If asked why choose film over digital...

[Ricoh]

What would you say?
I often ask myself the same question but can’t express it sufficiently to close down the conversation in my own head.
I argue with myself that film has a distinctive look compared to digital, eg grain v filthy digital noise, slow roll off of the highlights with film (function of the S shaped transfer function). But then my logical brain says, ‘hang on you have quite a few digital cameras, including a digital Leica, that you’ve paid for, so wouldn’t it be better to ‘suffer’ the outcome given you’ve spent the money and it’s gone?’
I continue to use both, but sometimes too many options leads to photographic constipation: paralysis by analysis.

 

[joe bosak]

yes, don't think, shoot

 

[seany65]

The "wait".

The wait for the film to come back from the processor. anything like 10 days for it to come back.

The wait to find out if I've finally done a decent pic, or at least whether the idea I tried shows promise.

I can see the appeal of "shoot without thinking", and sometimes, perhaps even oftentimes, that approach probably allowed the pic to be caught, but before I can get to the "not think" stage, I have to get not bad at the "think" stage and for me film cameras have a simpler "think" stage than digital ones.

 

[Godfrey]

What would you say?
I often ask myself the same question but can’t express it sufficiently to close down the conversation in my own head. ...

"Because sometimes I just want to make photographs with film. I like what they look like."

That's all I need say to be happy and just get on with making photographs.

G

 

[cboy]

I wish i could. Use to process then scan my negs. But frankly its cost prohibitive aswell as time consuming. Lucky to those with the time

 

[JohnBeeching]

While these days I mostly use digital and have become happy with the medium as my experience with it increased, I do also use film. There is a wait rather than instant gratification, but that together with the ritual of developing the film and examining the negatives has almost a Zen feel to it. With a bit of organisation one can develop the films the evening after taking the photos and have prints by the end of the following day. Here are some photos that I took with a 35 year-old camera in the late autumn before the second lockdown: https://johnbeeching.com/postcards

 

[Pál_K]

Long ago, when I had only film cameras and digital was becoming dominant, I thought about that question and what my answer might be. As a result, I chose to buy a small digital camera so that I wouldn't be ignorant of the technology. It also allowed me to respond with "well, I have a digital camera also". The question never came, though.

These days I choose both film and digital.

I prefer film because I enjoy how film cameras operate and how film images look; that's a big part. Also, I enjoy the entire process(*) of film: opening the box, loading the film, winding the film, not having immediate results, looking at the negatives and the prints, having something tangible I can see without using a computer and a software application.

But I also use digital. I use it for motorsports. I use it for some nature photography when I want to make lot of photographs of one subject as I experiment with exposure and composition. I use digital to have a camera with me when I have no particular photographic endeavor in mind.

For me, there's no dichotomy in analog or digital. Both have their place.

(*) The most enjoyable of all is using packfilm. The loading, the tabs, the separation of negative from print - a wonderful experience!

 

[George Mann]

I have continued to use film thru the digital age because it is a direct, authentic capture of the scene or subject that I prefer the look of.

But it is prohibitively expensive as of late, and I can only continue to shoot it as long as there are affordable film stocks that I like (only 3 at the moment).

 

[agentlossing]

It's much more satisfying that film is a whole process, and discipline, while digital is more like instant results. The process with digital involves manipulating a device with an LCD screen, then finishing editing on a computer - too much like my routine with a bunch of other things in modern life. Sitting in front of a computer is just like work.

Film involves loading and unloading the camera (digital does not), judging exposure carefully since I can't see results immediately (digital does not), loading film in the total darkness of my blacked out bathroom (digital does not), mixing and handling chemicals and paying attention to temperature... you get the idea. Film offers a process that's different than most of the day-to-day routine that I experience, that's what makes it enjoyable. And I'm long past getting much of a sense of accomplishment from pressing a shutter on a digital camera and getting a half-decent photo. That was earlier in my photo-taking experience. I still get that feeling of a job well done when I get well-exposed negatives into the scanner.

 

[helen.HH]

I will admit Film makes me much happier to view
Somehow you have less things to sulk about
The Imperfections of film can be so ever beautiful
where as digital can be more ruthless in rendering light and bokeh
BUT
I am growing more curious with experimenting in digital
Creating and finding my’look’ with digital
It too has it’s Beauty just more difficile to master

 

[Pál_K]

I have continued to use film thru the digital age because it is a direct, authentic capture of the scene or subject that I prefer the look of. ...

I think I know exactly what you mean - but it seems either few people grasp it or, if they do, seem to think “so what?”.

On another forum, a fellow named Ken Nadvornick and I discussed this many times at length because we both thought the chemically formed image was special. If I have a glass plate showing Abraham Lincoln delivering the Gettysburg Address, then not only is that chemically-formed, tangible, instantly-viewable image unique, it also means that glass plate was actually there. The same can be said about the film from the Apollo 11 Moon mission. The image you would see, right now, was formed by the very light rays at that moment in time and is immutable. It has provenance. In contrast to this, even though the image on a digital sensor is also formed by light rays, that electronic encoding on the sensor is transitory. When the digital image is copied from the sensor, where it is stored as a collection of electric charges, it can be copied an infinite number of times - with exact precision - to other media, to your screen, to anywhere. The actual image, since it exists only electronically, is not unique. It can also be altered easily. There is no provenance to that image.

So it is the glass plate, the negative, the transparency, or the Polaroid/Instax photo that has special value to me.

Another thing about these tangible, substantive images: all you need to do is look at the image and you see it: you don’t need a computer and software to make it visible to you. I have albums, and also shoeboxes, with family photos from the 1890’s. All I or anyone needs to do is open them up to see the photo. That’s why these photos still exist. I also have a dozen USB sticks next to my laptop and scanner - I have no idea what’s on any of them without plugging them into the laptop and calling up an app to view them. Will these USB sticks last five more years without being corrupted? Will someone toss them out because they don’t want to bother with them?

Yes, the house could burn down and I could lose my albums (another reason for safety deposit boxes) - but I do realize the value in scanning images and keeping them in Cloud storage. But to maintain very long term electronic image archives, there has to be deliberate maintenance whereby the photos are periodically copied onto the latest storage media in the latest popular format.

 

[brothernature]

I like it more. I tried switching to digital a while back and found it extremely unsatisfying copying images onto my computer, whereas when I have a bunch of contact sheets to look at I'm giddy.

 

[oldwino]

I have to admit that at this point, digital sensors are so good that it makes zero sense to shoot 35mm film just to take pictures. If there is an artistic reason to use film, then yes. But for the "snap-shot" that the original Leicas were made for? No, not any more.
The convenience, the accuracy, the resolution of digital all work in its favor. There are still a few things small format film can do better, but not many anymore.

When I started in photography, the choice was 35mm for amateurs and some pro use, or medium format for "serious" pro photography. We 35mm folks would dream of using a Hassy or Mamiya for its superior image qualities.
Now, full-frame digital has far surpassed 35mm film, and is the equal to a lot of 120. The new-ish medium format sensor cameras, like the Fuji GX or Hassy X are encroaching on 4x5, and maybe even 8x10. The lenses for those cameras are stellar.

But I continue to use film cameras nonetheless. I love the mechanics of my M2. I love the feeling of pulling fresh B&W negatives out of the development tank. I wish I had the time to putter in the darkroom for hours at a time, making prints.

So why do I use film? Because I like it, and it pleases me. It's not about any great artistic merit, or archival purposes, or hipster cred. It's about doing something that brings me real joy.

 

[JohnBeeching]

Musée Rodin. Pentax, HP5, D76.

Musée Rodin #1 by John Beeching, on Flickr