Benefits of film photography?

[tabernaclia]

What advantages does film have over, say, digital?

 

[Battou]

They have benifits each of their own, no one is superior to the other.

But we will start off with initial cost with differed payments. Equipment is inexpencive, film processing spreads overall price out over time.

 

[epp_b]

Long exposures on low ISO film don't result in noisy pictures (eg.: hour-long exposures for star trails)

Digital is initially more expensive, but hugely more convenient than film.

 

[ksmattfish]

Film does not require electricity to expose. Useful in areas where batteries are scarce. Also nice for all night exposures.

Print film has a lot of exposure latitude. Get the exposure within 2 stops and the lab will fix it.

 

[monkeykoder]

Film does not require electricity to expose. Useful in areas where batteries are scarce. Also nice for all night exposures.

Print film has a lot of exposure latitude. Get the exposure within 2 stops and the lab will fix it.

I think you misspoke it is "Get the exposure within 2 stops and fix it in post" (where post = darkroom)

 

[ann]

they each have a different look .

some folks like to sit at the computer to pp, others love the darkroom.

 

[Smilemon]

they each have a different look .

some folks like to sit at the computer to pp, others love the darkroom.

+1

Darkroom work can be very satisfying.

 

[ksmattfish]

I think you misspoke it is "Get the exposure within 2 stops and fix it in post" (where post = darkroom)

I'm sorry, how is this different from what I posted?

Neg film has huge exposure latitude compared to slides or digital. I think it's the main reason people have a hard time making the transition from neg film to digital. The lab easily and quietly cleaned up sloppy exposure (a good lab should be able to handle a 2 stop over or under exposure) with print film. Then when the photog goes digital they find an exposure latitude much more like slide film, and their sloppy technique becomes troublesome. The lab wants to charge an extra fee to do the fixing, and even then it's not really fixed.

Try fixing a neg that's 2 stops over or under exposed, and then try the same thing with digital. The print from the neg is going to look a lot better, almost like there's no problem at all. The digital shot will have extremely noisy shadows or solid white highlights. With digital exposure accuracy is a must; with neg film it just needs to be in the ball park.

 

[bhop]

I'm sorry, how is this different from what I posted?

Neg film has huge exposure latitude compared to slides or digital. I think it's the main reason people have a hard time making the transition from neg film to digital. The lab easily and quietly cleaned up sloppy exposure (a good lab should be able to handle a 2 stop over or under exposure) with print film. Then when the photog goes digital they find an exposure latitude much more like slide film, and their sloppy technique becomes troublesome. The lab wants to charge an extra fee to do the fixing, and even then it's not really fixed.

Try fixing a neg that's 2 stops over or under exposed, and then try the same thing with digital. The print from the neg is going to look a lot better, almost like there's no problem at all. The digital shot will have extremely noisy shadows or solid white highlights. With digital exposure accuracy is a must; with neg film it just needs to be in the ball park.

I gotta agree with all this. It's one reason I like shooting negative film, it's just more forgiving. Although, I think it makes me a little lazy. I picked up my d70 this weekend and it took me a while to get the exposure right without blown out highlights. Thank the maker for chimping..

Another reason is it's just more fun. (for me anyways) also, I don't like how 'clean' digital looks, but that's a personal preference. I realize that can be "fixed" with software, but why bother when I can get the look I want by just shooting it oldskool.

One more thing is the equipment. I can't afford professional level digital bodies, but I can afford professional level film bodies that have the similar large viewfinders, in-hand feel, and build quality as well as functions like metering systems and fast autofocus. Or if I want to shoot with older manual cameras, or my rangefinder, I have to use film (since again, I can't afford a Leica M8)

 

[compur]

^ I agree.

Also, with film
- your camera doesn't become obsolete every 6 months
- no dusty sensor issues
- tons of terrific equipment available for peanuts
- beautiful cameras made of metal, chrome, wood and leather
- no concern over which "program/metering mode" to use
- bystanders who admire your eccentricity

 

[Alpha]

screw forgiving. if you can get more lattitude why use it just for errors? Carpe diem!

 

[DeadEye]

As Bhop said it Those highlights. Film has better dynamic range. If you say shoot a bride and groom read ( brite white dress and dark black tux) in difficult light its tuff to get digital to not blow out the white and still get detail in the tux. Film will get both no problem.

 

[epatsellis]

Pro level film equipment is extremely affordable, for one. Nikon F4 or F3/MD4 for less than $250, you have to be insane to not buy one (or two, or three...)
I've had the same 3 F3/MD4 combos for going on 20 years, other than looks, they work just as well as the day I bought them new.

erie

 

[pasteofanchovie]

Film and digital are equally beneficial, but I started developing my own film and making prints recently and it's a whole different world. There is a different feeling watching your picture just appear on the paper compared to loading up Photoshop. Also, film grain looks hundreds of times better than digital noise!

 

[djacobox372]

I love both filma and digital, for different reasons. Here's my own subjective breakdown...

Film Advantages vs. Digital Advantages:

Film:

1) MUCH better exposure latitude, rarely do I get an over/under exposed shot that can't be resurrected during scanning.

2) Handles intense light blooms far better then digital--no ugly digital clamping.

3) Film SLR's are CHEAP, and last forever. Heck you can buy the best film camera ever made (nikon f5) with all the features of a D3, for about $400.

4) Photos taken with film have a timeless quality because they share the same chemical process with photos taken throughout history.... digital images are created via entirely different means and hence don't share the same "look" as photos taken 50 years ago.

5) Film is much better at very long exposures

6) No sensor dust issues, which makes using film in dusty/filthy conditions less of a hassle.

7) Film grain looks better then digital noise, kinda like the hiss and pop of a old record is more pleasant then the squealing and skipping caused by digital degradation.


Digital:

1) Lower noise at higher iso's

2) Cheaper in the long run--at least for me

3) Experimenting is much easier and cheaper

4) Better resolution/detail then 35mm film, UNLESS you're buying $8 film, shooting really low isos, and spending a fortune to get it drum scanned.

5) Don't have to hassle with developing, and scanning

6) No dust or scratches on negatives!!! sensor dust is much easier to live with IMO.


Of course some of us actually enjoy the "hassle" so whether #5 is a negative or positive is up to the individual.