Why do you use film:

[Bill Pierce]

Is the Leica a film camera? Many of the most enthusiastic Leica users on this forum are using Leica film cameras - many of those cameras are older models, many of them purchased used. Digital cameras, unlike film cameras, are evolving and improving rapidly and have a relatively short life at the top of the heap. The M9 had a sensor that was a bit behind the times when it was introduced, but my ancient M3 is still producing pictures whose quality is indistinguishable from its younger brethren?

It’s hard to use film. Darkroom equipment and supplies are becoming scarcer. Good film scanners are expensive. And,yet, even after I sold my digital Leicas, I kept three film bodies because I couldn’t put three old friends out in the cold. I know all the arguments against film. What I’d like to know from the folks on the forum that qualify is WHY DO YOU USE FILM?

 

[raid]

Hi Bill,

I like the feel of the film cameras. This is maybe what is most important to me. It so happens that while my wife likes modern things, she likes images made by film cameras more than images made by digital cameras.

I do not develop my film, so this is not a reason for me to keep using film cameras.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Bill, I am reading some implicit assumptions into your question. Like the expanded question is "why are you still using film, after all digital is better"

Now I do not think I am being defensive.

So my response would be: I am still using film for the reasons I have always used film.

 

[JHenry]

For two reasons: the process and the look.

The process: I slow down, pay more attention to my surroundings, and feel more connected to the scene when I'm using film. It isn't a binary function where I don't feel this way when shooting digital. It's just that the feeling is more prevalent when I shoot film. I also like not being able to see what I just shoot until hours, days or weeks later. I get excited when I either develop black and white or when color film comes back from the processor.

The look: It's just different than digital. Neither better nor worse, in my opinion. I like the look of grain. I like the tonality. I like the contrast.

I shoot digital and film; the film gets scanned (though I am right now re-learning how to print in a darkroom), and I print both at home digitally. Different tools for different looks and uses. I like them both, but there is something soothing about shooting film.

Just my two cents worth.

 

[kevin_v]

In no particular order:
1. It gives me a break from my usual business messing with computers.
2. There's something special about being able to hold a negative/positive transparency – perhaps a sense of permanence.
3. Older professional level film cameras tend to be cheaper than their digital counterpart – I like to feel of smooth, solid (usually professional) cameras.
4. Despite what some say, film isn't cheap to me – it's not expensive, but it's not to be wasted. This makes me less likely to shoot off a load of awful shots that I'll likely hoard for no good reason.

 

[zuiko85]

I like mechanical things. My older film 35mm cameras, M4-2, OM-1, Pen F are all mechanical, feel nice in the hand, make soothing sounds, and don't require batteries. The plasto-blob Ni-Ca-Oly-Tax digital SLR's (no way can I afford an M9) have no appeal at all and as far as I'm concerned are completely interchangeable in their mundane dullness.

 

[pschauss]

I use film because I enjoy the process of bulk loading film into cartridges, developing it, and making traditional prints in the darkroom. When I post pictures on the web, I scan them from 5x7 prints with my HP printer/fax/scanner.

 

[TXForester]

I like the looks of film, but I use digital cameras too.
If you are willing to look around and wait for deals, there are good film cameras and lenses to be had for relatively little money.
I love older stuff. Cameras, trucks, aircraft, guns etc. Most of that I can't afford, but older cameras allow me a tie to personal history and photographic history. And, I love history. Plus I'm a Luddite wannabe. 🙂

 

[redisburning]

I get a better end result using slow film and any of my film cameras than I get with my dSLR.

 

[TXForester]

I like mechanical things.

I didn't think about this one, but I agree. Finely crafted mechanical things with moving parts have a soul. Not much aside from the shutter moves in a soulless digital camera. :angel:

 

[segedi]

I dislike sensor dust.
And simple functions buried in menus.
And the look of overly processed files.
And love changing my "sensor" at whim.
And most of all, love that I can make photos, simply.

 

[zuiko85]

One more rant.
Fer crying out loud! Why can't these stupid camera companies make a DSLR with a shutter speed dial, aperture ring and smooth manual focus ring, oh, and don't forget the DOF scale on the lens!


And, those dials and rings would perform that ONE FUNCTION ONLY! They can put the other controls on a button studded back if they want to but not basic exposure and focus. But no. We have cameras designed by computer geeks now. They have to load on every feature ever invented. I wouldn't be surprised if I hit the wrong command and a toothbrush sprang from the bottom!

OK, calm down...clam down...
Think I'll pop the cap on an IPA and chill.....

 

[Pfreddee]

I like the look of film, both B/W and colour, in my case, Ektar 100. I also really like my odd-ball rangefinder cameras from Russia, and my Yashica TLR. I enjoy the process of reading the light, both with a light meter and my Mk 1 Eyeball. I have fun processing my own black-and-white film. I have used film for 60 years, and whille I am also using digital, I'll continue to use film for my most important reason: It's FUN!

With best regards.

Pfreddee(Stephen)

 

[Brian Puccio]

I love the look of slide film. And I can't wait to project. I can't afford an M9 while I can afford a few dozen rolls of E6. Adox CMS 20 is fun to play with.

 

[FrankS]

Everything everyone has said above.

 

[TXForester]

One more rant.
Fer crying out loud! Why can't these stupid camera companies make a DSLR with a shutter speed dial, aperture ring and smooth manual focus ring, oh, and don't forget the DOF scale on the lens!


And, those dials and rings would perform that ONE FUNCTION ONLY!

I feel like I'm reading my own post. 😀

 

[helen.HH]

For me it is an ESCAPE ... From the Frantic Pace of everyday Life
it's Simplicity in Ergonomics makes Shooting Relaxed & Simple

Even with All its Imperfections
it's Subtleties in Rendering the Play of Shadow, Light, Texture & Tone
makes me Drunk with Joy...

 

[sreed2006]

Because that's the way, uh-huh, uh-huh, I like it.

 

[finguanzo]

Because ccd and cmos sensors don't react very well to fixer... 🙂

 

[BobYIL]

From the image quality point of view, digital has provided with us an obvious advantage compared to film: Higher resolution. However for other aspects regarding aesthetics and artistic values, film IMHO is still holding its traditional place.

I have learned more by looking at the photographs of others than the ones I called my own. It was decades ago while trying to squeeze the most out of my photographic equipment and process I have realized that using a Linhof would definitely not be making a certain HCB any greater than what he was.. I have also learned that being so meticulous about fine details and accomplishing the highest fidelity in rendering of what he put on the canvas could not help Johannes Vermeer in ranking any higher than what Rembrandt or Renoir regarded as to be. Art and aesthetical concerns do not regard lines per millimeter resolution as a prime virtue.

Cost per shot, convenience, prompt results, extensive manipulation possibilities of digital are not to be denied as I use the digital photography lovingly. However even all these conveniences, most of the time, fall short of duplicating the tonality, highlights and overall gradation of a frame shot on the HP5+ and developed in a formula available since 1927. That's why I will be shooting film as long as it would be available.