Film shooters!! Come clean!!

jerrybro said:
I shoot film, use manual cameras, listen to vinyl and drive old cars. In order to get into digital I should throw everything away and spend thousands of dollars on new equipment? No, not me. Film is as good as it ever was, its the processing that went downhill. Great film cameras are available at bargain prices.

Digital is fine, great even, for some. My IPhone is all the digital I need right now.
Click to expand...

Why would you need to throw everything away? Also nice digital cameras are available at bargain prices and you can use both medias depending on what you are doing, no need to be exclusive. If you learn a new technique thanks to the possibility of seeing immediately what you are doing using a digital camera then you know the technique and you can use it with whatever you are shooting, also with film. Contrary to popular believe it is a great time to take pictures...

GLF
 
kshapero said:
How many of us who shoot film are just playing out a fantasy that you are aspiring to be one of the greats of old (Robert Capa comes to mind)? Cause when you think about it, if they were alive today, they would most likely be shooting only digital. Come clean or is it just me?😀
Click to expand...

If that's your reason for shooting film, then it may not be just you, but I bet you'd be part of a pretty small group relative to all the film shooters out there. It is definitely not my reason for shooting film.

I have a digital camera because it comes in handy for utilitarian purposes, but I do not care at all about digital imaging. The process is boring, the time spent in front of the computer is something I dread. I don't get a physical object out of it unless I print. I can't manipulate the image in a simple and comfortable fashion in my darkroom.

Take care not to misconstrue what I'm saying. I am NOT saying that I believe that digital processes produce inferior results compared to film. That is often not the case.

I use film because I prefer the process and workflow over using digital. For me, that is at least as important as the end result. And that, by the way, is one reason why I do not call myself a photographer. It's not all about the end result for me. It's like taking a road trip, where the drive itself is the objective. Enjoying the process is a large part of my reason for photographing with film.
 
kshapero said:
How many of us who shoot film are just playing out a fantasy that you are aspiring to be one of the greats of old (Robert Capa comes to mind)? Cause when you think about it, if they were alive today, they would most likely be shooting only digital. Come clean or is it just me?
Click to expand...

Akiva, that's an interesting theory, but I have a different one.

My theory is that many of us are hanging on to film because we love the cameras. The old gear has character. A new D800 just doesn't feel the same.

In another discussion, a guy posted a photo of him and his Hasselblad; the romance was obvious. My theory is that at least part of it is we love the hardware.
 
... some of us are just comfortable with the technology we already have an dhave no real incentive to chante (yet).
 
umcelinho said:
135 = cheapest solution of that era for taking a huge amount of shots in a short period maintaining a minimum level of image quality and detail, right? that applies to digital nowadays.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't! At least not with a decent digital camera.
 
ColSebastianMoran said:
My theory is that many of us are hanging on to film because we love the cameras. The old gear has character. A new D800 just doesn't feel the same.

In another discussion, a guy posted a photo of him and his Hasselblad; the romance was obvious. My theory is that at least part of it is we love the hardware.
Click to expand...

I agree. It has to do a lot with nostalgic feelings, at least in my case. 😉
 
kshapero said:
How many of us who shoot film are just playing out a fantasy that you are aspiring to be one of the greats of old (Robert Capa comes to mind)? Cause when you think about it, if they were alive today, they would most likely be shooting only digital. Come clean or is it just me?😀
Click to expand...

Maybe in the beginning.
But fantasy as motivation got old pretty quickly, at least for me.

Now I gladly go through the trouble to shoot film just because I like the results.
 
I love chemically toned prints - especially when toned with more than one solution. These prints are one of a kind and unique. And they cannot be made by any technology other than film. So that is why I use film. For many other purposes I use digital cameras just like the gazillions of other folks do.
 
Plasticam digis are boring. not fun.

Using old cameras made of metal, leather, glass. Mirrors and gears -- whirring and clacking. That's fun.

Pulling magical strips of pictures out of a can and holding them up to the light to see. That's fun.

Flipping through pages of negatives and slides, years or decades after they were taken. That's fun.

Sitting with a shoebox of photo prints or projecting slides onto the wall, and sharing stories with your loved ones for the evening. That's Fun.

Plasticam digis are not fun. they are boring.
 
I shoot film out of choice, because I feel the end product on the wall looks 'better' (B&W). I also shoot digital, but prefer film for B&W work. No fantasy here, or emulation, just a desire to make the best photos I can. The dynamic range of film is tremendous and it gets you out of all sorts of problems in the highlights when shooting quickly.
 
Paul Jenkin said:
If I had to choose one, it would be film as I love the process of loading, winding on and processing the photos. I also like the discipline of a finite roll of film onto which to burn my photographs - rather than the apparent benefit of being able to shoot dozens (or hundreds) of extra shots just for the hell of it.

Digital is fun and convenient but, in my opinion, film is worth the effort and the output is worth the wait...
Click to expand...
That pretty well sums it up for me.

In addition, getting set up for digital photography would require some major financial bloodletting - and that's before I get around to spending $7950 for a Monochrom M or $8000 for an M9-P. Besides, my MP and M4-P are paid for.

If I had an "extra" $7950 (what's that??) lying around, I wouldn't buy an M/M or M9-P with it anyway. I'd spend it on film and a photo expedition to Asia - Tibet, China Thailand and Japan in particular. I'd leave myself just enough cash to get back home with a big smile on my face. 😀
 
I started photography 4 years ago, and was immediately attracted by film. I actually never had a digital camera, and don't want one.
Now I even stopped scaning and processing in lightrrom, and just prefer to do it all analog, with contact sheets, lighttables etc...
I might have like 20 rolls waiting to be developed, some are at least 8 months old... but that doesn't matter.
I like to take my time (at least when I do photography), and most important: I love to print in my darkroom
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
I don't care what anyone in the past shot. I use both film and digital, and choose one or the other depending on the look I want for the picture. Generally, I prefer digital for color work and film for B&W.
Click to expand...

Funny that your signature in your profile says "Real men shoot film!".

I agree though - I like digital for color and film for bNw. I also like the versatility of digital for nature photography (something I rarely have in BnW). Try shooting with a nikonos 5 underwater for macro work... very tough to do. Underwater work is hard enough as it is... let alone with film. So I stick with street shooting, portraits, trips and such with film. Nature shooting, underwater shooting and professional jobs with digital.

But back to the main point of the thread - do I want to become one of the greats? I could care less about what others think about my work. But I have a lot to prove to myself before I would consider myself a master of photography. And yes, this is something I am striving for.

If your motivated enough you can achieve anything... and there is so much creative work left to be done.
 
wblynch said:
Plasticam digis are boring. not fun.
Click to expand...

Funny how in these discussions in order to justify what is simply a personal taste one can go to plain lies.

Most digital cameras are not made of plastic, all professional lines are not and even many pocket cameras such as Sony Powershots line are not and many film camera were actually made of plastic, so what is the point in making a new term of "plasticam".

If you like film and after trying both film and digital you honestly can say that film produces the best results for you then just use it but what is the point in inventing false facts?

Also, we all love film and probably feel a bit nostalgic for the old media but I don't believe anyone really believe that it is possible to pay bills by only shoting film these days, no way. And claiming that the great photographers of the past would still be using film today is offensive to their intelligence.

I cite a few lines from the introduction of Ansel Adams' "The Negative", this is page xiii in the Little Brown and C. edition:

"I eagerly await new concepts and visualization and processes. I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance."

N.B. He writes "advance", even he believed that electronic image would have been an advance. That was written in 1981 by the master of film himself.

GLF
 
I don't have to make a living out of it so I can choose. Then I choose film because I just like the handling of film camera's: one button, one function and a button for each essential function. Same for the lenses: a focussing ring and a diaphragm ring. This together with a real viewfinder is what makes me continue with film.

Having to nail it each time and having to wait until you see the result is also a part of it. So is not having to spend hours behind the pc.

The day they make the digital equivalent of a Praktica MTL3 I might be tempted to go back to digital. But I do admit that for getting something on the web or in an email a digital camera is hard to beat.
 
in general, digital (x100) for fast and furious family shooting, especially grandkids, usually BW. you just can't beat digital speed for cyber family sharing.
everything else is film, almost always 35mm, almost always BW. i do use film for family contemplative stuff ...
 
Spanik said:
I don't have to make a living out of it so I can choose. Then I choose film because I just like the handling of film camera's: one button, one function and a button for each essential function. Same for the lenses: a focussing ring and a diaphragm ring. This together with a real viewfinder is what makes me continue with film.
Click to expand...

Sure, I do paied projects but fortunately I don't have to rely on photography for living, and I also like film and use it almost always when I shot for myself but I really don't understand the snob attitude: "All what I don't like is plastic all what I don't like is boring in the old times all was better and the great of the past if they were alive today would just be lauging at all what today's 'pros' use". Again, it is just offensive of their intelligence, I got quickly the Adams reference but I am sure anyone who knows the two medias (film and digital) and who has a few working neurons can see the advantages of each af the medias.

GLF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom