Why I still shoot film

I'm sure I would get on fine with digital but...

I like shooting film for the following straight-forward reasons:

1. I like using old mechanical cameras. In a world in which most of the things we use cannot be repaired or even explained by us, a mechanical camera is a nice comfort. And they're fun!

2. I like being contrarian when I can.

3. Black and white film beats black and white digital any bloody day. And don't try to tell me it doesn't. I've looked, I've compared, and I prefer film. I know you can get close using digital and PS filters etc, but why bother getting close for a lot of effort when you can just shoot the real thing?

Colour, though I do see a difference, is not so clear to me. I question whether shooting colour film (aside from the camera thing) is all that sensible. But then, this is a hobby and since when have hobbies been about economy and sensibility?

One thing I don't like about film is trying to transport it. Getting a hand check at the airport is a bit of a pain if you have a lot on you.
 
tom.w.bn said:
Why that. I use Fuji Acros at the moment. 3,70 EUR a film. I don't think such a film was cheaper 5 years ago.
Click to expand...

ACROS has become my favorite film. Unfortunately it's often too slow in the dark Seattle winters, but it's just wonderful. And in a faster film there's 2-TMY.

For the moment, at least, the film life is good!
 
Dave Jenkins said:
Digital is better in just about every way.
Click to expand...

It is certainly more plastic. A boon to scientific imaging. There is so much stuff I can do with my microscopes that would be impossible or really hard with a chemical process.

But "better" is not a term that can be applied to aesthetics. It is hard for a subjective term to define a subjective process.
 
Platinum RF said:
Film is dead, soon will be too expensive to use
Click to expand...

Let's pretend for a second that this is not a trolling statement. :rolleyes:

Even when film is very expensive, there will still be people who would do anything to get a hold of it in order to use it.

You know why? because using film is not just about the end result, it's also the process. Using film is a craft, more so if you take it to the last stage that is darkroom printing.

If you compare digital and film solely from the end result, then you've just ignored half of the argument. A lot of people who like film got cornered into this, therefore is unable to inform the other party why they really like film.

To understand the appreciation of the process vs end-result, have a dialog with fishing, antique-car restoration, or wood-making/turning practitioners (and many others that I have not had a chance to meet yet).
 
If you ever saw fridge mountain in Manchester you would know what sinister fate awaits your state of the art digital confabulations!
 
_mark__ said:
If you ever saw fridge mountain in Manchester you would know what sinister fate awaits your state of the art digital confabulations!
Click to expand...

If you ever visited a graveyard you know what sinister fate awaits your own body.
I am not interested in a "lasts forever" concept of goods.
 
I shoot film because I do not want to pay for a 4x5 back which does not take a single picture, they do not make 6x7 backs, and they do not make 8x10 backs.

On the small format, I am shooting less and less of anything (digital or film).
 
Will (shadowfox), I totally agree with you regarding the craft aspect to working with film. I have yet to re-establish a darkroom in my basement, but I miss the process involved when dealing with film - a much more active pursuit with the sense of wonder when watching the image begin to appear in the dev tray. I shoot both film and digital (for convenience), but find working with film to be much more rewarding.

Now as to the OP's lithography compared to painting reference ... as a former student printmaker (BFA print/photo) I'm of course biased toward those working with stone lithography - another process intensive pursuit - and think the comparison is misguided. Ahh... the smell of ink, rosin, talc and, sadly, kerosene is coming back to me now.
 
Platinum RF said:
Film is dead, soon will be too expensive to use
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Just like no one does woodcuts or stone litho or silkscreen or oil painting or charcoal drawing or watercolor or etching or collage or any other printmaking process anymore (except, of course, that they do). And since we now have 3D printers, no one does hand woodcarving or metal casting anymore (except, of course, that they do).

So yeah, you're completely right, except for the part where you're wholly incorrect.
 
Finder said:
It is certainly more plastic. A boon to scientific imaging. There is so much stuff I can do with my microscopes that would be impossible or really hard with a chemical process.

But "better" is not a term that can be applied to aesthetics. It is hard for a subjective term to define a subjective process.
Click to expand...

It's pretty dam*ed funny that those of us who do technical imaging for a living, using cameras that cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, mounted to visible or IR or UV or electron optics that cost tens of thousands to millions of dollars, often seem to understand this point better than schmucks who think that their 7D or D5000 is the be-all and end-all (nota bene, the vast majority of RFF folks are not schmucks).
 
Last edited:
shadowfox said:
Even when film is very expensive, there will still be people who would do anything to get a hold of it in order to use it.

You know why? because using film is not just about the end result, it's also the process.
Click to expand...

Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner! That's precisely correct.

For those who don't understand that process -- and not just result -- is important, I strongly recommend that you watch this (also available from Netflix) If at that point you still don't get it, I got nothin' for ya.
 
Last edited:
tom.w.bn said:
If you ever visited a graveyard you know what sinister fate awaits your own body.
I am not interested in a "lasts forever" concept of goods.
Click to expand...

And I'm not into fast food production strategies being applied to the tradition of photography and its associated equipment.
 
Last edited:
semilog said:
It's pretty dam*ed funny that those of us who do technical imaging for a living, using cameras that cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, mounted to visible or IR or UV or electron optics that cost tens of thousands to millions of dollars, often seem to understand this point better than schmucks who think that their 7D or D5000 is the be-all and end-all (no, most (nota bene, the vast majority of RFF folks are not schmucks).
Click to expand...

The other irony is that no matter how expensive or sophisticated the equipment, the final image depends on the skill of the operator. Clicking the AE button is not a skill and if you can't use your fluorochromes, what can the microscope do?
 
dcsang said:
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
Click to expand...

Dave Jenkins said:
Digital is better in just about every way. But film is more fun, and mechanical cameras are much more fun than digital ones.
Click to expand...

I'll just have to second what the Daves said. That's why I've gone back to shooting film.

Oh, and it really is a better experience shooting a mechanical M, compared to the M8. The smaller bodies just fall to hand more easily and comfortably. That said, I still shoot my M8 and I covet an M9.
 
I shoot film from more than 20 years ago, they are getting expensive to shoot, Slides can be bought fro $3, processing $3, now >$5 processing >$6 price is doubled. Film selection is limited. Digital os still not reach their peak yet, but film is getting hard to justify to continue shoot. Trix, HP5+ all doubled or triple in price.
Computer is not a specific investment for digital photography, you use it everyday for your daily life like a phone, digital SLR is also a one time investment at least use it for >5 years depend on what you are doing. I have seen professional photographers use D70 in their studio now day. So film is diminishing and dead
 
Platinum RF said:
I shoot film from more than 20 years ago, they are getting expensive to shoot, Slides can be bought fro $3, processing $3, now >$5 processing >$6 price is doubled. Film selection is limited. Digital os still not reach their peak yet, but film is getting hard to justify to continue shoot. Trix, HP5+ all doubled or triple in price.
Computer is not a specific investment for digital photography, you use it everyday for your daily life like a phone, digital SLR is also a one time investment at least use it for >5 years depend on what you are doing. I have seen professional photographers use D70 in their studio now day. So film is diminishing and dead
Click to expand...

Ya.. the same can be said for oil - look at the price of oil over the last 20 years. It too is dead.

*yawn*

:rolleyes:

Dave
 
I can only speak for myself, but I shoot a ton of film and in fact just bought yet another film camera (Pentax 67) because I simply love film.









I also dropped my Canon digital body down some stairs and am saving for a 5DII, but that'll take a while...

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom