What is film-photography to you?

[shadowfox]

First off, I think having a dedicated sub-forum for Film vs Digital is a stroke of genius. Kudos to Stephen.

I seldom post polls, but I think there needs to be some clarification when people say "I still do film" or "I'm done with film." Because that can mean a lot of things to different people.

So I'd like to know what would you consider as film-photography whether you love it or hate it.

This way, when we discuss these in the future, you can at least clarify your position based on where you stand on the definition.

Shall we?

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I still use my film cameras, I still use my digital cameras. Room in life for both.

I am exclusively Digital for Infrared, have been for a long time.

I am not scanning in many negatives/slides, prefer to view as prints. Just much easier/less time-consuming to use a Digital camera to view images on a computer.

I quit converting digital images to film quite a while ago. I used a Polaroid Pallette to convert to Slides and Prints. Before that, used a Matrix Film Recorder to convert Digital images to film. Color printers are pretty good now. So I am "done" with converting digital images to film.

 

[sevo]

Film is just another medium - but I do care for it, just like I care for any other medium.

 

[atlcruiser]

Old school digital 🙂

 

[Daud]

Film or digital is a bit like the Vinyl or CD question…..

From my perspective – we live in an analogue world so the best digital will always be analogue (the greater the bit rate the closer we get to analogue)
This whole digital thing seems to be a retrograde step in some respects; quality is forgotten in the pursuit of digital.

Example:-
In early CD’s the bit rate was so low it could not reproduce the higher harmonics so instruments just had a veiled dull sound or very stringent top notes.

Mp3 files – do not even mention them…..

Cameras that do not have optical view finders.

Blown highlights that no one seems to be bothered about; it is digital so must be good!

It seems to be like telling someone that they will only have one film type for the rest of the cameras life – do not even think about B&W verses colour.

When that nice new digital camera is taken out of the shop; forget about resale value. Have a look at the price of a Nikon D2x new and the used price. Then look at a good Nikon SP, F or F2 and compare.

I could go on;[FONT=&quot] but to be fair [/FONT]digital has its place and in some respects has been a great reviver of photography.

For me the best option is Film, darkroom, scanner - best of all worlds.

But if you ask; it will be film every time as it gives many options.


David.
http://davidalockwood.wordpress.com

 

[Ducky]

will, your poll choices were all too direct for me.
Film is a process that I enjoy as a hobby, I enjoy it but I'm not devoted to it. It's a tradition that deserves respect but when/if it passes, people will move on.
It won't disappear in my lifetime, probably not yours either, so I'll continue to enjoy it. I'll also give it up, go back to it, give it ...well, you know.

 

[thomob]

film for me is the other side of photography that i find sparks my creativity a bit more, makes me feel like im learning something new again. Digital is dedicated to my proffesional career, digital is what makes me the money. Film is where that money made goes 😛 ha ha

 

[shadowfox]

Thanks for the responses.

I meant for this poll to help us finding our position in regards to film, so when we discuss it we can pinpoint our differences (or similarities) because we have a clear definition of what film means for ourselves.

A lot of unnecessary (a lot of times painful) debate could be averted if we are at least clear on where we stand.

I guess I need to be more clear on the title, I bet a lot of digital folks just ignore it because they think this is not for them.

 

[shadowfox]

For me the best option is Film, darkroom, scanner - best of all worlds.

But if you ask; it will be film every time as it gives many options.


David.
http://davidalockwood.wordpress.com

That's the kind of answer that I am looking for.

 

[shadowfox]

will, your poll choices were all too direct for me.
Film is a process that I enjoy as a hobby, I enjoy it but I'm not devoted to it. It's a tradition that deserves respect but when/if it passes, people will move on.
It won't disappear in my lifetime, probably not yours either, so I'll continue to enjoy it. I'll also give it up, go back to it, give it ...well, you know.

Totally understood, George.
That's why I've put the fifth option for me to learn from others.

 

[photophorous]

Lately, I've only been shooting digital, because I'm just too busy to develop and scan my film. I still love the look of film, color and B&W, but what I like most about film is film cameras. I will shoot film again, when I can find the time. But in the mean time, I've gotten a lot better at getting results I like from my digital camera, with out too much time at the computer. So for now, I'll still say each has it's advantages. Which one is better depends on what I'm trying to achieve.

 

[Neare]

Best thing is that I don't have to rely on computers and batteries to take pictures.

And, that when certain technologies go obsolete as they will do without a doubt, film is film. Just hold it up to the light and there is your image.

 

[sepiareverb]

I shoot both. I love the craft aspect of film, the physical work of the darkroom and the object in the hand. I've been seduced by the image quality of digital color, helped along to an all digital workflow for color by the inconsistent supply of the color materials I was using and the M9.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I've just been looking at some MF B+W wet prints. Hard to dismiss film at that point.

But for me, film + scanner is the worst of both worlds.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Daud]

A little bird tells me that The National Media Museum in Bradford has been archiving a lot of its digital materials on to film.
I do not think we will see the end of it for quite some time.

David.


http://davidalockwood.wordpress.com

 

[white.elephant]

For me, what digital did was open up the door to printing color, an option which always intimidated me through traditional means. So, in my world, digital is used when I output to color, while film is used when I output in black & white.

 

[Ducky]

I forgot to mention in my earlier post one important fact. It was also not in your poll.

FILM can be a royal PITA.

 

[Filson Back]

I started out with digital and am doing a lot more film these days--scanning and manipulating film is the best of both worlds as people have already mentioned. If the tonal range of digital ever catches up to film for small or affordable sensors the gap might diminish. I find my favorite images are often film.

 

[shadowfox]

I've just been looking at some MF B+W wet prints. Hard to dismiss film at that point.

But for me, film + scanner is the worst of both worlds.

Cheers,

R.

I know, bigger negatives shines when printed.
One of my frustration is my inability to show through my website: how a 11x14 print from a 6x6 negatives really look like in person.

Scans just don't do it justice (your second point, Roger).

Although I find scans are vastly more useful than contact prints for previewing a roll, I dislike the process of scanning.

But with a reasonably fast computer, you still can do a lot of things while scanning.

 

[shadowfox]

I forgot to mention in my earlier post one important fact. It was also not in your poll.

FILM can be a royal PITA.

😀

Ah, but what other worthy craft isn't capable of being a PITA from time to time?