Pherdinand
the snow must go on
you know what i think? If you need to ask this, then you should not shoot film.
Why should I use my film cameras instead of digital ?
- Thread starter dreamsandart
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 79
- Views 14K
bugmenot
Well-known
If you shoot digital, and already have a few M mount compatible cameras, then there is no justification we can give you to keep the Leica M7, because you said you do not like seeing cameras sit still, so no collecting.
On the other hand, I'd say put a couple of 120 slide rolls of your choice in the Rolleiflex and you might see the film magic again 😀
For me, 35mm/135 film holds minimal appeal nowadays. Digital just does it better in every way. I have begun to do what the OP did, and started selling all my 35mm film cameras and some extra unused lenses. The only camera I cannot bring myself to sell is my Nikon F3. It is truly a smooth camera (smoother than the Leica M3). Most legacy lenses can be adapter to my Canon DSLRs or my NEX-5N, so most lenses shall stay for now.
To me, film only holds an appeal in medium format. I wish large format didn't cost so much, or I would have given that a try as well. I recently acquired a Rolleiflex, and I am enjoying MF photography even more.
On the other hand, I'd say put a couple of 120 slide rolls of your choice in the Rolleiflex and you might see the film magic again 😀
For me, 35mm/135 film holds minimal appeal nowadays. Digital just does it better in every way. I have begun to do what the OP did, and started selling all my 35mm film cameras and some extra unused lenses. The only camera I cannot bring myself to sell is my Nikon F3. It is truly a smooth camera (smoother than the Leica M3). Most legacy lenses can be adapter to my Canon DSLRs or my NEX-5N, so most lenses shall stay for now.
To me, film only holds an appeal in medium format. I wish large format didn't cost so much, or I would have given that a try as well. I recently acquired a Rolleiflex, and I am enjoying MF photography even more.
agianelo
Established
+1 I think they both can help the other.
raid
Dad Photographer
It feels natural to use film, and it feels artificial to use digital. I need to get over it somehow. I was looking to buy an M8 when I mentioned here the fact that a SWC was another option. I bought the M8, but I quickly followed up with the SWC, a film camera.
taskoni
Well-known
Yeah, why to practice yoga when you can do Doga (yoga with your dog - so popular in LA now!)? We truly learn and move on as this is the natural flow of all humankind.
To OP - If you shoot film to scan it and software post-process it, then you are better off shooting your digital...
Regards,
Boris
dasuess
Nikon Freak
One of the first things I did after making the decision to go all digital was to get Aperture for my Macbook. As I continue to take digital images and scan my negatives, I rate them. If considered "good enough", I assign them a catalog number (custom metadata field) and use that to create a smart album called my print catalog. After over forty years, I now have just over two hundred images that I consider worthy to sell. Glad that no one is keeping track of all the images that didn't make it into my catalog. 😀
Ben Z
Veteran
I still have a bunch of film cameras, a bunch of film (B&W) in the freezer, the tanks and powdered chems to develop, and different film scanners for 35mm and MF/LF. Yet I have not shot a roll in several years. Shooting digital is just a much more convenient way to get digital files. If I had a traditional darkroom for printing then shooting film would make sense, but it seems really redundant to shoot film and scan. Digital capture has made quantum leaps since back when I bought the scanners, so the original arguments in their favor are no longer valid.
I consider film cameras as I consider vintage automobiles: great to look at and touch, not so pleasant to use.
I consider film cameras as I consider vintage automobiles: great to look at and touch, not so pleasant to use.
Dralowid
Michael
I'm very old fashioned. I like the wait. I like the excitement of the next package to come back in the mail from the the processors.
Process and print everything. See it on paper, give yourself time to criticise and understand your mistakes. The whole process encourages a precise workflow or way of going about things.
Nothing beats a pile of 36 glossy 6 x 4s when you know there are at least half a dozen images in there to be proud of...
In my humble opinion digital does not encourage critical rigour in the same way that film does...but then I am old fashioned.
Michael
Process and print everything. See it on paper, give yourself time to criticise and understand your mistakes. The whole process encourages a precise workflow or way of going about things.
Nothing beats a pile of 36 glossy 6 x 4s when you know there are at least half a dozen images in there to be proud of...
In my humble opinion digital does not encourage critical rigour in the same way that film does...but then I am old fashioned.
Michael
one90guy
Well-known
film
film
I use digital to improve my film, on landscapes I take test shots with digital, then shoot in film. Its great to have some many different tools, but I need to lighten my tool box through.
Also I would take any and all unwanted film:^)
film
I use digital to improve my film, on landscapes I take test shots with digital, then shoot in film. Its great to have some many different tools, but I need to lighten my tool box through.
Also I would take any and all unwanted film:^)
RedLion
Come to the Faire
For travel photography, digital.
For experimentation and for "working the subject" from many different angles and approaches, digital.
For visiting a place to "experience" it in a more mindful way, film.
For attending an event where I want to interact with folks and take their photograph, film - medium format: funky TLR, Folder, or Fuji 6x9.
For attending an event where I want to take candid photographs, film (35mm film camera).
Joe
For experimentation and for "working the subject" from many different angles and approaches, digital.
For visiting a place to "experience" it in a more mindful way, film.
For attending an event where I want to interact with folks and take their photograph, film - medium format: funky TLR, Folder, or Fuji 6x9.
For attending an event where I want to take candid photographs, film (35mm film camera).
Joe
icebear
Veteran
I love the analogies, I am just not sure if film will follow the fate of the compact cassette (as good as dead by now) or the fate of the vinyl record that still enjoys a number of devoted followers and most likely will not die anytime soon.
Me for my part have to admit I love the convenience of popping the SD card into the reader and have the shots on my screen. I rigorously delete non-keepers right away and mark the good ones among the rest.
With film I got a set of 5x7 printed with development and you can not really judge anything as good as you can on a high res. screen if it has potential to be a large print.
I hate spending time at the desktop, it was much easier to drop off the film and pick it up again but there is no more store in my town. The next quality lab is 20 miles away.
Since I have the M9, I did not shoot a single roll of film. No guilt about that at all. I am just not at the point to finally sell off my film M's .... watch out for the classifieds, some day it will happen😉
zauhar
Veteran
I disagree, if the OP is asking he must indeed be "missing something" (assuming this is not just a troll).
My theory is that people miss connection to material "stuff", and in photography that means dealing with film and the physical mechanism of a traditional camera.
Randy
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Curious I haven't seen many technical reasons for one or the other.
I shoot both. I have to keep film cameras around because I cannot afford the M9. Why does this matter? Because my digital lineup are micro4/3rds cameras. My fastest lenses on those digital bodies will not produce the same depth of field (or angle of view) as on my film cameras (think CZ Sonnar 50mm f1.5). Thus, portraits often happen on film.
Like some of the posters on this thread, I'm not young. Years (and years) of experience with film and lenses are difficult to re-learn with a new system. I typically get what I expected with film, and not so much with digital. Often it doesn't matter, but sometimes that's critical.
Film scanners are great and still do an adequate job for me. You need to have a decent scanner though. So, I do what was posted early in this thread. I have my film scanned at processing (by a decent lab) and that hassle goes away.
I love the digital darkroom. We all know that fewer smelly chemicals, less time in dark cramped stuffy rooms, and faster iteration time are nothing short of revolutionary. I still keep my darkroom in a semi-mothballed state. I definitely still process a roll of film now and then at the kitchen sink (come on, we all do it). Film is entrenched in my workflow and world view (again for good reasons) but digital is fondly embraced too, and used for all its strengths. Why can't I shoot both?
I shoot both. I have to keep film cameras around because I cannot afford the M9. Why does this matter? Because my digital lineup are micro4/3rds cameras. My fastest lenses on those digital bodies will not produce the same depth of field (or angle of view) as on my film cameras (think CZ Sonnar 50mm f1.5). Thus, portraits often happen on film.
Like some of the posters on this thread, I'm not young. Years (and years) of experience with film and lenses are difficult to re-learn with a new system. I typically get what I expected with film, and not so much with digital. Often it doesn't matter, but sometimes that's critical.
Film scanners are great and still do an adequate job for me. You need to have a decent scanner though. So, I do what was posted early in this thread. I have my film scanned at processing (by a decent lab) and that hassle goes away.
I love the digital darkroom. We all know that fewer smelly chemicals, less time in dark cramped stuffy rooms, and faster iteration time are nothing short of revolutionary. I still keep my darkroom in a semi-mothballed state. I definitely still process a roll of film now and then at the kitchen sink (come on, we all do it). Film is entrenched in my workflow and world view (again for good reasons) but digital is fondly embraced too, and used for all its strengths. Why can't I shoot both?
FrankS
Registered User
Using film and quality, traditional, old film cameras (Hasselblad, Rolleiflex, Leica) inspires me to give a greater effort. With greater effort comes greater satisfaction. Using digital cameras does not inspire me like this. I equate digital cameras with the modern, disposable, planned obsolescence culture and that does not make me feel good. Using film makes me feel good. This is just my viewpoint, I'd never suggest that it is the only correct view for all, in fact I'm highly skeptical of anyone with that mindset. I believe in thinking for oneself and acting accordingly.
seakayaker1
Well-known
Just returned from a 12 day trip where I took a MP, M6TTL and M9. Shot 10 rolls of film and two partial rolls in the cameras. Dropped off 9 rolls of film at a lab for high res scans, the fit 3 rolls on a CD.
I was surprised but never used the M9 during the trip.
Over the past year shooting about 80 % or more with film.
. . . . . it will pass at some point and the mix will change.
The lab I have been using will be closing in November.
Change is constant . . . . .
I was surprised but never used the M9 during the trip.
Over the past year shooting about 80 % or more with film.
. . . . . it will pass at some point and the mix will change.
The lab I have been using will be closing in November.
Change is constant . . . . .
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Yes
Quote Raid - It feels natural to use film, and it feels artificial to use digital. I need to get over it somehow. I was looking to buy an M8 when I mentioned here the fact that a SWC was another option. I bought the M8, but I quickly followed up with the SWC, a film camera.
Yes
Quote - I consider film cameras as I consider vintage automobiles: great to look at and touch, not so pleasant to use.
Not quite. My film rf's are wonderful to use, and better than the digital equivalent. However, the back end is more time consuming.
If you like film shoot film. If not then shoot digital. The only reason to invest the time and effort in film is because you like it for some reason. That may be look or just because it's material.
One thing that keeps me shooting film (with some digital) is that I don't need many good photos, so I realised I can afford to invest my hobby time in something I like.
Mike
htimsdj
Established
I make black and white photographs with 35mm, MF and LF cameras. I take the film to a lab, and I like reviewing contact sheets. Then I go to the lab and talk about the prints I want. I am lucky that the lab, one of the few totally B&W labs, is local.
I don't like sitting behind the computer, trying to get good prints from my Epson.
I use film because I prefer the process and results to digital.
Jeff
I don't like sitting behind the computer, trying to get good prints from my Epson.
I use film because I prefer the process and results to digital.
Jeff
Michel154
Established
i like getting 36 4x6 prints to look at with my friends ,more than looking at a computer screen
for my personal work i find that letting the roll sit for a few days/weeks helps me in choosing the best photos ,i am choosing what suits my impression rather that the photo making a impression on me , i don't know if it makes sense to anybody but it works for me
for my personal work i find that letting the roll sit for a few days/weeks helps me in choosing the best photos ,i am choosing what suits my impression rather that the photo making a impression on me , i don't know if it makes sense to anybody but it works for me
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
Chiaroscuro images: If shot correctly with film no need for conversion. On the other hand you can purchase a Leica M9-M.
umcelinho
Marcelo
When I go out shooting with friends that use MF or LF, it puzzles me how they can be fine with just taking 12 or 5 shots in a whole afternoon/evening. Hadn't thought about it that way.
I think I put it in a bad way, I love many of these "easy" shots, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have taken them with film simply because I wouldn't be willing to spend much time scanning and adjusting them, while with digital I spend sometimes not even 30sec on post. Most of the time it's just meaningless shots I end up deleting anyway, though.
Similar threads
