why still film? For how long?

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 ?
Click to expand...

I will continue with film until it is no longer a viable option.

Do you scan your film, or darkroom print from your film?
Click to expand...
I don't have the space/$$$ for a darkroom w/enlarger so I just dev & scan.

If equipment cost was equal for both, and you had to re purchase gear after a theft, would it be film or digital?
Click to expand...
Film. No digital.

Is it the rangefinder camera you are most attracted to, or is it film in general?
Click to expand...
Both. Lots of great films and tons of really interesting film cameras out there: folders, boxes, TLRs, RFs, half-frame, LF, etc.

Digital has it's place, but not with me. I shot digital for 5 years and got tired of playing the Upgrade Game.
 
I'm still just learning photography so here's my two cents. I like the results I get from film, but I also use a digital P&S. I just cannot bring myself to buying a dslr, even though there are many advantages with cost being the major concern for me. But I just cannot bring myself to switch over to digital, yet. Perhaps eventually down the line I'll go for it, if film is no longer a viable alternative.

I also just wanted to say that setting up a darkroom may not be as costly as some people are making it out to be, provided that we're getting used equipment and doing it on the cheap. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
I like shooting film, but I am very time poor.For me digital wins that battle by a country mile. Incrasingly I tink that all my film future will be black and white, but I keep getting sucked into the odd roll of Portra or Ektar.

Mike
 
Merciless49, there is plenty of used darkroom stuff out there for cheap, and as long as there is paper and chemicals (and an occasional replacement light bulb) it lasts forever. I'm still using enlargers, easels, trays, safelights, tanks and reels, etc. that I bought between 40 and 50 years ago. I just wish it was that cheap (relatively) when I noughtit years ago.
 
I like argument from this thread "I shoot film because that's what my cameras use". For me, feel of old film cameras, including simple controls, is important factor to use them. There still are guys who aren't excited about silicone boobs in their hands 😉
I'm not even continuing about self-developed and printed BW film.
 
Film is like valve(tube) guitar amps vs solid state, vinyl vs CD or film vs video. No matter how clean, accurate and perfect digital is, no matter how many megapixels, how great the bit depth or sampling frequency it will never have the non-linear characteristics of the analogue version. It's the sound of the guitar amp when it gets to a certain volume and starts to slightly distort, it's the look of the highlights just before they're blown - that's where digital fails, at the edges. I'm not sure if I've put that very well but I know what I mean 😱

I like film because:
- I llike the delayed gratification, the wait before I get to see the image (and those "I forgot I took that one!" moments).

- I like the sense of commitment. Before processing/scanning my own film, once I tripped the shutter that was it - picture taken, done. Once it becomes digital it's never "finished" - there's always the temptation to tweak things a bit more or try a different interpretation.

- On a similar note I like the limitations. When the light starts getting low and you only have ISO 50 film loaded - tough. You have to work with it and may end up creating something you wouldn't have thought of if you could just ramp up the ISO to 1600.

- I spend all day sat in front of a computer. As much as I enjoy playing with RAW conversions and Photoshop trickery there are limits.

- I recently bought a Hexar AF. How much would a digital camera with a fast f2/35mm lens of that quality cost? And what would the resale value be in 2 years time?

- I've messed with computer graphics since using some Rolf Harris art program on a Commodore 16 in 1984. I'm fairly comfortable with it. Film and especially home processing is quite new to me and I'm really enjoying the learning and experimental process.

On the other hand, I've found digital invalueable for learning about exposure and photography in general. I still love my aging EOS300D and I'm sure at some point we'll get full-frame digitals, with film-simulation/modelling built in (to replicate the complete response/grain structure etc of well known films). I think it will be a while though and even longer before I can afford it.
 
I'm OK with idea of digital. Instant feedback, no film/dev expenses. One thing I can't get over - why bother simulating film look with digital cameras? It's like modern beers pretending to have "authentic taste of old ale". So simple - shoot film for it's strong sides and shoot digital when you need it. Mix of bed and table is for sick and disabled, who in good health would need such a monster?
 
For me, the process of developing film is fun. This, however, is not the main reason I shoot film.

The main reason is: I can afford "big sensor" (MF / LF) in film. I cannot in digital.

The main reason I shoot film in 35mm is I can afford a film rangefinder, and it is not disposable. I own a DSLR, but I get very little joy from using it - and none at all from carrying it.

For black and white, I have to say that film is really good for me. For color, E-6 works better (for me) than digital. Looking at a slide on a light table? priceless.

Of course, If I were a professional I would probably be shooting with a medium format digital back.
 
This is an interesting discussion. I have been heavily into digital since about 2003 or so, mostly exploring options at first, but then when I discovered carbon inkjet printing I was hooked and really got into it. Recently I got a really good deal on an M6, a camera I have wanted for a long time and now I am back to shooting some film again.

I shot B&W film throughout high school and college, and though I got some really good results, I didn't ever master the exposing film part of it. Anything I got that was good was pretty much luck. I did however learn to print well, probably to compensate for my shooting.

Anyway, I was just curious how we would quantify the "quality" of B&W film vs digital, besides getting up close to a print to see the film grain, what is it about film that is superior? I hear that a lot, and I don't disagree, but I wonder how many people that claim that have actually got deep into trying to make digital B&W work. Maybe I've been away from film too long and I am missing something, but believe me I plan on putting the digital down for a while and getting back into film with my Leica and my 4x5, and Holga, and pinhole cameras.

here are some random examples of B&W shot on film or digitally. I wonder in these low res images if you can tell which is which:

soccer_fans.jpg


oldcar.jpg


HI8M1230_crop_2.jpg


HI8M9891b&w.jpg


FarmMarket.jpg


HI8M9262.jpg


HI8M8547.jpg
 
I shoot both because I can. I tend to shoot film for personal work because I enjoy the process. Full frame digital is mostly for commercial clients who want predictable results 10 minutes ago.

This is sort of like having a beige Prius to take you to your job and enjoying an Alfa Romeo or a Series Land Rover in your own time. Technically and financially it makes no real sense, but there's an enthralling, intangible quality to the less logical choice.
 
I've recently purchased an M4-2 and started shooting 35mm film again after a very long break. My main reason's for picking up the M4-2 are I wanted a fairly compact camera that could give me images of similiar quaility of my 5D but in a smaller package and it seem to fit the bill perfectly. My main uses of my M4-2 are during formal shoots where I use it as a back-up/film saver to my Bronica SQ or as safty net when shooting with my 1950 6x9 folder.
I've not been able to get out and use it a much as I've wanted as a walk around camera, but hope to remidy ASAP.
 
I've been in photography one way or another for about 39 years. I've done it as a hoby at times and as a profession twice (including now) I started to dabble in digital in 97 and went to it full time in 2002.

For me it is not about which is better. It is not that any of the downsides of digital have become any kind of problem because I thrive with computers (12 years as an IT professional - my other job outside of photography) and still enjoy them. I'm adept with photoshop (taught nights at a college) and enjoy it fully.

But I'm back to film. Why? It, for me is not about lack, but rather something more, something richer. I like the process and dang it, I like that film sometimes kicks my butt. It feels more like a real hoby versus shooting fish in a barrel. So digital is great, but film is more of a craft. The fact that film is becoming more a niche is a PLUS to me. Kind of like the analogy earlier made about an old car. What fool would pull up to a 1958 Cadilad, or perhaps a 1965 mustang and yell at the driver of this now rare gem " hey ... my new Lexus has shinier paint! And it has a better stereo too!nana nana naa naaa!"

Well that is what this digital vs film debate is like in my eyes. It might be true in the strict sense, however, it misses the point, and makes the point that one party of that exchange has a limited vision of all the possibilities out there.

I have noticed that many, in fact most, of the digital aficionados who scorn film are oddly in two fields. There must be at least 80 percent who are employed in the IT or engineering field. That is not said with scorn but just to point out that there is some kind of magnetic draw to these rights brain types, who predominate, to digital photography. Is it that it is electronic? Regular upgrades like with computers (the other love)? But whatever it is .... I think it brings with it this culture of "which is best" ... which I feel has taken over - and to the detriment of the craft.

I want to evolve. I want to play. I want to be challenged. Film for me provides those attributes. There is a sense of tradition and history which I admit awes me a bit and makes me honored to be a part of this long chain of tradition. And when I screw up - film really humbles me. I know when I get it wrong - but I also know when I get it right.

Is that not what a hobby should be about?
 
well said ∆.

From a hobby perspective I think film presents more of a challenge.
Digital is nice, but it's like it's almost too easy for me lately.

I also agree that that is more of a craft to shooting, processing, and printing film and I also like the sense of tradition.

Now if I had a commercial project on the other hand, I would be reaching for that digital camera.
 
gnuyork, you have a valid point. How many film fans have really tried to get great with digital B&W. Not many I would venture. I have ... and I get very good results. I find the comments referring to how poor digital is in black and white mostly defensiveness.

But still - I prefer film. Seems more "honest" or "worthy" or something, which I can't properly describe.

To extend the current state of affairs further; would you want the whole process done for you inside the machine? Five years from now I believe it quite possible that digital still photography will be over. It will be anacronistic to a working pro and to those who like to be on the cutting edge of possibilities ... just as film is to them today. We will have movie cameras, basically, which capture 24 to 60 fps in 28 megapixel glory. No noise at iso 25,600 and probably 13 stops of DR. Software inteligent enough to detect "pleasing composition" and "smiles with open eyes" will be used to get this footage to a manegeable 5000 frames from this shoot. It will be a technology does it world. The photographer, in my view, reduced to a camera and computer operator.
We are after all, quite a ways down that path. Nikon's add "anyone can take great pictures" says it all. What is not said is the flip side of that where " no talent required, neither" is implicit.

It may be as effective as digital is today - times two. But you know what? I will find another hoby. Because I want to be part of the process, part of the equation, as much as I can be.

Funny, I think it is possible that if film hangs on a while ... that it may outlive digital still photography.
 
Oh and my guess would be that the top two are film as well as number four. I'd say that the pumpkins and the last shot of the tower would be digital. Can't even guess at the others. Am I close? (or waaay off?) 🙂
 
Pavel+ said:
Oh and my guess would be that the top two are film as well as number four. I'd say that the pumpkins and the last shot of the tower would be digital. Can't even guess at the others. Am I close? (or waaay off?) 🙂
Click to expand...


You are a little more than half right - 3 for 5, which demonstrates my point nicely. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson said:
"Digital is nice, but it's like it's almost too easy for me lately."

So, you are shooting better photos with digital than film? 😉
Click to expand...

not necessarily, just arriving at the end result much more easliy. 🙂

My favorite photograph that I made was done with film, and a lot of dodging and burning in the darkroom. I also scanned the negative and brought it into photoshop to make an inkjet print and I got very similar results much quicker. Had I used a digital camera, it would have been even quicker and easier.
 
Last edited:
"anyone can take great pictures" - but mostly they do not, no matter what camera/format/media they use 🙂 OK pictures, nice pictures, I agree on this, but when it comes to great pictures we yet have to look around for them.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
"Digital is nice, but it's like it's almost too easy for me lately."

So, you are shooting better photos with digital than film? 😉
Click to expand...
Better by what standards? IQ - to be sure, but technical goodness only carries it so far. Then I need to put some vision into the shot. And for that, I need a certain investment anyway. Sure, it can be done with digital imaging, but the film medium presents less challenges at this time.

Digital, as it turns out does not have as much "probabilistic uncertainty" to it as I would like. Unexpected results still excite me as they did 50 years ago, when I was a child. Hopefully there is still a place in photography for the thrill of the new. I get that from film, but not as much from digital on a per exposure basis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom