Why do all we film guys keep holding on?

To get back to the OP question :

Usually you stick with what you grew up with, the older you get the more sticky you get 😎.
And then people find 1001 reasons for that decision ... you can't really argue with that.
Just choose your tool and be happy with it 😉
 
10 to 20 years from now, film would have died by then, and some company, maybe even Japanese would come up with a large camera sensor similar to what Lytro put out.

You can bet there would be legions of users who would cry foul that this new camera would have "no soul".
 
icebear said:
To get back to the OP question :

Usually you stick with what you grew up with, the older you get the more sticky you get 😎.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm so sticky now that I have seven rangefinders when i only had one last year.Plus four very good SLR's and two good digital's.Real overkill for me🙂 Been a film guy but like digital too.When you shoot 1200 frames at a rodeo film is out of the question for me. Love the feel of those old RF's
 
The whole argument that one doesn't like "chasing after the newest digital camera" or "cameras are coming out so fast" is nonsense. A lot of posters keep harping on this.

I have Kodak DSLR's that are over 10 years old that I use regularly.

I have a number of digital point and shoots that are old, only a couple of megapixels, that my wife uses daily.

You can buy any digital camera that you like, and if it takes good pictures now, it will continue to take good pictures no matter how many new cameras come out.

Nobody forces you to "chase" the latest and greatest.

If for some reason, a new camera comes out with a feature you can't live without, then you can feel free to buy one. Otherwise all the new cameras have no effect on the photos you take with your "obsolete" camera.

The problem is YOU, not the newest cameras.
 
I will get an M9 soon, and it is basically a way to prepare myself for a fully digital photography world in the near future. I love film, but I do not mind digital Leica's.
 
Especially if you get it for a reasonable price, you will not regret the M9. Since you are an old/rare lens aficionado, there is nothing better. I pick up my M9 over all my other cameras most of the time.

The only thing you might want that is NOT on the M9 is some sort of live peak focussing system on a newer full frame M mount camera. This would make a big difference since most old lenses are not 100% correctly calibrated for the M9. Sending them all to Don Goldberg to be calibrated would start to get astronomically expensive.

raid said:
I will get an M9 soon, and it is basically a way to prepare myself for a fully digital photography world in the near future. I love film, but I do not mind digital Leica's.
Click to expand...
 
This is why:

secrecy_of_the_knysna_forest_by_philosomatographer-d5dx09y.jpg
 
Because film is beautiful.

Because digital is a much less organic process and I feel less human working with it.

When the output of digital B&W files is as good as wet printing, my resolve will diminish, but I'll aways prefer waving my arms around under a red light to staring at a screen.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Dawid, that is gorgeous. Is it in South Africa? Reminds me of scenery I've seen in state parks (nature preserves) in Indiana.
Click to expand...

Thanks Chris, it is in South Africa, yes. In the Knysna Forest, in the Western Cape. My parents live in this area, so I see different aspects of the so-called "Garden Route" whenever I go and visit. It's a very photogenic area indeed.
 
I just like the look of film better, in both B&W and color. I figure some day we may be forced to change, so I might as well use film now. And I like variety, and there's nothing better then dropping in a different film for a different look. Also, I like using mechanical cameras. But mainly I like the look better.
 
Because:

- A properly exposed and developed negative or slide, scanned by my trusted scan service (key component in the whole workflow) with a Hasselblad X1, is easier to make ready for print/publication. Shadows, lights, contrast, sharpeness - the files just always come back "right". By the time I start working with the file on the computer, the image is 80% ready, unlike a RAW-file. Even web/contact scans with my Epson 4990 take not more effort than fixing a RAW file.
- For my b/w negatives I always retain the option for a full analog print down the road should if I want to.
- My post-processing skills are, uhm...
- A good film camera last decades and, as main work camera, relieves me from the urge to have the latest and best digital camera along with the latest software, computer and screens. I like and use digital, but my digitals do not have to do it all.
- Whenever have a really good digital shot and cannot help to think "This would be even more awesome as Delta 100 shot" :bang:.
- I prefer the look of film. Simple, huh?
- Leica M7, Zeiss Ikon and Contax T3 are close to perfection for me. Such level of perfection in digital would cost me more than I will ever be able/willing to afford.
- When you have a 'once in a lifetime' shot, its so nice (priceless for me) to have the physical 'raw' version, the negative/slide, to hold and look at.
- A dialed-in and perfected analog/hybrid workflow makes switching to larger formats quite affordable - and I can do it for selected projects, as I can sell after without much loss of value.
- FP4+ and HP5+ pushed to ASA 800 is something I simply would hate to do without.
- I do not like to shot in bad light. Delta 3200 seemed fine so far even in the darkest holes.

That said, the beauty these days is the ability to use both media, film and digital. Key for me is using digital where it excels, to the point that film is used for particular (important) occassions, and the amount of film to carry and process remains such that I enjoy the process.
 
I'm 25 and just got back into film over the past year, so I'm not "holding on" so much as grabbing hold of. I'm really enjoying it.

Film is a photochemical process so its fundamentally different. I'm a painter and illustrator by trade, so my comparison is old fashioned oil painting versus digital painting. I feel that when I use film it is more like drawing - its more of a physical act, digital is more mediated, which is fine, I like digital painting too, but its a matter of horses for courses, I think its a matter of what you want to say and choosing the right visual vocabulary to say it. I'm not really interested in detail or resolution, the most important thing for me is texture, I've used texture from scanned and overblown film prints in my graphic design work before just because the texture itself lends a sense of depth and physicality that digital doesn't. I feel like a lot of the film vs digital debate is about DR and resolution, I don't think people talk enough about surface and sensibilities.

That being said I really like digital too, I have a Ricoh GX100 that I've had for at least 6 years I think and I'm going to keep using it for as long as I can, even now its outdated as hell. Unlike 99% of digital cameras Ricoh doesn't treat you like a moron, I just wish the GR had a bigger sensor.

The other thing is that shooting fully mechanical cameras is a discipline and forcibly involves me in the image making process, its about planning and commitment. They've made image making so easy these days, I think its good to make it hard for yourself.
 
nongfuspring said:
I'm 25 and just got back into film over the past year, so I'm not "holding on" so much as grabbing hold of. I'm really enjoying it.

Film is a photochemical process so its fundamentally different. I'm a painter and illustrator by trade, so my comparison is old fashioned oil painting versus digital painting. I feel that when I use film it is more like drawing - its more of a physical act, digital is more mediated, which is fine, I like digital painting too, but its a matter of horses for courses, I think its a matter of what you want to say and choosing the right visual vocabulary to say it. I'm not really interested in detail or resolution, the most important thing for me is texture, I've used texture from scanned and overblown film prints in my graphic design work before just because the texture itself lends a sense of depth and physicality that digital doesn't. I feel like a lot of the film vs digital debate is about DR and resolution, I don't think people talk enough about surface and sensibilities.

That being said I really like digital too, I have a Ricoh GX100 that I've had for at least 6 years I think and I'm going to keep using it for as long as I can, even now its outdated as hell. Unlike 99% of digital cameras Ricoh doesn't treat you like a moron, I just wish the GR had a bigger sensor.

The other thing is that shooting fully mechanical cameras is a discipline and forcibly involves me in the image making process, its about planning and commitment. They've made image making so easy these days, I think its good to make it hard for yourself.
Click to expand...

Thank you for expressing this so well - probably the best comments on the differences between film and digital that I've read here in years.
 
I mostly shoot digital but I also like film. There are some incredible buys on superb film equipment these days. I just couldn't resist buying and using some of it. I learned how to develop C41 and am enjoying that.
 
I prefer film to digital for the same reasons I like vinyl over mp3,
I prefer the look/sound of film/vinyl. And I'm not an old fart who used film for years before digital came along,
I started out in digital and made the transition to film about 2 years ago.

ps film smells better 🙂
 
Slightly OT but worth noting. I was contacted by a couple of photographically prolific photographers who have been featured and published. They also run photography classes and wanted to have a class based on 'street photography using film'. They asked me to give a 3 hour demo to a two day class they were assembling which covered many things about film and I was to cover the developing of film. I went over a proposed outline and then a couple of weeks later the group assembled and I did a class.

What surprised me was the digital camera equipment they were carrying was as high end as could be expected for the 'class'. However they were also toting newly acquired film cameras such as Leica, Nikon, Bronica, Contax, Hasselblad etc. They were definitely prepared to "go slow" to get film results. They also thought that film was another way to go and they wanted to learn it. This group was also aware that film cameras were picking up interest among the latest generation of photographers

When we were done 10 people that never developed film before had done their first roll of film. I think they'll be shooting film as an adjunct when it suits them. I don't think that group is about to abandon digital but they will be buying more film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom