Why film?
- Thread starter Bill Pierce
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 411
- Views 23K
gnuyork
Well-known
Cool! Looking forward to what you do with it. I love all of your MM shots you post here.
PKR
Veteran
I process my film. Scans for prints bigger than 16x20 are wet Creo. I print targets, Epson.
gnuyork
Well-known
I don't know... Photography is not my only vice. My wife is an accountant and I am a DEAD man if I buy another camera... another watch... another guitar or vintage snare drum.
We did recently make a trip to the Midwest and made a day trip to Chicago where I went into this old camera store. I held an M3 and M2 and I was smitten. I really want an M2...but I don't dare. 😎
Richard G
Veteran
The beauty of M Leica's is that to a certain section of the community they all look the same. After a certain number it would be hard to know if there were one or two more.....
ptpdprinter
Veteran
There seems to be a wide range of approaches. Some, like HCB, take the photo, edit contact sheets, and let others print. I do film, hybrid, and digital, and like to be involved from beginning to end. I process my own film, do my own wet prints and alternative processes, do my own scans, do my own digital processing, and make my own prints up to 16x20. I only outsource large digital prints as I don't have room for a 7000 or 9000 series Epson printer. If I had the room, I would do my own large digital prints as well. For me, being a photographer means more than just making exposures. But I know others approach things differently.
cz23
Well-known
Congrats, Allen. I'm sure you'll love it and do good work with it.
Back to the thread topic; when I read your post I felt pretty good to be back to film and off the digital camera merry-go-round. I thought, "Gee, I could use this M6 to the day I die." Who knows what the future holds, but it's a nice feeling for now.
John
gnuyork
Well-known
Yes, if I had to get rid of all my cameras but one, the M6 would be the keeper. Sometimes I think about that actually.
Bill Clark
Veteran
Upon re-reading your post, I only make photos with black and white film. And it's only because of nostalgia I use film at all anymore.
For me I can be be much more creative during the process stage with my iMac than film in the darkroom. And, I have to admit, maybe it's because I'm old and lazy or maybe because, I have to admit it, I'm a nerd especially when it comes to photography.
Last Saturday I did a gig for the 50th anniversary of a couple, all digital.
When I first met my coach, he said how do I capture with film or digital? Film I said. He then suggested I need to go digital as that's the future for pro photography, at least the photography he and I did. And besides he said, "how Am I going to evaluate your progress in class with film?"
When I first joined our PPofA affiliate in 2002 the instructor for our monthly workshop would ask how many use film and how many capture with digital? Most, back then used film. By, oh I'd say 2005 or 2006 very few used film. By 2010 some of the newer younger members never used film.
I understand quite a few folks here use film and that's OK. Continue on your journey with film if that's how you want to capture your art.
For me I can be be much more creative during the process stage with my iMac than film in the darkroom. And, I have to admit, maybe it's because I'm old and lazy or maybe because, I have to admit it, I'm a nerd especially when it comes to photography.
Last Saturday I did a gig for the 50th anniversary of a couple, all digital.
When I first met my coach, he said how do I capture with film or digital? Film I said. He then suggested I need to go digital as that's the future for pro photography, at least the photography he and I did. And besides he said, "how Am I going to evaluate your progress in class with film?"
When I first joined our PPofA affiliate in 2002 the instructor for our monthly workshop would ask how many use film and how many capture with digital? Most, back then used film. By, oh I'd say 2005 or 2006 very few used film. By 2010 some of the newer younger members never used film.
I understand quite a few folks here use film and that's OK. Continue on your journey with film if that's how you want to capture your art.
teddy
Jose Morales
Yes, I think filtration is essential more so for black and white. Colour negatives - hardly, there are some exceptions - like Ektar 100 in some situations. E6, yes.
The only editing I do to my photographs is colour correction, some minor cropping or keeping things level, and minor "levels and curve" corrections. In Lightroom, I have a single button macro that can adjust most of these things.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
When I cursed my career, 2000-2005, digital cameras were not allowed in my institute, and they were common already... I'm talking about a 1000+ worldwide students photography institute (perhaps the biggest one of its kind in Europe, or the world?) where only photography was taught during a six-year career, not a college/university with mild photography classes for other careers' students... The idea every teacher and student embraced as clearly obvious during those years was, "digital photography can be fast for commercial work, but that's all, it's not the real thing, and it's definitely the worst idea for learning and for becoming a good photographer..."
I agree with Bill and others digital capture and printing have evolved, and ISO has helped digital become popular, but, the important idea or facts behind the previous paragraph, in some deeply important ways remain valid...
Of course digital only shooters shout hey I'm valid too, but they don't like to hear or see we can use a digital camera in a better way, while they don't like to use a film camera not because film is inferior, but because they can't get anything good from a film camera...
gnuyork
Well-known
airfrogusmc
Veteran
If I had a darkroom I would still be shooting film in some capacity but this new M 10 is one really nice camera. I would never fully give up digital even if I did start shooting film again. I like digital that much. Wont give it up eve after I retire.
PKR
Veteran
I use a tripod a lot and carry a level. I do as much out of post as possible. I don't like sitting in front of a computer. I do a lot of post for work.
Anyway, I carry one of these..
https://www.amazon.com/Manfrotto-337-Double-Bubble-Level/dp/B000ULPH4S
They work great, and you can get things level if you're not in a hurry. I'm sure you may have met PS or LR levels, but, sometimes it's hard for me to tell..
traveler_101
American abroad
I'm one of the students for whom photography is a "mild" pursuit alongside another career (and actually I am worse than those students you mention since I have never had a photography class of any kind, whether mild or strict). Nonetheless I greatly admire the philosophy of your institute (in Barcelona?). Perhaps after I retire I can enrol there and become the world's oldest photography student. It's never too late to learn (LoL).
More seriously, when you think about it, much of what Bill is saying about the interplay between digital and film is only possible because of his thorough knowledge of film. Sticking to film in photography schools would keep this inheritance alive.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Any thoughts from others taking part in this conversation?
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
What Bill says is, when you use a digital camera well used, you can get a digital print that's as good or better than a wet print, and he's absolutely right.
He loves film too, and he's been as honest as to invest a good deal of his time learning to use efficiently the technology that shook our photographic world more than a decade ago.
And he's said nothing against film quality, and nothing against the pleasure of using a film camera. The path he's walked, will possibly be the only path in the future.
He loves film too, and he's been as honest as to invest a good deal of his time learning to use efficiently the technology that shook our photographic world more than a decade ago.
And he's said nothing against film quality, and nothing against the pleasure of using a film camera. The path he's walked, will possibly be the only path in the future.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Well its been a largely good natured thread so far.
These things generally create a lot of heat but not much light.
The usual arguments for shooting film have been advanced .... love of process ,the image appearing through the developer ,the digital treadmill ect.
Myself I dont care for any of that .
For me it comes down what can I use and will it look good.
Also I`m a lazy sod and the digital process is easier.
However film does look good.
I have with five film cameras loaded with HP5 and this thread has made me reevaluate how I might use them.
These things generally create a lot of heat but not much light.
The usual arguments for shooting film have been advanced .... love of process ,the image appearing through the developer ,the digital treadmill ect.
Myself I dont care for any of that .
For me it comes down what can I use and will it look good.
Also I`m a lazy sod and the digital process is easier.
However film does look good.
I have with five film cameras loaded with HP5 and this thread has made me reevaluate how I might use them.
teddy
Jose Morales
Thanks for the tips. I agree that getting most of the essentials right first time is the best policy for sure. I do put effort into that. I hate sitting in front of a monitor too; did that for 12 years straight 8 hours a day. That is why I do what you do. The most difficult camera for me to get horizontal planes level is 6x6 on my Rollei or Hasselblad. I also hate tripods but when I need them they are a blessing.
Getting back to topic - FILM ALL THE WAY! 😉
RichC
Well-known
I learnt my craft using digital cameras but now use both film and digital.
I don't use 35mm - don't see the point. Medium format kills it for quality and the difference in cost (film itself, developing, printing) is minimal. My agency requires 50 MP pin-sharp scans, and I want large (at least 30 in.) tack-sharp prints too, which 35mm colour film can't provide.
My work-horse cameras are a Mamiya 645 and a Nikon D800E. These are well matched, as the resolution of images from both cameras is about the same (high-end Imacon scanner). I dislike inkjet prints, so my exhibition prints are always "proper" photographic prints - Lightjet C types. "Chemical" prints have more "soul" - the image sits in the paper, not on, so you literally look into a scene rather than at a surface as with an inkjet print (which I find clinical seeming). That's not to say inkjet prints are bad or worse - they're not, just different (and a tad sharper than C types, if that's important). Both types of print are archival. Interestingly, C types are cheaper than inkjets if paying a commercial printer to do them!
Anyway, that's digital vs analogue prints!
As to the digital vs analogue photographic image itself, despite people banging on about the differences, as far as colour goes, they're very similar. Resolution - I've already said that 645 film is 30-40 MP. If you look in an RFF subforum, there's a sticky post of mine where I use maths based on measured film and digital resolutions to prove that (which matches my experience of making large prints). Film grain is minimal for medium format film at the sizes I print (30-36 in.). Colour - my taste is for a restricted palette and muted tones, so my film and digital images tend to look similar, esp. with a bit of Photoshop work on my digital photographs. (Yes, I do prefer the colours in film, esp. Portra 400.)
I've hung film and digital 36 in. prints together - and no one notices. Some think they're all film, or vice versa! (Caveat: they are always all C types.) I've never had a collector ask whether a photograph was taken with film or digital. They do care more about the print, preferring traditional photographs - i.e. C type rather inkjet prints.
I tend to use film more for studio work because it's expensive and I waste less, plus location work is much more convenient using digital with its instant feedback. Despite learning photography with digital cameras, I never "machine gun" - sometimes I take just one shot if I know I've "bagged" it, though I usually take a few more to be safe.
So, to the nub of Bill's question. Why do I use film, particularly as people can't tell my Mamiya 645 and Nikon D800E large prints apart?
First, because I want to. I like enjoy the tangibility of film and a manual camera. That of course does not make my film images better in any way. (As aside, unlike some people I can't abide the "magic" of waiting for an image - drives me nuts! When I take a photograph, I want to see it immediately! Perhaps that's because I learnt photography with digital cameras? When using film, I get it developed the same day if possible!)
Secondly, the difference in "raw" images. I would like to leave particular photographs behind when I shuffle off this mortal coil. This is clearly easier if they are physical objects like negatives that can be easily found, looked at and reprinted. Digital images are essentially virtual and less easy to find. Will anyone go through your computer when you're gone, and if they do will they be able to find your photographs, and then the correct versions? I suspect not...
So, I make archival gold DVDs of my selected image files in the two formats I expect to last (JPG and TIF), and keep these together with prints of the photos labelled with filenames. A lot more faff and less intuitive than negatives, not to mention I may need to re-archive in the future if DVDs fall out of use. (How many of you could immediately play a C90 cassette of my music if I handed it to you?)
Similar threads
- Article
