Why I'm still with film

[FrankS]

Sometimes when one writes something down, committing the idea to printed word, this can clarify an issue in your mind. From another thread, this post of mine helped me understand my perspective/position. (Okay, truth: I already had a firm grasp of my position, but that was a good intro.)


This user experience that is being discussed here, is the main issue I have with digital cameras in my first hand experience. I haven't used a digital camera yet that can hold a candle to the user experience of my classic film cameras with their traditional controls. I would further extend that to the user experience of the whole image making and printing process of film and darkroom. Digital leaves me feeling empty and unsatisfied, even when the end product, the image, is successful. I'm only speaking for myself of course.

Edit added: for a hobby, which by definition is a pleasant use of time, greater convenience and speed is not necessarily a desirable thing. It's like my motorcycle hobby. I enjoy tinkering with older bikes in order to ride them. If I had a new bike with fuel injection and computer chips, requiring no fussing with, I would not be able to get to know it as well and the riding experience would be more superficial, lacking in that fundamental relationship between man and machine. Again, I'm only speaking for myself.

A couple of sayings come to mind: No pain, no gain; and, The greater the effort, the greater the reward.

Comment?

(I completely understand the need for digital photography in the commercial setting.)

 

[MatthewThompson]

As a BMW oilhead rider, let me assure you that EFI and Bosch/Motronic does not eliminate "fussing". 😉

 

[FrankS]

I love my BMW Airheads.

They allow my fuss to be physically effective rather than emotional grief, wondering if the bike needs to be taken to the dealer to be sorted.

 

[FrankS]

Another example of this viewpoint, is the person who values the time spent hand building wooden furniture, perhaps even choosing to use traditional hand tools rather than modern power tools.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I have a Nikon digital but it's not the camera I prefer to use. I prefer a manual film body like my Mamiya 6 or my Leica M4.

Similar to the reason I drive a 1972 Mercedes-Benz 220 diesel with no power steering, no A/C, manual transmission and manual crank windows. I do all the maintenance on the car myself and love it. Tuning up my car and driving it is very much like shooting film, developing and printing it. I just love the process and my own individual attention to the details I want to concentrate on.

Phil Forrest

 

[noisycheese]

Why do I still use film? It's the process. I love everything about the process and the tools for the process of film photography.

You have five things to manage in the process: Aperture, shutter speed, focus, shutter release, film advance. That's it. No 300 page user's manual. No multilevel menus. No battery going dead because you videoed too much.

The process is meditative, zen like. It slows you down. It makes you focus your mind. It makes you think. It is intuitive. It is elemental.

 

[thegman]

I quite agree, there are only a few commercial uses where film still makes sense, but for a hobby, film is wonderful. There is so much more choice, so many more toys to play with, so many variations on the process. Most cameras are a lot cheaper than digital, prettier to look at and look better on the shelf.

You can experiment with medium format for less than $100, you can try large format, mini formats, all inexpensively.

 

[jarski]

excuse for many me, my, am, I's 😱 photography being "only" a hobby (but very dear hobby), film as medium would probably suit me as well. immediacy has no part in the process of my image making, often files wait on memory card for weeks before I go and look them. I've stopped the quest of that one jaw dropping magic shot the silences everyone, but approach my work as series, telling a story, one photo related to next one...

anyways, both processes (IMO) are equal, am not getting any more gratification by using one over the other. but being so totally incompetent with analog process, am not getting same, or even close results from it compared to digital. so that reduces my film usage to mere testing and playing around, instead of more serious usage. and am pretty ok with that :angel:

 

[gb hill]

I'm still with film because I enjoy the process. I enjoy old film cameras, holding them in my hand, the egronomics, & there is nothing like the shutter of an SLR.
I feel kind of like we are the last of a breed who are keeping alive the traditions set forth by the pioneers that made photography.

 

[farlymac]

My reasoning behind sticking with film is that my cameras will just keep on working, while the digital ones keep getting superseded every six months, and don't have the staying power of a sixty year old film camera. I can usually repair the older ones myself, which would be impossible to do if a digital one breaks down. And like what's been mentioned before, with some of them, no batteries needed!

PF

 

[charjohncarter]

I read a (or almost read) a book on digital conversions for B&W at my library 2 days ago. At the end, after channel mixers, HDR, curves, presets, levels, contrast adjustment, and about 200 pages of instructions, I decided to just use films I like and maybe a very occasional filter.

 

[bwcolor]

I find it difficult to defend my use of film on the basis of logic. It is an emotional appeal. I suppose, as others have said, it is the process. With B&W, I prefer the end product, but I must say that I've been seeing more and more digital B&W that I like.

 

[furbs]

Being part of the film process is profound for me. From loading film onto the reel, choosing a subject, focusing and making the exposure, to mixing up developer and fixer, transferring film from one reel to another, measuring out and pouring chemicals, timing with a stopwatch, hanging, cutting, then scanning...the care I give to my film shots each step of the way makes me appreciate them much more than my digital images. It's a highly therapeutic hobby.

 

[back alley]

i like the cameras, i never liked the darkroom much...

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Here is something very special to me in using of same film camera I was eighteen and now.
The state I was born in is gone, I'm gone from the country I was born, but the same camera is with me.

 

[John Bragg]

I have never found the need, or want, to go digital, beyond learning how to scan film as well as print traditionally. As a fully mature technology, traditional mono photography does it all very well with minimal fuss and bother. There is also the added benefit of really cool cameras to play with. No planned obsolescence here ! In fact quite the opposite, with some real bargains to be had at the moment. I just bought a Nikon F5 in near mint condition, a purchase that would have been beyond my means until the digital revolution made them available at sensible prices. I paid £180 for mine ! A far cry from the £2200 they originally cost, and a lot of way cool camera for the money.

 

[Ansel]

One word: prints.

If you print your work then analogue is still the very best game in town.

 

[Michael Markey]

i like the cameras, i never liked the darkroom much...

I`m the same ... never did like the darkroom or any of the processes surrounding film .
Much prefer film cameras and the film look although like many I use both media.
I`m shooting more film than I ever did now that I reverted to my old work flow of sending it out to be processed.
Still do the odd roll.

 

[mfogiel]

I'd say, film has a few of these natural trade off's, that I like:
- no speed convenience, but a convenience of having a negative, no matter what happens to the evolution of the computers and memory supports - who still has the original floppy discs around here?
- A natural quarantine, multi step process. There is usually at least a lapse of a few days between the shoot and development, another few days before scanning begins, where the first selection is being made at the preview stage. Then, a more severe selection takes place when editing images for the web. Next, only the best of these get printed on 5x7 paper, and finally, after several weeks of looking at these prints, only some get printed on 8x10 or larger.
This process has been refined over time, and it made me realize, that I am actually a better photographer, than I thought I was - I was just not editing severely enough.
Finally, and most importantly: the famous "image quality".
Here, obviously one might suspect, that I want to deny the reality, but not so.
In my hierarchy of image quality, aspects like resolution, or lack of grain, are placed on a scale with a tipping point - once I am above that minimum threshold required, I get no further satisfaction from the improvements, I'd even say, that excessive sharpness disturbs me, particularly in people's photographs. I also do not need to print beyond a say 15 times enlargement from any negative size.
Where my quality requirement is never satisfied, is in the tonality department. I have yet to see a digital image from any sensor, that can compete with 35mm film, not to mention medium or large format. When I say "film" here, I mean silver B&W film, shot typically at 2/3 or 1/2 box speed, and properly developed. For a pushed film effect, digital cameras are cheaper.
Maybe it will take the next generation of computing altogether, to be able to reach that sort of quality in digital imaging - I mean quantum chip computing, not the next quad core Intel chips. Why I say this? Because it takes a high bit depth to avoid posterization, particularly if one wants to edit the curves extensively, and this is very costly in terms of chip power. Then, there will always be the question of the pudding, i.e. that you have to see it, in order to believe it. A good analogy can be found in HI FI transistor amplifiers - which, when they first appeared on the market, were boasting a much better harmonic response, lower distortion, etc, than the valves, but did not pass the blind test of listening. Till present day, a vinyl record reproduced on top quality equipment seems to be the audiophile gold standard.
On top of all that, for me, shooting film today with Hasselblads, Rolleiflexes, Leicas, Nikons, etc, is realizing a pipe dream of my youth, when the cost of such cameras was unimaginably high. Digital has made the best film technology affordable, and because shooting film has become an alternative process, it has also become sexy !

 

[bugmenot]

You have five things to manage in the process: Aperture, shutter speed, focus, shutter release, film advance. That's it. No 300 page user's manual. No multilevel menus. No battery going dead because you videoed too much.

I have always managed all of those, aside from film advance, in a digital camera. I love film and the process involved in it, but I cannot see how Digital is any different in THIS particular aspect of the shooting.

Also, I have YET to see the mythical 300 page user's manual. Please point out which manufacturer for what camera EVER released a 300 page manual, aside from 50,000 dollars and above VIDEO cameras. 🙂