Why I still shoot film

P

paparazzi mano

Established
Local time
4:16 AM
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
90
I have been wondering why I have resisted upgrading my kit to digital. I have a PnS 8m Canon digital but the majority of my work is still in film. FYI 99% of the time I shoot TriX 400 and the remainder Velvia 50.

Its like music, for convenience I have my iphone but when I want to listen to real music I take out my LPs. With analog I can hear the timber and nuances but on my iphone I can only hear the melody and the majority of the arrangement.

I guess digital will always be made up of 10101010 and film will be, I dunno, 1000 shades from the deepest black to the burnt out white?

Hmmm, there was a comparison that someone made made about digital, I think that this is how it went..... digital is like lithograph while film is like oil on canvas and it smells like a painting.

Anyone with the same feeling?
 
These threads are comfortable like an old pair of slippers. A little tattered around the edges but cozy.

Please insert my standard rant here. ;)
 
I've realized that I pretty much shoot film because that way I can use the equipment that I like. Also, I can preselect the "post-processing" that a lot of digital-only users do merely by choosing a different type of film. I like the automatic limits that film places on me. Digital gives me way too many options. By the time I've figured out the type of shot I want to make on a digital camera (setting white balance, ISO, image size, etc.), the shot is already gone.

I don't feel a need to try to convince anyone to use film. If film goes away, I'll merely switch to digital. By the time film *might* go away, hopefully I can afford an M9.
 
Nothing beats black and white darkroom prints. I'm not just talking about so called "image quality." There is nothing like it, and digital camera / inkjet printer won't replace it. So digital is not an UPGRADE for me. If b&w films and darkroom chemicals die in the future, photography will be dead to me. Then I'll see if digital photography as hobby is something I want to do.
 
I have no favour with digital ... but I'm quite comfortable with it!
 
The film is as good as a traditional handwoven basket. On the other side are the plastic grocery bags (They are getting better and there are even biodegradable ones). But why I like the traditional basket? Because I weave it. It has it's imperfections and that makes it even more better. I just got off my lab after developing and hanging to dry a roll of Arista Prm 400 that I have been raring to develop for the past 17-20 hours. It is the first roll from a new to me Nikon F. I think I will be doing this till the day I die. Even when the big manufacturers turn their attention elsewhere there will be some one coating the plastic strips for many many years to come. I will get the rolls from that person. So film is not dead. Well expensive it may become, but expensive are all the pleasures of life... and the hand woven baskets too. So cheer up.
 
Platinum RF said:
Film is dead, soon will be too expensive to use
Click to expand...

Really? Seems cheaper to shoot B&W film than ever before to me.

Film? Arista Premium x 36 = $1.99 (its TriX)

Custom 20x 16 print from one of the best printers in the world? $80

Camera? Cheaper than chips in some cases.

The only area where digital is dirt cheap is in high volume, or where you are doing all the PS work. Then price in new computers, the cost of cameras, software etc and you realise that gets a LOT of custom prints.

Film is dirt cheap, as long as the volume is under control.
 
coelacanth said:
Nothing beats black and white darkroom prints. I'm not just talking about so called "image quality." There is nothing like it, and digital camera / inkjet printer won't replace it. So digital is not an UPGRADE for me.
Click to expand...

Seconded. In fact, it's a very clear DOWNGRADE in B+W, though I do use digi alongside film for clour.

Cheers,

R.
 
coelacanth said:
Nothing beats black and white darkroom prints. I'm not just talking about so called "image quality." There is nothing like it, and digital camera / inkjet printer won't replace it. So digital is not an UPGRADE for me. If b&w films and darkroom chemicals die in the future, photography will be dead to me. Then I'll see if digital photography as hobby is something I want to do.
Click to expand...

That stuff will be around for a long time. Have you seen all the Lomo stuff showing up. It's all film. I think they opened a new store in LA. There is a lot of film around and you can always make your own chemistry if you can't buy the stuff. You know the City of SF outlawed darkrooms for professional photographers. Only students and amateurs can have them. It's a real bad place to own a business. p.
 
Platinum RF said:
Film is dead, soon will be too expensive to use
Click to expand...

comments like this define the internet forums for me.

film has become cheaper than it ever was to use. i currently pay about $2.50 a roll (35mm) shipped to my doorstep. with metol and some home brew recipes it hasn't been this cheap in decades.
 
Yup, instant results. But, the clear advantage is when you need strobes. You have so much finer and faster control of light with digital with artificial sources. More than anything else, I believe the speed of using artificial light has killed film in commercial photography.

But, if you have some time and you like using available light, you'll have better images and work with better cameras. A perfect realm for slow-moving 'advanced' amateurs and art photogs. I don't see it going away.

- Charlie
 
I've been shooting film and using a hybrid work flow for the past year or so for the same reason that I used almost 100% digital for the three years prior to that. Because I feel like it!


The following is something I wrote back in April for my blog
“Does the cost of film makes you more careful?

So tell me fellow film shooters is this true for you? Do you take a pause before pressing the shutter know that unlike digital, where the cost of operation is spread over an extended period of time, each frame of film has an immediate cost?
I can’t or won’t even try to speak for anyone else but the main reason that I shoot on average about one forth the number of frames that I use too with digital has more to with the things like having to pause and reload every 12-36 frames, depending on how many bodies and or backs I’m carrying, rather then some latent concern over what each frame of film is costing me. Also the fact that I can no longer just spin the ISO dial up to 1600, 3200 or even higher at at slightest whim has caused me to start seriously using a tripod for the first time in my life which in turn has slowed me down even further
So for myself its these other things and not cost that make me a more careful shooter these day’s.
As for the question of do they make me better photographer well for some people every little bit helps
icon_smile.gif
.”
 
I don't know....if some of my old film cameras suddenly would have sensor of same physical size as film frame...who knows then?
 
I always said there was something "different" about film vs digital. There are benefits and drawbacks in both formats.

In the end, it's a lot like "gear" - it doesn't matter what brand of gear you use, as long as the final product you're getting achieves the goals you set out to reach.

My reasons though seems to be related to the above statement regarding gear. I see the image in my head and want THAT image. I don't want to have to manipulate my digital file to try to get close to that image. I want THAT image.

After a recent wedding shoot the primary photographer (shooting just digital) noted that the images we attained appeared differently. We shot the same subject matter, from different angles etc. but he noted that in his conversion from colour to B&W, his blacks got blocked up. He also noted differences in skin tones b/w the digital files vs film. There were other differences noted as well, the slight "salt & pepper" gray that was in the grooms hair was absent from his digital files yet were captured by my film images. Then there was the obvious things like grain structure; none of my highlights were blown out; and the detail in the shadows during available light shoots was far better on film versus the D700 (better dynamic range).

I, personally, never noticed those differences when I shoot strictly digital but now, comparing the two to each other, I really feel like going back to film is where I want to "be" until film is no longer available anywhere on the planet.

Cheers,
Dave
 
arunrajmohan said:
The film is as good as a traditional handwoven basket. On the other side are the plastic grocery bags (They are getting better and there are even biodegradable ones). But why I like the traditional basket? Because I weave it. It has it's imperfections and that makes it even more better. I just got off my lab after developing and hanging to dry a roll of Arista Prm 400 that I have been raring to develop for the past 17-20 hours. It is the first roll from a new to me Nikon F. I think I will be doing this till the day I die. Even when the big manufacturers turn their attention elsewhere there will be some one coating the plastic strips for many many years to come. I will get the rolls from that person. So film is not dead. Well expensive it may become, but expensive are all the pleasures of life... and the hand woven baskets too. So cheer up.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing that great analogy. I like thinking that the film is handcrafted more than digital and enjoyed your comparison to basket weaving. I also use digital, and "handweave" the manual exposures and focusing of each frame, but it's not the same as dabbling in film. Even though I tossed my Patterson tanks and enlarger decades ago, and let the pro's develop for me, I still feel I working with "no net" compared to digital. My M2 or M4 do not even have metering capabilities.

So I guess I'm saying that I like the challenge. I think Kennedy once said "We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom