appeal of film over digital?

boojum said:
Obsolete anything is a problem. Mechanical cameras become unrepairable, too. So let's not muddy the waters here.

To quibble about battery life and not be troubled by a 36 exposure roll is droll, being polite. I can understand folks liking to fuss with complex old systems. There are scads of weird old printing methods as praised as complex and arcane. That's just fine. But to be so insecure in your habits as to have to attack other methods as inferior strikes me as not being quite committed.

I started shooting film in ~'50 and did for 50 years. In 2000 I started with digital. I prefer it. In the last year or so I sent off my analog cameras, all of them, as there were not any use to me. I understand that they all found good homes through the offices of the recipient. But to listen to the bleating that emulsions are better than electronics is dreary. Come on. The difference is the emulsion has been replaced by an electronic surface. That's about it. If difficulty pleases you, wear a hair shirt when you shoot. And I'll change my battery after about every hundred or so rolls of film you change. Your decision, my decision. That's all there is to it. Cheers.
Click to expand...

Obsolete? My cameras from the 1970's use batteries that are still available nearly anywhere.
Further their use is optional; cameras are functional without them.
All of my mechanical cameras are repairable.

OTOH my wife's digital cameras use batteries no longer available from their manufacturers, and third party substitutes do not work well.
In addition two of her digital cameras are no longer supported by their manufacturers, i.e. they are unrepairable.

36 exposures is no limitation for me.
I use 24 exposure rolls as that's plenty for me for an average day of shooting.
My friend Bob Hickey (RIP) could spend an afternoon shooting part of a 120 roll in his Rolleiflex.

You prefer digital photography and cameras; I prefer film photography and cameras.

Chris
 
Last edited:
ChrisPlatt said:
Obsolete? My cameras from the 1970's use batteries that are still available nearly anywhere.
Further their use is optional; cameras are functional without them.
All of my mechanical cameras are repairable.

OTOH my wife's digital cameras use batteries no longer available from their manufacturers, and third party substitutes do not work well.
In addition two of her digital cameras are no longer supported by their manufacturers, i.e. they are unrepairable.

36 exposures is no limitation for me.
I use 24 exposure rolls as that's plenty for me for an average day of shooting.
My friend Bob Hickey (RIP) could spend an afternoon shooting part of a 120 roll in his Rolleiflex.

You prefer digital photography and cameras; I prefer film photography and cameras.

Chris
Click to expand...

There are old analogs which use batteries still available. They are off the shelf batteries not brand specific.

I am happy that 36 exposures is not a problem for you. My point was and remains that to carp about battery life while confined to 36 exposures is kind of silly. You shoot 36, I shoot 360 or more. I do not want to detract from the joy you experience with analog nor would I try. What I am saying is that the battery argument may not be the best one for analog.
 
Why, oh why, are we continuing to beat this dead horse?
When I was a kid, I grew up in RI, midway between Boston and NYC. There were ferocious loyalties to the Yankees and the Red Sox at my primary school, and heaven help any kid who provided the wrong answer when asked, "Who's your favorite team?". Since I didn't give a damn about baseball, and still don't, I inevitably got my butt kicked a lot because of the wrong answer. I did learn that this sort of tribalism was about the insecure need of any given tribe to have everyone believe as they did (Hello, contemporary American politics, anyone?). Maybe this nonsense is hard-wired into our species, I dunno. But can we please step aside and just appreciate each other's pictures? I shoot film. It works for me. If you shoot digital, and it works for you, wonderful! As long as your medium of choice does what you want it to do, and you enjoy the experience of using it, then there's no need for these arguments. To be blunt, SHUT UP AND SHOOT!
 
The battery argument is rather moot in our modern age; given how available things are. I would be more concerned about running out of film.

I do have a fun anecdote about meter betteries in my last trip. The hotshoe meter that I use in my MF RF battery died, one of the exotic CR button batteries that was not available in provincial cities of Asia. Ok, use the phone? I drowned a phone in humidity and it died, so no light meter app. Sekonic L308 delivered well! It is nice to enjoy a phoneless period but also noticed tat it can be quite necessary.

If anything lately I am having a debate about digital vs phone. The latest generation phones do great computational photography even at low light, and sincerely, a 1/1.31" sensor is much larger than the newly re-appreciated old digital P&S and bar some processing artifacts, the shots are taken and look good. As these have a fixed f2 something lens, there is actual bokeh happening.
An irony about my digital is that I want to upgrade my m43, but solely for HiRes modes to do film scanning, otherwise the now old EM5 works well and I am not using it much at all often.
 
It's honestly taken a lot of effort, but I've come to find my iPhone 15 Pro to be a very satisfactory photographic tool now. It does not replace any of my other cameras, film or digital, as what I can do with it—given the computational nature of its imaging capabilities—is almost completely different, aesthetically, from any of my other cameras.

"The right tool for the right purpose."

G
 
My, not so funny story, was I got brand new M7 in Dec 2006. I had a business meeting in San Fransisco. I HATE flying so I took a train from East Coast to West Coast with my brand new M7. The battery died second day out -:). Still I was able to make do with the manual speeds but a lot of shots were not salvageable.
 
I have seen this Luddite behavior in audio where it is really pronounced. They can argue about LP's vs digital and WAV vs MP3 and tube vs transistor. Lots of opinions, not much proof that old is better. If the old ways were so good we would still be doing it that way. I file it under nostalgic delusion.

I can;t be bothered with analog images. But I would not discourage anyone else from it. If analog has qualities you cherish you will think it a better way. If you do not cherish those qualities you will not.
 
JohnGellings said:
Thankfully there is enough room for all processes. All that matters to me is are you doing great work with wherever you are using. We are all old enough to have used film. We all love photographers from the past who used film. I'd never dismiss it even if I am 100% digital.
Click to expand...
Absolutely John - my sentiments exactly. Thank you
 
ChrisPlatt said:
Obsolete? My cameras from the 1970's use batteries that are still available nearly anywhere.
Further their use is optional; cameras are functional without them.
All of my mechanical cameras are repairable.

OTOH my wife's digital cameras use batteries no longer available from their manufacturers, and third party substitutes do not work well.
In addition two of her digital cameras are no longer supported by their manufacturers, i.e. they are unrepairable.

36 exposures is no limitation for me.
I use 24 exposure rolls as that's plenty for me for an average day of shooting.
My friend Bob Hickey (RIP) could spend an afternoon shooting part of a 120 roll in his Rolleiflex.

You prefer digital photography and cameras; I prefer film photography and cameras.

Chris
Click to expand...
Crazy amounts of fear mongering... Plenty of film cameras out there once they are broken they are toast unless some can make a part, find a part from another camera, or maybe 3D print one.... C'mon man. Quality of film is no where near what it used to be especially color... That could change. I love film cameras have my fair share of them and use only my M6 every once in a great while.... I'll ride with my digitals...
 
I reacquainted with film a couple of years ago, not because I have any fondness for film or even think it's better than digital but because I like a few particular cameras and they use film. Beyond that I feel that it's the picture on the wall that matters, not how it got there.
 
35photo said:
Crazy amounts of fear mongering... Plenty of film cameras out there once they are broken they are toast unless some can make a part, find a part from another camera, or maybe 3D print one.... C'mon man. Quality of film is no where near what it used to be especially color... That could change. I love film cameras have my fair share of them and use only my M6 every once in a great while.... I'll ride with my digitals...
Click to expand...

"Quality of film is no where near what is used to be especially color ..."?

Variety of films is nowhere near what it used to be. Also, there has been no new research and development to bring new technologies to film and its production. However, I have seen no evidence of a decline in quality by traditional film manufacturers, such as Kodak, Fuji, or Ilford.

I'm open to both film and digital (though I still have a lot to learn about the latter), so I don't present this as an endorsement of one medium over the other.

- Murray
 
CMur12 said:
"Quality of film is no where near what is used to be especially color ..."?

Variety of films is nowhere near what it used to be. Also, there has been no new research and development to bring new technologies to film and its production. However, I have seen no evidence of a decline in quality by traditional film manufacturers, such as Kodak, Fuji, or Ilford.

I'm open to both film and digital (though I still have a lot to learn about the latter), so I don't present this as an endorsement of one medium over the other.

- Murray
Click to expand...

Kodak has announced new and serious efforts to improve and expand film production. I posted about this in Brian's forum. There is hope. I would rather see them make a sensor but I guess they will never catch up now. They could have owned digital just like Xerox, same town, owned copiers.
 
CMur12 said:
Variety of films is nowhere near what it used to be. Also, there has been no new research and development to bring new technologies to film and its production.
Click to expand...
That's not quite true. Harman's Phoenix is their attempt at designing a brand new C41 colour emulsion. Is it terrible? Yes. But it's very much a proof-of-concept at this stage, and they may end up with something decent down the line. Maybe.

Foma have also bought out some new films in recent years; Fomapan Ortho 400 came out in 2023, and while it's a return to a somewhat outdated type of film, it is something "new". Has there ever been an orthochromatic film that was that fast before? I'm not sure.

I think this is where the future of any film development is going to lie, realistically; the days of cheap colour film for holiday snapshots are long gone - that market went to digital compacts and then phones a long time ago - and the sort of demanding technical performance that drove the development of high-end E6 and technical B&W film has found a new home in DSLRs and mirrorless cameras.

Film is now the home of both the hipster kids nostalgic for something they never had a chance to experience, and those who consider themselves an "artist" of some form. Neither of those are going to be looking for the finest granularity and best tonal separation; they want character, and something that they feel they can't get with digital cameras. I suspect that's where the smart market is for film manufacturers; having the best reciprocity characteristics and anti-halation technology isn't going to shift units like it once did.
 
Coldkennels said:
That's not quite true. Harman's Phoenix is their attempt at designing a brand new C41 colour emulsion. Is it terrible? Yes. But it's very much a proof-of-concept at this stage, and they may end up with something decent down the line. Maybe.

Foma have also bought out some new films in recent years; Fomapan Ortho 400 came out in 2023, and while it's a return to a somewhat outdated type of film, it is something "new". Has there ever been an orthochromatic film that was that fast before? I'm not sure.

I think this is where the future of any film development is going to lie, realistically; the days of cheap colour film for holiday snapshots are long gone - that market went to digital compacts and then phones a long time ago - and the sort of demanding technical performance that drove the development of high-end E6 and technical B&W film has found a new home in DSLRs and mirrorless cameras.

Film is now the home of both the hipster kids nostalgic for something they never had a chance to experience, and those who consider themselves an "artist" of some form. Neither of those are going to be looking for the finest granularity and best tonal separation; they want character, and something that they feel they can't get with digital cameras. I suspect that's where the smart market is for film manufacturers; having the best reciprocity characteristics and anti-halation technology isn't going to shift units like it once did.
Click to expand...
Phoenix uses 1970s technology. Foma Ortho uses (mostly) 1920s-50s technology. There is development effort being put into film at Ilford, Foma and particularly at Adox, but there is no research, and nothing new. No-one will have the funds to bring the formate-doped films Kodak worked on in the 1990s (ISO of up to a stratospheric 10,000!) to market. Flat and epitaxial grain technology will never be improved. The film tech we had in 2005 is the ultimate, in both senses of the word.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom