LKeithR
Improving daily--I think.
Having successfully and comfortably made the transition from film to digital I'm wondering what it is about film that has some people holding on so doggedly? I mean, the world has changed, technology has changed dramatically and most of us have moved on but I know there are a number of people here who still shoot "only" film so there must be some very real attraction.
To bring a bit of perspective to the discussion I wonder how many people who shoot only film still only have black and white TVs? How many of you still drive cars from the 70s? How many don't have computers?...don't have cell phones?
My point is that I suspect in virtually every other aspect of their lives, even determined film shooters have embraced the new technologies with open arms. I'm sure that few of you are Luddites so what is it about film that transcends the impacts of technology in the field of photography?
To bring a bit of perspective to the discussion I wonder how many people who shoot only film still only have black and white TVs? How many of you still drive cars from the 70s? How many don't have computers?...don't have cell phones?
My point is that I suspect in virtually every other aspect of their lives, even determined film shooters have embraced the new technologies with open arms. I'm sure that few of you are Luddites so what is it about film that transcends the impacts of technology in the field of photography?
dave lackey
Veteran
Then you would be wrong.
I wear a 1970 mechanical watch. My wife has two older Mercedes with almost 400,000 miles on them. We do not have smart phones. We do not fly anywhere, we drive. I could go on, but this will give an idea that we as individuals choose what we want. OTOH, we have a computer, cable tv and indoor plumbing.
In others words, not part of the herd.
I wear a 1970 mechanical watch. My wife has two older Mercedes with almost 400,000 miles on them. We do not have smart phones. We do not fly anywhere, we drive. I could go on, but this will give an idea that we as individuals choose what we want. OTOH, we have a computer, cable tv and indoor plumbing.
In others words, not part of the herd.
ndnik
Established
It is not about technology and therefore your analogy of color tv or modern cars does not apply. Photography is a visual art. Film has a specific look to it. It looks like, well, film. Some of us simply like this look. I find it much easier to shoot film than to mess around in post processing trying to imperfectly recreate that look from digital files.
- N.
- N.
jmcd
Well-known
I think this is a self-fulfilling projection of marketing, even if it does have much evidence behind it.
wolfpeterson
Established
I have a hard time taking this thread seriously, but I will answer why I stay with film.
For me, it firstly has to do with IQ vs price. I can't afford a full frame camera. And I shoot sparingly, so I'm not wasting tons of film. Also, using film gear (bodies, lenses, p&s) that is cheaper allows me to have more gear with different characteristics. If I were to have multiple digital cameras for different uses, I would certainly be broke.
Secondly, I am no luddite (smartphone, iMac, backup drives, current game consoles, etc.), but I know that digital information is impermanent. No matter how good you backup, or backup of a backup is, there may be some critical incident where you lose every single image. Hard drive failure for example. Even burglary is an excellent example: would you steal a harddrive or a binder of negatives?
For me, it firstly has to do with IQ vs price. I can't afford a full frame camera. And I shoot sparingly, so I'm not wasting tons of film. Also, using film gear (bodies, lenses, p&s) that is cheaper allows me to have more gear with different characteristics. If I were to have multiple digital cameras for different uses, I would certainly be broke.
Secondly, I am no luddite (smartphone, iMac, backup drives, current game consoles, etc.), but I know that digital information is impermanent. No matter how good you backup, or backup of a backup is, there may be some critical incident where you lose every single image. Hard drive failure for example. Even burglary is an excellent example: would you steal a harddrive or a binder of negatives?
olleorama
flasher extraordinaire
I guess all the painters should have moved on from oil to acrylic?
Or from oil to goache?
Why do sketch artist use coal when they can mimic the look in photoshop?
Why on earth do people paint at all when a P&S camera will give the image they need?
I can't answer for all film photographers, only for myself. But I like the look film gives me. I like the tactile feel of older cameras and the smile on my face when I take of film rolls from the spools. I like handling wet prints, both RA4 and B&W. I like looking on the negatives on the light table. I just love analogue photography.
I make digital images too. Both photographic and raster and vector drawings. Can't really call myself a luddite.
(I also wear a mechanical watch, and prefer a fountain pen and notebook).
Or from oil to goache?
Why do sketch artist use coal when they can mimic the look in photoshop?
Why on earth do people paint at all when a P&S camera will give the image they need?
I can't answer for all film photographers, only for myself. But I like the look film gives me. I like the tactile feel of older cameras and the smile on my face when I take of film rolls from the spools. I like handling wet prints, both RA4 and B&W. I like looking on the negatives on the light table. I just love analogue photography.
I make digital images too. Both photographic and raster and vector drawings. Can't really call myself a luddite.
(I also wear a mechanical watch, and prefer a fountain pen and notebook).
David67
Member
I prefer film because I make better pictures with film. It's not because of the media but because of the process. No instant feedback, 36 frames per film. You have to make them count !
Maybe a DSLR without instant feedback could work for me ?
And also, film is fun ! I love the smell of fixer in the morning !
Maybe a DSLR without instant feedback could work for me ?
And also, film is fun ! I love the smell of fixer in the morning !
Carterofmars
Well-known
Medium format film has a look that's unmistakable. Flickr Mamiya 7II and Bessa III etc. The look and feel is... well, it just is.
look at these 120mm photos... http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=103727
look at these 120mm photos... http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=103727
Last edited:
Brian Legge
Veteran
Offer me a full frame digital rangefinder for $150 and I'll switch. Or a $200 digital medium format folder or TLR.
neelin
Established
Luddites...Luddites...you gotta be kidding....I have a friend who still paints.... with oils no less!
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
The simple answers (which capture only part of what I think): I like rangefinder cameras but can't afford an M9 and can't convince myself I'd like an M8 or RD1; I'm experimenting with medium format but can't afford a medium format digital back; I like old cameras and they use film; I get better B&W results, more easily, from scanned film than I do from converting digital camera images (this may be a limitation of my technique - but why work on that when scanning film gives me the results I like?); I have and use digital cameras and film cameras and like both for (somewhat) different uses.
Those are reason enough for me.
...Mike
Those are reason enough for me.
...Mike
doolittle
Well-known
Have a colour TV, but still love the cinema. TV is convenient, but there is something about cinema that makes it worth the effort. Same with film.
A lot of newer technology is progress in convenience, but often at the expensive of quality. LP/CD vs Mp3 would be an example. Daguerreotype vs negative vs digital. Large format vs medium format vs 35mm. It comes down to a trade off of convenience vs quality. Cost is in there too.
With film it also the whole process that is part of the attraction. There is also the magic of developing film, the anticipation. The physicality of the negative versus the intangible digital file. The pleasing chaos of grain versus digital noise.
I wear a mechnical watch too. It never runs out of batteries. I suppose same can be said of manual cameras (though can run of film!). I am spending time trying to save a 70s car from rust, but drive more recent vehicles.
A lot of newer technology is progress in convenience, but often at the expensive of quality. LP/CD vs Mp3 would be an example. Daguerreotype vs negative vs digital. Large format vs medium format vs 35mm. It comes down to a trade off of convenience vs quality. Cost is in there too.
With film it also the whole process that is part of the attraction. There is also the magic of developing film, the anticipation. The physicality of the negative versus the intangible digital file. The pleasing chaos of grain versus digital noise.
I wear a mechnical watch too. It never runs out of batteries. I suppose same can be said of manual cameras (though can run of film!). I am spending time trying to save a 70s car from rust, but drive more recent vehicles.
KenR
Well-known
And a friend of mine has a horse. How 19th century!
Spyro
Well-known
Ok so I want to shoot digital, I want to embrace the new technology. Got a couple of questions though...
I want to shoot some large format, which digital camera would you recommend? I also need a recommendation for a good digital camera for panoramic. Further, I need a full frame pocket camera. Also I need a pocket rangefinder. Now this is very important: I want an SLR that does not have a silvered mirror, ie it does not have autofocus. And lastly, I want a camera with active IR autofocus that catches in the dark, like the Hexar AF. Oh yes and a square format camera, with a square viefinder so I can see my frame.
Which digital cameras would you recommend?
Re this: "My point is that I suspect in virtually every other aspect of their lives, even determined film shooters have embraced the new technologies with open arms."
No I dont, I dont even own a TV. I do buy new technology but it has to fulfill 2 important criteria:
- I have to need it
- It has to replace old technology succesfully and fully. Digital cameras havent (see first para). Maybe it can claim it has replaced auto focus SLRs, but that's about it.
I want to shoot some large format, which digital camera would you recommend? I also need a recommendation for a good digital camera for panoramic. Further, I need a full frame pocket camera. Also I need a pocket rangefinder. Now this is very important: I want an SLR that does not have a silvered mirror, ie it does not have autofocus. And lastly, I want a camera with active IR autofocus that catches in the dark, like the Hexar AF. Oh yes and a square format camera, with a square viefinder so I can see my frame.
Which digital cameras would you recommend?
Re this: "My point is that I suspect in virtually every other aspect of their lives, even determined film shooters have embraced the new technologies with open arms."
No I dont, I dont even own a TV. I do buy new technology but it has to fulfill 2 important criteria:
- I have to need it
- It has to replace old technology succesfully and fully. Digital cameras havent (see first para). Maybe it can claim it has replaced auto focus SLRs, but that's about it.
Last edited:
Michiel Fokkema
Michiel Fokkema
Film just looks better then digital.
BUt my mother in law likes painting. She jsut thinks it looks better then a photograph. Isn't that silly
Cheers,
Michiel
BUt my mother in law likes painting. She jsut thinks it looks better then a photograph. Isn't that silly
Cheers,
Michiel
LKeithR
Improving daily--I think.
Definitely some dedicated "filmies" on here--something I knew to be the case. I should point out that I have absolutely nothing "against" film--I shot lots of it for many years and still shoot a bit--but it's not my preferred medium right now.
And I understand that photography is an art form which probably gives it more leeway than some other fields but there is more technology in photography than, for example, painting but film has still held on where other technologies have more or less erased or superseded their predecessors. Film must have something special going for it, right?
And I understand that photography is an art form which probably gives it more leeway than some other fields but there is more technology in photography than, for example, painting but film has still held on where other technologies have more or less erased or superseded their predecessors. Film must have something special going for it, right?
wolfpeterson
Established
Please re-read my post.
Spyro
Well-known
yeah mine too, please.
olleorama
flasher extraordinaire
I know of a young writer who wrote his two novels on a typewriter. He grew up after they almost dissappeared. Talk about luddite.
For art, there is no 'superseed'...
Mark T
Established
Another thing to consider, is that although film itself has been around for a long time, the film/developers used today are themselves very modern. If the question were "why do you still shoot 1970's film", that would be a more relevant question. However, comparing modern film to black and white televisions as equivalent technologies is not correct.
That being said, the greatest attraction that film has for me is the aspect of craft. Fiddling around on the computer is not so satisfying - for me. Other factors such as digital technology forever going out of date - since 2004 you could have bought a brand new RD1, M8, M8.2 and M9, "upgraded" from Photoshop 2 to Photoshop 6, or you could have bought one single M7 and whatever film takes your fancy. And it goes on, and on...
That being said, the greatest attraction that film has for me is the aspect of craft. Fiddling around on the computer is not so satisfying - for me. Other factors such as digital technology forever going out of date - since 2004 you could have bought a brand new RD1, M8, M8.2 and M9, "upgraded" from Photoshop 2 to Photoshop 6, or you could have bought one single M7 and whatever film takes your fancy. And it goes on, and on...