jwc57
Well-known
I know there are ways around it, but every photographer's website I visit, has lost decent skin tones, something film excelled at for me. Digital makes skin appear pale, washed out. If the person does have a tan, most appear cartoonish with digital.
I shoot portraits with digital and know to warm up skin tones, but the new photographers who have grown up with only digital, seem not to care or maybe not notice. Or maybe they think that is the way it is supposed to look--and evidently, their clients do also.
Probably just me. My pet peeve is pale/washed out skin, blown out skies. That and digital B&W shots where the skin tone appears bluish.
Millions of dollars and decades were spent by film companies to produce film that rendered beautiful skin tones.
I shoot portraits with digital and know to warm up skin tones, but the new photographers who have grown up with only digital, seem not to care or maybe not notice. Or maybe they think that is the way it is supposed to look--and evidently, their clients do also.
Probably just me. My pet peeve is pale/washed out skin, blown out skies. That and digital B&W shots where the skin tone appears bluish.
Millions of dollars and decades were spent by film companies to produce film that rendered beautiful skin tones.
taskoni
Well-known
Erased what? The same things you couldn't afford back then you can not afford today as well. Retro cars, vintage synths, golden Swiss automatic watches etc. Those things still last... Let me see your digital camera in 5 years...
Regards,
B.
dave lackey
Veteran
There is one overall point that is always missing, I think, in the discussion of why film preferences?
It has to do with the heritage of photography. Yes, I agree with all of the points above about film. I also use digital Nikon cameras for a lot of my work. But, dammit, I love film. I love the precision instruments that use film and I am learning to like the process of developing and printing as well.
It is our heritage and we need to keep it around. We need to pass it down to our grandchildren and beyond or they shall miss one of the best life experiences I can think of. If I knew of someone who could teach me tintypes, dags, etc. I would look them up in a minute.
There are lots of things in our history that we all should keep and nurture. Film photography is at the top of the list for me.:angel:
It has to do with the heritage of photography. Yes, I agree with all of the points above about film. I also use digital Nikon cameras for a lot of my work. But, dammit, I love film. I love the precision instruments that use film and I am learning to like the process of developing and printing as well.
It is our heritage and we need to keep it around. We need to pass it down to our grandchildren and beyond or they shall miss one of the best life experiences I can think of. If I knew of someone who could teach me tintypes, dags, etc. I would look them up in a minute.
There are lots of things in our history that we all should keep and nurture. Film photography is at the top of the list for me.:angel:
Still works.
Wth Digital and Film.
Build date on the firmware says 1992. I remember buying it in 1993.
Last edited:
jpa66
Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
I prefer film for a plethora of reasons. One of them is the fact that I prefer the photographic images that a negative gives versus a digital file. This is purely personal, I understand.
I also prefer the permanence of film ( as one person already pointed out ) - I can still print from 25 year old negatives with the assurance that they'll most likely be around fir another 25 if I want to print from them again.
And I simply like enjoy using a format that is physical versus a bunch of digital symbols. It's like cd's versus vinyl - records sound better to me ( fuller, richer, more "real" ) and they are certainly much more permanent. That's not to say that I don't have any cd's ( I do, and lots of them ) it's just that I feel that the cd ( and digital photography in general ) has not yet even reached the level of their analog counterparts yet.
It is my opinion that they eventually will, however. If and when that time comes, I'll probably still shoot film and listen to records, though, just as I'll still talk on my 1930's and 1970's dial telephones.
Also, there's nothing quite so thrilling as seeing a 4X4 positive image. How I wish that my dad had shot all of those slides of us when we were kids in 120 format instead of 135. Now THAT would have truly been something worth investing in...
I also prefer the permanence of film ( as one person already pointed out ) - I can still print from 25 year old negatives with the assurance that they'll most likely be around fir another 25 if I want to print from them again.
And I simply like enjoy using a format that is physical versus a bunch of digital symbols. It's like cd's versus vinyl - records sound better to me ( fuller, richer, more "real" ) and they are certainly much more permanent. That's not to say that I don't have any cd's ( I do, and lots of them ) it's just that I feel that the cd ( and digital photography in general ) has not yet even reached the level of their analog counterparts yet.
It is my opinion that they eventually will, however. If and when that time comes, I'll probably still shoot film and listen to records, though, just as I'll still talk on my 1930's and 1970's dial telephones.
Also, there's nothing quite so thrilling as seeing a 4X4 positive image. How I wish that my dad had shot all of those slides of us when we were kids in 120 format instead of 135. Now THAT would have truly been something worth investing in...
biakalt
Long Tran
I shoot film because it physical, great archival ability (+100 years perhaps?). Oh, and film smells funny too.
Hard drive, cd with a drop or scratch would be a catastrophe.
My 2 cents.
Hard drive, cd with a drop or scratch would be a catastrophe.
My 2 cents.
huddy
Well-known
I enjoy my digital cameras, but even a roll of Kodak 200 Gold just looks different and special in a way that my DSLR can't match. One of these days, I'd love for all of my DSLR and newish film SLR equipment to be almost entirely replaced by a MF body, a small rangefinder, and maybe an all mechanical Nikon film SLR. There are many years of learning and working to get to that point though. Should make for a fun ride.
huddy
Well-known
I turned off the rear screen on my DSLR one time. It effectively ended the habit of pray and spray.
atlcruiser
Part Yeti
I just like it....I feel no need to justify anything
Stuart John
Well-known
Why do many guitarists still use tube amps. They could use digital modeling but a large number still prefer tubes.
Why even bother with musical instruments when you can make music with a computer. Why bother with a classic car.
Why buy a fine HiFi when a mp3 player/iPod does the job.
There are lots of examples where people have not just simply moved on and moved on to what jumbo bodied DSLRs.
There is nothing small that is full frame apart from the M9 that is too expensive for me.
Personaly I like the look of film, I like working with film and even that a print is still my goal photography is my hobby not looking at prints.
I can enjoy a wide variety of different cameras and film emusions without getting into debt.
I do have a DSLR and I use it but I don't see why I should abandon film just to satisfy other people that I have moved on.
I don't get the whole move on thing there is plenty of film still around so if you like it why not use it.
If film was unavailable I would understand the whole move on thing.
Why even bother with musical instruments when you can make music with a computer. Why bother with a classic car.
Why buy a fine HiFi when a mp3 player/iPod does the job.
There are lots of examples where people have not just simply moved on and moved on to what jumbo bodied DSLRs.
There is nothing small that is full frame apart from the M9 that is too expensive for me.
Personaly I like the look of film, I like working with film and even that a print is still my goal photography is my hobby not looking at prints.
I can enjoy a wide variety of different cameras and film emusions without getting into debt.
I do have a DSLR and I use it but I don't see why I should abandon film just to satisfy other people that I have moved on.
I don't get the whole move on thing there is plenty of film still around so if you like it why not use it.
If film was unavailable I would understand the whole move on thing.
Chris101
summicronia
In 1979 I was told by a synthesizer musician that within 5 or 10 years, all instruments would be replaced with synthesizers.
xwhatsit
Well-known
Are you just trolling for kicks?
It's got nothing to do with `classic cars' or `vintage watches' for a lot of people. It's not about being retro. I, along with others, simply prefer the look. The dynamic range of colour negative or silver black and white is far beyond digital right now.
And then there's medium format. I'd have to spend thousands of dollars (which I simply don't have) to equal the quality of my 6x9cm Agfa Record III folding camera (which I paid the equivalent of about $US30 for).
Film looks vastly different to digital. I prefer the look, simple as that.
Then there's the lovely cameras you get to play with. Let us not delve into GAS for the moment.
And of course, if you don't mind the wait (I don't), many people enjoy the process too. I find developing negs and printing quite relaxing, an enjoyable diversion. Scanning -- not so much. Neither do I like playing in Photoshop. I'm a programmer, I spend all day on a computer as it is, I don't want to come home and sit in front of it for a few more hours.
Anyway, it's all individual taste. But no need to be so condescending. A luddite I'm not.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Still wearing the Omega Seamaster I was given for an 18th birthday present in 1968. At least, I think it was 18th. Still driving a 1972 Land Rover and riding a 1978 BMW R100RS. Don't have a television. Replace mobile phones only when the old one stops working. Sure, I write on a computer and (if you think about it) no-one who doesn't have a computer will see your post above.
I 'embrace new technology' only when it offers me clear and affordable advantages over what I already have. Improbably, the M9 does exactly that: far lower cost per exposure, so that it effectively pays for itself in about 5 years. But it doesn't give anything like the same results as film in B+W, so I stick with film for that. My Omega isn't as accurate as a cheap electronic watch, but it's accurate enough for all practical purposes and I already own it. Likewise, the Land Rover is thirsty, but I can fix just about anything that goes wrong myself. The BMW isn't as fast as some of today's superbikes but 200 km/hr (125 mph) and 0-100 km/h (or 0-60) in under 5 seconds is adequate, and again, I can fix it.
In my book, anyone who embraces something new just because it is new is as big a fool as someone who rejects something new just because it is new.
Cheers,
R.
B.J.Scharp
Still developing
I shoot film, because it helps me do what I do photography for: slow down.
As for other parts of my life: I use newer technology where it has been either
a) proven to be significantly etter
b) proven to be significantly cheaper
c) proven to be significantly more fun
For me, digital takes the fun out of photography. Instead of experimenting, I get to sit behind a computer even more. The pictures aren't better, and I can get a lot of rolls for the price difference between my beater M3 and an M9.
As for other parts of my life: My watch is a modern kinetic Seiko (more accurate than an old wind-up, and no batteries needed compared to `old' quartz). My razor is the age of my grandfather (blades are 1% of the price of a modern razor, and using an old well-made metal razor is (to me) more fun than a modern plastic contraption). The list goes on.
Older isn't necessary better. But newer isn't either.
As for other parts of my life: I use newer technology where it has been either
a) proven to be significantly etter
b) proven to be significantly cheaper
c) proven to be significantly more fun
For me, digital takes the fun out of photography. Instead of experimenting, I get to sit behind a computer even more. The pictures aren't better, and I can get a lot of rolls for the price difference between my beater M3 and an M9.
As for other parts of my life: My watch is a modern kinetic Seiko (more accurate than an old wind-up, and no batteries needed compared to `old' quartz). My razor is the age of my grandfather (blades are 1% of the price of a modern razor, and using an old well-made metal razor is (to me) more fun than a modern plastic contraption). The list goes on.
Older isn't necessary better. But newer isn't either.
Neare
Well-known
I know this is a long post, but I encourage anyone interested in this topic to have a read of what I have to say.
You know the same thing is happening with guitars.
When digital photography was first introduced, people were ashamed to go near it. For a good 2 years, you were shunned if you used digital photography. It was seen as cheating, not true to the art and an imitation. Now look at it.
With guitars, every player cringes at the thought of a guitar with synths, effects and robotic tuning built into the guitar itself, even more so the 'Touch Pad' guitars that are currently being developed. "A guitar without strings is not a guitar and it won't play real music!" Is what people say, just like they did with digital photography. But eventually as with all things technological, people will start using these touch pad guitars, look at the advantages.. no broken stings, no tuning, effects and everything else built right into the guitar frame - how convenient. They will say to themselves that the result, the music sounds the same so why not embrace it.
People will start to forget about 'vintage' guitars and mock people who still use strings. But it is these people who have also forgotten something else, that in art, which photography and music both are, the process to getting the result is extremely important. It is just as important as any result you may achieve.
Photography is described as the only art form where skill, technique, intuition and experience does not lead to creating a 'better' photograph than one who lacks these. Realistically one cannot create a great guitar song by random, however one can take a great photograph at random because much of it comes back to luck and chance.
However, it is understanding why a photo is 'great' or not that separates the photographer from those who are not and also leads to creating 'better' photographs. And to understand a photo you must also understand the process in which the photo was created.
Digital photography is a process yes, but it is inherently very limiting as a photographic process, the medium of film however is much less limiting. Let me also make it clear also that photoshop is NOT a photographic process. Digital is a viable means of doing photography, I don't have a problem with it and if it is your chosen process then embrace it fully. However don't make any assumptions that the reason people use film is because they have simply not moved on with the times or do so to be different, some may yes but not all.
There is another reason being that film is physical. A minute magnetic symbol of binary code will honestly not stand the test of time unless it is carefully and periodically transferred between devices. More so, binary itself is not an image, software turns it into an image therefore without software it is nothing. Drop it in the water and it's gone, to much electricity and it's gone, computer stolen and it's gone and most importantly, left alone for to long and it will disappear. Digital photography is much more volatile to being lost or destroyed and most photographers nowadays don't consider this issue. We live in a 'now now now' society and that is why digital succeeds, but I fear that in the future even great photographs will no longer exist. Personally I started out seriously with digital, of the 1000s of photos I took, only 5 still exist. On the other hand, I still own every single roll of film I shot back to when I was 6 years old.
Stringed guitars are the only respected way of playing the guitar as of 2011. However lets say in 20 years, if 'touch pad' guitars have become the norm, I assure you that there will be a few, if only a niche market still using the classic strings. Why? Because perhaps these people understand that to create 'their' music they have to play it on stings, regardless if a touch pad guitar could make a similar sound. Because they have understood the process in their work.
Film photography is the same, I hope anyone reading can see some meaning in this.
You know the same thing is happening with guitars.
When digital photography was first introduced, people were ashamed to go near it. For a good 2 years, you were shunned if you used digital photography. It was seen as cheating, not true to the art and an imitation. Now look at it.
With guitars, every player cringes at the thought of a guitar with synths, effects and robotic tuning built into the guitar itself, even more so the 'Touch Pad' guitars that are currently being developed. "A guitar without strings is not a guitar and it won't play real music!" Is what people say, just like they did with digital photography. But eventually as with all things technological, people will start using these touch pad guitars, look at the advantages.. no broken stings, no tuning, effects and everything else built right into the guitar frame - how convenient. They will say to themselves that the result, the music sounds the same so why not embrace it.
People will start to forget about 'vintage' guitars and mock people who still use strings. But it is these people who have also forgotten something else, that in art, which photography and music both are, the process to getting the result is extremely important. It is just as important as any result you may achieve.
Photography is described as the only art form where skill, technique, intuition and experience does not lead to creating a 'better' photograph than one who lacks these. Realistically one cannot create a great guitar song by random, however one can take a great photograph at random because much of it comes back to luck and chance.
However, it is understanding why a photo is 'great' or not that separates the photographer from those who are not and also leads to creating 'better' photographs. And to understand a photo you must also understand the process in which the photo was created.
Digital photography is a process yes, but it is inherently very limiting as a photographic process, the medium of film however is much less limiting. Let me also make it clear also that photoshop is NOT a photographic process. Digital is a viable means of doing photography, I don't have a problem with it and if it is your chosen process then embrace it fully. However don't make any assumptions that the reason people use film is because they have simply not moved on with the times or do so to be different, some may yes but not all.
There is another reason being that film is physical. A minute magnetic symbol of binary code will honestly not stand the test of time unless it is carefully and periodically transferred between devices. More so, binary itself is not an image, software turns it into an image therefore without software it is nothing. Drop it in the water and it's gone, to much electricity and it's gone, computer stolen and it's gone and most importantly, left alone for to long and it will disappear. Digital photography is much more volatile to being lost or destroyed and most photographers nowadays don't consider this issue. We live in a 'now now now' society and that is why digital succeeds, but I fear that in the future even great photographs will no longer exist. Personally I started out seriously with digital, of the 1000s of photos I took, only 5 still exist. On the other hand, I still own every single roll of film I shot back to when I was 6 years old.
Stringed guitars are the only respected way of playing the guitar as of 2011. However lets say in 20 years, if 'touch pad' guitars have become the norm, I assure you that there will be a few, if only a niche market still using the classic strings. Why? Because perhaps these people understand that to create 'their' music they have to play it on stings, regardless if a touch pad guitar could make a similar sound. Because they have understood the process in their work.
Film photography is the same, I hope anyone reading can see some meaning in this.
Last edited:
Professionally, I have been "doing digital" for a much longer time than most people. Being a Computer Engineer in an Optical Research Division- I got paid for making the stuff for most of the 1980s.
Photography is my hobby, as is collecting vintage gear. Repair of the gear came along as part of the hobby. I still use my vintage film gear, and at some point will set the Dark Room back up. I love picking up a Canon P or Nikon F2 or Nikon SP and running a roll of film through it.
At some point, the two mediums will coexist peacefully. What is important is to know and respect the relative strong points of each.
Photography is my hobby, as is collecting vintage gear. Repair of the gear came along as part of the hobby. I still use my vintage film gear, and at some point will set the Dark Room back up. I love picking up a Canon P or Nikon F2 or Nikon SP and running a roll of film through it.
At some point, the two mediums will coexist peacefully. What is important is to know and respect the relative strong points of each.
degruyl
Just this guy, you know?
Film for larger formats is MUCH cheaper over the life of the camera. (they don't even make a real digital sensor for anything over 6x4.5, anyway. They are scanning backs.) I can't afford $60K for a digital camera, so I shoot film. Simple. The side benefit is that I can shoot any sort of film in 6x7 to 8x10, including hand coated. I have a background in chemistry (also in computers, but that does not make sitting in front of one fun), and developing film makes sense to me.
I tend to think of 35mm film (or digital, for that matter) as sort of a toy size anyway.
I tend to think of 35mm film (or digital, for that matter) as sort of a toy size anyway.
dave lackey
Veteran
Well, my name is Dave and I am a Luddite.
Or is that "neo-luddite?" Gotta look it up on wikipedia...
Or is that "neo-luddite?" Gotta look it up on wikipedia...
Last edited:
maksym
Newbie
To each his own. No one can can logically explain to you why you should prefer film, they can only explain why they do. Every one looks for something else and if you don't see anything in film, then for you there is noting in film.
I shoot B/W film almost exclusively even though i have a dslr sitting in my room (Use it for video or if friends and family want some quick pictures). I also develop and print my own film. When I'm in the dark room agitating a print in developer, i get goosebumps when i start to see a good print.
I shoot B/W film almost exclusively even though i have a dslr sitting in my room (Use it for video or if friends and family want some quick pictures). I also develop and print my own film. When I'm in the dark room agitating a print in developer, i get goosebumps when i start to see a good print.
Satumango
Newbie
It's the cameras...
It's the cameras...
Personally I just like the old cameras. No buttons or screens to divert my attention, just me and the subject. I like the fact that they are mechanical wonders, still operating after 20, 30 or 40 years or even more. I like the weight of an old-fashioned metal brick in my hands (or, in case of my RB67, a whole building ) I like the fact that I have to put film in it to use it. It's more of an artform this way, I suppose...
I still have a Nikon D70 that I bought from a friend, but I hardly used it and use it even less now. Just did not like using it, only after buying a couple of Nikon FM2s did I realize why. From then on it was GAS
It's the cameras...
Personally I just like the old cameras. No buttons or screens to divert my attention, just me and the subject. I like the fact that they are mechanical wonders, still operating after 20, 30 or 40 years or even more. I like the weight of an old-fashioned metal brick in my hands (or, in case of my RB67, a whole building
) I like the fact that I have to put film in it to use it. It's more of an artform this way, I suppose... I still have a Nikon D70 that I bought from a friend, but I hardly used it and use it even less now. Just did not like using it, only after buying a couple of Nikon FM2s did I realize why. From then on it was GAS