Why do all we film guys keep holding on?

Why do all we film guys keep holding on?

...because we are tough, and have a good taste.


my personal reasons more elaborated:
-aesthetics: film looks different than digital, and for the things i do, i prefer its aesthetics.
-cameras! hard to find a digicam which is comparable to a well engineered film camera. and i prefer manual focusing. just try e.g. to find a modern compact camera with a good viewfinder. u will have to pay at least the price of the fuji x100.
what brings me to the next point,
-finance. nowadays you can find great film cameras on flea markets for very little money.
and finally
-fun. photography is just a hobby for me, so picture quality is not everything. also the act of photographing itself is relevant. and it just feels different using a zorki compared to a canon ixus.


literiter said:
Just think, 50 years from now, someone will be holding up an ancient D800, M10 or something or other and exclaiming "Now this camera had soul...."
Click to expand...

i doubt that. a mechanical film camera is more like a book, while the D800 will be more like a floppy disk. 😉 some may feel a bit of nostalgia but nobody would, or even could use it anymore.
 
I really like the challenges that some of these old film cameras offer ... often their shortcomings are a large part of their appeal IMO. The Widelux I bought recently has made me really think ... it's a cantankerous beast and has limitations I wasn't fully aware of before I bought it and each roll of film that goes through it is a learning experience. Developing a roll of film out of this thing and seeing where I got it wrong and where I got it right is an absolute joy. Few things in life can offer me this much satisfaction for the costs involved!
 
Keith said:
It's very true what Chris has said here IMO ... there is nothing magical or mystical about film.

This perception has only arisen since the mass movement towards digital ... it wasn't talked about prior to this ... it was just the way you took photographs!
Click to expand...

With all due respect to Keith and Chris, no, he is not right...

We now live in a world that is hype driven via the Internet. In other words, if the great all knowing internet says everyone is using digital, then by golly, it must be true. So we all use computer aided devices to do nearly anything imaginable in our lives. It truly is a world of either the computer or everything that is not a computer, the latter really stands out to me now in the year 2012.

So when looking at the terms magical and mystical in how they relate to film use, compared to digital, it most certainly can be those. Because those terms are largely perceptions based on personal feelings, not scientific facts. One could easily surmise that compared to using a device he just made a phone call on, read the news, played a game, posted on RFF and ordered a e-book from, using film sure as hell feels "Magical & Mystical".

Now in terms if using film makes you a better photographer, that falls under the same factor of it depends on the person. I simply enjoy the journey of using film better, so my photographs are better because of that. In a lot of ways, you have to be a better photographer to be proficient at using film....many people sucked at it because they are lousy photographers and now say that digital "Saved" them, praise be to digital, amen, etc....

In having used both mediums to make over one million images in my career of 20+ years, I have to say that digital is just not the photography journey I fell in love with and signed up for. I like the added extra value of having someone pull out a checkbook for a print and then seeing the expression on their face when they realize it was never touched by a computer, all hand made.....a real photograph.

They don't make reality TV shows about people overcoming the challenges of Instagram or using Adobe Illustrator to paint. They do however make reality TV shows about people overcoming personal and inter social challenges to come out on top, cooking shows, athletic shows, singing and dancing shows....not the place of the everyone using the same device crowd...a place where raw, you don't have it talent stands out.

I use film because to me it is magical and mystical, makes me the best photographer I can be and that helps me to stand apart from my competition and always will.
 
KM-25 said:
With all due respect to Keith and Chris, no, he is not right...

We now live in a world that is hype driven via the Internet. In other words, if the great all knowing internet says everyone is using digital, then by golly, it must be true. So we all use computer aided devices to do nearly anything imaginable in our lives. It truly is a world of either the computer or everything that is not a computer, the latter really stands out to me now.*

So when looking at the terms magical and mystical in how they relate to film use, compared to digital, it most certainly can be those. Because those terms are largely perceptions based on personal feeling, not scientific facts. One could easily surmise that compared to using a device he just made a phone call on, read the news, played a game, posted on RFF and ordered a e-book from, using film sure as hell feels "Magical & Mystical".

Now in terms if using film makes you a better photographer, that falls under the same factor of it depends on the person. I simply enjoy the journey of using film better, so my photographs are better because of that. In a lot of ways, you have to be a better photographer to be proficient at using film....many people sucked at it because they are lousy photographers and now say that digital "Saved" them, praise be to digital, amen, etc....

In having used both mediums to make over one million images in my career of 20+ years, I have to say that digital is just not the photography journey I fell in love with and signed up for. I like the added extra value of having someone pull out a checkbook for a print and then seeing the expression on their face when they realize it was never touched by a computer, all hand made.....a real photograph.

They don't make reality TV shows about people overcoming the challenges of Instagram or using Adobe Illustrator to paint. They do however make reality TV shows about people overcoming personal and inter social challenges to come out on top, cooking shows, athletic shows, singing and dancing shows....not the place of the everyone using the same device crowd...a place where raw, you don't have it talent stands out.

I use film because to me it is magical and mystical, makes me the best photographer I can be and that helps me to stand apart from my competition and always will.
Click to expand...


I agree with what you're saying but surely digital has some effect on the way most of us view, or feel about film. Maybe your perception is one of magic or mysticism just because of what it can do for you?

It's difficult for me to judge because prior to joining this forum I was a non photographer with no history in either medium.
 
The smart phone changed they way I felt about film.

It was clear that practically all consumers who used P&S film cameras for family events, etc would be abandoning them for smart phones. This meant a downward spiral of excess film supply and idle film processing labs. What I enjoyed most about film was the cameras.

In my view medium or larger film formats are attractive and worth the effort. I wish I had figured that out five years ago.

Today most photographic work is viewed on digital devices. While I personally enjoy seeing prints in galleries, the fact is my own work has been seen by strangers on digital devices at least 100 times more frequently than in print form. If it ends up in digital media, it may as well start out in digital media.
 
I just bought 59 rolls of Superia 400 dated 2014-04 for $39 shipped. Development at target for negative only is $1.03 per roll including tax. I have several Rollei 35s to play with. So why not film?
 
bitfeng said:
I just bought 59 rolls of Superia 400 dated 2014-04 for $39 shipped. Development at target for negative only is $1.03 per roll including tax. I have several Rollei 35s to play with. So why not film?
Click to expand...

Business/Marketing: "Why not film? Film sucks and your D700 is sooo last January. You need an all new* $3000 FF camera body weighing almost two pounds to take perfect snapshots like a pro. The all new* $2200 laptop is the perfect required accessory to complement your all new* camera. It's the best camera yet* with the best laptop yet."

Design/Technology: "Smallest, lightest, cheapest solution. Why not film with a neat camera?"

* inspired by Apple
 
Cold said:
Sorry, Chris. You completely missed the point I was trying to make. Next time around, I'll try to explain myself a bit more fully.
Click to expand...

I thought you were perfectly clear, and I understood your intent. I was surprised that a number of people who I would expect to be sympathetic did not get it.

Randy
 
haha this made my day 😀
jtm6 said:
Business/Marketing: "Why not film? Film sucks and your D700 is sooo last January. You need an all new* $3000 FF camera body weighing almost two pounds to take perfect snapshots like a pro. The all new* $2200 laptop is the perfect required accessory to complement your all new* camera. It's the best camera yet* with the best laptop yet."

Design/Technology: "Smallest, lightest, cheapest solution. Why not film with a neat camera?"

* inspired by Apple
Click to expand...
 
As long as there is slide film available I don't see any digital compact coming even close to my IIIf + skopar 25mm. And that's reliability, image quality, operation and feel. And if I feel like shooting b&w I just load a roll of APX et voilà: The IIIf Monochrom (such a flexible beast).
 
The title of the thread is why do those who use film hold on, not why do average real estate pros from St. Louis stick lemmings in their pockets and follow the heard off the cliff.....why did you post then...?

willie_901 said:
The smart phone changed they way I felt about film.

It was clear that practically all consumers who used P&S film cameras for family events, etc would be abandoning them for smart phones. This meant a downward spiral of excess film supply and idle film processing labs. What I enjoyed most about film was the cameras.

In my view medium or larger film formats are attractive and worth the effort. I wish I had figured that out five years ago.

Today most photographic work is viewed on digital devices. While I personally enjoy seeing prints in galleries, the fact is my own work has been seen by strangers on digital devices at least 100 times more frequently than in print form. If it ends up in digital media, it may as well start out in digital media.
Click to expand...
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
You do realize that you are not, and never can be, "Completely involved" in film, because IT IS A PRODUCT OF MASS INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION. Film is made in factories by industrial workers who often know nothing about how it is used, and don't care. Its just a factory job. The engineers who design it are the ones who get credit for the 'look' of film photos, and unless you are one of them, you are not completely involved in film. Its no different than using a digital camera, another manufactured good made in factories by industrial workers and designed by engineers.

There is nothing magical or mystical about film photography, and you are not a better photographer because you choose to work in that medium. There are many types of photography, as there are many types of paintings. Is a painter who uses oil paint 'better' than one who uses acrylics? Of course not. If one painter is better than another it is because he has something to show the world and the skill to make it happen in whatever medium he chooses. Just like photography.
Click to expand...

Chris while I understand your well made points I feel I must respectfully disagree.
The poster you replied to was stating when he is completely involved, that he feels a direct connection, not that he was master of the process from silver ingot onwards (no need to capitalise the mass production part).
It is to suggest that someone who feels a direct connection to a physical medium isn't involved in a complete way. He doesn't need to coat his own plates to be 'completely involved' although some do coat their own plates.

The painter who chooses oils may indeed be a better painter for that and he may not be a good painter in watercolours, some people like certain processes and are better artists for working in that medium.
Sometimes the process, materials and method can indeed make us better artists, that can work both for and against film.
Personally I prefer film, I make better images with film, I work in that tactile responsive medium and enjoy it.
So if somebody finds film, oils, wood, paper, ink etc magic mediums and that makes them better artists–you can't really argue with that.
 
willie_901 said:
Today most photographic work is viewed on digital devices. While I personally enjoy seeing prints in galleries, the fact is my own work has been seen by strangers on digital devices at least 100 times more frequently than in print form. If it ends up in digital media, it may as well start out in digital media.
Click to expand...

Sure most images are view on digital devices, probably poor quality uncalibrated screens or cell phones. This kind of exposure is good, a bit like a giant showing to friends of your holiday snap's and that's good.
But...
I really don't follow the it may as well start off in the digital medium argument.
Surely the medium you work with is important? or has this become a run with the crowd competition? If you like digital that's fine, your $8k M10 may be viewed on an iPhone why not take it another step and just shoot with an iPhone?

Work with the tools that satisfy you, build your own workflow and make it one that you enjoy–the masses? Why should I care about what they use as long as I can still follow my own direction.
 
Well I hold on because of the new films I try. Rollei Ortho was one I finally got to and love. ORWO UN-54 is another. Great stuff, with some defects every now and again like XX, but easier to use compared to XX (it comes in 100' rolls). Now SilverMax from ADOX, and another Adox film in the 25-32-50 ISO range on the horizon. Call me crazy, but I like it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom