Film

[sepiareverb]

I’ve been spending 4 days a week in the darkroom again for about two months now. Being up on my feet and moving around is the main difference. I have a desk I can stand at for the computer, but I am glued to a screen and tethered to the mouse even if standing when working digitally. Like x-ray I have printed a lot, so there isn’t much waste. I started out in the early 80s printing eight to ten hours a day. One job, in a medium sized lab, really taught me how to get a print right with a minimum of paper. We were each handed a stack of negatives and a box of paper every morning. The unused paper was counted at the end of the day, if we went over our allowance we were docked. Talk about an incentive for getting it right the first time. I still work in this mode when doing my initial proofs. A test strip to start the morning, then compare the next negative to the one just completed to make an adjustment to time and contrast. When switching rolls to a very different film or I come to a very different kind of light I will make a new test strip. Of course I will take a lot more time with final prints, but I’ve been catching up on five years worth of backlog, and printing like this for these two months. Practice hasn’t made perfect, but I rarely use a second sheet of paper on a proof print. And it is great fun.

The lack of distractions is a big piece of it, but also the pace, the simplicity and familiarity of it all. I’ve surely handled way more sheets of photo paper than cups of coffee or probably anything else.

As to shooting, I do shoot a lot, even with film. Comes from learning on slides, where even a third of a stop was sometimes enough to make the difference. With an RF now it is to cover framing errors, mostly tilt in my case. I apparently am very crooked. With the view camera I am slow as molasses, and rarely shoot more than one sheet, unless there is the potential for too much breeze mucking things up. I more often just pack it in when the wind starts.

 

[jbielikowski]

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.

this, plus I love silver gelatine b&w.

 

[jsrockit]

When I used film, it was because it was the mainstream choice of the times (in the 90s). I loved it when I had great film cameras, a great darkroom (both B&W and color), and a lot of time. However, once I got out of college...I was broke, had less time, and didn't have a color darkroom. I soon started getting more into making music and the passion for photography died. Then around 2007-2008, I started wanting to make photos again...I had a good job and digital was mature enough to do everything I wanted in my little apartment. AND I could make books easily online. The cameras weren't the same, but luckily Leica and Fuji were starting to make digital cameras with at least a little bit of a film camera spirit. I'm happy I got to do both film and digital. I respect both. Use whatever it is that allows you to do what you want in photography. We are lucky in 2018.

 

[Dogman]

I shot film long, long past the point where it was fun. In fact, carrying heavy medium format equipment and standing for day long darkroom sessions were damned painful activities to my arthritic joints. No, it wasn't the fun factor that kept me shooting film for as long as I did. I shot film because I always had shot film.

Most of the photographers whose work I admire shoot (or shot while still alive) film. They're older guys who have the process finely tuned and the routine down pat. If you asked them why they shoot film, I'll betcha it's because they always have. The process works perfectly for them so why would they want to change.

As for me? When my cervical spine gave out, requiring surgery, I determined I should figure out this digital crap. While recovering from the surgery, I bought my first digital camera. Using it wasn't fun for the first year or so and I missed shooting film like I always had done. Eventually, the process became routine and the routine became fun. As much fun as shooting film? I dunno, maybe not as much as those days in the early 1970s when I started the whole picture-taking thing but fun nevertheless. Besides, it's all good. It's photography. It's fun.

 

[kshapero]

"And yet, MOST OF US DON'T. WHY???"

Have you ever tried to eat just one potato chip or just one piece of candy in a candy store? That's why.

 

[cz23]

I'm seven months into a one year return-to-film experiment. For me it's all about the aesthetics of black and white film. I can't state how much more I prefer the look of film -- Tri-X especially -- to digital BW.

The problem is, the film workflow doesn't fit well into my lifestyle. So my output has fallen dramatically.

And as much as I love everything about my M6, I also believe I'm a better photographer with more modern camera features, such as live view, AE lock, AF, and auto-ISO.

Folks say, why not shoot both, but that's not my nature.

I acknowledge that this probably seems like a trivial, first-world issue, but it really is a significant dilemma for me.

John

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Some people have one Philips head #2 screwdriver that they are comfortable using for everything, including as a pry bar. Others have multiples of #1 through #4, plus sets of JIS drivers as well, and would not be satisfied working any other way.
I have what any reasonable person, myself included, would describe as "too many cameras", highly competent systems both digital and film. Digital seems a worthy complement to film, but not a replacement. When it comes time to leave the house with one camera, 85% of the time it is a film body. Why? I honestly don't exactly know. I have considered every reason already mentioned here, and none of them quite explains it. I find the film/film camera process absolutely more enjoyable, obviously, or I would not gravitate to the film bodies all the time. There are a (very) limited number of lighting situations I can accommodate with a digital body that I can't easily manage with a film body, and the converse is not true, yet that fact has not been nearly persuasive enough to move me away from my not totally explainable preference for film work.

It is the process, but not only the process, it is the end result as well. Some people sincerely believe that a digital image can be made to look like a film image. I respect that, but don't believe it, as nothing in my experience supports that. I don't even know why you would want to do that. As far as actual results are concerned, beautiful, arresting photos are possible either way, but are not interchangeable. Vaguely interchangeable, but only to the same extent that a #2 Philips head screwdriver is interchangeable with a #3. If someone likes the look of film, there is only one way to get it, and that is to shoot film. If someone can't tell the difference between film and digital (and there are obviously many who profess that they can't) or can see the difference and just prefers digital (sharper or whatever) that is a lucky person, digital being easier and cheaper. Nothing wrong with that. Go forth and prosper.

For reasons I can't totally explain, and have given up, as a fool's errand, wasting my time trying to explain to myself, I just gravitate towards film even though I have digital at my disposal which is as good as anyone could ask for. I prefer the film process, and generally, though not always, prefer the results.
The one thing I know with complete confidence about this particular fetish is that it has absolutely nothing to do with nostalgia. It is the process today and the results today; I could not care less about nostalgia.
People should do what they enjoy doing the most, and let it go at that. Life isn't ultimately only about measurements.
YMMV. My one cent worth, because two cents is too much.

 

[dmr]

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.

The difference I've seen, now that I've shot both film and {d-word} for several years now, is that when I go on a shoot with only a digital, I tend to take more shots and have fewer keepers.

With film, I tend to look more closely and envision the shot.

(Wow, my first post in 2018 on any forum!) 🙂

 

[willie_901]

...MOST OF US DON'T. WHY???

I don't because I am unwilling to commit to an 100% analog workflow. When you scan film you end up with all the inherent technical problems with digital imaging. These are unavoidable mathematical deficiencies in modeling continuous imnformation using discrete data. Technically, a hybrid workfow is the worst of both worlds.

When I was doing commercial gigs, immediate image review was valuable. Otherwise, instant feedback could enhance learning and understanding composition and lighting. Or instant feedback could inhibit intuitive creativity. It's up to us.

I stayed with film for personal projects until about 2012 because I didn't enjoy using digital cameras. For a variety of reasons I judged RF digital platforms to be flawed. Then the X100 and X-Pro 1 changed everything for me. It turned out I enjoyed using these cameras and lenses because I could use them as I used mr RF cameras. First I sold all my film cameras and lenses. Then I sold my DSLR system.

The issues of operational complexity (user interface) and unthoughtful, unselective technique are not inherent problems. You can use the camera with a minimum, or no, automation. Although it does take some effort to learn how. When and how often press the shutter has nothing to with the imaging media.

My memories of spending time in a wet-chemistry darkroom aren't that different than rendering raw files in post-production. Both take time and effort. It is possible to eliminate distractions with both as well. I think B&W digital printing is much less convenient than printing B&W film negatives. It's possible color negative printing is a tie. Transparencies printed using internegatives or RA4 reversal could be much worse. I really detest the hassles with digital printing. I send everything to commercial labs.

 

[sepiareverb]

...When it comes time to leave the house with one camera, 85% of the time it is a film body. Why? I honestly don't exactly know. I have considered every reason already mentioned here, and none of them quite explains it. I find the film/film camera process absolutely more enjoyable...

Me too, tho I'm more at like 98%. I'll bring the GR-D when heading into the city with my wife, as it is so fast I can grab shots without it intruding on our going about our business, but if I'm alone I'll have film.

Color is one area where I do find a distinct advantage with digital - mainly as the step of digitizing film is, for me, a huge pita. I know it doesn't need to be difficult, but I am just not at all good at it, so it takes vastly more time than I can justify throwing at it for the results I get. So I've gravitated towards not doing much color, though lately I've been out with the 810 and some Portra 160, and find that quite satisfying.

 

[charjohncarter]

For me shooting film is more fun.

 

[ellisson]

In my experience shooting film and digital, it comes down to fun and enjoyment in the process.

I cannot explain why I currently prefer shooting film to digital other than I enjoy shooting with vintage film cameras, developing film, and anticipating the resulting images, and the ongoing learning process.

I enjoy both film and digital, but I get a different feeling of craftsmanship and exploration when making film images.

 

[davidnewtonguitars]

I drive a fairly new car, reliable, fast enough, low maintenance, all that.

A car to have fun with? Vintage (ancient) slow, high maintenance, leaky, rusty in spots, stinky, beautiful, desired by everyone who sees me go by.

Same with photography.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Color is one area where I do find a distinct advantage with digital ........

There's definitely that.

Having recognized that........ a nice 6x6 color transparency projected with a Hasselblad PCP 80 projector on a real screen compared to digital color on a monitor or hdtv............that's something which, again, is a different experience, and a different discussion, but well worth the trouble for some people. One of the world's more satisfying rabbit holes.

 

[ptpdprinter]

The difference I've seen, now that I've shot both film and {d-word} for several years now, is that when I go on a shoot with only a digital, I tend to take more shots and have fewer keepers. With film, I tend to look more closely and envision the shot.

I have heard this said often, but it is not true for me. I am a deliberate shooter with both film and digital, and have about the same number of keepers, perhaps more so with digital because of what is achievable with respect to exposure in LR (exposure, contrast, white, black, shadow, highlight, clarity).

 

[valdas]

For me it’s surely more fun with the film, but also the final result - both in B&W and color, I like film more. I aknowledge many advantages of digital (speed, convienience, high iso capabilities), but I still like the film result better - something special in the color, DR, the graininess. That applies to movies as well. Recently I watched a movie and could not stop thinking - I don’t like it, it must be digital, those blown out highlights... Yep, it looks so different...

 

[Huss]

"And yet, MOST OF US DON'T. WHY???"

Have you ever tried to eat just one potato chip or just one piece of candy in a candy store? That's why.

Film is a bag of 36 potato chips.

Digital is lying on your back at the Lays chips assembly line.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

The difference I've seen, now that I've shot both film and {d-word} for several years now, is that when I go on a shoot with only a digital, I tend to take more shots and have fewer keepers.

With film, I tend to look more closely and envision the shot.

(Wow, my first post in 2018 on any forum!) 🙂

I see this response quite often in discussions about film vs. digital. My take on it is that I don't take any less care creating an image with digital, but now I can create many more versions of a scene. I find digital to be a much better learning tool, as it allows me to experiment more widely than I was able to do with a few rolls of 36 exposures.

 

[Ronald M]

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

Sorry. They get the same junky photos they got before, just capture was digital.

The was G color balance film. Same metering systems could have been put in film cameras, same autofocus.

All they needed to do was take the film to a decent lab. That was the weak link.

 

[rolfe]

With respect to a number of postings above, the best darkroom tool I have added in the past decade is the RH Designs Analyzer Pro. It has pretty much eliminated test strips, and for a reasonable negative, I can often hit it on the first print.

http://www.rhdesigns.co.uk/darkroom/html/analyser_pro.html

Rolfe