why film is superior to digital

[rbsinto]

I shoot only film, and yet I don't think it is better than digital, only different. And while I have never been able to properly express in words my perception of digital images, the best I can do is to say that I find they don't look "real".
Digital images remind me of hyper-realistic paintings by Alex Colville as opposed to film images that look more like the works of Hans Holbein.
Sorry if I can't express it any better than that.
I began shooting in 1977 and very quickly went from colour print to colour slide, and even faster from Kodachrome to E-6 films, which is what I shoot virtually exclusively to this day.
Film and I are like old friends. There are very few surprises and I'm very comfortable with film.
Additionally, I'm a Luddite and electronic things (be they computers, phones or electronic cameras) and I don't get along very well, so I stick with mostly manual focus, mechanical cameras and lenses, and I'm a happy boy.

 

[kshapero]

I shoot film for fun I like old cameras, that's it. I think anyone who says film is superior is kidding themselves. I tried and tried to justify shooting film to myself but I couldn't except for the fun of it.

That's a good enough reason for me.

 

[januaryman]

Just got my first roll of film scanned after a break of two or three months of either doing nothing or shooting digital. All I can say is Hallelujah! Winding the film back into the cassette, getting it developed, scanning it into my PC... it was great! And the Ilford XP2 experience came back for me! Looking at the thumbnails in Bridge after the scans, and seeing the tones, contrast and sharpness, I swore I'd get back to film full time. Need to sell old lenses, old cameras, get to a working few and I'll be happier.

But digital? Easy, no wait, no fuss. Also no anticipation, no surprises at how a shot will come out... I like digital for what it is, I'm not bad mouthing digis, but film? It's an experience!

 

[pvdhaar]

I wouldn't say it's "superior" but the thing I'm enjoying about shooting film on occasion again is that I slow down ..

There's something to be said for speed as well.. My XA2 totally smokes the D90 when it comes to shutter delay..

 

[alexnotalex]

Burning images into chemical emulsion with reflected light is also somehow more real, to me at least.

 

[FrankS]

The process of using film is an enjoyable and satisfying journey.
For some reason digital doesn't do it for me. Luckily I am an amatuer and can choose to do what I like to.

 

[sara]

I looooveeee film! 🙂
I don't think I can express what is in my heart through a digital camera.

I got told off by a friend who uses a digital camera because some of my photographs I shot on film were out of focus (on purpose).
I just asked me, why, does your digital make everything in focus for you with the auto-focus? Must you have a super sharp image?

Lol.

 

[Ti29er]

Film is NOT superior. It's different and I'll explain why.....


Clients expect instant results.
To be able to show a client a concept, lighting, composition etc is invaluable – and expected.
Brides expect a gallery of images asap and lots of images.
Ergo digital rules to professional roost at this level.

I'm shooting a Mamiya 7 for fun of late and love it having previously owned an M6. One 80mm lens (equivalent to a 50mm in 35mm terms) & I am finding lots of new approaches to my non-commissioned work.

But it is all work really - if I see something new, different, it's stored in the grey matter for another day. Professional photographers never really take a day off unless they're in a dark mine without lights!

The film is scanned at the lab, so everything goes into PP anyway. If you have yet to put together picture layouts in Digital Books, for example, then digital is a revelation - I shoot my weddings with Book Layouts in mind all the time now, one HUGE difference that digital has brought to the market place. I never did that with film.

Range finders are a different way of seeing things, and don’t make the error of having just one camera system, one given shot, say taken on a 6x6 is different to the very same shot on a 6x8 and completely different to that taken on a 35mm. The same is true of film v digital, ‘cept that film is going to cost you (personally (?) ) to shoot unless the client’s onboard with you re: film. Brides don’t care!

Most end users don’t care.

Some digital can simply be too sharp for its own good and starts to look “digital” To you & I that matters, most everyone else doesn’t care; it’s like listening to two albums, one played on a valve hifi and a turntable against hi-end cd, most don’t care – it’s more convenient on cd!

The point being that in the commercial world, speed and convenience and results rule plus they’re expected now. Film and the turntable are for personal projects and to be savoured accordingly, but sometimes there's a cross-over so don't turn away from film simply because digital is convenient, I think that'd be an error.



Film is dead and buried - long live film!

 

[katgut@earthlink.net]

I have more confidence in the results from 36 film exposures than I do with 200 pics from a digital. Some of the sharpest digital shots I've taken turned out to be out of focus once I downloaded them to my pc. Those LCD screens really do kid you.

Paul

A rather silly argument. All you have to do is zoom in and you can see exactly what's in focus. My Pentax can be programmed to immediately zoom in 10x or whatever I chose--I'm sure all the DSLRs can do it as well. While I agree that I have more confidence in film exposure, I have don't for focus.

 

[Nikkor AIS]

How sad it is when photographers feel they need to dumb down their output to the level of their clients 😱.
I couldn't care less what the client wants. If they're paying me, it's for my vision and choice of tools and medium.

And if it costs a couple hundred extra for film and processing, I have yet to see a bride or groom not want me to shoot film.

It's more like, "You shot film? Cool "😀.

Secondly, it's a false assumption that the end results will always be scanned.

And since when do the clients need anything instantly 🙄?
The fact is that they "want" it right away. They get it when I give it to them 😎.
And since when is a raw digital image ready to be given to a client?
As if. And even if you did (and why would you), it would need to be post-processed and that takes time.

Prints from B+W are still the cat's meow when you print big.

I have yet to see a really big print converted to B+W that didn't suck.

 

[Neare]

^ This is Gospel.

 

[Stuart John]

Why is film superior to digital?
Simple because it is......

 

[retro]

 

[bayusuputra]

I looooveeee film! 🙂
I don't think I can express what is in my heart through a digital camera.

I got told off by a friend who uses a digital camera because some of my photographs I shot on film were out of focus (on purpose).
I just asked me, why, does your digital make everything in focus for you with the auto-focus? Must you have a super sharp image?

Lol.

Haha.. Most people here in Singapore really worship sharpness and technical aspects of photography, they even create a $10k/$20k/$30k/so on groups because they prefer sharp images, or minimal CA/SA than beautiful photography..

 

[bayusuputra]

But, back to topic, why i think film is superior to digital is that film, with the limited number of exposures (and being a student, i limit myself to only one or two rolls each time to save up) film has made me think more carefully about the way i take photos..

with digital, yes, i like it also, but the habit of looking at the LCD after each shot makes me lazy in carefully composing the picture thinking that i can do that again if the result is not satisfying, because with digital, i would always have this thinking that digital is free, shoot as many as i want!😱

film has made me think more carefully about photography, that is why i think that it is superior to digital..

i still like digital, though, for casual shots with family or friends, those photos for the sake of memories, that i want to share with them instantly, letting them look at it after i take it..

pardon my grammar..

 

[verselines]

Haha.. Most people here in Singapore really worship sharpness and technical aspects of photography, they even create a $10k/$20k/$30k/so on groups because they prefer sharp images, or minimal CA/SA than beautiful photography..

hahaha, i suppose you're talking about the typical clubsnap type of photographer 😀

on topic, i totally agree that using film makes a photographer more disciplined and makes him consider each image more carefully before pressing the shutter.

but from personal experience, i've found that i've come to adopt this mentality even when shooting on digital cameras. i'm on an exchange program in sweden now, and i notice myself shooting less than my friends who aren't 'photographers' and/or don't have experience with film photography; i also tend to shoot totally different 'things' compared to my friends. they'll be shooting that gothic looking building while i shoot a normal looking park bench but with good light on it, for example.

so for me it's not really using film per se, but the mentality of the photographer; and i'd even say that it takes an even more disciplined and 'skilled' photographer to work well with digital photography since the temptation to 'spam' shots and chimp at the lcd is so great.

 

[bayusuputra]

hahaha, i suppose you're talking about the typical clubsnap type of photographer 😀

on topic, i totally agree that using film makes a photographer more disciplined and makes him consider each image more carefully before pressing the shutter.

but from personal experience, i've found that i've come to adopt this mentality even when shooting on digital cameras. i'm on an exchange program in sweden now, and i notice myself shooting less than my friends who aren't 'photographers' and/or don't have experience with film photography; i also tend to shoot totally different 'things' compared to my friends. they'll be shooting that gothic looking building while i shoot a normal looking park bench but with good light on it, for example.

so for me it's not really using film per se, but the mentality of the photographer; and i'd even say that it takes an even more disciplined and 'skilled' photographer to work well with digital photography since the temptation to 'spam' shots and chimp at the lcd is so great.

Haha! Yeah, the typical clubsnappers, not all though..
I am now trying to do the same with you, trying to be more disciplined in shooting digital.. I am now trying to adopt the mindset that digital is another useful medium that should not be misused.. The last time i shot digital before i sold away my DSLR, i tried to limit myself to 36 exp each time, simulating the use of film, and did not turn on the review in the LCD.. well, it was a good experience, but i still got the temptation to look at the review in some occasion.. 😛