Why do I prefer film?

[mdarnton]

Originally Posted by jpa66

BUT ( the reason that I'm posting this ) I started to realize that one of the reasons that I love film so much is because I detest change.

HEY, YOU KIDS GET OFFA MY LAWN!!

OK, now that that's out of my system, for me, I think I just prefer B&W, and there's something about holding a digital camera that prevents me from thinking that way. I'm sure I could get around that, but I'm too lazy to try. :-)

[chopsteeks]

After a few months of soul searching as to why photography was not getting me excited anymore....I decided to go back to film again. I am not abandoning digital per se as I still intend to use digital for family snapshots.....

But invested a great deal of $$$ to set up my darkroom. Picked up a 4x5 enlarger....etc.

When post processing digital images...converting them to b/w....found myself desperately putting as much 'grain effect' on these digital images.

I tried to un-sharpen some of them as the images seemed to be so sharp. I will apply some 'blurring effect' .... Digital images seemed to be too perfect..

These images did not represent the images in my head....

So I went to view a few gallery exhibitions of traditional b/w prints. Oh those photos with pronounced grains....oh so beautiful...

That fire inside me got lit again.

[drec]

I just like the idea of having negs that will last more than my lifetime. If you can't look at a photo, and it was nice, what is the point of spending all sorts of money on equipment?

I am a lazy guy and the costs in terms of doing work either come up front (processing film/scanning or printing) or later (maintaining the digital archive over the years, on top of easier processing/printing). I think I'll get the hard work done up front and have it easier later.

[Paul Jenkin]

I use film. Mostly. Why? Probably because I've used it since my youth in the early 1970s and, having bought into the digital expeience (and liked it) I find the "look" of film photos - less precise colours, grain and softer transitions between shades within the colour or mono pallette.

Digital comes into its own when convenience and profit maximisation are the main drivers. Nevertheless, I wouldn't be without my D700. Despite the D800 having 36.3MP (akin to a MF camera sensor) I don't see any point spending £2,500 for a piece of kit that I expect won't out-perform my Hasselblad, Rolleiflex or Mamiya 7 when it comes to pure image quality in the sort of environment I tend to shoot.

[Basset]

Originally Posted by noimmunity

Another vote for process.

OT, it is also the main reason why I also really like digital.

Two very different processes, two different kinds of joy.

I would agree here.

As for the film look, various digital processing programs (AlienSkin Exposure, Nik Silver EfexPro ColorEfex Pro) can fairly readily generate the look of many photos made with different films and processes. And the software improves each year.

What film provides for me is the "surprise" factor in street photography, which generates many failures. There's not only the surprise that in seeing -- days or weeks later -- how a split-second shooting decision turned out better than hoped in the focus and composition, but also the surprise in seeing how the colors, shades, textures came out. Film presents me at times with a look that I'd never have thought to create in a digital shot, and provides the basis for similar looks in future film or digital shots.