appeal of film over digital?

I have absolutely no incentive to go back to film. I don't miss it. I do miss the cameras, but not the process of shooting and developing film, which I did for decades. The day I sold my last film camera is the day I shut down my darkroom. I missed it at first, but not anymore. I guess it just depends on how and what you shoot.
 
I shoot both film and digital.

For both 35mm and MF film a part of why I shoot film is due to the experience of using older cameras. The process is slower and more tactile. With MF it also adds things like waist level finders. I find I see differently through one, partially because the point of view is different. MF has a somewhat different look too, though with fast lenses you can get very close to that on digital.

It can also be things like shooting in formats that aren't readily available on digital such as 6x17, 6x24 or sweep lens panoramic. Or the fun of shooting cameras you built (or repaired) yourself (6x12, 6x17 and 6x24). or possibly shooting much more technically with a camera that has movements.

My S1R has many different aspect ratios and I do use the 2:1, 65:24 and 1x1 regularly to get some of that back. I also built a multi camera setup to get the sweep lens look on digital.

With film you are also a bit more constrained by your film choice (color/B&W/ISO), camera/lens choice (different ARs etc) and your exposure. That makes me visualize more before you shoot. You can force digital to be pretty close to the same by shooting JPEG and use the files SOOC.

The cost of film is part of it too. Knowing there is a dollar sign every time I click the shutter makes me slow down and be more thoughtful. I get 3 shots per roll on a 6x24 camera for example. Likewise the extra time processing the film, scanning the film and then processing those files makes me more selective in what I shoot as well.

On the flip side if I am shooting an event with tons going on I am shooting digital all the way. In that situation it isn't about batting averages but about getting the shots.
 
Last edited:
John Gellings summed up a lot of it for me. I feel that using a filter to make digital look like film is somehow fake. I shoot film and digital, and I photograph film negs to make prints with my epson.

This is my ‘scanning’ station

IMG_3795.jpeg

I shoot black and white film because I like the cameras I have, the process and the prints I make. I mostly shoot colour in digital.

I like the process to have its imprint on the output - digital and film have different brushstrokes, so I don’t try to make one look like the other. This is important to me, but not to everyone of course, but the digital ‘culture’ is to synthesise everything else.

I like the image etched in silver on the developed negative - James Ravillious talked about that - the physical connection between the subject, the light and the moment held by silver in gelatine is more meaningful to me than an infinitely malleable digital file.

Perhaps this last is the most important - it’s the reason I scan with high digital resolution, so my prints include something of the silver structure that makes the image and not just aliasing patterns from the sensor interacting with the film grain. Not to get more detail, but to include the structure of the actual photographic image.

It’s a bit romantic, but perhaps we need a bit of romance in all this.

Mike
 
The appeal of film over digital is threefold:

1) The process of loading a camera and going out knowing your camera is loaded.
2) The agonising wait to see if THIS time the film will come back with maybe two decent images on it.
3) The knowledge that you have a limited amount of images that you can take so you have to be more focused on what you're doing and why.

The appeal of digital over analogue is threefold:

1) Once you've read and understood the manual, you can experiment with effects in-camera and see the results and keep or discard them.
2) You can faff about in-camera with the exposure your going to give, or even have given, to the image and see the results in-camera.
3) You have a practically unlimited number of photos you can take and so can be unrestrained with how many photos you can take, and then review and assess them at leasiure in a cafe or something and try and work out which ones work and don't, and work out why and hopefully improve.

I would've mentioned Image Stabilisation but not every digital camera has that, as far as I can tell.
 
After using (enjoying) Fujifilm X-Pro3 and XT-3 for about one year, I sold the system and went back almost completely to using film. I very much liked the idea of a rather small digital rangefinder-like camera (X-Pro3) that allows me to photograph in a similar way as I did with my Leicas in the past plus the benefit of AF (!) and I found the Fujifilm approach of film simulation very appealing.

Unfortunately, it didn't work out for me. When uploading the image files to my computer after some days of shooting, I briefly looked at them and was asking myself "and then?". Something was missing. I couldn't even be bothered to look at those images later, don't really remember what I actually shot. During that time the Valoi company came up with the easy35 scanning set-up and that brought me back to BW film. Developing one roll takes me about 20 minutes and I can scan a roll of film in about the same time. I get good scans from my negatives and I have all the stuff to get back into darkroom printing, once I can overcome procrastinating that last step.

For color photography and the benefit of AF and high ISO I bough the Nikon ZF. Full-frame so I can use my mix of lenses (Leica, Nikon, Voigtländer) in either manual mode or AF (TECHART TMZ-02) almost in the same way as with my Leica cameras. I have used a friend's Leica M10 Monochrome and M10-R occasionally, very nice cameras, gives the RF feeling in a certain way but Leica for me means film... I don't think there is any rationale for shooting film given the high cost for film and in my case due to the age of the cameras their unreliability but the fun factor makes it up for me.
 
Last edited:
I like digital for my color work and film for black and white. There is a joy I get out of printing a nice fiber base print. But you can't beat digital for convienence.
 
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...
If the question was ‘Do these images look as though they were shot on film?’, I’m afraid my answer is that these ones look very much digital in origin. But in many other cases it is virtually impossible to tell.
 
So far as practical matters go, If you want prints, shoot on film. If your work is only going to be displayed electronically, then there really is no point to shooting on film, outside of the entertainment factor. I've never seen or touched a digital print that measured up to a gelatin silver print.

For conceptual reasons, I do prefer film, because there is an authenticity in the final product (print or slide) that is not obtainable with digital. Just for example, with slides, the slide that you get, that you hold, that you project, is the film that was in the camera when the shot was made. It was there, and the light reflected off the subject formed the image on it. There's no real equivalent to that in a digital workflow. A contact print is much the same, the print itself may not have been present at the scene, but it touched the negative that was. There is a tangible connection between final image and reality. When I make a print from an 1890s glass plate in my collection, I'm handling the same glass that the photographer was holding back in 1899. The same glass that was struck by the light that fell on the scene the photographer was capturing for posterity. That's something.

J. J. Albright by Berang Berang, on Flickr
 
I Keep costs down by developing and scanning my own b/w. Slide film is out of the question but colour print film has a nice pastel look I like occasionally, but usually would use digital for most colour.
I have TLRs and a couple of mechanical rangefinders. They would be very pricey to replicate in digital. I have always been reticent about the upfront costs of digital as I have invested good money in it in the past which did not justify the outlay. I have most of my film gear and only really have to worry about film cost and will be bulk rolling soon to get that cost down further. I do prefer the whole analog process also and prefer black and white too
 
I like the look of B&W film. The easiest way to achieve this look is to just use B&W film. I like the cameras too, but also like my Fuji XT2, and use it for color sometimes.
 
I like both film and digital, and shoot about half and half each type. I love the process of film where I roll my own B&W, and will also process my own C41. However, if my focus is on the final image and I want an extra level of sharpness, it's the M11 with a Voigtlander 40mm Heliar.

..Avery
 
JMO, but if your happy with results you get with your M10 set-up but still have the bug for film why not try a different format of film such as 120 or 4x5. A possible good place to start might be a fixed lens TLR and Kodak Gold 200 and sending the film out to be developed and scanned or B&W 120 film if your already set-up for home processing and scanning.
I haven't touched my M10 since Oct 2023 as I've kept busy shooting with my M2, Fuji 645W and RicohFlex 120 camera and Crown Graphic.
Currently I'm trying to decide whither to keep M10 or sell it to get an 8x10 camera.
 
My main purpose for photography (35mm to 5x7) is for recording, documentation and archival purposes. And I have decided that, for me, black and white film is the best way to go.
These days snap shots are done mostly with my i-phone.
 
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...

Your steel rim reissue jewel has focus tab. This and knowledge of DOF, allows to focus as fast and much confident than typical AF camera. Buzzing landscape @f1.4 with falling star? All you need to do is to turn focus tab to the right. It is going to be faster and more reliable focus than AF thingy hunting in the dark.

Film meterless M Leica (if you get good copy) is one of the fastest cameras to shot I ever used. Because it has no waky up time, metering quirks. All is done in your head and by you fingers. Only two years of daily practice is required to achieve this speed and steady. Good copy has light to turn shutter speed dial.

I like DxO film like presets. Like any preset they degrade image quality, but it looks much funky with over-contrast and color shifts, odd WB.

Crowd is blind, as always and even more these days. How images are watched now? Via trashy insta and on oversaturating apple screens. Everything looks the same, film and digital.

If you ain't blind and not too lazy, spend some time to go where prints are shown (not always under paid submission).

And read the labels, not a useless titles, but camera info. Soon you will see the difference between typical phone files, M43 and digital MF.

Same will come for film, Cartier-Bresson, Arbus and Adams. You will see film formats difference.

And you will see difference between BW film and monochrome. And not too huge, but noticeable difference between color on film and on digital. Via prints.

Well, to me optical color prints from negatives are superior to anything digital.

But where are those who can't frame on the spot (croppers) and those who needs it on two meters prints. Digital is great for it. Results... often it looks sublimated, primitive and lifeless. Comparing to film. Yet, I like to click on landscape on Flickr, where good people upload full size, I click on M43 image to see it in 1:1 and it is awesome on its own. Everything in focus, resolution is not clinical, but good enough. You can't get it with film Leica. :)

It is not a secret, everything looks more interesting if taken on film. I have no deep technical explanation.

The difference, in general, is way too obvious to miss it. Film and analog prints are molecules. Digital is 01 and dots.
 
The end result should be a large part of the justification. There is a mood imparted by the way the bite of film separates the elements, even shrouds them. With colour it can be the same. And then there’s the actual colours, with different films. I do mostly digital, but have stayed with film for the occasional magic. I don’t try to emulate film in digital processing. I love my old cameras. The processes are important. But my original Monochrom M, a little more than my M9-P, quickens the pulse like with film in anticipation of what I know I could get, and especially as in the hand it’s no different to that first roll of Tri-X in my M2 getting on for 50 years ago.

Kodak Color Plus 200, 1950s 50 Elmar. Here I’d say that film has amplified the abstraction. Reducing clarity in Lightroom would do something similar with digital.


Gertrude St by Richard, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom