why still film? For how long?

i love the discipline of film cameras give me. it forces me to think twice, even thrice, and forces me to learn the light, composition and everything just so i get a perfect shot for me at least. learning film takes time and money, but the satisfaction you get at the end of the day is priceless.

but im not closing my doors on digital. im planning to get a D90 for some of other photographic persuits for the convenience of it, but i will never leave film, just because film is film.. it doesnt get any better than that.
 
My Leicas love me. My Omega B-22XL and I have been partners for 45 years now, my Kodak Precision (6.5x9 cm) enlarger was already old when we met about 1968. I like the look of silver gelatin prints from silver gelatin negatives, my hands and fingers know how to create some mighty complex shapes and shadows for burning in and dodging. "If it ain't broke why fix it?" So I shoot film.
 
It's a computer thing with me.....

It's a computer thing with me.....

At my age (66), and having worked for the last 20 years consulting, building and teching on computers/software, I'm not eager to spend the rest of my life 25% shooting and 75% post processing.

Of course, considering my background, I have tried digital image capture, starting with a very early Logitech camera that was probably .1 megapixel, if that. OTOH, I have shot film for over 40 years and still do. I've had a number of digital P/S, plus a half dozen DSLR's.

Why??? I'm still looking for a digital camera that will produce an image as sharp and well focused as a film camera... WITH NO POST PROCESSING WHATSOEVER!!!

Granted, I could capture many more images for the time spent out shooting, but that only translates into a relatively larger amount of time on the computer, sorting out good from mediochre from bad. The begin the many tedious hours of Post Processing....UGH!

There have been decades of incredible image generation hanging on the walls of homes, offices, galleries and museums from film.

It would be interesting to know how much more time spent at computer keyboards, attempting to create images in print that match what we've enjoyed from film.... 1 to 1.

So, still shooting film while waiting for that elusive digital camera that will shoot an image I can blow up to 20 x 30 inches, suitable for framing and hanging, with no more than 20 minutes spent at the computer.

Finally, knowing the computer industry as I do, I am also convinced that the manufacturers could give us that camera right now, but in the interest of self-preservation, they are going to continue to suck the money from our wallets with marginal upgrades forever, or as long as we sucker up to the "newest and bestest" trough.
 
Last edited:
Here are my reasons:
-Avoiding the upgrade cycle: got my first digital camera in 1999 for about $900. Quality and performance was obviously eh, but I forged ahead anyway, shooting 20,000 frames on it. I think suffering early digital left a distrust for the format, that users are constantly paying for r&d.

-Avoiding digital look: A large percentage of digital photos look like /very nice/ video frame grabs. There's obviously a lot of discussion about this topic on RFF.

-Having something physical: I've lost (backed-up, but not double backed-up) digital photos before. Unless you are really serious and vigilant, you will lose data. The general public isn't aware that digital requires much more effort on their part for storage and archiving than film did. I still have access to shoe boxes of negatives and photos from my great-grandparents, it's a better preservation method, even if it is inconvenient and seems messy. Also much of what I do for a living is digital, it's nice to have one thing that's physical.

-The cameras: There are some digital cameras with amazing performance and features. There's one problem, as designed objects, they are generally ugly, bland and soulless. The Leica M vs. a DSRL is driving a mid-60s Mustang vs. a 1994 Ford Taurus. I'm not talking about the camera as a fashion accessory, but in the way it feels in the hand, the controls work. When you see the thing on your desk, are you glad to put it on your neck or feel a little obligation?
 
Since my M8 purchase two years ago I haven't used film since. The reason is the "RAW" results can be seen faster – and chimping is far easier than waiting a week or slides.

However, there is substantially more information on a 35mm piece of cellulite (scanned to a digital file on a high-end scanner) compared to an uncompressed capture with a 10 megapixel M8 camera.

Therefore, the highest quality images still begin with film.
 
I wonder how many people who say they don't like spending hours post-processing use RAW instead of JPG format? I have almost always shot JPG and spend less than 30 seconds/shot post-processing my images in Picasa. (It will be longer if there is something special I want to achieve. That's not what I'm talking about. I just mean getting a good image to print or display online.) I spend much more time "post processing" film, because I scan it and then have to futz with it to make it look right. So, film is much more processing intensive for me than digital.

/T
 
The Case for Film

The Case for Film

1. Ability to upgrade film as film technology improves.The quality of film overall has improved tremedously even in the last 20 years, not to mention the last 50 or 80 years. I put modern film in a 50 year old camera and get outstanding images. Just because I'm using an older camera doesn't mean I am required to use old film. As digital technology improves, you must buy a new camera to take advantage of it.

2. Low cost choice to shoot wide angles.
Since the sensor size of a DSLR is smaller than that of 35mm film, all images are effective croped in the center. So a 24mm focal length gives a similar field of view to a 35mm and 15mm lens acts like a 22 mm focal length.
As lenses get wider they are harder to design and are often slower. So if you want a the same field of view as 35mm focal length, you need to get a more expensive and slower lens. A 35mm f/2 lens is not very expensive. To get the same field of view, you will need a 24/2, when would be expensive if not impossible to find, or a 24/4 which is substaintailly slower. Your other alternative is to get a full frame DSLR, which start at $3000 for the body alone.

To get to 35mm:
Digital = Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 + Nikkor D40 = $360 + $400 = $760
Film = Voigtlander 35mm f/2.5 + Bessa R = $240 + $200 = $440

To get to 21mm:
Digital = Nikkor 14mm f/2.8 + Nikon D40 = $1630 + $500 = $2130
Digital = Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 + Nikon D700 = $560 + $2600 = $3160
Film = Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 + Bessa R2m = $1100 + $560 = $1660
Film, used = Voigtlander 21mm f/4 + Bessa L = $300 + $100 = $400 (While used and a stop slower, it is still an available choice).

3. Low cost choice for lower volume shooters
Digital = A Nikon D40 with kit lens = $550
Film, new = A Vivitar V3800N with kit lens = $170.
Film, used (keh.com) = Pentax MZ30 with 28-105 lens = $77

I can buy and develop Kodak Gold film for $6.50 for a roll of 36. That means that I can take a roll a month for 5 years, equal the cost of the D40.

4. Negative film has better exposure latitude
The exposure latitude for digital is limited. Overexposure leads to blown out highlights, especially with long exposure night shots. Negative film has much greater exposure latitude.

5. Low cost choice for large prints
While 10 MP can print a quality 8x10, it still can't get much larger. 35mm film can reliably go to at least 11x14, while medium format can go significantly larger. A medium format digital SLR costs the same as a nice car, while a medium format film camera will be under $2000.

6. You still can get a digital image from film.
I don't shun the digital world. I scan a lot of my photos. An Espon V300 goes for $100.

7. The digital image scanned from film can improve as technology improves.
I've been scanning photos I took 10 years ago. The resulting digital image. If I had taken a digital photo, I would stuck with the digital image.

8. Paying a small amount for each image may make you shoot with more care.
This is more of a personal choice of how I act with a digital camera and not everyone may not feel the same. Since a digital shot is "free", I often tend take a very high amount of photos. I get 500 poorly composed photos of the same thing. All the photos stay on the camera and I never delete them or print them. It's like I take a machine gun approach when a sniper's approach is favorable.
 
I am less focused on the end result and more so on the process of getting there. I much prefer using a film camera, spending more time on each shot, and not filling my hard drive with shots I will never look at again.

It is like asking why do you prefer paint to charcoal? Sometimes it is for the look, but the style and technique going into the art is very important. The rangefinder versus other film camera question has a similar answer, but I do use an SLR. I'd like to try an R-D1 with the screen always closed.

I currently shoot color films and scan, but will wet print once my darkroom becomes available again. At some point I will hopefully build my own.

The equipment being stolen scenario you offer is somewhat vague. If someone offered me a new hassleblad with a digital back for the price of a Nikon SLR I would probably take it, but I picked an M6 over a D300.
 
I prefer to work in B+W or with K64. I prefer the look of my images in those films much, much more than in digital. I scan merely for the web, never to print digitally, as for me the wet print is a more satisfying end than a computer generated print. I think for me part of the satisfaction comes from the process itself.
I am fairly knowledgeable about computing with digital imagery, but I just prefer the analogue processing of images.
 
Tuolumne said:
I spend much more time "post processing" film, because I scan it and then have to futz with it to make it look right. So, film is much more processing intensive for me than digital.
Click to expand...

My film is scanned at the lab and is pretty much ready to go. Scans are 50mb opened in Photoshop, half frames are 35mb. Res of 17mp and 12mp respectively.

wf1.jpg
 
A couple of more thoughts re: previous posts,
I agree with regard to post processing taking longer with film than with digital. I always seem to have to tweak and fix film shots more. Digital I just convert my Raw files with NX2, takes 30 secs once i've picked a picture control to use. If I want a black and white I convert with Alien skin and I've had more than one person comment on the great tonality and ask what film and developer I've used!
As for using wides, use full frame.
10MP is at it's limit at 10x8. I'm sorry but that's nonsense. I've had 20x16's from my 6MP D70 that are indistinguishable from my 35mm film cameras. In fact I did a portrait session with both and the sitter preferred the digital prints at 20x16 sizing.
Costs, c'mon, I know in this world economy we are all pleading poverty but there's still plenty on this forum pouring their hard earned into some very expensive hardware to enjoy the passion for taking pictures we all have.
Clogging up hard drives with files? I've got a bookcase and filing cabinets full of 35mm neg sheets, each one containing probably no more than 10 (if i'm lucky) keepers out of a 36 roll. On the other hand i've got 4 external drives with close to 30,000 images on them and I know which option my better half prefers!
I'm not wishing to fuel a digital v. film debate here, rather, to suggest that the choice of equipement really doesn't matter as long as the end results give you and others enjoyment.
ps i'm hanging on to one M2 and my lenses!
 
think of it this way... remember the girlfriend that made you crazy, even if you knew it wouldn't last... that is how it is with film, there is something *magical* in it that you don't get from digital... even if it is mostly in your head... do you want the excitement of being in love or a practical wife? I always side with being in love... which explains why my life is such a mess... but I wouldn't trade it for my friend's... who married the dull practical wife.
 
digitalintrigue said:
My film is scanned at the lab and is pretty much ready to go. Scans are 50mb opened in Photoshop, half frames are 35mb. Res of 17mp and 12mp respectively.
Which lab does your processing and scanning? I have never, repeat NEVER, been satisfied with any commercial processors scans of my films/chromes.

/T
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
funbear said:
I am curious why most of you still elect to shoot 35mm film?

Do you think you will continue with film, or are you on the fence with digital now ?

Do you scan your film, or darkroom print from your film?

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

Is it the rangefinder camera you are most attracted to, or is it film in general?

This would probably make an interesting poll....
Click to expand...


I elect to use film (35mm 120 or 4x5) because that's what my cameras eat...
Not trying to "Be Smart" but just stating facts...all my cameras use film...

I will use film as long as they make and sell it...not yet even thinking about going digital...

C-41 gets developed and scanned...All B&W I do at home and still wet print...I so enjoy the whole B&W process and feel it's a big part of my photography experience...

If I had to replace my gear I would stick with film...

It's NOT the camera (for the most part) but "Seeing" and "Photographing" that which catches my eye...Looking for Light...
 
This is an excellent thread ... lots of passion but no anger! 😛

One thing that amazes me about film is that often a mistake whether it be in the darkroom or behind the lens can turn out to be a positive. You can often finish up with something you hadn't intended when you think of a way to get around your error and still come up with an image that is pleasing to your eye.

When I'm shooting with my M8, and I have to confess to being a bit of a chimper in tricky light, if I see an image that is badly over or under exposed it's gone ... I delete it instantly and don't want to have to look at it again later on my hard drive.

But I'll spend hours working on an over or under exposed negative if I think there is potential there for something out of the ordinary! 🙂
 
Which lab does your processing and scanning? I have never, repeat NEVER, been satisfied with any commercial processors scans of my films/chromes.
Click to expand...

I've been VERY pleased with this lab. The last half frame roll of Velvia had 78 frames -- no extra charge for half frame scans. Never scratches, never dust. They don't use automated roller-transport minilab processors, everything is dip and dunk.
 
I like the “look” of film.
I like the mood it gives you.
I like it’s unpredictability.
I like that it’s not easy to get right.
I like that it can give pictures of timelessness.

The notion of rawness and feeling that all elements find it's own place in a single click is what I love. It's one chance, one moment and even when mistakes are made it is all real.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom