Should I bother with film?

There's no 'right' or 'wrong' about this, Ecowarrior. All we can do is share our experiences with you and let you make your mind up. I started with the Olympus OM system many years ago and eventually acquired many Zuiko lenses. I know them, they are like old friends, and I have enough spare OM cameras to see me through. I then acquired a few Leica screwmount cameras for various specific projects e.g. I wanted a quiet camera for a wedding and I acquired a Voigtlander 21mm f4 for landscapes. I built up a B&W darkroom and adapted it to handle colour prints so I could make some African Safari prints the way I wanted them. I have a couple of simple digital cameras but have never embraced the technology fully. 'Can't teach an old dog new tricks' springs to mind but I prefer 'I'm happy with what I've got'! Colour printing I found too difficult. Getting the right colour balance is difficult, I found. These days, it's far easier to send scanned colour negatives away to get them printed. I also tried developing film but again its easier to send them away. My workflow is modest so the cost is not significant. Now developing B&W prints in my darkroom, that's a different matter. It's a doddle and you simply can't beat it. There's something about watching that print materialise before your eyes...and you can really make a difference when you print yourself. I always have my B&W film 'develop and CD only' (the CD so I can make my decisions about what to print) and that's because you can always make a better B&W print if you do it yourself. Good luck!
 
I grew up shooting film. When digital cameras first became affordable, about 12 years ago, I bought a Nikon D70. Was fun to shoot with but it just didn't have the image quality I got from film. Later, got a Kodak DCS 14n, a 14mp fullframe camera Kodak made (based on a Nikon 35mm body) a decade ago. It DID give great quality; better than 35mm film for color work, but I never really liked converting the images to BW for my black and white work. It also didn't work well for long exposures or any ISO setting above its base of 80. Finally sold it about 6 yrs ago and went back to 100% film.

A few years ago, I broke down and bought another digital SLR, a Canon 5DmkII. Needed it for some commercial work I was doing a lot of (photographing artwork for artists who needed digital images of their work). It has really been wonderful for color work, and with the last pro labs in Indiana having closed, I began using the Canon for my color work, while using film for BW. Most of my film work is medium format, shot with a Mamiya 6, a big interchangeable lens rangefinder. Basically a big leica that shoots square photos (I have always loved square format, used a Hasselblad for years before getting the Mamiya).

That's where I am today. Film for BW, digital for color. That's my recommendation to you. If you mostly shoot color, stick to digital. The image quality, in my opinion is now better with modern digital cameras, compared to film for color. If you mostly shoot BW, go for film. The tonality I get is far better with BW film, compared to converting color digital images to BW.

If you shoot a lot of both color and BW, as I do, then shoot both film and digital.
 
Hi,

I think you ought to regard your opening post as the long term aim but start by dipping your toe in the water just to see if you like film. Better than spending several thousands on a Leica M6 and a lens or two to see if you like it and you might not...

You ought to start by buying a film camera and a cassette of film, note that means not medium format. This is the first step. There's dozens of cameras out there at dozens of prices, some of them far cheaper than the first cassette of film.

Also there's dozens of types of camera out there. So are we thinking fully auto, half auto or manual with auto or pure manual? Then double or treble that as we could be talking about compacts, SLR's or range finders. So a dozen basic types to start with...

Same applies to film, simple B&W, complex B&W, colour print and slides. And how you go from film to pictures adds to the fun or complexity or even frustration.

So, in your shoes, I wouldn't like to decide for ages and ages, based on experience. That means hands on and experimenting.

It also means going to a dealer because I could tell you - it's the truth - that you cold pick up a bargain for a fiver in a charity shop but I know/guess you'd need a lot of luck to do so first time without any experience of the things.

Experience also tells me that most film photographers have 3 or 4 cameras. The obvious would be a RF and SLR because they complement each others' strengths and weaknesses. Then a small pocketable one (meaning a P&S) because after a while you'll like to carry a camera all the time but won't feel like lugging what feels like three bricks in a bag around all the time. (The 4th is often something weird, let's not go there yet!)

You might like to start to see if you like film by buying one of the types you'll end up with and some film, then taking the film to a lab. It will cost you a fraction of the cost of the M6 body and save you a lot of worries and mistakes with the developing and so on.

You might also like to see if there's a local photography club for some hands on experience. It's a lot easier than jumping in the deep end.

Regards, David
 
Last edited:
Its really personal preference, for me full frame 35mm digital, and 35mm film are similar, and usually ends with the digital having the leading edge with sharpness. The color and contrast qualities are different (I don't really work in B&W) Where film starts to have the leading edge is on the larger formats then when scanned produce much larger files than any other back or camera. When I work with film I work in a hybrid method where as soon as the film comes back from the lab it is scanned and posted in photoshop and outputted either on an epson or chromira type machine.
 
Plenty of good points here. I suspect everybody fears for the day when no film is available but I suspect there will always be a market whilst there are people out there willing to buy film, so even if the old-guard are no longer making film, new companies will spring up to fill the void. I hope.

With regards to the Leica thing, it's a dream. Sure I'm gear chasing, but my view is that I'm not going to buy anything like that kind of equipment unless I know I can happily develop the film myself and for it not to become a hassle. It's a hobby, either I'll enjoy it or I won't.

I know what I shoot digitally, again purely a hobby, but I kinda fancy exploring another area of this wonderful hobby, and it seems like you film guys are having all the fun!

I think it's worth a go.
 
I think you have to feel there would be an improvement in print quality using film and making wet prints. Some people believe there is, others don't and are happy with inkjet prints from digital files.

And I think you have to enjoy doing the processing, i.e., if you are really only interested in getting your images and you'll feel that processing is just a necessary step to get through as quickly as possible, I'd stick to digital.

Personally, I am very satisfied with the quality of wet prints from film and I enjoy the processing (including color film and wet prints), so I have never used digital.

Film will always be around and is of better quality than in the past, even if the number of choices have been reduced. Adjusted for inflation, the cost of film is really no more than it was in the past. And lots of good film cameras and darkroom equipment are available inexpensively.
 
b&w medium format, it's worth the trip. 135, not as much, unless you have some real silver skills, like some around here.

it's just not a simple "if I shoot film i'll get really special results" proposition. it takes a lot of practice to be good with film, front to back. as it does for digital post-processing. no easy lunch. most of the results are of course skill-dependant, not medium-dependant.

i don't bother with the economic argument for and against film. not that I'm well off enough not to care. it's just that one will spend money in either capture medium to get the results one wants. reasonably good gear, film, processing equipment - all get acquired and improved over time if you're serious about the craft.
 
ecowarrior said:
Has anybody else done this? ie. go from being a 100% digital/adobe/send-to-printer photographer and invested time and money in shooting and developing film too. What were your experiences, outlay, advice? Were the results worth it in the end?
Click to expand...

Hi,

I started with film at the time before digital. Used film intensively at that time.
In the first decade of this century I started with digital, too.
Then there was a (short) time when my photography have been about 20% film, and 80% digital.
Now I am mostly back to film. 90-95% of my work is film.
All types of film (that is an essential part of the joy):
Color and BW transparency film, color and BW negative film, and Instant film as well.
With film you can completely change the character of your "sensor" in a second. A wonderful boost for joy and creativity.
I am also doing wet printing my own darkrrom, and love projecting my slides in unsurpassed quality on a big screen.

Is film worth it?
Yes, absolutely!

Go for it, have fun.
But just don't limit yourself to BW negative film and wet printing only.
Both is awesome, but just one part of the wonderful film journey.

Cheers, Jan
 
Without wishing to be rude, I never understand this type of post?

All things are a personal choice you try and like or try and don't like; but, you try.
 
ecowarrior said:
Plenty of good points here. I suspect everybody fears for the day when no film is available but I suspect there will always be a market whilst there are people out there willing to buy film, so even if the old-guard are no longer making film, new companies will spring up to fill the void. I hope.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, be happy.
Just ignore this one comment from a person who don't know the photo market.
The real situation is:
- Ilford is working on a new, completely modernised factory; investing a two digit million sum. They do that because they are confident that their market will be growing in the future
- Kodak made a statement about sales of their professional films being 15% higher compared to the year before
- InovisCoat in Germany has built a complete new modern factory in 2008/2009 for film and photo paper manufacturing; they are now producing for some other companies in the industry
- Fujifilm had to increase their production capacity for their instant film line, 20% grwoth rates p.a.
- Impossible Project is investing in new products, sales are significantly increasing
- Foma said their sales are stable
- Adox built a new small factory
- Film Ferrania is currently hard working on starting film production again.
We are currently in the beginning, the first steps of a film revival.

On the other side sales for digital cameras collapsed in only four years by 2/3 (!) in volume.
Here are the numbers:
http://www.cipa.jp/stats/dc_e.html

Cheers, Jan
 
Hi,

An aside: I do wish someone in the UK would sell a sample pack of all the B&W films available by mail order. Buying odd ones to try is difficult/expensive and so far I've only managed about a half dozen of them.

I live in the middle of nowhere and getting to serious photo shops is difficult.

Regards, David
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
If you mostly shoot color, stick to digital. The image quality, in my opinion is now better with modern digital cameras, compared to film for color.
Click to expand...

Color film prints that aren't forced through a digital intermediary should be quite a bit richer than digital, no? I know it's a stereotype at this point, but what about reds?
 
To the OP:
These days, if I were you, I would get hold of a (very) decent Medium format camera (Hasselblad or a Rolleiflex 2.8F) and shoot medium format.

If you are used to the clean nature and impeccable quality of digital, then medium format is probably the only thing that will satisfy you properly.
Well, unless you plan to shoot Tmax 100, Acros 100 or another bigger brand 100 ISO film or Velvia 50 slides.

35mm is practical, but it does tend to have a few drawbacks like:
- Dust more apparent on scans.
- Obviously grain and resolution.
- Quality does not equivalent modern digital high-end cameras (it really doesn't, despite what people might claim).
- 36 frames is too much anyway, unless you are on holiday or shooting an event, it's more to scan and you need to shoot longer to use up the film....which may be a challenge if you are going to "make photographs" and not snapshots.
- Leica schmeica.....seriously, when you look at it from a different standpoint, it's just a light-tight jewelery box with a fancy logo, it's the glass that matters, you can use Leica-glass on IE a Voigtländer R3M. (Yes, I know I am pissing of the Leica-boys with this, but it doesn't make it any less true).

If you were to go for 35mm anyway, then go for a proper high-end Nikon or Canon Autofocus SLR and quality optics, so your shots are in focus and sharp and with good exposure.

I shoot most formats from 35mm up to 6*9, rangefinders, SLR's, TLR's.....russian, japanese, German, whatever....and I also shoot digital and I scan and use the darkroom for my analog work.

There are so many other nice things to be had, beside "a leica". 🙂
 
ecowarrior said:
Has anybody else done this? ie. go from being a 100% digital/adobe/send-to-printer photographer and invested time and money in shooting and developing film too. What were your experiences, outlay, advice? Were the results worth it in the end?
Click to expand...

Yep, I have. I think it's worth it.

My advice is to experiment with a variety cheaper gear. Rangefinders might seem cool, but realistically most people prefer SLRs and not all rangefinder users are best off with an M. Perhaps get a 70s fixed lens rangefinder like the Canon QL17 GIII or Olympus 35RC and an SLR like a Nikon FM and find out what your needs/priorities are. From there you're better informed to make more expensive purchases - that is if you actually need anything else.

I'd hold off on the darkroom gear until you decide you actually like shooting film. Enlargers etc are cheap enough but they take up a lot of space and aren't necessarily easy to get rid of if you realise that you prefer to print digitally or through a lab.

Don't worry about those saying film is dying out, there are emulsions going up in price but there are still a good few cheap and excellent films to choose from.
 
My 1st Rangefinder camera was a Canonet QL17GIII. Bought some B&W film, changing bag, chemicals, tank, etc. Watched a few You Tube video's to familiarize myself with the process. It's pretty easy & cost are minimal. Bought a Epson V500 scanner & I enjoy the hybrid process. I do have a full darkroom I can set up in a spare bathroom but form what I am seeing from ink-jet prints I'm just tempted to go that route instead.
You will just have to give it a try to see how you like the process. & don't worry about what some are saying about film drying up. Color may, but B&W will always be around.
 
znapper said:
. . . Leica schmeica.....seriously, when you look at it from a different standpoint, it's just a light-tight jewelery box with a fancy logo. . .
Click to expand...
Sure, unless you can tell the difference between driving a Ford and a classic (pre-Jaguar) Daimler. Both will get you from A to B. The differences are (a) how much you enjoy the journey and (b) how long you expect them to last.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jaredangle
E-3: Should I Bother?
Replies
5
Views
986
Freakscene
Freakscene
R
Outside lab prints of scans?
Replies
0
Views
269
raduray
R
T
A (possibly) unusual question about out-of-date film...
Replies
8
Views
721
Freakscene
Freakscene
S
My Leica doesn't like my Paterson reels
Replies
17
Views
470
coogee
C
R
Newbie B+W Development Questions
Replies
13
Views
805
Bolo Kukus
B
Back
Top Bottom