why still film? For how long?

I bought both adjacent lots and took the fence down. I fail to see any rational reason to chose to shoot only digital or film.

Digital makes up the bulk of my shooting, but I also do 35mm and medium format film because while digital wins for convenience, film offers traits that digital doesn't. Some of it is qualitative, like the aesthetics of traditional B&W film grain, but there's also hard technical advantages like dynamic range and how cheaply you can boost your resolution by shooting medium format film.

I scan my film.

If I were to have to start totally from scratch again, digital would come first, but I'd have to be starving pretty badly not to double up and get film too. Just too cheap to consider saving the money if I can afford any hobbies at all.

Honestly the only thing that attracts me about rangefinder cameras is that they're relatively compact and generally have quiet shutters. I'm mostly an SLR man for digital and film, but I own three good rangefinders that serve their purposes well.
 
For people who wish their personal expression to be an integral part of the end result film is much more hands on. Some amazing things can be done with digital imagery all based of course on the original captured DNG or whatever type of raw file ... and all of course done with processing power and various editing programs. If you want something different from film you have to work for it and be prepared to experiment with emulsions, chemicals and technique ... but when you finally achieve something that makes you go wow it's yours and you are part of it because you created it and not some piece of clever software!
 
I am curious why most of you still elect to shoot 35mm film?
I like it. I like waiting for the images, how they turn out.

Do you scan your film, or darkroom print from your film?
For lack of time, I scan and get prints made at local lab. :(

If equipment cost was equal for both, and you had to re purchase gear after a theft, would it be film or digital?
Definitely film.

Is it the rangefinder camera you are most attracted to, or is it film in general?
Film. I shoot RF (Leica, Bessa), SLR (Oly OM), P&S (Oly stylus epic).
 
Why film?

I'm a stubborn Luddite. Only kidding :D

I have my fair share of technology what with having a job in creating websites, and pretty modern snazzy so-called 'Web 2.0' ones. So I'm certainly not technically challenged.

For me it comes down to:
  • Tactile: I love the whole process of film from opening the box, loading the camera, developing the film (if B&W) and printing the film in my darkroom (if B&W) - this for me is great fun. Printing in the darkroom is a huge reason why digital largely doesn't interest me.
  • Cameras: Apart from the M8 (which I have used and it was good) and the RD1 series (not used) there are no digital cameras that make me think -- woah that looks like a solid piece of classic engineering with just the essentials. My M2 is simple but it's rugged and a delight to use. Something I don't always find with my EOS 3 which is more about button prodding, let alone the current crop of DSLRs which regardless of being digital hold no interest with me whatsoever. I want four things in a camera: shutter speed dial, aperture opening ring, shutter release and film advance -- anything else like histograms and fancy meters, print buttons and Pacman (ok maybe not Pacman!) is an optional extra for me.
  • Film itself : I do a lot of slideshows using E6 and Kodachromes that I shoot regularly. Digital projection is expensive and to my mind still not as good as old fashioned analogue. Also, my Kodak Carousel is as simple as it gets, a boring old rotary mechanism with a bright bulb shining some light through a slide and onward to the lens. Digital projectors - there's more to break, they are more complicated. Also the bulbs can cost a fortune, whereas the Kodak costs me about £2 a pop -- and that's not needed often! So projection is a big issue for me.

    Black and white and the associated silver prints on good FB paper (and even some matt RC will do for proofs and quick jobs like cards and so forth) -- gorgeous gorgeous gorgeous. Digital black and white is too clean for my liking and looks too smooth, although the M8 does a good job. Also film has no risk of noise, but as pointed out grain. One looks good, and one looks unsightly.

    Colour C41: I don't use much these days, mostly just Reala, Portra and some of the Fuji press fims (160C, 800H) but they are very good, and they do tend to have a certain quality that I don't see in digital prints. That said, if I was a big shooter of colour C41 -- digital would look very tempting. Sure we have great colour films but this is one area where digital is very much an equal for me.

    E6/K14 : As already inferred, I like slideshows, it's sociable and relaxing to gather friends together and have a slideshow, some drinks and food. None of this fiddle with the computer, what do you mean cannot find disk, ahhh bloody screensaver etc., just a simple projector. Also I like shooting chromes, nothing quite like it. Yes they have a narrow exposure latitude compared to C41 and modern digital but that's a.) half the trick and b.) what gives it that look that I like.
What would it take to make me switch to digital?

I'd say if/when/whatever the bulk of film that I use is discontinued (and we're talking Tri-X, FP4+, Neopan Acros, Pan-F+, Ektachromes, Kodachrome
[*], Provia, Astia, Velvia, Fuji press C41s...) then I'll have to start looking at a digital system.

But my guess is that in 10 years time, film photography may have got slightly more expensive due to lower volumes, but it will still be strong and thriving.

But it's a guess, and I'm no oracle.

In the meantime, I'm enjoying taking pictures and that counts for more than anything for me.

Vicky

[* = Kodachrome is probably the most at threat of my most used films, but I know this and am trying to put one roll aside in each 3 that I buy every now and then. I won't have a big stockpile but there's no point if Dwayne's stop processing it a year or two after Kodak discontinues is... That said, Kodak may even be realising a small profit from it and keep it going for a bit longer, which I would be most thankful of!]
 
Why film?
Because I enjoy it. It's not very convenient, but the quality is superb. I don't just shoot 35mm though, I regularly use 120 as well, and occasionally 4x5 too. I'll give up film when it can't be bought, stolen, or made by hand, but not my cameras, they'll still be perfectly functional.
I have one digital, a canon 5D that I got for the full frame sensor. Nice, but not as nice as any of my RF's, I also have a canon 1VHS body, so I can shoot my EF lenses with film.
Right now I scan my negatives, because I lack the space and equipment for an enlarger. I do develop my own film though, I don't trust anyone else anymore. If I had $$ and space, I'd set up a full darkroom. If I had to replace my gear? Film. I do prefer RF's, and have several makes, by several makers. But I also have several SLR film cameras as well. I like film more than any particular style of camera, that's why I have so many!
 
Because I like developing and printing my negs.
It's a hobby and if I enjoyed carving or making furniture in wood why would I use a CNC machine instead of my hands.
My pics aren't very good but heck then I have a goal ;)
Best regards
 
I would also like to state one of the reasons for me moving to the more digital side now also has a lot to do with money. I shoot a hell of a lot of photos especially on assignments and it costs a lot of have those film shots digitized. Not some at home scanner nikon scanning toy but big scans required by publishers and so on by the likes of fuji station scanners and creo flatbeds or the dreaded drum scan. The cheap way for me now is the fuji station which is 6 Chinese yuan per scan of 40 megabytes. Very cheap I know but if you scan 10 images per roll of film times 30-50 rolls then the costs are astronomical and that is before you count in developing and the cost of the film itself not to mention all that time.

It pains me to said it but I am coming to the point where I just cant afford it anymore.
 
I have now done a staggering two rolls by hand ,,,, It's still a thrill to see that I actually got a negative to come out after the ever so low tech process of getting film onto a reel, chemicals in the daylight tank, and film hanging in the shower. There is a bit of Zen in hand agitation every minute.

I will echo the comment, that was made earlier, grain is good, noise is bad, and add, no noise is sterile .... Sometimes, that is just what a photo needs, other times, not.

Dave
 
to be honest, i have never liked processing my own film. and printing in the darkroom was always a love-hate thing for me.
using a digital rangefinder has finally given me exactly what i want, the use and feel and experience of the rangefinder coupled with the ease and quickness of digital. i spend less time (but more enjoyable time) in front of my mac than i did in the darkroom.
and i happen to like the look of digital. and if it's not the same as film then so be it and maybe that's a good thing...

3496237646_659f44dbd1_b.jpg
 
1. My xpan is simple to use vs. way too many menus on the dSLR.
2. Manual focus works, AF has never worked well on any camera I have ever tried in lower light.
3. Film cameras make you slow down and think about the shot whereas with digital it is too easy to just shoot a million pictures hoping that one turns out.
4. Because of the simplicity of the old cameras it is quicker to adapt to changing conditions than with a hundred menus.
5. My favorite photographers (Brassai, Vachon, Evans, etc.) all used B&W film.
6. I tend to think that digital is destroying quality in everything. A vinyl record listened to on a high end stereo used to be the epitome of high fidelity, now everyone is satisfied with the convenience but poor quality of mp3's on an iPOD. Just a Luddite at heart I guess.
 
I like the tonality and grain of film, but that isn't the main thing for me. What I am attached to is the way it feels to use a film camera, and the experience of developing film. I use film so I can use my M2 and Pentax LX.
 
I use both depending on the situation.

I went the digital route, spending lots of money on Nikon bodies for every iteration starting with the D1 ($4k.) Never again. Digital is good enough now that a $300 body is plenty good enough to make great image. I'm spending money on the best lenses I can get, not bodies.

I use film and digital SLRs and film RFs. With regards to digital RF, IMHO it doesn't make sense as a hobbyist to buy anything but an RD1 as pricing is stable compared to the M8. The M8 has plummeted since the M8.2 came out, and the M8.2 will plummet when the M9 comes out. The depreciation is ridiculous, far more than I could ever spend on film and processing costs (I use a pro lab that develops and scans.)

Film is higher quality than the highest res digital and of course, it's full frame. Plus, B&W and Velvia aren't digital. :)

If I were a pro, I may do things differently.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder if we'll look back at the M8's images, which are very nice under the right conditions and say ... "Wow, remember when digital files looked like that!" :p
 
Keith said:
The trouble with your question is ... when you're asking a film shooter why they prefer film they will invariably say because they don't like digital and don't like the look of it. It makes it very hard to avoid it becoming another film verses digital discussion.

It has to be film for me because it allows me to do things like this ...

p333909143.jpg



and like this ...

p595317109.jpg



I'm not clever enough to achieve this sort of result with digital but I'm sure something near to it can be obtained if you have the processing skills and required photoshop plugins ... but it won't smell right! :p

edit ... I forgot to mention I'm purely hybrid. I scan and print digitally and I can't see myself ever prefering digital capture to film in spite of the fact that I am in effect creating a digital final result!
Click to expand...

Keith,
You have the best argument ever. "A picture is worth a thousand words."

/T
 
back alley said:
to be honest, i have never liked processing my own film. and printing in the darkroom was always a love-hate thing for me.
using a digital rangefinder has finally given me exactly what i want, the use and feel and experience of the rangefinder coupled with the ease and quickness of digital. i spend less time (but more enjoyable time) in front of my mac than i did in the darkroom.
and i happen to like the look of digital. and if it's not the same as film then so be it and maybe that's a good thing...

3496237646_659f44dbd1_b.jpg
Click to expand...


...and, Joe, your picture is worth a thousand words, too. I like the idea of film and film cameras, but I have to admit when push comes to shove I usually grab for a digital camera. Either an R-D1 or lately my Lumix G1. I like the look of digital, its convenience, and its quickness, both in the field and in front of the computer. I admit that when I see pictures like Keith's I do think about grabbing the film camera more often.

/T
 
back alley said:
to be honest, i have never liked processing my own film. and printing in the darkroom was always a love-hate thing for me.
using a digital rangefinder has finally given me exactly what i want, the use and feel and experience of the rangefinder coupled with the ease and quickness of digital. i spend less time (but more enjoyable time) in front of my mac than i did in the darkroom.
and i happen to like the look of digital. and if it's not the same as film then so be it and maybe that's a good thing...
Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it any better, my experience is the same.
 
I've gradually moved away from film, I do still use it now and then but to be honest, digital is so much easier for the kind of photography I like. I found that the camera I always stuffed in my bag was my D70. The reason I originally went back to film was to use fast (ish) lenses and use shallow depth of field and get away from the tiny viewfinders of crop sensor cameras. I still found however that scanning and post processing of my negs (i don't have a darkroom anymore) was a hassle and that colour never seemed consistant. I'd had a go with some full frame cameras since dec and last week decided to buy into a D700. All I can say is how nice it is to be able to use the faster Nikon lenses I have, get the depth of field I like and basically use in any light conditions without worrying about camera shake and out of focus wasted shots I used to get in the same situations with film.
The downside is it's big, no bigger than the Leica R8 I had or indeed the F100 I have but it's huge compared to an M.
I'm sold on it because I get the pics I like without the fuss and the hit and miss of film. Time and again the question is asked, how many keepers do you get per roll? With my digital the only images left on the card when I've finished are all keepers and that, for me is the important part.
Why still film? For how long?
For me at the moment, I'm done with it and I'm off to the dimly lit pub to drink beer and take some pictures!
best to all j
 
Why film? because I can do this:

3505583890_69f33da011_b.jpg


... my first 5x7 sheet film, TX320 expired in the 90's. I like old the old look.

I'm not a Luddite. Never touched any film cameras until three years ago.

But since then I've discovered that with film, literally a whole new world has been opened to me. Taking pictures, and developing are fun, but printing... darkroom printing. That's a whole new level of artistic expression :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom