Why film?

[PKR]

It's simple: Life is about the journey, not the destination.

Hence I refuse to drive boring modern cars, listen to crappy digital music, eat microwave meals, and use photographic equipment that I find dull and uninspiring.

It's got zero to do with having an 'equipment fetish' and everything to do with making the most of what you enjoy.

I'm sure, if you've read through the thread, you know I work with both film and digital gear. For me, the end result, a photograph, is my prime interest. We are surely very different people.

The comment you made in a previous post:

"I love *almost everything about the process, from loading film into beautiful mechanical cameras, .."

Lead me to think you might be overly interested in your camera.. ? it's not a problem for me, but to then extend that your "journey" in photography is superior to those who use inferior plastic digital cameras is a bit much. People make good and bad pictures with all kinds of photo equipment.

Enjoy your romance with The Process, but to imply that others who choose a different path (plastic digital camera) are of a lesser value is elitist and ugly, to my thinking.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Not for me. But enjoy the ride home in your Focus. When you get in you can listen to a streamed MP3 while you wait for the microwave to ping.

I don't drive a Focus, only listen to vinyl and lossless digital, and use the microwave to heat water for my tea. This is the just the kind of response I expected from you. You've gone from a film aficionado to an angry Luddite. Tin hats anyone?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I just read a fun article about this subject by Nick Holt. Holt stated that his attraction to film was due to the "chance and magic".

🙂

Actually, I think, it was due to this:

"...The wonderful images in the books I had been studying were shot on film. There was a disconnect between what I wanted and the equipment and methods I was using to try and achieve it..."

No magic, but exactly my logic at my time of switching back to film and darkroom prints later. 😀

 

[CameraQuest]

some posts deleted

OK folks, get over the useless personal attacks

and back to the discussion

Stephen

 

[PKR]

I've been wanting to say something about scanning film. Maybe this is a good time.

Most of my initial scans are done dry, on a flatbed. This includes digital contact sheets. I don't individually scan every image in a roll of film. I think my average is 1-3 frames. Maybe 1 or 2 will make it to a test print. This is all B&W stuff. With transparency stock, I trust the light table and scan my picks.

Getting beyond the initial scan, meaning out sourcing, usually means a print order. My agents have small scans and often prints to show. My favorite print size is 20 x 24. When these are ordered, I get a Creo scan. Creo scans are costly: $ 125-175 depending on the time taken to properly wet mount, etc . At the lab I use there are 3 Creo pilots. One is so much better than the other two, I let my jobs sit until he has time to do them. With the high cost comes with a lot of personal attention. Once a scan is done I get a call to come and look at a digital test print. The Creo pilot and I meet at the lab and we look his work over. He will make additional scans while the image is still in the scanner at no additional cost. When we began working together, it sometimes took 3 tries to get it right. After working with him over several months, he got to know what I like and, gets it right the first time, almost all the time, unless it's a difficult image. He's done a lot of really great Kodachrome scans for me.

When I began going to this lab for scans, I had most done on an Imacon. They were $50. I give these files to my printer and we go from there. One printer I use is really an artist. We had a print order and the lab guy where I get my scans done suggested, that if I had the time, to try a wet Creo scan. I had one done; the remainder of my order were Imacon scans. I gave them all to my printer without telling him that there was a Creo scan in the batch. I wanted to see if he could see the difference. It wasn't long before the phone rang with: "Where did you get the scan of xxx image?" I asked if it was better than the others. His reply was, up to 16 x 20, there is a slight difference, at 20 x 24, the difference is huge.

It's not just the scanner, but the operator. I doubt that the other 2 at that lab would have made such a huge difference in the final output.

I hope that this post is of value to some making bigger digital prints from film.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I'm feeling -so far on this thread- the real question was "why digital?", and the real answer was "because those who pay ask their employees for pictures right now, or if you're an amateur it's easier to get at least so-so results with digital."

IMO beyond all that, digital won, if we talk about the masses, because of its ten times superior ability for color in low light, and that includes home and night, both absolutely relevant from an emotional point of view because they're related to the times and spaces for people to relax.

Maybe that's why, going back to the original question, film because:
a) Some of us prefer B&W as it is of course a more artistic vehicle because of being a step further from reality, which has color...
b) Some of us have time, so we enjoy the journey of creating and nothing else, without the pressure of selling.
c) Some of us know how to use film, so electronics, buttons and batteries in mind all the time are a lot more hassle than film, which once you learn, just flows.

It seems we'll be less and less as decades pass, and this whole subject will keep appearing again and again, with more people using didital as more people are born in the world.

 

[tunalegs]

I missed whatever happened, but I think my comment about the final product being a direct result of the process must have been deleted by accident.

But I mean that's a pretty big part of it. You want a particular result, you choose a particular process. As a creator, if you don't care about the process, then you don't care about the product. As a viewer, you don't really have to care, although many still do.

 

[anerjee]

I shoot film because I like the look of film images in daylight (ISO 250 and lower) far better than digital, when processed and scanned carefully.

Over the years, as I shot more film, I've realised that I make the best pics in the daytime, not nighttime. Secondly daytime pics are best made on b&w film.

I am young enough that I started shooting with a digital SLR (Sony) a few years ago. So this is not nostalgia, neither is it technophobia. In every other aspect of my life, I choose digital due to convenience (watch, music etc)

I could only think of 2 reasons, although I’m sure there are more. (1) If you first looked at digital some time ago, and haven’t looked since then, it really has improved. News photographers were among the first to use digital. Believe me, the sensors are better, the cameras are better, the final images are technically better. I’m reminded of this every time I look at my early digital images. (2) Film slows you down. There are a limited number of frames on a roll of film (much less a sheet film holder). There’s only one ISO at a time. And it’s highly unlikely you have a motorized film camera that is going to shoot 11 frames a second. To put it simply - it’s more likely that you think before you press the button. That to me is the important reason.

 

[Richard G]

I'm evenly split. My Monochrom turns out quite a few shots that need almost no work in Lightroom. Those that do take less than 30 seconds mostly. I can shoot hundreds for no cost and not change SD cards let alone rolls of film every 37 shots. I can labour over the proof print and with good paper and an Epson 3880 produce a very good print. I haven't touched the cold water tap or a thermometer. I take it more seriously than my film photography in many ways.

Film. I like the quality of different films, I like its longevity, I like the incredible exposure flexibility of colour negative film. Loading a Rolleiflex is fun and slowing down to shoot a roll of 120 produces completely different pictures. I'm less in control of everything with film as I don't have a dark room. Time poor and no facilities is the reason Fred Herzog shot Kodachrome. Rewind, post away and the finished product returns in the mail. I like that, but it's long gone. And with transparencies you have to get the framing just right. Discipline. I went from Leica M5 to M9-P/Monochrom to Rolleiflex to Leica II. Must be some logic to that......?

 

[ptpdprinter]

I missed whatever happened, but I think my comment about the final product being a direct result of the process must have been deleted by accident.

But I mean that's a pretty big part of it. You want a particular result, you choose a particular process. As a creator, if you don't care about the process, then you don't care about the product. As a viewer, you don't really have to care, although many still do.

I think the issue revolves around process being an end in itself or being a means to an end. Some in the film group seem to be advocating the former.

 

[tunalegs]

I think the issue revolves around process being an end in itself or being a means to an end. Some in the film group seem to be advocating the former.

Well certainly, as pertains to photography as a hobby, the process may be an end in of itself, that's the activity: shooting, developing, printing (or projecting or scanning as the case may be).

But if we're limiting ourselves to print work, whether art or commercial, then one just uses whichever means gives them the results they want. Digital has particular qualities, film has particular quality. Just as lithography, risograph, etching, etc. all have different qualities, and are selected by artists for whichever qualities they desire. There will always be some combination of practical and aesthetic needs to be met, and certain mediums just satisfy certain demands better.

Either way though the process still matters.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I'd say nobody has ever considered going through an enjoyable process knowing it'll be only good for horrible photographs... Someone around here has?
Of course using film is a lot more comfortable and easy going than digital during shooting, and that's what's been in general commented, because that comfort happens precisely during the creative process... That's why some of us consider that process more appropriate for making good photographs...

 

[ptpdprinter]

Either way though the process still matters.

I think everyone can agree on that. It is obvious. Prints don't miraculously appear after you press the shutter (unless of course you just send your film out for developing and prints, which doesn't exactly qualify as process).

 

[twopointeight]

I work 98% in digital. What I miss image-wise from the 35mm film days are the images that were shot at handheld at 1/8 of a second because you just ran out of light. That created a particular type of image not based on clarity. You had to know, more or less, what could be done at those speed/aperature combinations. Now with digital we just run the ISO up to 6400. Sure, you could set your own limits but few shooters do that, allowing the technology to dictate the kind of image we make in low light.

 

[ptpdprinter]

I work 98% in digital. What I miss image-wise from the 35mm film days are the images that were shot at handheld at 1/8 of a second because you just ran out of light. That created a particular type of image not based on clarity. You had to know, more or less, what could be done at those speed/aperature combinations. Now with digital we just run the ISO up to 6400. Sure, you could set your own limits but few shooters do that, allowing the technology to dictate the kind of image we make in low light.

That's because most photographers are not looking for the 1/8th second aesthetic. If they are looking for that aesthetic, they set the shutter speed to 1/8th second and set the ISO/aperture to achieve whatever depth on field they are looking for. Characterizing digital photographers as technology lemmings is silly.

 

[jsrockit]

I work 98% in digital. What I miss image-wise from the 35mm film days are the images that were shot at handheld at 1/8 of a second because you just ran out of light. That created a particular type of image not based on clarity. You had to know, more or less, what could be done at those speed/aperature combinations. Now with digital we just run the ISO up to 6400. Sure, you could set your own limits but few shooters do that, allowing the technology to dictate the kind of image we make in low light.

But that was because they had a limitation...so the photos were based on that limitation. They did what the could with the tools available to them. We no longer have that limitation, so photos look differently. Times change and equipment changes...limitations change. You can still load up some 400 speed film and go out at night. Many limitation from the past are aesthetic holdovers... B&W, slow shutter speeds, grain, etc. People love these...

 

[roscoetuff]

I'm going to return to the OP's original quesiton, and question the premise, but I'm going to keep it as short as possible. I think what many of us are saying is that FILM is a separate medium for making images that can deliver much of what DIGITAL does, but does so differently.

To be succinct and try not to be repetitive, let me say that while I believe FILM is and should be considered a separate creative medium... where these traces are embraced in ways that Lomography / Toy Camera faddishness demonstrate but fail to make a lasting case, and where even B&W may ultimately fall in the long-term barring more cameras like Leica's Monochrom, I think the definition of film's unique aesthetic creative abilities and audience is increasingly in the "PENDING" column. And our problem is that unlike painting where you can individually grind your own paints, the high capital costs for producing more than sheet film and its equivalents may ultimately limit the period of time in which the question of whether or not FILM is a separate and sustainable medium can be answered defnititively.

Want film to prove its merits as a separate art form? Get busy! Just saying.

 

[sojournerphoto]

I work 98% in digital. What I miss image-wise from the 35mm film days are the images that were shot at handheld at 1/8 of a second because you just ran out of light. That created a particular type of image not based on clarity. You had to know, more or less, what could be done at those speed/aperature combinations. Now with digital we just run the ISO up to 6400. Sure, you could set your own limits but few shooters do that, allowing the technology to dictate the kind of image we make in low light.

This is one aspect of the use of current technology to document today, rather than falling back into the past. It doesn't stop me using film, but I know that it's anachronistic other than for the creation of 'art', which is about make my the choice and intent rather than convenience or what is 'best' on some arbitrary measure.

 

[newsgrunt]

..grain, etc...

careful 😉

but yeah, most of us who dreaded and suffered through available darkness, screamed hallelujah from the highest mountains, thankful for clean 6400 iso lol

 

[Mark1960]

Like all my generation I started off using film, but only on High Days and holidays and it was my older brother's hobby so there was no way I wanted to copy him. In my 50s I had a dramatic downturn in my health and had to take these easier so I returned to my childhood love of nature and wildlife. I then decided I wanted to record the rarer birds I saw and bought a digital bridge camera and I was well and truly bitten by the photography bug. I did all the usual adult evening classes etc and learnt about aperture, shutter speed and ISO etc., but it still felt like something was missing. It was the aforementioned brother who suggested I tried film and maybe that could fill the gaps.

Wow!! I messed up big time!! I think there were only half a dozen images on my first roll, but the gauntlet had been thrown down and I wasn't going to be the one to give in. I've developed my own films right from the start and now wet print my black and white 35mm, which also happens to be my favourite style. I love comparing different films and learning about them, how different developers and even different grade papers affect the final image. I know I'm very much a new boy, but I'm glad about that because it means I have so much to learn and I have all the time in the world to learn it. I love film, as much for the journey to the image as the image itself. I love learning, I always have done, I love the mental stimulation and even though I know I will never truly win, I like the little voice in my head that says: "You played damn well there".