

I have been using black and white film for more than 30 years and cannot see any justification to change, black and white film in my opinion still has validity and greater control of dynamic range than digital, colour film on the other hand has been superseded by digital on costs and convenience if you have the camera and the software it costs nothing to use and has greater dynamic range. I have recently put some information on my website about using film here;- http://www.stephenwhiteheadphotographer.me.uk/vintage-camera-and-photography-pages.html

Any comments would be welcome.

jparriott

09-15-2012, 12:26

I'm not a pro. But I prefer film for street photography, in that it slows me down, it makes me think, and I love the feel of my old IIIF. I like the delayed gratification as the film's being processed, and the look of the photos when I'm finished.

But, that said, I would never have started shooting film again, if I had to process and print. The digital age and the ability to scan is a huge advantage to those of us who don't have the time or the inclination to use chemicals or build a darkroom. Maybe our results aren't as wonderful -- but, I think, they're pretty damn good and distinctly film in their rendering.

As for day-to-day shooting? I greatly prefer my M9 for its ease and low light ability.

Nikos72

09-17-2012, 18:34

Film is a world in itself - Different feeling, different means of expressing it and with the ultimate human touch on the results.

Addy101

10-28-2012, 00:56

To me, film is just another medium, but a fun one!
It is a different experience, just like manual focus is different from autofocus and a RF is different from a SLR. As some have suggested, the measurable advantages from film will diminish over time as the technology advances. But the film experience is hard to beat and the film "look" difficult to get with photoshop. There is a place for film just like there was place for manual focus in the age of autofocus!

Make sure you keep your customers satisfied (if you have them) and have FUN, either digital or film!

Koolzakukumba

10-28-2012, 13:10

To me, it's the difference between seeing a photograph in your head before you take it or only seeing it on an LCD screen after you've taken it:
http://www.theonlinedarkroom.com/2011/10/internal-v-external-visualisation.html

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oP7GHUiSOOU/TqM2P4Oc1jI/AAAAAAAAFHI/Ti2_J50pblw/s1600/hall+chair.jpg

Compaq

11-08-2012, 07:54

There are several reasons why I'm planning on going 99% analog:

- more rewarding to create a print I'm happy with by doing it in the darkroom
- I don't need to worry about crashing hard drives
- it challenges me when shooting, with regard to being selective about my shots, reduced possibilities in exposure (constant ISO)
- I'm soon to start on my MSc in chemistry, possible also a PhD after, and so the process intrigues me on another level
- the cameras are lovely machinery, whereas the digital aren't
- I like the smell of the darkroom, and feel completely relaxed there

That's about the most important ones.

Kent

11-08-2012, 09:09

It's a niche activity, but a pleasant one. ;)

Ming Rider

12-06-2012, 14:51

It's all I shoot.

RattyMouse

12-09-2012, 01:44

RichLavigne

12-10-2012, 13:33

I think you missed an answer... Film is a tool. I use it when I need to use it... just like digital.

Steve George

01-08-2013, 11:20

Film got me interested in photography again several years after I switched from film to digital. For an intangible, indefinable reason, I just prefer the process of bulk loading, shooting, and developing film myself rather than shooting to a card and downloading the files into Lightroom. Best decision I made when I went was digital was holding onto my Leica M6 and lenses. My pictures aren't better, but I enjoy taking them a lot more.

Ming Rider

01-09-2013, 02:29

Spanik

01-15-2013, 10:09

I just like film cameras better: 1 button = 1 function. If I get wound up because I have again to hunt through 10 layers of menus to change a silly setting or push 3 buttons while turning some dial to change a simple setting then I don't have fun taking photos. I want a real focus ring and a real diaphragm ring on my lenses. A knob to set speed and one to set iso. And some counter to know how many shots left. If because of that I have to use film, then fine for me I'll use film.

The day they make a digital camera with the interface of a Praktica MTL3 I'll get one. I might even get two.

Chris101

01-15-2013, 18:45

I just like film cameras better: 1 button = 1 function. ...

Some film cameras had controls that changed depending on the mode the control was in. The Canon A-1 comes to mind.

shadowfox

01-16-2013, 12:38

I think you missed an answer... Film is a tool. I use it when I need to use it... just like digital.

This is exactly why I have the last option on the poll.
Good answer.

dave lackey

01-17-2013, 03:50

Looking back, the thread title is "What is Film Photography to You?"

At this point in time after many years of digital and many more shooting film, I am content (not overjoyed) at shooting both for various reasons. But what is film photography to me?

It is the foundation to which I always return. When I want to just kick back and enjoy the film gear, it is always waiting. When I want to use the film gear it is always a joy with a completely different kind of satisfaction than using digital. When I want to look at images with character, film is hard to beat. There is just something about film photography that makes me smile.:angel:

68degrees

02-26-2013, 20:30

I love digital! It drives the prices of film cameras down!

helenhill

03-01-2013, 11:50

A sheer Pain in the A**...:eek:
but when I finally Develop, Scan & View
I couldn't be HAPPIER

Pioneer

03-07-2013, 21:35

In some respects film and digital are one and the same. This is particularly true in the capture phase. Both the film camera and the digital camera use the light to capture image data.

But following the capture they take totally different paths. The manipulation and presentation of that captured data differ so much that they may as well be entirely different worlds.

The image on film is manipulated and presented through the skillful mastery of light and chemicals. It is a craft requiring the dedication of many years to master.

The image captured on the sensor is manipulated through the use of mathematical calculations that require the computing power of machines to master.

The image captured on film can be touched and handled from the moment of exposure through to the final print.

The image captured on sensor becomes a set of mathematical digits and calculations that cannot be touched or handled until the final print.

Is one better than the other? I don't believe so but I truly do not know.

van_d

03-14-2013, 21:59

A sheer Pain in the A**...:eek:
but when I finally Develop, Scan & View
I couldn't be HAPPIER

This. Really.

A lot of aspects of film photography can be quite tedious, but when I finally get to view the finished photograph, I couldn't be happier. It's just not something I get with digital. The look, the feel, and in the back of my head, the fact that this photo is guaranteed to be here for generations to come even if this computer file becomes unreadable or the like.

Plus there's a lot of simply amazing cameras that I can use that have no digital equivalent. TLRs immediately come to mind, for example.

Weasel_Loader

03-25-2013, 21:27

I just recently started shooting film again after picking up a Nikon F5. Couldn't resist after going through boxes of old slides and negatives passed down to me by family. I had a Nikon N4004S as my first SLR back in 1990 and loved it. The F5 goes perfect with my D700 lenses.

Digital in my opinion does have a much cleaner look and much more detail than film. I still prefer to use my digital D700 for landscapes for that reason and also the ability to compensate and adjust while shooting.

I use film now primarily for taking family photos since I prefer the look and have a physical negative or transparency to hold.

I just hope film holds on long enough and doesn't suffer a complete collapse.