Film shooters!! Come clean!!

[varjag]

I feel no need to rationalize my choices

[furcafe]

Mr. Erwitt actually uses digital, at least from time to time. I know this because when I happened to meet him a few years ago, he was using a 5D Mark II.

Originally Posted by thomasw_

Not so sure all the older great photographers would not use film if they had the choice; in this regard, Elliott Erwitt comes to mind as one who still uses film by choice even though he could be using digital.

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by kshapero

Nice rant indeed.

I thought so too!

[NickTrop]

No way to answer this hypothetical question obviously but the odds are that most members of the dead photographers society would shoot digitally today for the same reasons most everyone else shoots digital today who works in small format. Ansel Adams and the great landscape photographers would likely continue to use film.

[pakeha]

Nope, i know just who i am and what i am, never have fantasy of being someone else , and i just take photographs. I `shoot, targets though

[KM-25]

I hate to break it to you, but there are still some modern day "greats" who still use film. I use film because I love it and I love printing it, clients pay me to use it and I am making a heck of a name for my self in pushing it forward.

You might want to get off of the Internet, it is clouding your judgement....

[barnwulf]

No fantasy here. I am not trying to be or to pattern my shooting after a great film photographer or to be anyone but who I am. I don't care whither others are shooting film or digital. I have had a D300 and D700 which were both great cameras, but both were sold to make room for a couple of film Leicas. I have a M8.2 that doesn't see much use. I take it out for a day every couple of months and then I happily return to my film cameras just because I like them and I like the results I get with film. - Jim

[.... _]

Originally Posted by kshapero

How many of us who shoot film are just playing out a fantasy that you are aspiring to be one of the greats of old (Robert Capa comes to mind)? Cause when you think about it, if they were alive today, they would most likely be shooting only digital. Come clean or is it just me?

I think you're just having a mid photo life crisis. You'll get over it one way or the other. It's a confidence thing...

[giellaleafapmu]

Originally Posted by umcelinho

135 = cheapest solution of that era for taking a huge amount of shots in a short period maintaining a minimum level of image quality and detail, right? that applies to digital nowadays.

Sorry to contradict a fellow chap from South America (I am a bit further North on the Andes). I think you are right that 35mm was the cheapest solution before digital to shot a lot and keep a minimun quality level but I don't think this is the only reason for digital to be popular now. Back in the days I don't think there were many commercial photographers not using Polaroids to set their lights and now you can do it so much more easily with digital. Also, these days there is almost no magazine, advertising company, whatever which is not turning the image to a digital file for printing, even if the image come from a film, so there is no reason really to use film. Finally, todays super multi megapixel cameras are not "the minimum quality" tools, they are reallly incredibly good for almost anything you may get commisioned, to pass their quality you need either very large pieces of film or a digital back but then the price just skyrocket and usually it is not justified. Finally, back at the time of film you might have had an incredibly hard time while on assignment and be back with no usable picture at all (you might have had a unique technically hugly picture like some of Capa's and publish anyway but that's an extreme case), now you know for sure that you will go back home with some image, maybe not art but enough to fulfill the contract and I guess this is a huge appeal for sport, action, wedding, whatever which happens only once photographers (not to speak of the 12/24/60 frames per seconds which were once only in the realm of science labs and are now available in sub 2,000US$ cameras). To the other extrem of the spectrum, for most people not interested in photography a small digital camera is a huge step ahed in quality if compared to the old point and shot of just a decade ago (remember that most people are simply not interested in learning the technique needed to use a SLR or a rangefinder film camera but they do like to take pictures of pets, kids, friends, trips just like many readers of this forum possibly like to eat nice food which they cannot prepare). Ah, just to be clear, I do like film and use it a lot for fun but simply for most works and for most people digital is now more convenient in every respect and that's why everyone uses it, not "because you can take a lot of pictures at a cheap price".

GLF

[jerrybro]

I shoot film, use manual cameras, listen to vinyl and drive old cars. In order to get into digital I should throw everything away and spend thousands of dollars on new equipment? No, not me. Film is as good as it ever was, its the processing that went downhill. Great film cameras are available at bargain prices.

Digital is fine, great even, for some. My IPhone is all the digital I need right now.

[giellaleafapmu]

Originally Posted by jerrybro

I shoot film, use manual cameras, listen to vinyl and drive old cars. In order to get into digital I should throw everything away and spend thousands of dollars on new equipment? No, not me. Film is as good as it ever was, its the processing that went downhill. Great film cameras are available at bargain prices.

Digital is fine, great even, for some. My IPhone is all the digital I need right now.

Why would you need to throw everything away? Also nice digital cameras are available at bargain prices and you can use both medias depending on what you are doing, no need to be exclusive. If you learn a new technique thanks to the possibility of seeing immediately what you are doing using a digital camera then you know the technique and you can use it with whatever you are shooting, also with film. Contrary to popular believe it is a great time to take pictures...

GLF

[loquax ludens]

Originally Posted by kshapero

How many of us who shoot film are just playing out a fantasy that you are aspiring to be one of the greats of old (Robert Capa comes to mind)? Cause when you think about it, if they were alive today, they would most likely be shooting only digital. Come clean or is it just me?

If that's your reason for shooting film, then it may not be just you, but I bet you'd be part of a pretty small group relative to all the film shooters out there. It is definitely not my reason for shooting film.

I have a digital camera because it comes in handy for utilitarian purposes, but I do not care at all about digital imaging. The process is boring, the time spent in front of the computer is something I dread. I don't get a physical object out of it unless I print. I can't manipulate the image in a simple and comfortable fashion in my darkroom.

Take care not to misconstrue what I'm saying. I am NOT saying that I believe that digital processes produce inferior results compared to film. That is often not the case.

I use film because I prefer the process and workflow over using digital. For me, that is at least as important as the end result. And that, by the way, is one reason why I do not call myself a photographer. It's not all about the end result for me. It's like taking a road trip, where the drive itself is the objective. Enjoying the process is a large part of my reason for photographing with film.

[ColSebastianMoran]

Originally Posted by kshapero

How many of us who shoot film are just playing out a fantasy that you are aspiring to be one of the greats of old (Robert Capa comes to mind)? Cause when you think about it, if they were alive today, they would most likely be shooting only digital. Come clean or is it just me?

Akiva, that's an interesting theory, but I have a different one.

My theory is that many of us are hanging on to film because we love the cameras. The old gear has character. A new D800 just doesn't feel the same.

In another discussion, a guy posted a photo of him and his Hasselblad; the romance was obvious. My theory is that at least part of it is we love the hardware.

[Gumby]

... some of us are just comfortable with the technology we already have an dhave no real incentive to chante (yet).

[Kent]

Originally Posted by umcelinho

135 = cheapest solution of that era for taking a huge amount of shots in a short period maintaining a minimum level of image quality and detail, right? that applies to digital nowadays.

No, it doesn't! At least not with a decent digital camera.

[Kent]

Originally Posted by ColSebastianMoran

My theory is that many of us are hanging on to film because we love the cameras. The old gear has character. A new D800 just doesn't feel the same.

In another discussion, a guy posted a photo of him and his Hasselblad; the romance was obvious. My theory is that at least part of it is we love the hardware.

I agree. It has to do a lot with nostalgic feelings, at least in my case.

[shadowfox]

Originally Posted by kshapero

How many of us who shoot film are just playing out a fantasy that you are aspiring to be one of the greats of old (Robert Capa comes to mind)? Cause when you think about it, if they were alive today, they would most likely be shooting only digital. Come clean or is it just me?

Maybe in the beginning.
But fantasy as motivation got old pretty quickly, at least for me.

Now I gladly go through the trouble to shoot film just because I like the results.

[Colin Corneau]

DNFTT

Internet parlance that seems to fit posts like these.

[Chris101]

I love chemically toned prints - especially when toned with more than one solution. These prints are one of a kind and unique. And they cannot be made by any technology other than film. So that is why I use film. For many other purposes I use digital cameras just like the gazillions of other folks do.

[wblynch]

Plasticam digis are boring. not fun.

Using old cameras made of metal, leather, glass. Mirrors and gears -- whirring and clacking. That's fun.

Pulling magical strips of pictures out of a can and holding them up to the light to see. That's fun.

Flipping through pages of negatives and slides, years or decades after they were taken. That's fun.

Sitting with a shoebox of photo prints or projecting slides onto the wall, and sharing stories with your loved ones for the evening. That's Fun.

Plasticam digis are not fun. they are boring.

[Turtle]

I shoot film out of choice, because I feel the end product on the wall looks 'better' (B&W). I also shoot digital, but prefer film for B&W work. No fantasy here, or emulation, just a desire to make the best photos I can. The dynamic range of film is tremendous and it gets you out of all sorts of problems in the highlights when shooting quickly.

[NaChase]

Originally Posted by oftheherd

I just have a preference for film and the film process.

Ditto. Digital is great, but I like the tactile quality of film. Oh, and I can't afford an M9.

[Messsucherkamera]

Originally Posted by Paul Jenkin

If I had to choose one, it would be film as I love the process of loading, winding on and processing the photos. I also like the discipline of a finite roll of film onto which to burn my photographs - rather than the apparent benefit of being able to shoot dozens (or hundreds) of extra shots just for the hell of it.

Digital is fun and convenient but, in my opinion, film is worth the effort and the output is worth the wait...

That pretty well sums it up for me.

In addition, getting set up for digital photography would require some major financial bloodletting - and that's before I get around to spending $7950 for a Monochrom M or $8000 for an M9-P. Besides, my MP and M4-P are paid for.

If I had an "extra" $7950 (what's that??) lying around, I wouldn't buy an M/M or M9-P with it anyway. I'd spend it on film and a photo expedition to Asia - Tibet, China Thailand and Japan in particular. I'd leave myself just enough cash to get back home with a big smile on my face.

[perudo]

I started photography 4 years ago, and was immediately attracted by film. I actually never had a digital camera, and don't want one.
Now I even stopped scaning and processing in lightrrom, and just prefer to do it all analog, with contact sheets, lighttables etc...
I might have like 20 rolls waiting to be developed, some are at least 8 months old... but that doesn't matter.
I like to take my time (at least when I do photography), and most important: I love to print in my darkroom

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I don't care what anyone in the past shot. I use both film and digital, and choose one or the other depending on the look I want for the picture. Generally, I prefer digital for color work and film for B&W.