Why I'm still with film

bugmenot said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

D7000 = 348 pages
D600 = 368 pages
D3 = 472 pages
Seems excessive doesn't it?
The list goes on....
 
charjohncarter said:
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.
Click to expand...

+1

I have a figital work flow though. Tweaking a B/W photos prior to scaning takes seconds, PP is almost non existing. Tweaking a colour digital file to B/W takes hours, and then I am still not satisfied with the result.
 
back alley said:
i like the cameras, i never liked the darkroom much...
Click to expand...

Agreed. As well as I dislike excessive PP sessions. My digital cameras - additionally to the film ones - normally meets my demands already with the original camera files.
The journey of taking images is definitely the reward. For me.
 
[dyspeptic]

haven't these "why film is better than/different to/whatever" discussions been beaten to death by now ?

[/dyspeptic]
 
bugmenot said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

The D3: 445 pages.

Unpopular opinion: for me, it's not the process. I don't particularly like developing film, I find scanning tedious, and I have little printing skill.
But mechanical and traditional-control, manual-focus cameras appeal to me more and more. We all often talk about how it's not the camera, its the lens; or it's not the equipment, its the photographer. But doesn't change the fact that there's a certain excitement working with certain pieces of machinery.

There's also the fact that I just prefer the end result look of film. It's very subtle and probably imperceptible to most viewers, but every artist agonizes over tiny methodical details only noticed by us..
 
mfogiel said:
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 !
Click to expand...


I've just started working with a monochrom and it's the first digital camera that has given me tonality that I really like in black and white and grey

Still like to keep some film around though. Just looking through Pennti Samallhatti's Here, Far Away with a friend and it's a wonderful inspiration in picture making

Mike

Mike
 
haven't these "why film is better than/different to/whatever" discussions been beaten to death by now ?
Click to expand...

Because, wherever you go on the internet, there are always people who want to impose their views on others. ;)

I like digital because it's immediate and, using electronic finders, allows me to see exactly what I'll get. Even with optical finders, I can check my results instantly. In a busy life, that's a big bonus for me.

I like film because it's more challenging, (even after, at a guess, 10,000 rolls) it's relaxing going through all the preparation and the unexpectedness of the results is always fun.

The conflict is only in the minds of those who think there's a conflict.
 
Sejanus.Aelianus said:
Because, wherever you go on the internet, there are always people who want to impose their views on others. ;)

I like digital because it's immediate and, using electronic finders, allows me to see exactly what I'll get. Even with optical finders, I can check my results instantly. In a busy life, that's a big bonus for me.

I like film because it's more challenging, (even after, at a guess, 10,000 rolls) it's relaxing going through all the preparation and the unexpectedness of the results is always fun.

The conflict is only in the minds of those who think there's a conflict.
Click to expand...

Yes!

etc., etc., etc.,
 
Sejanus.Aelianus said:
The conflict is only in the minds of those who think there's a conflict.
Click to expand...

Yep ...still happy to use both,wouldn`t like to be restricted to either one.

I love digital for its immediacy so when I shoot film I strive for the same.

I do a lot of stuff for others and I`m not inclined to use film in those circumstances.

Neither do I think that you have to be in love with the whole process to appreciate film .
For me the cameras and end result suffice.
 
I have 2 M9s now and, although the results are impressive and convenient, they just aren't fun. I prefer the ease and look of scanned c41 to my digital processing. Trying to bring myself to sell one or both and get a nice MP.
Pete
 
I trade my Fuji's exactly the same as analog camera's

I trade my Fuji's exactly the same as analog camera's

I used to make a lot of slides, and, after you have pressed the shutter there is not much you can do.
Since I don't like postprocessing (spent a lot time a day behind the screen anyway) I use my X100s and X-Pro1 essentially the same way.
Setting Aperture and shutter speed (or automatic with Exposure compensation) is all I need to do before pressing that shutter again.
With the beautiful JPG's as output (I Choose Velvia as film simulation and a standard of - 1/3 EV) my postprocessing is restricted to - sometimes - 2 activities: 1) leveling and 2) cropping. (much easier then fumbling with slides)
So, in the end my user experience is exactly the same as it was before, with 2 major bonuses.
1) when experimenting I have instant feedback of what I shot
2) I carry an almost unlimited amount of film with me (32GB full of rolls) of any type and of any ISO.
Do I NEED to upgrade quickly? No, only if it makes my life easier. I bought all my gear 2nd hand, so, if I choose to upgrade, I don't loose so much money either.
Bottom line, for me , I have the best of both worlds and I like that very much.

Have a nice day
 
I understand preferring film and film cameras because I like them too. As a subjective point of view it makes sense because it is...subjective. Who can argue with it? It is the extrapolation (not made by the OP but made all too often) that it's the only way, or the best way or whatever, that doesn't work. Loving film and film cameras, and the experience of it all, and pouring all your passion in the process may still lead to uninspired/unispiring end results, when viewed outside the domain of personal experience. Think of well-crafted, tired cliches that make your eyes roll to the back of your head. None of that is going to matter if the whole thing is a hobby, the point of which is to derive pleasure from whatever it is that matters to you. But if it's not, the medium/process in and of itself is not enough.

Thing is, we are all bounded by our interests and passions. None of which guarantees anything over and above the satisfaction of pursuing them.

.
 
I have had a Samsung EX1 for 3 years, and have never printed of anything from it. I planto send 3 rolls of film for d+p in this comming week (35mm + 120). Digital amera are great for their video function:rolleyes:
 
These days, I shoot only digital.
For me, the "user experience" of handling mechanical film cameras is what I miss the most, and I miss it a lot.
But the film experience today is too expensive, and IMO the additional step of scanning to a digital copy is an art,
and is not easy to do well and not inexpensive (you need a scanner as good as your best camera & lens).

I agree with others above that too many people drag this topic into arguments about which is "better",
when it should never be more than a discussion of personal choices and respecting those other choices.
 
I liked what I read in this thread.
But I ask you to you all.
Suppose you have to face the dilemma: either you use digital or say goodbye to photography.
What would you do?
Here is where I am. No more decent labs. Can't touch chemicals for health reasons.
Regards
Paolo
 
I like the whole process, from choosing a film for the shoot to developing and printing in my own darkroom. Digital can be quicker, and I do shoot mostly digital for work, but for my own purposes and for a long-term (35+ years) continuing documentary project, I'll stay with film. It does what I need when I need it.
 
I've been a keen amateur photographer since my early 20's in the early 1960's.

Like many others here I became involved in the developing and printing processes from the beginning and gradually attained skills and expertise of which I am proud.

To me, film photography in all its aspects is one of the world's most satisfying and absorbing hobbies.

I've had an exploratory sniff at digital image capture, using other peoples' equipment, and quickly realised that it wasn't for me.

Somehow, digital photography seems artificial - not the ''real thing'', too dependent on ''electrickery'', too ''impersonal'', too ''everchanging'', too ''plastic''.

Yes, the word ''Luddite'' springs to mind and I admit I've a strong liking for old arts and crafts, old workmanship standards, old examples of just about everything - I live in a 200 year old house, I drive a 52 year old car, I own 19 Leicas made between 1932 and 1976 and I'm a happy man at the age of 71 because I have sufficient time and disposable income to enjoy film photography to the utmost in my remaining lifetime.

However, the future of photography is certainly digital whether we like it or not, and my sympathies lie with younger people who may be exploring film for the first time. Enjoy it while you can, before it becomes as hard to find as the dodo... !
 
Just to answer Paolo's question, I would just use digital.

I used to really love film. The best thing about it is that it basically inured me against a desire for "upgrades".

Upgrades may be necessary for certain professionals. But getting hooked on upgrades exercises a subtly destructive effect on photography to the extent that photography is about the creative use of limitations to produce interesting images.

Fortunately, I'm just an amateur, so I can choose what is most fun for me. that used to be film, now it's digital. I loved developing/scanning, and now I love postprocessing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom