why film photography?

[Actor]

1. I have a collection of film gear which I have accumulated over the years (decades?) that cost me several hundred (thousand?) dollars. The value of this stuff has decreased so much that even if I sold all of it I would not have enough to buy a decent DSLR.
2. Once you have pushed the shutter the processes are completely different. With film I feel like an accomplished master. With digital I feel like a compleat idiot.
3. The manual for may wife's DSLR is over 200 pages. The manual for my latest film SLR is 25 pages.
4. DSLRs are so complex that, even on manual mode, I do not feel I have complete control.
5. PhotoShop is prohibitively expensive.
6. Inkjets do not begin to match photographic prints.
7. With the great unwashed going digital, film gives me the feeling of being part of an exclusive elite.

 

[apertureman]

My modest take on it:

1. I don't have a DSLR, and in the last few years my plans to buy one have been cut to the root by other events (like my upcoming wedding) that require a major part of my income. I have been eyeballing one for a while, but never saved enough money to buy one.

2. I love the way colors and tones come out on film (color and BW respectively). The potential to render great colors is just built into the film... no need to do much tweaking on Photoshop.

3. If you like the way your pictures turned out, you can get them printed right from the negative or a positive, no chips or inks required, just a good photographic paper.

4. Sure, there is more waiting time. Speaking of myself, I send my films out for processing only once every 2 months or so, because I don't snap that many pictures. I just keep the films in my garage at freezing temperatures until I'm ready to send them out and get the best deal. However, I don't spend hours on Photoshop trying to achieve the great results, and while I'm waiting for my film to get processed, I just go ahead and shoot some more.

5. I got to play with my future brother-in-law's DSLR and it was fun until eventually I got bored looking at a million snapshots and the only difference between them being either the subject location or a different emotion on the subject's face. I lost interest soon enough. I couldn't wait to go back to using my film SLR and anticipate the results I would get. Not to undermine digital, but from my own experience: I can skim through thousands of digital pictures like play cards, but I can spend minutes looking at a single picture made with my film camera.

6. Film challenges a person to take better pictures to begin with, and not having to "fix" them later. It makes us do research, read books, take courses, try different processes, to try to get a good picture.

I am not trying to say that digital photos are bad and film once are good, great photos can be achieved in both mediums. To me, the more work photographer (not only equipment) puts into producing great photos, the more personal it becomes. It is more work for me to produce great shots with film, than digital, which is so highly automated nowadays.

 

[RancerDS]

I have a collection of film gear which I have accumulated over the years (decades?) that cost me several hundred (thousand?) dollars. The value of this stuff has decreased so much that even if I sold all of it I would not have enough to buy a decent DSLR.<snip>

This is exactly why I shoot film. SLR film equipment was so far out of my reach price-wise BUT is now affordable. So my entry costs are low... even though I'd bought/traded/acquired over a dozen 35mm SLR's.

Buy film and then paying development costs is an investment. I had a couple of fair P&S digitals but never satisified with most shots. Knowing I am paying something for every single frame means I make conscious choices. That is even though no more than 18 frames out of 24 are worth showing to anyone else without embarrassment.

I'm not organized quite yet. So having a digital SLR would probably mean 3x to 10x as many digital images to "organize". Not sure which I would learn faster with over time... but do believe I would dis-enchanted by the number of digital pics that would be shot willy-nilly. While I'd like to own one, am still glad I do not.

 

[Sbuxo]

Digital will never have the true 'film' feel. Your digital photography can be easily plagiarized with Photoshop and other photo-editing softwares, and film photographers are more respected (imo). Another thing is not only shooting film, but printing, the enlarger is basically your own "photoshop", with the exception of changing colors, cloning, and other things, but printing (especially if you do it on your own) is a great experience and is much more accomplishing than just printing it out of a printer.

:love: film!

 

[Sangetsu]

I've been shooting digital for more than a decade, but I have to admit I am more attracted to film. The amount of joy you get from something is equal to the amount of time and effort you put into it, and I find that though I have taken any number of good digital shots, I get more pleasure from film.

 

[mom2eight]

I was asked in another thread to post a link to my recent article here. I hope I'm not breaking the rules. :meh:

I just wrote an article on the subject of the title below. Your thoughts and comments are always appreciated on the blog - Photography and the Art of Discipline.

Halle Berry Copyright ©Jerry Avenaim Photography, Inc. 2009​

Jerry Avenaim
Web Site
Blog Site

I think its very relevant since Jerry uses the same process as was used in the beginning of photography. It shows the beauty of film. Would love to learn one day, but for now im gonna have to stick to shoot, delete, shoot delete. lol.

 

[lleclmg]

Hello All, I am very interested in your responses to this thread.


I am a graphic design student that also enjoys photography. I am in my final year of study and am working on my dissertation titled "Is there a place for conventional methods of photography in the modern world", I can see from looking around the group that collectively you have many years experience in photography.
If any of you have 10 minutes to spare, your opinions would greatly help my studies. The survey is hosted by an online survey service and you simply need to click the link below. I'll understand if you are too busy to contribute on this occasion.

Is there a place for conventional methods of photography in the modern world Survey

If you have anyone else you think may be willing to help, please forward this post to them.
Happy snapping
Matt Godfrey
York College
UK

 

[j8kkb]

Hi ..as regards why I suppose it depends on personal choice...as a matter of cost ....I recently had to produce a series of images for a portfolio at a college I am attending ...between 7 and 10 ..the brief was to use film....the initial outlay for me was cost of camera which I already had a Yashica Mat at £100 a box of 16x12 paper 10 in a box £20 and film and chemicals 3 rolls I used £6...and £10 on specific chemicals round it up to £140 say....when in the darkroom I use a print map ..log all the stages and exposures times etc. for dodging and burning...initial outlay would seem pricey ....but the difference comes when reproducing the images I can go back into the darkroom and produce 12x12 inch prints for £2 a go to get this size printed proffesionally on digital I would imagine costs a lot more ...but I still cannot make my mind up whether to go analog or digital ..:lmao: trust this has confused you even more

jk

 

[matfoster]

if you want to globally communicate with photographic images.. it all becomes digital ultimately.

 

[Proteus617]

I'm reading this thread in one window. In another I'm manually scanning a roll of Tri-x from my '38 Argus. Tonight I'll PP some, tomorrow I'll print others in the darkroom. Contact printing from digital negatives is on my do-list for the summer. One process can inform the other, different as they may be.

 

[Big]

But why shoot film if we can just "add grain" in Photoshop! :lmao:

 

[matseski]

I shoot 99% digital, only having used film for one photography course in high school.

To me the important differences, as already stated, are feedback, intent, postprocessing, and distribution.

With digital the instant feedback can compensate for lacking technique in critical situations. No matter who you are or what system you shoot with, you will take X% quality images where X<100. With digital, you will realize that the image you just took did not turn out a fraction of a second after you took it, with film it may be weeks later. While this is not super critical in a studio environment where reshoots are possible, when documenting live events on film, your ability to maximize X is absolutely a necessity. Still important on digital, but then again you can snap 3,000 pictures a night and even if your X is low you can still end up with the same number of usable shots as a film photographer with a high X.

The intent of a photographer must also be more heavily solidified when working with film than on digital. Lets face it, for most of us, this is an expensive hobby and shooting with film provides a constant reminder of that fact. Each shot can easily cost over $.25 by the time you buy the film, develop it, and make contacts; this only gives you 1" pictures too. With digital, once you have your equipment (albiet no small expense) each shot only costs a small fraction of a cent. As mentioned before the complexity of the cameras also plays a roll here. With a manual film camera you only have 3 or 4 buttons, each with only 1 function; with a digital body you have dozens of buttons each with several submenus depending on what other buttons you push first. It is very easy for an inexperienced user to get lost in the options. Combining the complexity of the digital bodies with the low cost of each shot, it is very easy to go into a shot with only the vaguest intentions: "I want to take a picture of a marble". 30 minutes, 10 background revisions, and 75 shots later, you come away with a respectable image. On film, you just would have blown 2-3 rolls of film. Maybe thats not an issue to you, but to many if you keep up that X, you will not be in photography much longer if you like to eat.

I think the largest difference between film and digital is in postprocessing/development. With digital you can make infinite revisions without quality loss and you can make them quickly. You can adjust a slider back and forth until you get just the right look. The next day you wake up and decide that the mountains in the background should be a little darker--no big deal, 2 minutes later they are. I cannot think of anything that can be done with film that cannot be done with digital, but the other way that is just not as true. (I stress AS TRUE as opposed to an absolute) With film, the combination of various media is quite different than scanning in all of the other formats or printing then manipulating. You can work with them all at once. It is a physical process and mistakes can easily be devastating both to time and your image. There is no undo button, but as a result you can make original one of a kind pieces, a feat very difficult to achieve in the digital world. Printing is also very different. With digital photographs most people send there images to some calibrated printer which will give them exactly the same results each time. Want 1, want 1,000 no big deal, pick the paper and hit the print button and go get a coffee. With film, again, depending on the individual, printing can be an artistic venture all on its own. Each print unique.

While postprocessing offers the most differences, distribution is by far the most important. As mentioned earlier, if working in the global community, your work, digital or film, will almost invariably end up digital for mass distribution. Unless you do not care to cater to anyone who cannot travel to see your physical prints digital distribution channels are your only real option. With this said, it depends entirely on you need for instantaneous results. If you are in news, film is NOT an option, by the time your film is developed, the competing news company has already had their images circling the globe for over an hour. Also, quality film scanners are expensive and drastically cut into the equipment savings that you can achieve by going film.

Another thing to keep in mind is repairs. I can and have repaired mechanical film cameras without any prior training or knowledge. It is mechanical and if you know what is supposed to happen, most technical people should have no trouble diagnosing and repairing minor problems. With a digital camera, there is no chance in hell that the average, technically knowledgeable person could perform most repairs. While the is not critical in most situations, the understanding of how you camera works and how that duct tape keeps it functioning gives you a connection to your equipment.

Medium and more so large format film photography offer many benefits over most modern digital options. Sure you have your $30+k Hassy bodies that can match medium format film in printing size, but there is nothing commercially available to my knowledge that can match large format. If I was to print wall size prints that people would view from a few feet, I would not think twice about using a large format film camera. There are no substitutes.

The other nice thing about film is the ability to try various system with reasonable quality cameras for cheap. You can go pick up a decent enough rangefinder for under $100, try a different slr for about the same. Quality glass can be had for a fraction of the cost of modern lenses with similar optics. If you are on a tight budget and want control over your images, film is the only way to go if you actually want to print your images larger than an index card. You can go buy a film slr at goodwill for calling out loud.

If you have the basic skills and a quality composition, both systems are equally capable of achieving almost anything. If, however, you are one of those special people with some revolutionary idea, only you will know which format will allow you to achieve your vision. For the rest of us mere mortals, dont worry about it, go shoot with whatever you can get your hands on; after all, no one else really cares anyway.

 

[Kristov]

Probably the best post I have ever seen regarding the issue. A+

 

[wescobts]

There are many very good post here, I hope I don't muddy the water. I have been shooting for about 12 years, not all that long as some others. I started in film, and shortly after, I switched to digital. I have taken a B&W course and worked in the darkroom a few times, to say I could presently develop film, the answer is no. I have just recently started shooting in film again, and I am going to re-take the B&W darkroom class. Digital is great, and I do mean that. But so is film, and to look at the two next to each other, there is a difference. Currently I live in Rochester, NY ; and as some may know, one of the most important cities when the discussion of photography is the topic. I have been fortunate to stand next to a seasoned photographer, shooting film, while I shot digital, and after every shot I would look at my LCD screen to make sure I did not botch it. My friend knew he did not, had his F2 in his hands for so long, did not second guess. There is a secured confidence when one does something for so long, with proven equipment, plus with the veil of waiting for processing. I see all it the time, great photographers with state of the art, top line digital gear look at every shot taken once the moment passes. Yes; instant gratification, but the loss of security, inserted doubt. I truly wish the our world in photography had not slanted so extreme, there is much to be gained with both medias. So why film ? because it still has so much to offer, a choice, a look, a feel. Shoot both, embrace both, there is plenty of room, there are many subjects in this world to explore with both forms.

 

[skieur]

I shoot film for these reasons:

1) digital cannot match the quality of medium and large format film.

2) film grain is more pleasant to look at then digital noise.

3) digital photograhers spend a lot of time in photoshop trying to match the "style" of color slide film, I just go straight to the source.

4) film gear is retro, cool and cheap.

1) How so? I have not seen any lab tests that confirm this assertion.

2) Personal opinion, I think. I don't like either.

3) As a former colour slide photographer, I don't spend any time at all trying to match the "style" of colour slide film.

4) True, but how many photographers really care about such things?

skieur