Why I still shoot film

dcsang said:
Ya.. the same can be said for oil - look at the price of oil over the last 20 years. It too is dead.
Click to expand...

little nuance - when oil will be too expensive to take out of Earth and cook into fuel and neon-colored candies, same companies owning oil business will roll out cars running on something other than oil.

When digital will appear too messy for everyday's use, industry will not invent anything, because it were invented long time ago 🙂
 
This quote is from Robert Walker's preface to his book "Colour is Power"

"Today, digitised imagery, which begs to be manipulated and adulterated, has moved centre stage. The credibility of all imagery is now suspect. The era of the photograph that bears witness is gone forever."

and, bemoaning the imminent demise of Kodacrome.

"As emulsions give way to pixels, I wonder if digitisation is synonymous with desensitization?"
 
Last edited:
mike-s said:
This quote is from Robert Walker's preface to his book "Colour is Power"

"Today, digitised imagery, which begs to be manipulated and adulterated, has moved centre stage. The credibility of all imagery is now suspect. The era of the photograph that bears witness is gone forever."
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with that less. Processes are not honest, only the people controlling them. Forgery did not suddenly become possible with digital photography.
 
I'm not sure that I agree with it either (I shoot mostly digital) but I thought it was interesting. I think what he was getting at is, knowing how digital images can be manipulated, a person viewing the picture may no longer consider it to be an definitive record. Perhaps there was always a misplaced trust in the authenticity of film-base imagery.
 
dcsang said:
Ya.. the same can be said for oil - look at the price of oil over the last 20 years. It too is dead.

*yawn*

🙄

Dave
Click to expand...

If electric car is as good as gasoline powered car and is reasonable priced, gasoline powered car will be like film – dead, your argument does not make sense.
 
Platinum RF said:
If electric car is as good as gasoline powered car and is reasonable priced, gasoline powered car will be like film – dead, your argument does not make sense.
Click to expand...

Just as your "argument" (which is, in fact, merely a statement - "film is dead; soon will be too expensive to use" ) makes very little sense to me.

Agree to disagree.

Enjoy using digital for everything - I will use what I want to use until I can't use it anymore 🙂

Dave
 
Platinum RF said:
If electric car is as good as gasoline powered car and is reasonable priced, gasoline powered car will be like film – dead, your argument does not make sense.
Click to expand...

Digital photography is used for most of imaging professional work, but that doesn't mean that film is "dead."

Photography was a faster, easier form of painting/drawing. Oil painting isn't dead.

Well, maybe you are using the word DEAD considering photography only as a commercial tool. Painting/drawing is probably dead in that sense. I don't ask illustrators to draw a masterpiece for a project I manage for my clients because it takes too much time and money. But as an art medium, painting is far away from dead. Film is the same.
 
I'm completely comfortable with leaving film behind at this point. Digital doesn't automatically equal suck to me... just like plastic isn't automatically worse than metal to me.
 
Platinum RF said:
Trix, HP5+ all doubled or triple in price.
Click to expand...

What??? I'm paying less (in constant dollars, accounting for inflation) for B&W film than at any time in the last twenty years. I shoot TMAX400-2, Neopan 400, and Neopan ACROS (especially when the latter are rebranded as Legacy Pro!). And these are the best emulsions that I have ever used.
 
Last edited:
I know it's a bit of a stretch, but a few years back when my youngest was about to be born I realized that having a boatload of digital photos of her childhood just wasn't going to cut the mustard. There's something about having an archived neg/pos that's more permanent to me. I still wonder how many digitally shot family snaps will survive the next 10-20-xx years.
 
I've shot slides for well over 25 years and have been seriously dabbling in digital imaging for 5 or 6. I find that the process of digital imaging, especially using a raw file, is one of collecting data with a sensor and then using that data with a computer and software to create an image. The creative process is primarily at the computer. There are a lot of good things about this. It gives the photographer a great amount of control and the ability to correct errors, etc. etc. Its very safe.

The creative point in slide photography takes place prior to firing the shutter. The development of slide film does not include a great deal of creativity. You can push a roll of slide film, but that's about it. When you're done developing, you either have a keeper or you don't. You end up with a one of a kind image. Granted, you can scan a slide and manipulate the resulting image just like any other digital image, but then what you have isn't a slide. The element of risk involved makes the process more interesting. Its what keeps me coming back to shooting slides. When you have made a slide you really like, you know you've accomplished something. You know that you at least have the skill to have made that image. When you screw up, you have nothing.
 
Last edited:
Why film? Probably nicer colour, a certain indescribable "charm", in the case of medium format or bigger, probably superior IQ. Flexibility in certain areas such as long exposure, where digital is weak, film is strong. Also some more flexibility in choice of "sensor", stuff like very high resolution films, where digital cannot compete without spending incredible amounts of money. Also, in the case of most range finders, you can shoot for weeks or months without changing a battery.

Digital wins on speed and convenience, no question. IQ is more dependable maybe on digital, but film wins in a lot of areas. Shooting film is not just about traditionalism or resistance to change, there are very good, logical reasons to shoot film.
 
You can buy an old film hassy that is slow and solid and costs what a pana GF-1 does that throws images as good (some may say better) as the newest $42,000 hassy H4.

That works for me...

- Charlie
 
I have just ordered a Mamiya 7 body, for about $600, I'm not quite sure where I'd get a digital camera to get close to the IQ of 6x7 film for even 10x that price.
 
dannynono said:
I know it's a bit of a stretch, but a few years back when my youngest was about to be born I realized that having a boatload of digital photos of her childhood just wasn't going to cut the mustard. There's something about having an archived neg/pos that's more permanent to me. I still wonder how many digitally shot family snaps will survive the next 10-20-xx years.
Click to expand...

Most folks I know who have digital cameras almost NEVER print off any of the images they've shot. There's a handful of folks who do so - and I'm talking non-pro folks. They love to show their work off via looking at their computer screen.

"oh oh oh!! You have to come OVER HERE to see this !!"

This is one reason, one concern, one serious issue that may actually hinder those things digital. The lack of perpetuity is almost built in to the technology.

I also know many wedding photographers shooting strictly digital (I'm among those but I no longer do "just digital") and there are some real horror stories when it comes to "losing" images through the fault of the photographer themselves (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing) or through the fault of technology. But the problem they're having is "how" to store the images. Yes, you burn a copy for your clients. Yes, you keep a copy somewhere other than your desktop. But how are you going to end up storing those hard drive backups? I know there are similar issues with negs but I guess I just look at negs differently and it's "easier" to store the one set of negs somewhere they won't get "hurt" ya know?

I would hope, honestly, that if any of you have precious, once in a lifetime, photos.. digital or otherwise... that you print those off and frame them or put them in an album or such. They are worth MORE than the cost of ANY camera or lens. Photographs, especially those that move YOUR heart (and often these are of loved family members), are meant to be viewed !!!

Cheers,
Dave
 
dcsang said:
"Every hot girl who can aim a camera thinks she's a photographer. 'Oooooooh, you took a black-and-white picture of a lawn chair and its shadow and developed it at Save-On. You must be so brooding and deep.'" -- Stewie Griffin.
Click to expand...

Hey. I'm not a girl. I'm not even hot.
 
dcsang said:
...

I would hope, honestly, that if any of you have precious, once in a lifetime, photos.. digital or otherwise... that you print those off and frame them or put them in an album or such. They are worth MORE than the cost of ANY camera or lens. Photographs, especially those that move YOUR heart (and often these are of loved family members), are meant to be viewed !!!

Cheers,
Dave
Click to expand...


With that I completely agree. Prints are more likely to survive than either digital files for negs. Your children will look at them and remember their childhood with you and know what made them who they are then.

They won't do that with negs or your dying HDD

Mike

4816300683_4b748b7843_b.jpg
 
dcsang said:
I would hope, honestly, that if any of you have precious, once in a lifetime, photos.. digital or otherwise... that you print those off and frame them or put them in an album or such. They are worth MORE than the cost of ANY camera or lens. Photographs, especially those that move YOUR heart (and often these are of loved family members), are meant to be viewed !!!

Cheers,
Dave
Click to expand...

Wise words indeed, some of the best advice I've seen on RFF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom