Chavo
Member
I love using film and still shoot slide film and B&W. The computer is for playing World of Warcraft! Not Photoshop.😀
why still film? For how long?
- Thread starter funbear
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 193
- Views 23K
btgc
Veteran
Yesterday I spent a time with camera repairman I know. While we sat for chat, his chap dropped in, asking for advice - after he replaced his DSLR with another model, AF started to hunt with certain lens. Not so with old camera. Canon people advised him to use Canon lenses "for trouble-free shooting". Not what he expected to hear. He has discovered front-focusing issue, too, with certain lens. So he is going to try several upgrades/downgrades of firmware to see if some version solves problem as it has happened before. As last resort he will visit service center. Seasoned photographer remembered good old days when he used Canon AE-1, FTb, then AF models never dealing with any serious problems. Starting from 350D he is struggling with minor and major issues, though he can't use film anymore for commercial work - he would be out of business in a month or two.
This is not blame digital or particularly Canon (both film and digital gear have their issues, and any makes can go wrong) though this is thing which scares me, kind of. Film gear - I can fix it myself or replace for peanuts while digital makes me totally dependant on computer technicians.
This for sure does not work if you use expensive film gear.
This is not blame digital or particularly Canon (both film and digital gear have their issues, and any makes can go wrong) though this is thing which scares me, kind of. Film gear - I can fix it myself or replace for peanuts while digital makes me totally dependant on computer technicians.
This for sure does not work if you use expensive film gear.
KM-25
Well-known
Last night, I shot some 7 rolls of Kodachrome 64 in Times Square. The place was packed, the evening light bounced off of the buildings like a giant studio, is was spectacular. The faces, the expressions, how could one possibly look down at the back of a camera even for a moment when the moment one could miss could be the one of a lifetime?
I got into a rhythm, a swagger of technical and awareness confidence that had me simply *knowing* I was getting the shots I wanted because I stayed in the game without having the option of even looking at the back of the camera. That makes a huge, huge difference for me when I shoot.
You can work really hard to re-create the sound of a piano using a keyboard or even "GarageBand" with a mac, but why do that when a piano does not need batteries and is simply "The" piano?
The more I use film and film cameras, the more I realize that film IS photography and that digital is not for me. The reason for this is that photography is my life and therefore is like life. And in that, it is not always the destination but the journey you took to get there.
And when I walked around the International Center of Photography before heading to Times Square last night, I look at Avedon's work and realized that there will never be photographers like this again, because there will seldom be photographers who not only overcame the limits of film, but truly played off of them in a grand crescendo. Digital does not place limits on the user, so the limits to play off of are simply gone, as are the brilliant mistakes, the delete button takes care of all of that.
A mediocre photographer with a digital camera and photoshop will never even come close to the brilliance of the best film photographers, ever....
I got into a rhythm, a swagger of technical and awareness confidence that had me simply *knowing* I was getting the shots I wanted because I stayed in the game without having the option of even looking at the back of the camera. That makes a huge, huge difference for me when I shoot.
You can work really hard to re-create the sound of a piano using a keyboard or even "GarageBand" with a mac, but why do that when a piano does not need batteries and is simply "The" piano?
The more I use film and film cameras, the more I realize that film IS photography and that digital is not for me. The reason for this is that photography is my life and therefore is like life. And in that, it is not always the destination but the journey you took to get there.
And when I walked around the International Center of Photography before heading to Times Square last night, I look at Avedon's work and realized that there will never be photographers like this again, because there will seldom be photographers who not only overcame the limits of film, but truly played off of them in a grand crescendo. Digital does not place limits on the user, so the limits to play off of are simply gone, as are the brilliant mistakes, the delete button takes care of all of that.
A mediocre photographer with a digital camera and photoshop will never even come close to the brilliance of the best film photographers, ever....
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
A mediocre photographer with a digital camera and photoshop will never even come close to the brilliance of the best film photographers, ever....
not making much sense here, to me anyway...
would a mediocre film photographer come close to the brilliance of the best film photographers??
joe
not making much sense here, to me anyway...
would a mediocre film photographer come close to the brilliance of the best film photographers??
joe
Tuolumne
Veteran
KM-25,
How do you hand hold KR64 at night, even in Times Square with a fast lens? One of the things I like about digital is that when the sun goes down, you just twist the ISO button and you're good to go.
/T
How do you hand hold KR64 at night, even in Times Square with a fast lens? One of the things I like about digital is that when the sun goes down, you just twist the ISO button and you're good to go.
/T
I think Dan meant to write something like "A talented photographer with a digital camera and photoshop will never even come close to the brilliance of the best film photographers, ever...." but I may be wrong. 🙂
brachal
Refrigerated User
I use film because I enjoy the feel of my film cameras. I like old lenses. If Leica came out with a 10MP "Leica IIIf-D" I'd be there in a heartbeat. I would pay good money for a Fed-2 Digital Back. I get no pleasure at all from using my wife's D200. Too many buttons, menus, and that God-awful screen. And it's HUGE! Sometimes I make monkey noises when she and her friends start chimping. I don't know how I get away with that ...
I guess I'll stop using film, and my beloved all-manual analog cameras, when film becomes too hard to get or too hard to have processed.
I guess I'll stop using film, and my beloved all-manual analog cameras, when film becomes too hard to get or too hard to have processed.
KM-25
Well-known
You play off of the strengths of the limits, use strobes, use blur effect, brace, you just keep on shooting that way you may end up with an effect that is unexpected. This was 1/25th at 1.4:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23585735@N06/3237355978/sizes/o/in/set-72157613088832861/
Fun tidbit from Kodak on film: http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/kodak_film_is_far_from_dead_news_271594.html
Another viewpoint, recent too:
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/essay-slow-photography-in-an-instantaneous-age/
I understand why digital is great, but personally, at this point, I have been using it for 15 years and since it needs a computer to even be printed out or looked at, I think it is a bunch of crap and has not done much to teach people about photography, life or light quality.
I can't pay my electric bill with my enlarger, I can't order a T.V. with my paper safe but I can do all of that and more with my computer, including photography so what is special in that?
Why do *every* bloody thing in life on a computer? Because it is easier?
No, I want to get away from the thing, I want to live the photographic life, live life for that matter and I don't think all of that should be done on a computer.
But what do I know?...I am just a photographer.
A photographer who makes a great living off of taking pictures and has a meeting with a famous film company about a well known film project next month...🙂.
To each his own, but as far as I am concerned, digital was dead before it was ever alive...
Windscale
Well-known
Definitely film for me.
With film, I think before I shoot. With digital, I shoot before I think (as memory cards are so cheap these days).
With digital, even X million megapixels, shadow details can never compare with films. AN imitation of the real thing is never the same as the real thing!
But digital sooner or later, as in less than 10 years time, I will probably bearly be able to handhold a small digital P/S with DIS. But in the meantime, film will go on for as long as I will still be fit.
With film, I think before I shoot. With digital, I shoot before I think (as memory cards are so cheap these days).
With digital, even X million megapixels, shadow details can never compare with films. AN imitation of the real thing is never the same as the real thing!
But digital sooner or later, as in less than 10 years time, I will probably bearly be able to handhold a small digital P/S with DIS. But in the meantime, film will go on for as long as I will still be fit.
Jodorowsky
Well-known
Film
Film
When I know I'm going to a situation where the M8's sensor and Summilux won't cut it, I simply load my Konica Hexar AF with Ilford 3200, and away I go!
Film
When I know I'm going to a situation where the M8's sensor and Summilux won't cut it, I simply load my Konica Hexar AF with Ilford 3200, and away I go!
venchka
Veteran
Forever! And then longer!
Forever! And then longer!
I don't stop at 35mm format. 120/220/4x5. It's all good.
Rangefinder-35mm & 4x5, SLR (35mm & 120/220), 4x5 ground glass. It's all good.
Print both ways.
Zeros and ones can't tell the whole story.
Forever! And then longer!
I don't stop at 35mm format. 120/220/4x5. It's all good.
Rangefinder-35mm & 4x5, SLR (35mm & 120/220), 4x5 ground glass. It's all good.
Print both ways.
Zeros and ones can't tell the whole story.
Jason808
Established
I shoot film only if I want a look quicker than I can accomplish with digital, and because I can't afford/not willing to pay that kind of money for an M8 or RD1. And I'll concede B&W is still film's domain. But, some of the Nik suite and printing technology is negating that advantage rapidly. If Cosina makes a digital Bessa at 12MP under 1000 dollars, I'll probably never look at film again.
It's an interesting thread, and the image is most important however you get there. But I think some of the arguments against digital being presented as absolutes are beginning to sound more dated and sentimental than factual. I'll just stop there.
It's an interesting thread, and the image is most important however you get there. But I think some of the arguments against digital being presented as absolutes are beginning to sound more dated and sentimental than factual. I'll just stop there.
Last edited:
funbear
Newbie
[SIZE=+2][FONT=Courier New, Courier, monospace]> [/FONT][/SIZE]But I think some of the arguments against digital being presented as absolutes are beginning to sound more dated and sentimental than factual
i agree with this Jason.... anti digital arguments get dated very fast in this high tech world. I think several previous posters summed it up best..... film wins for now, but they realize, with the right digital offering, they may never look back.
I think Voigtlander is the most likely company to integrate the 25MP sony chip into a Bessa type rangefinder, and that would be serious competition for film for rangefinder film users.... maybe even encroaching into some hardcore B&W film users. But, this market niche is small, not so sure this will happen anytime soon. We did not see Epson follow up on their digital rangefinder?
I concur with a few comments about digital... falling light, you are in trouble with ss, crank up the ISO... what an amazing feature. I think as higher ISO's continue to improve, it will represent another strong vote for digital.... even now, I marvel what they can do up to ISO 800 - 1600. Often speed makes all the difference in the final image, and there is no more efficient way to get speed than digital, at least in color. When shooting color film, speed is hard to achieve without significant image degradation. Hence why I always have one foot int the digital world anyway.....
I recently shot some KC 64 in my ZI, and when viewed in a stereo viewer.... this film showed its age. This may not be true with analog printing and digital manipulation, but compared to Fujis offerings, I can see why it's being discontinued. I am in love with Fuji Velvia 100, as well as Provia 100F and Astia 100F laying on a light box. This is the allure that attracted me to stereo.
Back lit images, appearing in the viewer as if you were viewing a 32x40" print at view distance equal to its diagonal.... hence why I sure hope film stays around, and remains priced where it's still somewhat affordable.... at some point, when volume drops further, the price must rise, and this might be the crossroads many of us fear, at least for color trannie film, IMO, the most vulnerable of all. This applies more to Fuji than Kodak, as Kodak dominates the Cine film trannie market.
For those who simply hate introducing a computer into their photography, more power to ya. No sarcasm intended.... Even though I feel different, I fully understand that position. What a chore, more to learn, more to upgrade, more gear you must keep buying, etc.... Keep it simple....
I envy those who keep all your focus on capture (excuse the pun).... for me, thats still the part I enjoy the most. Prior to digital, I never processed or printed film, I only concerned myself with capture. I liked those days.... now I do just about everything... spreads your time so thin....
i agree with this Jason.... anti digital arguments get dated very fast in this high tech world. I think several previous posters summed it up best..... film wins for now, but they realize, with the right digital offering, they may never look back.
I think Voigtlander is the most likely company to integrate the 25MP sony chip into a Bessa type rangefinder, and that would be serious competition for film for rangefinder film users.... maybe even encroaching into some hardcore B&W film users. But, this market niche is small, not so sure this will happen anytime soon. We did not see Epson follow up on their digital rangefinder?
I concur with a few comments about digital... falling light, you are in trouble with ss, crank up the ISO... what an amazing feature. I think as higher ISO's continue to improve, it will represent another strong vote for digital.... even now, I marvel what they can do up to ISO 800 - 1600. Often speed makes all the difference in the final image, and there is no more efficient way to get speed than digital, at least in color. When shooting color film, speed is hard to achieve without significant image degradation. Hence why I always have one foot int the digital world anyway.....
I recently shot some KC 64 in my ZI, and when viewed in a stereo viewer.... this film showed its age. This may not be true with analog printing and digital manipulation, but compared to Fujis offerings, I can see why it's being discontinued. I am in love with Fuji Velvia 100, as well as Provia 100F and Astia 100F laying on a light box. This is the allure that attracted me to stereo.
Back lit images, appearing in the viewer as if you were viewing a 32x40" print at view distance equal to its diagonal.... hence why I sure hope film stays around, and remains priced where it's still somewhat affordable.... at some point, when volume drops further, the price must rise, and this might be the crossroads many of us fear, at least for color trannie film, IMO, the most vulnerable of all. This applies more to Fuji than Kodak, as Kodak dominates the Cine film trannie market.
For those who simply hate introducing a computer into their photography, more power to ya. No sarcasm intended.... Even though I feel different, I fully understand that position. What a chore, more to learn, more to upgrade, more gear you must keep buying, etc.... Keep it simple....
I envy those who keep all your focus on capture (excuse the pun).... for me, thats still the part I enjoy the most. Prior to digital, I never processed or printed film, I only concerned myself with capture. I liked those days.... now I do just about everything... spreads your time so thin....
Al Kaplan
Veteran
The one thing about Kodachrome films is the long term stability of the dye image. They will fade from exposure to extremely bright light, such as frequent projection, but otherwise the colors remain vibrant for decades. Kodachromes from the 1930's and 1940's still have their color.
Here is how night shots were done in about 1951, I think that would be Kodachrome 10 at that time? And the scan was 56 years later...
maddoc
... likes film again.
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
Film. I'm better with it than with software.
M4cr0s
Back In Black
No-one is a lesser being...
No-one is a lesser being...
Interesting thread! Thanks for all the great responses and point of views expressed.
I'm primarly a diginut, computers are my life and I've built them, abused them, pushed them and killed them for many years now. I did not really get into photography untill recently and went digital first, and very recently, 35mm film.
First of all, I'm pretty concerned with the tactile properties of cameras and equipment and how it feels is important to me. I do love my Nikon D90, the way it feels, the heavy hand-filling body/grip obviously designed with comfort and secure grip in mind. It feels great, every time I pick it up I feel like I'm one with the machine.
Yet...I also have some old film cameras, and I've always loved their look and the tactile feel of the mix of cold metal and that black stuff their bodies tend to be partically covered with. These are things that feels like they are made to last (their shutters don't neccessarily). No plasticy modern "cheap" feeling. That said, the plastic will probably look almost like new in 50 years (internals will be long dead of course) with no brassing, corrosion or rust.
Now, I have to point out that the D90 is every bit as well-constructed, thought through and superbly engineered (probably even moreso, it's a much more complicated machine) as an old classic SLR or rangefinder. It is a product of this era and it shows. I love the menus, the buttons, the many choices and the option of personalizing many aspects of the cameras function.
As for practical properties of film and digital. The dark room only intrerests me as far as getting good negatives that can be scanned in as high resolution as possible. I do appreciate working with my hands with wood and metal and come from a family with traditions in this area, thus I can perfectly well understand the pleasure those who know the ins and out of the darkroom gets from their handwork. It's not for me though, I must admit I find digital much more flexible. What I, with a limited skill, can do with those RAW-files in post processing is completely and utterly amazing. Yes it do require time, but then again I can take one RAW and give it all kinds of different looks, modifications and enhancements. Some of this can be done in the darkroom, but it requires equipment, knowledge and experience that is not always so easily obtained. I hate the fact that many "luddites" look down on digital work, not only in terms of film but in general. Digital handwork is every bit as honourable (and demanding) as analouge, but it is a very different process and sadly underappreciated by many, especially those with more years under their belt.
Now, with all this praise of digital expressed, I must mention that what I really like about film and using those old cameras, is the fact that the image making process itself with these machines, make me slow down, think things through and work in a much more sedate pace. So, for me shooting film, is simply a part of my quest of becomming a better photographer. I want to learn a bit of the film "zen" and work some of it into my digital image making process.
Finaly, there's one aspect that is totaly deal breaking for me. Price. I'm frankly not that well off financially and will probably remain so for the rest of my life due to disease. I can not possibly afford to shoot truckloads of film, even if I'd set up a minimal makeshift darkroom and do my own B&W and scan the neg's at home. With digital I can shoot with almost no consideration to the cost after the initial purchase is made. Dynamic range, grain, tonal qualities can't match that simple fact.
I think it's great that people still do film to the extent they do, and nothing makes me smile more than a guy with an old camera. Hopefully film will survive and remain available for a great many years, but seriously, no-one is a lesser being for choosing to use either medium to capture their images.
Go with peace, everyone 😉
/Mac
No-one is a lesser being...
Interesting thread! Thanks for all the great responses and point of views expressed.
I'm primarly a diginut, computers are my life and I've built them, abused them, pushed them and killed them for many years now. I did not really get into photography untill recently and went digital first, and very recently, 35mm film.
First of all, I'm pretty concerned with the tactile properties of cameras and equipment and how it feels is important to me. I do love my Nikon D90, the way it feels, the heavy hand-filling body/grip obviously designed with comfort and secure grip in mind. It feels great, every time I pick it up I feel like I'm one with the machine.
Yet...I also have some old film cameras, and I've always loved their look and the tactile feel of the mix of cold metal and that black stuff their bodies tend to be partically covered with. These are things that feels like they are made to last (their shutters don't neccessarily). No plasticy modern "cheap" feeling. That said, the plastic will probably look almost like new in 50 years (internals will be long dead of course) with no brassing, corrosion or rust.
Now, I have to point out that the D90 is every bit as well-constructed, thought through and superbly engineered (probably even moreso, it's a much more complicated machine) as an old classic SLR or rangefinder. It is a product of this era and it shows. I love the menus, the buttons, the many choices and the option of personalizing many aspects of the cameras function.
As for practical properties of film and digital. The dark room only intrerests me as far as getting good negatives that can be scanned in as high resolution as possible. I do appreciate working with my hands with wood and metal and come from a family with traditions in this area, thus I can perfectly well understand the pleasure those who know the ins and out of the darkroom gets from their handwork. It's not for me though, I must admit I find digital much more flexible. What I, with a limited skill, can do with those RAW-files in post processing is completely and utterly amazing. Yes it do require time, but then again I can take one RAW and give it all kinds of different looks, modifications and enhancements. Some of this can be done in the darkroom, but it requires equipment, knowledge and experience that is not always so easily obtained. I hate the fact that many "luddites" look down on digital work, not only in terms of film but in general. Digital handwork is every bit as honourable (and demanding) as analouge, but it is a very different process and sadly underappreciated by many, especially those with more years under their belt.
Now, with all this praise of digital expressed, I must mention that what I really like about film and using those old cameras, is the fact that the image making process itself with these machines, make me slow down, think things through and work in a much more sedate pace. So, for me shooting film, is simply a part of my quest of becomming a better photographer. I want to learn a bit of the film "zen" and work some of it into my digital image making process.
Finaly, there's one aspect that is totaly deal breaking for me. Price. I'm frankly not that well off financially and will probably remain so for the rest of my life due to disease. I can not possibly afford to shoot truckloads of film, even if I'd set up a minimal makeshift darkroom and do my own B&W and scan the neg's at home. With digital I can shoot with almost no consideration to the cost after the initial purchase is made. Dynamic range, grain, tonal qualities can't match that simple fact.
I think it's great that people still do film to the extent they do, and nothing makes me smile more than a guy with an old camera. Hopefully film will survive and remain available for a great many years, but seriously, no-one is a lesser being for choosing to use either medium to capture their images.
Go with peace, everyone 😉
/Mac
Tuolumne
Veteran
My digital images look just as bright and colorful today as the day I made them "x" years ago. 😀
/T
/T
dfoo
Well-known
You have digital pictures from 1950? 😉