Why film?

[teddy]

Film is REAL photography. I don't mean to be philosophical.

 

[ForestCap]

I like shooting rangefinder cameras, and film cameras are in general more fun to shoot with.

 

[kumotaki]

In no particular order:

a) because the dynamic range of b/w film seems far greater to me than anything digital. I know you can "bracket and HDR" with digital, but b)
b) I hate to spend time on the computer
c) because a camera with any more settings than speed, aperture and focus is too complicated, or boring, or both, for me. I understand that there are digital Leicas that come close to that but d)
d) I favour cameras (or anything else) thought and made to last for decades
e) because I hate things with batteries

Well, mostly, because I hate to spend time on the computer.

 

[johnf04]

I like to use the older cameras I buy for my collection. It can sometimes be a challenge to get them into working condition, but it is very satisfying to put a film through a machine you have resurrected.

 

[Spanik]

Mostly besause of the cameras. They are simple to operate, even if you switch to another one/brand they are identical. A shutter speed dial, an iso dial and a diafragm ring on the lens. No menu, no exp com that gets chaged each time you take the camera out of the bag, no mode dials, no film button to accidently bump, just no gimmicks. No finders that show so much stuff you cannot see through them.

I put in a battery once a year and that's it. I don't come home with so much images I will never have the courage to look at all of them. And a camera lasts as long as it works. There is no need to get the latest shiny because it will work just as good, not better, than what I already have. And lastly I don't have to spend days in front of a pc. I already have to sit in front of that 8h or more a day that I don't want to add to that.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Film is more beautiful.

Leica M2, Color-Skopar 50mm f/2.5, 400-2TMY.

Erik.

 

[Per Bostrom]

1. Working at a computer every day it is releiving to spend some time in the darkroom.
2. When digital photography started to come to life my dream cameras started to fall in price. I got the ones cheeply that I had been wanting but not been able to buy, Leicas, Hasselblads, high end 135 SLRs...
3. I think the slower process with film suits me well.

I am an analogue person. Usinga wristwatch (remember them?), vinyl records etc. etc.)

 

[Axel]

There is no logical reason why it should be impossible to go slow, to enjoy the process, to produce "ratty looks" with a digital camera also.
I do this since years.
Look, think, take one picture is a behaviour thats independant from the tool you are working with.
And there are very nice kids in both familys 😉

If you have panic to lose your pics in the virtual nirwana - print them.
Or save them to different mediums. In the same time it takes to develop or
carry and fetch a film to and from the developer you have got a handful of
copies of the whole digipics you have ever made.

Money... hmm

I´ve read the whole thread with much interest to here and most of the reasons others use film are very common.
When I shoot film I do this because of I am familiar with it and I like it.
Since more than 50 years now. And I can afford it because I have or take the time to do and enjoy it.
The circle closes here to photography in general and independant from material and tool.

 

[KM-25]

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.)

Then why even ask the question Bill? You have people here of all walks of life, all ages and most of them have given you not technical but personal reasons as to why they use film.

I mentor young photographers in person, as in face to face and even though I give them decades of expert insight as to how to best tame or master the ever changing technology of digital imaging, nearly all of them want to truly learn how to arrive at a photograph in the darkroom having used film.

And their reasons are not because it is hip or cool but simply that they don't like giving the credit in life to the likes of Steve Jobs, Thomas Knoll or Mark Zuckerberg. I'm really both inspired and thankful young people feel this way Bill, that they want to build, paint, sculpt and even hand print with their own minds, hearts and hands and claim full authorship to that.

I also teach my students to take control of their future and not let it be ran by the so called giants in the business of technology. Don't wait around or try to second guess what is next...BE what is next.

We as photographers are truly if not unexpectedly blessed to be able to enjoy the choice in tools and mediums we now have. At age 50 I am in what I hope is my mid life and like others on this thread, I can only follow my heart and that is film and the fine silver gel print is what I do my best work with.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Do you keep paintings behind the glass as well?
"Once it is framed and behind the glass" it is something which happen rarely for many of us. Not because we don't print, but because we print more than frame. Where is no way you can't feel the difference if you hold it.
I'm not pathetic, I'm conservative. My family keeps photos in the boxes. Sometimes in the albums. Classic albums without sticky plastic to hold pictures.
I prefer picture not behind the glass. Winogrand pictures I have seen in the gallery were exhibited this way.

Some of us take it on film if is worth of the wet print . It is not about "slowing down" it is about keeping dross away differently from chimping.

 

[sjones]

There is no logical reason why it should be impossible to go slow, to enjoy the process, to produce "ratty looks" with a digital camera also...

I’ve heard this counterargument before, and it doesn’t take into account the simple fact that people are different. A tool can most certainly affect how one learns about or approaches a subject, but this will depend on the person.

Many people have no problem arguing that digital is great for learning because of the histogram, the ability to take multiple photos without increasing costs, the LCD screen, the instant feedback, and so on.

And all of these are legitimate points. But of course, if a digital tool can be beneficial, then there is no logical reason why a film tool cannot also have benefits.

Or look at it this way, the photos I would take with a rangefinder are, in various cases, going to be different than the photos I would take with a large format camera; the influence of the tool would be prominent in how I would look and think about taking a photograph.

In any event, the inarguable fact is that switching to film slowed me down, possibly because it wasn’t a planned reaction, and thus not something I really thought about when shooting digital.

Does this mean that my experience applies to everyone else; absolutely not.

Does this mean I have a weak and undisciplined mind that needed an external factor to facilitate greater concentration and pre-visualization…maybe, but it doesn’t change the reality that switching to film prompted a different approach.

 

[NickTrop]

As you can see from the number of posts, I was an active form member for many years -- over the last few yesrs not s' much. This is because it was at this point that I switched over to digital. In the early to mid-2000's digital was an emerging tech and it was also relatively expensive. Simply, imo, the quality of digital did not yet match that of 35mm film. No way. Film cameras and lenses were available cheap on the used market and film was still able to be purchased and developed locally at many, many locations.

However, digital tech has matured since I'd say about the 2010's. It is comparable to film -- better, actually, in low light. Prices have dropped. My primary shooters are a Nikon 5300 that has a great 24 MP sensor without an AA filter. $389 shipped refurbed. And my "rangefinder" is an Olympus ZX-2 -- used $150. I print at home from an Epson inkjet. The quality of both these cameras exceeds (Nikon) or comes close to (Olympus) any of the 35mm cameras I've ever used. Meanwhile, the places I can purchase and have color film developed have dried up nearly completely.

Since effectively "going digital" I don't feel as though it's "proper" to post (sometimes troll) here these days. I was a film die hard. But there comes a point....

 

[NickTrop]

That said, if you want to still shoot film for anything other than sentimental reasons, medium (or large) format, develop your own black and white negs, and invest in an enlarger and a darkroom. That is a different animal entirely from digital -- a true hand craft, and there's something truly magical about the output that digital simply can't rival.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

I started a similar thread few years back, "Why are we using medium-format film?"

Like here, lots of comments. Reading them all, it seemed the common thread was, "Because I love my camera."

 

[KM-25]

As you can see from the number of posts, I was an active form member for many years -- over the last few yesrs not s' much. This is because it was at this point that I switched over to digital. In the early to mid-2000's digital was an emerging tech and it was also relatively expensive. Simply, imo, the quality of digital did not yet match that of 35mm film. No way. Film cameras and lenses were available cheap on the used market and film was still able to be purchased and developed locally at many, many locations.

However, digital tech has matured since I'd say about the 2010's. It is comparable to film -- better, actually, in low light. Prices have dropped. My primary shooters are a Nikon 5300 that has a great 24 MP sensor without an AA filter. $389 shipped refurbed. And my "rangefinder" is an Olympus ZX-2 -- used $150. I print at home from an Epson inkjet. The quality of both these cameras exceeds (Nikon) or comes close to (Olympus) any of the 35mm cameras I've ever used. Meanwhile, the places I can purchase and have color film developed have dried up nearly completely.

Since effectively "going digital" I don't feel as though it's "proper" to post (sometimes troll) here these days. I was a film die hard. But there comes a point....

You made a technological choice, not an artistic one it would seem, which is fine.

But answer me this then: Why did I, a full time professional of 30 years who started using digital in my work in not 2000 but 1994 never stop using film? And why, even as I buy cameras like a Nikon D750, D810, Leica M240 and even a $10,000 Hasselblad digital back, also invest well north of $100,000 into film cameras, film, paper, chemistry, darkroom equipment and even property to have a state of the art darkroom?

I'll spare you the thinking. For me, digital will *never* replace the experience, the journey, the love, the result and quite honestly the income earning potential that a real darkroom print provides for me.

I''m not alone in this and that is why film use has now risen to this wonderful niche. By the way, you can still post here, plenty of us see the value in using digital and are on this site....so I am not sure what that is all about...

Edit, I saw your second post, I would have perhaps skipped this post had I seen that...🙂

 

[DominikDUK]

Because it is another tool in the toolbox. It's neither better nor worse than digital they are different brushes for some things the look and feel of digital is better suited and for some things the look of film is better suited. The Film vs Digital thing is the wrong approach they should be used alongside each other. Film+Digital.

Some of the best photographs I've seen were made with lo-fi cameras (both digital and analogue) it's not the medium that matters but how it is applied and used and not to Forget the most important part of the Picture making process the photographers Vision.

 

[leicapixie]

I simply prefer film.
I can hold it, touch it, view it.
Very nice waking up, seeing a dry roll.
No PC/Laptop/cloud run by "HAL" that hates me!
No drives collapsed and ALL is gone..
Sure a spare drive and it too, is suddenly has zero images..
i use digital for parties and social stuff that gets uploaded.
I make prints.
I have lasting memories, that i too can share.
If one doesn't print, sell your gear use the camera phone.

 

[unixrevolution]

Digital is, in every measureable, testable way, technically superior to film.

But photographs are technically superior to painting, people still paint.

I like the look of a film image. I like the feel of a film camera, all mechanical and wonderful. I have film cameras I can't even hope to think about affording the digital versions of (Medium and large format, Leica, etc)

I also like that it slows me down, and makes me think. And I love the fact that, sometimes, shooting film is an icebreaker with strangers, which is a very good thing if you're a shy extrovert like me 😀

 

[Axel]

Digital is, in every measureable, testable way, technically superior to film...

Nope.
Such statements are the begin of discussions nobody needs anymore.
I´d say digital is more popular and faster.

 

[KM-25]

Nope.
Such statements are the begin of discussions nobody needs anymore.
I´d say digital is more popular and faster.

Yep, and we have all bought into one of these yet again, highly trivial opening posts. I think this site is much better than most, the excellent imagery made by members is evidence of that. So I really have to sometimes question the value of what almost seems like "Staff" trolling.....