burancap
Veteran
Yes.
The difference to me is sensory. The sights, the smells, the sounds, the feel, maybe the taste??? Film from start to finish is just more intimate.
I suppose it is like comparing instant "flavor" crystals nuked in a cup to hand-grinding, tamping, and awaiting a proper coffee.
Sparrow
Veteran
The taste? one can't set film in aspic you know ... oh, hang on ...
dogbunny
Registered Boozer
1) I like that I can't chimp.
2) I like that there is a methodical process involved.
3) I like that there is a certain amount of digestion time from shutter click to finished product.
4) The result of the b&w film just has something special about it.
5) It's my hobby, why does it have to be fast, instant gratification? It's the journey, not the destination.
6) I like when someone asks me to show them the picture I just took of them and I say I can't but if it turns out well I will share it with them.
7) I like that each click counts and that it can't be deleted or done over. I got it or I didn't.
I'm sure there are some more reasons, but (hopefully) you get the point.
db
2) I like that there is a methodical process involved.
3) I like that there is a certain amount of digestion time from shutter click to finished product.
4) The result of the b&w film just has something special about it.
5) It's my hobby, why does it have to be fast, instant gratification? It's the journey, not the destination.
6) I like when someone asks me to show them the picture I just took of them and I say I can't but if it turns out well I will share it with them.
7) I like that each click counts and that it can't be deleted or done over. I got it or I didn't.
I'm sure there are some more reasons, but (hopefully) you get the point.
db
print44
Well-known
I think that if I were going to do some commercial photography and be paid for it I would probably opt for digital.
Luckily for me I'm not paid to take photographs so I shoot on film.
And shooting on film is addictive. Only thirty six exposures to try to find something special and record that moment. And then the image is hidden. The barely conscious sense that something special might have been captured makes me impatient to get to the processing. The fresh negs get me straight to the scanner. Even second rate images get a second look and perhaps a scan. Fiddling in LR or PS is fun - but nothing is ever totally virtual. I can return to the neg any time I like.
I sometimes look at the pattern, side-on, of a negative - where the emulsion has been removed and where it is left and think- light made that impression - on the day, at the second the shutter was opened and in the very place recorded in those pictures. The negative is an artefact - a real record, something tangible which links images to experiences. Think of Capa's overheated negs for example - they were there, those little strips, on the beaches on that June day. Their partial destruction, their imperfection, is somehow as important a part of history as the images which can be printed from them.
Capa's overheated SD card might not have the same romance!
Cheers
Luckily for me I'm not paid to take photographs so I shoot on film.
And shooting on film is addictive. Only thirty six exposures to try to find something special and record that moment. And then the image is hidden. The barely conscious sense that something special might have been captured makes me impatient to get to the processing. The fresh negs get me straight to the scanner. Even second rate images get a second look and perhaps a scan. Fiddling in LR or PS is fun - but nothing is ever totally virtual. I can return to the neg any time I like.
I sometimes look at the pattern, side-on, of a negative - where the emulsion has been removed and where it is left and think- light made that impression - on the day, at the second the shutter was opened and in the very place recorded in those pictures. The negative is an artefact - a real record, something tangible which links images to experiences. Think of Capa's overheated negs for example - they were there, those little strips, on the beaches on that June day. Their partial destruction, their imperfection, is somehow as important a part of history as the images which can be printed from them.
Capa's overheated SD card might not have the same romance!
Cheers
anjoca76
Well-known
I use film because, though I own one, a digital camera brings me no joy. If I were a professional who needed to make sure I had the shot, I would rely on digital, I suppose. But I am not, and I take pride in loading up an old manual camera with film and using what skill set I have, or do not have, to try to take pictures that hopefully come out the way I want them to, if not better. With digital, I shoot to many pictures and don't think about exposure and the technical side so much because I can immediately see if I got the shot or not. Blurry? Overblown highlights? Too dark? Shoot it again until I get it right. There's nothing wrong with that, but it brings me no joy.
Other reasons: I enjoy the feel of film cameras. I enjoy deciding on which film or films to bring me based on what I expect the light to be like when I get out there. Lastly, though I am hardly a luddite--I love electronic gizmos just as much as the next guy, I also do things like bake my own bread, brew my own beer, roll out my own fresh pasta. I brined my own corned beef for St. Paddy's Day. I make my own sausage. And so on. I like to experience how things were back in the day, so to speak. I like history. It helps me stay grounded--or something like that. I can't explain why that appeals to me, I guess; it just does.
Other reasons: I enjoy the feel of film cameras. I enjoy deciding on which film or films to bring me based on what I expect the light to be like when I get out there. Lastly, though I am hardly a luddite--I love electronic gizmos just as much as the next guy, I also do things like bake my own bread, brew my own beer, roll out my own fresh pasta. I brined my own corned beef for St. Paddy's Day. I make my own sausage. And so on. I like to experience how things were back in the day, so to speak. I like history. It helps me stay grounded--or something like that. I can't explain why that appeals to me, I guess; it just does.
emraphoto
Veteran
I use film for a particular look.
I use film when I don't want to worry about access to electricity for recharging.
I use film because that's what my M6 uses. And it's a really cool camera.
I use film to appear strictly 'amateur' sometimes.
'who are you with'?
'oh, just a hobbyist'
I use film when I don't want to worry about access to electricity for recharging.
I use film because that's what my M6 uses. And it's a really cool camera.
I use film to appear strictly 'amateur' sometimes.
'who are you with'?
