Why I use film

[kshapero]

Rantings::bang:

Digital, digital, that's all I hear about in the outside world. I was at a wedding the other day. The "Pro" was shooting away with his flash like a machine gun. Everyone just accepts this. I found it so invasive and rude, going around blinding folks. So what the hell, I started shooting with my ZI. He said to me with a snarl where's your flash? Ok, I am a Luddite (look it up). I like the metal and glass lens the way they were made, full frame. Ok then why don't I buy a 5D or Nikon's new D3? Because I am constantly drawn to the quietness and immediacy of rangefinders. I like knowing I can go down to 1/8 or even 1/4 of second and still have a chance. No SLR can do that. Maybe some day a DSLR with image stabilization could do this, but then all they are trying to do is emulate what we RF'er's already have. I love my Zoom lens on my RF. It is called legs or just switching lens and not sacrificing vital F stops like the kit 3.5/5.6 zoom lens. Ok immediate viewing on digital is neat and cool, but maybe if we eat less sugar we could wait for developing or better yet do it ourselves.
Funny in the early 90's, I ranted about how bad film chemicals are for the enviornment and couldn't wait for digital to come around. I guess I am still waiting.

 

[kshapero]

Well, I love film, too. But, to give the wedding photographer his due, his interests aren't in esoterica. The expectations from brides these days is they want 1,500 photos of their wedding day, they must be perfectly exposed, grainless and delivered tomorrow! Under those conditions, digital, flash and zooms are the only option.

Then, thank God, I am not a wedding photographer.

 

[IGMeanwell]

Not to be a stinker ... but with any VR or IS lens you can shoot down to 1/8th or 1/4th (if your lucky)

though as a wedding photographer, I shoot available light (unless there is a strong back light down the aisle), and of course flash when the darkness hits during the receptions (although high ISO is favorable)

If I could afford a M8, I would think it would be wonderful for ceremonies (those quiet moments)

Where is Ricci when we need him

Yes there are some very annoying photographers who get in the way, use flash for everything, and say stupid things to the guests

Any wedding photographer should shy away from making smart or sarcastic remarks to the guests as a general rule

though I also know how frustrating it can be when there are those around you are grabbing the attention when you are busy taking care of formals... Though honestly I sometimes try to give those guests who have their own equipment a chance to take a few shots

but as it is with any situation ... it goes both ways

 

[ClayH]

FWIW, my M8 makes a sound that is at about the same level of head-turning obtrusiveness as my Canon 5D. They are different sounds, but to my ear, the M8 is has a mechanical snap-whirr sound that is slightly more noticeable than the Canon.

There are a lot of other reasons to use the M8, but believe me, silence isn't one of them. If you want quiet, the M7 is the way to go.

If I could afford a M8, I would think it would be wonderful for ceremonies (those quiet moments)

W

 

[kalokeri]

I love film, too.

But my respect goes to the pro´s who do for example weddings. They have to deal with the exspectations of the brides and with amateurs like myself who disturb with the attempt to take their own pictures.

I love to handle with film and printed pictures. I love to take pictures with old fashioned cameras like my Leica. And - what´s more - I´m lucky that I don´t have to earn money with all this.

Thomas

 

[pesphoto]

My wife is a pro wedding photographer and she has the personality and patience to deal with it. I do not. I work in a dark photo studio with things that don't move or talk. I like it that way.
Our own wedding photographer(newspaper photojournalist) shot mostly digital but also shot b/w film with her M7's at our request.

 

[charjohncarter]

My K10d allows for very low shutter speeds. I just don't like the way digital looks, EXCEPT for the M8. Leica has an edge there, I don't understand way but for me it's there.

 

[oftheherd]

I did about 5 or 6 weddings about 30-35 years ago. If was fun in a way, and of course some stress was involved. I don't know that I would want to do it for a living, especially these days. And I make no pretense that I did it as well as a pro would have, albeit I think I did fairly well, and certainly satisfied those who had asked me to do it.

That aside, I just like to take photos when the mood strikes me. Film and chips are tools just like camera bodies and lenses. I can be happy with either as long as I have gotten what I wanted out of the photo. I will admit I rather liked the smell of developer, and certainly never lost the feeling of magic when I saw a print begin to show in the developer. But I have no darkroom now and even if I use film, I will have to scan it rather than use an enlarger in a darkroom.

I miss that sometimes.

 

[pesphoto]

While i dont wamt to do weddings myself, i think digital equipment has allowed pro's to be much more creative and risk taking than in the days of shooting all film simply because you can get that instant feedback.
The Nikon D3 that is coming out will allow them to shoot full frame and also with higher iso speeds than ever before without the ugly noise that goes along with it.

 

[PetarDima]

My K10d allows for very low shutter speeds

Yes, DSLRs with SR in body are answer to RF cameras, they are even better.
5D is monster, not a camera - in terms of picture quality. Very soon, I believe,
digital sensor will have better image than B&W film - i think that is future ...
Silent shutter? Few days ago, for a first time in my life I shoot a little with Canon
D30 - strange, BESSA have sharp, metal shutter sound, and D30( and of course,
it's not quetest DSLR - on Luminous landscape we can read interesanting article about shutter noise - Oly E1 is quiter than Epson RD1 - if we trust to their words)
is not machine gun - to my ears ... my Fujifilm S 5600 fd is '' dead quiet ''( but it haven't APS size sensor) .
So, what we are doing on RFF?
RFF is last gheto for RF analog camera film users
that's why am I here ... digital photo haven't same taste and smell as classic print.
I prefer classic pen, smell of old books, that's right ... and I believe that my photos will be 1% better if I take it in that way...

as you know that 1% is key to good photo, as Winogrand said:
good photo is almost a failure 🙂

 

[SteveM(PA)]

Then, thank God, I am not a wedding photographer.

I think a certain amount of the solemnity of the wedding event has been replaced with a "star for a day" mentality, in which those hundreds of "Entertainment Tonight" flash blasts are for you alone, not for Elliot Gould, Mayim Bialik etc. and maybe that adds to the specialness for some people.

 

[RObert Budding]

Rantings::bang:

. . . The "Pro" was shooting away with his flash like a machine gun. Everyone just accepts this. I found it so invasive and rude, going around blinding folks. . . .

Do you object to digital or flash? Or perhaps it's the combination of digital that encorages a shotgun approach coupled with flash.

I have shot a few weddings as favors. The absolute worst was when the bride did not want flash. I ended up with mixed lighting and localized color casts that required hours of post processing to fix. I'll *never* again agree to shoot a wedding without flash.

 

[mtbbrian]

Why is it that one is considered a luddite if you shot film?
I have had that word pointed at me before and I don't get it.
I am not about to burn down digital camera manufacturing facilities or anything drastic that the word's namesake did.
I just think that film is far superior to digital and want to work in that medium.
I like technology in it's many forms, just not when it comes to my photography!
😀 🙄 😉
Brian

 

[spyder2000]

As a pro I did hundreds of weddings. Often two in a day. Not one digitally. I still get asked and sometimes will, but I still will not touch digital for it. I also will not hand over my film for the 'friend' to have processed. I'll take care of that so I can control the most important parts of the process.

As for quality, yes brides do expect studio portraiture in every shot so I give it to them. I use one and sometimes two slave flashes, often as much as 200w/s. (So let the amateurs try to caluclate that exposure!) and all I ask is let me take my shot first. I posed it, I set it up so I get the first crack. I make this known as I am posing the group and normally all abide.

For ceremony photos, I lock the mirror up, zone focus and let the leaf shutter go. I use a mix of Hassy, XL, and Rapid Omegas depending on what I am shooting. Spreading the "risk" among several cameras bypasses total losses due to failed X contacts and such. Never done a wedding on 35mm either though I have shot some during receptions or extended parties.

My beef with digital is that the file size as saved is as large as it will ever get and thus will limit the print size available at a given quality level. With film, I shoot a large enough negative that I can deal with large prints when warranted and the processing wait ensures I can give the bride her money's worth.

 

[350D_user]

So, what we are doing on RFF?

Personally, I'm beginning to prefer rangefinders far more than I'd expected. With a DSLR, your choices are limited. Sure, buy whatever lens the industry instructs... sorry... 'advises' you, but that's it in terms of personalisation. You don't get a choice of sensor, once the body's bought... that's yours until the camera gives up. With film, there's what camera or body (then what lens), then you have a choice of what film.

... and we know just how varied films can be. 🙂

Best not mention the "full frame" aspect. Suffice to say, I'll never get a Canon 5D for the same price I got the Kievs, or the FED. Or the Leica Standard, for that matter.

As already mentioned, rangefinders are also quiet and unobtrusive.

Finally, batteries. I'd forgotten how reliable mechanical cameras can be. Plus, seeing the expression on a work colleagues face, when I said I use cameras that don't use batteries. If only I had a camera... 🙂

Quiet, unobtrusive, reliable, an extension of ones personality. Why I use film.

 

[RObert Budding]

Not a big deal to me. I shoot both film and digital. Each has strengths and weaknesses. But I must admit that I love the way film gently clips when over-exposed. You just fall off of the cliff with digital.

 

[mike_j]

I use film because my M6 uses film and I use my M6 because it uses the lenses that it uses at the focal lengths they are intended for.

For everything else I use digital SLR

 

[Socke]

Zooming with your feet is nice, if you don't have any walls in your back. And a photographer in the middle ob the band trying to get a shot is pretty embarrassing, too.
The immediacy of a rangefinder is very much degraded when you have to move or change the lens to get the picture

I have lots of slides where some fillflash would have been a very good idea, better a bad exposed shot than none at all.

Taking pictures of anything that moves with 1/4th is asking for trouble. With people I don't dare going below 1/15th.

So yes, I like rangefinders and I have fun developing my own B/W. But I don't believe in the typical arguments for rangefinders.

I use them because they are small, the lenses are usually good to excellent and I can carry them where a SLR would be to bulky.

 

[kshapero]

Each format and mode has its merits. We all know. But for now I'm a film no flash guy.

 

[Brad Bireley]

Here something that our film cameras will never do like the new Canon Mark III can do....Auto ISO....you set the shutter speed & aperture & the camera sets the ISO.