Chris101
summicronia
Paper and chemistry printing is only marginally more expensive than digital printing with pigment based inks on high quality paper.
rayfoxlee
Raymondo
I shoot both digital and film, but the storage of digital files has always seemed to be the weak link in the chain, especially looking many ahead. This weekend, my adult daughter asked me to find as many pictures of her early life as possible. 35 years on and the trusty shoeboxes yielded prints that were as good as new (well, some of the earliest ones were a bit discolured) and this just makes me wonder if digital files will survive that long. A big plus for film - and the wonderful simplicity of film cameras!
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
rayfoxlee, do you still print many photos?
bmattock
Veteran
If they don't, then do not blame digital.
Your bank keeps your money stored digitally. There is no hand-written passbook anymore. Gee, I hope digital files will last!
Digital files are inherently different from film negatives and slides. They require different methods of storage. Fail to understand that and apply those methods at your own risk. It's not the digital that fails - it's you.
It's an imaginary plus for film - entirely made up from whole cloth. When the World Trade Towers were destroyed on 9/11, a huge archive of film from the Kennedy years was destroyed with it. Where is the archival quality of that film now? Yet the banks in the same towers which stored your money in their computers - all backed up and safe, not a penny was lost. How is that possible if film is inherently more safe?
When I was a child, the Big Thompson Canyon flooded in Colorado and my parents were camping in the area at the time (out of the danger zone, fortuitously). We found all kinds of personal belongings floating down the stream and stuck high in trees where the water had been. Including photo albums of someone's cherished moments - all film. How now the longevity of film? Sorry, film's a single point of failure. Bad choice for the long term.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Three reasons I shoot film alongside digital
1. I like the cameras I use. Easier to lug than the big ol' dslr
2. I like the look of film as an alternative to digital. B&W particularly. But that is not exclusive by any means.
3. Doing different things stimulates new ideas and that can cross over.
OTOH, for convenience I'd be all digital. If you can be bothered digital is far easier to archive and much quicker to deal with compared to scanning in my experience.
Mike
1. I like the cameras I use. Easier to lug than the big ol' dslr
2. I like the look of film as an alternative to digital. B&W particularly. But that is not exclusive by any means.
3. Doing different things stimulates new ideas and that can cross over.
OTOH, for convenience I'd be all digital. If you can be bothered digital is far easier to archive and much quicker to deal with compared to scanning in my experience.
Mike
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Good wet prints are easy to scan.
ZDP-189
Small, fat bear
I like the latitude and sensitivity curve of film. I like the feel of images it delivers and the process of creating them. I like having to think and the discipline of that enhances my best images and stops me from taking the ones I'd wish I hadn't.
I shoot digital when I have challenging lighting, when I need to publish fast or overseas or when I may need to shoot many images to get a few keepers.
I shoot digital when I have challenging lighting, when I need to publish fast or overseas or when I may need to shoot many images to get a few keepers.
Roberto V.
Le surrèalisme, c'est moi
Currently I own 1 Canon DSLR and about 7 film cameras of different types (3 of them Canon SLRs). I still shoot film because, as many said, B&W is still much better on film. Also, on a digital camera, if your sensor is outdated, you have to buy a new body, and on my film cameras I can just change the type of film. Not to mention a full frame digital body costs way too much for my almost non-existent budget.
I do like digital quite a lot and it definitely has some uses that film can't compete with (time lapse, high ISO, etc) but I find film to suit my style of photography better.
In my case it comes down to personal preference and budget. I am in high school, but when I get a decent job I'd definitely try out some more digital gear, but I don't think I'll ever ditch film photography.
I do like digital quite a lot and it definitely has some uses that film can't compete with (time lapse, high ISO, etc) but I find film to suit my style of photography better.
In my case it comes down to personal preference and budget. I am in high school, but when I get a decent job I'd definitely try out some more digital gear, but I don't think I'll ever ditch film photography.
aniMal
Well-known
I shoot film mainly because I feel like it, and also I do not want to lose the ability to see how a shot will be without that screen on the camera! I realized I almost lost it, and has been working on getting it back - one does need a certain experience and continuous work to be able to rely on a simple light meter and oneself. This also comes in handy with digital of course - looking continously at the screen is the best way to miss a shot!
The other reason is that I feel somehow good having that physical backup, although I agree with bmattock that digital copies are much safer. Provided digital is used in its full potential, with multiple copies in different locations.
When it comes to safety, my main concern is getting corrupt files and then duplicating them when backing up... So, for travels where I cannot go back, I often prefer film - then I have something to scan if the files get corrupted, or a radically better scanner is marketed.
In the future I see that I will probably ditch most 35mm gear, and use 4x5 or 120 exclusively. These formats can somehow compete with my digital gear - and is also something I like working with. It really slows down the workflow, and makes me concentrate on actually seeing the pictures before I go for them with a camera.
The other reason is that I feel somehow good having that physical backup, although I agree with bmattock that digital copies are much safer. Provided digital is used in its full potential, with multiple copies in different locations.
When it comes to safety, my main concern is getting corrupt files and then duplicating them when backing up... So, for travels where I cannot go back, I often prefer film - then I have something to scan if the files get corrupted, or a radically better scanner is marketed.
In the future I see that I will probably ditch most 35mm gear, and use 4x5 or 120 exclusively. These formats can somehow compete with my digital gear - and is also something I like working with. It really slows down the workflow, and makes me concentrate on actually seeing the pictures before I go for them with a camera.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Grain. Control. Wet prints.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
We live in an analog universe. We have analog eyes and analog brains.
pakeha
Well-known
film for me , most of the reasons already posted.
I also get a good feeling using film, developing and enlarging, it is something i can share time with my sons on.
I am not `anti' digital or `pro' film, each has pros and cons. For me the human interaction with film is actually quite important, going to the store for film or c41 process and the time spent talking ****e with the store guys is part of my enjoyment of film, just would not get this hiding away on the scanner. Each to his or her own though.
I also get a good feeling using film, developing and enlarging, it is something i can share time with my sons on.
I am not `anti' digital or `pro' film, each has pros and cons. For me the human interaction with film is actually quite important, going to the store for film or c41 process and the time spent talking ****e with the store guys is part of my enjoyment of film, just would not get this hiding away on the scanner. Each to his or her own though.
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
I shoot 35mm, 120 & 4x5 because that's what my cameras use...I don't own digital...at least not yet...never say never...
I will shoot film as long as I can...for now I'm not even interested in digital...
I get my color negs developed and scanned...
I process my own B&W film and prints in a home based darkroom...
If I had to do it again I would go with film...for as long as I can get film and film cameras...
It really isn't the camera as much as it's photography and for now film photography...
Last edited:
peterm1
Veteran
Speaking as one who came late to digital imaging - I held out for years - I have to now say that I am now a convert to digital.
For me at least, the advantages of digital are great enough that I can only seldom bring myself to shoot film seriously - although I am nostalgic enough to still own most if not all of my film cameras. Having said this I now have to qualify it. There was a time when I was a gear head. Pure and simple. And that is one reason I loved film cameras - they were fun and still are to sime extent. I suspect many people on this forum are still in this space. But I have changed and for me, now, all that matters really - ALL THAT MATTERS is the final imaging result.
Put simply the reason is that digital has made me a better photographer. I have never been a "spray and pray" kind of shooter and even now with digital I count every shot - a hang over to the days when every time I pressed the button it cost me money. But perhaps because I am thoughtful about what I shoot and when, this combined with instant feedback you get from digital allows me to learn. And this has made me a more competent photographer.
And because I have never had the luxury of a darkroom in the analogue world I was never able to do much with the images I shot. I am now much more able to post process than before. Previously, what I saw in the slide or negative/print was pretty much what I got. Now as I have a digital image from the outset I can post process in Photoshop or whatever graphics software I happen to choose and get a much more professional (and more importantly, interesting) final result. OK I could do this with scanned film but I am still not convinced it gives a better outcome. (As stated above it certainly gives a more expensive outcome.)
And I must admit I get as much of a "kick" from post processing and producing something different and beautiful from the raw unprocessed image as I imagine those able to do the same in the analogue world might be.
So I have made the change to the dark side and I do not regret it. I am more comfortable with my photography and produce more keepers than ever before and whilst I understand that some stick with film for their own reasons (and thats OK) its just not for me any more. At least not at this stage of my development as a photographer.
One final point - some claim that film based photogrpahy gives you something tangible in your hand that you can keep and use as a backup. True but I always back up my digital images at least twice so there is little chance of it disappearing totally.
And when I shot film I had boxes and boxes and boxes of negatives and prints that I never did anything with and which were ultimately thrown out when they became just too many to handle. Not to mention the dozens of films that never got processed at all because there was only half a roll of images on them and it "just was not worth it".
For me at least, the advantages of digital are great enough that I can only seldom bring myself to shoot film seriously - although I am nostalgic enough to still own most if not all of my film cameras. Having said this I now have to qualify it. There was a time when I was a gear head. Pure and simple. And that is one reason I loved film cameras - they were fun and still are to sime extent. I suspect many people on this forum are still in this space. But I have changed and for me, now, all that matters really - ALL THAT MATTERS is the final imaging result.
Put simply the reason is that digital has made me a better photographer. I have never been a "spray and pray" kind of shooter and even now with digital I count every shot - a hang over to the days when every time I pressed the button it cost me money. But perhaps because I am thoughtful about what I shoot and when, this combined with instant feedback you get from digital allows me to learn. And this has made me a more competent photographer.
And because I have never had the luxury of a darkroom in the analogue world I was never able to do much with the images I shot. I am now much more able to post process than before. Previously, what I saw in the slide or negative/print was pretty much what I got. Now as I have a digital image from the outset I can post process in Photoshop or whatever graphics software I happen to choose and get a much more professional (and more importantly, interesting) final result. OK I could do this with scanned film but I am still not convinced it gives a better outcome. (As stated above it certainly gives a more expensive outcome.)
And I must admit I get as much of a "kick" from post processing and producing something different and beautiful from the raw unprocessed image as I imagine those able to do the same in the analogue world might be.
So I have made the change to the dark side and I do not regret it. I am more comfortable with my photography and produce more keepers than ever before and whilst I understand that some stick with film for their own reasons (and thats OK) its just not for me any more. At least not at this stage of my development as a photographer.
One final point - some claim that film based photogrpahy gives you something tangible in your hand that you can keep and use as a backup. True but I always back up my digital images at least twice so there is little chance of it disappearing totally.
And when I shot film I had boxes and boxes and boxes of negatives and prints that I never did anything with and which were ultimately thrown out when they became just too many to handle. Not to mention the dozens of films that never got processed at all because there was only half a roll of images on them and it "just was not worth it".
Last edited:
stupid leica
i don't shoot rf
1) because there are so many fun film cameras
2) i will shoot film as long as i can afford to do so, and possibly after haha
3) develop/scan
4) are you saying if a D700 cost the same as an FE2, or an FE2 cost the same as a D700? Equipment costs are not and will not be the same for both. Apples and oranges.
5) i am attracted to cheap, rugged, reliable, and fun to use cameras. I don't care if they are film or digital, i will shoot whatever satisfies me most.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I shoot b/w and enjoy processing film especially when I hold the neg up against the light to see if I had screwed up. Seeing the image there is still magical to me. Nothing against digital and I just traded some stuff for a DMR so we'll see.
amateriat
We're all light!
Wow...a lot of comments here, virtually all of them good (regardless of opinion).
To paraphrase a long-ago Steve Jobs quote (regarding Apple's fortunes versus Microsoft's), in order to fully embrace film, I don't have to hate digital. To that end, I have, and use, two quite capable digital cameras, respective of their categories (Olympus C-8080 and Casio EX-680), and they get used a good deal for certain projects. In these instances, I don't fret about the lack of a "film look", because what I'm literally shooting for is what digital does very, very well: expediency. Turn-around. This is a quantitative thing.
On the qualitative front, I reach for film. Yes, you can do the qualitative thing via digital as well, but at a certain point, it's going to cost. There's also the matter of frequently-changing hard/software, among other things (I have a few ideas for some hopefully-interesting threads on this stuff, so stay tuned). But film, plain and simple, is what I've known since Dog-knows when. I know how far to push it, and (usually) when to pull back. Post-shoot digital technology, interestingly enough, gives me the tools to often dig deeper into the negative or slide, and make prints that were previously a major hat-trick to pull off. So, digital, in fact, really does have advantages. But the process, around 85% of the time for me, starts with film.
The reasons abound. The cameras are far more straightforward. The characteristics of film are largely known to me, so there are few "surprises." (I don't buy into the "mystery" of film, only its potential beauty, which is absolutely there if you're paying attention.) The cameras are light-years away from their digital counterparts in terms of straightforwardness of operation. (The first camera I bought with my own money, decades ago, was a Canon F-1; the thing that really got me about that camera was how elemental it was, but built like a scientific instrument.) And, I can move from one camera to another, and even across formats; if it requires film to get going, I can get to grips with it.
(Think about it: what happened the last time you needed to use, say, someone else's cell phone, let alone their digital camera? I rest my case.)
Digital cameras do a goodly amount of things well, and a few things better than anything else. But, to paraphrase a Ralph Gibson remark, they tend to excel mostly at things that don't matter to me. For that reason, among others, film still matters to me. A lot.
Company desk, Fall 2000 (That's a printed cut-out over my Hex AF's lens, BTW; no PS BS)
- Barrett
To paraphrase a long-ago Steve Jobs quote (regarding Apple's fortunes versus Microsoft's), in order to fully embrace film, I don't have to hate digital. To that end, I have, and use, two quite capable digital cameras, respective of their categories (Olympus C-8080 and Casio EX-680), and they get used a good deal for certain projects. In these instances, I don't fret about the lack of a "film look", because what I'm literally shooting for is what digital does very, very well: expediency. Turn-around. This is a quantitative thing.
On the qualitative front, I reach for film. Yes, you can do the qualitative thing via digital as well, but at a certain point, it's going to cost. There's also the matter of frequently-changing hard/software, among other things (I have a few ideas for some hopefully-interesting threads on this stuff, so stay tuned). But film, plain and simple, is what I've known since Dog-knows when. I know how far to push it, and (usually) when to pull back. Post-shoot digital technology, interestingly enough, gives me the tools to often dig deeper into the negative or slide, and make prints that were previously a major hat-trick to pull off. So, digital, in fact, really does have advantages. But the process, around 85% of the time for me, starts with film.
The reasons abound. The cameras are far more straightforward. The characteristics of film are largely known to me, so there are few "surprises." (I don't buy into the "mystery" of film, only its potential beauty, which is absolutely there if you're paying attention.) The cameras are light-years away from their digital counterparts in terms of straightforwardness of operation. (The first camera I bought with my own money, decades ago, was a Canon F-1; the thing that really got me about that camera was how elemental it was, but built like a scientific instrument.) And, I can move from one camera to another, and even across formats; if it requires film to get going, I can get to grips with it.
(Think about it: what happened the last time you needed to use, say, someone else's cell phone, let alone their digital camera? I rest my case.)
Digital cameras do a goodly amount of things well, and a few things better than anything else. But, to paraphrase a Ralph Gibson remark, they tend to excel mostly at things that don't matter to me. For that reason, among others, film still matters to me. A lot.
Company desk, Fall 2000 (That's a printed cut-out over my Hex AF's lens, BTW; no PS BS)
- Barrett
Last edited:
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I still hadn't figured out all the things on my last cell phone after two years, then it broke. The new one has a camera. It would make more sense to make a digital camera that can function as a cell phone.
amateriat
We're all light!
I'd thought about that one...but think about the funny looks you'd always get every time you made or took a call!
- Barrett
Ranchu
Veteran
I've recently turned away from digital, to film. Shot it for years, agonizing over it's odd color. Finally decided why such slavery in front of the screen? Just didn't seem like I ever got even close to what I was wanting from it. My favorite pics I've taken are on film, so I'm back. Resentful of the time and toil digital ate.
Tonality, shadow transitions, grain, skin tones, highlights, ahh...
Tonality, shadow transitions, grain, skin tones, highlights, ahh...