Why film?

[Dogman]

Seems like we're moving to the old film vs digital debate, as expected.

Personally, I use digital. But that shouldn't make any difference. It's still photography and there's only two kinds of photography: good photography and crap photography. I see a lot of crap photography these days done with digital cameras and phone cameras. But I've seen a lot of crap photography done with film in the past. I'm of the opinion that you can do crap work just as easily with a Leica M3 or a Canon 5D.

So, I use digital. Big deal. Who cares? I'm just tryin' to sidestep the crap.

 

[jsrockit]

It's been a pretty civil discussion. People do care.

 

[Charlie Lemay]

Instant feedback only confirms all of our preconceptions and gets in the way of actually seeing what we are looking at, making unique personal vision that much more difficult to achieve. With film, the feedback is not immediate. and when we finally see what we made. we are removed from the immediacy of our preconceptions and open to seeing what we photographed differently. This is especially true with B&W film photography, which looks nothing at all like what we saw. This difference forces us to rethink what we are doing to get different results the next time. Bringing this experience to digital capture only enhances it. Without it, we can remain stuck in what we already know. This is the main reason I still begin the teaching of photography with film.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Why film?

Why oils? Why acrylics? Why watercolors? Why pastels? Why charcoals? Why pen and ink? Why ask the question? Photography is a big tent and has a place for all means, methods and formats. Embrace them all. It is not an either or decision.

 

[CMur12]

It's been a pretty civil discussion. People do care.

I agree and this is important.

This is an old and oft-repeated discussion, but we have yet to exhaust it. It is still very much on our minds and I enjoy reading through each new thread that broaches the topic.

This thread has remained amazingly respectful of both film and digital, and there are some really good posts here. I shoot film, but I can see clear advantages to digital also. I'm just not there at this point. Perhaps someday I'll shoot both.

- Murray

 

[PKR]

I take pictures for a living. Many of my friends are pro photographers, with a couple of arts photographers in the mix. I'm the only one who uses film. My work images are digital. My personal work is primary done on film. I have never been criticized by any of them over my film use. I've never been asked more than if I have anything new to show. These are people who use all brands of cameras..Canon, Nikon, Phase One, Leaf. There is never any argument or even much discussion of brands. We talk about photography a lot; all kinds of photography.

The arguments going on here are among "camera people", who's egos seem tied up in their camera and media choices. Much on this forum has little to do with photography, and much more to do with camera hardware.

Threads like this one, on this forum, always end up in the camps arguing over gear.

 

[Contarama]

Like many I used to seperate and differentiate between film and digital. I no longer do that and feel it is a mistake to do so. I use both, always have really, so in my case it was all the noise in the camps pulling me here or there. I make the noise when the subject is broached around me. Love it all!

 

[slm_]

Sometimes, I'll come across some "work" (images, music, etc.) that I'll really like. There's a few photographers here that have really left me wondering why I even bother trying 🙂

I find it just as interesting in hearing the choices made to produce that work and why, as seeing it. It gives additional insight on the person producing the work. In the end, it might not really matter, but it's still of interest to some and can make for good conversation. The why use film question falls under that interest (at least for me), even when we get down into the nitty gritty gear choice selections.

I have noticed that many people that use film usually stick to the same film choice so that gear choice does matter; it's an important part of how they go about producing their work.

(Just for the record, I have and use digital equipment. Its fine. Film is more fun for me, so I reach for that more often)

Cheers
Steven

 

[Timmyjoe]

There are images we make for other people, or for pay, but I see those as different from the images I make for myself. And for the images I make for myself, I choose the process of shooting film. That's the process I enjoy using to produce photographic images.

You wouldn't tell a painter (or maybe you would, but you shouldn't) that they shouldn't use paint and canvas and brushes, because a "better" picture could be made on a computer with Photoshop or Illustrator. You wouldn't tell a musician that they shouldn't use a guitar to compose and perform a song, because a "better" song could be make on a computer with a Midi keyboard and synthesizer.

As an "artist", or just someone who aspires to create art, we should be allowed to use the tools that best help us express what we're trying to express. And for some of us, I think that's the tools of film photography.

Best,
-Tim

 

[cz23]

Although there's nothing really new in this thread, from time to time we may personally revisit our opinion on this matter. It sounds like that's what Bill is doing. I've recently done the opposite and started shooting film after many years.

So what may appear to us to be stale arguments may to others be relevant and timely. As always in forum life, it's best to accept differing views and be respectful.

John

 

[hendriphile]

I guess there are two types of people in the world.
The first type are those who just want the end results in the most efficient way.

The second type are those who want the experience of the journey, with all of the uncertainties, and mystery of whether or not the end result will turn out.

An analogy with amateur astronomy: Some people are only satisfied with a "go-to" telescope where you press a button and the target object appears in the eyepiece.

Others (a minority today, I'd wager) prefer using a finely crafted (read: "old-fashioned") scope with which you locate the object by means of star-hopping or setting circles. More time consuming, but rewarding in its own way (remember "Getting there is half the fun"?).

 

[xayraa33]

Wow!
The digital / film discussion still ignites a lot of passion. A lot of comments in a short time.

You are right about that.

I like film and film cameras and will used them as long as film is available, but I guess not everyone feels that way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIrFD-TU7Zc

 

[zuiko85]

You are right about that.

I like film and film cameras and will used them as long as film is available, but I guess not everyone feels that way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIrFD-TU7Zc

I would be very depressed if everyone feels the same or has the same opinions and preferences I do. What a dull hobby this would be.

 

[Keith]

I don't use it and haven't done for several years but as a medium I want it's availability to continue indefinitely because diversity and choice in photography is healthy.

 

[shimokita]

I want to know from the folks who are still shooting film why they are doing it.

As a film user, I have recently received negative comments from an unexpected group of individuals... owners of high end analog watches... the guys with unlimited budgets who are wearing the auto or manual wind AP, Chopard, GP, Glashütte, Hublot JLC, Montblanc, PP, Richard Mille, TAG, Zeinth, etc. (and I own both analog and battery driven watches)...

The analog vs. digital question doesn't seem to cross over... maybe it's a life style choice...

 

[Robert Lai]

Mechanical watch snobs looking down on mechanical film cameras?
Oh, the hypocrisy!

 

[Mackinaw]

I don’t consider myself a professional, but I do take on paying jobs every now and then. Basically, I shoot what the client wants, which, in most cases, is color, so I shoot digital RAW, which I find easier to process in PS than color film.

But, this past weekend, there were several musical acts performing all over my small town. I grabbed by Leica MP with a Canon 50/0.95, my Canon L-1 with a 50/2.0 Nikkor, and several rolls of Tri-X, and Eastman 5222-XX. I also grabbed a roll of the new Ferrania P-30 B&W film (which looks to be superb). I had the time of my life shooting nothing but film, and even a better time in my darkroom processing the stuff.

So, for work I use digital, for fun I use film. I’ll continue to use both as long as I can.

Jim B.

 

[seany65]

I suppose:

1) The limited No. of frames makes me think more about whether to take the pic or not, instead of just rattling off half a dozen.

2) The 'worry'/wondering if the pics will 'come out'.

3) The prints are a thing we can touch and we don't have to faff about with a pc to look at them.

 

[jsrockit]

An analogy with amateur astronomy: Some people are only satisfied with a "go-to" telescope where you press a button and the target object appears in the eyepiece.

Others (a minority today, I'd wager) prefer using a finely crafted (read: "old-fashioned") scope with which you locate the object by means of star-hopping or setting circles. More time consuming, but rewarding in its own way (remember "Getting there is half the fun"?).

So wait, which is which? I'd like that camera that makes the composition for me... 😉

 

[gnuyork]

Well for starters, I have a TON of film in a chest freezer (all now expired) that was given to me - b&W, color, slide film - several formats - 35mm, 120, 220, 4x5.

I also concur with several of the reasons posted above - the slowing down and not shooting 36 shots of the same thing without worry, the anticipation of what you shot (did I nail it?), the hands on process, the craft, etc.

But I shoot both digital and film - film more so from my college days and digital since 2001 with my first Elph point and shoot. I occasionally would shoot a roll of film or a few sheets with my 4x5, but mainly digital...until this year, when I decided I wanted to get a jump on that film in the freezer, and won an auction for a Rolleiflex (I needed something to shoot all that 120, right 😉 ).

With film (for better or worse) I do shoot less, and I often now place a value on and weigh a potential shot, because film is expensive and much more time consuming to process vs offloading files from an SD card. This actually can be a drawback. Sometimes with digital I get an interesting image in post that I didn't think would be all that great as I shot it.

Just two weeks ago I processed two rolls of HP5 Plus - my first time using that film and it came out great. I can't describe it in words, but it's not necessarily a look I can replicate with digital. Even in my RAW processing, I strive my best for more film like tones, and on it's own can look great, but then I scan some real film and its more organic, not perfect in a good way - less harsh.

One last thing, I have many cameras, film and digital. Some of the older manual mechanical shutter cameras are just more pleasurable to hold and operate than the modern digital wonders. My M6 and Rolleiflex are just solid and feel good in the hands.

Lastly, film is more of a personal project type of medium for me. For commercial work (and I do an occasional shoot) I would be all about the digital cameras and RAW processing.