Why film?

[roscoetuff]

I have a Sony A7RII... one of the best digitals, and yet since returning to film, I'm using it mostly for DSLR scanning. Can I do a lot more with a Sony? If high speed shooting is your standard and it seems to be from the OP's note, maybe it works. But if the client only wants one image... all you do is trade one problem for another in post processing and editing.

Similar reasons to Barry Thornton's decision for monochrome outlined in "Edge of Darkness": Because it involves and demands more of the photographer and viewer. Film is like watercolor, and unlike digital, you can effectively change the sensor by changing the film or developer without having to buy a new camera. Digital does do well in low light without demanding a time exposure. I'd wager though that film requires the photographer to become more aware of the light, while digital allows the photographer to ignore it, amplify it, bend it, change it. Which one is more of an artist's tool for the creative and which is more of a tool for the factory production line? Different tools offer different solutions and one will suit where the other doesn't.

Listen to an interview with Brian Greenberg of Richard's Photo Lab, and you'll hear how the spray and pray digital process is killing a lot of photographers while film still has a niche for the photographer where the budget forces curtail of that milieu. He does a lot of digital... it's just that shooting fast and delivering 900 shots to your client or spending 60 hours in post for a 3 to 10 hour shoot isn't going to make you successful.

I'm not in that racket but pursue this for fun as a hobby. Digital's overly smooth images have their place, but suffer the same problem of overly refined grain where the resolution can actually fail to look less realistic to the eye than a less resolved image. Thornton details this rather nicely. In fact, I'd say that the smoothness of the image can smother the life of the image the way icing smothers the top of a cake.

Digital post processing of a film image? Yeah. I like that. I print with an Epson SC P800.

 

[DwF]

The experience especially with silver film, where you connect to the image as you process the chemistry is special for some of us......a hassle in some ways but so is waking for church or schlepping to a concert hall for some people. The experience and connection to something spiritual makes that effort worthwhile.

Couple that to the experience of using a camera assembled (in some cases) by someone who punched a mechanical clock at work. This creates for me a connection to a timeless sense of past, and an appreciation for a camera that was designed to be a companion that would last. There are some digital cameras that feel like they are also built by hand and to last, provided they receive new sensors 🙂

Currently I am really enjoying the XA, a camera I overlooked when I got started to get into photography. There is nothing in the digital world quite like an XA. And it makes me slow down and work with it's limitations.

 

[Michael Markey]

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.

This ......

 

[coogee]

... ... I said film is REAL!... ... Helloooooo. Any one home? ... Any one? Like my comment. Film is real.... Yeah. Real photography, film, light etchingly real. Not freaky. Anyone?

😉

I like film for the fact it is a real thing, a negative (mainly) and then a print that I made from the negative.

I could make a photograph thing in other ways but I like this way.

That's my "why film?" It doesn't stand against/at odds with any other why (or why not), it is what it is.

I like the combination of craft and art, it gives me 'the good feelings.'

I definitely don't feel like I answer to anyone about all of this, or that anyone else needs to share my POV. Whatever floats your boat, enjoy. 🙂

 

[DwF]

This ......

I assume you are sharing Mr PKR's quote in response to my post. I certainly didn't intend my first point to reveal my "ego tied up in gear". Rodinol maybe, with all I've inhaled, although I didn't feel a need to be specific. The notion that film is a material that records and holds the image "hard copy" and it is something we physically manipulate with chemistry makes for a completely different experience than digital. The film has its initial exposure to light in the camera and this business of negating that vessel "it could be any camera", while true for some, if not tied up in ego, may be tied to martyrdom, depending on how it is expressed.

I did go on and include gear in my discussion because no one I saw mentioned anything about a love/longing and or sentimentality for older film cameras as a reason to use film. For me, older film cameras have significance in the larger discussion for those who have an appreciation for the many cameras that have been made and even traditions or practices that developed through their use. Not to mention they have an objet d'art aspect, and can be fun toys (we aren't all pros here) for those who appreciate them.

As for talk of "camera hardware" the title of this forum RFF points to a particular type of camera!

Cheers,
David

 

[Michael Markey]

Dear David

Apologies .... I was merely agreeing with the sentiment PKR expressed , no direct connection intended.

I too have an affection for older film cameras .
I sit here with three film RF`S ,two Pentax slr , Mju and my fathers Hawkette No2 .

The trouble with these discussions for me though is that they often ignore the subject matter.
Most of my shooting is of horses ,often competing in indoor arenas where the lighting is less than ideal.

High iso of typically 6k or more is required to maintain an adequate shutter speed.

Film no matter how much you love the process or the cameras simply can`t cut it in those circumstances.
Its not a matter of what "looks best" its a matter of choosing something which will work.

I guess what I`m saying is that so often in these discussions film is presented as the only way.
It isn`t ... its an alternative and in certain circumstances it isn`t a working solution at all.

I freely admit though that I have no love for the film after process , never have done.
I don`t understand the crafted or the slowing down part of the analysis but that`s just me .

For what its worth I don`t care for cooking either 🙂

Best

Michael

Ps When I go to my weekly Photographic Society meetings I`m regarded as the film odd ball.

The reason being that non of the "governing bodies " in the UK will now accept film for their competitions and the Royal Society has stopped considering film entries for its merit awards.
Despite the fact that we have one or two photographers in the club with both national and international distinctions for their darkroom work they`ve all had to change to digital .

 

[PhotoGog]

I suspect Travis Bickle has something to do with it.

 

[Bendj]

Ps When I go to my weekly Photographic Society meetings I`m regarded as the film odd ball.

The reason being that non of the "governing bodies " in the UK will now accept film for their competitions and the Royal Society has stopped considering film entries for its merit awards.
Despite the fact that we have one or two photographers in the club with both national and international distinctions for their darkroom work they`ve all had to change to digital .

Is this just for photos of horses as the following is taken from the Royal Photographic Society website:

Competitions

Whether you are working digitally, using film or experimenting with more traditional processes, all subjects, genres and styles of photography can be entered into many of our competitions, grants and bursary opportunities.

 

[Michael Markey]

Is this just for photos of horses as the following is taken from the Royal Photographic Society website:

Competitions

Whether you are working digitally, using film or experimenting with more traditional processes, all subjects, genres and styles of photography can be entered into many of our competitions, grants and bursary opportunities.

Oh I wouldn`t know ...
I don`t take part in these things myself.

I attend the weekly meetings and hear that they aren`t taking film entries ... now whether that`s a decision taken at regional level or further up in the organisation ...

That`s my understanding of the situation certainly at club and county level.

Also with the Royal Society but your quote casts that in doubt.

 

[airfrogusmc]

As I have read by others, clients also pushed me to digital also and it was in late 2005. I love film. Something about going into the darkroom and shutting the door and escaping the world outside the DR. No phones, no emails, just myself and the process.

I also love digital. I don't think it should be about film vs digital but what is right for each individual and the way they prefer to work. Film is not going anywhere. And digital is in it's infancy.

KM 25 sweet space for a DR. I am jealous. A divorce some years back forced a huge down size. I had access to a darkroom at a clients but lost it a few years back. I would still be shooting film in some capacity if I had a darkroom now.

I really miss my 500 C/Ms. I miss shooting large format. I also miss the darkroom. Maybe when I retire in a few years I will pick up and old Deardorff and build a darkroom again (I love the smell of stop bath in the morning...)Do all the tests (if I can find a densitometer) and shoot large format zone system landscapes. Also might pick up an M3 for street work. But until then I will do both my work for clients and my personal work on my digital Leica Ms.

MM is back to NJ for sensor replacement and I am on the list for an M 10. Still rock'n the M-E and M 262.

Like sjones mentioned they are really just tools. Find one that works for you whether it's digital or film or both. They both can be very satisfying especially if you find what truly works for you. Then go out and make some photographs and enjoy it whether it's one or the other or both.

 

[FujiLove]

All the people I shot on C-41 films look like orange coloured freaks. 😡

Stop holding those negatives up to the light. Problem solved.

 

[JoeLopez]

Why I shoot film.
1. I like Going slow
2. I like the ratty look compared to digital (because digital is just so good).
P.S. I was the guy in high school that was told I had so much potential but was wasting it on goofing off.

I concur, my feelings exactly.
I got back into 35mm film in 2015 by dusting off my old XG1. I've enjoyed shooting it personally since.

 

[maddoc]

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

1) Not enough disposable income to buy a digital Leica M plus back-up body.

2) How to store digital files for long terms at affordable prices?

3) No interest in fiddling with software for a long time to get the proper result

4) Enjoying the time when looking at a strip of properly exposed Tri-X on the light table

5) Even more enjoying the time when looking at a print developing in a tray.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Thumbs up for Gabor!

Dear David

Apologies .... I was merely agreeing with the sentiment PKR expressed , no direct connection intended.

I too have an affection for older film cameras .
I sit here with three film RF`S ,two Pentax slr , Mju and my fathers Hawkette No2 .

The trouble with these discussions for me though is that they often ignore the subject matter.
Most of my shooting is of horses ,often competing in indoor arenas where the lighting is less than ideal.

High iso of typically 6k or more is required to maintain an adequate shutter speed.

Film no matter how much you love the process or the cameras simply can`t cut it in those circumstances.
Its not a matter of what "looks best" its a matter of choosing something which will work.

I guess what I`m saying is that so often in these discussions film is presented as the only way.
It isn`t ... its an alternative and in certain circumstances it isn`t a working solution at all.

I freely admit though that I have no love for the film after process , never have done.
I don`t understand the crafted or the slowing down part of the analysis but that`s just me .

For what its worth I don`t care for cooking either 🙂

Best

Michael

Ps When I go to my weekly Photographic Society meetings I`m regarded as the film odd ball.

The reason being that non of the "governing bodies " in the UK will now accept film for their competitions and the Royal Society has stopped considering film entries for its merit awards.
Despite the fact that we have one or two photographers in the club with both national and international distinctions for their darkroom work they`ve all had to change to digital .

I have seen Winogrand indoor work related to horses. Taken on film. Beautifully as they say in America now. 🙂
I also don't think what digital ISO (6K color) is related to film (pushed bw).
In my time with DSLRs for street photography I often used 6K ISO. But film ISO400 is enough for same location, light.

Now. About so called "friends" talking about pictures. Bunch of folks living on selling of pictures. Of course they are going to talk about pictures. How good or not they are. They need their pictures to be sold. Not cameras. What's all.

Lets be honest, if you have "friends" who are related to your income it is networking or whatever it is called. Real friends are not for profit.

 

[DwF]

Dear David

Apologies .... I was merely agreeing with the sentiment PKR expressed , no direct connection intended.

I too have an affection for older film cameras .
I sit here with three film RF`S ,two Pentax slr , Mju and my fathers Hawkette No2 .

The trouble with these discussions for me though is that they often ignore the subject matter.
Most of my shooting is of horses ,often competing in indoor arenas where the lighting is less than ideal.

High iso of typically 6k or more is required to maintain an adequate shutter speed.

Film no matter how much you love the process or the cameras simply can`t cut it in those circumstances.
Its not a matter of what "looks best" its a matter of choosing something which will work.

I guess what I`m saying is that so often in these discussions film is presented as the only way.
It isn`t ... its an alternative and in certain circumstances it isn`t a working solution at all.

I freely admit though that I have no love for the film after process , never have done.
I don`t understand the crafted or the slowing down part of the analysis but that`s just me .

For what its worth I don`t care for cooking either 🙂

Best

Michael

Ps When I go to my weekly Photographic Society meetings I`m regarded as the film odd ball.

The reason being that non of the "governing bodies " in the UK will now accept film for their competitions and the Royal Society has stopped considering film entries for its merit awards.
Despite the fact that we have one or two photographers in the club with both national and international distinctions for their darkroom work they`ve all had to change to digital .

Michael,

I read your post late and got easily cranked so no worries and thank you for following up. I think we are in agreement on all of these issues, including how these discussions often go 🙂

FWIW, I only process the film anymore (in the bathroom) and can't imagine spending time in a darkroom so my process is hybrid at best. I do love to cook though because while doing it I feel free to have a glass of something going and still feel productive!

All the best,
David

 

[MaxElmar]

I'm not sure film looks better, but you sure are right about those damn buttons.

I, too, am not sure film looks better. But I am pretty sure it looks different. And that's enough to keep me in that game.

And, yes, the darn buttons and batteries are distractions. Mirrorless has only made that aspect of digital photography worse.

 

[KM-25]

I do not think the OP is trolling. He has his own section at RFF for a reason and he always makes a topic every so often (AND its in his section). He has an opinion and was asking a question. Most of us are having a civilized discussion about it.

Then why does he never cite any of the people who now use more film than ever who are in his former industry? Why not also add to the mix that our mutual friend on Facebook who is a well known shooter, still shoots film?

He just tosses these propaganda bombs of waxing poetic quasi-wisdom in the ring like a chew toy for a pack of neurotic dogs and hardly chimes in again.

If you are going to ask a question like why use film, maybe first do the research outside of here that reveals why that answer has changed, who is using it and then put some more thought into it rather than just asking the question in a way that seems to only want to generate small talk at best.

 

[jsrockit]

Then why does he never cite any of the people who now use more film than ever who are in his former industry? Why not also add to the mix that our mutual friend on Facebook who is a well known shooter, still shoots film?

He just tosses these propaganda bombs of waxing poetic quasi-wisdom in the ring like a chew toy for a pack of neurotic dogs and hardly chimes in again.

If you are going to ask a question like why use film, maybe first do the research outside of here that reveals why that answer has changed, who is using it and then put some more thought into it rather than just asking the question in a way that seems to only want to generate small talk at best.

I can understand your points, but this is a pretty simple forum and a lot of it is opinion based. It doesn't mean it is right... but I just didn't see his post as propaganda. I don't think the film vs. digital debate is that serious.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Then why does he never cite any of the people who now use more film than ever who are in his former industry? Why not also add to the mix that our mutual friend on Facebook who is a well known shooter, still shoots film?

He just tosses these propaganda bombs of waxing poetic quasi-wisdom in the ring like a chew toy for a pack of neurotic dogs and hardly chimes in again.

If you are going to ask a question like why use film, maybe first do the research outside of here that reveals why that answer has changed, who is using it and then put some more thought into it rather than just asking the question in a way that seems to only want to generate small talk at best.

I get what you say... And I think Mr. Pierce is simply interested in others' opinions: in how this keeps evolving, as he has himself loved film for decades, and then he has been using digital cameras trying to continue his serious work... He's also talked about this previously...
And he had a very valid point in his recent first post here: can't we, after using film for long, think well before shooting a digitital camera, and basically get the same results? I think we can, he's right... I tried, and I got the images, but I wasn't really enjoying it, and got bored...
With all respect, to imagine he starts a thread with hidden interests is a bit speculative...

 

[KM-25]

That may be all well and fine, but there is just something odd I can't seem to put my finger in how he goes about participating on this site. Like there is a disconnect somewhere....not sure what it is.

Either way, he got plenty of answers that I am willing to bet will not change all that much in the next 5-10 years.