Why you should still shoot film

[slm]

Try this link. It's the Chris Usher video.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressCenter/newPodcast/podcastPro.jhtml?pq-path=11792

Cheers.
Steven

 

[literiter]

Not To Be Rude But why would i drive my 49 ford.

Wow! If I had a '49 Ford I'd drive it. If my '49 Ford was in good shape I'd drive it a lot. If I could still get gas for the '49 Ford I'd be happy as hell! I'd drive it to work even.

I'll bet there are one or two '49 rangefinders out there still cranking out film. No big deal, I've still got one!

One think: Why would one paint a picture if they had a camera?

 

[Eric T]

The film market will continue to decline for several more years. Eventually, I suspect that the only film left will be large format for specialty purposes. That is too bad. I enjoy using film but digital just has too many advantages. The biggest problem for film is that so many young people have never used film and will never need to use film. Hence, the market for film will continue to slide.
So enjoy it while you can!
Eric

 

[MikeL]

Eventually, I suspect that the only film left will be large format for specialty purposes.
Eric

I disagree. Black and white film, in many formats, will be around for as long as their are working film cameras. People still use quills and fountain pens, archery still exists, people still make samurai swords. Some folks even hunt with an atlatl. Once digital technology peaks, and there is no excuse for the photos people take, film will offer a fresh hope for their personal work. That's my opinion.

 

[Dektol Dan]

Film Jesus Anyone?

Film Jesus Anyone?

"There are some pros who create art and for that IMHO film is fine."

I agree, and acknowledge that there are artist photographers who make a living off their art and are certainly pros. And if that market will revitalize the film industry, then good for them! But, I'm not sure there are enough artist photographers to accomplish that.

Have professional photo journalists killed the the film industry? I don't even know a professional photo journalist, much less one that only shoots digital. Mr. S. Mistic who pays you, and what is your net worth per shot? One minority calling another black seems pretty silly to me. I value the artists' contribution much more than paparazzis such as yourself, unless of course you are some war correspondent in Dafur.

Get real, your just another buisness man with a deadline with another businessman with a deadline. In your world you may have some exposure, but it means nothing in mine. I don't buy tabloids.

I could NEVER practice my craft with a HUGE heavy Canon as yours hanging from my neck. My God, it's larger than my cherished Speed Graphic which will obilterate the amount of information your Canon provides 100 times over!

You are lost in a little world of 'compared to what'.

Digital is more popular than film because of its convenience and price to the masses, nothing more. It has nothing to do with your profession, or your personal perception of quality.

 

[d_ross]

Go Dan...........

 

[d_ross]

I just watched a piece on TV about the sustainability of our consumer throw away society, in part about the fact that we might run out of certain minerals requeired for the digital age. and I thought, my rollieflex was made in 1981 and has been used ever since, while most people I know who are fullydigital now are on, at minimum, thier 3rd or 4th cameras in the past 5 years or so!!! not to mention that now they all have PC's scanners printers etc when not too long ago they all used the same Labs etc etc etc

 

[d_ross]

to think that all this throw away stuff is recycled or has less ffect on the environment than analogue photograohy would be foolish, aesthetics aside, is there is a better reason to shoot film?

 

[mfogiel]

I still shoot film because:

- digital cameras that offer acceptable quality ( digi RF's apart) are too heavy for everyday carryaround activity, and digital RF's suck with the wide angles due to the crop factor
- in B&W digital still lags film in tonality, and is not quite there yet in terms of resolution of slower films
- in colour, there are some neg films that are unbeatable for portraiture

 

[photobizzz]

I have only recently gotten back into film, I will probably also start developing my own B&W negs again when I get back to the states. (Im glad I didnt get rid of that stuff) I am really enjoying slowing down, thinking about the scene, etc. I do still have a "high powered DSLR" because they have their place, IMHO; but the size makes me leave it home sometimes. But with my little Leica III, I cannot make that excuse.

 

[mrtoml]

I don't think we should be thinking in terms of film versus digital - which so many of these threads descend into.

I think, as has been pointed out, that digital is very useful. Eg for meeting tight deadlines in the journalist environment. Plus digital has its own look that is sometimes nice (I like some of the images I get out of my 5D). But for street shooting I would never take my 5D and use my Leica or XA. Also it is no longer a dispute that the latest high megapixel digital sensors such as the latest Canon and Nikon have probably surpassed 35mm film for many purposes, but if you want a Tri-X look surely it is better to shoot Tri-X in the forst place rather than spend hours in front of the computer trying to mimic it with digital files. I hink that was one of the lessons of the Usher video.

The issue is that film users should not be so defensive and fatalistic. There is a lot going on to be pleased about. I would just be happy if the market settled down (which I think it is) and every time a negative announcement was made about film everyone didn't get so worried. There are lots of positive things happening at companies like Ilford. There is a resurgence in large format film photography. Foto-Impex is working on bringing back Agfa film and papers. Bergger is transferring its production to Harman. There are companies out there still making the equipment for tintypes etc. etc. etc.

I think film and digital could happily coexist for a long time. There not competing, just different.

 

[rui]

Well... I shoot more on film that on digital. I just love the colours of Velvia, the B&W character of the Tri-X and the detail of the APX25 (i still have a few in my fridge). And the pleasure of developing the B&W at home is great, while it's convenient to scan it afterwards instead of printing conventionally with an enlarger.

So, for me, it's film for the shooting, then turning it into digital to share and print. The best of both worlds? Maybe...

 

[mike goldberg]

Hi All,
Glad to see this Thread is still alive & kickin'...
I've copy-pasted MikeL's words from Post #48:

Black and white film, in many formats, will be around for as long as their are working film cameras. People still use quills and fountain pens, archery still exists, people still make samurai swords.

I'm over 60, and I don't expect film to disappear in my lifetime. With billions of film cameras of many types out there, I don't expect it to disappear at all. Yes, some kinds of films are unavailable, however Kodak's Portra, Fuji's Superia and Velvia are still around. Tho' I personally, have difficulty in getting Tri-X in Israel, Tmax and the Ilford B/W films are widely available. BW 400 C41 is sold at a favorite downtown Jerusalem shop.

Finally, there's really no "should" herein, like, "You should eat your carrots." We shoot film in our RF's or other cameras because we believe in it; it is a labor of love... or simply, because we like to.

C'est tout,

 

[RHaroldP]

Finally, there's really no "should" herein, like, "You should eat your carrots." We shoot film in our RF's or other cameras because we believe in it; it is a labor of love... or simply, because we like to.

C'est tout,

Well put. I use film because I like to, for the joy of it. I only use digital when necessary.

Richard

 

[ywenz]

I'don't know about you but I still use my toothbrush to brush my teeth and toilet paper to wipe my...

I might be living in a bubble but has technology come out with something to replace them?

 

[Uncle Bill]

I don't think we should be thinking in terms of film versus digital - which so many of these threads descend into.

I think, as has been pointed out, that digital is very useful. Eg for meeting tight deadlines in the journalist environment. Plus digital has its own look that is sometimes nice (I like some of the images I get out of my 5D). But for street shooting I would never take my 5D and use my Leica or XA. Also it is no longer a dispute that the latest high megapixel digital sensors such as the latest Canon and Nikon have probably surpassed 35mm film for many purposes, but if you want a Tri-X look surely it is better to shoot Tri-X in the forst place rather than spend hours in front of the computer trying to mimic it with digital files. I hink that was one of the lessons of the Usher video.

The issue is that film users should not be so defensive and fatalistic. There is a lot going on to be pleased about. I would just be happy if the market settled down (which I think it is) and every time a negative announcement was made about film everyone didn't get so worried. There are lots of positive things happening at companies like Ilford. There is a resurgence in large format film photography. Foto-Impex is working on bringing back Agfa film and papers. Bergger is transferring its production to Harman. There are companies out there still making the equipment for tintypes etc. etc. etc.

I think film and digital could happily coexist for a long time. There not competing, just different.

Well said.

 

[jjovin]

Why you should still shoot film

I've asked myself this question many times. I prefer the look of images produced by film to digital ones. There is something about color images produces on Kodachrome slides that I have yet to see produced by digital cameras. The same holds with B&W film. But this is not all. Why do I still listen to vinyl and tube stereo equipment? For me, it renders the ambiance better than any CD. By its nature, I am forced to sit down and wait for the needle to touch an LP and start producing the sound. I can not just flip from one song to the next via a remote control on a CD player. I am drawn into the musing much more with vinyl than with CDs. Such is the experience with film. I can not just click, click, click and then delete the images that I do not like. Using film makes me examine a scene carefully and try to render on film the best I can what I see at that moment. At the end, it is not just the look but the whole experience with using film versus digital. My wife likes the convenience of digital cameras. But for me the preferred medium is still film and it will likely remain so for many years to come. The fact that LPs are still around gives me a sense of ease that film will be around for many decades to come. As long as it is around, for film users, it is really irrelevant whether it is a mass market product or a niche product.

 

[OurManInTangier]

Simple - I'm bored with digital. I use it everyday, does its job very well, gets pics out to the papers nice and quick, keeps designers happy with the large resolutions you can get now...BUT;

...its just not quite as much fun as shooting 'blind,' and having to wait until you've processed the film before you see the image. I'm not going into the qualities, there are many more people with better experience and understanding of such things, of film construction versus digital etc. I simply like to take photos of things that catch my eye in my spare time (even if its a stolen moment when I should be working) and for that, film is the only answer.

 

[FX trading]

I still believe that the mass market will move away from purpose-built cameras altogether (to mobiles, PDAs, iPods et al), and that furthermore this trend will accelerate markedly in the near future.

We will therefore be left with a different balance between film and digital, a balance that not only is likely to be more favourable to film, but where also there could be some form of convergence (remember when Intel were talking about possibilities for a 35mm-shaped digital cartridge for film cameras a few years ago?) between the two medium on the same equipment.

It is imprudent to write off film, as well as to proclaim the triumph of existing digital technologies- we are in the early stages of a far greater restructuring and eventual segmentation of the imaging market. As thi proceeds, film will occupy an increasingly important segment which will attract renewed interest, both from high-end providers as well as popular trends (eg Lomography).

It will be interesting to review this thread in a few years' time!

 

[FX trading]

As far as the (general, not only photo-specific) art market is concerned, there is usually a significant premium placed on works (even avant-garde) using traditional, as opposed to digital, media.

Digital still has the limitation that it is viewed as industrial, rather than artesanal, in nature.