Why Do You Still Shoot Film?

Digital just is not an option for me. I bought my M6 as a lifetime investment and film does everything I want and more. It still seems magical to print my own negatives and after 20 years experience, I can learn something new with every film. The whole process still captivates and fascinates me.
 
bmattock said:
I run Linux, Vuescan, and The Gimp. Cost? Linux = $0, Vuescan = $40, The Gimp = $0.
Click to expand...
Likewise, only without the scanner. DSLR's don't require a scanner.

Only a printer.

Best not go there, hmm?
bmattock said:
Tell me again how much more expensive digital is than film.
Click to expand...
My film setup...
Leica Standard and Industar-22... £180 (inc p&p).
Compared to my digital setup...
Canon 350D...
Ok, compare it against something a bit more in range of the price... Sigma 18-125 lens... £189 (iirc).
I'm sure you're aware of the lens needing a camera body? :)

Printing... here's where the story really starts...
Darkroom setup... MPP universal enlarger, 16x20 framing easel, 3 10x8 dev trays, cheap box of 10x8 paper, focus finder... I got change from £50!
Digital... no printer, I refuse to pay £200+ for something I'll use once in a blue moon.

In a nutshell, film was the cheapest (and most fun) way of going "full frame". When was the last time you saw a Canon 5D on sale for under £250? How about adding an A3 printer in the mix as well? And one that sips printer ink, and produces damn good b+w images?

Surely that's possible, in this day and age?

Consumables... well, I have no printer, so I don't use ink. Chemicals, £20 will last me around 6 months. A box of paper... whatever I want.

There's another aspect of why I shoot film... "Joe Public" and their responses to seeing someone wandering around with an odd-looking camera. If that's not enough, try imagining their responses when you utter the phrase "It's a Leica". :)
 
Last edited:
Right now, the only answer I have to that is... because I can't afford digital. And I don't want to sell my M3.

If I could afford an M8 and a 5D, I wouldn't look back. Although I might get a monorail 4x5 to play with, mostly shooting polaroid film in it or Efke 25 in dr5 so I didn't have to do any processing myself.

I'm sure the grass-is-always-greener syndrome would kick in and make me miss slide film, or shooting street on B&W film the way it was meant to be done.

Shooting decent amounts of film is too much for me to manage easily, and the mandatory ongoing costs are terrible until you get an image you really love. That comes in bursts, sometimes there's a few per roll and others there's none in 10 rolls. I shot a 3-day event on 11 rolls of film, and even with cheap film and processing it cost almost 50 bucks. Pretty steep when I just shot it for practice, and I'll pick 10 or 20 images to go in a slideshow for a fair booth later this year.

I did shoot digital before I switched to film, and there were things I didn't like but for day-to-day shooting it can't be beat (for me).
 
Pro photographers have different issues with their choice of cameras than I. Many years ago I did some newspaper work and created "Multi Image" slide shows.

Photography, for me, is a serious pastime now. I am also an avid hiker and the utter simplicity of film cameras suits how I tramp around in the mountains. ie: No battery dependance for my M2, M4-P, Hasselblads or Super Ikontas.

I've engaged the thought of purchasing a really good DSLR quite a few times since I took my little Coolpix 995 home some years ago. The work I've seen produced on digital equipment, much of it on this site, is really exciting.

I have made a personal decision, however, that since at this time I am still able to get film, I'll stay with my excellent but dated film equipment, and my little Coolpix.
 
NickTrop said:
I guess this was best answered in a review I recently read about a Panasonic digicam. I have this camera's ancestor (from way back in 2004), loved it when I got it but now only used it for specially purposes (it has a 12X optical zoom with image stabilization, so it takes the place of a big zoom.)

Here's the conclusion of the review from Digital Camera Review:

Conclusion

For many digital camera buyers image quality is the single most important consideration in their purchasing decision. However, exactly what constitutes superior image quality will always be relative and subjective. I have a favorite 11x14 Cibachrome print, made (in 1988) from an Agfachrome RS100 35mm slide. That print is sharp as a tack, all colors are hue accurate and absolutely neutral, there's no image noise, no blotching, no fading (after almost 20 years), and no purple fringing. Some potential purchasers may eliminate the FZ7 from their considerations because of its slightly higher than average noise levels and that's too bad. Most digicam buyers use their images for 4x6 prints, on-line photo albums, an occasional 8x10 enlargement, and for sharing (via e-mail) with friends/relatives. The FZ7 will excel in all those applications. This camera comes tantalizingly close to the mythical ideal prosumer digicam. With very little in the way of genuine competition, the FZ7 may be the best prosumer digicam choice (based on features/capabilities/performance vs price and at this point in time) for serious shutterbugs and advanced amateur shooters. Photography is not just a science - it is also an art, so it is important not to get too hung up on stats and specs. Noise, blotching, and purple fringing are (to a lesser or greater degree) present in all digital images and the only practical way to reliably (and completely) avoid these frustrating electronic anomalies is to shoot film.

http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=2754
--------------------

This plus I love the old cameras, collecting affordable gear, like having a camera that works w/o a battery or the battery lasts for years, like playing with different film emulsions, like developing my black and white negs, like making my own wet-process prints, like being able to shoot at ISO settings higher than 200 withouts spending $1000 give or take for a DSLR kit for the privlidge, prefer not to spend hours tweaking images in photoshop, dislike finicky inkjets, and they're just - to me, way more fun. More focus on photography, less on technology bits, bytes, software, and megapixels.

Why do you still shoot film?
Click to expand...

1. Every digital camera out there has a built-in expiration date. GOOD film cameras don't.

2. Image quality. Film always delivers. Digital cameras sometimes don't.

3. Hundreds of films, thousands of film/developer combos. Only one sensor.

4. Ditto paper/developer combos.
 
sjw617 said:
Where exactly would I find that information in my cameras?

Steve
Click to expand...

Electronics wear out. In a device with a low friction coefficient, mechanics can last hundreds of years. I have an Ansco #4 Vest Pocket camera that was built in 1895 that still works. If it ever does break, I can fix it. If my Canon digital breaks, I'm S.O.L., but I don't expect it to last long enough to break, seeing as how it is my third digital camera.
 
"Why do you still shoot film?"

Because I want to... I like both film and digital.

On a slightly different vain, I really like tactile mechanical cameras. No reliance on battery's, menu systems, LCDs that are rubbish in bright light, plastic components that fail much to quickly, dusty sensors and all that jazz. I just wish was a generic system of digital backs and adapters that I could use on my film cameras when I feel like it. Oh well.

Matt
 
Cause its pretty.
Haha, not to mention, that greatttt feeling of waiting for film!
Bryan

Guilty Pleasure = 1 Hour BW Kodak film from anywhere like grocery stores, 7-11 etc haha, its great when youre feelin impatient.
 
Because they haven't developed an all mechanical digital camera yet..........

Fondling digital cameras just seems.....so cheap and unfufilling.
 
jonasv said:
For the grain!
Click to expand...
Hear Hear!
I have yet to see an entirely digital image with believable grain.
PS Noise is just that. Now scanning film is another matter...

I like the tactile processes of shooting traditionally.
I also like the feeling of accomplishment that comes with my approach to photography.
And, truth be told, some of the bragging rights that go with it.
I can process any print film I care to run through my camera, and have!
B+W, Color, IR, Color-IR. I can print them all in the darkroom as well.:D

I know some people who think using a manual focus (read; slow) film camera
and self-processing is a load of... nonsense, and they've told me as much.
But if I wanted to let the camera make the photos, I'd use one that did.
(and on rare occasions I do, *Gasp!*)
 
My 2cents:
"horses for courses"
Like many others here I use what suits my needs and the situation. I have a DSLR which gets used everyday. Sometimes though, the size just isn't practical to have it as an additional appendage.. and that is where my smaller 35mm RF's or P&S come into action: I just haven't found a 'pocket sized' digital that can rival them - although I would love to find one!

I enjoy using PSCS just as much as developing my own film. Both ways have a learning curve that is never-ending (so many parameters and variances available.)
 
projectbluebird said:
Hear Hear!
I have yet to see an entirely digital image with believable grain.
Click to expand...

There's a software, called Dxo film pack, which enables one to get the grain of several traditional films, but it is all digital.
See this website for further information http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/filmpack/overview

(I am not related in any kind to the company referred to above. so this is no advertisement...)
 
Why do I shoot film?

-more than adequate camera selection in the used market. Hasselblad systems can be had for relatively reasonable prices since so many pros have been dumping them in favor of digital systems. Many other film camera systems seem to have followed suit.

-At this time I don't have to buy a digital system because a good selection of film is still available. If film were to run out I'll still have had the use, and the $ saved by using film in that time.

-inertia

-I can scan negs and slides. I then have an archival back up. Is "archival" important? I can't really say 'cause I'm not there yet, but I'm certainly glad my parents used film 60 years ago and not digital.

-My elderly camera systems still function as well as the day they were new, in some cases this is 60 years old. ( Theoretically, solid state electronic components can last much longer but the peripherals, and sensors won't. )

-The utter simplicity of my film cameras leave all the control up to me. I get to choose my exposure, depth of field and focus without going through menus.

-Not that long ago we compared digital to film. Now it seems we compare film to digital. Frankly I find film to still have tonal and archival advantages.

-Film cameras are already redundant (to some) so I don't have to wait 3 to 4 years for my stuff to become redundant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom