Why should I use my film cameras instead of digital ?

[anjoca76]

Later this month I am traveling for a couple weeks in Italy, and in particular the Abruzzo region, to which I have never been. I have had a lot of fun planning out what gear to take, what film, etc. As I did when I traveled to Europe last summer, I am taking only film and two M bodies, M2 and M6. I own digital cameras, and though I rarely use them, I have considered bringing one of them instead of both Ms, but I can't bring myself to do it. If I nail my exposures and choose the right film for the right time of day, I won't miss digital at all. But I also know all film means if I screw something up, I will have missed the shot altogether, and I won't know it until a couple weeks later, when it's too late. With digital I could snap away all day without any concerns. Take a shot, check to see if I've got it, and if I don't, shoot it again, and again. It's almost idiot-proof. Now, to be very good at it is a whole other matter, and those who are skilled at it have my utmost respect. Snapping away mindlessly, after all, does not make for good photography.

But for me--and speak just for myself--film is more challenging, and therefore more rewarding. I don't think that asking oneself the question the OP asked means that should be taken as a sign that film is not for him anymore. I have wondered myself if I am foolish to keep sticking with a--sad but true--dying medium. But those thoughts are always fleeting for me. I love to make my own beer, cook food from scratch, tend to my garden, write music, and things like that. I enjoy the entire process that goes into creating something. It makes me feel connected to an earlier time. One day, film likely won't be available--particularly color film--so I figure I will shoot film and enjoy my beautiful film Leicas for as long as I can. Digital ain't going anywhere, and it will only get better (and cheaper). I see the X100 called a "classic" and I guess maybe there is some truth to that. But there's no way that 49 years from now that X100 will still be alive and kicking like my 1963 M2 is now.

I lean toward film because I love it. I guess it's as simple as that.

That said, I would take an M8 or M9 in a heartbeat, but to do so would mean selling all of my film gear, and I have no interest in that.

 

[Pete B]

i shoot film because i prefer its look to digital.

+1.
The digital image I like are those I thought were film.
I used to shoot RAW (to avoid white bal and exposure/highlights problems) and would spend ages trying to get results I like. Comparing them with film once it's come back from dev/scan, there's really no contest and with little effort on my part.
I can't imagine going on a trip with a digital camera nowadays.
Pete

 

[rbsinto]

......So, I thought this would be a good place to ask this question since there are more than a few film users here.

Why should I use my film cameras? Your experience with film after digital, going back [or forward if that's your thinking]? Usually we talk digital with this thought, but what is your film work flow to get a digital image? I do like the idea of having a film AND digital archive.

Thanks for any thoughts

You are asking a question of everyone else that you really should be answering yourself. I know why I should and do use film cameras, but my reasons likely wouldn't have any relevance for you, so I have no idea whether you should or not. Only you know the answer to that.

 

[FrankS]

Anyway, I hope you got the support that I think you were looking for! 🙂

 

[Peter Klein]

I haven't shot any film since getting my M8. But I do feel bad about that sometimes. Perhaps it's my age, many years' practice with film, nostalgia for a simpler time, etc. But the simple fact is that I have time for digital. I don't have time to do all the stuff you have to do with film.

I've come to the conclusion that (for me at least) there isn't much reason to shoot color film any more. B&W is another matter. If I had more time, I would still use B&W film. I love how it looks. Good B&W has a dynamic range that it is difficult to get with a digital sensor. Sometimes the latest sensor's absolute numbers may come out on top (which was not the case a few years ago). But I love B&W film's gradation, highlight detail, the quality of film grain and which tones the grain is more visible.

--Peter

 

[jcrutcher]

Using film makes me a better digital photographer ... I can't really put it any other way!

I agree with Keith. When I find myself using digital only I shoot 10 times more frames and most of them are crap. I always carry both, film and digital, when I use the film I spend more time with each shot and the results help me learn. then when I do pickup the digital I'm more selective on what I shoot.

The right combo is both for me.

Lastly I spend much less time Post processing Film scans than digital. I don't scan my own film.

 

[al1966]

Simple reasons to use film here, I like the colours I get from either Fuji or Kodak pro films apart from the vivid colour ones. I prefer to scan and print though than get a lab to print as they seem to vivid or over saturated for my taste. I do like the results from digital colour and use both digital and film for serious colour about the same, though tend to use one or the other for a project. For black and white I just far prefer to use film and a wet print, I have never got a digital transferred to mono that looks how I want it to and I have tried these plugins. Besides I love to go in to the darkroom, there is nothing like seeing that print just magically appear in the dev. Lastly I love using all sorts of old cameras, with many there is a wonderful feel to them with mechanical dials and so on. Obviously with you using an M9 this does not apply so much as they have mostly kept their ergonomic delight.

 

[shadowfox]

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

You got it!
If you don't *like* shooting film, why bother?

To me, the fallacy is in thinking that to use digital means "progression" or "moving on". As if digital result is *always* better than film.

I use digital exclusively for 7 years. And have a lot of good pictures, a few are good enough to be stock photos. For those who don't realize what this means, go ahead, submit your photos and see what it takes to get past the *human* reviewers 😛 .

But deep inside I felt bored, very bored.

When I found film, it seems that a whole new world opened for me. I love everything about it. And most of all, it taught me that there are so many other aspects of photography to enjoy than just a nicely focused, sharp picture. Much more.

 

[Paul Luscher]

Every now and then, it's nice to do things old school--shoot the way I did when I started out lo, those many years ago. Also shooting with film is a more tactile experience than shooting with digital, for some reason. Maybe it because you're writing with light on a more or less permanent medium--like putting pen to paper--rather than simply making electromagnetic impulses happen.

Also, shooting film slows you down and make you think about the shot. You got 36 frames at most before you gotta change out, so you gotta use them wisely. With digital it can be too easy to shoot, and sifting through 200+ digital images to sift out the good ones can lead to burnout. And because you have to work harder and think more with each shot when you shoot film, the final photo feels like it has more "value", for lack of a better word, than a digital image does.

Finally, there is some ineffable joy in using those beautiful old machines from the days of film, which simply can't be got from using a digital camera...

 

[shadowfox]

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

Michael, you're not old fashioned.
I heard the same notion from some 20 years olds, women and men alike.

 

[shadowfox]

Using film makes me a better digital photographer ... I can't really put it any other way!

For me, using film makes me a better photographer, period.
Then it matters little whether I use digital or film (if we take the process out of the discussion for a moment).

 

[loquax ludens]

... 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 like to shoot slides and project them. The only thing that really comes close is looking at a transparency on the light box. Then if you want a digital image of it, you need to scan.

If you want the look that film in general or a particular film gives you, chances are you can't achieve the same thing digitally. So it makes sense to scan in that case too if the end result is digital.

There are other examples. If your objective is to produce silver gelatin, pt/pd, or alternative process prints, then film is your most direct route to it. It may involve digital intermediate steps. Again, scanner required.

I still have a bunch of film cameras, a bunch of film (B&W) in the freezer, ...

If you were to list your film in the classifieds, I bet you could sell it pretty quickly. I'll be watching for your ad. 🙂

 

[back alley]

You got it!
If you don't *like* shooting film, why bother?

To me, the fallacy is in thinking that to use digital means "progression" or "moving on". As if digital result is *always* better than film.

I use digital exclusively for 7 years. And have a lot of good pictures, a few are good enough to be stock photos. For those who don't realize what this means, go ahead, submit your photos and see what it takes to get past the *human* reviewers 😛 .

But deep inside I felt bored, very bored.

