appeal of film over digital?

[Bolo Kukus]

Home development and bulk loading is the way to go for B&W film. Probably save yourself 65-75% on costs, and you ensure it gets done decently.

My photos are always decent. I reckon you meant - ...you ensure it gets done properly. 😝

Today I'm doing two photography-related things.

1. I've not done any film photography for 'yonks', and it's time to change this.It's also time to reduce the film stock I have in my fridge.

I took out and dusted off one of my Contax G1s. Put in two new CR2 batteries and the wonderful Zeiss G Biogon 28/2.8. Then a roll of HP5 from the stash of antique analogue vintaging away in my film fridge, also a second roll as a spare if I get especially creative.

2. I'm charging all my Nikon batteries for the Z5 and Z6, D800 and D700 and D90. Somewhere, I also have two batteries for a Lumix GF1, so when I find those I'll charge those as well.

Later I'll dust off the Rollers - a venerable 3.5E2 I've owned since 1966, ttwo Ts, and a last model 'cord Vb. Plenty of 120 film for these beats as well, mostly Ilford XP2 I bought pre-Covid. Oh, well.

Different strokes... never mind, I've said this too often. Film and digital. Different cameras, same purpose. Double the fun.

I did have the thought, why do I own so many cameras? again, never mind, I'll think about that later.

To end all this with a positive spin, taking out and playing with all these beauties will keep me going til' I'm a few years past the century mark...

 

[JohnWolf]

Home development and bulk loading is the way to go for B&W film. Probably save yourself 65-75% on costs, and you ensure it gets done decently.

I read this with interest, thinking I might try it, and checked B&H:

1 roll of TriX: $8.99 / roll
100’ roll of Tri-X: $164.99 / 18 = $9.17 / roll

Am I missing something?

 

[steveyork]

I read this with interest, thinking I might try it, and checked B&H:

1 roll of TriX: $8.99 / roll
100’ roll of Tri-X: $164.99 / 18 = $9.17 / roll

Am I missing something?

You get about 19-20 rolls from 100 feet, and Tri-X is maybe the one exception. Kodak doesn't sell bulk rolls at any type of real discount, and sometimes it costs more!! Don't ask me why, it has been like that for at least the last 20 years. So if Tri-x is your film, you're forced to do commercial loads. But for just about every other film, bulk loads will save you about 40% or more off commercial loads. I just did the math and bulk loads of Fomapan will come out less than $4.50 a roll. Kentmere and Orwo are the other two known for value.

 

[Tom R]

This topic has (arguably) been done to death in various forums. At the end of the day, it’s a personal matter. That said, I offer two (personal) observations:

• I have both digital and film cameras. I have owned film cameras for most of my life—that’s easily fifty years. I own one digital camera that I purchased in 2017. For reasons totally unknown to me, I simply take different photographs with film cameras than with digital cameras. I much prefer images that I make with film cameras. I also like the analog workflow—it’s slower and more deliberate. The only situation where I prefer digital technology is when practical needs dictate … something is needed quickly and must be distributed electronically.
• Analog photography, at its base, produces a physical object that is unique. In the unlikely event that I need to prove that any image I’ve made has been made by me and NOT by some AI I have the negatives. Of course, this means maintaining lots of physical binders, with documentation, etc., and that is inconvenient and could be destroyed by fire or flood … .

This is not to denigrate or in any way claim that one medium/workflow, etc., is superior; it’s a question of one’s interests and motivations.

 

[Godfrey]

I've never needed to prove to anyone that "I had the negatives or slides" to assert that I made the photographs...

I don't give a hoot about anything AI.

All of my images, whether film captures or digital captures, are archived as digital masters now ... all the film images are scanned at high resolution and stored with the digital captures. I couldn't care less what happens to the film after I've done that. Far as I'm concerned, it's simply a capture medium, just like all the sensors in all my various digital cameras are just capture mediums as well. I certainly don't have all the digital cameras I've been making photos with since 1987 or so.

What's important is the image data, which is completely independent of the capture medium, and, with regard to ownership and other forensic needs, the provenance of the image.

G

 

[Coldkennels]

Never thought you could travel with bulk loaded film. IXMOO and FILCA look like firearm cartridges! I have enough IXMOO for 400' and a couple thousand feet in the fridge, but, as you say, heavy, and if I ever lost them, they cost too much now to replace.

I actually almost left them at security in London City Airport a couple of years back - I got distracted by an argument over a bottle opener I had on my keys, and forgot about the film I'd handed over to hand-check. The security agent actually chased me down in the duty-free section after the security gates to give me them back. I could have kissed him!

 

[Coldkennels]

• Analog photography, at its base, produces a physical object that is unique. In the unlikely event that I need to prove that any image I’ve made has been made by me and NOT by some AI I have the negatives.

I've heard a few people make this claim recently. Considering how obtainable copy stands are, I'm very tempted to print an obviously GenAI-created image and photograph it onto film to "prove" that it's real...

 

[Vince Lupo]

Digital stinks — film rules!


At the Battle of Fredericksburg9 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


At the Battle of Fredericksburg16 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


Cedar Creek 2023-146 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

 

[Vince Lupo]

Sheesh what am I saying? Film stinks — digital rules!


Cedar Creek 2023-119 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


Cedar Creek 2023-28 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


Cedar Creek 2023-110 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

 

[steveyork]

Interesting seeing the film and digital shots side by side. Both great, but I like the film better. A lot of digital B&W you see on Flickr, ect., is so heavily contrast, and grabs way too much detail. Sharpness and contrast almost being used as a gimmick. I know that's a comment generally on the skill of the photographer, and not per se on technology, and recently I've seen some really good digital B&W, with good tonality and simplicity, but most of it is too contrasty, too sharp, too much detail for my individual tastes.

 

[Vince Lupo]

Yeah I’ve finally decided — film is better.


The Dance by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

 

[DwF]

A fun question: My photographic activity centers around my interaction with the world through my camera when I have it and often my interaction through seeing as though I have my camera in-hand. While most of my favorite cameras are or have been film cameras (real analog and hand-made mechanical devices), I am happy when I see an image (usually color) that was made with film. That is because I truly can see and feel that film has qualities giving it a distinct place in the photographic realm, regardless of those aspects of digital capture that might exceed those of film.

That brings me to process, ownership and storage. These are practical considerations. I can say hands-down that digital is easier in both processing files, and storing them for me. That leaves ownership. I have books of slides and negatives that I rarely visit. They belong to me, but they are only good as files of data (if you will) that I will interact with, to realize what they might have to offer, so in a sense they own me.

Finally, that brings me to the realization that many of the images that I've treasured throughout my life the most, are or were made on film, and finally when I see an image that is clearly one made on film, I smile, unless it is one that evokes some other emotion, in which case I celebrate the connection I have to the world through images that we call pictures.

David
when one evokes the other, that's good too!

 

[Tom R]

That could be a good idea for a project: an artifact of an artifact … an interesting question of recursion (or direct/indirect encounters, … )or some such thing. It might be harder to write a sensible and promising treatment than to actually do the project

 

[Bolo Kukus]

I read this with interest, thinking I might try it, and checked B&H:

1 roll of TriX: $8.99 / roll
100’ roll of Tri-X: $164.99 / 18 = $9.17 / roll

Am I missing something?

I resolved this one by going over to Ilford HP5. The most recent 'blend' of this superb Ilford film is (to me) better than the new TXP. It has a little more contrast, but the mid-tones are as good as those of the old TXP, and I find it responds better to a little creativity with the development times. For scanning I cut back development by 10%-15%, and this works just fine for me.

The old TXP was a truly magnificent film in its time. Then Kodak fiddled with it, and sadly the current verson is (for me) distinctly meh.

So it was an easy choice.

When there's a will and some lateral thinking, there is always a new way.

 

[DwF]

Thanks for your post Tom R. You have me with recursion which I looked up and found it's computer science application. The notion of "artifact of an artifact" already points to that with the exercise in identification, we are further distancing ourselves from what said image was to begin with, much less what spurred us to take the picture! 🙂

 

[JohnWolf]

Sheesh what am I saying? Film stinks — digital rules!


Cedar Creek 2023-119 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


Cedar Creek 2023-28 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


Cedar Creek 2023-110 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

There both very nice, but it's a good illustration of what's so lovely about BW film: texture.

 

[Vince Lupo]

There both very nice, but it's a good illustration of what's so lovely about BW film: texture.

Ah I’m good with either. Can’t tell you how many times people have mistaken one for the other, including one of the photos above.

 

[armadsen]

I resolved this one by going over to Ilford HP5. The most recent 'blend' of this superb Ilford film is (to me) better than the new TXP. It has a little more contrast, but the mid-tones are as good as those of the old TXP, and I find it responds better to a little creativity with the development times. For scanning I cut back development by 10%-15%, and this works just fine for me.

The old TXP was a truly magnificent film in its time. Then Kodak fiddled with it, and sadly the current verson is (for me) distinctly meh.

So it was an easy choice.

When there's a will and some lateral thinking, there is always a new way.

I mostly shoot HP5+ myself. But lately it’s gotten much more expensive than Tri-X in single rolls. If you bulk roll, it’s ~$8.60 so only marginally cheaper than single rolls of Tri-X.

 

[Godfrey]

I don't worry about what film costs any more. I don't shoot enough of it to drive me to bankruptcy. I buy a dozen rolls of what seems interesting, and I buy again when I'm down to two left. Sometimes it takes a year, sometimes it takes a month. Sometimes I find a bunch of old film in the junk bin at the recycling center. Like the very outdated Portra 400 (probably expired in 1997 or so) that I made this photo with:

Licker & Whine - Santa Clara 2026
Minox 35GT-E, Portra 400​

It all seems to work just fine for me, and the cost is inconsequential.

G

 

[Tom R]

Thanks for your post Tom R. You have me with recursion which I looked up and found it's computer science application. The notion of "artifact of an artifact" already points to that with the exercise in identification, we are further distancing ourselves from what said image was to begin with, much less what spurred us to take the picture! 🙂

Yeah … I was a Computer Scientist for a good 30+ years.I spent even more years of my life with algorithms. I retired to make photographs that defy algorithms … maybe in much the same way as Ionesco used language to deconstruct language … [as in his play, The Bald Soprano]. It looks as though humanity cannot resist the allure of algorithms; and this is not a good thing.

Thanks for your post Tom R. You have me with recursion which I looked up and found it's computer science application. The notion of "artifact of an artifact" already points to that with the exercise in identification, we are further distancing ourselves from what said image was to begin with, much less what spurred us to take the picture! 🙂

You are correct. Now I ask how much of this “distancing” is a result of the unquestioned embrace of the allure of the algorithm? Can I show how this looks in a photograph