Why Do You Still Shoot Film?

[Andy K]

Why does obsolescence always come up in digital v. film arguments? A Leica M3 is obsolete in terms of its intended purpose ( a professional workhorse ). You could argue that all RF's became obsolete with the arrival of SLR's. Surely it's the end result that counts whether you use film, digital, SLR or RF no one method is inherently better than another.

A Leica M3 will still give perfect results. It will still expose film as well as any contemporary 35mm camera. My QL17, Zorki 4K and Voigtlander Vito CLR, will still produce results as good as a modern camera. The only difference will be the way the photographer interacts with the camera.

A ten year old digital camera cannot hope to match the results from even a basic contemporary digital camera, and is therefore obsolete.

 

[pvdhaar]

But there are still plenty of great shots being made with a D30 (as opposed to a 30D which has essentially the same sensor). Most of the so-called "progress" is pure marketing and gimmicks. The rest are mostly technical camera improvements like for instance better Auto-Focus, which would be the same for a film-body. in ten years they went from 6MP to 8 MP with only marginally enhanced electronics. The only field that really improved was high-sensitivity noise, which is pretty good now as well. So I really do think that technology is rapidly approaching the point where further developments have no real-world relevance.

Depends on what you call real-world relevance..

I think new functionality like face-priority focus and in-camera red-eye reduction has tremendous real world relevance.. No kidding, we can mark such developments as trivial, but for a lot of people who are merely interested in snapping a picture of the kids, these are highly valued achievements.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

> A ten year old digital camera cannot hope to match the results from even a basic contemporary digital camera, and is therefore obsolete.


Oh Yeah!

I'll pit my 14-year old Digital SLR against any new Digital camera in IR any Day!

Stupid Bayer Filters.

Of course getting the 80MByte internal SCSI disk going again was a real trick.

 

[pvdhaar]

A Leica M3 will still give perfect results. It will still expose film as well as any contemporary 35mm camera.

Not true, an AF-SLR has a stepless shutter accurate to the millisecond. From 1/2000 or faster to 30 seconds.. No M3 will ever come close.

 

[Andy K]

Not true, an AF-SLR has a stepless shutter accurate to the millisecond. From 1/2000 or faster to 30 seconds.. No M3 will ever come close.

A stepless shutter is immaterial if you have a stepless aperture. As I said, the only difference between an old 35mm camera and a modern 35mm camera is the way the photographer interacts with the camera to obtain the results they want.

 

[lubitel]

I am just an amateur, but I shoot both film and digital. Film because I can use rangefinders and MF when i feel like it, and digital because I have better control of the final image on the computer (I dont have a darkroom).

 

[Kin Lau]

Who rattled your cage Kin Lau? Want to take that as offensive? Be my guest. I called no one a liar, I voiced an opposing viewpoint, as others have done to mine. I do not consider them calling me a liar (however, they may be misguided and blind to the whole picture).
Anyhow, back on topic, why do you still use film Kin Lau? That is what this thread is about, I didn't see your reasons Kin Lau. As you only selected my post to complain about, among quite a few who have expressed reasons for sticking with film, are you only here to troll?

Page 2, post #38. Yes I shoot film. It's a good idea to check your facts first.

Doug said digital was cheaper for him and his wife... you said "it's a myth", that's it's not true. Notice that Doug (and many others) didn't say "digital is always cheaper" but posted from a personal persective. It other words, you said what he said is false. You were not replying to a generality, but a personal statement.

You did not say "sometimes it's different", you simply made a blanket "it's a myth" = "it's a lie". Quite different from "an opposing viewpoint".

From the wikipedia on trolling: "For many people, the characterising feature of trolling is the perception of intent to disrupt a community in some way. Inflammatory, sarcastic, disruptive or humorous content is posted, meant to draw other users into engaging the troll in a fruitless confrontation."

Who posted something that's received the most number of refutes? You're fairly consistent in this behaviour too.

 

[FrankS]

It would probably be a good idea to drop the film versus digital hot potato, and go back to the original question: why do you still use film.

The film/digital issue is dead. Each has its pros and its cons. Choose what works best for you and the job that needs to be done. Period.

Andy and Kin, if you want to continue your discussion, please consider doing so via PM.

(I know I'm not a moderator, I'm just trying to be the voice of reason.)

 

[Andy K]

Page 2, post #38. Yes I shoot film. It's a good idea to check your facts first.

Doug said digital was cheaper for him and his wife... you said "it's a myth", that's it's not true. Notice that Doug (and many others) didn't say "digital is always cheaper" but posted from a personal persective. It other words, you said what he said is false. You were not replying to a generality, but a personal statement.

You did not say "sometimes it's different", you simply made a blanket "it's a myth" = "it's a lie". Quite different from "an opposing viewpoint".

From the wikipedia on trolling: "For many people, the characterising feature of trolling is the perception of intent to disrupt a community in some way. Inflammatory, sarcastic, disruptive or humorous content is posted, meant to draw other users into engaging the troll in a fruitless confrontation."

Who posted something that's received the most number of refutes? You're fairly consistent in this behaviour too.

I said it was a myth. Nowhere did I call anyone a liar.

YOU ARE A LIAR by claiming that I called Doug a liar when I did no such thing. Please go back to your troll hole.

 

[pvdhaar]

A stepless shutter is immaterial if you have a stepless aperture. As I said, the only difference between an old 35mm camera and a modern 35mm camera is the way the photographer interacts with the camera to obtain the results they want.

Everyone is entitled to the opinion that a mechanical device is able to more accurately time a range of fractions of a second than an electronic one. But I guess that the fact that more M3's are being serviced for inaccurate shutter speeds than modern cameras is a sign to the contrary..

 

[FrankS]

Andy, Andy, Andy.

 

[jaapv]

Depends on what you call real-world relevance..

I think new functionality like face-priority focus and in-camera red-eye reduction has tremendous real world relevance.. No kidding, we can mark such developments as trivial, but for a lot of people who are merely interested in snapping a picture of the kids, these are highly valued achievements.

I think Canon marketing is brilliant. Not only have they successfully orchestrated a "full frame sensor"hype, they also have their customers on a "camera-every-eighteen-months"rhythm, far outstripping Nikon and any other competitor.

 

[bmattock]

You missed out ink, paper, computer, software, batteries. And the fact that to stay in the game ALL digital gear has to be renewed every couple of years or so.There is also the constant cost of backing up files in duplicate/triplicate/seperate locations.

No printer = no ink, no paper. Why do you keep insisting it is a required expense?

Computer = I'd have one anyway. I didn't buy 'bigger' or 'more' because I do photography. No extra expense there.

Software = I bought Vuescan once, get free upgrades for life. No cost for Linux/Gimp.

Batteries = Yep. Ferocious costs. I think I've spent maybe $100 over five or six years. Oooh.

Backing up files = I need much more space for my scanned film negatives (25 mb per photo) than I do for my 6 mp files (9 mb or so, tops).

As to upgrading digital gear. Yes. It is the current trend - to stay on top of the game a DSLR is essentially worthless after about three years and must be replaced. Like a PC in the business environment. That's why the IRS allows accellerated depreciation on these things. You amortize the cost and depreciate, and then sell them for what the market will bear when they're replaced with new.

This is different from a traditional film camera, which was built to a higher standard and was expected to remain in service much longer.

However, no one knows how much longer this trend will last. We do not know if we will hit a 'magic spot' in terms of photo quality where the market will no longer buy more megapixels, or if the trend upwards will just continue forever, as it does with the PC. If / when the market matures, I would expect manufacturers to compete for business on a more traditional basis - ie, quality rather than megapixels.

In any case, it is a cost of doing business, and compared to the ongoing cost of film and processing, I'd call it a wash. At most.

You also missed the fact that most pro's buy film and chemicals in bulk. That's a lot cheaper than your estiamate.

Hmm. Did you put the cost of a large fridge in your cost for buying bulk film? I think most pros who buy in bulk also have monster freezers, don't they? I wonder what those cost? How much electricity do they take? A backup generator? A UPS? Sounds expensive.

Home processing costs a hell of a lot less than a lab.

For B&W. I challenge that for C41, possibly for C6. It really depends on your volume. Many pros just don't shoot enough C6/C41 to justify keeping the chemicals in soup, and mixing small batches is expensive when they don't last long and have to be thrown out.

Enlargers are a once in a lifetime purchase.

Granted. Unless you move to a different format, or want to print on larger paper than when you started. But that never happens, eh?

You assume film users enlarge every negative, we don't, so paper costs are not as high as your assumption.

You assume digital users print every photo, they don't.

Also most people who use film and a real darkroom do not scan everything to computer, why should they? They already have the hardcopy.

For as long as no harm comes to their negative, like a house burning down, God forbid. Yes, I know, your house doesn't burst into flames on a regular basis, but lots of houses burn down somewhere every day. It's a regular occurance, that's why firemen are kept employed. And if it should happen to you, your work is gone.

Hard drives can crap out, files can be destroyed. Multiple copies mitigate the danger and spread the risk. A scanned frame of film is not as good as the original negative, but it is better than a film-to-film copy (which nearly no one does anyway), and it mitigates risk.

As for time taken, do digital users spend no time at all photoshopping, backing up, filing, printing etc?

Depends on ability and inclination, I guess. Geezers seem to struggle with technology. Newbies seem to struggle with processing their own B&W film. I'm sorry if you can't operate a PC well enough to get decent results in an acceptable amount of time. Please don't assume that everyone suffers from your lack of competence with Photoshop, et al.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[pvdhaar]

I think Canon marketing is brilliant. Not only have they successfully orchestrated a "full frame sensor"hype, they also have their customers on a "camera-every-eighteen-months"rhythm, far outstripping Nikon and any other competitor.

True, much of it is hype. But every now and then something useful comes along, although we may realize its potential only much later..

Remember the introduction of icon (or so called idiot) modes? Somewhere under all those turbo/go faster stripes, there really is something there that's not offered by any of the conventional modes. Worst thing: I didn't even realize it myself until someone who took superb wild water kayaking pictures pointed out how he used them.. Nope, not in sports mode..

He got perfect balance between motion/dof and horrid light conditions just because it was all taken in '..gasp..' landscape mode. Aperture priority wasn't good because the kayakers would move in and out of the sunlight continuously, shutter priority wouldn't work as the aperture range wouldn't suffice, program mode wouldn't work as he'd get insufficient dof... Last time ever I thought of icon modes as gimmicks..

 

[Andy K]

No printer = no ink, no paper. Why do you keep insisting it is a required expense?

Computer = I'd have one anyway. I didn't buy 'bigger' or 'more' because I do photography. No extra expense there.

Software = I bought Vuescan once, get free upgrades for life. No cost for Linux/Gimp.

Batteries = Yep. Ferocious costs. I think I've spent maybe $100 over five or six years. Oooh.

Backing up files = I need much more space for my scanned film negatives (25 mb per photo) than I do for my 6 mp files (9 mb or so, tops).

As to upgrading digital gear. Yes. It is the current trend - to stay on top of the game a DSLR is essentially worthless after about three years and must be replaced. Like a PC in the business environment. That's why the IRS allows accellerated depreciation on these things. You amortize the cost and depreciate, and then sell them for what the market will bear when they're replaced with new.

This is different from a traditional film camera, which was built to a higher standard and was expected to remain in service much longer.

However, no one knows how much longer this trend will last. We do not know if we will hit a 'magic spot' in terms of photo quality where the market will no longer buy more megapixels, or if the trend upwards will just continue forever, as it does with the PC. If / when the market matures, I would expect manufacturers to compete for business on a more traditional basis - ie, quality rather than megapixels.

In any case, it is a cost of doing business, and compared to the ongoing cost of film and processing, I'd call it a wash. At most.



Hmm. Did you put the cost of a large fridge in your cost for buying bulk film? I think most pros who buy in bulk also have monster freezers, don't they? I wonder what those cost? How much electricity do they take? A backup generator? A UPS? Sounds expensive.



For B&W. I challenge that for C41, possibly for C6. It really depends on your volume. Many pros just don't shoot enough C6/C41 to justify keeping the chemicals in soup, and mixing small batches is expensive when they don't last long and have to be thrown out.



Granted. Unless you move to a different format, or want to print on larger paper than when you started. But that never happens, eh?



You assume digital users print every photo, they don't.



For as long as no harm comes to their negative, like a house burning down, God forbid. Yes, I know, your house doesn't burst into flames on a regular basis, but lots of houses burn down somewhere every day. It's a regular occurance, that's why firemen are kept employed. And if it should happen to you, your work is gone.

Hard drives can crap out, files can be destroyed. Multiple copies mitigate the danger and spread the risk. A scanned frame of film is not as good as the original negative, but it is better than a film-to-film copy (which nearly no one does anyway), and it mitigates risk.



Depends on ability and inclination, I guess. Geezers seem to struggle with technology. Newbies seem to struggle with processing their own B&W film. I'm sorry if you can't operate a PC well enough to get decent results in an acceptable amount of time. Please don't assume that everyone suffers from your lack of competence with Photoshop, et al.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Yawn... blather blather blather... blah blah blah... digital self justification... yawn yawn yawn...

Why is it whenever there is a thread in a positive light about film, digital users feel the need to flood it with their boring self justification?

I made no assumptions, I replied to what was posted.

I really could care less about digital.

 

[bmattock]

Yawn... blather blather blather... blah blah blah... digital self justification... yawn yawn yawn...

Why is it whenever there is a thread in a positive light about film, digital users feel the need to flood it with their boring self justification?

I really could care less about digital.

For someone who could care less about digital, you seem to spend a fair amount of time explaining why a) it isn't as good as film and b) it costs more than film.

Since you've just had a severe spanking by someone who dishes it better than you, I suggest you take your lumps and move on.

Unless there's something else you'd like to be really really wrong about. In public.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Andy K]

For someone who could care less about digital, you seem to spend a fair amount of time explaining why a) it isn't as good as film and b) it costs more than film.

Since you've just had a severe spanking by someone who dishes it better than you, I suggest you take your lumps and move on.

Unless there's something else you'd like to be really really wrong about. In public.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

There we have it folks, the Walrus of Wisdom has pontificated, bow down before his immensity.

Any system which requires complete replacement every couple of years is going to be more expensive than a system which does not require replacing.

 

[jaapv]

There we have it folks, the Walrus of Wisdom has pontificated, bow down before his immensity.

Any system which requires complete replacement every couple of years is going to be more expensive than a system which does not require replacing.

I just pointed out that it probably does not NEED replacing, but that the marketing guys make you WANT to replace it...

 

[back alley]

let's take it down a notch folks.

debate is a an intellectual persuit and this is starting to get personal.

joe

 

[bmattock]

There we have it folks, the Walrus of Wisdom has pontificated, bow down before his immensity.

Ooh, the Walrus of Wisdom. I like that! Can I use it?

And by the way, does it hurt to be so wrong? It looks painful, but that could just be from my point of view.

Any system which requires complete replacement every couple of years is going to be more expensive than a system which does not require replacing.

If the first part of your statement was true, then the second would be as well. Since the first is not true (eg, your spanking), then the reader is left to draw their own conclusions about the veracity of yours.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks, the Walrus of Wisdom.
"Bow Down Before My Immensity!"