ssmc
Well-known
Lots of reasons (in no particular order)
- every shot costs real money (as opposed to the depreciation of my DSLRs as soon as I open the box), which subconsciously or not makes me take a different approach
- in 35mm the viewfinders and (IMO) haptics are so far beyond the most top-end digital gear it makes me weep to look through a viewfinder
- film cameras are light and small and somehow still manage to do what I need
- B&W. Oh, black and white! Adding grain even with the best software to a B&W conversion of a digital image destroys information; with B&W film, grain creates the image - I can't think of a more fundamental difference. The fact that products such as Silver EFEX Pro are so popular shows just how much people still like that "look"
- financial issues aside, there's just something about the process, from composing the shot to getting the negs/slides/scans that is different from digital in a way I can't really put my finger on
- you can buy perfectly good used film gear for a fraction of what you'd spend on a DSLR, get beautiful results and maybe even not lose any money on the equipment
I could go on but you get the idea. This coming from someone who just shelled out some serious $ (for me anyway) for a 5DIII. Yep, I still love film... I just wish I shot more of it!
Regards,
Scott
- every shot costs real money (as opposed to the depreciation of my DSLRs as soon as I open the box), which subconsciously or not makes me take a different approach
- in 35mm the viewfinders and (IMO) haptics are so far beyond the most top-end digital gear it makes me weep to look through a viewfinder
- film cameras are light and small and somehow still manage to do what I need
- B&W. Oh, black and white! Adding grain even with the best software to a B&W conversion of a digital image destroys information; with B&W film, grain creates the image - I can't think of a more fundamental difference. The fact that products such as Silver EFEX Pro are so popular shows just how much people still like that "look"
- financial issues aside, there's just something about the process, from composing the shot to getting the negs/slides/scans that is different from digital in a way I can't really put my finger on
- you can buy perfectly good used film gear for a fraction of what you'd spend on a DSLR, get beautiful results and maybe even not lose any money on the equipment
I could go on but you get the idea. This coming from someone who just shelled out some serious $ (for me anyway) for a 5DIII. Yep, I still love film... I just wish I shot more of it!
Regards,
Scott
al1966
Feed Your Head
I have never got what I wanted from a digital black and white print, I prefer the colours I get from Portra 160nc. I could possibly get the same colours off a digital file but I get it right away with film. Maybe most importantly, the process of developing and then printing a monochrome print feel a far greater skill than moving a few virtual sliders. The whole darkroom work process feels more of a craft and when I have a decent print I feel like I have achieved something. Film is full of pleasant surprises as some times it will take me 2 or more wks to develop the film, will have forgotten some of the things I decided to put on the film by then. The cameras feel like quality things from the heft of a MF slr/tlr to the smooth engineering of the OM1&2. Film causes breaks in the shooting rhythm like the turning over of a record. No parasitical member of my family can say it won't cost me anything to take a photograph of her (told them I sold off digital) and expect me to do it for free. The negative and the print is a tangible thing, only a print with digital until then it is just a series of 0's and 1's, fibre based paper feels awesome in the hand.
Ronny
Well-known
Because of the nice gear and the good feeling:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ronnypersson/6880123004/in/photostream/lightbox/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ronnypersson/6880123004/in/photostream/lightbox/
Bike Tourist
Well-known
To answer your question in the negative, as much as I have fits of nostalgia about film, when it comes to the practical use and payment for all aspects of the film experience and then the requisite waiting time, I don't use the stuff.
As if that weren't bad enough, now I give you three very different examples of current cameras that probably ought to make you abandon film if you are not completely hard core:
A. Sony ALPHA NEX-7
B. Fujifilm X-PRO1
C. Nikon D800
And Bill, if you are still using medium format, film OR digital, then you are a dinosaur.
As if that weren't bad enough, now I give you three very different examples of current cameras that probably ought to make you abandon film if you are not completely hard core:
A. Sony ALPHA NEX-7
B. Fujifilm X-PRO1
C. Nikon D800
And Bill, if you are still using medium format, film OR digital, then you are a dinosaur.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Dick -
The film I use the most is 8x10 sheet film. I use it in a studio with, believe it or not, a huge strobe that once belonged to Richard Avedon. The second most used film is 4x5 on a reducing back on the 8x10 view. These particular usages aren't of too much interest to this forum. But, if you already own the gear, it does eliminate much of the need for a many megapixel medium format digital. And the film is so big, you can get great scans from a relatively cheap flatbed scanner. (And I do use an X-Pro. Another interesting and relatively new camera is the Ricoh A12 module for M mount lenses. Not a lot of megapixels, but no AA filter and capable of pretty impressive image quality.)
RichyD
Established
I bought a DSLR a few years back but was never very happy with the results compared to the slides I shot before. Two or three years ago I started scanning old family Kodachromes and was knocked out by the colour, and quality after 40 to 50 years. I sold my digital body and bought back a film one deciding slides and scanning was the way to stay.
At the same time discovered 120 folding cameras and always wanted to shoot medium format film. Again with a simple £30 camera I was blown by the tonal range, detail, colour balance and almost 3D quality of some photos. I've been on a medium format quest since now using more modern, well at least 10 years old equipment. In digital terms I can get a 30 plus megapixel image from a simple camera worth less than £100.
I have always kept and used my Olympus rangefinder cameras and on a recent trip to India my 35RD with Ektachrome produced the sharpest, perfectly exposed photos compared to my SLR. In all my previous travels my XA has often produced the best pictures, perhaps not in complete quality with edge light fall off but because it is so handy to carry and use at a moment. If I could have found a digital version of the XA, simple controls, quick to use, quality results I would have bought it. I did try a Canon G something, 7 or 9, Ok controls ,lousy viewfinder and only OK results with fringing and other artefacts. Well an X100 now might fit the bill but not the price.
Things finally seem to be changing where digital cameras (not including SLRS) you can use with familiarity and control and get good results are arriving albeit expensively. I will probably get a NEX-7 to replace my present film SLR and indeed for 35mm digital makes sense.
I will continue using medium format film and my rangefinders, it suits my style, selecting the scene, composing the shot then firing instead of indiscriminately shooting then looking for that instant result. I like the process of waiting for the result, the unexpected element you did not notice in the composition, the joy when it works and the 'oh well I could have framed that better’ result but you are only capturing a moment and it passes so you may never have got it anyway.
I also like the physical element. I have something tangible my hands I can see the image on a light table or even project it. I scan and print the keepers and love flicking through the albums from time to time. I have the best of both worlds. The reliance of computer storage worries me. A friend has just spent hundreds trying to recover images from a disk that failed. A lot of people rely on digital storage and never actually get prints made.
Also at an exhibition of a photographer last year which spanned his film work and later digital you could easily tell the difference between the two. I overheard a couple commenting on one landscape shot about the weird green colours of the digital print, so it wasn't just me. I also had the impression of over sharpening in the digital scenes, like each pixel was trying to jump out and have noticed this in other exhibitions, it looks so artificial.
In short:
Quality, high dynamic and smooth tonal range and detail, colour balance.
Using equipment simply designed to capture images rather than process them.
Longevity and flexibility of use. Archival quality.
Range of film types for different results and immense flexibility with black and white.
At the same time discovered 120 folding cameras and always wanted to shoot medium format film. Again with a simple £30 camera I was blown by the tonal range, detail, colour balance and almost 3D quality of some photos. I've been on a medium format quest since now using more modern, well at least 10 years old equipment. In digital terms I can get a 30 plus megapixel image from a simple camera worth less than £100.
I have always kept and used my Olympus rangefinder cameras and on a recent trip to India my 35RD with Ektachrome produced the sharpest, perfectly exposed photos compared to my SLR. In all my previous travels my XA has often produced the best pictures, perhaps not in complete quality with edge light fall off but because it is so handy to carry and use at a moment. If I could have found a digital version of the XA, simple controls, quick to use, quality results I would have bought it. I did try a Canon G something, 7 or 9, Ok controls ,lousy viewfinder and only OK results with fringing and other artefacts. Well an X100 now might fit the bill but not the price.
Things finally seem to be changing where digital cameras (not including SLRS) you can use with familiarity and control and get good results are arriving albeit expensively. I will probably get a NEX-7 to replace my present film SLR and indeed for 35mm digital makes sense.
I will continue using medium format film and my rangefinders, it suits my style, selecting the scene, composing the shot then firing instead of indiscriminately shooting then looking for that instant result. I like the process of waiting for the result, the unexpected element you did not notice in the composition, the joy when it works and the 'oh well I could have framed that better’ result but you are only capturing a moment and it passes so you may never have got it anyway.
I also like the physical element. I have something tangible my hands I can see the image on a light table or even project it. I scan and print the keepers and love flicking through the albums from time to time. I have the best of both worlds. The reliance of computer storage worries me. A friend has just spent hundreds trying to recover images from a disk that failed. A lot of people rely on digital storage and never actually get prints made.
Also at an exhibition of a photographer last year which spanned his film work and later digital you could easily tell the difference between the two. I overheard a couple commenting on one landscape shot about the weird green colours of the digital print, so it wasn't just me. I also had the impression of over sharpening in the digital scenes, like each pixel was trying to jump out and have noticed this in other exhibitions, it looks so artificial.
In short:
Quality, high dynamic and smooth tonal range and detail, colour balance.
Using equipment simply designed to capture images rather than process them.
