Film

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
4:38 PM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
News photography moved from film to digital early in the game at a time when film images were in many ways still superior to digital. The switch was painful and expensive. but not as painful and expensive as being out of work.




Time passes and the tables turn. In some areas the digital cameras produce technically superior images to film. But a lot of good photographers (outside of the news business) choose to stay with film. There are a lot of film photographers on this forum. I’m sure the reasons are varied, but it would be both interesting and informative if those forum members that are film shooters would tell why they have chosen to stick with film.
 
1. I like the way film looks. Especially B&W, but some color fillms are quite unique also.
2. Digital photography should not be expected to look like film, but in some cases it can. I find it is much easier to end up with a "film look" if you use film. See point "1".
3. In the digital realm, one reason I went with Fuji-X is I felt (and that was it at the time, but it turns out to be somewhat true) that it has a look that is more tuned to film.
4,. I also enjot shooting with 40-80 year old mechanical wonders with excellent glass (for film at least, digital is more challenging with older glass).
 
I stayed with film because my "end product" is not a digital file, but a gelatin silver print. I absolutely hate the prints from digital printers. I've never seen a good one. Making gelatin silver prints is a lot of fun.Gelatin silver prints can be kept indefinitely. I'm sure digital prints can't. Maybe there are enlargers that can produce gelatin silver prints from digital files, but I've never seen them or heard from them.
Negatives on film in albums are infinitely clearer than endless series of numbers on a computer screen. If you have to find a digital file of a photo, you are endlessly busy. For films with 36 exposures, you only have to write down the date and perhaps the place name where the film was exposed. In a negative album, the negatives automatically come into chronological order. Just try to make sense of files of digital photos.
There is also the danger that one day other digital systems will be used. Then try to make your photos visible. No, give me film!

Erik.
 
1. When I switched from digital to film in 2008, I wanted an affordable rangefinder. The Leica M8 was well beyond my budget, and the Epson, also not exactly cheap, was aging out. Whether digital would have been cheaper in the longer run was irrelevant since I didn’t have the cash up front to get the Leica (and if I did get the Leica M8, I certainly would have bought yet another Leica when it went full frame).
2. I quickly found out that I simply loved the process over digital, right down to the smooth feel of the film advance.
3. When I shot digital, I converted all photos to black & white. After going to film, it was nice not having to always wonder if there was a better emulation process.
4. I don’t know if B&W film is better than digital, but I know that digital B&W is not better than film. Meaning that “image quality” is not something that I would automatically concede to digital, given that I love the look of B&W film; it’s all very subjective, of course.
5. After a decade of film to inkjet hybrid method, I started making darkroom gelatin silver prints, which I love. I realize that a digital to wet print path exists, but it’s a bit more involved.
6. I like having a camera that doesn’t require a battery to work
7. I like grain.
8. Other reasons likely exist, but in any event, I have no desire to return to digital.
 
I spent about 40 years of my life shooting film and working in various darkrooms so it is a part of me. I enjoy using film cameras of various formats and I still enjoy working in my home darkroom even though most of my photography is now digital. ---jb.
 
Many little reasons, but mostly because I just like using the gear. Over-engineered, diverse, tactile and ‘romantic’ mechanical cameras like the Leica M2, Pentax SV and Rolleiflex 2.8D simply don’t exist in the digital world.
 
Developing film is still magical to me and as someone once said, "Digital is silicon, film is silver".
 
I started in photography in the mid 70's and back then we only had Film photography (please don't call it analog).
I loved the whole process of shooting, developing and printing with film...I still do...
As Vagabond has said...its magical...
There's something so special about pulling that freshly developed roll out of the tank and seeing those images...then you get to print those images.
I developed two rolls of film yesterday, looking forward to shooting a few more rolls then getting to set up the darkroom so I can print...and watch the magic happen...
 
I started shooting in the early 1970s on a Leica M3 - I was hooked from the start. I still enjoy the shooting experience on a Leica M film camera; there's just something about loading, advancing the film after each shot, and hearing that mechanical click of the shutter. But while the digital M[10] experience is not quite as magical, it far outpaces film as to the results. And I don't miss the darkroom experience at all. I much prefer the RAW file processing experience in Photoshop and dry printing.

So I suppose if I could get my hands on a Leica M digital camera that was fully mechanical I'd be completely satisfied with the best of both worlds.
 
I stayed with colour negative for a long time. Amazing tolerance of overexposure, with some wonderful results possible with all the "post-processing" at the time of exposure. The magic of film includes the drama and emotion of a grainy Tri-X shot with those rich blacks. And then the cameras for film as mentioned above. I'm about to go out with a 1951 Rolleiflex Automat. Such a wonderful machine. For MF I am mostly using a Hasselblad, another wonderful machine. I'm obsessed by tulips, and set up the camera on a tripod with cable release, change through two or three lenses, carefully composing, thinking about depth of field, using the DOF preview function on the lens barrel, using the mirror-up pre-exposure release for maximum sharpness, taking my time.
 
Most of what others have said. I had a Pentax MX & LX. Nikon Fm2n & F5 replaced these. Digital camera at the the time were 3x + the cost for a decent build camera. I would next invest in PC software -all v.expensive. Cameras and software seem to be updated every 18 months or so. Who uses a Nikon D2/ D3 which they purchased, today. I Spend all day looking at a screen, I want a past time which takes me away from it.
Nowadays phone for digital photos, cameras for film. P. S 23mp phone 5 years old. 4x5 camera 60 years old. Hopefully phone will go on for another couple of years.
 
Film. Love shooting with older vintage gear.

Most of my digital is with my iPhone and mostly for casual snaps.
 
I agree with the above comments. In my case I am 100% satisfied with my results from my chosen medium, and as a result of that I never moved to digital. I also love the cameras and they make an interesting collectable that in many cases I bought cheaply and are now appreciating in value. I can pick up a camera I never saw and make great images straight away. No need for menus and layers of confusion getting in the way. Read light set and shoot. I am also beguiled and totally fascinated by the process of developing film and printing from the negative, although these days I scan and post process and inkjet print. Film has its quirks and problems and a charm of its own. Digital has seperate problems. My sensor is renewed every shot so no dust problems.
 
For a number of reasons really.
  • I like the process of film. Loading and unloading, developing and scanning.
  • I like the film cameras. The most loved ones entice me to pick them up and use them. No digital camera has ever done that for me.
  • It took me a long time to find that I need medium format and large format to be able to create something that is aesthetically pleasing, my 135 film images always stunk. But in MF and LF I am much more prolific. It brings joy to see good results from a process you have worked for to master.
  • Finally, being able to shoot film and have it look as I intended distinguishes me from the digital age button jockeys. I like to have my conversation partner muster me with slight awe ;)
I own one digital camera. A Sony A7 original model. It was chosen for its full frame sensor that has a film-like color palette to it. I have no native lenses for it, only manual focus vintage lenses. And I mainly use it to digitize my negatives.
 
Digital works well but is not fun to shoot for me. It just does the job. Film is fun for so many reasons, most already expressed here.
 
The digital camera interface is too complicated for me, and there's no standardization. And many required settings offer diminishing returns.
OTOH until the 1980s most film cameras could be operated merely by setting a few simple controls located in more or less standard locations.

With a classic film camera use physical dials to set film speed, focus, aperture, shutter speed, compose and you're done.
I'll take that over tiny buttons, LCD screens and layers of menus any time!

Chris
 
lynnb said:
One word: emotion. I get more emotional content using film. To me, emotion is at the core of photography.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that you are right, Lynn. I used to say many years ago that digital images had no life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom