Return to film - or is it ?

[dee]

The pixels or film dee-bate rages , in that I love my M 8 - because I can use it just like a real camera ....

But , I am drawn back ... not to film , though I do miss the magic of slides ...
but to my old cameras - Kievs , Leica II / IIIc , etc.

it's NOT a digital dee-bate but a camera thing .

But you don't hear this being said much - pixellated passions , or not , seem to be the main focus ..


Or am I really going crazee ?

dee

 

[Spider67]

Yes there is a reason why so many still hope that there will be a digital back for our trusted and/or loved tools. It´s simply the feel of my FM or my Canon IV that amkes the difference

 

[Gary Sandhu]

Exactly my feelings! When I use film it's because of the cameras (mostly).

 

[Michael P.]

I'm reminded of a post by someone (can't remember) who said his digital camera took great pictures, but he didn't love it like he did his Pentax 6x7. There's a lot to love about a Pentax 6x7, but digital cameras become obsolete so fast there's only time for a one-night-stand.

 

[__hh]

Maybe that explains why a lot of people (including myself) liking the R-D1(s), lusting for the M8, and using M rangefinders to shoot film, but then just developing the negs, scanning them into the computer, and taking it digitally from there.

 

[dan denmark]

for me it is the film probably more than the camera because of what film can do that pixels, i feel, never will, in the short term anyway.. i think it is all about light and information and pixels just don't do light the way film does. but it does do light! i went to an arts event last night and was told, in conversation, our local TAFE (Community technical college sort of) closed its darkrooms at the end of the last school year. what this means is the current and following generations of students will unlikely understand grain, know the feel of film, have yellow fingernais from developer (oops, yellow rubber gloves, i mean...) and may well lose sight of total dynamic range that is inherent in most film but has to be replicated in the digital realm. i still, in my old age, think digital is a mediocre compromise as a technical medium.

but bottom line for pretty much all of us, even if we do shoot film, at some stage we will likely have to digitise it in order for anyone to see what we shoot. even pro processing houses are often digitising before they print to paper now. in melbourne there is the Centre for Contemporary Photography which shows a lot of work shot on digital as well as film and printed on Type R or C and at a recent opening a woman commented on the worm-like texture the photogapher got in the image and proceded to ask what kind of camera made this surface... but currently the Victorian National Gallery is showing the works of photographers of the period of Alfred Stieglitz. more woms, no doubt. long live the worm.

so we adjust. but at least with film being digitised to print we start out with a lot more exposure information than digital. for now.

art is less about process and more specifically about outcome and impact so the medium is in this context irrelevant.

but just to be safe, i keep the IIIa, loaded with BW, and the RD1s in the glove box at all times. digital has a prominent place in the world because it will not disappear at the hands of the die-hards but film has its place currently and in history as the classic medium and as long as it is produced it will sit significantly alongside digital as a genuine alternative.

i just hope the local camera store which is now the local frame shop never sells its wet processing machine... or i could buy some rubber gloves...

-dd

 

[Sam N]

Image quality / character aside, there's something special about using a mechanical device with gears and levers. The tactile response is more enjoyable than pressing an electronic button.

I also really enjoy using a film wind-on lever for some reason.

 

[pachuco]

Same here, I just love the feel of quality in my hands. I get that with my M3, but I also get that feeling with my L series Canon lenses, not so much with the DSLR bodies I use.

 

[Keith]

I have a definite preference for film as a shooting experience. I like developing it myself and being able to experiment with solutions and times etc to achieve the tones and look that I'm after ... this has become very important to me.

Personally I've gone away a little from the older cameras and prefer the sophistication of my Ikon or Hexar if a rangefinder is my choice. Yes ... you can take great pics with a Kiev or an old screwmount Leica but it's a premeditated process and they aren't great for totally spontaneous shots in less than favourable conditions where the image is paramount and and what you achieve it with needs to give you the best possible advantage.

That said ... there will always be classic 'clunkers' in my cupboard! 😛

 

[Chris101]

... our local TAFE (Community technical college sort of) closed its darkrooms at the end of the last school year. ...

That is very sad, and a real loss for the students there.

I am fortunate to (work at and) go to school at an institution which is committed to the darkroom and film experience. Even the Digital Photography certificate requires two semesters of film work. The newly hired head of the photo department will keep it that way for the foreseeable future.

It is really too bad that more schools are not interested in teaching about all of photography, but are merely training photo-workers.

 

[shadowfox]

I guess I am easy, I like all three: The Camera, The Film, The Processes. 🙂

The Camera: There's nothing like a classic film camera in your hands and that bright viewfinder greeting your eye. They are solid, not complicated, look pretty, feels nice, and still gets the job done... well!

The Film: It's the size; want to go larger, then go larger, want to go smaller, then go smaller, your choice. It's the look; want grain, get fast films, want no grains, get slide films, also your choice. And it has a good chemistry with your artistic-side 🙂

The Processes: It's magic! Anyone who has ever pulled a reel of film from the tank after being developed, or see images emerge from a photo-paper in the tray can relate. Those who have not, can't. Simple.

 

[lorriman]

I've gone to film purely because the financials work for my portrait photos. Up to about 20 times a year I want to take photos with lovely oof backgrounds. On ebay I can get a Pentax ME Super with a nice 50/1.7 for £30 inc, £6 for new seals, and a 135/2.5 for £20 (flares badly so no good for backlighting). Film costs £0.50p a roll (out of date Reala 100) and processing (negs only) is £1 at Tescos. Batteries £1.60p for 10,000 'actuations'. Over 4 years that comes to £178, the price of a used nikon D50 body-only.

I don't need a scanner as I snap the negs against a blue sky with WB set to incandescent, 5cm macro on my 6MP digicam for about 1MP-2MP of resulting image, and process the result in irfanview with the freeware photoshop plugin 'Smartcurves'. That satisfies 99% of my print requirements (1MP is enough for a 6x4), and the rest I get done as a regular enlargement from negative for not much more than a large digi print. I usually convert to B&W, but the colours are fine in anycase. See the following:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=88235&nocache=1

For everything else I use my Fuji F30 p&s whose great virtue is near silence coupled with reasonable low-light: I can take photos where an SLR is intrusive, which is a LOT of places. And many of its ISO3200 pics are fine as b&w.

However, having gone to film for purely mercenary reasons I have to say that taking pictures is a lot more intense, fun and satisfying than digicams. The cost makes you really work to get those good photos. I've immeasurably improved as a photographer. Speaking as a people-shooter (I almost never shoot 'things'): digi users are really missing out.