Sometimes, I wonder why I bother with film !

[srtiwari]

With pictures like these, where most of the work is done at the desktop, and which gives me the Black and white 'look' I like, I wonder, sometimes, if it is (still) worth all the effort to use film.

M9 + Rollei 40mm/F2.8 LTM

 

[Mcary]

I've started to think about either switching to C41 color for 35mm and just shooting MF for B&W that way I don't deal the dust issue as much or taking the radical step of selling my M6 body and Coolscan V and picking up an X100 to use for small format for the next few years while I save up for an M9

 

[FrankS]

It's a personal decision that one can only make for oneself.

 

[Sparrow]

With pictures like these, where most of the work is done at the desktop, and which gives me the Black and white 'look' I like, I wonder, sometimes, if it is (still) worth all the effort to use film.

... so true ... well, for photos of my pets anyway

 

[f16sunshine]

Subhash these are wonderful captures. They do however look like digital. That said, I would be very happy to have made them with digital or film. For some subjects or that "look" ...film can not be replaced IMO.

 

[Moriturii]

Well, you need to chose your workflow. Would you rather work infront of the computer? Then digital. Do you prefer to be in the darkroom? Film. You can't stick and SD card into a enlarger and get picture out of 'em. Inherently film and digital doesn't have the same 'look', that's all. Although with software such as Silver EFEX Pro, it does make you wonder if the latter fact is true at all anymore.

 

[film nut]

Well, I think that digital always looks different than film, and in the end it all depends on what you like. If you like digital then stick with it, if you like film then stick with it. As for being a "bother", I don't know of anything that I like to do and feel that it's a bother. I guess if you have misgivings about one of the two media then its time to pick the one you like. I say; keep thing enjoyable.

Mike

 

[rogerzilla]

I don't think they look like film. Maybe a bit of fake grain and unsharp masking would give that Rodinal effect!

 

[markloch]

Well, you need to chose your workflow. Would you rather work infront of the computer? Then digital. Do you prefer to be in the darkroom? Film. You can't stick and SD card into a enlarger and get picture out of 'em. Inherently film and digital doesn't have the same 'look', that's all. Although with software such as Silver EFEX Pro, it does make you wonder if the latter fact is true at all anymore.

Then there's the workflow I followed in 2002 when I was laid off, had two months severance and had my first summer off since 1976 and decided to mess around with:

iiif/tri-x -> scan -> PS -> inkjet print "largeformat" negative image to pictorico transparency film -> van dyke/cyanotype

I'd like to try this again sometime, or at least from digital -> transparency film > "sun print", given I don't really use film anymore.

 

[emraphoto]

... so true ... well, for photos of my pets anyway

arr, arr, arr🙂

 

[NickTrop]

You delusions about the superiority of film are beginning to melt away... APS-C and full frame sensored digitals have recently caught up to/surpassed small format (35mm) film, overall, in IQ, as much as it pains me to say, and as much as I love film. This wasn't true - in my opinion, until recently when each generation of camera has improved IQ and manufacturers have been producing good quality primes at reasonable prices like the 35mm 1/8 Nikon. Taking into consideration inflation, the modern compact DSLRs cost no more than a good SLR "back in the day" and you don't have to feed them and pay for processing. Battery life has improved such that you can now pert much pick up the camera at will and shoot like a manual SLR. Just get a second battery.

Film's place is now:

1. "Full frame in your pocket". The film camera I mostly shoot now is the Olympus XA (which I adore...)
2. Good lighting low speed film (Still edges out digital by a hair.)
3. Medium format and large format (digital will never touch this...)
4. For fun. Let's face it, the old rangefinders are simply fun to shoot, they are charming, and bring a tactile joy to the table no digital can match
5. You enjoy developing negs and making wet prints (nobody sane enjoys scanning negatives...)

 

[perudo]

Film's place is now:

1. "Full frame in your pocket". The film camera I mostly shoot now is the Olympus XA (which I adore...)
2. Good lighting low speed film (Still edges out digital by a hair.)
3. Medium format and large format (digital will never touch this...)
4. For fun. Let's face it, the old rangefinders are simply fun to shoot, they are charming, and bring a tactile joy to the table no digital can match
5. You enjoy developing negs and making wet prints (nobody sane enjoys scanning negatives...)

This is so true to me!
I enjoy my t3 and t4 for their compactness
Love my m6 even if m9 would have better results
I like printing , even doing contact sheets is a joy

 

[zauhar]

Interesting points Nick.

I would ask the OP how much time was needed to get the "look" you are after?

And would you miss working with film? If the answer to that is 'no' and if the postprocessing you are doing is not excessive, then I guess you answered your question.

Randy

 

[not_in_good_order]

I like my DSLR, but it doesn't give me the dynamic range that I want for many subjects. It produces beautiful high ISO images and is wonderful to use in artificial light. It is all about picking the best tool for the job at hand. If digital works for you and your type of photography, go for it.

 

[FrankS]

It's a hobby (for most of us) so do what you enjoy doing.
If your hobby becomes a bother, switch hobbies.

 

[mfogiel]

Resolution isn't everything. In my eyes it is more a matter of how the tonality looks, particularly in the highlights. When I look at technically imperfect film B&W print, it looks in my eyes more acceptable than a technically inmperfect digital B&W print, and BTW, unless you shoot a very well tamed scene in terms of the DR, most digital B&W prints are technically imperfect. It just disturbs me more. Even in case of these shots, which look good at the first glance, in the second one, the husky's medallion is plainly blown out. BTW, wonderful dogs !

 

[Nikon Bob]

It's a personal decision that one can only make for oneself.

That is so true and for me personally it is not worth the effort. If you are satisfied with your output from either workflow far be it for me to say you are wrong.

Bob

 

[bwcolor]

So, stop shooting film.

My Fujifilm X100 has me warming up to digital, but still not happy with my B&W conversions with Silver Efex Pro. Just isn't the same.. but I'm learning.

 

[TXForester]

I don't think they look like film.

Srtiwari didn't say the photos looked like film. It was the black and white look that the OP liked.

I'm with the others who say stick with the look you like and the workflow that you like.

 

[srtiwari]

Uh,oh. the dreaded 'look' thing again !

Uh,oh. the dreaded 'look' thing again !

Subhash these are wonderful captures. They do however look like digital. That said, I would be very happy to have made them with digital or film. For some subjects or that "look" ...film can not be replaced IMO.

Andy, the pictures were fun to take and process quickly as LR3 does a great job. They were taken this morning when my girl friend 's dog (the Husky) met my new pet Poodle for the first time . I loved the images but was not necessarily trying to make them look like film, since I'm not sure what the 'Digital vs Film look' is. As someone said, (tongue-in-cheek) maybe the differences boil down to adding grain and USM !

I think it would be useful for someone to try and describe the 'look' of digital (or film) in away that can others can see and identify. (I recently compared some old and new lenses hoping to differentiate their signatures, and was surprised at how little the differences in 'look' were).
Maybe its time to do a little test to try and distinguish digital from film images ! 😀