emraphoto
Veteran
add Peter Van Agtmael
Why do you use film:
- Thread starter Bill Pierce
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 169
- Views 22K
add Peter Van Agtmael
Bike Tourist
Well-known
I suppose so. It was meant in the context that MF, even MF with digital backs is not necessary for the quality demanded by almost any application. The special film "look", the visceral satisfaction some people derive from working with film and even the wonderful optical/mechanical characteristics achieved by some older cameras are, of course, dinosaurs of a different color!
And, as Mike pointed out, dinosaurs were a very successful group of animals, enduring much longer than we have so far. So, don't be offended by my ridiculous statement, Jubb Jubb. It probably won't be the last.
paulfish4570
Veteran
besides, it was meant in fun ... 🙂
thegman
Veteran
Not sure if you're joking here, but in case you're not:
The 3 cameras you list are cool, to be sure, but they're all still fairly typical digital at heart, all menus and modes, not simple at all.
I started on medium format maybe 18 months ago, feels a lot longer though. The quality available on 6x6 or 6x9 like I'm using now will wipe the floor with 99% of digital cameras. If you want to beat medium format on resolution, then you've got to spend more money than I'm prepared to.
Digital cameras were not made to make better quality photos, they were made so companies could profit. If you stand back from the marketing etc. it's easy to see why often newer is not better. The fact is that you can spend a few hundred on a medium format camera and get resolution that costs thousands in digital.
If you like the convenience and very low ongoing cost of digital, fine, but film can offer stunning results for little initial outlay, and probably offer a technically better image in 99% of cases.
newsgrunt
Well-known
Hmm, if MF, film or digital = dinosaur. What does that make me if I use 8x10 and larger 😉
c.poulton
Well-known
I just find that for me images created with film have a certain 'depth' to them that digital just doesn't have.....
To my eyes, digital just appears to be too clinical, too 'sharp, too clean. I've seen many many images created recently with the M9(P) and although, granted, the sharpness and resolution is simply outstanding, I still prefer film......
To my eyes, digital just appears to be too clinical, too 'sharp, too clean. I've seen many many images created recently with the M9(P) and although, granted, the sharpness and resolution is simply outstanding, I still prefer film......
timor
Well-known
There is no such a thing. Camera sensors are as analog as it gets.
When comes to dinosaurs, I think it was way to say that film and film users are technologically backward. And that from a guy who is biking around California. Doesn't he know we have cars now ? For the past hundred years or so ?
d_ross
Registered User
Primarily I still use film, now mostly large format B&W, for several aesthetic reasons, many already mentioned here. But also for the fact that it provides a distinct point of difference both aesthetically and philosophically in my work.
I find statements like film and film users are technically inferior to digital totally ridiculous? If so then what does that say about painting and painters? This type of statement makes about as much sense as saying a new Toyota car is better than a tasty naval orange!
I find statements like film and film users are technically inferior to digital totally ridiculous? If so then what does that say about painting and painters? This type of statement makes about as much sense as saying a new Toyota car is better than a tasty naval orange!
Bike Tourist
Well-known
Let me respectfully disagree with comments from timor:
There is no such a thing (as a digital sensor). Camera sensors are as analog as it gets.
I'm not sure where this comes from. No reason is offered. Actually, when the photochemical analog process is taken to the quantum level, everything becomes digital. The universe, really.
When (it) comes to dinosaurs, I think it was (his) way to say that film and film users are technologically backward.
Some are including themselves with the technology! Let's separate "film" from "fim users". Film is nothing but an older technology. The fact that it's older has no bearing on its worth or the satisfaction derived from it's use. A "film user" is not "technologically backward", only someone who, for their own good reason, uses film. But that reason no longer needs to be to get superior results.
And that from a guy who is biking around California. Doesn't he know we have cars now ? For the past hundred years or so ?
Ha, ha. Guilty! I say I'm car free, but I can borrow my wife's if I need to. So, yes, I know we have cars and in my long life I have probably had too many. Speaking of dinosaurs, those inconsiderate animals did not die in sufficient numbers to supply our happy motoring suburban lifestyle forever.
There is no such a thing (as a digital sensor). Camera sensors are as analog as it gets.
I'm not sure where this comes from. No reason is offered. Actually, when the photochemical analog process is taken to the quantum level, everything becomes digital. The universe, really.
When (it) comes to dinosaurs, I think it was (his) way to say that film and film users are technologically backward.
Some are including themselves with the technology! Let's separate "film" from "fim users". Film is nothing but an older technology. The fact that it's older has no bearing on its worth or the satisfaction derived from it's use. A "film user" is not "technologically backward", only someone who, for their own good reason, uses film. But that reason no longer needs to be to get superior results.
And that from a guy who is biking around California. Doesn't he know we have cars now ? For the past hundred years or so ?
Ha, ha. Guilty! I say I'm car free, but I can borrow my wife's if I need to. So, yes, I know we have cars and in my long life I have probably had too many. Speaking of dinosaurs, those inconsiderate animals did not die in sufficient numbers to supply our happy motoring suburban lifestyle forever.
bigeye
Well-known
As an amateur, there are a lot of good reasons. (A high-volume shooting pro has different needs.)
Mechanical/Build/Design/Operation
There is only one expensive choice. This beef pre-dates digital (which refined the concept of "just hit the button" by adding "and, simply fix major problems later in photoshop").
It seems that today only Leica is be able to separate imaging technology from simple operation and decent build. If I have to go to an obscure tips and tricks blog to find out how to perform a basic function properly, I'm holding the wrong camera.
Cost
We can buy the best imaging technology for peanuts. A D800 with the right lens set will be at least $7k.
Results
It's not as fast to process as digital, but the quality cannot be beaten. MF and large maintain an affordable distance with digital.
Downside
Slow processing.
Intangible
The processing, handling, communication and storage of digital files is easier and faster than film and all of these are practical attributes for missile targeting systems and commercial photographers. But, the digital process is simply too synthetic for my liking or needs.
- Charlie
Substitute you for my mum
At least I'll get my washing done
Mechanical/Build/Design/Operation
There is only one expensive choice. This beef pre-dates digital (which refined the concept of "just hit the button" by adding "and, simply fix major problems later in photoshop").
It seems that today only Leica is be able to separate imaging technology from simple operation and decent build. If I have to go to an obscure tips and tricks blog to find out how to perform a basic function properly, I'm holding the wrong camera.
Cost
We can buy the best imaging technology for peanuts. A D800 with the right lens set will be at least $7k.
Results
It's not as fast to process as digital, but the quality cannot be beaten. MF and large maintain an affordable distance with digital.
Downside
Slow processing.
Intangible
The processing, handling, communication and storage of digital files is easier and faster than film and all of these are practical attributes for missile targeting systems and commercial photographers. But, the digital process is simply too synthetic for my liking or needs.
- Charlie
Substitute you for my mum
At least I'll get my washing done
thegman
Veteran
Film is certainly an older technology, but I don't think that can have any bearing on whether a technology is better or worse. IBM's OS/2 was wiped out by Microsoft Windows, an inferior technology in every way.
At the moment, for the ultimate in technical resolution, I think we can agree that it's either use large format film, or spend an enormous amount on a digital scanning back or something.
Right now, respectfully, I think film is the superior technology. My career is in computing, and digital is far more second-nature to me than film. However, I think that all things being equal, the simpler solution is the better one, and film is that for me.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Arguments about technical superiority are, in the absence of a specific artistic, journalistic, or scientific problem or goal, vacuous.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Only if you view photography as a technical exercise rather than as an expressive art.
Your argument is tantamount to saying that people who do stone lithography rather than using a photocopier are dinosaurs.
It is a vacuous argument.
willie_901
Veteran
Way Way WOT
Way Way WOT
This interesting.
A single Photon behaves as discrete particles. Ensembles of photons often behave as if they are waves. Photons have speed and momentum which are linear (analog) Newtonian concepts. But you can not predict how photons behave using Newtonian physics... you need quantum mechanics and discrete states.
Phone energy states are completely discrete. So in a sense they are digital. Victor F. Weisskopf called this behavior the Heisenberg Certainty Principle. That is not a typo. The photon is in one energy level or another, but never in both. Gaining or losing energy causes a change in state, but this change appears to be perfectly digital.
A sensor produces an analog voltage/current which is eventually digitized by a analog to digital converter. Yet at some point the photons' interaction with the sensor site requires quantum mechanics to describe how the voltage/current is created. Finally, the transistors in the sensor circuits wouldn't work if it wasn't for quantum mechanic tunneling.
The chemical reactions in film also require quantum mechanics to fully understand what happens when film granules interact with light and more importantly how to invent improved photosensitive molecules. Of course the end result is a three-dimensional array of molecules that is purely analog. There is a continuous distribution of photosensitive molecules.
Way Way WOT
This interesting.
A single Photon behaves as discrete particles. Ensembles of photons often behave as if they are waves. Photons have speed and momentum which are linear (analog) Newtonian concepts. But you can not predict how photons behave using Newtonian physics... you need quantum mechanics and discrete states.
Phone energy states are completely discrete. So in a sense they are digital. Victor F. Weisskopf called this behavior the Heisenberg Certainty Principle. That is not a typo. The photon is in one energy level or another, but never in both. Gaining or losing energy causes a change in state, but this change appears to be perfectly digital.
A sensor produces an analog voltage/current which is eventually digitized by a analog to digital converter. Yet at some point the photons' interaction with the sensor site requires quantum mechanics to describe how the voltage/current is created. Finally, the transistors in the sensor circuits wouldn't work if it wasn't for quantum mechanic tunneling.
The chemical reactions in film also require quantum mechanics to fully understand what happens when film granules interact with light and more importantly how to invent improved photosensitive molecules. Of course the end result is a three-dimensional array of molecules that is purely analog. There is a continuous distribution of photosensitive molecules.
willie_901
Veteran
It is trivial to use dozens of different digital cameras in full manual mode. Operation can be as simple as any M camera. It's the photographer's choice.
A 30 second Google search will reveal numerous examples of digital cameras that have survived serious physical abuse implying robust build is not limited to one camera.
There are many reasons to prefer using a film camera, but I don't find either of these convincing.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Not quite.
Single photons (and other subatomic particles) behave as waves and as particles. In the double-slit experiment, you get interference patterns - an indication of wave-like behavior - even when photons go through the slits one at a time. One of the freakiest results in all of science.
And if you put a particle detector at the slits, to see which slit each photon goes through, the interference pattern goes away.
Wouter
Well-known
Because every time I pick up my filmcamera it forces me to slow down and learn a bit more, think a bit further ...
Aristophanes
Well-known
The economics say otherwise for all products because there is no product nor development without economy. Inferior and superior arguments must factor that in. If not, the argument exists in a vacuum.
RBruceCR
Well-known
I use film because I am acquainted with the process of making a picture, that is, of visualizing the print and then making the picture. I dislike the instant gratification of digital snapshots. I do, however, use my iPhone to document processes in the printing shop where I work and for snapshots of things that interest me when I walk or go mountain biking!
I find the digital cameras expensive, even used ones. With used ones, there is always the risk of buying something with planned obsolescence "programmed" inside. However, my original 1995 Minolta Maxxum 600si didn't outlive film, my Sigma lens stuck at infinity, in a symbolic way waving good bye at the great era of film.
I started seeing digital SLR's the last time I was on vacation in the USA, but found them complicated, the terminology complex, RAW, Lightroom, noise, etc. Then I found another 600si again on eBay and bought it, it was in mint condition, got an 18-35/4 Sigma lens, bought EIR in the UK, bought filters, books, etc! The photo bug had started again!
Then I found Flicker, where a group on Yashica Electro recruited me and I was able to find a technician to repair my first camera, after almost 35 years in oblivion.
Now I am learning on Leica's M3 and their lenses. This is a process that will take a while since I have a Mamiya Standard 23 Press camera and I am fixing the film backs. Thanks to a group on these cameras I found the parts to fix the film backs that leaked in light.
I have bought quite a few Kodak Technical Series books and a book on The Art of Photography by Bruce Barnaum. I am enjoying thoroughly this new stage in life!
My question is, will I outlive film?
I find the digital cameras expensive, even used ones. With used ones, there is always the risk of buying something with planned obsolescence "programmed" inside. However, my original 1995 Minolta Maxxum 600si didn't outlive film, my Sigma lens stuck at infinity, in a symbolic way waving good bye at the great era of film.
I started seeing digital SLR's the last time I was on vacation in the USA, but found them complicated, the terminology complex, RAW, Lightroom, noise, etc. Then I found another 600si again on eBay and bought it, it was in mint condition, got an 18-35/4 Sigma lens, bought EIR in the UK, bought filters, books, etc! The photo bug had started again!
Then I found Flicker, where a group on Yashica Electro recruited me and I was able to find a technician to repair my first camera, after almost 35 years in oblivion.
Now I am learning on Leica's M3 and their lenses. This is a process that will take a while since I have a Mamiya Standard 23 Press camera and I am fixing the film backs. Thanks to a group on these cameras I found the parts to fix the film backs that leaked in light.
I have bought quite a few Kodak Technical Series books and a book on The Art of Photography by Bruce Barnaum. I am enjoying thoroughly this new stage in life!
My question is, will I outlive film?
Last edited:
willie_901
Veteran
You already have outlived film.