Experts: Explain WHY you shoot film to NEWBIES

[kxl]

Primarily, I shoot film for the darkroom experience. There are no words to describe the excitement one gets from first pulling out a roll of processed film from the tank and seeing those reverse images.
If, for some reason, I did not or could not develop my own film, then I would likely only shoot digital.

Secondarily, I like the RF experience and do not have the werewithal to buy a FF DRF

 

[ray*j*gun]

MF film scanned well cannot be beat for detail..... any film wet printed will still produce more and smother grads in B&W... of course this is why I shoot film and therefore is my opinion.

Oh and what Keith said....darkroom fun cannot be beat!

 

[andre mueller]

I shoot film because for me, it's a more dedicated, committed process.
When I shoot, I commit to metering and shooting fully manual, developing, drying, scanning, editing and sharing.

And for me, this dedication not only increases my appreciation of the photograph but also, as said here before, the quality of the image.

Somebody here on the forum said 'it's a labour of love... and love is never waisted on the lover'.

 

[Ranchu]

This right here.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=138941

 

[Bill Clark]

I'm 65. Old fart!

Had my first darkroom in the late 1950's! Learned it all on my own. No classes, no mentor or coach. Got to know a gent who helped me around year 2000.

Like the look of film, especially black & white. Can't beat a true black and white print made in the darkroom. Ink jet is getting real close though.

I have to confess I'm kinda of a nerd. When photography changed from analog to digital I fell right into it. Didn't have any problems, so I can use either method, doesn't make any difference to me.

People I have as clients like digital as they can see the image instantly. Many of them are older, executive types who want to look younger. I've told this before, I was making head shot photos of an executive and was showing him on back of the camera. I said, "I can take 10 years off of your face in PS." His eyes started to sparkle as he said to me, "Bill, can you make it twenty?"

When I make photos of some younger adults, they kind of like it when I drag out an old Leica, Rollie or Hassy. I can use that old stuff to get expressions that look like they're relaxed and having fun. My wife has said when I carry, on a strap around my neck, an old Rollie she calls it a chick magnet! Smiles!

 

[Athiril]

I enjoy it, it's fun. The variety of camera equipment is vast so you get to use something that's a different experience to most digital cameras.

I like the colour of Portra for portraits. The integral masking does what it's supposed to do and gives superior relative hues.

I don't need to underxpose my subject to avoid blowing highlights, I can expose normally and decide what to do with highlights later at any stage.

The same goes for blown out colour, where you lose gradation in very strong colours, like in the saturation, when given normal exposure, such as a vivid red dress, which happens to me on the digital shots.

I can choose from extreme grit to extreme detail.

I don't need to keep up in a race of obsolescence

 

[Paul Jenkin]

I don't regard myself as an expert and, particularly as this topic is about my personal preference, newbies should make up their own mind and not rely on my (or anyone else's advice).

I've used film since the early 1970s and, although I have a number of digital cameras (D800, X-Pro1, etc) most of what I shoot is still film. Why, because I love the process from loading to seeing the end result - negatives and prints. Film doesn't pretend or even try to be perfect - and those imperfections are to be cherished, not eradicated, IMO.

If, on the other hand, you want clinical, colour perfect, quick and convenient, highly detailed files from which you can produce countless, flawless clones, digital is for you. Nothing wrong in that at all, it just isn't my main objective - but sometimes it fits the bill.

Try an old Pentax Spotmatic full of Tri-X and see if you like the end result. All I would ask is that you don't dismiss film as obsolete. Make an INFORMED choice; don't follow like a sheep.

 

[pleniv01]

Because the tools you use influence your process. In the same way that writing with a pen, a typewriter, and a computer are all still writing - but totally different experiences. You might be able to type astonishingly fast, but you may also enjoy the sensation of writing with a fine fountain pen, or even practising spencerian script with a flexible steel nib.

I only have one digital camera, a Canon rebel I bought five or six years ago. But I have eight or nine film cameras of various types - folders, RFs, SLRs, even a 1920s Ansco box and they each offer their own distinct enjoyment of use.

A similar idea can be applied to films, developers, papers, and processes. If photography is an experience for you, rather than a clinical craft - it's nice to have some variety in your equipment and technique. See how new tools and materials change your approach and consequently effect.

From an Art perspective I appreciate using slide film on a personal level because of the thought that each of my slides is not only unique, but that each slide is a portion of film that was physically present at the location of the shot, and that the very light which touched my subjects whatever they may have been - also touched my slide. It is a sort of authenticity that cannot be matched through prints, film or digital. Might not mean anything to some, but it means a lot to me.

Well said, thanks.

 

[mfogiel]

I think it would actually be shorter to say why I would ever want to shoot digital?
I would shoot digital only if:
- I would not care for the result to be archival
- I would not care for it to be in B&W
- I would not care for it to look the way I think my photos should
- I would not care to derive pleasure from the process
- I would not care to learn improving my photography through a slow feedback loop

 

[Capt. E]

Digital has blown away many photo professions...retouchers, hand colorists, film manufacturers...etc. It is simply because of the ease of use. Digital has made the casual amateur a better technical photographer, but it sure doesn't make them better artistically. Having a good eye has not changed and, to me, a mechanical film camera helps. Being able to "shoot" hundreds of pictures and then choose the best two or three has no appeal to me. I honor those people who can wait, watch and "Make" a photograph with one or two exposures. I like to think I am one of them. Film helps push that along. Recently I pulled out my 60 year old Nikon S-2 rangefinder (which still works perfectly), put in a roll of Tri-x and fell in love with it again. Next I am going to get out my 4x5, load 5 holders or so and go out for the day. I won't need more than those 10 exposures and I will come away with better photographs.

