Film shooters!! Come clean!!

Age and Comfort

Age and Comfort

I have owned a couple digital cameras and presently have an X100 which is great. However, I prefer film because I can use the camera and processes I learned in 1966 at 14 years of age.

Could get comfortable with a computer and digital workflow but don't really see a reason to do so for the photos I enjoy taking. As much as I enjoy the X100, I would give it away and keep the M or SLR with TriX.
 
thomasw_ said:
Not so sure all the older great photographers would not use film if they had the choice; in this regard, Elliott Erwitt comes to mind as one who still uses film
Click to expand...

Erwitt was born 1928. What do you expect?

My grandchildren will laugh at me in 50 years for using a retro digital camera when everyone else records holovideo through eye implants.
 
Speedfreak said:
Erwitt was born 1928. What do you expect?

My grandchildren will laugh at me in 50 years for using a retro digital camera when everyone else records holovideo through eye implants.
Click to expand...

1928-that old! what do you expect? Does that mean we can dispense with every if Ansel/HCB/Capa was alive they'd be using digital thread?

I mean old people will always want to use film, its only those who are young that understand!

Your digital in 50 years will be in landfill just like all the older 1 mp digicams from 1998.
There can never be retro in that sense because they are unlikely to function in 50 years.
In fact I have 3 dead D-cams here a Canon D30 an Agfa 1280 and a newer Fuji 6900 all long gone...
 
"Come clean"? Like we have some dirty little secret?

I think you're making a false comparison. The "greats" were professionals and I expect that the photojournalists amongst them would definitely use digital if they were still alive as they could get the photo to the editor's desk, complete with GPS coordinates, in seconds.

On the other hand, I'm an amateur who has shot film since 1974 and, whilst I also have digital cameras, I see no need to choose one or the other when I can have the best of both worlds.

If I had to choose one, it would be film as I love the process of loading, winding on and processing the photos. I also like the discipline of a finite roll of film onto which to burn my photographs - rather than the apparent benefit of being able to shoot dozens (or hundreds) of extra shots just for the hell of it.

Digital is fun and convenient but, in my opinion, film is worth the effort and the output is worth the wait...
 
Photo_Smith said:
Your digital in 50 years will be in landfill just like all the older 1 mp digicams from 1998.
There can never be retro in that sense because they are unlikely to function in 50 years.
In fact I have 3 dead D-cams here a Canon D30 an Agfa 1280 and a newer Fuji 6900 all long gone...
Click to expand...

I don't require my cameras to have a 50 years lifespan, but 10-15 yes. I've refrained trading in my M gear for a digital because I fear trading a reliable workhorse for something with no reliability history. I expect a camera costing thousands to be better built than a DVD player, but the failure rate of many electronic consumer products and the high cost of repairs vs replacing the item is very off-putting to me.

If digi were cheaper, I my go for it, but the few cameras that interest me cost too much. My closest techno gitzmo camera to anything digital is my Contax G system, but that was so cheap that I'm happy taking my chances on a short lifespan whenever some of its electronics go on the fritz.

To the OP, I shoot film because the cameras I like to use AND can afford are all film cameras. Given the convenience of digital, I would embrace it if the right camera came along (R-d2 @ $2000).
 
Photo_Smith said:
1928-that old! what do you expect? Does that mean we can dispense with every if Ansel/HCB/Capa was alive they'd be using digital thread?

I mean old people will always want to use film, its only those who are young that understand!

Your digital in 50 years will be in landfill just like all the older 1 mp digicams from 1998.
There can never be retro in that sense because they are unlikely to function in 50 years.
In fact I have 3 dead D-cams here a Canon D30 an Agfa 1280 and a newer Fuji 6900 all long gone...
Click to expand...

What makes you think there wont be "retro" digital cameras for us then old buffs in 50 years from now? They will do less in a more cumbersome way and will be more expensive than the then current technology. Exactly like film today.
 
For me, shooting film is a road down memory lane. I started in Photography as a teenager when my DAD bought me my 1st 35mm RF camera for $50.00 (Voigtlander Prominent V1 with a 5cm f/1.5 Nokton 🙂, wish I still had today). He also added an equipped darkroom with an Omega B8 enlarger, and got me started in this hobby. He was Wedding and Portrait photographer before he got married. Anyway.. There was a long spell, that I didn't do much as far as serious photography in any one genre'.

After I was over 45 years old, I got "serious" and I do enjoy street photography, although I only been a few times. I have looked at the work of many street photographers, past and current. I am just glad I get a few that might show some interaction with a deeper thoughtfulness. I really don't try to copy anyone, but, more on technique on how the photo communicates to the viewers.
 
Personally, I've no real romanticism for film, although understand how others could. I shoot film solely for the shooting experience, as nothing matches the back to basics shooting experience of a film M for me, which allows me to focus solely on looking and seeing. If they made something like a film M, only with a sensor for film and which was affordable to me, I would not be shooting film. Digital for me has caught up on almost all of the key image quality variables for me, and would be happy to commit to digital and begin to learn that media like many people did with film before it.
 
Paul Jenkin said:
"Come clean"? Like we have some dirty little secret?

I think you're making a false comparison. The "greats" were professionals and I expect that the photojournalists amongst them would definitely use digital if they were still alive as they could get the photo to the editor's desk, complete with GPS coordinates, in seconds.

On the other hand, I'm an amateur who has shot film since 1974 and, whilst I also have digital cameras, I see no need to choose one or the other when I can have the best of both worlds.

If I had to choose one, it would be film as I love the process of loading, winding on and processing the photos. I also like the discipline of a finite roll of film onto which to burn my photographs - rather than the apparent benefit of being able to shoot dozens (or hundreds) of extra shots just for the hell of it.

Digital is fun and convenient but, in my opinion, film is worth the effort and the output is worth the wait...
Click to expand...
Nice rant indeed.
 
Mr. Erwitt actually uses digital, at least from time to time. I know this because when I happened to meet him a few years ago, he was using a 5D Mark II.

thomasw_ said:
Not so sure all the older great photographers would not use film if they had the choice; in this regard, Elliott Erwitt comes to mind as one who still uses film by choice even though he could be using digital.
Click to expand...
 
No way to answer this hypothetical question obviously but the odds are that most members of the dead photographers society would shoot digitally today for the same reasons most everyone else shoots digital today who works in small format. Ansel Adams and the great landscape photographers would likely continue to use film.
 
I hate to break it to you, but there are still some modern day "greats" who still use film. I use film because I love it and I love printing it, clients pay me to use it and I am making a heck of a name for my self in pushing it forward.

You might want to get off of the Internet, it is clouding your judgement....
 
No fantasy here. I am not trying to be or to pattern my shooting after a great film photographer or to be anyone but who I am. I don't care whither others are shooting film or digital. I have had a D300 and D700 which were both great cameras, but both were sold to make room for a couple of film Leicas. I have a M8.2 that doesn't see much use. I take it out for a day every couple of months and then I happily return to my film cameras just because I like them and I like the results I get with film. - Jim
 
kshapero said:
How many of us who shoot film are just playing out a fantasy that you are aspiring to be one of the greats of old (Robert Capa comes to mind)? Cause when you think about it, if they were alive today, they would most likely be shooting only digital. Come clean or is it just me?😀
Click to expand...

I think you're just having a mid photo life crisis. You'll get over it one way or the other. It's a confidence thing... 😀
 
umcelinho said:
135 = cheapest solution of that era for taking a huge amount of shots in a short period maintaining a minimum level of image quality and detail, right? that applies to digital nowadays.
Click to expand...

Sorry to contradict a fellow chap from South America (I am a bit further North on the Andes). I think you are right that 35mm was the cheapest solution before digital to shot a lot and keep a minimun quality level but I don't think this is the only reason for digital to be popular now. Back in the days I don't think there were many commercial photographers not using Polaroids to set their lights and now you can do it so much more easily with digital. Also, these days there is almost no magazine, advertising company, whatever which is not turning the image to a digital file for printing, even if the image come from a film, so there is no reason really to use film. Finally, todays super multi megapixel cameras are not "the minimum quality" tools, they are reallly incredibly good for almost anything you may get commisioned, to pass their quality you need either very large pieces of film or a digital back but then the price just skyrocket and usually it is not justified. Finally, back at the time of film you might have had an incredibly hard time while on assignment and be back with no usable picture at all (you might have had a unique technically hugly picture like some of Capa's and publish anyway but that's an extreme case), now you know for sure that you will go back home with some image, maybe not art but enough to fulfill the contract and I guess this is a huge appeal for sport, action, wedding, whatever which happens only once photographers (not to speak of the 12/24/60 frames per seconds which were once only in the realm of science labs and are now available in sub 2,000US$ cameras). To the other extrem of the spectrum, for most people not interested in photography a small digital camera is a huge step ahed in quality if compared to the old point and shot of just a decade ago (remember that most people are simply not interested in learning the technique needed to use a SLR or a rangefinder film camera but they do like to take pictures of pets, kids, friends, trips just like many readers of this forum possibly like to eat nice food which they cannot prepare). Ah, just to be clear, I do like film and use it a lot for fun but simply for most works and for most people digital is now more convenient in every respect and that's why everyone uses it, not "because you can take a lot of pictures at a cheap price".

GLF
 
I shoot film, use manual cameras, listen to vinyl and drive old cars. In order to get into digital I should throw everything away and spend thousands of dollars on new equipment? No, not me. Film is as good as it ever was, its the processing that went downhill. Great film cameras are available at bargain prices.

Digital is fine, great even, for some. My IPhone is all the digital I need right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom