appeal of film over digital?

[Erik van Straten]

gelatin silver print (summicron 50mm f2) leica mp

Amsterdam, 2017

printed with a focomat llc on ilford mgfb glossy

 

[Erik van Straten]

gelatin silver print (heliar 50mm f2 collapsible) leica m2

Amsterdam, Oosterpark, 2022

printed with a focomat llc on ilford mgfb glossy

 

[Hilmersen]

I have mostly switched to film. I was an early adopter of digital. But one day I realized that all the pictures on my wall was taken with film... I do use a hybrid process, as I simpy do not have the space for a dark room. What I find is that my film equipment is always ready, while my digital camera tends to have an empty battery.... I shoot mosty with a leica mp/m6ttl, and mostly b/w, and mostly cms20....so I guess the look is quite digital. A lot mention the cost of film for a reason why they do not shoot film. I shoot 15-20 films a year, maybe less....so I feel that I simply cannot justify a new digital leica. For snaps, I use my phone.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I never shoot digital. I don't see the fun of it. Tell me, what is the fun of digital photography?

 

[Cascadilla]

I never shoot digital. I don't see the fun of it. Tell me, what is the fun of digital photography?

Instant gratification, which is overrated in my opinion.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

I never shoot digital. I don't see the fun of it. Tell me, what is the fun of digital photography?

I rarely shoot film. I don't see the fun of it. Tell me, what is the fun of film photography?

 

[spijker]

I rarely shoot film. I don't see the fun of it. Tell me, what is the fun of film photography?

I only shoot B&W film. For me the reason/fun of it, is printing in the darkroom. I also shoot digital. Whatever works best for what I want to achieve. It's nice to do both film and digital. For me it has nothing to do with slowing down, organic etc.

 

[Jonathan R]

I like to have a fresh sensor for every shot.

 

[Coldkennels]

Reading all of this ongoing thread, I think my answer is increasingly becoming "the appeal of shooting film over digital is laughing at old men trawling out the same tropes over and over about how they did all that years ago and don't see the point in doing it now".

I think @Erik van Straten and @Cascadilla have nailed it, though: people who shoot film consistently - not just as a brief flash-in-the-pan obsession with some poorly-defined "film look" - do it for the process. The final image is almost secondary to the process; any idiot can easily run a digital snapshot through a Lightroom preset (or even just choose a Fujifilm emulation in camera) and get the "film look". If all you cared about was that, it's far faster and easier to just use your iPhone. But to shoot film and be dedicated to it, there has to be something about the actual act of doing so that appeals to you - whether it's the lack of electronics, the sense of engaging with history, the tangibility of the development and printing processes, or just the wider variety of camera styles and formats.

That's what people who go on about how "digital has surpassed film" don't get. They'll never get it. Hardcore film shooters don't care that your multi-thousand-dollar camera can produce this fancy image without you even having to think about it. The thinking and the work is the point. That's where the enjoyment comes from. Any argument against that is moot and will always fall on deaf ears, because it completely misses the point.

(And before anyone says it: I'm not saying that all digital shooters don't care about the process, or don't take as much care in their work... but the ones who are most vocally anti-film tend to fit that description, I find.)

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I wish I could be that dedicated to the process, @Coldkennels, but the cost of that vs digital is just too much. I'd much rather spend the time and money on digital cameras and trying to get the results I want directly out of the camera. I don't spend a lot of time on PP since I can't afford the fancy software. My enjoyment of photography comes from getting the image I want directly from the cameras I have with as little manipulation as possible.

 

[boojum]

I bought a Sony DSC S70 in the spring of 2000. I never picked up another film camera for 25 years. Why? Great color and great image now, not after I finish the roll, send it off and get it back. Or worse, get the negatives back and then send them off to print what I want out of the roll. And the digital images can be transported on a computer. We all have them now.

Unless you like less dynamic range, lower ISO's, more grain and more muted color you are better off with digital. If you do yearn for those things they can be introduced into digital images in editing. The best of both worlds. For me, analog is just part of the saying "You just can't beat the good old days."

 

[Coldkennels]

I wish I could be that dedicated to the process, @Coldkennels, but the cost of that vs digital is just too much.

If you're here, I assume you like using rangefinders.

My Leica M240 cost me £2,199. That's basically the cheapest option possible for a digital rangefinder.
My Leica IIIf cost me £175, and my Plustek scanner cost £160. Price difference of £1,864.

They can use the same lenses, so that cost is irrelevant.

Even if I wasn't bulk loading, a roll of Fomapan 100 is £5.50 for 36 exposures. I can develop it in Rodinal at home for about 34p (the bigger bottle will do about 41 rolls). Fixer is about 29p a roll. Total cost for each film is £6.13. Cost per shot is 17p, and the numbers drop down even further if you bulk load (about £3.37 per roll, or 9p per shot).

I'd have to shoot 10,964 shots on the M240 to "break even" compared to the cost of running the IIIf with commercially loaded Fomapan.

Even factoring in the cost of three dedicated FILCA cassettes at £10 a pop to bulk load, I'd have to shoot 20,377 photos on the M240 to get to the same price per shot.

Film really doesn't have to be expensive. But even then, to reiterate: I enjoy the process. I'm paying for that entertainment; the cost of doing it is no different to the cost of going to the pub and having a pint, or paying for a ticket to go and see a movie. I could pay £15 to sit and watch a film for two hours, or I could spend £15 to shoot a roll of film, develop it, and print it. That's far more than two hours of entertainment, so the cost is more than worth it to me.

 

[Erik van Straten]

If you're here, I assume you like using rangefinders.

My Leica M240 cost me £2,199. That's basically the cheapest option possible for a digital rangefinder.
My Leica IIIf cost me £175, and my Plustek scanner cost £160. Price difference of £1,864.

They can use the same lenses, so that cost is irrelevant.

Even if I wasn't bulk loading, a roll of Fomapan 100 is £5.50 for 36 exposures. I can develop it in Rodinal at home for about 34p (the bigger bottle will do about 41 rolls). Fixer is about 29p a roll. Total cost for each film is £6.13. Cost per shot is 17p, and the numbers drop down even further if you bulk load (about £3.37 per roll, or 9p per shot).

I'd have to shoot 10,964 shots on the M240 to "break even" compared to the cost of running the IIIf with commercially loaded Fomapan.

Even factoring in the cost of three dedicated FILCA cassettes at £10 a pop to bulk load, I'd have to shoot 20,377 photos on the M240 to get to the same price per shot.

Film really doesn't have to be expensive. But even then, to reiterate: I enjoy the process. I'm paying for that entertainment; the cost of doing it is no different to the cost of going to the pub and having a pint, or paying for a ticket to go and see a movie. I could pay £15 to sit and watch a film for two hours, or I could spend £15 to shoot a roll of film, develop it, and print it. That's far more than two hours of entertainment, so the cost is more than worth it to me.

Add to this: the pleasure of using the beautiful mechanical cameras.
I love old clocks too, I have a clock from 1871 that works perfectly. I couldn't live without it.

 

[boojum]

Add to this: the pleasure of using the beautiful mechanical cameras.
I love old clocks too, I have a clock from 1871 that works perfectly. I couldn't live without it.

It is getting blurred now. Some folks like analog because of its anachronistic joy and the pleasure of the darkroom and the magic of seeing that image emerge from a blank sheet of paper. And the tactile pleasure of the fine papers. To me, IMNSHO, analog is preferred more for artistic inclinations than technical quality. We all choose on the basis of a number of influences and reasons not for just one simple one. Bottom line, shoot what pleases you. That's what I do. I shoot to please myself. If it pleases others that is even better.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

Of course, I was being facetious back at Erik with his comments about the "fun of film photography." At the beginning of my digital experience, I did indeed enjoy shooting film more based on the "shooting" experience - the sound of the shutter, loading and advancing the film, etc. - but over time I got accustomed to the different sounds, and so forth. Also, at the beginning, the output film created was more pleasing than digital. But, at least for me, even that has reversed.

I can say unequivocally, I've never missed darkroom printing. Once I got used to the software, I much prefer Photoshop over the darkroom experience.

 

[enasniearth]

Perhaps I’m not the best person to ask
I do shoot both
I think the main advantage of older film cameras
No battery - no charging or computer
Hard physical copy ( negative ) that doesn’t require a monster tower & megastorage hard drive
You can always convert to digital if needed or to make digital paper prints if wanted
The wet darkroom is one of the last dark artforms I guess now almost extinct
The thing I like the most is not really knowing if I got it on film right away
But then again you are not reviewing files to see if you got it & wasteing moments you are still able to capture then - although delayed to see them - I look at the shooting & viewing as separate
I guess I like the mystery of what you will see later & that it is a separate experience than the shooting frames without knowing
What’s actually been recorded

 

[Godfrey]

The "fun" of doing photography, whether film or digital, is creating photographs the way you want.

Whether you use film or digital capture, whether you print them, look at them on a display screen, or have a publisher render them into a book, or whether you ever even look at them at all (see Vivian Meier, and others...) is all up to you.

None of these ways of creating photographs is right or wrong.

G

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

If you're here, I assume you like using rangefinders.

I'm here mainly because I wanted to get educated about the M3 and IIIa that I inherited from my Grandmother. I've only run one roll of film thru the M3 and none thru the IIIa. The M3 caused my hand to cramp so badly when using it I began to wonder what the Leica mystique was really all about. I bought a grip for it and it only helped a little.
I've spent so much on my digital cameras I sometimes wonder what's wrong with me. But, I can go out and shoot as much as I like and not worry about any other costs to being able to enjoy my work.
I like my M3, and appreciate it for the fine photographic instrument that it is. I also enjoy being able to adapt all my old lenses to my digital cameras so I can enjoy their 'characteristics' too.
I admit, I'm more of a hardware junkie than photographer. I like messing with stuff as cheaply as I can get it. My slide copy setup is one of my proudest achievements in that regard. I get to see old family slides now digitally instead of having to set up the slide projector.
One of my biggest disappointments shooting film was very early on when I borrowed my neighbor's SR-T to go shoot the races at Riverside. I miss loaded the film and got a blank strip back from the developer.
I was still hooked on the camera though.

 

[38Deardorff]

I wish I could be that dedicated to the process, @Coldkennels, but the cost of that vs digital is just too much. I'd much rather spend the time and money on digital cameras and trying to get the results I want directly out of the camera. I don't spend a lot of time on PP since I can't afford the fancy software. My enjoyment of photography comes from getting the image I want directly from the cameras I have with as little manipulation as possible.

That's laughable...... tell me about how you're thinking about trading up to the Leica M11 at $10,000 body only....because film is just too expensive..... 😛

 

[boojum]

That's laughable...... tell me about how you're thinking about trading up to the Leica M11 at $10,000 body only....because film is just too expensive..... 😛

If shooting film is because the bodies are cheaper you have a case. Speaking Leicas, the film bodies have depreciated about all they will and some are appreciating. The M11, a bad buy IMNSHO, will depreciate and probably then stabilize. I made a habit of buying used M bodies which held the price or saw it rise.

But cost justification for choice can be misleading mostly, and a red herring in other cases. Other than a working professional none of us can justify the things we buy. It's a hobby. Maybe we save on therapy by having fun things to play with. If we have the disposable income we spend it on what gives us pleasure, cock fights, cameras or charities. Around here it is mostly cameras but now and again I do here roosters, fighting cocks. Some of us are doing both, I guess. The charities are silent. ;o)

For me the answer to the analog vs digital, whichever your choice, is "It's what I like." That's all that need be said. If you are not paying my rent and buying my groceries you really have little say about my life. And I do not have to justify my choices, poor or otherwise.