Why should I use my film cameras instead of digital ?

[shadowfox]

Originally Posted by Keith

Using film makes me a better digital photographer ... I can't really put it any other way!

For me, using film makes me a better photographer, period.
Then it matters little whether I use digital or film (if we take the process out of the discussion for a moment).

[loquax ludens]

Originally Posted by Ben Z

... it seems really redundant to shoot film and scan. Digital capture has made quantum leaps since back when I bought the scanners, so the original arguments in their favor are no longer valid.

I like to shoot slides and project them. The only thing that really comes close is looking at a transparency on the light box. Then if you want a digital image of it, you need to scan.

If you want the look that film in general or a particular film gives you, chances are you can't achieve the same thing digitally. So it makes sense to scan in that case too if the end result is digital.

There are other examples. If your objective is to produce silver gelatin, pt/pd, or alternative process prints, then film is your most direct route to it. It may involve digital intermediate steps. Again, scanner required.

Originally Posted by Ben Z

I still have a bunch of film cameras, a bunch of film (B&W) in the freezer, ...

If you were to list your film in the classifieds, I bet you could sell it pretty quickly. I'll be watching for your ad.

[back alley]

Originally Posted by shadowfox

You got it!
If you don't *like* shooting film, why bother?

To me, the fallacy is in thinking that to use digital means "progression" or "moving on". As if digital result is *always* better than film.

I use digital exclusively for 7 years. And have a lot of good pictures, a few are good enough to be stock photos. For those who don't realize what this means, go ahead, submit your photos and see what it takes to get past the *human* reviewers .

But deep inside I felt bored, very bored.

When I found film, it seems that a whole new world opened for me. I love everything about it. And most of all, it taught me that there are so many other aspects of photography to enjoy than just a nicely focused, sharp picture. Much more.

to me...the progression is in the process and the machines...not that i get a 'better' image with digital than i did with film...though i firmly believe that my imagemaking ability has markedly improved ever since i switched to the rd1.
i understand that people like doing things the traditional way and i have no problem with that at all. i just think that it's silly if people are feeling guilty for not shooting film.

[BardParker]

For me, I like using solid, mechanical film cameras. Kind of like a fine Swiss watch. Film makes me slow down and get it right before the exposure. I was using digital for a few years and find it convenient, but find myself using film more and more these days. I develop my own B&W film but don't have an enlarger. So I review negatives with a loupe and send the ones I like off to a professional lab for scans. I send my C-41 and E-6 film to NCPS or Precision Camera for process and scan. Works for me.
Regards,

Kent

[Spicy]

I think the quality/feel of the old film cameras is the bulk of the pleasure I get from film. I think if digital cameras gave the same kind of care to craftsmanship, it would be a tougher choice, but that would be stupid from an economic sense. But there's a definite reason I enjoy my Leicas and old Nikons, and never bother shooting with my father's AF N90s, which feels exactly like my old D90.

I'm young and grew up with digital. I also like how film slows me down, as it's a lot more dependent on getting it right pre-shutter-press. Digital is kind of the opposite - take as much as you can so you have more data to edit. But I also like how forgiving B&W film is with exposure latitude. And there's a certain imperfection inherent in film that I like - digital is clinical science (or tons of post-processing to mimic the film "look"). Film is all done for you when you decide what iind to put in the camera. More art, less science (ignore the chemistry part lol).

I also like manual transmissions and straight-DE razors. Guess I'm just an analogue guy in a digital world.

[stillshunter]

Some top answers here.

Having recently come out the other end of a very similar "Dark Night of the Soul" myself, I'd say the right answer for you resides within a preliminary and more fundamental question: why do you photograph? Answer that, honest to yourself and all the way through to its natural end, and it will be clear as to whether to use film or not.

I carry both, but use the digital (x10) on the very rare occasion that I need snaps for others' purposes and/or gratification.

[dreamsandart]

Hello to all the thoughtful replies to my original questions.

I made the mistake of posting just as I was leaving for work yesterday (Kyoto time), and now - the next morning - am just finding time to open the tread to see what has been said. I apologize for not being more timely in response to everyone. Well, lots to think on, let me make a few observations...

[dreamsandart]

Originally Posted by back alley

why the guilt about not using film?
.

A think it is a bit of 'guilt', after so many years holding a traditional Leica, it almost feels like cheating to give something up that's been so much a part of my life.

One thing I do like about the M9, it really hasn't changed how I take photographs. I still work thoughtfully and take selective images even if I'm not 'paying' for film and development costs.

But there still is that loading up the film and the tactile film of the traditional film camera in my mind...

[dreamsandart]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

I have to wonder what you think is wrong with taking dumb, silly, or easy photographs? Sometimes those things work for a photo.

Museums, galleries, magazines, etc. don't keep statistics next to your photo saying how many photos you took to get the photo shown. This shooting less = better photographer belief around here is facinating. It's not an archery competition.

Interesting you mention archery. I'd been using a bow since I was very young, and yesterday before reading the responses to this thread had thought of the Zen Archery ideal of form-function and camera use.

With the camera and photography its always been camera technique applied toward vision. If you learn the process well enough it becomes a mediation, a natural flow, and the results are 'satisfying'.

With film, it was this way. I knew how it all went, the process… choosing and loading the film, metering or 'eyeing it', the exposure adjustments, framing vision... basically the natural flow. With digital its just not the same. Maybe I miss it, or I need to re-adjust my head/thought to it? Its fun, close with the M9, just not the same.

[maddoc]

Personally, I prefer to stay away from LCD-screens, automated procedures and software as much as I can in my spare-time. Using a film-camera is refreshing different from what I do at work.

[Eric T]

I mostly shoot digital. But I enjoy developing film and the price of many spectacular film cameras is incredibly low. But if I really need an image and I need it fast, I always use digital.

[dreamsandart]

Just to make sure… I don't mean this to be a digital vs film thing, I feel they both have their place.

One area of use I've gone very digital and don't feel I have a problem with is the 'family snap-shots' or 'for others' as as poster 'still hunter' says. The Leica D-LUX 4 was a revelation in its compact take every where and not worry about size, image quality, and ease to use. The getting it on the computer, viewing images and sending to family/friends, it just 'works'.

As for my personal more 'art-thought' camera use. One problem I've identified is 'time'. Besides the new digital M-series compared to the film cameras, maybe the biggest change in photography in the past few years in my personal life has been my young sons. One needs TIME to get out and 'do it', and that is one thing I've had less of. Can I fit film into my [changed] time schedule?

[dreamsandart]

Originally Posted by rbsinto

You are asking a question of everyone else that you really should be answering yourself. I know why I should and do use film cameras, but my reasons likely wouldn't have any relevance for you, so I have no idea whether you should or not. Only you know the answer to that.

Yes, you are right. Its my own personal decision and choice. The reason I asked the question is to get ideals, and think on what others have to say to help with my thoughts about it. Its not a matter of 'what he/she did, so I will too', but sometimes there are ideas that or perspectives that do help. Little did I know a few years ago, life was so much easier deciding which lens/lenses to take out for the day, now have to decide if its film or digital

[mrisney]

If you are shooting 35mm full frame digital : shoot digital
If you are shooting larger than 35mm (120 or sheet film) : shoot film

[paradoxbox]

why not try getting back in to black and white developing? you don't need a darkroom

i develop my film in my kitchen on the counter and when i was a student i just stored my chemicals in old plastic soda bottles...! i reused a 1.5L bottle of chemicals probably more than 20 or 30 times.

one fantastic reason to keep shooting film (though not so much with the m7) is because many film cameras don't need batteries - it's the main reason i chose a leica M3 over the M6TTL or M7.

it's really a pain in the rear when you want to photograph something but your camera won't take the photo because it doesn't have enough battery power to do the job. too many instances of this really turned me back to film shooting. i love my Nikon D70s DSLR but i have accidentally left it stuck on USB transfer mode one too many times - it drains the battery and the next time i go to use it, 10 shots then it's out of juice. ARGH! I've never had such a problem with one of my manual rangefinders.

besides that fact with film you can change the look of your photos with each roll of film you use, and some film types still offer better DR than digital does.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by back alley

. . . do you crank your car to start it in the morning . . . .

Well, yes, if the battery is flat...

Cheers,

R.

[Teuthida]

The smell of fixer

[Murchu]

I'm no romantic when it comes to film. I have many cameras (and had even more), but the one I enjoy shooting with most of all just happens to be a film camera. Variety is nice, and I shoot both film and digital, but at the end of the day, why not just simply shoot the camera you enjoy most and that gives you the results you need.

[John E Earley]

Originally Posted by RedLion

For travel photography, digital.

For experimentation and for "working the subject" from many different angles and approaches, digital.

For visiting a place to "experience" it in a more mindful way, film.

For attending an event where I want to interact with folks and take their photograph, film - medium format: funky TLR, Folder, or Fuji 6x9.

For attending an event where I want to take candid photographs, film (35mm film camera).

Joe

The above plus:

For situations where there will be great swings in light levels during the day, digital due to easy ISO adjustments.

[lacavol]

Like some of those above. I use film mainly because all I need is exposure and focus control. There are no batteries to run down when you are days from a power pole. I don't need my reading glasses to operate the camera. I can decide where place my focus. DOF is easy to make very shallow or deep. I can control acutance with my developing. I can take really quick shots with the camera preset in case something materializes.

My digital cameras are relegated to things that are posted on webpages or email.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by John E Earley

. . . For situations where there will be great swings in light levels during the day, . . .

Um... That's what shutter speed and apertures are for.

Cheers,

R.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Murchu

I'm no romantic when it comes to film. I have many cameras (and had even more), but the one I enjoy shooting with most of all just happens to be a film camera. Variety is nice, and I shoot both film and digital, but at the end of the day, why not just simply shoot the camera you enjoy most and that gives you the results you need.

Quite. There is no such thing as 'the best camera', but quite often, there is 'the best camera for the job'. Only three things stop us using 'the best camera for the job': ignorance, laziness, and inability to afford 'the best camera for the job'. Choose any one, or any combination of the three.

Cheers,

R.

[RattyMouse]

Originally Posted by dreamsandart

Just to make sure… I don't mean this to be a digital vs film thing, I feel they both have their place.

One area of use I've gone very digital and don't feel I have a problem with is the 'family snap-shots' or 'for others' as as poster 'still hunter' says. The Leica D-LUX 4 was a revelation in its compact take every where and not worry about size, image quality, and ease to use. The getting it on the computer, viewing images and sending to family/friends, it just 'works'.

As for my personal more 'art-thought' camera use. One problem I've identified is 'time'. Besides the new digital M-series compared to the film cameras, maybe the biggest change in photography in the past few years in my personal life has been my young sons. One needs TIME to get out and 'do it', and that is one thing I've had less of. Can I fit film into my [changed] time schedule?

Personally for me, family snap shots are one of THE prime reasons I'm going back to film. I want to pass onto my children their life story in something that is tangible and archival. In 30 years or so, what am I going to do, hand over to my children a dozen hard drives? I am thinking forward on this and I don't see a satisfactory answer.

My parents and grand parents have boxes of negatives and prints. 60 to 70 years old! Where will my family snap shots from digital cameras be in 70 years? Sometimes that's a scary thought. Will there even be jpegs in 50 years?

Film is archival, and I'm moving back to it, for the sake of my children and their children.

[Speedfreak]

Originally Posted by dreamsandart

Thanks for any thoughts

Not being able to change ISO in the field, limited (and at the same time forced) to 36 shots, dealing with labs and scratched negatives, spending hours in front of the PC with scanning, dust removal, color correction to achieve half-decent results ... looks like film has become a pain in the rear.

[Speedfreak]

Originally Posted by RattyMouse

Will there even be jpegs in 50 years?

There is no reason why software companies should all conspire to make a certain file format unreadable. Never happened before.

Originally Posted by RattyMouse

My parents and grand parents have boxes of negatives and prints. 60 to 70 years old! Where will my family snap shots from digital cameras be in 70 years?

Probably saved forever on servers and backup servers and backup servers or backup servers in the www. Times change.

Of course, if you want to hand over boxes with prints, no one keeps you from having digital pictures printed.

The awesome thing with digital is, even if your home burns down, flickr will be still up and running.