Vics
Veteran
I shoot Tri-x in my M3 with DR Summicron, develop it in D-76 (Lauder version) and print on Multigrade IV. It's more or less what I've done since 1968. I've never given any thought to changing any of that. I'm glad thqat RC paper came along, but other than that, I just keep trying to get better at what I do, which is 35mm B&W portraits of people that interest me. I've never even thought about getting a digital camera.
Vic
Vic
Sisyphus
Sisyphus
I have not had a chance to read everyones thought on this, however, here are a few of the reasons why I still photograph using film:
--It is what I learned, and what I am use to.
--At this point, I believe that I can achieve a certain aesthetic that I am not capable of achieving with digital photography, at least not at this point, by simply using different ASA films speeds, different developer combinations, and adding additives that also manipulate the grain structures of the film, or hole back the highlights, while expanding the mid-tones. Also, in reference to color, I do not think that the computer is able to replicate the look of kodachrome or velvia; perhaps I am mistaken, yet if I am, at least I am not able to replicate the look digitally.
--I do believe that for black and white, that the technology is not quite there yet, perhaps in the future, but not yet anyway.
--One of the major reasons why I still photograph with film is because of the tangibility of film. I love being able to hold a negative or slide in the palm of my hand, or being thumb through my neg carriers, after years of work and rediscover that one image that I have forgotten about, or looking for that one image, and you discover an image that you overlooked years before.
--If I were to move in the direction of digital, I am 100% dependent of finding an efficient way of archiving my work, and being able to find this project years later might take a miracle. Also, I would be inclined to just quickly delete images that I thought were not worthwhile; when maybe if I just held on to them, I might have a change of heart and rediscover something that I did not see before. With film, I have never thrown away an image or a group of images just because I thought they were images that have little value to me at the time, and maybe 90% of them are, but there is, from time to time, that one image that I come across years later to discover all over again.
--So, tangibility is a key reason. I have a couple of friends, one who also used film, the other all digital. The friend of my who used film, spent some money to have his film scanned so he can put it up his website. He had a problem where all the files became corrupted, or something happened to the disks, however, he was relieved that he still had the original film files. The other friend, was all digital, and his files stored on his computer and a few external hard drives. His computer became infected with viruses, and lost all the files on his computer files, and something happened to his hard drives where he also lost the files. At least if something happens to my computer equipment, I will still have the negatives or slides that I can rescan.
I am not on the fence with film or digital, it is still film for me as long as film is still available, and if that day comes, I will just go further back into photographic history and use alternative processes, such as daguerrotypes, tin types, or glass plates.
In reference to scanning or printing; I do both. If it black and white, I do most of that work myself, when I photograph using color slide film, I scan the images that I like and make digital prints, and if cibachrome still existed, which I think it does, but not near where I live, would still probably choose the digital output processes instead of cibachrome.
--If all of my gear was stolen, I would probably still replace it with film cameras, and because of tangibility, and the preferred aesthetic of film over the digital processes.
I don't know, maybe one day, when I am tired and older than I am now, I may change to digital, but for now, I will keep plugging along.
--It is what I learned, and what I am use to.
--At this point, I believe that I can achieve a certain aesthetic that I am not capable of achieving with digital photography, at least not at this point, by simply using different ASA films speeds, different developer combinations, and adding additives that also manipulate the grain structures of the film, or hole back the highlights, while expanding the mid-tones. Also, in reference to color, I do not think that the computer is able to replicate the look of kodachrome or velvia; perhaps I am mistaken, yet if I am, at least I am not able to replicate the look digitally.
--I do believe that for black and white, that the technology is not quite there yet, perhaps in the future, but not yet anyway.
--One of the major reasons why I still photograph with film is because of the tangibility of film. I love being able to hold a negative or slide in the palm of my hand, or being thumb through my neg carriers, after years of work and rediscover that one image that I have forgotten about, or looking for that one image, and you discover an image that you overlooked years before.
--If I were to move in the direction of digital, I am 100% dependent of finding an efficient way of archiving my work, and being able to find this project years later might take a miracle. Also, I would be inclined to just quickly delete images that I thought were not worthwhile; when maybe if I just held on to them, I might have a change of heart and rediscover something that I did not see before. With film, I have never thrown away an image or a group of images just because I thought they were images that have little value to me at the time, and maybe 90% of them are, but there is, from time to time, that one image that I come across years later to discover all over again.
--So, tangibility is a key reason. I have a couple of friends, one who also used film, the other all digital. The friend of my who used film, spent some money to have his film scanned so he can put it up his website. He had a problem where all the files became corrupted, or something happened to the disks, however, he was relieved that he still had the original film files. The other friend, was all digital, and his files stored on his computer and a few external hard drives. His computer became infected with viruses, and lost all the files on his computer files, and something happened to his hard drives where he also lost the files. At least if something happens to my computer equipment, I will still have the negatives or slides that I can rescan.
I am not on the fence with film or digital, it is still film for me as long as film is still available, and if that day comes, I will just go further back into photographic history and use alternative processes, such as daguerrotypes, tin types, or glass plates.
In reference to scanning or printing; I do both. If it black and white, I do most of that work myself, when I photograph using color slide film, I scan the images that I like and make digital prints, and if cibachrome still existed, which I think it does, but not near where I live, would still probably choose the digital output processes instead of cibachrome.
--If all of my gear was stolen, I would probably still replace it with film cameras, and because of tangibility, and the preferred aesthetic of film over the digital processes.
I don't know, maybe one day, when I am tired and older than I am now, I may change to digital, but for now, I will keep plugging along.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Yes, there's a lot to be said for being able to maintain "uncorrupted files" of silver suspended in gelatin, of being able to find them visually since they're in chronological order along with matching contact sheets, and if somebody asks for images of an event or person I can quickly locate the relevant pictures. Sometimes I just look through them for nostalgia, and more than once discovered that I had photos of people early in their career (or before they had a career) who later made a mark in their field. One was a magazine asignment to photograph a tall lanky female attorney fresh out of law school in an era when very few women became lawyers. She was the first female attorney hired by the Dade County, Florida States Attornies office. Janet Reno. Recently I looked up several images of a 15 year old female rock singer that I shot when I did the cover of her group's first album in 1968. Fantasy had one hit single, "Stoned Cowboy", recorded and released two albums, and then broke up, but Jamine Miller then sang with some top groups and did studio work with about every first rate rock group including the Grateful Dead up until a few years ago. She died a few months ago in her mid-fifties. Those forty year old film images are still in my files.
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
Anyone seen this yet?
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-digital.htm
(someone posted this link in another forum)
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-digital.htm
(someone posted this link in another forum)
ernesto
Well-known
hahaha!!!
That´s great!!!
Anyway, answering the original question, In my opinion, this choise seems to me old! I am architect, and remember my first time with CAD softwares, using old 486 computers. I thought: this is really slow!! How can I do something creative using this tool? Today I use cad everyday, and computers are way faster, but I cannot create a project using cad yet!
I can do great plans, but the creative process is fast like a flash!
Today,s Computers speed are an obstacle for creativity, perhaps one day they will become faster than human mind, and then, we will be able to use them as fast as using any other phisical media, but in the meantime, my guess, is that digital is just born, and it will need a long way to get ready for the challenge of being a tool that could be an extension of our body (like a fork), so that it could be used automatically by our mind, in order to respond with creativity.
If you do not need to react with creativity, it is ok using any media.
E
Last edited:
David R Munson
写真のオタク
I find them to be useful for different things, and that they have different characteristics. I love and use both, for b&w and for color.
I mean really, they both have a lot to offer, so why not just maintain a larger set of imaging tools so you have more resources to draw on to create the images you really want?
Film:
Digital:
I mean really, they both have a lot to offer, so why not just maintain a larger set of imaging tools so you have more resources to draw on to create the images you really want?
Film:
Digital:
notturtle
Well-known
I ....
Like the look and results. I am sure digital will get there though.
Enjoy the liberating simplicity and lack of distraction while shooting.
Enjoy the physical process of making prints (sometimes).
Find the physical existence of a negative a thrill... still.
Prefer not to have something I can screw with (like a file) too much.
Find it more human, organic and more in keeping with what I am trying to do.
Don't want to be caught up in constant technology changes
Can get the result I want and if it is not broken.....
I think film will be around a long time. whether you can get it through an airport is another matter.
Like the look and results. I am sure digital will get there though.
Enjoy the liberating simplicity and lack of distraction while shooting.
Enjoy the physical process of making prints (sometimes).
Find the physical existence of a negative a thrill... still.
Prefer not to have something I can screw with (like a file) too much.
Find it more human, organic and more in keeping with what I am trying to do.
Don't want to be caught up in constant technology changes
Can get the result I want and if it is not broken.....
I think film will be around a long time. whether you can get it through an airport is another matter.
mischivo
Member
Why film? because I can do this:
... 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
Can't really say that this is a good argument in favour of film. Any resolving advantages of that huge negative are lost by the dysfunctional lens and overexposure. I could easily overexpose like that with digital--it's known for that; I'm not sure about getting a lens like that though. Perhaps an ancient Pentax screw mount, wide open? Adobe can assist with further simulating the optical blurring of the corners. It'd be faster too. You'd also have the colour option.
On a side note, why is everyone here so enamoured by black and white film? I quite like C41 processed colour films, and black and white is always an option. Most of the films have just as much dynamic range as I've seen in any of the black and whites I've shot, but they're cheaper to buy, process, and scan better thanks to ICE.
If anyone must know, I prefer colour film because it has more dynamic range than my digital camera, and it's a "full frame", so my 16-35 is "ultra-wide", not just "wide".
clayne
shoot film or die
Sounds like someone who's never spent any significant time with black and white silver. Just shoot digital dude.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Real film lacks a linear response to exposure. The darkest and lightest areas have less contrast than the mid tones. This gives a much longer potential tonal range. I'm sick and tired of repeating these realiities to the digitally enamored. Guess what? Gelatin silver paper also has a non linear response to exposure. I suppose to the technogeeks these are failures, but some consider it a feature, not a failure.
Maybe I just have a non linear response to reality.
Maybe I just have a non linear response to reality.
Last edited:
Max Power
Well-known
I'll be using film for as long as I can get my mitts on it
My reasons? Film and paper, as well as the kit and chemistry to develop and print are cheap to procure and easy to find. Furthermore, there's no need to upgrade developing tanks every year for the next model, and enlargers don't crash or get viruses. Well processed and preserved negatives don't get bit-rot, and good glass and cameras will always be just that.
Finally, I work at a computer all day; the simple delight of souping a roll of film and working on a print gives me something that I don't get out of my day job.
My reasons? Film and paper, as well as the kit and chemistry to develop and print are cheap to procure and easy to find. Furthermore, there's no need to upgrade developing tanks every year for the next model, and enlargers don't crash or get viruses. Well processed and preserved negatives don't get bit-rot, and good glass and cameras will always be just that.
Finally, I work at a computer all day; the simple delight of souping a roll of film and working on a print gives me something that I don't get out of my day job.
robert blu
quiet photographer
why film ? after having read such an interesting thread I'll add my points of view. There is a mix of reasons coming some from heart some from brain. First, being 60 I learn from my father to use develop and print film almost 50 years ago. It has been a 50 years long love experience. I like the slides projection (I used to work with 3 projector and syncro sounds) and for many years I only shoot slides. A few years ago I discover the RF cameras and start to shoot again B&W (a friend of mine took care of development and contacts) which I'm learning to print digitally. Ok, here the brain says that going digitally I would avoid at least two steps, developping and scanning, each of them requires knowledge, learning curve, and is possible to make mistakes. A ready to use file would be easier, I suppose. But really there are two reasons for which I prefer films : one is cameras, the most used I have (bessa R, m7, and nikon FM2) only have three things to keep under control : diaphram, shutter speed and focus. simply like that, not various menus foe which I would need glasses ! Is there any high quality digital cameras so simple ? Second reason is that anywhere all my pictures, or negs can be found. In old shoes boxes, or in album, or in some drawer. I m not so sure this will happen with my digital files (I'm not vert methodic person, I know it s my mistake...). In the future I'll end to buy a digital camera anyway, because I do not like there is a photographic process of which I have absolutely no experience... which type ? I do not know yet, I like the RFs, but I like to shoot wideangles...and my budget is not unlimited. Should I start from zero now ? Not so sure abou photography, probably I'll try to learn aquarel painting...
robert
robert
clayne
shoot film or die
Yes! This non-linear response curve of film and SG paper is exactly why it's so different and beautiful! Human sensory input is also non-linear in nature. There's also an inherent saturation and compression control within black and white silver emulsions - this is very important in it's own right. Both of these are entirely separate from all the factors of grain, texture, etc.
It's for this reason that the response of light in a digital medium doesn't do much for me. That's it.
Last edited:
gb hill
Veteran
I believe that as long as people shoot film then there will be film. As far as why I still use film is because I enjoy shooting it. For one, film is a consumable item whereas digital is not. Shooting film & the whole process involving the final print means jobs. When I shoot a roll of film, thats a consumable. When I empty my last bottle of HC-110, thats a consumable, I then go to the store & buy some more therefore helping the economy. When you shoot digital & use up your sd card you simply erase it & start again. The only consumable process in digital is in the printing.
Second reason I use film & do traditional darkroom printing is because I like the process. I wish to continue in the same path as great photographers before me. I suppose it's my tribute to all the great ones of whom I respect & admire so much their works.
Second reason I use film & do traditional darkroom printing is because I like the process. I wish to continue in the same path as great photographers before me. I suppose it's my tribute to all the great ones of whom I respect & admire so much their works.
racoll
Well-known
There are 2 important reasons to shoot film. The main is the quality in B&W, which digital still cannot match, the second is, that film cameras are still much more "perfected" tools - they have been around for a century or more, and the design, ergonomics, quality of materials, weight, etc, are still superior to digital in most cases. Then, for some, the fact that you are not so much electricity dependent also counts. I shoot exclusively B&W film, develop myself and scan, for lack of time and space to do it in a darkroom.
Here's a grab shot made on a train in poor lighting with a very silent camera (M7) with a great lens (C Sonnar 50) on a great film (Fomapan 200) and developed in a great developer (Prescysol EF). I could not have made this with digital, it would have been too noisy, too slow, too conspicuous, and woulod never give me this tonality.
That's an absolutely beautiful shot, very elegant. I shoot both digital and film and enjoy both, however the more I shoot digital and have to spend so much time on the computer, the more film appeals to me. I've always loved film and always will, but digital is a wonderful technology and affords a lot of advantages that film doesn't. That being said, I still prefer film, the way it looks, and the cameras that use it. I enjoy every aspect of using my film cameras and I just simply enjoy the entire film process.
Andy
gudlagoba
Established
Still film and film as long as I can get it. I do have a DSLR and every time I shoot with it, I realize why I will never stop using film. I don't think A/D converters can ever match the subtle tonal gradations that are captured through the photochemical process.
italy74
Well-known
Usually I tend not to be so fussy about KR but this was indeed nice ! (especially the "play with wife/girlfriend thing..")
mischivo
Member
Please, point me towards the differences between "real" monochrome and c-41 process monochrome via examples. The advantage of colour in my eyes is that it has both colour and, if aesthetics dictates, and easy monochrome conversion. That's right, I scan my film--that's how I prefer it.
xrunningman
Newbie
I hate these arguments. Both media should coexist as there are good reasons to support the use of each. I prefer film for finely detailed landscape, macro and architectural abstractions. However, digital is great for extreme low light, for action. for snapshots and for travel. I prefer having a fine 35mm or 6x7 slide scanned and printed over a digital shot since you can get 100mpx detail and not have to spend $50,000 for a Hasselblad to get 50mpx detail.
Haigh
Gary Haigh
Tomorrow morning I hit the darkroom to print my Japan blossom shots. If I could usedigital to achieve nice b&w I would. However I edge closer to a good b&w look on my screen. I have actually never seen a digitasl b&w print that does it for me. Asm for digital colour, I do it all the time and like my rather flat look. I use 2 film cameras and 2 digi cams. Film, and especially paper ( where there is not my Forte or Agfa) is expensive enough to make film and printing boutique activities.