Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film

Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film Discuss Image processing -- traditional darkoom or digital lightroom here. Notice there are subcategories to narrow down subject matter. .

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Experts: Explain WHY you shoot film to NEWBIES
Old 04-13-2013   #1
CameraQuest
Head Bartender
 
CameraQuest is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: over the hills from Malibu
Posts: 5,305
Experts: Explain WHY you shoot film to NEWBIES

OK, most photogs only shoot digital today. Easier, quicker, instant gratification etc. Yet, for what it does, a lot of people believe they get BETTER results with film and analog printing and they go that extra mile. If you are one of those experienced people, please take the time to write an essay explaining your methods and why you prefer it to digital.

WHY? so others can learn from your techniques, but the biggest reason is to arouse the curiosity of digital shooters who have little or no film experience and don't know what they are missing.

This thread came about from my conversation with an expert shooter/printer last week, who pointed out to me that he knew the results he would get with film 100% of the time, and that saved him time and money on the back end by not endlessly spending his time in post processing. OK, that is one guy's view, but a very interesting view.

Please stay ON TOPIC in this thread. We want to help the film newbies here. Troll posts and "why I prefer digital" posts will be deleted from the thread.

Thanks to all for taking part,

Stephen
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2013   #2
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,062
Stand a black and white silver halide print next to an inkjet print. Not necessarily one of your own: preferably pictures at exhibitions or from a manufacturer.

About 10-20% of the time, they'll be hard to tell apart. About 10-20% of the time they'll be so different they're incomparable. The remaining 60-80% of the time, halide just looks better.

Yes, part of this is operator skill, and yes, part of the time, it's down to the fact that many skilled B+W printers have had decades to learn how. I'm in the group that has that experience.

If you don't print 'wet', the main reasons to stick with film are because the kit is cheaper and you don't shoot enough pictures to justify the cost of switching to digital; or because you simply enjoy using it more for whatever reason (including curiosity, using fine machinery, historical continuity, loathing of computers...); or because you want to try processes with a unique 'look' that simply don't exist with digital (especially contact processes amd, effectively, hand colouring). You can fake almost any halide effect digitally, but it won't always be a convincing fake. Take orgasms as a parallel.

Otherwise, shoot digi. Why not? I shoot digi colour and silver halide B&W.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2013   #3
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
 
tunalegs's Avatar
 
tunalegs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,146
Because the tools you use influence your process. In the same way that writing with a pen, a typewriter, and a computer are all still writing - but totally different experiences. You might be able to type astonishingly fast, but you may also enjoy the sensation of writing with a fine fountain pen, or even practising spencerian script with a flexible steel nib.

I only have one digital camera, a Canon rebel I bought five or six years ago. But I have eight or nine film cameras of various types - folders, RFs, SLRs, even a 1920s Ansco box and they each offer their own distinct enjoyment of use.

A similar idea can be applied to films, developers, papers, and processes. If photography is an experience for you, rather than a clinical craft - it's nice to have some variety in your equipment and technique. See how new tools and materials change your approach and consequently effect.

From an Art perspective I appreciate using slide film on a personal level because of the thought that each of my slides is not only unique, but that each slide is a portion of film that was physically present at the location of the shot, and that the very light which touched my subjects whatever they may have been - also touched my slide. It is a sort of authenticity that cannot be matched through prints, film or digital. Might not mean anything to some, but it means a lot to me.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2013   #4
S.H.
Picture taker
 
S.H.'s Avatar
 
S.H. is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Near Bordeaux (France)
Age: 35
Posts: 416
Shoot film :
- so that you can use nice gear (brass, chrome, leather)
- more dynamics in color or B/W negatives
- more format to choose from : 6x6, 6x9, ...
- grain looks better than pixels when enlarged

Note : my technique is part film / part digital : I do not mind scanning and I like photoshop better than working in the darkroom.

At my local photoclub, I have shown some prints of scanned medium format pictures (prewar Rolleiflex, 6x9 Speed graphic). It just looked great and nobody questioned my technical choices after that : it is hard (or sometime physically impossible) to achieve the "look" of these pictures even with a top of the line digital camera.
__________________
some pictures
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2013   #5
johannielscom
Leica II is The One
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Universitas Terre Threntiae
Posts: 6,943
Roger's got most of the arguments covered in a single post, as he is known to do more often!

All I can add is my personal choices, and bring in a new reason with that.

The vintage and more modern film camera gear is a joy to use once you have settled on what you like best to handle. Apart from the stuff in my signature I have owned and loved a Leica M2, Leica M6 classic 0.85, Nikkormats, Rolleiflex 2.8F and a Tele-Rolleiflex. The arrival of another joy-to-use camera, the Ricoh GXR, signaled the farewell from those that remained, some had been sold earlier. In medium format, I still own and shoot a Zeiss-Ikon Super Ikonta B and an Ensign.

Meanwhile, I'm still trying to develop anything like 'experience' when it comes to creating images with that specific film look, that cannot be created with digital. Sometimes I succeed, often I fail miserably, but the processes of handling film, developing, editing, scanning and post-processing I enjoy greatly.

New reason for shooting film: Occasionally I do a paid assignment. Bringing both a digital and a film camera always inspires awe with at least a number of people present, sparks some interesting conversations and helps to get across that I'm sufficiently professional to actually shoot a fully manual camera and get good results from it. People are interested in taking my business card, keeping in touch and hiring me for a similar assignment. This was specifically true with the Rolleiflexes, I need to add.
__________________
www.johanniels.com | flickr | instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2013   #6
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,062
Quote:
Originally Posted by tunalegs View Post
Because the tools you use influence your process. In the same way that writing with a pen, a typewriter, and a computer are all still writing - but totally different experiences. You might be able to type astonishingly fast, but you may also enjoy the sensation of writing with a fine fountain pen, or even practising spencerian script with a flexible steel nib.

I only have one digital camera, a Canon rebel I bought five or six years ago. But I have eight or nine film cameras of various types - folders, RFs, SLRs, even a 1920s Ansco box and they each offer their own distinct enjoyment of use.

A similar idea can be applied to films, developers, papers, and processes. If photography is an experience for you, rather than a clinical craft - it's nice to have some variety in your equipment and technique. See how new tools and materials change your approach and consequently effect.

From an Art perspective I appreciate using slide film on a personal level because of the thought that each of my slides is not only unique, but that each slide is a portion of film that was physically present at the location of the shot, and that the very light which touched my subjects whatever they may have been - also touched my slide. It is a sort of authenticity that cannot be matched through prints, film or digital. Might not mean anything to some, but it means a lot to me.
Steel? STEEL, dear boy? What's wrong with goose-quill?

On one level, I agree with you completely. Process and equipment matter. You will get different pictures with (say) a 12x15 inch film camera than with a digital cigarette packet, and quite honestly, I'd rather use the film camera.

On another level, some digital cameras are preferable to some film cameras, and I'll get better pictures with them. This is of course a matter of personal taste. But I'd rather have an M9 than a Holga. Or, indeed, pretty much anything rather than a Holga. Why not buy a decent camera such as a Lyubitel?

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2013   #7
Photo_Smith
Registered User
 
Photo_Smith's Avatar
 
Photo_Smith is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,482
I've often pondered the reasons why I shoot film, and in the end I don't think I can really quantify it; certainly not in a logical manner.
It's a personal reason– I like film, for me it has qualities that digital doesn't have (and no NIK doesn't give you the same look).

Those start with planning the shoot; film selection that is done prior to exposure (choose grainy mono film and your results won't be smooth colour)
Digital has more options and sometimes I feel I get bogged down with the choice and infinite possible combinations.

Film is about selection before execution.

Don't get me wrong I love digital, especially photoshop which if used to compliment the darkroom can enhance film.

I also like the cameras, digital has no equivalent to the Rolleiflex (my camera of choice) or the 8x10 cameras I can't imagine a DSLR user driving 60 miles setting up a camera (mantling a LF camera is a craft in itself) then deciding not to take a shot and just driving home–too much wind or the wrong light...
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2013   #8
segedi
RFicianado
 
segedi's Avatar
 
segedi is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,236
Out if all the photos hanging up on my walls, almost all if them are from film, albeit scanned, but most of my best work to date has been on film, black and white and slide.
__________________
-----------------------

Segedi.com

Flickr

Twitter
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2013   #9
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Photo_Smith View Post
I've often pondered the reasons why I shoot film, and in the end I don't think I can really quantify it; certainly not in a logical manner.
It's a personal reason– I like film, for me it has qualities that digital doesn't have (and no NIK doesn't give you the same look).

Those start with planning the shoot; film selection that is done prior to exposure (choose grainy mono film and your results won't be smooth colour)
Digital has more options and sometimes I feel I get bogged down with the choice and infinite possible combinations.

Film is about selection before execution.

Don't get me wrong I love digital, especially photoshop which if used to compliment the darkroom can enhance film.

I also like the cameras, digital has no equivalent to the Rolleiflex (my camera of choice) or the 8x10 cameras I can't imagine a DSLR user driving 60 miles setting up a camera (mantling a LF camera is a craft in itself) then deciding not to take a shot and just driving home–too much wind or the wrong light...
Oh, I don't know. He might just think, "Why bother? It'll just be another damn' digi pic anyway."

Note: this is not really OT or 'film vs digi'. It's agreeing with you. Because film offers unique technical opportunities, it also offers unique artistic opportunities: medium and final result are obviously inseparable to a very big extent. Now if I could get a digital scan back for my big Gandolfi...

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2013   #10
John Bragg
Registered User
 
John Bragg's Avatar
 
John Bragg is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Penwithick, Cornwall U.K.
Age: 55
Posts: 1,241
Whilst I appreciate that digital is an evolving art form, film, and in my case black and white in particular has always satisfied my photographic needs. Ok so I now scan my negatives, (digitise them) but I get all I could ask for from film capture and I see no need to change what I see as a fully matured and perfected medium.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2013   #11
Highway 61
Revisited
 
Highway 61's Avatar
 
Highway 61 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,481
It just happened to me that somebody I used to love much suddenly popped-up after a 23 years long black-out.

I have hundreds of black and white film photographs of this person, and almost as many as color slides (mainly being Kodachrome...).

All still perfectly stocked in marked crystal paper sheets, folders, and boxes.

So now I'm in the process of slowly digging some pictures out and sharing them with the person.

Opening-up the folders, looking at the negatives and contact sheets, handling the Kodachromes.

Just something which will never exist with digital.

Also the person clearly remembers the German all-mechanical camera I was using then. As I still have it, this was something nice to break the ice and start talking.

This is why I still shoot film. Shooting film creates some physical photographic archives which are an unique source of joy.

I wouldn't imagine sitting in front of a computer with someone to explore any common sentimental iconic material.

My son just spent three weeks in Australia. He carried a DSLR with him and - according to him - shot more than 400 photos. Up to now I haven't seen any of his photos yet...
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2013   #12
dave lackey
Registered User
 
dave lackey's Avatar
 
dave lackey is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 8,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by CameraQuest View Post
OK, most photogs only shoot digital today. Easier, quicker, instant gratification etc. Yet, for what it does, a lot of people believe they get BETTER results with film and analog printing and they go that extra mile. If you are one of those experienced people, please take the time to write an essay explaining your methods and why you prefer it to digital.

WHY? so others can learn from your techniques, but the biggest reason is to arouse the curiosity of digital shooters who have little or no film experience and don't know what they are missing.

This thread came about from my conversation with an expert shooter/printer last week, who pointed out to me that he knew the results he would get with film 100% of the time, and that saved him time and money on the back end by not endlessly spending his time in post processing. OK, that is one guy's view, but a very interesting view.

Please stay ON TOPIC in this thread. We want to help the film newbies here. Troll posts and "why I prefer digital" posts will be deleted from the thread.

Thanks to all for taking part,

Stephen
Ah, yes....well, for me as an ex-HD biker, it was always about enjoying the ride not so much the destination. The same with film as the process is the most important part for me along with the gear which has that charisma and lasting quality that only a 60 year old M3 or similar gear (Nikon F2/Fe2, etc.) can give with the knowledge that I can hand it down to my grandchildren and they can continue using them.

Although I shoot (and have for 15 years) far more with digital cameras than film cameras, I prefer film cameras, the experience and the process and the final pictures a lot more for a lot of reasons. It is much more satisfying than digital photography but I find that both complement each other as different tools for different tasks.

Film photography enrichens the experience. It is the nectar from which I feed in the blossoms of photographic life.


Why on earth would anyone NOT try film photography?
__________________
Peace, Love and Happiness...



Dave
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2013   #13
Peter_Jones
Registered User
 
Peter_Jones's Avatar
 
Peter_Jones is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lancashire UK
Age: 46
Posts: 1,092
I shoot film because I can

Basically, I enjoy it. Got a decent digital with good lenses, but enjoy messing with medium-format gear - even if it's flawed (Kiev) or ancient (Rolleiflex).

Processing black and white film is also enjoyable/therapeutic and keeps me out of trouble.
__________________
Too many cameras, not enough time to use them...
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2013   #14
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
 
nikon_sam's Avatar
 
nikon_sam is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Alta Loma, CA
Age: 56
Posts: 4,624
I've been shooting and developing film going on 37 years and for me it's the process that keeps me doing it...I truly enjoy developing both film and prints...there's something about pulling the film out of the developing tank and sneaking a peak at the first few frames...(and a mental high-five for getting it right) then there's working in the darkroom...seeing the image pull up...making adjustments to your exposure and watching it again...yeah, it can be slow but so what...I'm not making hundreds of copies just a few and the time spent doing it by hand gives me satisfaction of a job well done...
I recently participated in the RFF 3 Postcard exchange and of the 35+ postcards that traveled the world mine was the only one printed in a darkroom...am I bragging, no just showing you that I enjoy it that much...it was worth doing by hand...and yes I do know that most people won't know the difference but I do...
Another plus is that I get to use some really neat old cameras with lenses you just don't see everyday...yes there are adapters so you can mount them on your fancy digital cameras but it just doesn't feel the same.
I believe what I learned many years ago was this...in high school you had one hour in your Photo class to either shoot a roll, develop a roll or make some prints...what you couldn't do today had to wait for the next day...if you did it wrong then you had to start all over again...that taught me to get it right the first time (or as close to right as possible)...if you didn't want to waste your time you had to really think before tripping the shutter, pouring out the developer or pushing the button on the enlarger timer...
__________________
Sam
"tongue tied & twisted
just an earthbound misfit...I..."
pf
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2013   #15
swoop
Registered User
 
swoop's Avatar
 
swoop is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: New York City
Age: 34
Posts: 1,712
I reluctantly made the switch to digital. But when I used film these were my reasons.

Assuming you already have a film camera and scanner, film is cheaper. With digital you're paying all the costs of film and development up front. For example the budget Leica M-E is $5,500. A roll of Portra 400 with 36 frames is $7 + $8 for develop, cut & sleeve at Duggal. So pro film processed at a pro lab is $15 for 36 shots. That's 13,176 shots in film to equate to the price of a digital Leica. That's a lot of photos. Depending on how much you photograph you can probably save yourself money by sticking to film.

Film is tangible. I don't think you can put a value on holding your photographs. You also never have to worry about backing up your photos as you will always have a physical copy. If you're an artistic photographer I think having physical negatives can increase the perceived value of your work.

There's no deleting photos. I never delete photos as I work but some people do and I think that's a mistake, because you never really know what you have until you enlarge it and take a good look. Also my first job was at a nightlife magazine and I spent 4 nights a week in bars and clubs photographing drunk people. And women were always asking to see a photo I took which really slowed me down and occasionally asking me to delete photos which was extremely annoying. Even after I had purchased an M8 to relive myself from the hours spent scanning my negs, I still continued to use my M7 because it was easier to scan negs than deal with the "let me see!" or "delete that." requests. All I would do was show them the rear of my camera and said sorry, it's film. It made my life/job easier.

Film was just more fun to use. To load it, shoot it, cock the shutter. The feel of the mechanics in my hand is something I really miss about working with film. When I was in college working the darkroom was great too. As I moved into working as a professional I ended up dropping my film off at a lab.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2013   #16
Johnmcd
Registered User
 
Johnmcd's Avatar
 
Johnmcd is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Central Coast, NSW - Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 1,703
This a question I have been asking myself quite a bit these days. Mostly because other people ask me why. But also because in some ways it's a little out of character as I love the latest technology. I was raised on film and learned to develop B/W when I was 12 years old during art class at school. Since that time I have always taken photographs and until the advent of 'digital', I had always maintained a darkroom of sorts. As a teenager, soon as I could scratch enough money together for a decent camera, I bought a second hand OM1 (which I have only now refurbished). That was joined later by a Mamiya 645 and that was that until I updated to a Canon eos 50. But by this stage my love for photography had waned. I was doing the odd wedding to make ends meet and the pressure (I don't know how they do it day in day out) and dealing with the people on the day just drained the joy of photography out of me. I was no longer taking images for the love of it.


Then the digital age arrived. I was by then working on some computer based training projects and the 3.3 mp Sony camera I purchased ($2000) was a revelation! The ability to know that I 'had the shot' and the fact I could go straight to computer and insert without scanning saved hours. I was hooked. Then Canon released the 300D and the DSLR was at last affordable. From this point on my love for photography grew again. That 300D became a 20D and now a 7D (which I use for sport exclusively).


Now some time about 7 years ago (?) I decided to buy a voigtlander rangefinder. From memory I can't even think why. Maybe the 'look'. Maybe a chance to revive my old film skills. I'm not sure. That started my journey the full circle back to film. So it could be argued that digital helped regain my lost love and now I maintain it with film.


So to answer the question. Like many have said already, I do think it 'looks' different. In my eyes, better. I do see more dynamic range in the medium format and after scanning a nicer 'pixel'. The pixels at 100% from my 7D look terrible (though the OMD looks much better). I am aware though that it just might be my perception and I probably fail just as often as anyone else when somebody posts two images and asks which one is the film and which is digital. Yet this isn't the real reason.


It was the immediacy of digital that reignited my love of photography yet it is the film 'process' and all it entails that keeps my shooting daily. If I need an image quick or it's for work, I shoot digital and get the job done. Clinical and efficient. But for the art form, I love the many levels of producing an image - using a beautiful piece of machinery, taking a picture, developing the film and then observing and sharing the results. It seems that each image has so much more invested in it and I somehow can 'see' that in the image.


I enjoy the satisfaction that comes from using the skills that I learned so long ago and that are now rarely found. In fact I get any people asking if I can teach them. I am currently building a darkroom and cannot wait for the next process of printing again as I have never been really impressed with digital printing. It will further add to that 'investment' in the final product that gives it much more value for me.


So for me, it's as much about the process as the 'look'. I doubt whether I would shoot film at all if I didn't also develop the films myself. For me that is just as much fun.
__________________
Fuji GF670, Mamiya 7, 7II 50, 80, 150
Bronica SQA 50, 65, 80 & 150
Contax G1 45 & 90

Zeiss Ikon ZM, Leica R8 50, 60
Leica M3, M4
21, 35, 50, Ind 61, Jup 9
OM2/1 plus 24, 28, 50, 50, 100, 70-150, 300
www.johnmcd.zenfolio.com/

  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2013   #17
maddoc
... likes film.
 
maddoc's Avatar
 
maddoc is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 三鷹市
Age: 51
Posts: 7,152
For me it is a) I am used to use Film b) like the look of film more including all its limitations c) can't bring myself to spend large amounts of money to buy something that doesn't do anything more than emulating what I can do with film (there are some technical advantages in digital imaging like resolution or flatness of the recording media but not much relevant for what I want to do)

That said, using film is otherwise simply enjoying the process of creating a picture without touching a computer at all ( scanning aside ...). I spend hours in front of a screen every day, use high-end scientific devices so the pure joy of using imperfect and sometimes unpredictable processes is a good change from my job. Also, I prefer to show or give others a print made by myself in a make-shift darkroom.
__________________
- Gabor

flickr
pBase
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2013   #18
Maiku
Maiku
 
Maiku is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Canada
Age: 45
Posts: 796
I cannot write an essay on the topic. I just know that I like using film:

1. I like developing BW film.
2. I like the wait factor of film. Digital is instantaneous. Anticipation of film at a later date is fun.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2013   #19
Frankd
Registered User
 
Frankd's Avatar
 
Frankd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 44
For the most part my film work is B/W. I like working on a project using film because I can organize it better with proof sheets and can see the project develop over time by using he proof sheets. I know that you print proofs with digital as well, but when I have attempted that I have so many more shots and it's hard to get an overall view of what I am working on. For digital it is better to stay on the computer and use a DAM program like iView or Media Pro. But I relate to contact sheets better.

Also by not having immediate feedback of digital I am not distracted by looking at the camera back to check what I have shot. Not checking is hard to resist and by checking your image it breaks concentration and continuity of your relationship to the subject.

I also enjoy doing wet darkroom processing and printing and freeing myself from a computer screen.
__________________
Leica M4-2, Rollieflex 3.5F, Canon 5DmkII.
http://www.frankdina.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2013   #20
msbarnes
Registered User
 
msbarnes's Avatar
 
msbarnes is offline
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NY, NY
Age: 29
Posts: 839
I'm not an expert so I do not think I qualify, but in one word:

Rolleiflex.
__________________
Michael | Flickr | Cargo |
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2013   #21
gho
Registered User
 
gho's Avatar
 
gho is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Berlin
Age: 44
Posts: 793
1. Excellent long-lasting equipment out there not braking the bank. Options for full, medium and large format.

2. Possibility to scan and do wet printing.

3. It is hard to blow out cheap supermarket color film.

4. I like the look of film.

5. I like to support my local mini lab.

6. It is a waste keeping all the perfectly working film cameras unused.

7. Film camera design went through several decades of development, so there are some very mature products on the used market.

8. I like handling black and white negatives.

9. Sometimes I like messing around in the darkroom, but it is easy to digitize film.

10. Yesterday, when out with a cheap compact film camera I thought: Amazing, this is full frame in a super small package with exchangeable sensors for an apple and an egg. Why pay more?

__________________
Georg
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2013   #22
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,062
Quote:
Originally Posted by clayne View Post
Last time I checked the blacks of inkjets weren't even remotely comparable to a gelatin silver print. Look at any typical glossy fiber silver print and tell me inkjet is comparable to that. No f'ing way!
Well, not all prints have large areas of deep black... Those the the ones most likely to be indistinguishable! Then again, platinum prints don't have good rich blacks either.

And, of course, there are things like Piezography prints, with superb blacks, but looking quite unlike silver halide. Again, 10-20%

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2013   #23
thegman
Registered User
 
thegman is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 37
Posts: 3,823
Sejanus Aelianus hits the nail on the head: fun.

For me it's about the fun of using the beautiful equipment, the anticipation of seeing the results, and the lack of computer involvement. I love computers, I am a professional software developer, and also I play with computers as a hobby. But sometimes enough is enough, and I need a break from them.

On film, also I can try stuff out cheap, like medium format and now large format, digital equivalents are still pretty pricey.

But really, it's about fun, enthusiasm, and just enjoying a hobby. I can't make myself enthuse about digital photography any more than I can make myself enthuse about football (soccer).
__________________
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2013   #24
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,305
Film is a mature technology ... it really has nowhere to go regarding new developments which makes it very controlable for someone who wants to embrace it. Digital is in its infancy by comparison so IMO film is the easier medium to come to terms with while digital is something that you will evolve with if you choose it as your sole (soul?) medium.
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2013   #25
edge100
Registered User
 
edge100 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 628
I shoot film for two primary reasons:

1. The cameras - my M6 and Mamiya 7 are outstanding, all-time great cameras, and I got them for very, very little

2. The look - I process all of my digital images through VSCO anyway, so why not go all the way AND enjoy the gorgeous dynamic range and tones of film?

Scanning and post is by far the worst part of shooting film, but overall I find the whole process to be immensely enjoyable.
__________________
Former street photographer
The Definitive Guide to Scanning Film with a Digital Camera
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2013   #26
edge100
Registered User
 
edge100 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 628
Quote:
Originally Posted by gho View Post
1. Excellent long-lasting equipment out there not braking the bank. Options for full, medium and large format.

2. Possibility to scan and do wet printing.

3. It is hard to blow out cheap supermarket color film.

4. I like the look of film.

5. I like to support my local mini lab.

6. It is a waste keeping all the perfectly working film cameras unused.

7. Film camera design went through several decades of development, so there are some very mature products on the used market.

8. I like handling black and white negatives.

9. Sometimes I like messing around in the darkroom, but it is easy to digitize film.

10. Yesterday, when out with a cheap compact film camera I thought: Amazing, this is full frame in a super small package with exchangeable sensors for an apple and an egg. Why pay more?
This.

10 char.
__________________
Former street photographer
The Definitive Guide to Scanning Film with a Digital Camera
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2013   #27
L Collins
-
 
L Collins is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 356
1. I'm a dedicated B&W shooter. There simply is a look to B&W film that can't be duplicated digitally. Even with SEP2, the differences are obvious to a trained eye.
2. Archival Issues: see PKR's post.
3. The tactile experience of a mechanical film camera. The difference between a Nikon F and a d800, or an M4 and an M9, is the difference between wearing a Patek Phillipe and a Seiko.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2013   #28
literiter
Registered User
 
literiter's Avatar
 
literiter is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canadian Rockies
Posts: 1,210
I like many film cameras because of their utter simplicity.

Cameras as basic as the Leica M2 or the Rolleiflex K4B don't complicate with menus and I only have to be aware of speed, aperture and focus.

I don't have to worry about whether I remembered to charge the battery or not.

I don't have to worry about a camera like my M2 being out of date. It has been out of date for almost 50 years.

Do I think film cameras are aesthetically better, in any way, than digital cameras? No.

I just find, that for myself, an older film camera is easier to use.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2013   #29
Livesteamer
Registered User
 
Livesteamer is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Winston Salem North Carolina
Posts: 1,263
I am not an expert, just a lucky amateur with a bunch of nice old film cameras that I have gathered over the years.

For the expensive cameras, I have to consider the ability to eventually sell and get my investment back. My M6 will do this but a digital M????

Secondly, if I have to think about what I am doing I seem to get better results. My M6 and Nikon F outfits are better by almost every measure than my IIIc. Yet for the past several years 75% of my film has gone thru the pair of IIIc's I use and I like what I get from them. I almost always have one in my pocket.

Finally, in 1976 I got my first motor drive, an F36. I went thru a lot more film but got no more keepers. Focus on Quality not quantity. Joe
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2013   #30
helenhill
a Click in Time...
 
helenhill's Avatar
 
helenhill is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New Yawk
Posts: 5,103
Its ALL about capturing The Light ... Its Delicate Ethereal Dispersion
And the Beauty of Imperfection
Nothing more Beautiful than the way Film captures IT

Love the Process, the Gear, the Experience & Touch of working with Film

Digi is Quite Fun, has a Tres Cool look about it & certainly has its Advantages
but the Light reads Differently
I can see using Both Mediums but at present still hooked on Film
__________________
Flickr.

A Lover of Leica M's...
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2013   #31
Bingley
Registered User
 
Bingley's Avatar
 
Bingley is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 5,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by S.H. View Post
Shoot film :
- so that you can use nice gear (brass, chrome, leather)
- more dynamics in color or B/W negatives
- more format to choose from : 6x6, 6x9, ...
- grain looks better than pixels when enlarged

Note : my technique is part film / part digital : I do not mind scanning and I like photoshop better than working in the darkroom..
This pretty much describes it for me. I like the process of shooting and developing b&w, the dynamic range, the details in a 120 negtive, and the joy of using cameras that I could not possibly have afforded 30 years ago.

There is also satisfaction knowing that a good b&w photo is the result of a process reflecting the photographer's skill at each stage.
__________________
Steve

M2, R2A, IIIc, IVSB2, & T, and assorted LTM & M lenses
Minolta XD11, Pentax ME Super, and assorted MD Rokkor and Takumar lenses, Rolleicord III, Rolleicord Vb, Rolleiflex Automat MX-EVS




My Flickr
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2013   #32
Bill Clark
Registered User
 
Bill Clark's Avatar
 
Bill Clark is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota
Age: 68
Posts: 1,837
I started my photography journey with film, 100% black & white film, back in the late 1950s. I used my Moms Kodak Brownie Hawkie and with 620 film I could make contact prints from a home made contact printer. The size of the negative gave me a decent contact print.

Negatives from this period are scattered around and I'm working on gathering them up, what ever is still around.

For color, I moved to primarily taking color slides as the development was considerably less than getting prints from color negative film. I have them stored in Kodak Carousel trays and need to review someday.

When I was serving our country with the U.S. Navy the bases I went to school, each had a darkroom. I was fortunate to have my little VW Bug with me, the Navy gave me permission to have it on base and I used to spend my spare time traveling around making photographs. I spent a few months on Treasure Island in San Francisco and made some nice night time photographs of the city from the island. That was when the Transamerica building was being constructed.

Today, I've gone back to my roots, making black & white photographs with film. I use a fair number of different film types and I enjoy experimenting with them all and I use different developers to see the variance. I like the look of portraits with TMX 100 film.

At any rate, I enjoy using film. The black & white darkroom prints have a look that I still like. I have a few different types of paper in various sizes. I no longer print in color.

It's something I can do until I don't wake up someday.
__________________
I use my real name. How about you?
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2013   #33
okcomputer
Registered User
 
okcomputer is offline
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 50
I love shooting B&W on 35mm, but honestly, it's tough to make a technical argument in favor of it. I love the look of TMAX & TRI-X, and I feel it handles highlights more gracefully than digital, but digital in expert hands may wipe away that advantage.

One area where film has an advantage (in the affordable realm, anyway) is with medium format, it's easier to minimize d.o.f. in the normal range perspective (esp with some of these 80/2 lenses on the Contax and Mamiya 645 systems).
Then there's 4x5: you have very flexible movements available to you... while I haven't gotten on with the movements yet, I do love the look of 4x5.

__________________
http://monochromal.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2013   #34
bwcolor
Registered User
 
bwcolor is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: S.F. Bay Area
Posts: 2,356
I converted to 100% digital in 2002. By 2008 I jumped fully in with my 1DMKIII purchase. In 2009, I stopped shooting digital. I had decided to sell all of my film equipment, but thought it best to give it one more try before abandoning film. So, in 2009 I picked up my Mamiya 7II and discovered that I no longer was able to select that "decisive moment". My shooting discipline was gone. Today, I shoot B&W film and 90% of my color as digital. I can't justify my use of film, but I do enjoy the rigors of the process.

My eight year old daughter shoots with an LX-7. She continues to ask me if she can shoot film. So far, I haven't given her that opportunity and because of this she believes that you only shoot film once you are ready to progress to the next step. I do know that she will consider this opportunity as something special and aside from shooting digital. I think that she just might have figured this whole film vs. digital thing out.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2013   #35
MIkhail
Registered User
 
MIkhail's Avatar
 
MIkhail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
I shoot digi colour and silver halide B&W.
R.
I do the same thing, simply because I can control the color of digital file better than I can control color negative. Slide film is a different story, I love the saturated, thick colors of slide, but it comes out to $20 a roll of slide and I tend to shoot several rolls when I get into it...

Black and white film has such a nice range of shadows, such a smooth curve, and it is really diffiicult to over expose. You almost have to try to do that. Digital picture in that respect is more vulnerable.
I rarely wet print any more, just scan negative, prepare it correctly and send file out for printing, for my needs it's the optimal process.

One main things that stops newbies from shooting b/w film, I think, is fear of processing. In reality, it is cheap and very simple to process at home, equipment is minimal, chemicals are cheap. Once you try it, gets much easier...
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2013   #36
AJS Lamb
Registered User
 
AJS Lamb is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: London
Posts: 67
I'll second PKR's comments.

For my personal work, the print's the thing. Whether it's from digital or film, I get my prints done by local commercial labs. Even at 6x9, for me, there is a depth and a richness that I get from film that I don't see in digital. That's my humble opinion! YMMV.

There's lots of detail in my digital prints and quite often they're sharper (that's pilot error) but I prefer my film originated prints.

For me (I can't stress this too strongly) a print from film is like an oil-painting whereas a print front digital is more like a water colour. Of course, other folks might prefer the latter.

I can see these differences in 35 mm and FF digital. When I shoot on 120, the gap is greater. I'm currently enthralled with the shots I'm getting with my Fuji 6x8 rangefinder. My budget does not allow me to shoot with a Phase One back but then you can't really walk around with those kinds of cameras.

Incidentally, I put my personal prints into A3 size artist's sketch books. They're cheap, with high quality acid-free paper, and being generic lots of companies make them. I've just started book number 64.

Just my two cent's...
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2013   #37
AJS Lamb
Registered User
 
AJS Lamb is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: London
Posts: 67
Yuck! I put an apostrophe on cents. Ouch! Sorry.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2013   #38
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
 
rbiemer's Avatar
 
rbiemer is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Cortland, NY
Age: 56
Posts: 4,538
I use film cameras most often for a few reasons.

At the most basic level, I use the cameras I use because I strongly prefer to use an actual viewfinder. With the money I am comfortable spending on this hobby of mine, almost any film camera and its VF are very much better for me than just about any digital camera's VF.

Added to that consideration, while a decent print on a wall is my goal, I also have some desire to enjoy getting there. I simply enjoy the feel of and methods for using the (mostly) old film cameras better.

After learning some basic knowledge of exposure and how to get the cameras to do what I want, I have found that deciding on how to set three options--focus, aperture, and shutter speed--is simpler and more direct than learning the more involved controls on a digital camera. Which means, for me, that a film camera gets out of the way as it were, much sooner than a digital.
I do own a digital camera and have used it to take photos I'm tolerably pleased with but when I need to replace the one I have, I will again need to spend quite a lot of time learning how to get the new one to do what I want it to do.
Rob
__________________

You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.
--Mark Twain
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2013   #39
Ljós
Registered User
 
Ljós is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 819
I use black and white film most of the time, and I like the hands-on-approach of developing my film and having negatives. I know that ultimately an analog picture is no more "real" than a digital one. Funny enough for me the difference (and why I keep using film, its disadvantages notwithstanding) also lies in the very moment of picture taking. I get to use other people's digital cameras often enough, from simple point and shoots to sophisticated current models, so I have some comparison.

With film, I have this very concrete and satisfying sense of really having "taken" the picture. Also at this point I have a very good sense of how the light is in relation to what my film and my lens will see, how I am going to develop it, what the negative is going to look like, and print.
Then, take a negative (this works best with low-light situations, thin negatives), shine a bright light at an angle to the emulsion side, and enjoy the view: a silver positive image of the moment you photographed, tiny but with enourmous detail, like a very fine etching. Priceless.

That, and the way my trusted cameras handle. Aperture, shutter and focus, all can be set by feel.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2013   #40
dabick42
-
 
dabick42 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 275
Film photography has been a major hobby of mine since I acquired my first camera, a Nikon F, in 1962.

Shortly after that momentous event, I set up a home darkroom, endured the trials and tribulations of learning the art and science of developing and printing and, with the practice of 50 years, have become pleasingly proficient at it.

The thrill and sense of satisfaction in using hard-won skills to turn raw sensitised material into beautiful 20 x 16 black and white prints is still as vivid and precious to me now as it ever was all those years ago in the beginning.

To me, film IS photography, in a way that digital capture and image manipulation never can be.

I've had several sniffs at digital cameras but the experience thus far has been completely underwhelming.

Various camera club acquaintances have spent hours good-naturedly trying to wean me off film, patiently demonstrating their DSLR's, M8's, M9's and sundry other digitalia and extolling the virtues of Photoshop, Lightroom et al, but to no avail.

My eyes glaze over, my brain disengages and I enter an almost trance-like state which only passes when I have a quick fondle of an early Leica or Rollei TLR.

I just know that digital photography, like Marmite, Labour party politicians, and reality TV shows holds absolutely no appeal for me whatsoever.

I started my photographic journey with film, it's been an engaging, enduring pleasure to have made its acquaintance, and I'll finish the journey with film.

For me, there's no other way to travel....
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:28.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.