zuiko85
Veteran
For me it depends on how close you are. I think that with a .22 and at no more than 15 feet I could knock a 135 cartridge off a fence post.
DennisM
Established
Film (and digital) User
Film (and digital) User
I agree fully with your points. As someone who grew up with Minolta SLR's and who taught himself film developing and printing, I enjoy the simplicity of shooting film, now only B&W. While I shoot digital as well, I find that digital is indeed distracting - too many choices; and the temptation is to focus (no pun intended) on the camera, optical or EVF, film choice, ISO, etc. and less so on the subject. There is a certain pleasurable feeling in anticipating what awaits when one unspools a roll of film after processing. In addition, manipulating and, in my case now scanning decades of carefully filed B&W and (some) color negatives is pleasing and rewarding.
Film (and digital) User
I agree fully with your points. As someone who grew up with Minolta SLR's and who taught himself film developing and printing, I enjoy the simplicity of shooting film, now only B&W. While I shoot digital as well, I find that digital is indeed distracting - too many choices; and the temptation is to focus (no pun intended) on the camera, optical or EVF, film choice, ISO, etc. and less so on the subject. There is a certain pleasurable feeling in anticipating what awaits when one unspools a roll of film after processing. In addition, manipulating and, in my case now scanning decades of carefully filed B&W and (some) color negatives is pleasing and rewarding.
zuiko85
Veteran
Answered your own question. Only a film camera can operate so simply, and no batteries needed, least ways for the cameras I like.
Digital can be useful to put negatives into file for easy printing, and I find my digital handy as a meter for my film cameras to. My brain is already too scattered to remember all the stuff that might be needed to set up my digital or change it when I change lenses.
Contarama
Well-known
My Df smokes my F2 at many levels....do hard things!
Tom R
Established
I shoot film because (1) I have the time and capability to do so; (2) I prefer a deliberate and introspective workflow; and (3) I like the way the final images look ... and this is true no matter how the final image is produced and shown.
Tom R
Tom R
capitalK
Warrior Poet :P
It's amazing to me sometimes when people — even those who should know better like artists — ask in amazement if you can still buy film.
charjohncarter
Veteran
It's hard to shoot film
No, it isn't.
No, it isn't.
:: Mark
Well-known
I shoot both film and digital. For the last almost three years I have been working on a project covering national populism in Catalonia, and I made a conscious choice to shoot this on film after having previously shot related material digitally.
The key is to have a clear reason for choosing the medium. That can be because of aesthetics, or simply because you prefer the process - but there has to be a clear reason otherwise the choice is unlikely to be sustainable.
In this project´s case the main driver was to obtain a style recalling 20th C documentary photography, using the medium help visually bridge current events to historical analogues. This could have been done digitally (the project in fact contains three digital images processed to match, where I did not have film equipment to get a key shots), but shooting real film with manual focus and exposure changes not just the look of the image but also the approach to shooting. Everything from trying to avoid changing film at a problematic moment through to the constraints of shooting pushed 35mm film at night in a dynamic environment.
I use a hybrid workflow. Photography is mainly seen online today, so the ability to put scans online is essential. A secondary aim was to produce a book, which again requires digital copy.
The biggest downside to working like this is the time required to develop and scan (I do this myself), and the cost - about 2k euros in film and chemicals for this one project alone. Processing and scanning a block of four 35mm films takes me about three hours of work before dealing with image selection and any editing (dust!).
The key is to have a clear reason for choosing the medium. That can be because of aesthetics, or simply because you prefer the process - but there has to be a clear reason otherwise the choice is unlikely to be sustainable.
In this project´s case the main driver was to obtain a style recalling 20th C documentary photography, using the medium help visually bridge current events to historical analogues. This could have been done digitally (the project in fact contains three digital images processed to match, where I did not have film equipment to get a key shots), but shooting real film with manual focus and exposure changes not just the look of the image but also the approach to shooting. Everything from trying to avoid changing film at a problematic moment through to the constraints of shooting pushed 35mm film at night in a dynamic environment.
I use a hybrid workflow. Photography is mainly seen online today, so the ability to put scans online is essential. A secondary aim was to produce a book, which again requires digital copy.
The biggest downside to working like this is the time required to develop and scan (I do this myself), and the cost - about 2k euros in film and chemicals for this one project alone. Processing and scanning a block of four 35mm films takes me about three hours of work before dealing with image selection and any editing (dust!).
RichC
Well-known
Don't know what the fuss is about... I use a camera in exactly the same way regardless of whether it's film or digital. I could take photographs differently if I wished - but that applies as much to film cameras as to digital ones. Same goes for "post-processing" your negatives or raw files - obviously the base process is different, but it can be made simple or complex.
As others have said, taking photographs is about how you do it, not the camera.
Folk distracted by their digital cameras are simply bad photographers, or at least need to learn some discipline and technique.
(As an aside, I prefer simplicity: manual aperture, shutter speed, focus, prime lenses. ISO 400 is my default, and either my white balance is permanently on "sunny" when I'm outdoors or I'm using daylight film. So, I can pick up any camera with manual controls and use it immediately.)
As others have said, taking photographs is about how you do it, not the camera.
Folk distracted by their digital cameras are simply bad photographers, or at least need to learn some discipline and technique.
(As an aside, I prefer simplicity: manual aperture, shutter speed, focus, prime lenses. ISO 400 is my default, and either my white balance is permanently on "sunny" when I'm outdoors or I'm using daylight film. So, I can pick up any camera with manual controls and use it immediately.)
RichC
Well-known
Postscript:
That said, I've pretty much given up on film.
First, C-type prints from film and digital cameras are now equal in quality, and can be made identical in appearance.
(I add slight noise to digital photos, not to replicate film for its own sake but to do the job grain does: break up solid areas and edges, so the eye continues beyond what is visible rather than meet a visual wall. So, you look into or even through the photograph's surface, rather than at the surface. This is the fundamental difference between "straight" prints from film and digital images. This is also the reason why I make C-type rather than than inkjet prints: with the former the image sits within the print in a transparent layer, in the latter the image sits on the print and is solid; the difference is very visible.)
Secondly, film and digital are now equal in technical quality - resolution, colour, dynamic range, etc. But film is way more expensive and time-consuming. For me, speed is important: I want to see what I've taken immediately, and make decisions ob the spot.
In short, film is inconvenient and no longer has any technical or practical benefits over digital.
All that said, I go back to my post above: my approach to taking a photograph is the same whether I'm using a film or digital camera, and the camera type makes no difference whatsoever to how I think about or use it.
That said, I've pretty much given up on film.
First, C-type prints from film and digital cameras are now equal in quality, and can be made identical in appearance.
(I add slight noise to digital photos, not to replicate film for its own sake but to do the job grain does: break up solid areas and edges, so the eye continues beyond what is visible rather than meet a visual wall. So, you look into or even through the photograph's surface, rather than at the surface. This is the fundamental difference between "straight" prints from film and digital images. This is also the reason why I make C-type rather than than inkjet prints: with the former the image sits within the print in a transparent layer, in the latter the image sits on the print and is solid; the difference is very visible.)
Secondly, film and digital are now equal in technical quality - resolution, colour, dynamic range, etc. But film is way more expensive and time-consuming. For me, speed is important: I want to see what I've taken immediately, and make decisions ob the spot.
In short, film is inconvenient and no longer has any technical or practical benefits over digital.
All that said, I go back to my post above: my approach to taking a photograph is the same whether I'm using a film or digital camera, and the camera type makes no difference whatsoever to how I think about or use it.
Axel
singleshooter
That´s a good point. You have to use it to get used to. No matter what the medium is.
And you can refine this to films and (perhaps) processing, projection of slides or even using a
software. Nobody but the enthusiast will take the burden of developing, scanning and post-processing
his pictures. Because it is nor burden for him, it´s just fun.
DMA1965
Established
This is essentially why I still shoot film, but also why I bought a Leica M10. Using a hand focused Rangefinder with digital “film” allows me the flexibility of digital with the disciplines of film.
However, digital photos look like digital photos. Film has its own look. Both make fantastic photos. Right now my mind is grappling with the stunning photos my iPhone 11 Pro can crank out.
However, digital photos look like digital photos. Film has its own look. Both make fantastic photos. Right now my mind is grappling with the stunning photos my iPhone 11 Pro can crank out.
:: Mark
Well-known
That surely depends on what you are shooting.
In my case, I have shot with film in riot conditions where changes happen frequently. With all the best will in the world I know from experience that I could not have stuck to shooting as if I had all the same restrictions while using the contemporary photo-journalist´s luxury of a digital camera, telephoto zoom and stabilisers.
Similarly, someone going to the trouble of transporting and setting up a LF camera for landscape work, knowing that they can only take a handful of shots, is inevitably going to shoot differently than someone carrying the latest Fuji MF digital gear no matter their intentions.
Gear and medium matter because they define an envelope of shooting parameters that directly influence the approach that the photographer must take - and by that they change the photographic result. This matters vastly more than the usual vacuous debates about film vs digital etc.
Highway 61
Revisited
With digital you play at taking virtual photos, which will all disappear sooner or later because digital archiving for amateur photographers is a joke, nobody here will go into what an institution can do and pay for digital files archiving.
Now that the greatest slide or negative color films are gone (Kodachrome and Reala) digital is the way to go for color photography. But you must have your best photos printed. Photos left on an HD as digital files are nothing. That's the problem.
With film you make photos (and leave a solid archive behind if this matters for you and your family, your friends, etc).
Shooting film is easy and unexpensive if you shoot BW and process at home, from developing to wet printing (which is the only reasonable way to go). And a film photography which hasn't been printed on paper is a photography nonetheless, the negative isn't nothing.
BW film isn't expensive yet, neither are chemicals, wet printing stuff can be got for dirt cheap and enlargers are now often offered as a gift from people wanting to make room in their house if you can manage a local pick-up.
Wet printing paper is expensive but, as written above, non printed film negatives aren't tears in rain.
Now that the greatest slide or negative color films are gone (Kodachrome and Reala) digital is the way to go for color photography. But you must have your best photos printed. Photos left on an HD as digital files are nothing. That's the problem.
With film you make photos (and leave a solid archive behind if this matters for you and your family, your friends, etc).
Shooting film is easy and unexpensive if you shoot BW and process at home, from developing to wet printing (which is the only reasonable way to go). And a film photography which hasn't been printed on paper is a photography nonetheless, the negative isn't nothing.
BW film isn't expensive yet, neither are chemicals, wet printing stuff can be got for dirt cheap and enlargers are now often offered as a gift from people wanting to make room in their house if you can manage a local pick-up.
Wet printing paper is expensive but, as written above, non printed film negatives aren't tears in rain.
Michael Markey
Veteran
I feel under no obligation to do this.
My daughter has most of the stuff I`ve taken of her …. the rest doesn`t matter and I would suggest that is the norm.
At least once a year the local history society makes an emergency run to the local dump trying to rescue stuff from a house clearance.
I myself have a stack of MF negs from the `30`s which were dumped in a damp garage.
People care less than you would imagine about these things .
RichC
Well-known
My point is that whatever I'm shooting I'd do it in the same way regardless of the camera - what I'd do depends on the situation, not the camera (given it can do what I want - I'm not talking about an SLR vs basic point-and-shoot, for example.)
My main camera is a Sony A7R II and I can honestly say I don't use it any differently from when I used my go-to film camera (Mamiya 645 Pro - now gathering dust).
Axel
singleshooter
This old story persists continuously.
If that were true I had never taken one digital photo.
Highway 61
Revisited
What matters for me is how I care about these things as a photographer (and as a citizen). I don't care about people who don't care. I know that people who don't care don't belong to the minority.
The MF stuff from the '30s you cleverly grabbed in the garage before it got destroyed should be given to a public library of your neighbourhood, not kept in your house where nobody can study nor see it.
RichC
Well-known
Film does look different - but expertly processed and printed digital photos can now be very hard to tell apart from film photos. See my last post above for my "recipe" (essentially add noise and print C types - though the process is of course not that simple).
You're talking about technically poor digital images, either from a cheap camera or phone, or badly printed.
For my final project on my master's degree in photography, I used my Mamiya 645 film camera at first, switching to a dSLR (Nikon D800E = 645 film resolution) later for convenience. I made the two honking big prints below for my degree show, and my tutors (one a Magnum photographer!) awarded me a distinction and praised how film really suited the project ... I didn't have the heart to tell them that they were taken with a digital camera! (If I had, it would have made no difference to their appreciation nor my grade - they may even have been more impressed by the prints!)
Highway 61
Revisited
Imagine : photography comes out in the mid-XIXth century as digital, directly.
And... it has to mimic impressionist paintings and lead drawings to look pretty.
