Why film?

[Larry Cloetta]

I've got a Sony RX1RII, so I know what good, current digital looks like. Two other digital SLR bodies as well. Most of the time it just sits there, and if I'm shooting, I'm shooting film over 90% of the time. Most of the reasons have already been listed above. Worse than that, of the many film bodies I own, when I grab something to go out the door, more often than not, it is one of the technically less sophisticated bodies, with the lenses that exhibit loca, coma, spherical aberration, or some other supposed horror. Don't know why other than I obviously just must enjoy it more that way.
The one big thing that digital does better than film is resolution. I could care less. The level of resolution needed to make a beautiful photograph, was handily surpassed by a Spotmatic with a SMC 50/1.4 decades ago.
People obsess about resolution because you can put a number on it. Not everything which can be measured is beautiful, and not everything which is beautiful can be measured.
"I love my lens, it has such wonderful corner sharpness." Meh. Good for you, you two will be very happy together.

"Digital is better because it's sharper." No. It's not. It's sharper because it's sharper. "Better" denotes something else entirely. You can't measure what makes a better photograph.

But, for a lot of people, that's the alpha and the omega of what a better camera is-it's "sharper" (easier too. no chemicals.) Meh. You're a chemical too, get over it. Does what denotes worthwhile photography get to be defined according to the narrow, measurable fixations of those who prefer digital? Not seeing any objective reason that should be the case, though those who believe that to be the case seem to feel comfortable being the arbiters. ("It's sharper. I can print bigger than makes any real sense for most people. Because I am such a lousy photographer I don't understand how to look at a scene and frame the thing that actually makes an interesting photograph, I can just press this thingie and later crop away the 80% that is pointless. looking for the good photo that must be in there somewhere, like Michaelangelo finding David in that big piece of marble. Because I have 42 megapickles of resolution, and you don't, because you have film, which is so last year.)

For me, it is about the process, at least as much as the result, and the process of film, taken as a whole, I find vastly more entertaining than digital, at least to this point. Garry Winogrand left, what, 2500 of undeveloped film behind, more? Vivian Maier, same thing. My contention, could be wrong, is that they just enjoyed the process of getting that far, far enough to stick them in the drawer and forget about them until later, and get back out and do some more of the fun part. And what is exciting about "later" with film? The eternal film question: "Did it come out?" "Oh, look, that's cool!" With digital, you don't get that. Of course it "came out". Not only that, because it is a high quality digital image generated by a modern sensor, it looks exactly like the other twelve hundred billion digital photos taken today, in aesthetic terms. Really sharp, possibly even without blown highlights.
"Look, I can take another picture of my wife/girlfriend/Shih tzu lit only by candlelight, and our food, because 256,000 ISO." Okay, if that fills a perceived artistic need for you, I guess that is a huge advantage for you. I struggle on without those, my life much diminished, I am told.
Others may disagree, possibly excitedly, but am only answering the question which was asked. Shorter version: Speaking only for myself, film is just way more fun to shoot and process, plus, to my eye, the results, unpredictable as they sometimes are, are way more interesting, day in and day out.
God knows I've tried do make myself love digital and make myself find it rewarding, or even interesting, and am still trying, just not there yet.
(If I had to produce photographic product for a living I'd be singing a different tune. Fortunately, for me, this is just an avocation.)


"Honey, don't you think that Monet thing with the water lilies would have been better if it had been sharper."

 

[michaelwj]

Bill,
If we invert your reasons for shooting film then the reasons for shooting digital are technical image quality and efficiency. There is more to life than that. Shooting film is enjoyable and rewarding and using a manual film camera is relaxing.
To follow on from Roberts analogy, why would anyone cook at all? It is more efficient to get a technically "better" meal at a restaurant. I just made my first sourdough from scratch (made the started too). It took ages and wasn't perfect (or cheap), but it was tasty and rewarding. What more could I want?

 

[Daryl J.]

Another film perk:

Two Saturdays ago I was at the local Farmers' Market with my Leica IIIc, 3,5/5 Elmar, and 5cm viewfinder. The guys shooting digipix annoyed others. The aesthetic of that old Barnack, however, opened friendly doors of welcome, conversation, etc. I was given fresh fruit, fresh veggies, and free whiskey. I kid not. Film. Gotta love it.

 

[RichL]

1. Quite simply I like shooting film. 2. I love darkroom work. It is time out from the rest of the world. There is a note on my door “If the building is on fire knock otherwise talk to me when I come out.” People have learned that it means what it says. 3. I have yet to find a digital that has has the quality, size, and heft of a Riga Minox.or a Primo Jr. TLR.

 

[ReeRay]

I have to remind myself to use my Leica M240, I have to remember to give my M6 a rest!

I shoot film, both 135 and 120 because of its "look". Despite all the digital apps available to reproduce the "film look" they don't quite there do they? Nah, if you want the film look, shot it. And I want it.

 

[PKR]

My earliest digital work has bit rot. And lots of it.

Sure, film can get damaged and technology will migrate, but it has a chance of being useful to somebody in the 2100 and 2200's. My digital files won't have a chance in &@**.

So I shoot b&w film for the future. And iPhone for the rest. But I'd love an X100F or M10.

You can solve some of those digital problems by printing your images on good quality materials. Cotton rag papers and archival pigment inks. The prints will outlast the files by decades.

One big problem with digital photography (my thinking) is that almost no one prints their stuff. In days past, a shoe box of small prints or a photo album was passed down through generations of a family. Now with digital, these things are posted to social media and stored in "cloud farms". Two non photographer friends recently lost all of their family photos and hobby photos. One friend lost his to Yahoo's cloud..removed without notice as they closed their operation. Another from a major storage group (I can't remember which one) again, without any warning from the host. Result, no family photos... all gone.

Print you're Digital stuff; Film can wait till you're ready.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

....

"Honey, don't you think that Monet thing with the water lilies would have been better if it had been sharper."

"Dear, Degas Dancers have serious pixelation problem".

 

[sreed2006]

I am still shooting film because I have such a large quantity of it in the fridge, and I don't want it to go to waste. Plus, I like my film cameras.

Perhaps when all the film on hand gets used up, I will retire the film cameras, and use digital all the time. Luckily, that decision won't have to be made soon.

 

[citizen99]

I just like trying out, tinkering with, and using, old, non-electric, cameras. Pleasure use is for non-rushed landscape and townscape photography with total control of the camera, taking time to consider the view, framing, etc. 6x9 gives me all the quality that I need.
For family or impromptu snapshots the smart phone is good enough. A second-hand digital compact does the job for documenting camera repairs or modifications.

 

[Chris101]

I still maintain a wet darkroom, but it sees most of its use providing silver prints from some of my old negatives for folks who prefer silver over inkjet. My family and friends are likely to get inkjet prints from scanned negatives. ...

Have you held a wet print on fiber paper, then held the same picture scanned and printed digitally? There's your difference. I'll bet your friends and family would appreciate silver prints. But I agree that digital printing is so much easier to do!

 

[Lee Rust]

Digital is for now and film is for later.

 

[KM-25]

Digital is for now and film is for later.

Love it, simple and to the point.

 

[Lucas.f/8]

Beyond the look, the shots don't require much tweaking.

 

[MikeL]

For my needs, film does what I need it to do.

 

[bayernfan]

looks better. feels better. the end.

 

[oldwino]

Not only does film look better, mostly (especially Black & white), but the cameras are much more fun to use. Too many damn buttons on the digital ones!

 

[Bill Pierce]

Have you held a wet print on fiber paper, then held the same picture scanned and printed digitally? There's your difference. I'll bet your friends and family would appreciate silver prints. But I agree that digital printing is so much easier to do!

Two of the folks who helped me when I first started out were Gene Smith and David Vestal. As different as their personal styles were, they both felt that interpretive printing was part of the process. And it is. All of us worked as hard on our printing as on other facets of our photography. Today, much of my printing is inkjet as was David’s at the end of his life. Had Gene lived long enough, I’m sure he would have beaten all of us in the digital darkroom.

Once a picture is framed and behind glass, it is difficult to examine the paper surface and tell whether the print is silver or inkjet. I routinely ask folks to tell me whether my framed prints are silver or inkjet. They can be either, but so far, folks haven’t been able to tell which. That’s not because I’m a good inkjet printer. It’s because I’m an inkjet printer who grew up with silver and knows what a silver print looks like. You can make digital look like almost anything you want, if you know what you want. (But, your probably going to have to throw a little of the shadow detail away if you want a digital print to look like a silver print - and that’s understandably hard for most folks.)

 

[Bill Pierce]

Not only does film look better, mostly (especially Black & white), but the cameras are much more fun to use. Too many damn buttons on the digital ones!

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

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I think there’s a language problem here… If you think of painters, say El Greco, or Van Gogh, and then you think of a more contemporary one, like Freud, no matter their differences, achievements, periods they lived in, there are, there were things in common, lots of things, related to the way they felt and thought while slowly working the colors on their canvas, while having time for playing… Well, if you think of a good illustrator working with a computer, creating for a magazine, even doing it with a certain level of freedom, and let’s call it art for a moment, this illustrator can do good work, can express himself through art, but even if he’s as worried about life as painters have been, and even if he feels he plays with colors virtually on the screen, he knows he doesn’t share with painters all those things related to the oil paintings process and long times… So, in this case, the oil painter and the computer illustrator don’t share the process, everybody knows, and they do share worries about life, and they both can do art, but they receive different names… One is called painter, and the other one is called illustrator, and nobody calls the second one painter.
In photography, as selling a new type of gear was some years ago the big business, and as selling lenses for that new type of gear remains the big business, the materials for producing images, in both cases, real images, and virtual images, share the same name, camera, and both guys doing two very different processes share the same name, photographer, and two disciplines, one where you imagine the final image, and one where you check it, share the same name, photography. That’s a language problem, and it starts puzzling people before they notice it.
About digital gear having improved, who really cares? I mean, I wouldn’t enjoy more Frank’s book The Americans if it were done with an M9 and an aspherical lens… I wouldn’t enjoy it more in any way, at all, because what’s enjoyable in photography has no relation with sharpness or with any other technical part of the image, but only with heart and mind, and any cheap lens or camera can produce the most wonderful photograph…
To answer Bill’s question, who I deeply admire as a photographer and as a human being, and certainly a question that’s interesting and remains alive as years go by, I prefer film because I don’t use it as an employee, but only for pleasure, and when you have time, the process around film is really enjoyable. And I don’t mean the darkroom, which is so beautiful too, but walking with a film camera, and using it…
Charging and carrying batteries in the digital world is a real pain to me… I will never consider that normal. I have done it, and I have worked in photography, and for speed and customers’ satisfaction digital was necessary, sometimes it was the only possible way, and those years I was really away from my photography.
So the answer is I prefer film because I prefer pleasure, and because digital photography is related to money and to other people’s needs, and to electronic and power problems, and I prefer not to get involved in all that, as it’s not good for my photographs.

 

[PKR]

Two of the folks who helped me when I first started out were Gene Smith and David Vestal. As different as their personal styles were, they both felt that interpretive printing was part of the process. And it is. All of us worked as hard on our printing as on other facets of our photography. Today, much of my printing is inkjet as was David’s at the end of his life. Had Gene lived long enough, I’m sure he would have beaten all of us in the digital darkroom.

Once a picture is framed and behind glass, it is difficult to examine the paper surface and tell whether the print is silver or inkjet. I routinely ask folks to tell me whether my framed prints are silver or inkjet. They can be either, but so far, folks haven’t been able to tell which. That’s not because I’m a good inkjet printer. It’s because I’m an inkjet printer who grew up with silver and knows what a silver print looks like. You can make digital look like almost anything you want, if you know what you want. (But, your probably going to have to throw a little of the shadow detail away if you want a digital print to look like a silver print - and that’s understandably hard for most folks.)

Bill; I've found that when printing on rag paper with a bit of a tooth, I'm able to get richer blacks than I could achieve with silver prints. This includes selenium toned prints. The deeper tooth filled with black pigment reflects less light than a silver print does. The first time I saw this, I bought an Epson. The difference can be seen through a sheet of framing glass.