Why film?

[ColSebastianMoran]

Interesting new essay on Film vs. Digital by Ming Thein.

Top lines:
- They are different
- Film for it's particular qualities
- But, film inherently more risky b/c you don't see the result till after development; might have nothing
- Therefore, he generally avoids film for assignments

My comment: We've all been there. When the film didn't "come out" due to photographer error or lab mess-up.

 

[Bill Pierce]

I think Ming Thein is one of those rare internet personalities that actually has become more interesting and more informative as time has passed. A reasoned and calm and well informed statement in the film/digital debate is relatively rare. His is one of them.

 

[Fjäll]

Tried out shooting digital again hoping the Leica M8 was the camera to scratch that itch on the digital convenience. As humble my approach was to shooting digital and as great the files actually are from the CCD sensor, I'm back on every bad habit that made me switch to film in the first place. Chimping being one of them. Taking random exposures 'because I can'. Card gets full of garbage quickly. The thing is crammed with electronics too so I don't exactly throw it in my bag like I do with my M4-P, afraid it just might suddenly stop working.

I've managed to squeeze some decent stuff out of it though but keep thinking 'man, imagine if I shot this on film".

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

I'm thinking an interesting approach is to shoot digital, but have a film camera as well.

After figuring out the shot and proving it with the "chimp," then make a film exposure.

Can't hurt. Only mildly extra effort.

Solves downside Ming talks about: If there's a problem, with film you don't know till later.

Personal story: At a family event of a photog friend, I brought a classic camera and shot a roll of film as a special gift to him, the unprocessed film roll. Nothing came out. I know why, but doesn't matter.

 

[ptpdprinter]

I think the whole debate is tiresome. Why can't photographers just shoot what they want without all of the justification, rationalization, pontification, and drama?

 

[PKR]

Interesting new essay on Film vs. Digital by Ming Thein.

Top lines:
- They are different
- Film for it's particular qualities
- But, film inherently more risky b/c you don't see the result till after development; might have nothing
- Therefore, he generally avoids film for assignments

My comment: We've all been there. When the film didn't "come out" due to photographer error or lab mess-up.

I used film for work for many years. Always processed my b+w unless time didn't permit. Kodak ran my kodachrome for years. Never had an issue, until recently, with a local lab who had an equipment failure (nitrogen burst fixture went nuts). It was on some personal stuff. I guess I was lucky? I've had memory card R/W failures and assorted other stuff with digital, like sensor issues. So, for me .. film is way ahead in the reliability game.

A bit OT, but my biggest all time photo problem was on a multi head studio flash setup, one head was firing intermittently. An assistant caught this about half way through the job. We fixed it, and luckily, the client was an old one, and we came back and fixed all the bad stuff. But, it was on film, and, had to wait for processing to see the failures. It wouldn't have happened shooting digital. You would see the problem quickly if working tethered or chimping

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

My reliability experience:
- With film, two incidents, in each the whole roll was toast.
- With digital, never a problem (but I acknowledge they do happen).

 

[Chris101]

If there's a problem, with film you don't know till later.

If there is magic, with digital you won't know, because you deleted the error.

 

[Richard G]

Why film? I really enjoyed these interviews with two photographic partners, Michael A Smith and Paula Chamlee, in the Feb 2016 issue of f11.

http://issuu.com/f11magazine/docs/issue51-february2016?mode=window&backgroundColor=#222222

They use large format gear. The presence of a print, and the mystery of an image is what they emphasise. Paula Chamlee wants a photograph that is more than a depiction of something. Smith, emphasises the process, claiming, I think correctly, that artists are more interested in making things, than in things made.

 

[willie_901]

If there is magic, with digital you won't know, because you deleted the error.

Never delete in-camera –*problem solved. A 64 GB Class 10 SDHC card costs $60. Storing 36 raw files at 25 MB each uses about 900 MB. There's no reason to delete in-camera when I can store the equivalent of more than 60 rolls of film.

Some post-production lets you view a reasonably detailed version of every image on the storage card. You can keep an eye out for "magic". Then you can delete obvious errors and flawed images before import from the camera.

I don't do that. I import every raw file into my post-production software. I also automatically store a copy of every raw file on an external hard drive upon import. The folder on that storage device is my virtual negative/transparency file cabinet. The storage cost per raw file is trivial. A 3 terabyte HD is about $100. You need a second one for backup. I can store a lot of 25 MB raw files on a 3 TB device. The total cost is less than a decent file cabinet stuffed with file folders and negative sleeves.

Then I edit (select) keepers and delete the others from my computers internal drive. I am constantly working to become more ruthless during the selection process.

 

[oldwino]

I think the whole debate is tiresome. Why can't photographers just shoot what they want without all of the justification, rationalization, and pontification.

The internet would go quiet?

 

[mpaniagua]

I think the whole debate is tiresome. Why can't photographers just shoot what they want without all of the justification, rationalization, pontification, and drama?

Because it would be boring otherwise 😛