appeal of film over digital?

Retro-Grouch said:
I'm not so sure it's "visual impact" (and that term seems somewhat nebulous, itself). I think the general public assesses, and has the strongest responses to, photographs based on what they're "of" (which can be very different from content, i.e., what they're "about").
As an experiment, post a picture here on RFF, where we are all photographers, of a cat or dog. Any picture of a cat or dog. I guarantee it will get a huge number of "likes", regardless of the actual quality of the image. And I will confess right here, I'm a sucker for a kitty picture. Any kitty picture!
Click to expand...
Experiment: Another Kitty picture, now in colors :giggle:
54271996467_922f3ed3e2_k.jpg

Shot with a Rollei 35s on el cheapo 400 color negative film from PRC. (Color is totally off btw. No way Kitty is so bright and vibrant.)
 
Beemermark said:
People missed the meaning of my comment. The OP asks what is the appeal of film over digital. My answer is why do digital cameras try to make images that look like they were taken on film (if digital is superior).
Click to expand...

Ah, so you just intended yet more snarkiness. Great, good on you. 😶
 
Not trying to be annoying but I always found it difficult to understand why people will drop ~$10 K for a monochrome Leica body that tries to look the same as a real film camera when you can buy a great film Leica for ~$1500 and shoot real B&W film cheaper. My fujifilm X cameras have all these film simulations. I bought a digital camera to shoot great colors. Why do I want to make it look like 1970 film???
 
Beemermark said:
Not trying to be annoying but I always found it difficult to understand why people will drop ~$10 K for a monochrome Leica body that tries to look the same as a real film camera when you can buy a great film Leica for ~$1500 and shoot real B&W film cheaper. My fujifilm X cameras have all these film simulations. I bought a digital camera to shoot great colors. Why do I want to make it look like 1970 film???
Click to expand...

I do not know why people buy cameras of a specific type. You are ahead of me there.

I have liked digital since my first digital in 2000. Convenience. No waiting for the processor. No schlepping film and prints or boxes of slides. And in the so remote instance when I would like to alter the image I can do it. I am not dependent upon some other person to meddle with the original image. I tried Cibachrome and that made me lose all faith in emulsion mediums. No, I can shoot mono or color and printit off at home in good quality both quickly and easily. No jury-rigged darkrooms and chemicals.

So analog can be shot easily and with an analog camera. That's when the grief starts.
 
Last edited:
Since I have both an M6TTL and an M10 Monochrom, and an M10-R, I can confidently say that they are entirely different cameras to shoot with. Price has nothing to do with it. All are wonderful. And if it was specifically color work in digital capture that I was going for, the Hasselblad 907x/CFVII 50c does a better job with color than any of my other color digital cameras.

... shoot real B&W film cheaper ...
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you're intimating with that "real" nonsense.

Why *you* bought a digital camera doesn't necessarily have any bearing whatever on why *I* bought a digital camera. I see no reason to be snarky about it.

To me, going back to the question of the "appeal of film over digital?": Most of the appeal of using a film camera—whether it be loaded with B&W or color film—is because of the interesting defects of all film images. Since I made photographs with that capture medium for forty years before digital capture existed, I'm used to those defects and some of them I find quite pleasing. So I have a slew of lovely old film cameras and a similar slew of great modern digital cameras, and I use them all: Which I choose, and when, depends upon what it is I am trying to capture in a particular photo session. That's all.

G
 
Beemermark said:
Not trying to be annoying but I always found it difficult to understand why people will drop ~$10 K for a monochrome Leica body that tries to look the same as a real film camera when you can buy a great film Leica for ~$1500 and shoot real B&W film cheaper.
Click to expand...
Convenience and the fact that they can use their old M lenses on a rangefinder still. I mean, why do people buy expensive digital cameras of any brand when a cheaper one will produce similar results? Because there is more to buying a camera than pure results.
 
When I think of film versus digital I am always thinking of this image shot in 2011 with my trusty Yashica Mat 124G.


This was an occasion where the freedom of West Lancashire was being bestowed on the Duke of Lancaster regiment. I still don't fully understand what that means but anyway, as is often the case, I got chatting to these chaps. They were intrigued by my camera. It soon transpired that as it was such an occasion, maybe a photo would be important.
One of the guys pulled out a small digital point and shoot camera and asked if I would do the honours. Turns out the camera is a dud and a totally dead battery.
Film saved the day, untroubled by batteries my elderly film camera stepped up and got the shot! We swapped details and I made sure they each got a print. We kept in touch for some months after and I was told the print was framed and placed with pride.


Film 1 - Digital 0


Three Veterans by Philip McAllister, on Flickr
 
underlord said:
When I think of film versus digital I am always thinking of this image shot in 2011 with my trusty Yashica Mat 124G.


This was an occasion where the freedom of West Lancashire was being bestowed on the Duke of Lancaster regiment. I still don't fully understand what that means but anyway, as is often the case, I got chatting to these chaps. They were intrigued by my camera. It soon transpired that as it was such an occasion, maybe a photo would be important.
One of the guys pulled out a small digital point and shoot camera and asked if I would do the honours. Turns out the camera is a dud and a totally dead battery.
Film saved the day, untroubled by batteries my elderly film camera stepped up and got the shot! We swapped details and I made sure they each got a print. We kept in touch for some months after and I was told the print was framed and placed with pride.


Film 1 - Digital 0


Three Veterans by Philip McAllister, on Flickr
Click to expand...
A lovely photo!

... But this sounds more like "the joy of having a spare battery handy" or "the joy of not needing a battery when your battery has run dry" rather than any "appeal of film over digital" ... I've had film cameras that were equally as battery dependent as any digital camera. ;)

G
 
I'm old enough to remember when battery dependent film cameras took over the market, and I also remember the grousing about cameras becoming paperweights when the batteries wore out. The answer, of course, was to carry spares, just as you would bring extra film in the event that you needed more than you expected. With rechargeable batteries the same logic applies. I am fortunate that the Pentax DSLRs that I use for commercial work have taken the same batteries since 2010 for every model that I have owned. And I still have batteries from 2012 that hold a good charge and work in much newer cameras the the ones that I bought them for in the first place. I hope Leica soon makes available new batteries for their older models and that photographers will take advantage of the new supply to buy spares. If they are made as well as my Pentax batteries they should last a decade or more.
 
I use film cameras mostly with mechanical shutters. Most require the ubiquitous 44/76/357 battery only for the exposure meter.
The silver oxide variety last over one year but I change them yearly and carry spares. So I seldom have to think about batteries.
Film ? I can check the film counter and count the spare rolls in the fridge or added to the camera bag. What could be simpler?

OTOH my wife uses only digital cameras. Maintaining the batteries is a job in itself and obsolete models become problematic.

Chris
 
ChrisPlatt said:
I use film cameras mostly with mechanical shutters. Most require the ubiquitous 44/76/357 battery only for the exposure meter.
The silver oxide variety last over one year but I change them yearly and carry spares. So I seldom have to think about batteries.
Film ? I can check the film counter and count the spare rolls in the fridge or added to the camera bag. What could be simpler?

OTOH my wife uses only digital cameras. Maintaining the batteries is a job in itself and obsolete models become problematic.

Chris
Click to expand...

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.
 
When I first got the Hasselblad, November 2017, the scanning was first class and those negatives are all filed. Now the scanning is not good, and the 120 rolls are sitting unfiled. At least there is zero temptation to rely on keeping just the scans.
 
Richard G said:
When I first got the Hasselblad, November 2017, the scanning was first class and those negatives are all filed. Now the scanning is not good, and the 120 rolls are sitting unfiled. At least there is zero temptation to rely on keeping just the scans.
Click to expand...


This is another thing I do not understand about analog. Shoot analog, convert to digital.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom