appeal of film over digital?

i cant afford color film photography. I have a few rolls in the freezer but wont be using them anytime soon. I can afford 15-20$ per roll processing, and the risk of shipping in hot weather, or stuff getting lost. And not all labs doing film give a shit.

I had a batch of black and white film go out, about 30 rolls of various brands and speeds, the film lab developed ALL of it as 400 iso. Ruined some beautiful kentmere 100 shots of deer fighting. that made me develop my own film.
 
PetPhoto said:
...
People put more emotional impact into film ...
Click to expand...
If you consider using a digital camera as meaningless, thoughtless, and put no thought into what you're doing with a digital camera, you will get garbage photographs with it. Which is exactly the same thing that happens when you do the same thing with a film camera.

People who start using film today usually do so from the standpoint of wanting to get more from doing photography and so they put a lot of thought, care, and effort into what they shoot and how they treat their film cameras, and then treat their digital cameras like junk. So of course they get thoughtful, emotion-filled photographs with their film cameras, and they get trash with their digital cameras.

The machines don't think, don't care: they just do what you tell them. And whether the recording material is photosensitive emulsion on plastic or an intricate little machine that records photons is completely irrelevant ... either will do exactly what you tell it to do to the limits of its design and nature. It's up to you as a photographer to learn what each of your little light-capturing-machines can do, and then how to tell the machine what to do, in order to get what you intend.

G
 
Godfrey said:
If you consider using a digital camera as meaningless, thoughtless, and put no thought into what you're doing with a digital camera, you will get garbage photographs with it. Which is exactly the same thing that happens when you do the same thing with a film camera.

People who start using film today usually do so from the standpoint of wanting to get more from doing photography and so they put a lot of thought, care, and effort into what they shoot and how they treat their film cameras, and then treat their digital cameras like junk. So of course they get thoughtful, emotion-filled photographs with their film cameras, and they get trash with their digital cameras.

The machines don't think, don't care: they just do what you tell them. And whether the recording material is photosensitive emulsion on plastic or an intricate little machine that records photons is completely irrelevant ... either will do exactly what you tell it to do to the limits of its design and nature. It's up to you as a photographer to learn what each of your little light-capturing-machines can do, and then how to tell the machine what to do, in order to get what you intend.

G
Click to expand...
the first two paragraphs you typed out are merely proving the point I made about how people view film photography as some zen like perfectionist dogma, and digital as some random 10 year old taking pictures of any and old random crap in the drive way. a spray and pray of digital versus the modern bias of "holy saint ansel" carefully creating film shots
 
I like sharp, detailed pictures. 35mm film has a hard time delivering that to the degree that I like. Medium format is more to my satisfaction and Large format even more so. Neither of which are economical arenas. Film in general is a pain in the butt unless you enjoy darkroom processing. I don't, I even tried sending out the film for developing and scanning and processing the images at home. It was a bit fun at first but quickly became a chore I just didn't enjoy. On the other hand I seem to enjoy post processing my digital images. Different hats fit different heads.........
 
Brick33308 said:
HI, I currently shoot with a M10 and a few really great Leica lenses, absolutely love this setup. But lately I've been getting the bug to shoot film.

I understand all the reasons people like film over digital in terms of the shooting experience, and indeed I got a sense of those reasons when in February I got my M10 and put my Sony A7RV on the shelf (except for performance and certain photo trip photography). Switching to manual rangefinder focus has slowed down my process and made me more contemplative about what/why I'm taking a particular picture. So all good in terms of understanding that such process will continue and perhaps be enhanced if I begin shooting film.

My inquiry today is what are the attributes about a film image that others like as compared to digital. Lately I've been processing my digital images with various film-like presets, two example are posted below (taken with my 35/1.4 steel rim reissue). Is there a look with film that can't be reproduced with digital processing?

Look forward to your responses!


Click to expand...
Even fine prints by skilled digital printers are different than silver gelatin prints.
I never went down the digital path..... still film (various formats) & baryta prints in the darkroom....
 
I've shot film since '68. Mid-oughts I went completely digital. Except for a very occasional foray into 4x5 or 8x10 in FP4, I remain digitized.

The comments about prints in large format are right on and the tangible object is a powerful allure. Moving assets in film, if one has amassed a half-century of work, is vastly more daunting than a few hard drives and RAID software. I've been in Jay Maisel's bank building before he moved across the river. He used the bank vault to store his analog work and it was full.

When I want to slow down I just spend more time watching and waiting. When something is dynamic I don't worry about anything. I just shoot. I've had 500-exposure backs on film bodies, ungainly, but for sports it was a godsend until Canon showed up with dependable auto-focus. Yeah, you can shoot tennis with a speed graphic but I'll leave that to Burnett. He's brilliant at it and I don't want to.

Interestingly, and upon reflection, logically, I bracket less, if at all, compared to my use of film; When I shot Kodachrome the gods of saturation or mud and light and cellophane were in constant tension if not outright battle. In black and white there was less of that, but still...

Mr. Maisel once asked me which I liked better, photographing or photographs. I had to think for a moment because the beauty of the question involves angst and misprision and vast expansion of perspective. I settled after a few seconds as my head exploded and said, "photographing." He roared with laughter and asked to see the next photograph.

I shoot a lot and when I finally get around to reviewing what I've done, I often feel that I've satisfied Winogrand's dictum about getting some distance on an image so that one isn't as emotionally invested. Perhaps that's another way of looking at slowing down: it's entirely the choice of the photographer.

Your mileage may vary.

Much love and kindness,
Shane
 
I used film from about '48 until 2000. I have a honey of a Contax II that Oleg got tuned that is fun to use. And the film images are alright. I need practice. On a technical scale I see digital as way better. On an emotional scale film can have an edge. It can be more appealing. However color profiles can bring digital to film looks.

It is the same in another digital medium, audio. Digital can sound exactly like analog and this has been demonstrated by Bob Carver. So it seems personal preference is the key which is then buttressed by some sort of technical arguments. For me, I have cameras for fun. Darkrooms are not fun for me. End of argument. And at my age, 86, I could croak waiting for the film to get back from the processor. I have that to think of. ;o)
 
I've finally now read thru this entire thread.

To me, photography is akin to my liking for wine. My drink the entire bottle in one go days are now long past, but I enjoy a glass or two or good dry white with my lunch, and one or two of good red with my dinner.

Now and then when it's 35C+ outside in regional Victoria and I'm looking to the comfort of a shady place in the garden, I soak up a glass or two of dry Noilly Prat or a good Aussie sparkling with crushed ice and a sliver of lime.

Some I know prefer red to white. Or white to red. Or even both. We in Australia are fortunately blessed to have ample supplies of each.

The same goes for my digital and film photography. Either or. For different or similar reasons. And similar or different end results.

It's really that simple, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
boojum said:
I used film from about '48 until 2000. I have a honey of a Contax II that Oleg got tuned that is fun to use. And the film images are alright. I need practice. On a technical scale I see digital as way better. On an emotional scale film can have an edge. It can be more appealing. However color profiles can bring digital to film looks.

It is the same in another digital medium, audio. Digital can sound exactly like analog and this has been demonstrated by Bob Carver. So it seems personal preference is the key which is then buttressed by some sort of technical arguments. For me, I have cameras for fun. Darkrooms are not fun for me. End of argument. And at my age, 86, I could croak waiting for the film to get back from the processor. I have that to think of. ;o)
Click to expand...
bojum’s first paragraph is a good observation, IMO. I've mostly eased out of street photography, for which I feel digital is advantageous for its consistency and rendering of detail. I now shoot more like the pic below, which to me usually render in a more pleasing way on film. Maybe this photo would work in digital, but for me probably not. (Maybe you feel it doesn't work in film either 🙂, which is fine.)

Of course, the aesthetic of film is just one reason for preferring it. Some of us also feel film engages us with photography in a deeper, more satisfying way. We enjoy the cameras, the workflow, the extra element of craft.

20191118-03.jpg
 
boojum said:
I used film from about '48 until 2000. I have a honey of a Contax II that Oleg got tuned that is fun to use. And the film images are alright. I need practice. On a technical scale I see digital as way better. On an emotional scale film can have an edge. It can be more appealing. However color profiles can bring digital to film looks.

It is the same in another digital medium, audio. Digital can sound exactly like analog and this has been demonstrated by Bob Carver. So it seems personal preference is the key which is then buttressed by some sort of technical arguments. For me, I have cameras for fun. Darkrooms are not fun for me. End of argument. And at my age, 86, I could croak waiting for the film to get back from the processor. I have that to think of. ;o)
Click to expand...
Interesting thoughts here.

In my own photography, I find the images I make with my Fuji are somewhat, well, clinical. With my Nikon D700 there is a certain pattern, or maybe patina. With my D800s, dry.

My fairly new Z6 and especially my Z5 give me unique rendering. I can't really explain it. The mid-tones look different from all my other cameras. It may be a feeling on my part, but they have a distinct character all my other cameras lack, or maybe rather they give me less of.

I do almost all my photography in harsh Asian and Australian light. In some ways I go 'against the grain' of the basic tenets of digital photography - often I underexpose by a third to two-thirds of a stop, depending on how bright the scene is, to try to salvage as much as I can of the highlights. I post process accordingly.

My finished images tend to look 'dark', so those who look at them usually say.

They all like the end result. This is what matters most to me.
 
Last edited:
Archiver said:
Given how AI companies are buying all the RAM and hard drives and driving prices up, maybe shooting with film isn't so relatively expensive these days... 😬
Click to expand...

Agree. Sort of. In a way. This comment is interesting. And surely valid.

As for film, a visit to Vanbar's in Collingwood or a look-see in their online catalogue may quick-fast cure you of this notion.
 
Last edited:
Erik van Straten said:
silver gelatin print (summicron 50mm f2) leica m5

Amsterdam, 2017

printed with a focomat llc on ilford mgfb

View attachment 4888913
Click to expand...

Brilliant happenstance. I love it!!

The sort of image I look for, have looked for all my photographic life.

This should be hung on a gallery wall. Fortunate indeed for you to have found it.

(I am of course assuming this was not 'preplanned'. Certainly I would never dare to even suggest such an act.)

How ever did the young gentleman find his way back to dry land? Or was he rescued from somewhere in the North Sea...
 
Last edited:
Bolo Kukus said:
Brilliant happenstance. I love it!!

The sort of image I look for, have looked for all my photographic life.

This should be hung on a gallery wall. Fortunate indeed for you to have found it.

(I am of course assuming this was not 'preplanned'. Certainly I would never dare to even suggest such an act.)

How ever did the young gentleman find his way back to dry land? Or was he rescued from somewhere in the North Sea...
Click to expand...

He was last spotted drifting out to Iceland, and had some penguins sitting with him.
 
JohnWolf said:
Maybe this photo would work in digital, but for me probably not. (Maybe you feel it doesn't work in film either 🙂, which is fine.)
Click to expand...

The thing is John, most looking at it wouldn't know if it was film or digital, especially non photographers, or care, as long as it was visually appealing, the same thing happens in the music world, people obsess about certain brands but the audience doesn't give a carp as long as it sounds great, I know musicians who use 4 figure instruments on stage and others who use less than £100 instruments and the audience don't know the difference.

I use what I need to, to get what I want it to look like or what I feel like, different shoes for different moves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Article Article
What's happening with Photographic Film in 2025? Is this robust niche still growing?
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
16K
Erik van Straten
Erik van Straten
lxforrest
A DIY retro digital camera project - Blog #2 Rethinking of retro digital camera
Replies
4
Views
2K
lxforrest
lxforrest
lxforrest
A DIY retro digital camera project - Blog #2 Rethinking of retro digital camera
Replies
0
Views
382
lxforrest
lxforrest
J
  • Article Article
Triumph of the Triplet: The 3-element lens that changed the world!Dennis Taylor’s Cooke Triplet of 1893 launched the modern optical era
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Jason Schneider
J
J
  • Article Article
How I got into Photography in 1956: No digital, no internet, just people! A geeky kid with a passion for pictures earns his chops the hard way!
Replies
14
Views
995
mconnealy
mconnealy
Back
Top Bottom