 

[Richard G]

1. Why I did after getting a good digital camera in 2004:
- annual January holiday slides of the children, indelible colour, easily storeable, 50 years-plus discoverable. (Yes, appropriately paranoid about the longevity of a particular digital file.)
- and this kept my M6 and M2 in use.

2. Why I used film more after January 2008:
- on the usual beach holiday I took my first roll of Fuji Velvia. There were distinguishing marks of my first morning walk with that roll of film in my M6 with the 35 Summicron a. At the cost of precisely $36 it was a dollar per shot. b. I am sure my concentration was aided by the pain from ribs I broke the day before. I never before set out with such intent to take well-considered, well-framed, carefully exposed photographs. I took 10 shots, four of them keepers. Film will do that to you. Later came the Rolleiflex: just 12 shots on the roll. I say that like it's a good thing.

3. Why I kept shooting film from then:
- there was no serious digital camera that I considered buying until the D3 and that was far too expensive and far too big.
- I was getting some lovely results on film, especially Tri X amd Rollei Retro 100.
- after joining RFF I learnt more about the properties of different films and the character of different lenses and these were all linked to the equipment I already had. I knew what I would get before I raised the camera to my eye.
- colour negative film can take a hell of a lot of overexposure and that's important in the blazing Australian sun, but also with interior shots, exposing for the shadows and still seeing some detail outside through windows.
- the reliability of always-on of a fully manual camera, and the simple mode options of film: I've missed many digital shots on the street from forgetting I'd ramped up the ISO for inside, no longer had the camera on, or slow wake-up from sleep.
- ultra-small full-frame option of the Leica II and its fully collapsible 50mm lens.

 

[johannielscom]

Roger's got most of the arguments covered in a single post, as he is known to do more often!

All I can add is my personal choices, and bring in a new reason with that.

The vintage and more modern film camera gear is a joy to use once you have settled on what you like best to handle. Apart from the stuff in my signature I have owned and loved a Leica M2, Leica M6 classic 0.85, Nikkormats, Rolleiflex 2.8F and a Tele-Rolleiflex. The arrival of another joy-to-use camera, the Ricoh GXR, signaled the farewell from those that remained, some had been sold earlier. In medium format, I still own and shoot a Zeiss-Ikon Super Ikonta B and an Ensign.

Meanwhile, I'm still trying to develop anything like 'experience' when it comes to creating images with that specific film look, that cannot be created with digital. Sometimes I succeed, often I fail miserably, but the processes of handling film, developing, editing, scanning and post-processing I enjoy greatly.

New reason for shooting film: Occasionally I do a paid assignment. Bringing both a digital and a film camera always inspires awe with at least a number of people present, sparks some interesting conversations and helps to get across that I'm sufficiently professional to actually shoot a fully manual camera and get good results from it. People are interested in taking my business card, keeping in touch and hiring me for a similar assignment. This was specifically true with the Rolleiflexes, I need to add.

Close to three years since I wrote this and while some of my film an digital gear has changed and adding I work as a photographer now, everything else is as spot-on today as it was back then.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I hope I'm not breaking rules for this thread. I'm not expert. But I'll dare to whisper.
I like rangefinders. I like Leica rangefinders. I don't have money for digital Leica rangefinders.
I don't like digital bw, I'm so-so with bw film scans, I like darkroom prints.
All photography I like, all names in photography I respect are with film and only.

Cheers, Ko.

Oh! I like made in Canada gear. The only cameras made here at the door steps are Kodak Browne and Leica M4-2, M4P.

 

[Dektol Dan]

Film is What It Is

Film is What It Is

Just like with music, start with analog for the record, digital for reproduction.

What digital can match the tonal/color gradations here? Ektar:

 

[ww2photog]

The less technology between me and my subject, the more creative I feel. Manual camera, no meter, any less and I'd be a painter.

 

[littleearth]

No need to upgrade ! I can relax and enjoy my photography, knowing my negatives will stand the test of time.
The output is much more interesting than digital.
Digital cameras are great for commercial work and pay the bills.

 

[Antielectrons]

Film is above all an aesthetic choice for me. I just prefer how it looks.

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

I am the guy who woke up one day and discovered the joys of photography in 2009 and then tried film in 2010 and never looked back. In fact, i went back to the future and started doing darkroom printing in 2015.

I work in technology and using film cameras is a relaxing hobby. I aspire to be a master printer some day, this is something really hard and has no monetary value but ultimately very rewarding to do.

 

[charjohncarter]

I'm not an expert either, but I can identify expert film photographers by their tone, dynamic range, development technique, and the softness or hardness their images have (this might be related to development technique). When I see a modern digital image I can tell nothing except maybe genre or style. In fact I can't remember any digital photographers work just names.

 

[Timmyjoe]

A whole host of reasons. I love the feel of the old film cameras in my hands. I love the simplicity of the controls on old film cameras. It brings me back to when I first fell in love with photography in the early 1970's. I love the tactile feel of unloading a 35mm cassette and loading the film onto a stainless steel reel, in total darkness (closest to ZEN I come to in my day to day life). I like the idea that it takes talent and knowledge to expose and process film properly. And I love the feeling of being more in control of the process of creating an image, from what I've already pre-visualized, to selecting the right film to capture the image, to exposing it properly, to processing it to get the highlights, shadows, contrast, etc. that I've pre-visualized, (and in the old days when I still had a wet darkroom, selecting the paper and exposing and processing it to create the image I pre-visualized).

I think what it comes down to for me is that I've loved to make photographs since I was a kid, and shooting film lets me be much more involved in the process of making photographs than shooting digital does. It's about the process.