Film

[Bill Pierce]

There was an interesting discussion on the Camera Store TV website, a discussion by two photographers who shoot analog/film, one a professional who has just published a book of his work, the other, younger and just starting. What was interesting was that their reasons for shooting film weren’t technical; they shot film because it was more fun. I think that’s the reason for many folks to shoot film. But I’ve always wondered about the more specific reasons.

For me, taking pictures on film was fun. You couldn’t take as many pictures as quickly as you can with digital (and film cost money); so you were probably a little more studied and selective in your work. Developing and printing was fun. It was certainly a lot more fun than taking the film to the drugstore to be developed (and a lot less expensive). And with the simple phrase, “Sorry, I’m dark.” you gained some privacy not only to work but just to spend time alone relaxing and sometimes even thinking. And, most important, somewhere along that path you found out there are a lot of ways a photograph can be printed and the photographer is the one who should decide how it should be printed.

All of this is possible with digital images. You can be more studied and selective before you press the button. While darkroom printing is a much slower process with far fewer distractions than ink jet printing in the office, you can slow down and slowly fine tune a print over several copies. And yet, MOST OF US DON'T. WHY???

As always, I’d love to hear your thoughts about this, especially if you are one of the film shooters. The Camera Store TV episode is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8av9NqQbjU&t=27s

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Simple, for me. Time and money. When I was single, I had money and time to burn. But not with a family. And I have to say that I don't miss the technical headaches of darkroom work. I liked the solitary time, but I was rarely able to get a print that looked the way I wanted it to (I used mostly color film). Working with a digital color image is much easier for me and I'm always able to get an image I like from a digital file.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

double trouble 😉
https://youtu.be/kfjXp4KTTY8

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Then I print analog, I could put on Elvis and keep on dancing. With digital I sit on my butt and have blood bareilly circulating in my DVT affected culf.

But both are fun if I'm into photography, not DR, resolution and else gearheads on forums crap.

HNY!

https://youtu.be/0CFuCYNx-1g

 

[waileong]

Darkroom printing is expensive. Not many people can afford to throw away 10s of prints to achieve the right one. Maybe occasionally, if printing for exhibition. But certainly not on a regular basis.

Darkroom printing also takes up lots of time. Setup, cleaning the negs, getting exposure correct. printing, drying, etc.

It is more fun but I can't afford to do this too much now. But I will have the time when I retire.

 

[x-ray]

Darkroom printing is expensive. Not many people can afford to throw away 10s of prints to achieve the right one. Maybe occasionally, if printing for exhibition. But certainly not on a regular basis.

Darkroom printing also takes up lots of time. Setup, cleaning the negs, getting exposure correct. printing, drying, etc.

It is more fun but I can't afford to do this too much now. But I will have the time when I retire.

If youre throwing away 10's of prints to get one you need to start cutting your paper down to 4x5 and learning to print better before you tackle larger prints. Printing skills aren't something you're born with and they take years to refine.

My reason for wet printing, I've been printing 60 years and have it down pretty well. I love the depth of tones in silver gelatin prints although I can get extremely close now with digital prints. There's a satisfaction in producing a beautiful print and knowing relatively few people can do this now. I love the slower pace of working in the darkroom (now that I'm not trying to meet deadlines) and love the look of the safelight, smell of the chemicals and the sound of water running. I still after 60 years live watching the image thecome up in the developer.

I and a few of my clients feel there's more value in a hand crafted silver print. Most of all though, I love the tonality and look.

 

[lynnb]

+1 on the fun aspect. Much happier since I went back to film. Not just the medium, but the cameras are more fun too - I like all-mechanical cameras and lenses. The older the better. I like the compromises (fixed ISO, imperfections), the inconsistencies, and the look.

I still shoot digital from time to time, when I need flexible or high ISO or instant results, and occasional family pictures for friends when they want digital. It's always a relief to pick up a film camera again.

 

[farlymac]

Like I said in another post, I shoot film because they keep making it. I understand it better than having to mess with multiple settings on my DSLR every other shot. You loaded the film you thought would work for the scene, and lived with that decision unless you were lucky enough to own two camera bodies so you could switch to something else when conditions changed. But then it is rather cool to be able to instantly change ISO in the middle of a shoot.

Before, when there was only film, you were considered a pro if you could handle an SLR with some degree of confidence, even if you weren't making money at it. Now days, everybody and their sister, brother, aunt, and uncle have the ability to get good photos from what would be considered a consumer camera because it can do so much for them without having to think about all the parameters one had to consider back in the film era. And fixing errors in post is a breeze, what with all the choices in software available.

Tactile feel is a big thing when it comes to handling a film camera. The sense of the fine gearing as you wind the film to the next frame. Knowing just where to place your fingers so that you grab the right control ring on the lens. All the little add-ons one could get to make the camera more functional. Things like that are more personal than the way most digital cameras operate today.

I'll keep shooting film because it took me a long time to accumulate the cameras I have wanted, and I don't intend to let them just sit around on the shelf.

PF

 

[Robert Lai]

The unpredictability is part of the fun. If something fails, you learn from it, and the next time things get better. Also, there is a time lag between taking the picture and seeing the result. I can visualize what I was hoping to get. When I see the actual result weeks later, it confirms whether or not I am previsualizing correctly.

For example, in the fall I saw a big full moon outside, around midnight. I hoped to get a picture of the moon, but with a large pine tree filling the left half of the frame. I put the camera on a tripod, with a 90mm lens. I used a big (I think it was a #11B) flash bulb to light up the tree, aiming towards the top of it. What I failed to take into account was a bit of atmospheric haze. The picture, when it came back showed a brilliantly lit up tree that was correctly exposed. However, the relatively long exposure of the moon made the haze turn into a big "cloud" that effectively obscured the moon.

If I try this again, I'm going to pick a crystal clear night.

The times I've used a digital camera, I shoot, delete, shoot delete, and repeat until I have something that looks good. I don't learn anything significant with that process. I should be able to absorb it in, but I don't. There is no time for reflection - that makes the difference.

 

[emraphoto]

for me it has always been rooted in my own scattered brain. i primarily shoot film these days and i prefer it because i am terrible at managing digital archives. i cut the negs, put them in sleeves and in a labelled binder. shazam! done. this is quite possibly the laziest I have ever admitted to being.

 

[roscoetuff]

+5 on "more fun". Yes, I print digitally... I don't have a darkroom... "Death to me!" some say. But it's the process I know. Starting with a film negative... just makes the process tangible, gives me a permanent record and pushes me to print. With digital... hey, I get a great shot, but nothing happens with it more often than not. So the fun is diminished. My fault of course. But when I start with film, it forces a thinking process for me. And can I say, all they say about MF negatives... wow. It's true. It's a "drug". I have a "developing" habit.

 

[Robert Lai]

I used to do the entire developing and printing in a darkroom routine. But with a full time job, and family commitments, I don't find the time to do this any more. I'm happy when the envelope from North Coast Photo or Dwayne's arrives in the mail. If I really, really love a shot, I put the slide or negative in the Nikon Coolscan and give it the full hybrid analog / digital treatment.

 

[Huss]

I just love the smell when you uncork, I mean open, a new film container. Heaven..
Tear up the cardboard and paper anti-theft housing to eventually get to the new SD card and what is that smell? Ah yes, SaDness...

 

[css9450]

I shoot film for the tactile feel and experience of using gear that is older than myself. Not that I'm young either! Getting good results from a non-metered mechanical camera from the 1950s cultivates useful skills that can be applied to ALL of my photography: film, digital, whatever. And I think the same could be said for most of the new, younger up-and-coming film shooters: using vintage gear is a big part of the film experience. Young film shooters aren't interested in new tech - they want retro.

 

[Robert Lai]

Love the retro cameras! Even the newer retro cameras such as the Leica M7, and Fuji 667 folder.

Every dial, lever, knob, ring, and button has a well defined function.
No "multifunction" control with multiple modes and submenus.

Use is intuitive, and after a short while: effortless.
(The only exception is loading a Kodak Medalist. I've never found that to be intuitive. You need to refer to the manual as you do it).

 

[Hogarth Ferguson]

The results I get out of film are better (to me). I shoot medium format, and i couldnt afford to do that in digital. My workflow requires not much after I scan, maybe some dust removal.

The bottom line is that I just prefer it, every aspect of it.

 

[michaelwj]

Apart from preferring the results, I like using a simple mechanical camera not a computer. I spend all day at work with a computer, I don't want to use one when I take pictures.

 

[Spanik]

Like quite a few others above, it is not about the medium but about the cameras. With film cameras you're using a camera. Not another computer with a 300 page manual that you cannot grab without changing some function you probably never heard of and just as likely never need.

 

[telenous]

https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a19180

Transpose vinyl for film and you have the answer. 😀

 

[ptpdprinter]

It is interesting. Most of the reasons cited so far are about process. I shoot film because I like the hands-on craft aspect of it. It also has a certain aesthetic appeal. But I have been shooting more digital this year than before, simply because I have more control over the final image. A significant portion of my work is in platinum/palladium.