Longevity and flexibility of use. Archival quality.
Range of film types for different results and immense flexibility with black and white.
Last edited:
karlori
Digital Refugee
Only film makes me print... I never printed any of my digital images.
Currently that and the reason for the only M compatible full frame body costing more than my full education fund.
So, analog, darkroom, enlarging till i score some oil or a gold mine
I've passed a Canon 40D, 50D, 5dmkII, Pentax K5 and finally came to rest with a pack of Leica M3's ...
Currently that and the reason for the only M compatible full frame body costing more than my full education fund.
So, analog, darkroom, enlarging till i score some oil or a gold mine
I've passed a Canon 40D, 50D, 5dmkII, Pentax K5 and finally came to rest with a pack of Leica M3's ...
amateriat
We're all light!
I suppose the simplest answer for me is that the thought never occurred to me to stop shooting film.
The cameras I work best with - my pair of Hexar RFs, my Contax Tvs, my ersatz-view-camera Olympus OM-2n, and, yes, even my funky little Holga 135 - obviously use film. The film types I prefer to use - Kodak Portra, Ektar 100, BW400CN, and assorted conventional black-and-white films - aren't in any imminent danger of disappearing. (Too bad about E6, though.) My hybrid method of image-making - shoot film, scan film, digitally edit/manage/print - has been in place for nearly fourteen years and has served me well.
And the one digital camera I do have and use - a Nikon Coolpix P6000 - does what I need to do when I specifically need a digital camera to do it.
I don't do big-ass dSLRs; I moved to RFs a decade ago because I was getting sick of big-ass film SLRs and their stovepipe zooms, great performers however they were.
Film, put squarely, is relevant to my work, and my method. There's nothing romantic about my use of it. When it ceases to be relevant to me, I'll simply stop using it. For now, it remains my mainstay.
- Barrett
The cameras I work best with - my pair of Hexar RFs, my Contax Tvs, my ersatz-view-camera Olympus OM-2n, and, yes, even my funky little Holga 135 - obviously use film. The film types I prefer to use - Kodak Portra, Ektar 100, BW400CN, and assorted conventional black-and-white films - aren't in any imminent danger of disappearing. (Too bad about E6, though.) My hybrid method of image-making - shoot film, scan film, digitally edit/manage/print - has been in place for nearly fourteen years and has served me well.
And the one digital camera I do have and use - a Nikon Coolpix P6000 - does what I need to do when I specifically need a digital camera to do it.
I don't do big-ass dSLRs; I moved to RFs a decade ago because I was getting sick of big-ass film SLRs and their stovepipe zooms, great performers however they were.
Film, put squarely, is relevant to my work, and my method. There's nothing romantic about my use of it. When it ceases to be relevant to me, I'll simply stop using it. For now, it remains my mainstay.
- Barrett
robbeiflex
Well-known
No, the rules of alliteration tell us it should be Fotography is Fun, or Photography is Phun.
jsolanzo
Established
Element of Surprise
Digital is kinda boring IMO
Digital is kinda boring IMO
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
The buffer time on film's recording is still the fastest in visual media.
Phil Forrest
Phil Forrest
amateriat
We're all light!
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Jubb Jubb
Well-known
What a ridiculous statement...
venchka
Veteran
Why?
Leica M5
Canon VI-T
Hasselblad 501c/m
Pentax 6x7
Zone VI
Linhof Technika V
None of the above came with a digital sensor.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Wayne
Leica M5
Canon VI-T
Hasselblad 501c/m
Pentax 6x7
Zone VI
Linhof Technika V
None of the above came with a digital sensor.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Wayne
isoterica
Established
Why film? Because I can use the camera my father handed down to me if I use film. It survived the Korean war, it went to Japan, came to the United States and if I wasn't so afraid it would be lost or stolen I would have taken it to Australia. Why else? Because I am relatively new at photography and using film cameras is teaching me a lot. I have to think rather than the camera doing it for me. Sure there is going fully manual but having to understand Sunny 16 etc.. is teaching me a lot more about lighting than my DSLR meter. I do have digital, but when I am holding one of these old film cameras that I have [from rangefinder to twin lens reflex] I feel like there is an aura about them from the people that used them before me down to myself that makes them special. I don't know how many hands they passed through, how many lives they touched, but I know someone was just as fond of them at some point just as I am now.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I am a b/w shooter and as much as I love the low light superiority and convenience of digital I just can not get the look of film with a digital camera. If I shot color I would switch in a heart beat. Digital b/w to my eyes looks fake.
goffer
Well-known
It's not so much film being the reason... I just prefer the way my TLR and rangefinders work over anything I have used thus far with a digital sensor... also the lack of batteries is very liberating knowing that at any moment I can press the shutter and it will work.