'oh, just a hobbyist'
Charles S
Established
Because my M8 has to go back to Solms
Paul Luscher
Well-known
Because I still dig it, man. And I dig all my film cameras, too
Out to Lunch
Ventor
Handling of the cameras: the Leica M, the Zeiss-Ikon. But I also love to take pictures with the Nikon F3HP and FM3A.
timor
Well-known
Yes, you are absolutely right. It is very much personal thing, take Ronnies input as his (hers) personal view.
Maybe should we create a new word: "phun" = fun from photography ?
I shoot film as I have more phun doing the real thing, not a virtual.
umcelinho
Marcelo
I prefer the look of film. But more and more it's been hard to find places where I live that will develop film with proper care. I only shoot C41 color negs and getting a Jobo isn't an option... I went back to scanning my own negs but it's so time consuming that it really puts me off.
I have an X100 (compact and silent 35mm equiv, but I prefer RF focusing) and an R-D1 (RF, amazing camera but the crop factor compromises my 35s and 50s), so I also shoot digital. More and more i've ben shooting digital and lately when I get my negs scanned I have been thinking that a digital file (RAW) would allow me so much more maneuverability than film, since I don't print often I don't get all of film's benefits on the darkroom.
So nowadays I shoot film because I haven't got myself a full frame rangefinder, yet. Waiting for the M10 to decide if I'll get an M9 or go for an M10. It'll be weird to walk around with such an expensive camera, but I'll have it insured so that doesn't bother me as much.
If there was a lab where I live that would develop and scan with great quality, then 2012 would probably not be my last year shooting film.
I have an X100 (compact and silent 35mm equiv, but I prefer RF focusing) and an R-D1 (RF, amazing camera but the crop factor compromises my 35s and 50s), so I also shoot digital. More and more i've ben shooting digital and lately when I get my negs scanned I have been thinking that a digital file (RAW) would allow me so much more maneuverability than film, since I don't print often I don't get all of film's benefits on the darkroom.
So nowadays I shoot film because I haven't got myself a full frame rangefinder, yet. Waiting for the M10 to decide if I'll get an M9 or go for an M10. It'll be weird to walk around with such an expensive camera, but I'll have it insured so that doesn't bother me as much.
If there was a lab where I live that would develop and scan with great quality, then 2012 would probably not be my last year shooting film.
timor
Well-known
Real thing? ... jeez, this place kills me sometimes. If you truly want the real thing, you'd surely have to be using photos produced on a polished pewter plate covered with a petroleum derivative called Bitumen of Judea, which you'd then dissolved in white petroleum. Anything less is not the real thing. :bang:
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I took both digital and film cameras on a recent trip.
I still like the photos I took with the film camera even though the digital one outnumbers it *purely* due to convenience.
And I still remember how much I enjoyed shooting with a manual camera on the trip.
And I enjoy holding and viewing the negatives. And I haven't even re-setup my darkroom yet due to moving yet. Now I really start to miss it.
So I guess I just like film. That's why I use it. Big surprise, huh?
I still like the photos I took with the film camera even though the digital one outnumbers it *purely* due to convenience.
And I still remember how much I enjoyed shooting with a manual camera on the trip.
And I enjoy holding and viewing the negatives. And I haven't even re-setup my darkroom yet due to moving yet. Now I really start to miss it.
So I guess I just like film. That's why I use it. Big surprise, huh?
timor
Well-known
Be easy with banging head against the wall, is dangerous ...
I wonder why are you always so offended by my stance. You must be very touchy and really unsure about yourself. Maybe you should attend 1x.com. It is a place, where digital photographers find never ending praise for their deeds, film is not mentioned.
And yes, there is a growing number of people using wet plate or constructing own LF cameras.
gyuribacsi
Established
First of all, with film I know in advance what I´ll get (if all tecnical preliminaries are done correctly). And then it´s the look of the picture even if scanned. Sure, the resolution of a digital camera is far higher. But the pictures are too clean and "sharp". A matter of taste, right.
George
George
Richard G
Veteran
Archival record.
I like using my film Ms. (e.g. No real attachment to my OM. But attached to Hexar...)
I take more care.
Fixed ISO.
All manual controls.
So little battery dependence.
More certainty of final result.
Less time at computer.
But:
I hate misloads - only the M5 has defeated me and I think I'm now on top.
I hate fixed ISO.
I hate scratched negatives.
I hate dust and lint on negatives.
I hate scanning.
I like using my film Ms. (e.g. No real attachment to my OM. But attached to Hexar...)
I take more care.
Fixed ISO.
All manual controls.
So little battery dependence.
More certainty of final result.
Less time at computer.
But:
I hate misloads - only the M5 has defeated me and I think I'm now on top.
I hate fixed ISO.
I hate scratched negatives.
I hate dust and lint on negatives.
I hate scanning.
But the more I keep hitting my head against the wall, the better it feels when I stop.
True, I'm a bit touchy...but I am secure. That has nothing to do with this matter though. To me, photography is photography... great work has been made in all mediums and formats and that has not changed with digital. This notion that digital is fake photography is just so silly that you keep roping me in. Next time, I'll just realize it's you posting again and ignore it.benlees
Well-known
C'mon, you know the real thing is pulling your drapes and living in a camera obscura. No virtual there!
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Ha HA! Yes. Precisely. Oh this is good. I was going to write: "because that is what goes in my cameras . . ." but thought that Bill might think it too snarky an answer. Truth to tell, Helen has nailed it too. My silver prints are a joy to look at. Perhaps it is the very imperfections visible at a billion-percent that make it so lovely. Every time I think I have digital B&W down, I look at my best stuff on good old silver chloride paper and my head wants to explode!