Chris101
summicronia
Bt', I am an old guy, and learn from many photographers younger than I am.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I'm staying out of this ... but reading back through the thread I noted Brian Sweeny has finally got with the plan and bought himself an OM-1. 
And an M8!
And an M8!
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
Yes - but has he taken the glass from the Zuiko, and put in an LTM mount?I'm staying out of this ... but reading back through the thread I noted Brian Sweeny has finally got with the plan and bought himself an OM-1.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
This is just to answer questions that have been directed to me in this thread.
Do I still use film? Yes, I use an 8x10 view camera with black and white film. I have found no digital replacement for that. I have a large stock of 35-mm film cameras of which I am extremely fond and tell myself I must use again, but I don’t ever seem to get around to it. In general, with the smaller cameras, I find the image quality of digital cameras superior to film cameras for my work. (I didn’t use Tech Pan and a tripod in my film days; I found it easier and more effective to use larger format cameras when appropriate. I don’t think there is any question that a tripod and slow film can produce spectacular results; it just wasn’t applicable to my work.)
Digital has the same danger of blown out highlights as color slide film, but working for years with slide film in journalistic situations, you learn to handle that even if you envy the folks shooting Tri-X. All in all, I think my small format digital pictures are technically superior to my similar film shots. Obviously, that often has little to do with whether they are good or better pictures. Nor do I discount a genuine affection for film. I applaud someone who tells me they love film. If someone tells me film is better, I don’t know whether they are having trouble with semantics or moving their craft into a new medium.
As to black-and-white from digital, let me suggest that you might want to make your curves steeper, more pronouncedly “S” shaped with more contrast in the midtones, than you would with the same image as a color picture. Playing with the curve can give you an image closer to the film and silver printing paper images that you produce in a darkroom.
Do I still use film? Yes, I use an 8x10 view camera with black and white film. I have found no digital replacement for that. I have a large stock of 35-mm film cameras of which I am extremely fond and tell myself I must use again, but I don’t ever seem to get around to it. In general, with the smaller cameras, I find the image quality of digital cameras superior to film cameras for my work. (I didn’t use Tech Pan and a tripod in my film days; I found it easier and more effective to use larger format cameras when appropriate. I don’t think there is any question that a tripod and slow film can produce spectacular results; it just wasn’t applicable to my work.)
Digital has the same danger of blown out highlights as color slide film, but working for years with slide film in journalistic situations, you learn to handle that even if you envy the folks shooting Tri-X. All in all, I think my small format digital pictures are technically superior to my similar film shots. Obviously, that often has little to do with whether they are good or better pictures. Nor do I discount a genuine affection for film. I applaud someone who tells me they love film. If someone tells me film is better, I don’t know whether they are having trouble with semantics or moving their craft into a new medium.
As to black-and-white from digital, let me suggest that you might want to make your curves steeper, more pronouncedly “S” shaped with more contrast in the midtones, than you would with the same image as a color picture. Playing with the curve can give you an image closer to the film and silver printing paper images that you produce in a darkroom.
biggambi
Vivere!
"Anything is possible, Film only dies for the photographer who believes it is dying."
I'm sure Kodak and Fujifilm wish that were so.
Nah, Frank. But it doesn't matter whether anyone thinks film is best or not (and they are free to think so), film's future will ultimately be the same.
Please define "won." If your only concern is large market shares, coupled with large sales profit, it certainly is "king." But, it is a rather hasty conclusion if you are not willing to look at an esoteric market. Case in point, analog recordings. There are many, not one or two, companies producing some of the finest vinyl recordings ever produced. There are a number of high end companies producing turntables that out perform anything previously produced. Many musical artist have returned or continued to use analog systems of reproduction.
Lastly, if the desire to produce art, was governed by profits. Historically, there would be little art. Corporate greed and the worlds focus on amassing wealth is hardly the thing that drives art for most people. Most artist I know are small producers of wonderful statements of their vision. If even one person is driven enough by their art. They will find a way to express themselves in a manner that best suits it.
It would seem your dissatisfaction with the film process, is very evident in your comments. This statement alone, speaks loudly. Film is the standard. It came first. It is nothing personal. When critics look to it, for confirmation of what digital has or has not achieved.
The question of the thread asked if silver was dead. It seemed like the OP courted responses from both sides of the debate.
But, the dead horse is pretty unrecognizable now, so we can get back to debating whether Gordy straps work as well as Luigi straps!
The questions of the thread did not ask this question. People on this thread simply took it there. The questions posed by the author where actually interesting. But, I will say that the title and example given certainly appears to have elicited it.
Placing a restricted definition of the word "soul" to belittle someone. Does you a great disservice.
I see David Alan Harvey is shooting a D700 and two M9's for the NatGeo gig he is working on. This from the guy who shot everything with an M6 and Kodachrome since the M6 came out. Real photographers do shoot digital.
Please show me who has said that they don't.
This rings true.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
"Won" is pretty simple to define. You seem to be arguing that if the toe is still twitching, the flatlined patient is still alive. What do you suppose the production of new film cameras is in an entire year? Likely less than one day's production of digital cameras by Canon alone (I think they sold 22 million last year).
I think numbers like that indicate a pretty clear "win" for digital.
I think numbers like that indicate a pretty clear "win" for digital.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I am close to the last person to comment on working on digital files (whether generated by a digital camera or a scanner), but this is what I have found in working with silver b&w film scanned. Sometimes the straight scan is reasonably close to how I want the final image to appear, but almost always I tweak the curves to get it as close as possible. I can't comment on conversions from colour files, as I have rarely done that, since I mostly shoot b&w film.
Also, I don't print from digital files, I only display on the computer screen/web.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
biggambi
Vivere!
Bill,
I have greatly enjoyed the transition to digital. I like the fact that I can download my work while on the road. I also like the digital process. I was more enamored with the darkroom as a child and young man, but that changed. As I got older, I did not do my own processing. Therefore, the digital workflow has brought me back into the process. I am grateful for this, as i find it rewarding.
I miss certain aspect of film. I shoot solely with a Leica M system. The narrower plane of focus in digital is a definite disadvantage in low light. Also, I miss getting my transparencies back and projecting them. They have a look to them that speaks to me. Lastly, I do not like the look when digital goes wrong. It ruins the print for me.
The one area I am waiting to see if there will be changes in is: in my experience, digital sensors do not pick up the "finger print" of various lenses like film. There is a certain homogeneous aspect to digital pictures. That I do not see in film. (I do not know if this is because: the sensor is not sensitive to it; the algorithms are not developed enough; or, if the sensors are just not sensitive enough to detect it.) Do you see the same thing, or is it that my exposure to prints is too limited?
There is one area that the transition has had no effect on me. I am not bothered with the ultimate resolution issue with regard to print size. My gallery prints are not going to fill some ones wall. I really do not understand this trend for very large prints anyways. It is completely lost on me.
I keep telling myself to shoot more film. But, I don't do it. For me, the benefits have come to out way the compromises. If digital eventually fully eclipses analog, from a human sensory perspective. I won't have to think about it.
I have greatly enjoyed the transition to digital. I like the fact that I can download my work while on the road. I also like the digital process. I was more enamored with the darkroom as a child and young man, but that changed. As I got older, I did not do my own processing. Therefore, the digital workflow has brought me back into the process. I am grateful for this, as i find it rewarding.
I miss certain aspect of film. I shoot solely with a Leica M system. The narrower plane of focus in digital is a definite disadvantage in low light. Also, I miss getting my transparencies back and projecting them. They have a look to them that speaks to me. Lastly, I do not like the look when digital goes wrong. It ruins the print for me.
The one area I am waiting to see if there will be changes in is: in my experience, digital sensors do not pick up the "finger print" of various lenses like film. There is a certain homogeneous aspect to digital pictures. That I do not see in film. (I do not know if this is because: the sensor is not sensitive to it; the algorithms are not developed enough; or, if the sensors are just not sensitive enough to detect it.) Do you see the same thing, or is it that my exposure to prints is too limited?
There is one area that the transition has had no effect on me. I am not bothered with the ultimate resolution issue with regard to print size. My gallery prints are not going to fill some ones wall. I really do not understand this trend for very large prints anyways. It is completely lost on me.
I keep telling myself to shoot more film. But, I don't do it. For me, the benefits have come to out way the compromises. If digital eventually fully eclipses analog, from a human sensory perspective. I won't have to think about it.
Last edited:
biggambi
Vivere!
If it is so easy to define, then define it. You seem to have a very myopic way of viewing the world in this instance - money. The film medium may or may not survive for generations on end. But, it may very well survive, and be embraced by those yet to come.
If I followed your logic. I would have to conclude the following. Fountain pens should be abhorred, because of market shares. Yet, I and others still enjoy writing them today. Jazz music was a total failure. So, I should definitely stop playing jazz guitar. Quartz watches keep perfect time compared to the best mechanical examples. I might as well throw my Patek in the garbage. Lastly, I am a theoretical physicist, which God knows there are only a handful of PhD's a year. With little wealth to be attained. I suppose I should have been a banker, so I could "win."
DRabbit
Registered
I just wanted to reply to this reply!
Luckily, my son's girlfriend (22 years old) took a photography class last year at a major big-name college and they were not ALLOWED to use digital. She was exposed to developing her own film and making prints in a darkroom. SHE LOVED IT!
My daughter's best friend, 15 years old, expressed an interest in film a few months ago (she wants to go to college for photography). We bought her a film rangefinder for Christmas (Yashica GSN) and 25 rolls of TMAX 100 film. I just helped her develop her first roll in my bathroom this past weekend!
I love digital as much as the next person, but I've really come to love film in a whole new way in the last year. I hope more of us will make an effort to expose the next generation to film if it's within our power to do so.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
biggambi: you nailed it. Funny that someone familiar with photography can only see in Zone 0 and Zone 9. Or whatever you want to call "no shades of grey".
biggambi
Vivere!
Shadowfox & DRabbit, I couldn't agree more. I think there is much value in the medium. I will never forget going on nature hikes with my uncle, cameras in hand. We would go back to his house and develop together. There is something about the experience that is quite unique and satisfying like no other. As I began to shoot transparency film, I developed a skill set that has served me well. I began to look at light and a three dimensional world in a new way. I have always shot manual cameras because it is more rewarding to me. I like being called upon to make the decisions of aperture, shutter, and focus. Just as much as I like envisioning and framing the picture. I am not saying this can not be done in the digital realm. But, it is mandated in the manual-film realm. There is a difference.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
To me, it's not about being right or wrong.
I couldn't care less what people who *have* used film feel about it. Y'all have as much right to hate film as to love it.
Let me repeat it again: It's tragic if young photographers, years from now *cannot* even try film because we refused to preserve what's left of it now for them.
But I guess I am the only person in this forum who gives a whit about the future generation photographically-speaking.
Edit: I was wrong, DRabbit and biggambi see that too.
Last edited:
-doomed-
film is exciting
I'm 25. I decided a bit over a year ago to shoot film, learned to develop it, then got an enlarger ,followed by a second enlarger and then a TLR . I don't know if silver is dead or dying but I plan to use it until its gone. When digital becomes my only option to continue photography ill make that move, not begrudgingly , but I'll miss film.
Until its gone I'll shoot,develop, and wet print it .
Until its gone I'll shoot,develop, and wet print it .
kitaanat
kitaanat
Silver IMO is not dead but go up to the higher level.
I love drawing with pencil, color pen and water color painting since I was young. One day, my friend introduce me his camera, a Yashica Fx3 super 2000, I was hooked. I also interested in computer and I think that the computer graphics is the next level of drawing all artist will use in the future, no brush, no pigment anything goes digital. I dream about drawing on a tablet and manipulate the photo on computer. It really excited to edit and retouch what ever I want.(I imagine. but the real wold the brush still alive)
After I got Canon T80 which I changed to Canon EOS650 while I visited Vietnam in 1991. I learn photography from magazines and trial-error with color reversal film. I understand my camera and got what ever I want. When I first met digital camera, it was Kodak digital camera (may be DC50) the result far behind my film photography. Several years later digital camera's result come closer. I still prefer my pictures taken with Fuji Velvia. I got a job and learn to use the Illustrator. The image manipulation is cool IMO. I have all skill need to manipulate the picture on various applications.
When I go to digital, I learn Hasselblad H2D and later H3D from Hasselblad field specialist. My work is to show how superior result of digital back over traditional process. I gave a training to studio guys and student in a short introduction to digital photography at university and the studio through out Bangkok. I felt like digital can do anything, the 16 bit per channel, 12 f stop dynamic range and double CCD size of DSLR. That year 12 units of H3D was sold in my country. I later conflicted with my boss and I decided to leave. The next job was to marketing Leaf digital back (various from 22MP - 56MP). I use Leaf digital back on 4x5 cameras like Sinar P2, Linhof Kardan, 6x9 Linhof technikadan, Toyo, Arcaswiss M / F or Linhof M679 it works perfectly fit and gave good result. On one test, I was surprise that an old Rodenstock Sirona - N with problem on the coating gives me great result compare to the new 4x5 digital lens. IMO, the old lens was well made and they select only a high quality materials including the lens glass. I was interested the old vintage camera then.
The good of digital is that the picture can be manipulate and get improved in Photoshop that made some one less concentration. My last boss also do the interior photography. After he realize that I can do what ever retouch for him, the picture get worse. Some time I have to replace a re-shoot bed on the old previous background which taken in different angle but I did it nicely 2-3 days later. It quite a pain that my main work time was reduced and more time spent for that retouching things. I got in bad mood about this and felt that I won't do the manipulation again. In these days digital made some people over shooting. A studio assistant told me that some photographers flew to Thailand and rent a studio including 39 MP digital camera. He shoot almost 3,000 - 4,000 pictures of the model and tell the assistant to give him all high resolution the next day which impossible. The 39 MP file after developing is aprox. 80-100 MB TIFF and the processing time is about 30 s for a picture on Mac Pro. In my work for 2-3 years many photographers I met some were from another countries some were Thais, shoot more than 400-800 pictures a day. Their customer always need more pictures too and ask if the photographer can shoot more shots. Do we over taken the photo? Only a few photographers took less (such as 10-20 shots and let the model change the dress).
In my office there are so many vintage cameras. I found an old folding camera on the shelf, a Kodak Retina IIIC, and try the first roll through it. When the film developed I got hooked again. I always carry this little cam to what ever place I visit. I got my daily life and what I saw freeze in the pictures. I print all select shots on fiber based paper (out source) and the result impressed me. I kept almost 30 pictures wet print in my office and many people come and see. Many of them clean their M and use it again (digital still use in commercial work). I remember one nice guy with two M8 on his neck and micro 4/3 camera in his bag told me after saw the wet prints, he will start use his M6 again. Many of young guys/gals whose born in digital world can notice something different on the picture taken with film but they have no idea about it. In my country the young generation now interested film photography through their Lomo cam. They said that the film can be found on a gift shop. (Loft shop in Siam Discovery, Bangkok) Some of them may learn the light and get to real camera.
IMO, film photography go up to fine art level. Same to many of you here, I love the process and it's a hand craft which need a lot concentration in any step. When we measure the light and compensate, the use of shutter speed and f stop and we got what we want that's a joyful of photography. I will use film until I don't have enough power to hold the camera.
Digital photography with their fast workflow and cheap media is best for commercial work. Some photographer whose need a different feeling may come back to film on some assignment too.
edit:
One other thing, the silver gelatin prints is worth among arts collectors. I've met a photographer whose do hybrid process (took with film, scan, and print it digitally), he exhibit his nice picture in some gallery and the collector ask if he can made a silver print for him and the deal was canceled later.
kitaanat
I love drawing with pencil, color pen and water color painting since I was young. One day, my friend introduce me his camera, a Yashica Fx3 super 2000, I was hooked. I also interested in computer and I think that the computer graphics is the next level of drawing all artist will use in the future, no brush, no pigment anything goes digital. I dream about drawing on a tablet and manipulate the photo on computer. It really excited to edit and retouch what ever I want.(I imagine. but the real wold the brush still alive)
After I got Canon T80 which I changed to Canon EOS650 while I visited Vietnam in 1991. I learn photography from magazines and trial-error with color reversal film. I understand my camera and got what ever I want. When I first met digital camera, it was Kodak digital camera (may be DC50) the result far behind my film photography. Several years later digital camera's result come closer. I still prefer my pictures taken with Fuji Velvia. I got a job and learn to use the Illustrator. The image manipulation is cool IMO. I have all skill need to manipulate the picture on various applications.
When I go to digital, I learn Hasselblad H2D and later H3D from Hasselblad field specialist. My work is to show how superior result of digital back over traditional process. I gave a training to studio guys and student in a short introduction to digital photography at university and the studio through out Bangkok. I felt like digital can do anything, the 16 bit per channel, 12 f stop dynamic range and double CCD size of DSLR. That year 12 units of H3D was sold in my country. I later conflicted with my boss and I decided to leave. The next job was to marketing Leaf digital back (various from 22MP - 56MP). I use Leaf digital back on 4x5 cameras like Sinar P2, Linhof Kardan, 6x9 Linhof technikadan, Toyo, Arcaswiss M / F or Linhof M679 it works perfectly fit and gave good result. On one test, I was surprise that an old Rodenstock Sirona - N with problem on the coating gives me great result compare to the new 4x5 digital lens. IMO, the old lens was well made and they select only a high quality materials including the lens glass. I was interested the old vintage camera then.
The good of digital is that the picture can be manipulate and get improved in Photoshop that made some one less concentration. My last boss also do the interior photography. After he realize that I can do what ever retouch for him, the picture get worse. Some time I have to replace a re-shoot bed on the old previous background which taken in different angle but I did it nicely 2-3 days later. It quite a pain that my main work time was reduced and more time spent for that retouching things. I got in bad mood about this and felt that I won't do the manipulation again. In these days digital made some people over shooting. A studio assistant told me that some photographers flew to Thailand and rent a studio including 39 MP digital camera. He shoot almost 3,000 - 4,000 pictures of the model and tell the assistant to give him all high resolution the next day which impossible. The 39 MP file after developing is aprox. 80-100 MB TIFF and the processing time is about 30 s for a picture on Mac Pro. In my work for 2-3 years many photographers I met some were from another countries some were Thais, shoot more than 400-800 pictures a day. Their customer always need more pictures too and ask if the photographer can shoot more shots. Do we over taken the photo? Only a few photographers took less (such as 10-20 shots and let the model change the dress).
In my office there are so many vintage cameras. I found an old folding camera on the shelf, a Kodak Retina IIIC, and try the first roll through it. When the film developed I got hooked again. I always carry this little cam to what ever place I visit. I got my daily life and what I saw freeze in the pictures. I print all select shots on fiber based paper (out source) and the result impressed me. I kept almost 30 pictures wet print in my office and many people come and see. Many of them clean their M and use it again (digital still use in commercial work). I remember one nice guy with two M8 on his neck and micro 4/3 camera in his bag told me after saw the wet prints, he will start use his M6 again. Many of young guys/gals whose born in digital world can notice something different on the picture taken with film but they have no idea about it. In my country the young generation now interested film photography through their Lomo cam. They said that the film can be found on a gift shop. (Loft shop in Siam Discovery, Bangkok) Some of them may learn the light and get to real camera.
IMO, film photography go up to fine art level. Same to many of you here, I love the process and it's a hand craft which need a lot concentration in any step. When we measure the light and compensate, the use of shutter speed and f stop and we got what we want that's a joyful of photography. I will use film until I don't have enough power to hold the camera.
Digital photography with their fast workflow and cheap media is best for commercial work. Some photographer whose need a different feeling may come back to film on some assignment too.
edit:
One other thing, the silver gelatin prints is worth among arts collectors. I've met a photographer whose do hybrid process (took with film, scan, and print it digitally), he exhibit his nice picture in some gallery and the collector ask if he can made a silver print for him and the deal was canceled later.
kitaanat
Last edited:
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Bill Pierce: "What were your experiences if you moved from film to digital outside of the obvious pain of learning a new craft and buying new gear?
Was it worth it?"
_______________
Bill I've been shooting film since joining this animated forum. Prior to that I used an Olympus 3030 which wouldn't make the grade as a P/S these days. Since joining RFF, I've moved away from 135 to 120 and 4x5.
I recently got 'force fed' a Panasonic DMC LX3 by a friend. I'm working on a book with a shooting partner who's primarily a digital user but who shoots film. There are reasons for this covered in a moment.
I had been shooting images for stitching in PSE and using scanned 35mm jpgs. When I started using the Panasonic a whole world of convenience was opened up. I now shoot most of the remaining work for this book project using this digital camera. Not for convenience nor because I'm converted but because it works best.
Was the learning curve difficult? No it was pretty easy. I also took a brief course on PSE which ramped up my comprehension. It was comparable to taking a darkroom class. Both film and digital are fine by me. They are tools and each has it's own characteristics. I use these characteristics to get what I want in an image.
Back to my friend and their film use. They use film because it give looks that cannot be emulated by digital means despite all these current 'profiles' that are available to give a photograph "a look". She's still looking for more used film equipment even now.
Film's not dead except in the "Pro world" where it makes absolutely no sense. It's the pro world that trickles down to the rest of the world and some want to emulate pros. They buy the Canon MKII 5D's and lenses. The rest of the world still struggles by with digital P/S's and film cameras. Not a big deal. Film vs digital... it's like a religious argument only "the invested" care.
Was it worth it?"
_______________
Bill I've been shooting film since joining this animated forum. Prior to that I used an Olympus 3030 which wouldn't make the grade as a P/S these days. Since joining RFF, I've moved away from 135 to 120 and 4x5.
I recently got 'force fed' a Panasonic DMC LX3 by a friend. I'm working on a book with a shooting partner who's primarily a digital user but who shoots film. There are reasons for this covered in a moment.
I had been shooting images for stitching in PSE and using scanned 35mm jpgs. When I started using the Panasonic a whole world of convenience was opened up. I now shoot most of the remaining work for this book project using this digital camera. Not for convenience nor because I'm converted but because it works best.
Was the learning curve difficult? No it was pretty easy. I also took a brief course on PSE which ramped up my comprehension. It was comparable to taking a darkroom class. Both film and digital are fine by me. They are tools and each has it's own characteristics. I use these characteristics to get what I want in an image.
Back to my friend and their film use. They use film because it give looks that cannot be emulated by digital means despite all these current 'profiles' that are available to give a photograph "a look". She's still looking for more used film equipment even now.
Film's not dead except in the "Pro world" where it makes absolutely no sense. It's the pro world that trickles down to the rest of the world and some want to emulate pros. They buy the Canon MKII 5D's and lenses. The rest of the world still struggles by with digital P/S's and film cameras. Not a big deal. Film vs digital... it's like a religious argument only "the invested" care.
Turtle
Veteran
I still find silver prints from good negs beautiful in a way that digital prints seem unable to reproduce.
Film is largely dead from a commercial photography perspective, but I am not concerned about that. For reportage work, I still feel that film lends a fidelity (assumed or real) that viewers appreciate. People feel more comfortable that there is no monkey business going on. The organic look of flim with grain also seems more human. Digital is too clean in B&W, no matter what you do with the curves. When one uses film replicating effects, one has to wonder if that is making sense any more.
Digital is digital and in colour I feel it is a no brainer, but I have yet to see digital B&W reportage work that is evocative in the way Salgados film work is, or many others. It will be interesting to look at Salgad's forthcoming B&W digital work. I suspect it will be incredible but would ask the question of the cost and investment of expertise behind what will likely be the best B&W digital prints out there. Those sorts of expert image processors and printers dont come cheap and are likely to be a lot more expensive than wet prints from a top printer.
I am still looking at the leap from B&W film to digital, but just have not seen convincing enough work to make me feel I can retain the print quality and character in the digital realm without leaping through more hoops than film handling puts in front of me.
Film is largely dead from a commercial photography perspective, but I am not concerned about that. For reportage work, I still feel that film lends a fidelity (assumed or real) that viewers appreciate. People feel more comfortable that there is no monkey business going on. The organic look of flim with grain also seems more human. Digital is too clean in B&W, no matter what you do with the curves. When one uses film replicating effects, one has to wonder if that is making sense any more.
Digital is digital and in colour I feel it is a no brainer, but I have yet to see digital B&W reportage work that is evocative in the way Salgados film work is, or many others. It will be interesting to look at Salgad's forthcoming B&W digital work. I suspect it will be incredible but would ask the question of the cost and investment of expertise behind what will likely be the best B&W digital prints out there. Those sorts of expert image processors and printers dont come cheap and are likely to be a lot more expensive than wet prints from a top printer.
I am still looking at the leap from B&W film to digital, but just have not seen convincing enough work to make me feel I can retain the print quality and character in the digital realm without leaping through more hoops than film handling puts in front of me.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
I agree that film is dead in the mainstream. Just last week a kid asked me how many shots came on a roll of film. I rarely encounter anyone still shooting film and when I do they are usually armed with a Leica or Hasselblad. Among the many people I know there are only two left aside from myself that still primarily shoot film.
I think color film has taken a much harder hit than B/W and will probably disappear in 10-15 years. I have a feeling that b/w, which has been out of the mainstream for about 30 years, will continue on for a very long time as a niece market.
I went digital twice and it didn't stick.
First I had a Canon 5D. That affair lasted about 6 months.
Last year I bought a Nikon D700 and I really only use it for work purposes. I still haven't shot any of my personal work with it.
There are several reasons for this.
For one thing I'm my own boss. I don't have to transmit images from the far flung corners of the earth, meet deadlines or bend to the whims of the person who pays me to shoot. So, there is no real pressure for me to go digital, unless I get too lazy to go through the trouble involved in processing my own film.
Second, I prefer manual focusing over AF. I primarily scale focus. Until recently AF was the only option on a Canon, until Zeiss made their glass available in EF mount. Ironically the lack of MF lenses was the same reason why I broke up with my Canon EOS 1-V HS.
For my D700 I only own MF glass from Zeiss and Nikon.
Both the 5D and D700 are positively huge compared to a Leica M or Nikon F/F2 or even the F3. A DSLR looks expensive and I always feel like a target carrying one around in a large city or on the wrong side of the tracks. I tried working in down town Los Angeles near the Mission with the 5D and gave up after about 30 minutes. I felt like a walking cash machine. I don't think it would have been any easier with a EP-1 or compact. Digital cameras are easy cash for those desperate for a hit or meal. Aside from the occasional rabid Leica fan or Japanese tourists the vast majority of people look at my worn analog cameras and see antiques or chuckle.
Yes, the M9 would solve most of the problems listed above, but at $6000 per body it's not an option. I would need two and I can think of a lot more useful things to do with $12,000.
Sensor technology has made big strides in the past years, but I have yet to see a sensor that can deal with brilliant highlights like film does or deliver the visual poetry of Tri-X. That said the low light capabilities of digital are stunning. My D700 can practically see in the dark and still produce useable results. The ability to switch ASA on fly is tempting as is the flexibility of essentially shooting b/w and color at the same time. Travel would also be a lot less of a PIA.
I simply like film and primarily shoot b/w. I like the hands on aspect of film. I enjoy developing and fussing around with it. I spend a considerable amount of time at work in front of a computer and the last thing I want to see when I come home is another LCD screen or have some gadget beep at me. I like the challenge of mastering the media and craft. To me film is honest; a refuge from the nearly universal intrusion of modern technology in to our daily life. I like the unforgiving nature of film. No chimping, minimal automation, no Photoshop. Just you, a hunk of brass with a lens and your brains against the changing light and whatever challenges mother nature and daily life can toss at you. There simply is a lot more satisfaction in really nailing a shot; when getting the shot depends entirely on you and your skills. No crutches, no net.
I also worry about long term storage of digital images. I've worked as a professional in the field of digital imaging for the past 15 years. During that time I have seen terabytes of data vanish in an instant, never to be seen again. Truly terrifying once you've witnessed it. The other problem is the relentless march of technology. Storage media becomes obsolete at a dizzying rate, requiring the constant migration of data to new media. Where are you going to find a CF card reader or DVD drive 20 years from now? Film only needs a light-source and lens to be read.
Film has to be physically destroyed to be eliminated. Unless my negatives vanish in a fire or similar event, they are very likely going to outlive me by a considerable margin.
I think of Al Kaplan, who recently passed away. Al is gone, but he left behind a vast archive of a very interesting life and incredible document of the 1960's and 70's. Would it still be around if it had been stored on a server or DVD's?
Think of the Mexican Suitcase. Would the negatives of Capa, Taro and Chim have survived a world war and trip halfway around the globe for 70 years if they had been digital? Highly unlikely.
Obviously digital is the future and the rest of us are passengers on the Titanic. Sooner or later I will have no other choice but to switch, but until then I really don't have a very good reason to switch and a few very good reasons not to switch.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Silver IMO is not dead but go up to the higher level.
IMO, film photography go up to fine art level. Same to many of you here, I love the process and it's a hand craft which need a lot concentration in any step. When we measure the light and compensate, the use of shutter speed and f stop and we got what we want that's a joyful of photography. I will use film until I don't have enough power to hold the camera.
Digital photography with their fast workflow and cheap media is best for commercial work. Some photographer whose need a different feeling may come back to film on some assignment too.
edit:
One other thing, the silver gelatin prints is worth among arts collectors. I've met a photographer whose do hybrid process (took with film, scan, and print it digitally), he exhibit his nice picture in some gallery and the collector ask if he can made a silver print for him and the deal was canceled later.
kitaanat
Kitaanat, a very thoughtful post. I am sorry for not quoting it in its entirety. But what I quoted above voiced clearly what I wanted to say.
I am in the middle of writing materials for a film photography workshop that I'm about to launch locally. I will make a separate thread soon because I sure can use the help of everyone here who loves to use film.