My detour into film photography

[Dogman]

Has not been successful.

I last shot film in 2008 according to my faulty memory. At least 2008 was when I seriously began using digital cameras. I thought I might like a little respite from digital shooting so I bought a couple of old but not-so-old Nikon film cameras. I also have a few really old film cameras stashed away but I thought new gear might spur me on to my new endeavor. My freezer still contains a few rolls of B&W film that I thought might still be good but I bought a few fresh rolls for safety sake. Ordered chemicals...already have good stainless reels and tanks along with beakers and stuff. All set, right?

First thing I realize is that I'm not a fixed ISO person anymore. I'm an Auto ISO guy. Set the default to 400, set the maximum to 3200/6400, set shutter speed default to 1/100 and go about my merry way. To me, that's the way God meant for me to do it and who am I to argue? This stick to one film speed thing is...unnatural...demonic. I don't take all my pictures outside. Or inside. Or in near darkness. Or any any consistent lighting condition.

But that's not all. Most of my pictures are done close to home. I have mobility issues so I don't get far from the car or the house. And most of my picture-taking outing are short with me exposing only a few frames. I then come home, fire up Lightroom and import what I have. I like seeing what I've done as soon as possible. A roll of film these days costs in the neighborhood of 10 to 12 bucks...or more. It's not just wasteful but downright dumb to pull a roll before you've finished it. But if I've shot 8 frames only, I wanna see those 8 frames NOW. Must be patient. Must. Be. Patient.

So I stumbled around shooting various and sundry subjects but I only felt like I was making an experiment, not really shooting anything of consequence. I racked up four exposed rolls on a shelf. That's where they stayed.

I have no motivation to develop the film. I dread it, really. I look at it as a drudge...time consuming. Mix chemicals, measure, shake a can, run water, clean up the mess, hang negatives someplace to dry. Then it's scan the negatives with one of my digital Nikons, take the files into Lightroom to spot and tidy it up. Hmmm.

Let's be fair. I'm not keen on processing film anyway but I despise scanning and spotting and fixing the inherent faults in negatives. I live in a house that's older than I am with a wife and a dog and dust that has been recycling since the Roosevelt administration. Can't get rid of it. The house would have to go to get rid of FDR's memories.

So the foray into film was a failed skirmish. I look at it as a confirmation of what I knew all along--I'm lazy, impatient and so what? Now gimme my damn Auto ISO and lemme alone.

 

[Dervla]

I like the way you write. Thank you.

 

[Darthfeeble]

Yep, !!!!!!!!

 

[Retro-Grouch]

When I did shoot digital, my approach was much like yours. I gave it about five years and spent a fair amount on good equipment. And I'm pretty much in agreement about what a damned nuisance film is.
Nevertheless, to paraphrase a great man, the foray into digital was a failed skirmish. I'm back to film only. This is not a rational undertaking, obviously!

 

[jamesmck]

I often have the same thoughts about getting back to film, but understand your frustration. Maybe take small steps. Send the already exposed film to a mail order lab and get development and modest scans. If the results excite you at all, consider taking the next step to developing yourself, maybe even with a monobath to keep things simpler. Just a thought.

 

[p.giannakis]

I started with film and I switched for a while (2-3 years) to digital in 2005. Eventually, a PC crash and a couple of CD back ups that I cannot read any more meant that I have no surviving pictures of that period. Eventually I switched back to film and started developing it myself as there were no labs around to develop it at a reasonable price.

I grew up to like it better this way. I want to see a negative, pick it up, observe it. Put them all in an order and shows where I went, which picture came after which. The film strips provide a kind of a narrative once observed. I archive them in binding folders. There is something tactile in all this which I enjoy. But of course, if you take pictures on a daily basis, the cost of film and developing is becoming prohibitive these days. Digital is much easier and cheap.

 

[Keith]

That was a great read thank you ... and I can relate to many parts of it. I'm hoping to get back to using some film in six months or so when I'll probably be moving into a house where I can actually set up a small darkroom ... mainly for loading etc. Irrespective of the end result there is a special feeling in hanging a negative and admiring your mistakes. lol 🙂

 

[Bill Blackwell]

I cannot disagree that film is a PITA. And the results from my M6 (any film) are far inferior to that of my M10-P. But I do still shoot film on occasion; when I do I send the film out and have it scanned to TIF files onto a disk (it takes the lab about a week), then process in PS - just like digital.

So if my digital results are far superior, why would I shoot film? For some reason I simply enjoy the picture taking experience with a mechanical M. It's a combination of loading, shooting and advancing the film, the sound of the mechanical shutter, and knowing when I hit 36 exposures - or 38 in most cases - I'm done (or start over).

But sometimes it takes multiple outings to finish a roll. ...

Like I said, film is a PITA!!

 

[Darthfeeble]

I guess you are like me, just enjoy the old cameras. I'm a dyed in wool digital shooter but I've been aquiring a few, well a bunch of film cameras just for the fun of shooting them. There's something more tactile in shooting with one of the older manual cameras that tickles my inner Ansel or something.

 

[Tim Murphy]

Dear Dogman,

I shot film exclusively until I was gifted an Olympus C-20240 from a friend around 2006. I fell in love with digital photography and bought many cameras in various systems.

But about a year or so ago I started feeling like I was missing something? To me, and I understand that this is a gross simplification, but there is no real process to digital photography. You just shoot and let the camera and the computer do the rest. Even I could make good pictures courtesy of technology.

So, I decided I'm going to shoot more film, and develop it myself, and scan it with a DSLR or a Canon Flatbed scanner. I might be going down a giant hole, but I'm going!

Time will tell.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg PA 🙂

 

[Pál_K]

It’s good for people to know what they like and don’t like. At least you tried and now you know.

Go forth and keep the industry alive - buy a new digital camera today!

 

[Erik van Straten]

gelatin silver print (tth cooke amotal anastigmat 50mm f2, one of the most beautiful lenses in the world) leica mp

Carla, Amsterdam, 2023

Erik.

 

[Contarama]

I took my film rig out this weekend for the first time in years. Had the digital rig with me as well. The thing that struck me was the loud thunk when making a photo with the film camera. I'd forgot about that. Shot about 5 snaps. I bought a 24 exposure roll because I know it's going to take a minute to finish it off. I did enjoy shooting with it again but it sure was easy to come home and dump the digital files and quickly work them into jpegs.

Two rolls of film from local camera store...$29! Processing will probably be 10-15 a roll. Over a dollar per frame. That's way expensive.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

My family quit from film to digital around 2007. Paying for film developing and so-so scans was not acceptable.
But it 2012 I stepped into film big time. Got a lot of time to kill to feel trendy and learn how those whom I liked did it.

After ten recent years in DR... Film developing is nothing but time killing routine, IMO. No wonder HCB has someone else doing it and GW has many undeveloped rolls.
Scanner time is very consuming. DSLR transfer is kind of odd to me (why do I need to take same picture...).

I looked at family pictures I have taken most. It just nothing wrong with them taken on digital.
Did I gather my name as digital photog? No. Do I care for most likes on film? It was nice to get recognized for all of the time I have killed to learn techniques of the great past. But life goes on.

 

[Tom R]

i don't know if this will make sense ... . Ask: why do people make photographs? I would suspect that most people make photographs of things (places, people, settings, ... etc.) with a preconceived notion of what's "acceptable." In such applications, what the photograph "looks like" is the reason for making this particular photograph, with this particular technology. Generally, these kinds of photographs depend upon technology and often morph into "painterly" renderings of their subjects. And that's fine: most people want beautiful photographs of beautiful subjects.

Now, sometimes people make photographs about things, and often these cannot easily be (pre)visualized. For example, I often make photographs about the act of photographing or how the photographic process (this includes film, chemistry, etc.) transforms the subject. Now, for these applications, I really do want the physical object, that is, the negative. Could I obtain the same "image" with a digital camera? Of course. But the investigation is about the photographic/chemical process and how it differs from what I (think) I see.

I guess what I'm saying is I use film when I want/need a physical object, a piece of celluloid that contains a kind of "writing" or "drawing" done with light.

 

[shawn]

Interesting thing to think about. I started out with film in the darkroom back in the 80s. I use both mediums and waffle back and forth between them.

From a romantic point of view I'd love to go all film but for some of what I shoot I am way to impatient to wait to see (and share) the pictures. While OTOH processing a roll that you shot over a period of time can be very fun to rediscover what is on it.

For somet things, film is just way to limiting (and potentially expensive) compared to digital. For example, shooting a fencing meet I just know I will come back with better shots on digital than I ever could on film.

On the flip side using something like one of my Kraken's forces me to slow down and consider the process much more as I spot meter the scene and work in the zone system. When you get 3 (6x24) or 4 (6x17) frames per roll I slow way down. I enjoy the technical side of that.

For B&W I have a process that works well for me. I mix HC-110 one shot at 1:100 and develop stand for 60 minutes with 4 inversions at the start and 4 after 30 minutes. I really like the results of this and it makes processing simple and even lets me mix/match different B&W emulsions. For scanning I use a digital camera and have a rig that lets me set it up very quickly and I can scan a whole roll in a few minutes. Time spent in Lightroom converting the negatives is comparable to working with RAW files. I've been working out of the same bottle of HC110 for maybe 10 years. This way development cost of B&W is minimal, the film is definitely the biggest cost.

I like shooting color but it annoys me more due to the limited life of the chemicals once mixed and the outgassing of blix is messy.

I expect I will be shooting film and digital for the foreseeable future.

 

[farlymac]

I love shooting film. It's the most enjoyable way to spend a day getting images that will not be seen for at least two weeks if I get them mailed off forthwith. You see, even though there is a lab right here in town I got tired of putting up with their quality control issues, and their attitude that just because I'm not a pro photographer I don't deserve the same level of service. So now I have to mail off my film because there is just no way I'm going to be able to set up a developing bench in my small apartment.

So, I've been getting more involved in digital photography, and even though it could mean doing things faster I still like to slow down and shoot the way I did with a film camera, deliberately surveying the scene for the best angle and lighting, and not bothering to do any chimping. Another way is to mount my old lenses on the new mirrorless rig to see what kind of image quality I get.

That is when I can. I'm kind of in a drought at this time photography wise. Medical issues, dealing with the new owners of the building having to fix all the stuff the last four previous owners let go (contractors all over the place, meaning some days I spend moving my stuff around several times to keep it out of their way), and of course all the bodily breakdowns that occur with old age. I mean to get the rolls of film from the last two years developed soon, just can't make up my mind where to send them.

But when things get a bit more settled around here, I'll be back out there with either my film or digital cameras capturing the scenery like I used to. I hope.

PF

 

[Godfrey]

I started making photographs with film cameras about 1963 or so. I started doing digital imaging in about 1984 or so, bought my first "quality" digital camera in 2003. In the '80s-'90s, I peaked with shooting about 1000 rolls of 35mm film per year, about 3600 exposures or so. In the period from 2004 to 2011, I peaked with shooting about 125,000 digital exposures per year.

I never stopped, nor restarted, shooting with film. Same for digital imaging, once I'd started with it all those decades ago.

Nowadays, I continue to work with film cameras, instant film cameras, and digital cameras. I'm 7 years into my retirement now and my volumes are well down: I probably expose about 30 rolls of film (mixed 6x6, 6x4.5, 35mm, and Minox)—likely, what, about 300 exposures per year, about 20-25 packs of Polaroid instant film (190 or so prints per year), and average about 8 or 9 thousand digital exposures per year.

Each modality of my shooting has different challenges and gives me pleasure. Each also has its annoyances and tedium. I continue to learn new things doing this stuff. I enjoy all of it, even the tedious parts.

Whatever works to help you make the photographs that satisfy you is all that's important ... assuming that you want to make photographs. Making photographs has been such a huge part of my life since I was 8 years old, I can't conceive of my life without it.

Yet, anyway. I'm not as old as my friend Don was when he stopped having the motivation to make photographs ... I've got another 25 years before I hit that point, if he is my timeline. I'll let you know how it goes... 🙂

G

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

Has not been successful.

Failure is often the biggest step toward success. Or, at least a step toward fully understanding what is - is what is meant to be.

I have great admiration for people that are still shooting film in 2023; especially them that can produce images that are as good or better than digital. I’m not one of them people, I probably never was.

Digital Vs. Film Photography is a horse that was beaten to death years ago. It’s like Kramer Vs. Kramer; just an entertaining emotional roller coaster with no satisfactory ending for anybody.

Personally, I look at the pictures posted here and I don’t care if they’re film, digital, instax/polaroid… whatever. I only care about content, composition, and clarity of vision. All I want to see are interesting photographs.

Dogman, you may have some mobility issues, but sometimes you post some of the most interesting images. You’re also very generous with your “likes” for other people here. When I get a “like” from you I don’t take it lightly, I always consider the source and sincerely appreciate it!

Dogman, you keep posting, I’ll keep posting, we’ll all keep posting our best and most interesting photos regardless of whether they’re film or digital!

All the best,
Mike

 

[Freakscene]

Thanks for posting your explanation of your situation, it was eloquent and interesting. Dogman, just do it how you want, and keep posting here. If anyone else cares how _you_ work, that’s their problem.