why film photography?

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

1) Resolution and tonal quality of 6x7 medium format or lager film surpasses any of their digital counterparts--not including scanning backs which are completely impractical. Color representation is likely better with digital, but it depends on what your "lab" is measuring--I for one don't pay attention to lab results and instead trust my own eyes.

2) Film grain is analog, making it far closer to the "noise" produced by our eyes and brains, hence it's more natural to look at. That isn't a matter of opinion; however, preference is.

3) If you haven't seen digital photos trying to match the colors of kodachrome and velvia film, then you haven't been paying attention to modern trends in photography.

4) Nearly everybody cares about price, and there's a growing backlash from young people against modern "throw away" consumerism and 'planned obsolenence' which makes older equipment that was built to last more desirable and "cool."
 
I don't shoot a lot a lot of action or moving targets where the technological advancements of a modern SLR would be much more convenient, so I find shooting film and having a manual focus camera makes me much more thoughtful of composition. I also just love the asthetic of using film. I think of loading my manual cameras with film as I do putting on my riding suit and helmet before taking out my motorcycle for a long ride down some twisty roads -- there's a certain pleasure in the process for me. And, yes, there's a certain aspect of Luddism to it. The exclusivity of it also appeals to me, and the fact that I'm using a timeless medium, rather than worrying about how long before I have to upgrade to the latest and greatest DSLR body or making sure I have the best post-processing software because I need to manually manipulate the colors and white balance in my photos just to get them to look like something. And it's funny because I'm not at all a technophobe, there's just something about shooting film that feels more artistic to me.

Ditto, ditto, ditto and uhm ditto vrrrooommmm 1100 v twin to boot.

Not that technology doesn't have its place in photography, I do use it when it is advantageous to my needs but there is an ephemeral quality to film that is renewed every time I pick up one of those "heavy metal" cameras that I don't get with a PLAST-A-DIGI camera. I shoot film for the "Art" of it nothing else. I do it for ME. I do not make a living with it, if I did, then it might be a different story. The word that might best describe it is either organic or orgasmic You decide but for me, I am in a space of my own that I control to a certain extent and that feeling is not a "Quickie" as with a digital because now I have to go home and process and develop and then I get to live that moment over again. With a digital the process is view, focus, listen to the whir and clicks, push a button and then check the display for the results, huh, kinda anti-climatic cause now I get to go home and play on the computer (not porn).
I prefer film, that's just me though.
 
Because 'digital' photography is the biggest fraud perpetrated on man since...well in history. Film holds much more detail....

I find this an interesting and intriguing statement. I also happen to agree.

I also suspect you have much more info on this topic. Could you elaborate?
 
Because 'digital' photography is the biggest fraud perpetrated on man since...well in history. Film holds much more detail....

I find this an interesting and intriguing statement. I also happen to agree.

I also suspect you have much more info on this topic. Could you elaborate?

Well just look at the size of film grains vs the size of 4 sensor cells in digital cameras. There is some 'sharpness' but no fine detail. Skin looks like vinyl. If you blow up a digital image beyond a certain point it simply breaks up. Film doesn't do that, at least not "all of a sudden".

Here is a nice analysis:

Spur Nano Edge, two
 
Last edited:
^ Great reference -- thanks.
 
I totally agree! It seems that digital pictures are not that well thought out cause there is always time to make them better and better.
This is generalization.

We must not blame the technology for lack of planning on a person's part.
 
Well, I can't say I have any bias towards using either. I like both and use both. #4 is important to met though. I hate waste and I definitely can't afford $500 worth of digital SLR and $1000 worth of good lenses, yet. I'm learning on a budget so old often means "possible" when it comes to gear.
 
My daughter really, really wanted to get into photography so I bought her an inexpensive Minolta X-370 with a couple of good lenses. I explained to her that if she could learn what it takes to make a good photograph with film and all the mechanics that go with it we would move her onto a digital camera. My thinking is that film is a bit more involved as to what it takes to make a good picture. If she can master film and all that entails then she can do digital. I also didn't want to spend a lot of money on a digital only to have her lose it or lose interest all together. As it is, I have about $100 invested in her camera and developing has not been to bad since we don't get any pictures, we have all of it put on a CD that we can play with on the computer.
 
In the various discussions of flim vs digital, I don't believe anyone
has mentioned the archival characteristics of the two methods.

Glass plates and film negatives from over a hundred years ago are
still usable and many of these collections have been donated to the
Library of Congress and various historical groups. Where will todays
digital images be a hundred years from now?

For example, I am in the process of putting together a presentation
for the local photo club, using images from my days in the British West
Indies while serving in the Navy. The images were made in the mid
1950's on B&W, Kodachrome, and some other color films. The
B&W negatives and Kodachromes are still in good shape, but the off-brand
films did not fair well colorwize, although the image itself was still usable
as a monochrome in the presentation. If the images had been digital,
they probably would have been lost by now.

How are the digital photographers archiving their images... what format?
what media? Will future generations be able to view them? The formats
and media may be quite different then. As an example, how may of you
can read the information from an eight-inch floppy, or even a 5 1/4 inch
floppy. They were both popular storage media in the 1980's.

Film originals, regardless of type or size, can be viewed without any
special equipment other than maybe a mgnifying glass.
 
I totally agree! It seems that digital pictures are not that well thought out cause there is always time to make them better and better.
This is generalization.

We must not blame the technology for lack of planning on a person's part.

No one is blaming any technology. Film photography is a technology too.
The fault is the do-everything-automatically mentality of digital photography
which encourages laziness and discourages involvement in the craft.

Yes, many digital SLRs can be used manually but few owners of such gear
use them that way. In fact few owners know how to use them that
way and don't bother to learn because the temptation to simply push
a button and have the camera do it all is too great. The result of all this
automation that I am seeing with the "digital revolution" is simply more
people taking lousy photos and fewer people understanding the craft of
photography.
 
I totally agree! It seems that digital pictures are not that well thought out cause there is always time to make them better and better.
This is generalization.

We must not blame the technology for lack of planning on a person's part.

No one is blaming any technology. Film photography is a technology too.
The fault is the do-everything-automatically mentality of digital photography
which encourages laziness and discourages involvement in the craft.

Yes, many digital SLRs can be used manually but few owners of such gear
use them that way. In fact few owners know how to use them that
way and don't bother to learn because the temptation to simply push
a button and have the camera do it all is too great. The result of all this
automation that I am seeing with the "digital revolution" is simply more
people taking lousy photos and fewer people understanding the craft of
photography.

And there are no automatic film cameras? :)

We are debating film vs digital not manual vs automatic.
 
And there are no automatic film cameras?

Of course there are but few compare with the automation of digital SLRs
and there are many, many film cameras that are completely manual.

And, despite the automation of the the last breed of film cameras, they
still encouraged more involvement with the craft of photography than do
digital SLRs.

The major difference: With film one envisions a photograph in one's mind
before photographing it. This fosters skill in the craft. With digital one
is encouraged to just shoot with no pre-visualization. This fosters laziness
and "let the camera do it all" mentality.

BTW, I'm not saying that digital technology is bad. I own and use several
digital cameras. I just believe that the end result of the "digital revolution"
is simply lots of people taking photos without understanding the craft of
photography.


We are debating film vs digital not manual vs automatic.
My comment on automation was directly in regards to your post about
"blaming the technology" (of digital cameras).
 
And there are no automatic film cameras?

Of course there are but few compare with the automation of digital SLRs
and there are many, many film cameras that are completely manual.

And, despite the automation of the the last breed of film cameras, they
still encouraged more involvement with the craft of photography than do
digital SLRs.

The major difference: With film one envisions a photograph in one's mind
before photographing it. This fosters skill in the craft. With digital one
is encouraged to just shoot with no pre-visualization. This fosters laziness
and "let the camera do it all" mentality.

BTW, I'm not saying that digital technology is bad. I own and use several
digital cameras. I just believe that the end result of the "digital revolution"
is simply lots of people taking photos without understanding the craft of
photography.


We are debating film vs digital not manual vs automatic.
My comment on automation was directly in regards to your post about
"blaming the technology" (of digital cameras).

The issue of affordability has nothing to do with film vs digital sensor based photography. I had many film based P&S and some Polaroids. The main reason most people think twice before taking a film photo is the cost. If film photography was as inexpensive as digital is today you would have found more people going crazy with it.

The number of people who could afford a descent SLR 10 years ago is way less then the number of people who can afford a digital today.
 
The issue of affordability has nothing to do with film vs digital sensor based photography. I had many film based P&S and some Polaroids. The main reason most people think twice before taking a film photo is the cost. If film photography was as inexpensive as digital is today you would have found more people going crazy with it.

The number of people who could afford a descent SLR 10 years ago is way less then the number of people who can afford a digital today.

The issue of affordability???? Your comment seems unrelated to mine as I said
nothing about affordability so I don't know why you included a quote
of my post in your reply. As a matter of fact I don't understand your train
of thought at all or what it has to do with what came before.

But, thank you for sharing your views, whatever they may be. :D
 
The issue of affordability???? Your comment seems unrelated to mine as I said
nothing about affordability so I don't know why you included a quote
of my post in your reply. As a matter of fact I don't understand your train
of thought at all or what it has to do with what came before.

But, thank you for sharing your views, whatever they may be. :D

I believe it is related to yours and some of other posts in this thread. I am just trying to add the missing component to your and other posts in this thread. People are stating the problem but ignoring the cause.
Anyways, you are welcome :)
 

Most reactions

Back
Top