When I found film, it seems that a whole new world opened for me. I love everything about it. And most of all, it taught me that there are so many other aspects of photography to enjoy than just a nicely focused, sharp picture. Much more.

to me...the progression is in the process and the machines...not that i get a 'better' image with digital than i did with film...though i firmly believe that my imagemaking ability has markedly improved ever since i switched to the rd1.
i understand that people like doing things the traditional way and i have no problem with that at all. i just think that it's silly if people are feeling guilty for not shooting film.

 

[BardParker]

For me, I like using solid, mechanical film cameras. Kind of like a fine Swiss watch. Film makes me slow down and get it right before the exposure. I was using digital for a few years and find it convenient, but find myself using film more and more these days. I develop my own B&W film but don't have an enlarger. So I review negatives with a loupe and send the ones I like off to a professional lab for scans. I send my C-41 and E-6 film to NCPS or Precision Camera for process and scan. Works for me.
Regards,

Kent

 

[Spicy]

I think the quality/feel of the old film cameras is the bulk of the pleasure I get from film. I think if digital cameras gave the same kind of care to craftsmanship, it would be a tougher choice, but that would be stupid from an economic sense. But there's a definite reason I enjoy my Leicas and old Nikons, and never bother shooting with my father's AF N90s, which feels exactly like my old D90.

I'm young and grew up with digital. I also like how film slows me down, as it's a lot more dependent on getting it right pre-shutter-press. Digital is kind of the opposite - take as much as you can so you have more data to edit. But I also like how forgiving B&W film is with exposure latitude. And there's a certain imperfection inherent in film that I like - digital is clinical science (or tons of post-processing to mimic the film "look"). Film is all done for you when you decide what iind to put in the camera. More art, less science (ignore the chemistry part lol).

I also like manual transmissions and straight-DE razors. Guess I'm just an analogue guy in a digital world.

 

[stillshunter]

Some top answers here.

Having recently come out the other end of a very similar "Dark Night of the Soul" myself, I'd say the right answer for you resides within a preliminary and more fundamental question: why do you photograph? Answer that, honest to yourself and all the way through to its natural end, and it will be clear as to whether to use film or not.

I carry both, but use the digital (x10) on the very rare occasion that I need snaps for others' purposes and/or gratification.

 

[dreamsandart]

Hello to all the thoughtful replies to my original questions.

I made the mistake of posting just as I was leaving for work yesterday (Kyoto time), and now - the next morning - am just finding time to open the tread to see what has been said. I apologize for not being more timely in response to everyone. Well, lots to think on, let me make a few observations...

 

[dreamsandart]

why the guilt about not using film?
.

A think it is a bit of 'guilt', after so many years holding a traditional Leica, it almost feels like cheating 😱 to give something up that's been so much a part of my life.

One thing I do like about the M9, it really hasn't changed how I take photographs. I still work thoughtfully and take selective images even if I'm not 'paying' for film and development costs.

But there still is that loading up the film and the tactile film of the traditional film camera in my mind...

 

[dreamsandart]

I have to wonder what you think is wrong with taking dumb, silly, or easy photographs? Sometimes those things work for a photo.

Museums, galleries, magazines, etc. don't keep statistics next to your photo saying how many photos you took to get the photo shown. This shooting less = better photographer belief around here is facinating. It's not an archery competition.

Interesting you mention archery. I'd been using a bow since I was very young, and yesterday before reading the responses to this thread had thought of the Zen Archery ideal of form-function and camera use.

With the camera and photography its always been camera technique applied toward vision. If you learn the process well enough it becomes a mediation, a natural flow, and the results are 'satisfying'.

With film, it was this way. I knew how it all went, the process… choosing and loading the film, metering or 'eyeing it', the exposure adjustments, framing vision... basically the natural flow. With digital its just not the same. Maybe I miss it, or I need to re-adjust my head/thought to it? Its fun, close with the M9, just not the same.

 

[maddoc]

Personally, I prefer to stay away from LCD-screens, automated procedures and software as much as I can in my spare-time. Using a film-camera is refreshing different from what I do at work. 🙂