Why film?

[Mackinaw]

I think this is incredibly important. We've talked about this before, but a lot of folks won't recognize those hard discs or even a box of negatives as a family history.......

So true. When my folks passed away several years back, I made sure to grab all of the family photos. Many pics I had seen before, but I also discovered a cigar box full of old 35mm and 120 B&W negs my dad took (and developed) when he was a teenager. It took me a few weeks to scan them. What a find! Besides getting a kick out of seeing my old man and other relatives when they were in high school, they offer a splendid view of life back in the 1930’s.

Jim B.

 

[PKR]

That’s exactly what I used to do, small prints with big borders and messages. Still do it for holidays, birthdays, e.t.c.. But now I also send out 5x7 prints as postcards every week or so to a bunch of friends. More consistent “print quality” than a screen, but postage is definitely more expensive than internet jpegs.

I read a news story last year about a huge fire in California. A women was interviewed.. she said, all she had time to do as the fire was approaching her neighborhood was, to grab the family dog, some documents and the box of family photos as she was evacuated.

 

[victoriapio]

Absolutely true for photographers who are taking pictures for themselves. The complication comes when you are also being paid to take pictures for others. Those folks may, for good reason, ask for a specific medium or format or whatever. And, in the end, often for financial reasons, you can only juggle so many systems and so many different types of camera. Right now in the fields of journalism, advertising and commercial work you are most often asked for digital. I would expect that wedding photographers and others covering social events are expected to provide such a huge volume of images that they find it easiest to work digitally.

Some pros are going to choose a different type of camera for their personal work just because they want to take a break from the way they work. Others will use the same cameras they use for their professional work because they are most familiar with them and work quickly and smoothly with them. No rocket science there... You see it in the threads here. You pick the one you like.

I see your point, especially the point in paragraph two about clients requesting film formats. What do you, personally do when this arises? Back when I made my living with my cameras, I turned down "studio" work in anything larger than Hassleblad format because I didn't have that equipment on hand. I did rent a view camera several times at the request of client but the job took much longer than it should have because of the extra time it took to get requainted with the camera and the developing of the negatives. Back then I was living so cheap that I would turn down work on two conditions: I would loose too much time getting the images I needed and a client could get equal quality and faster turnaround from someone whose studio used that equipment and processing regularly. It didn't happen often because I really didn't do much studio/large format work, but I remember referring some studio work to a friend because it would be faster and cheaper for the client. THese days, with the pressures on current pros using film or digital, it may not be possible to refer that business to another photographer.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Nothing personal, and I did say, "most" people. I have to say though, your sarcastic reference to convenience hints at why you presumably use digital cameras. This supports my argument.

I am not dogmatic. I use both depending on what I want to achieve. Flexibility can be a benefit.

 

[ptpdprinter]

I read a news story last year about a huge fire in California. A women was interviewed.. she said, all she had time to do as the fire was approaching her neighborhood was, to grab the family dog, some documents and the box of family photos as she was evacuated.

This is an oft recounted behavior of disaster victims.

 

[ptpdprinter]

This begs the question: when and why do you pick the digital up? Or maybe, why not the film camera?

I use film for black and white and alternative processes, and use digital for color. Most of my work is film.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

I use film because SD cards would look silly stored in my refrigerator.

Chris

 

[Bill Pierce]

I see your point, especially the point in paragraph two about clients requesting film formats. What do you, personally do when this arises? .

I'm lucky. I started in the film days and still had a lot of film gear I kept when the speed of delivery of digital made it the choice of news publishers. I wasn't going to sell off my old friends just because they were unemployed. I did give some away to students. But the most worn and bronzed of the 35's stayed with me even if they were going to spend most of their retirement sitting on a closet shelf. Some roll and sheet film gear went to friends, but my favorites stayed with me. So, I felt safe if anybody was to ask me to shoot film.

But I'm rarely asked to shoot film. I'm rarely asked to shoot digital. Delivery is usually in some digital form, but no one cares if it is a digital original or scanned film. I do deliver large prints for some theater jobs, but no one cares whether they are darkroom or computer prints. They evaluate the job by the final result. The last time I delivered large prints for display outside of a theatre, the images were slightly cropped and from an APS-c sensor. It's not what I would do for an architectural job, but I have a feeling that these days some really good architectural photographer is going to see his 8x10 transparency reproduced on some realtor's web site that really short changes the picture's quality. I think more and more that in many cases, as digital improves and film services decline, in the client's mind it doesn't matter what you shoot as long as it does the job.

 

[Keith]

I read a news story last year about a huge fire in California. A women was interviewed.. she said, all she had time to do as the fire was approaching her neighborhood was, to grab the family dog, some documents and the box of family photos as she was evacuated.

And for many people these days they would exit the scene much more quickly with only the dog because the other stuff would be stored digitally on the cloud! That woman may also have perished attempting to save her precious memories and documents ... and potentially of course a cyber attack may destroy your cloud storage. It's horses for courses as they say.

I'm not trying to be provocative here or claim that one media is superior because I understand the film version of the argument totally ... but I'm also open minded enough to realise that one particular point of view is seldom right and you need to embrace both to be able to make your own judgment in confidence.

 

[ptpdprinter]

I really don't understand all the antagonism. Could someone explain why this appears to be a death match.

 

[jsrockit]

I re-read a lot of this thread again, and I'm starting to wonder whether most people use digital cameras instead of film to compensate for their own failings.

Wow, really? There are plenty of people who make bad photos using film and will tell you how good they are because it is film.

For instance:

If you're hopeless at metering and composition, compensate by shooting two hundred digital shots.

Metering is not hard... and if you suck at composition, you will now have 200 bad shots.

If you have no faith in your photographic skills, you would certainly be too afraid to shoot a wedding on film. The screen on the back of a digi-cam gives you the same peace of mind that comes from experience and skill. Ditto a fashion shoot with a £50k a day model etc.

If you are doing these types of jobs, I would imagine you are capable enough to use either film or digital.

Too lazy to carry equipment? The high ISO of digital means you can dispense with the tripod.

True, but also I can now shoot in a spontaneous fashion in light and situations where motion blur would have killed the photo.

You don't need to carry and fiddle around with boxes of filters. Instead, spend hours sat on your ass fiddling around in Lightroom. Much more comfortable.

True, but I don't consider Lightroom to be the devil.

Too impatient to wait for your photos to be developed? Shoot digital and they're right there, right now.

1 hour film development is available and if you develop your own, you can do the same...

Actually more interested in gadgets, computers, software and shopping than photography? Digital is your friend.

Come on...this happens in both digital and film worlds... this is a personality type.

Maybe I'm wrong and just feeling cynical this morning, but it does make me wonder.

Perhaps yes, you are showing your bias too much. However, to make great photographs takes a lot of effort regardless of what you use. I mean, let's be honest... the most important parts of photography are content and framing. Without them, it is not going to matter what you use.

 

[jsrockit]

Of course... I obviously didn't make myself clear. The point is to leave behind something easily recognizable as a family album and kept as such. There is always a chance that a box of negatives or a hard disc aren't going to be recognized for what they are and put in the trash. Believe me, it happens.

Agreed...but it is very easy to make a book these days... like a blurb book. It's a pretty cost effective way to print digitally.

 

[PKR]

And for many people these days they would exit the scene much more quickly with only the dog because the other stuff would be stored digitally on the cloud! That woman may also have perished attempting to save her precious memories and documents ... and potentially of course a cyber attack may destroy your cloud storage. It's horses for courses as they say.

I'm not trying to be provocative here or claim that one media is superior because I understand the film version of the argument totally ... but I'm also open minded enough to realise that one particular point of view is seldom right and you need to embrace both to be able to make your own judgment in confidence.

Hi Keith; I have two friends who have lost all their cloud stored images this past year. Both shut down service without notice to customers. One was Yahoo, I don't remember the other. Everything gone.

 

[Bill Pierce]

Agreed...but it is very easy to make a book these days... like a blurb book. It's a pretty cost effective way to print digitally.

I'm a Blurb fan. That's where a lot of my family pictures end up. My point is just to get those pictures in some form where they are easy to recognize as pictures, not some weird metal box with strange connector outlets or some DVD that for some reason doesn't have a label (although I am a fan of large metal boxes with strange connector outlets for the living).

 

[Keith]

Hi Keith; I have two friends who have lost all their cloud stored images this past year. Both shut down service without notice to customers. One was Yahoo, I don't remember the other. Everything gone.

And I have a mate who's house burnt down a while ago and he lost everything he owned ... anything is possible! lol

God's will as they say! 😀

That said I certainly don't trust the cloud and would never store anything on it ... I read on facebook that the Russians control it all! :angel:😛

 

[PKR]

And I have a mate who's house burnt down a while ago and he lost everything he owned ... anything is possible! lol

God's will as they say! 😀

That said I certainly don't trust the cloud and would never store anything on it ... I read on facebook that the Russians control it all! :angel:😛

Yeah, from the news here, they control everything. Too bad I'm not a vodka drinker. When they have full control of the film market, will prices and supply go up or down.. and how soon will they gain full control?

 

[gnuyork]

I use film because SD cards would look silly stored in my refrigerator.

Chris

Best response yet!!!

At an artist's friends wedding, I brought along a camera. I don't normally do that. He had a wedding photographer who did a fine job. I took a couple of snaps at the outdoor reception and simply put the exposed roll in my friend's jacket pocket before I left. Come to find 10 years later he and his wife have a print of one of my snaps on their bedroom dresser. He said it was the best photo taken of the two that day. This stuff means much more to me than any gallery or work related stuff I've done.

Great story!

 

[teddy]

Are you using a ball head with your square format camera? I found a standard two adjustment head much easier for me to position with a square format camera.

Yeah, spot on. I use a Manfrotto with a Ball Head. I have thought of a pano to help me with this little problem.

 

[teddy]

If you have no faith in your photographic skills, you would certainly be too afraid to shoot a wedding on film.

I did a wedding 4 months ago with my Hasselblad 503cx, M3 and M2 Leicas. Only two mistakes out of 390 shots! I was proud of myself.🙄

 

[teddy]

Why would it be any different with a rectangular format camera? You level a square format the same as a rectangular format.

Composing with my Rolleiflex for example at the horizon can be tricky specially if in a hurry or not spending enough time rectifying the horizon or any flush or perpendicular lines. Sometimes I make the mistake but easily fixed in Lightroom. Best practice is to compose accurately before tripping the shutter. The same is with any format, but square I find it easier to miscalculate. Practice, practice and practice.

Film all the way!