Film shooters!! Come clean!!

I prefer to shoot medium format film because many of my favorites are panoramic cameras.

Digital stitching has no appeal because it's too much like cheating.

I enjoy setting planning my photos, attempting to capture the best image I can, each time I activate the shutter.

I see so many pictures posted on line which, for the life of me, can't figure out how they were thought to be special in any way.

I want my pictures to tell a story or capture a memory.

So I don't take nearly as many pictures as I used to, finding that I just don't take a shot that doesn't seem to have value once I frame it.

Maybe crazy, but that's the way I am.

Texsport
 
To come back to this, I suppose one can tackle the premise of the question and that is that there is no advantage or reason to shooting film over digital and that the only reason to do so would be nostalgia. This is very much not the case, but whether the very real differences between digital and film matter are personal to each individual.

They matter to me and, had I shot film, I would have saved myself a lot of time and money with some of the projects I have done. I would not have achieved the same visual results though, hence my decision to shoot film.
 
giellaleafapmu said:
Most digital cameras are not made of plastic, all professional lines are not and even many pocket cameras such as Sony Powershots line are not and many film camera were actually made of plastic, so what is the point in making a new term of "plasticam".
Click to expand...

The above is a distortion of facts.

The majority of all digital cameras are indeed constructed mainly of plastic. Only the absolute top of digital cameras are primarily metal in construction. On the flip-side, the majority of all mechanical film cameras were entirely metal with plastic being used only for minor functions, and on many cameras not present at all. That's the truth that people were referring to.


giellaleafapmu said:
I cite a few lines from the introduction of Ansel Adams' "The Negative", this is page xiii in the Little Brown and C. edition:

"I eagerly await new concepts and visualization and processes. I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance."

N.B. He writes "advance", even he believed that electronic image would have been an advance. That was written in 1981 by the master of film himself.

GLF
Click to expand...

And he also shot large format deep into the age of 135 format - arguably also an "advance." Even if he said and meant advance, he didn't necessarily say "I'll get rid of all my stuff and switch to it immediately."
 
I'm a pure amateur and my luxus is the possibilities to make choices, according to my taste and not to the needs of my client. I'm the client of myself! As I explained a few days ago here in my blog my choices are not dictated so much by aesthetic by the reason for which I photograph. When I need THE photo digital has his own benefits. When I just want to enjoy myself taking photo film gives me a process which, with is slow speed and longer times I appreciate very much. More relaxing.
Just my 2 cents...
robert
 
clayne said:
The above is a distortion of facts.

The majority of all digital cameras are indeed constructed mainly of plastic. Only the absolute top of digital cameras are primarily metal in construction. On the flip-side, the majority of all mechanical film cameras were entirely metal with plastic being used only for minor functions, and on many cameras not present at all. That's the truth that people were referring to.
Click to expand...

Well, ok, I really don't know, Brownies were some of the first popular cameras and were first made of cardboard and later of bakelite, not metal. Anyway, it is at least irrelevant the material of the body of a camera with respect to its performance. Like saying that a F1 car is not good because it is made of carbon fiber molded with plastic resin and not metal like a good old F150.

clayne said:
And he also shot large format deep into the age of 135 format - arguably also an "advance." Even if he said and meant advance, he didn't necessarily say "I'll get rid of all my stuff and switch to it immediately."
Click to expand...

Well, I think you have more problems to replicate the look of a view camera with 35mm film (and print the same size) than you will have to fake the look of film (especially colour) with an hi-end digital camera. It is not a case that there are digital backs to be put on view-camera (PhaseOne anyone?). Not to mention that movements are much more comfortable than those of a shift tilt lens (something else which is not exactly cheap).

Anyway, once again, I hope I didn't touch a nerve, I like film and I shot it a lot, just I didn't like the comments about "that's just a boring stupid plastic box for people who don't know real photography", of course no need to trow away anything, not even traditional processing, if one can get something nice from them.

GLF
 
Sure, I do paied projects but fortunately I don't have to rely on photography for living, and I also like film and use it almost always when I shot for myself but I really don't understand the snob attitude: "All what I don't like is plastic all what I don't like is boring in the old times all was better and the great of the past if they were alive today would just be lauging at all what today's 'pros' use".
Click to expand...

I don't see what is snobbish about prefering a certain type of camera on the user interface they offer. The day they make a digital camera with a selector for speed and iso using lenses with a working focusing and diaphragm ring I gladly switch to digital. I don't even need an LCD apart from one showing me speed, diaphragm, shots and battery remaining. Why? Because right now it is a hassle to use 2 camera's depending on what the major destiny of your photo's will be.

I don't think there is much to choose otherwise between film and digital. Both are better than what I can produce. So convenience is what makes my choice. Not only on the final image, but also on how to make it. So until such a camera is around I'll stick with film as long as I can.

Like others here I'd like to see camera's made with the latest materials. Not only camera's but also lenses. Bulk isn't an issue, weight is (for me). So a medium format in carbon fiber would be great. But I'm very sure it would be far out of my budget as well.
 
When I open the back of a camera and remove the canister, I know I've made something. Later, I'll be able to hold it in my hands and look at it. If I want to change the way it'll look, I change the film, or my way of exposing it. That's why I like it...the craftsmanship involved, and the seeming reality. When I look at a slide or a negative, that piece of film was there when I was, and survived to tell it's tale.

Digital is fast, easy, and cheap...and very share-able. That's why I like it. The color is terrific too.
 
Spanik said:
I don't see what is snobbish about prefering a certain type of camera on the user interface they offer. The day they make a digital camera with a selector for speed and iso using lenses with a working focusing and diaphragm ring I gladly switch to digital. I don't even need an LCD apart from one showing me speed, diaphragm, shots and battery remaining. Why? Because right now it is a hassle to use 2 camera's depending on what the major destiny of your photo's will be.
Click to expand...

I am afraid that I wanted to reply to a few specific posts and I was generic enough to offend many people... I only found strange the "Digital Plasticams are boring" (not "I find them boring", they _are_ boring) and the "People shooting landscapes such as Ansel Adams would still be using film" (not "also film for certain assignment/project" and despite what himself wrote).

But that's all, of course anyone uses what he/she likes, no questions about that.

GLF
 
My first "serious" camera was made mostly out of plastic, the Kodak Pony, still works today, although I admit I have retired it.

I wish more stuff was made from Carbon fiber, I regularly trust my life to it on my bicycle, I would like to see it on camera body shells, but frankly aluminum is just plain cheaper to manufacture.

Certainly high end cameras like the M9 would be a lot lighter, and stronger in a modern material.
Click to expand...

Mmmmh, I have been riding carbon fiber bikes too and if I remember correctly they are lite and stiff but they can get damaged by sharp objects in a crash easier than steel, aluminum or titanium, maybe that would not be the perfect material for something which is always in the hands of people. Having said that for a less "touched" type of camera such as a view camera Toyo does indeed produce some carbon fiber field cameras. I have never seen one but they exist.

I guess that titanium was for some time the light metal of choice for camera makers I don't know what happened now.

[Edit]
Wow, after posting I Googled carbon fiber camera and there are a lot of carbon fiber view camera and even this rumor:

http://gizmodo.com/5635563/rumor-nikon-investigating-carbon-fiber-camera-bodies
[Edit]

GLF
 
Last edited:
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 can confidently say this is not the case for me but I will admit to this much: I generally prefer my film shots over my digital shots but I am not entirely sure why nor if I would even be able to tell the difference between a film shot and a well processed digital shot in a blind test. So I guess there is some sort of self-delusion going on. I truly have not figured it out yet. It may be the "process" of taking film photos versus digital, it may be that I find worrying about underexpsure more intuitive or easier than worrying about overexposure, it may be romaticisim and nostalgia, or all or neither of these things. 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom