digital users...what would entice you back to film?

[clayne]

Everyone always says time, but they almost never bring up the real time costs of screwing around behind a computer in order to actually finish the digital stuff.

False economy.

 

[bugmenot]

Calling people lazy is a bit much. Not everybody has spare time for film processing. ._.

Everyone always says time, but they almost never bring up the real time costs of screwing around behind a computer in order to actually finish the digital stuff.

False economy.

However, you forget that a lot of us are behind computers anyway. Might as well multitask.

 

[clayne]

Calling people lazy is a bit much. Not everybody has spare time for film processing. ._.

Then pay for it?

However, you forget that a lot of us are behind computers anyway. Might as well multitask.

Ah multi-tasking, yet more false economy.

How does one multi-task processing an image at the same time as other things? Have you mastered independent control of each eyeball?

 

[Jubb Jubb]

Kodachrome being processed and made again!

I've never shot kodachrome, and would love to very much.

 

[bwcolor]

I think that the "no time" argument is valid for those just starting into film, especially color. If you limit yourself to B&W, one developer, scanning with Vuescan and you enjoy the shooting discipline which must be adopted, then repetition makes the process pretty transparent and for the most part a multi-tasking effort along with house chores and the honey-do list.

My pet love is Velvia 50. I can live without Kodachrome, but I must say that when my father nailed his exposure on his Argus C3 (a somewhat rare occurance), his Kodachrome shots from over fifty plus years ago still look great. I doubt that many of the current digital files will still exist in fifty five years.

 

[mathomas]

Everyone always says time, but they almost never bring up the real time costs of screwing around behind a computer in order to actually finish the digital stuff.

False economy.

Heh. I shoot film very happily, but I spend a lot of time screwing around behind a computer to actually finish my scans. My lab can't do them right. I don't mind it, but it is time.

 

[gilpen123]

I didn't actually stopped, I just slowed down on film a lot. That is mainly because of the RD1, M8, X100 and OMD. It just gives me very good color output but still missing the real thing on film B&W output. So now, just as some here, I may use mostly film on B&W and color on digital. I still have about 100 hundred B&W films in my ref.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Very well said and couldn't agree more. Too many just plain lazy people complaining. Why should I care to look at someone's photographs who harbors the attitude of "film is too much work?" Looking at mediocre mind-numbing digital photography is too much work.

Photography is extremely diluted now with too few a gem and way too much noise.

I think you could say much the same about those using film. Regardless of the medium there has always been more mediocre mind numbing images than gems. Yes, it is always a bad thing when the riff raff are allowed access to dilute an elitist form of art such as photography. Always enjoyed it when someone harbours that attitude too. Personally I don't much care what medium someone else uses, each to their own.

Bob

 

[Dave Jenkins]

Some might find it helpful to read Kirk Tuck's post about scanning (with a cheap scanner, no less).

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2012/06/window-light-in-early-evening.html

 

[Aristophanes]

Everyone always says time, but they almost never bring up the real time costs of screwing around behind a computer in order to actually finish the digital stuff.

False economy.

But the other false economy is the added cost of processing, scanning (time + equipment), and printing, if one wants real prints which is the whole point of film photography.

The tech exists to have processing and scanning and printing done automatically at high-res and accuracy (C-41 and E-6) in volume.

My time editing for digital is minimal. A few presets and knowledge of camera is all that is necessary and is much, much faster than anything in darkroom.

The happy medium was always the lab, where an automated and (usually) highly accurate system delivered the goods. But the kicker these days is high-speed, high-res, affordable scans to give film the assist it needs to compete in the digital age.

A computer can do multiple things besides edit photos, so their cost is spread out amongst many useful economic activities. An enlarger can't vacuum the floor.

 

[NickTrop]

As a former film die hard, there's really very little that can be done. With DSLRs shrunk down in size, down to comparable pricing (to what a film SLR cost "back in the day" adjusted for inflation), availability (at long last) of some decent affordable primes, battery life very good, and image quality comparable to film - clean high ISO... especially color, and a variable iso. There is nothing really in small format that can compete.

What advantages does it have?

1. The sheer fun of shooting a roll
2. The sheer fun of using a classic camera
3. Large format sensor "in your pocket" (smaller film cameras like the Olympus XA).
4. Medium and large format - of which no digital sensor can affordably match.

Digital has made incremental gains release cycle after release cycle to where the IQ comes close to small format IQ in good light/slower speed film and actually exceeds it in low light - especially color.

Sorry to see it happen (not sure why).

