Why do you use film:

Bill Pierce said:
WHY DO YOU USE FILM?
Click to expand...

Loving mechanical cameras and manual lenses. Love the results (Ilford black and white for me).

When I brought three rolls in for developing to the local lab today there was another photographer unloading maybe thirty (!) rolls of 35mm and a bunch of larger format films.

Seeing this, I dont worry about the future of film.
 
Why do I shoot film?
I love the process of using old cameras;
I love processing film;
And most important aspect - I love the output from film better than digital. Maybe one day I will fall in love with digital, but not yet. I keep on looking at test pictures from M8, M9, now x100, xp1 etc. etc. that you guys post here - it just does not look the way I like (unless a lot of post processing is done to simulate a film). Not yet.
 
Charlie Lemay said:
Thanks for posting my website Timor,

I didn't post it here because just clicking on my name lets you choose to go to my web site. If you google my name, it comes up first as well.

Charlie
Click to expand...
That, how I found it. Now I am looking at your instructions. Looks like great stuff worth trying.
 
A)
- I love the look of FP4+, Delta 100 as well as Kodak Elite Chrome (I know, need to stock up).
- Film is so smoooth....

B) Easier to handle. Yes!
I come home from a trip, develop my negatives (4 roll-tank), and scan with Epson 4990 & Silverfast LE. FP4+/HP5+ profiles work fine (b/w) for me now. Scan, apply profile, adjust curves slightly, then a few adjustments in LR3. Takes me less time on average than fixing up an M8 or DP2s file in LR3 and Silver Efex.
Photos I need to have published/printed large I sent to a high-quality scan service (Hasselblad X1) where a pro knows what I want. They are essentially ready-to-print when I get them back.

C) Gear....

- my favourite focal length is 50mm and my favourite lens is the 50mm Sonnar C. I cannot handle the crop of the M8 or X-Pro 1, and cannot afford an M9.
- I shoot in a lot in cold mountain ranges. My M6 and Contax T3 simply work.
- The lens characteristics and rendering of the Sonnar on the Contax T3 loaded with slide film or Delta 100 have not been surpassed by any digital. So I stick with it when I need a very compact performer for double-page spreads.
- I can afford to shoot medium format with it. Rolleiflex...yummie.
 
jsrockit said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, film kinda is the "real" thing. You can touch it, hold it, hold your neg/slide up to the light.. try doing that with your memory card.
Whenever I shoot film, I always feel more involved in the photography process than what i do when shooting digital.
 
jsrockit said:
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.
Click to expand...
I never said that digital is a fake photography, I said it is not a photography, it is something else, a digital capture which similarity to photography ends with the shutter. Behind that exists totally different, algorithm driven virtual world of information. I know, there are hybrid technologies, where you can print "digital negative" and then in the darkroom a real, baryta photograph could be made. But for that digital camera is not needed, any computer generated graphic file will do. Digital camera is just the quickest way to acquire the initial image. This is never less wonderful technology with great potential and is good, that we have it. I just don't use it for my hobby.
When comes to "roping" you are doing it yourself, initially in this thread I agreed with you, I don't think that "digital=dull", very much the opposite.
 
timor said:
...I said it is not a photography, it is something else...
Click to expand...

I'm very curious to know why you don't consider it photography ? I know the words people use but I fail to understand the reasoning.

and to add further confusion, there's a thread about Thomas Dworzak using an X100. Does this mean he and Alex Majoli for example, aren't making photographs ? If not, what are they making ?
 
I'm being sincere Frank, I simply can't understand the rationale. As long as this view is being put forth, I want to understand it. I think this is germane to the thread but I understand your concern as to which path this can go.
 
newsgrunt said:
I'm being sincere Frank, I simply can't understand the rationale. As long as this view is being put forth, I want to understand it. I think this is germane to the thread but I understand your concern as to which path this can go.
Click to expand...

It is merely semantics. Photography to some people means traditional film. For those people, digital capture is not real (traditional) photography. (and it is a different process to acheive an image) It's just how they choose to define the words. No biggie. No need to get twisted up.
 
zuiko85 said:
I like mechanical things. My older film 35mm cameras, M4-2, OM-1, Pen F are all mechanical, feel nice in the hand, make soothing sounds, and don't require batteries. The plasto-blob Ni-Ca-Oly-Tax digital SLR's (no way can I afford an M9) have no appeal at all and as far as I'm concerned are completely interchangeable in their mundane dullness.
Click to expand...

For the same reasons as Zuiko85. I couldn't have said it better. In addition, I like the look of film. Digital looks clinical to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom