Why film?

[PKR]

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."

I noticed that too. Pretty interesting.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

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....

Canon 5D. Introduced in 2005. Made up to 2008. I purchased it in 2010 (2008 made), used it a lot until 2016.

It beats color film and M8/M9 under low light and it renders better comparing to MKII and after. To me it is the best digital camera made so far. No useless, over twenty, MPs. Very clean rendering. Minimum menus, close to M9, not typical load of menus in 2010 and after camera.
Canon 5D spare parts are cheap and available. Canon DSLR cameras are DIY for parts exchange. Like changing shutter assembly or screen unit.

 

[Michael Markey]

I shoot both although for most of my stuff (action/low indoor light) film doesn`t touch the sides.
When I do use film its for a different look.
I certainly don`t regard it as "better" or preferable, just different

Manual unmetered film cameras or digital with buttons .... all the same .
Whatever gets the job done .

My only dislike with film is the process ... I`ve never taken to that in forty odd years for some reason.

That`s a lovely shot Ko .... you`re right my 5D2 files aren`t as nice.

 

[Michael Markey]

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.....

Agreed ..........

 

[Rob-F]

I like film for projecting slides on my big screen. I shoot both 35mm and MF for this. And I like to use film for black and white. I tried digital printing and found it frustrating and expensive. My Canon printer had to be thrown out when the overflow got overflown. And the expensive ink cartridges would run out of ink even when wasn't using it. I've never had to thrown out my enlarger or my darkroom sink when it got too full.

I do like digital for shooting color. I have M9, X100, X10, X20, D-lux 4, D-lux 6, D-700, D-300. The X20, D-700, and X100 get used a lot! And it's good to see color shots on my iMac. And Aperture makes it easy to store and file the shots--easier than with film.

But with all that said, I seem to want a Rolleiflex just now, even though I have 3 Hasselblads. There is an emotional component to these things!

 

[Leica All Day]

I just prefer the look and results that I get when I shoot film.

cheers, michael

edit: I should mention that buying, developing and scanning film is relatively easy to do here in Bangkok, but if I were to move somewhere in the remote countryside of Myanmar then I would switch to digital just out of necessity.

 

[Arbitrarium]

1- I prefer the aesthetic of film images, the variation in films available and the unpredictability of expired film.

2- I like knowing that I'm in control of everything with knobs and levers. There's no electronics telling me how to do things.

3- I love the feel of a heavy old metal camera. I barely use plastic cameras even though they might provide better usability or image quality. If it feels cheap and fragile in my hand then it ruins the experience.

 

[jsrockit]

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…

Agreed. But conversely there are a lot of people who think that a photo is better simply because it was made with film. History has shown us that great photos can be made with many different processes. Ultimately, I guess I'm a framing and content nerd first and then the process comes secondly. I understand why people choose to use film completely. I had used it for many many years and had printed in styles from Van Dyke Brown to Cibachromes, to C-Prints, to B&W. However, it does seem weird that so many equate digital with being uncreative, lazy, etc. Sure, it can be efficient. So can film. I actually prefer digital because I like the clarity of it, the clinical-ness of it. I like that I can see all of the information in a scene. I would imagine that is certainly the reason some people moved from 35mm to large format too (i.e. more information). Sometimes less information works too.

What really matters is what you said here... "but only with heart and mind" ... this is the crux for me no matter what the medium.

For me, I'll admit it... anytime I get the urge to use film, it would be me being nostalgic for a particular camera. Secondly, it would be because I had a particular project that I think film would be best for.

 

[NickTrop]

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...🙂

No worries -- second post more of an afterthought. If I put more pre-thought into my post instead of just rambling (as I typically do), I'd have said (basically) Digital has reached the point where it has effectively replaced "small format". Still can't touch the large negative and prints made from such negatives, however. Nor is it nearly as much hand craft fun. But for the purposes most use small format for, it's hard to justify still using film in amateur circles (pro is another matter).

 

[slm_]

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.

That's basically it - the process of shooting/developing film is just more fun to me.

BTW, my posts count don't reflect because I changed my nickname, but I remember you from a few years ago posting about the Yashica Electro (I had just gotten one myself). You should pick one up again and re-discover that film magic ! 🙂

 

[Emile de Leon]

The eye is the same.. as in..whatever format you shoot..its still you shooting..you cant get away from your self...lol..
But that said..I just started back w/film 2 days ago after a decade off...
and I have to say..there is something to it..
I ran some old 8x10 film thru the box..and it's just a very different reality there with the cam on the pod just sittin....very Zen indeed..sumthin about it..more about that 1 image..not just happy snappin..happy wishin..
Which is the flaw of digital..as it is even 1 more step removed from reality than film....as well as just plain to fast...and easy..
Like an e-book...vs paper bound..
But that said..processing in the bathroom sux...the fumes..jeeze..
So for color..I will never go back to film..don't want to be breathin that stuff in any more..but B&W aint that much better..
Pick your poison..lol..

 

[zuiko85]

Digital cameras are mostly ugly plasto-blobs (the few that are not are way way too expensive for me). They can have mysterious failures in their hardware or software that are not always apparent and can be devilishly hard to trace.
On the other hand my OM-1 is a mechanical work of art, a simple basic 35mm SLR that has all the essentials. So, the main reason I still use film is that is what the cameras I like use.

My ideal foray into digital. I unclip the removeable film back from my OM-1, clip on a digital back. Take pictures with the digital back.
Since there will never be a digital back for my OM-1 (Olympus having abandoned the OM mount/system) guess I'll stick to film.

 

[zuiko85]

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

 

[sjones]

Agreed. But conversely there are a lot of people who think that a photo is better simply because it was made with film...

Right, but it also seems that some folks on the digital side are arguing that there’s no reason for using film anymore. Film is dead, time marches on, get over it…

Moreover, if I’m asked why I shoot film, I’m not necessarily arguing against digital, and I’m certainly not trying to dissuade other folks from using digital.

But yes, I hope that most of agree that a good photo is a good photo irrespective of the methodology used to create it.

Use what you want, use what you need, and thank god for choice.

 

[tbhv55]

The delay also results in a bit of separation and I seem to be able to be a little more objective when I view the results.

I agree - this is very much part of it, IMO.

I shoot both film and digital (though digital is a much higher percentage of my shooting, because it wins hands-down for convenience). However, I find the same "separation" principle applies with digital - if I don't get around to viewing images for, say, a few weeks after shooting, it seems easier to sort the wheat from the chaff. All in the mind, I suppose... 🙂

 

[tbhv55]

Really though, the film advance alone is a tactile delight.

Yes - I entirely agree! 🙂

 

[Timmyjoe]

Grew up in the late 1950's and early 1960's and spent my youth pouring over LIFE magazine and dreaming of making images like the B&W ones I saw in the photo essays. Still have the same dream. Still love the whole process of making images with my old film equipment. There is such a tactile sense of it that I don't find with my digital equipment. Only thing that has changed is that I no longer have a B&W wet darkroom set up. Still bulk load my film, still use a hand held incident meter, still process my rolls, just now I scan the negs and print digitally.

For color, I'll use digital. And for work and other clients, where everything is needed yesterday, I use digital. But for "my projects", when I can, I prefer shooting B&W film.

Shooting film gives me JOY, makes me feel young again. Those are good things.

Best,
-Tim

 

[NickTrop]

Canon 5D. Introduced in 2005. Made up to 2008. I purchased it in 2010 (2008 made), used it a lot until 2016.

It beats color film and M8/M9 under low light and it renders better comparing to MKII and after. To me it is the best digital camera made so far. No useless, over twenty, MPs. Very clean rendering. Minimum menus, close to M9, not typical load of menus in 2010 and after camera.
Canon 5D spare parts are cheap and available. Canon DSLR cameras are DIY for parts exchange. Like changing shutter assembly or screen unit.

I'm sure it's a fine camera. Similar has been said of the Nikon D40's, D70's etc. I wouldn't say MP are "useless" necessarily. Wanted to have a sensor that can keep up with lens resolution lens can resolve to its full capabilities. Also, no practical limitation on print size. It does become a case of diminishing returns at a point. However, if I'm getting them (MPs), not really paying a premium for them (not at this stage), and not paying a noise penalty at higher ISOs (not with larger sensors), I'll take the resolution.

 

[Calzone]

Bill,

I shoot both film and digital, but I love film more. The cameras are simpler and that is good for me. My digital cameras I dumb down and basically use like manual film cameras, and the more manual film like the better.

I also like the process, having gone to art school in the 70's, and because it is so familiar and I have done analog so long it is always like coming home. I still have a free download of LR for my SL, and I'm still using LR5.1 that came with my MM. Not sure I like upgrading and updating that is part of the digital culture.

I do think that I enjoy the basic simple skills that being good in analog demands, whether in dealing with the mediums advantages, disadvantages and limitations. Somehow I like the challenge and difficulties more in analog. Digital surely is fast and convenient, but for artistic struggle film somehow offers a bonus for me that pays dividends.

Somehow I am more proud of my film images... For me there is a great romance with film, especially because it is old school, and it goes back and returns to my beginnings.

Currently I'm without a darkroom, but I have all these negatives waiting. I have digital for speed and convenience, and my wet printing can wait. Also understand I kept digital-digital and analog-analog as two separate mediums.

I think one of the best photographic experiences is holding a large print in one's hands.

Cal

 

[jsrockit]

Right, but it also seems that some folks on the digital side are arguing that there’s no reason for using film anymore. Film is dead, time marches on, get over it…

Yes, equally annoying ...

Moreover, if I’m asked why I shoot film, I’m not necessarily arguing against digital, and I’m certainly not trying to dissuade other folks from using digital.

Agreed. I even thought it might be a better option not to post, but then I liked what Juan had to say and then gave my opinion. Film is photography's history and present. Who knows what the future will be for film and / OR digital. We can only imagine.

But yes, I hope that most of agree that a good photo is a good photo irrespective of the methodology used to create it.

Use what you want, use what you need, and thank god for choice.

Agreed.