 

[giellaleafapmu]

Not so much anymore. The better I get at exposing and processing RAW files the more I'm finding them better than film. But then I don't scan film.

Yep, probably you are right here, still I find something (possibly existing only in my mind) in prints from large format film cameras which I hardly see in digital images. I am not sure whether this "something" really exists but this one reason is why I sometimes still enjoy using view cameras. I guess that soon it will be clear that, at least from a technical point of view, digital image has become clearly much better than film based one, even in this respect of the tonal range that only the nostalgia aspect will survive. Still for now I find that some image taken with a view camera is hard to replicate using a digital camera (I mean, using accessible digital gear, possibly the latest digital back is there already but that's not something which I have readily access to).

GLF

 

[mathomas]

+1. Great points.

As a former film die hard, there's really very little that can be done. With DSLRs shrunk down in size, down to comparable pricing (to what a film SLR cost "back in the day" adjusted for inflation), availability (at long last) of some decent affordable primes, battery life very good, and image quality comparable to film - clean high ISO... especially color, and a variable iso. There is nothing really in small format that can compete.

What advantages does it have?

1. The sheer fun of shooting a roll
2. The sheer fun of using a classic camera
3. Large format sensor "in your pocket" (smaller film cameras like the Olympus XA).
4. Medium and large format - of which no digital sensor can affordably match.

Digital has made incremental gains release cycle after release cycle to where the IQ comes close to small format IQ in good light/slower speed film and actually exceeds it in low light - especially color.

Sorry to see it happen (not sure why).

 

[rhl-oregon]

If I could:
Step 1 - put exposed film in a postage paid mailer
Step 2 - received by lab next day ( like Netflix seems to receive my movies)
Step 3 - same day process, high res scan, upload to cloud based service for viewing, download or online photoshop
Step 4 - receive my negs by return mail along with another mailer
Step 5 - automatically charge my PP for $10 or prepay 12 rolls for $100.

I use this model locally, with Dot Dotson's Photo on Willamette Street in Eugene. They've been in business continually for generations, and have adapted. It's more like $13 than $10 including a hi-rez CD; that suits my pocketbook, unless/until I decide to do my own scanning. But yes, a Netflix model with cloud options would be great.

 

[kanzlr]

the #1 reason to use film, for me, is that I enjoy using these cameras.
That, and the good quality modern Films provide.

 

[rluka]

Someone else who stock and pay for the film and processing. 😀
Really have no interest in doing the darkroom despite many peoples saying that doing darkroom process for your own work will deepen your understanding about the meaning of life and universe (hyperbole).

That said, I had one feet on each side (film and digital) and still in the group that have shooting pictures as recreation rather than serious interest.

 

[bugmenot]

Right now, after looking at some 6x9 transparencies and prints, I think a medium format rangefinder (6x9) and about 20 rolls of a combination of Velvia 100F, Provia 400X, and Ektachrome 100G, with perhaps some Portra 400 for those pesky negatives would be enough to make me shoot film for the whole summer ... if only the above could be free ... *sigh*

 

[Nelson Tan]

I love both film and digital photography, and I've great gear on both ends of the pond. I shoot film because I love the tactile experience of loading the film and the creamy smooth wind-on. But I want to share my images and I absolutely loath the time taken to scan the film images. I still shoot film, but I'd shoot a lot more film if there's a quick and painless way to scan my film (35mm and 120mm) with a great scanner that cost not more than $2k. Something that can pull out the details in the shadow/highlight in one scan, automatically retouches the dust spots, and give me accurate and clean colours right off the bat even with color negative film. But of course, I must be dreaming...

 

[Aristophanes]

I love both film and digital photography, and I've great gear on both ends of the pond. I shoot film because I love the tactile experience of loading the film and the creamy smooth wind-on. But I want to share my images and I absolutely loath the time taken to scan the film images. I still shoot film, but I'd shoot a lot more film if there's a quick and painless way to scan my film (35mm and 120mm) with a great scanner that cost not more than $2k. Something that can pull out the details in the shadow/highlight in one scan, automatically retouches the dust spots, and give me accurate and clean colours right off the bat even with color negative film. But of course, I must be dreaming...

They do it in the motion picture industry. It's called a digital intermediate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_intermediate

The technology is there for quality and speed. What is an issue is the cost.

 

[kanzlr]

hm....I use digital and film, and I am not much slower with film.
I drop it off for development in the morning, pick it up on the way home, and after 45 min to an hour I have all 36 exposures scanned and edited. Nikon ICE helps with dust. What takes so long for you?