why won't film just die already?!

[bribrius]

I dont know? I only shot 35 mm as i grew up as it was the "norm". Wasn't for artistic or proving any point it is just normal. And there were places everywhere to drop off your rolls and order prints. All that seems to have changed. I havent shot film in a couple years now, just not worth the half hour drive to drop them off or sending it out and waiting 2 weeks. If they still had lots of drop off points, i would shoot film more. But that has all been pushed to the wayside and the changes have made shooting film increasing difficult. I know many have darkrooms, labs, but i never wanted that level of investment unless i had too? I was just like every other normal person shooting 35 mm and dropping it off. And then it was pretty inexpensive so you never really gave it much thought.

Digital is way, way, easier and better. You can see the shot right then so you know if you have it or not. With film, you expected one or two shots not to come out. The norm. You just wondered which ones. So digital is a large step up taking the guess work out if it. But it isnt the same nostaligia. Why so many digital programs have editing to make digital "look" like film. Sort of trying to give you the ease of digital but nostalgia of the film look. Still not the same as picking out your film and loading your cameras but it does help.
Also some of the camera companies are making digital cameras to look and feel more like film cameras. So film still had impact on the digital worlds.

I am more interested in the film digital edits now. Shoot digital and pick out the type of film edit i want it too look like. Comparing, i have 6 ? I guess film cameras? Course like old school each having different type/speed film in it. Forgetting to label the backs and slide the cardboard in to remember what film was in which camera. Film, was not and is not easy. But now i can take a photo with my cellphone, edit it to have the look of film amongst 15 choices or more. Without ever worrying about which camera to take and what film is in what camera. Not all film came out good either, some of the stuff (and resulting photos) was pure crap.
Not to say i would totally stop shooting film but to put it in reality..

If you can buy a camera that works and feels like a film camera. If you can edit your photo to a multitude of film "looks". If you dont have to have multiple cameras with multiple types and speed films. Look how much digtal has taken from film to make our life easier. Still most of the perks without the headaches.

The battery argument on digital is kinda dumb, most of the more recent film cameras had batteries too that lasted even less long. But for cameras all manual, consider. When shooting film we were more cautious in what we shot. And took less shots. Maybe at times you might blow through a few rolls in a whack but it was RARE. Most digital cameras are at least good for 200 to 300 shots before the battery is dead. In film terms that is more than what we were shooting anyway in rolls. And you could a extra battery easier than another 5 or 6 rolls. The "i can shoot without a battery going dead" i feel is a very weak argument,

"The range of film" argument. I dont quite get it? I change iso from 200-400- 1200 in digital that IS range. And different speed films and cameras i would have to lug around. Sure, on a single photo maybe you have less range (whites blow out or something). But i have blown out film too (it isnt perfect). But overall the range on digital already surpasses film, you arent carrying various speed films. On the megapixel count, cost benefit film still wins. But as the digital megapixel sensors increase and costs lower on the high megapixel cameras digital will bypass film. And really, how many shoot medium format or 8x10 anyway. I wouldnt mind it. But the idea of a 120 mp digital large sensor dropping in price overtime i find more intriguing.

 

[Kiron Kid]

Film cameras bring us back to the art & craft of photography. Perhaps even slow us down a bit and inspire us to actually “look and see” more intently. Also, I grow tired of all the electronic devices that we rely on in our daily routine. It’s nice to think and act ourselves. I am not opposed to digital, but it’s just not for me. Perhaps it never will be.

Russ

 

[Grandpa Ron]

I just spend a couple of hours at the State Park with a 1910 view camera. I now have a few 4x5 negatives to develop and most likely contact print.

Why? because it was fun and interesting to mess with these old products of long gone master craftsmen who competed with one another for the bourgeoning camera market. Just the Nikon, Canon and Sony mirror less market of today.

 

[Steve Anchell]

Here is an annology from Star Trek: their food comes from replicators not real cooking. That to me is the digital vs film issue. The replicator can make a stunning meal, however a truly cooked meal with real food, smelling the myriad aromas produced, have its pluses. True, the replicator is fast, as is digital, anyone can push a button then immediately see the food, same with digital.

Yes, digital images can be stunning in its clarity, sharpness most often better than film (a sharp image never wins a contest). As Ansel Adams is quoted as saying “There’s nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept”.

Digital shooters have every right to brag about their image quality, speed of turn around and the like. Yet they forget about the gazillion beautiful film images produced the past 150 years. It is as though they cannot come to grips with photography prior to digital. Often I have heard digital shooters say something as “I cannot shoot my images on film...”. Again, over 150 years prior to digital film photographers produced stunning images, from world events, weddings, political, family, commercial work, why today are digital shooters thinking they cannot do the same with film?

A big plus digital shooters comment on is “I can shoot many images then immediately delete the ones I do not like, they do not cost me anything”; that is very true they can delete images as can film shooters discard their images. As for cost, look at the cost of pro digital cameras, in the thousands of dollars. A pro 35mm film camera can be had for $100-$200. To equal the price of the digital camera will take much film and processing. Okay, the digital shooter will say “I can shoot hundreds of images at a time”, to me that means they are shutter actuators. Digital shooters talk about all the post processing software they use; they are more proud of their computer skills than photography skills.

We hear of digitial only wedding photographers bragging they shoot a few thousand images per wedding. My thought, purchase a video camera not a still camera. Back-in-the-day if we shot ten rolls of film at a wedding that would be a lot; that was 120 or 220 film, in many situations 4x5 sheet film as well.

Film photographers are much more selective of their shots than digital shooters. Digital shooter as a group are more spray and pray than film shooters. At events and weddings their cameras sound like machine guns. Can you imagine going through thousands of digital images for presenting to the client and having them also cull through those thousands of images?

Yes, I am strongly in the camp that digital images can be amazing, produces gorgious images, work flow having many pluses over film. For close to ten years I was a digital chest thumper. Now, for the past ten years my photography is 99% film; the other 1% is when I use my iPhone.

Another thought, digital cameras are computers that capture images, they are disposable. When they stop working it is usually the electronics that go bad and if that camera is a few years old it is better to throw it out. Some of the film cameras I use are sixty years plus years old, and can still be CLA’d. Also, something digital shooters do not care to think about is their raw files. Those raw files are not a standard, thus they are different with each manufacture, camera, sometimes even with firmware updates change raw files. Worse, some older raw files are not supported by today’s newer software. How will you open your raw files in five-ten and more years?

With digital we have moved into the digital dark ages. HHD crash, CD/DVD rot, some cloud storage services shutdown, etc, thus folks are losing untold number of important files. Digital shooters become annoyed having to copy files to newer formats and devices. What will digital shooters pass on to their family, most likely devices that newer computers cannot read nor connect to; the digital dark ages.

Shooting film, at the end of the year we print all our keepers. Film is safely stored and everyone knows where they are. As scanners become better we again scan film achieving better images than in the past; our image quality improves with the same negative.

There is much more that can be said, I will leave it to others more eloquent than I am.

Bubba, I just stumbled across this. It's still the best assessment of why use film that I have read. Thank you.

 

[cgw]

ZZZZzzzz. Contender for "Zombie Thread of the Month." Still, nice you put fresh flowers graveside.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Sorry, but this is one of those situations, where if you have to explain it, the person listening probably would not understand anyway. The merits of film in small and large format photography have been discussed at great lengths. But the reasons can be much more subtle.

Either the challenge of capturing the rewards of your efforts excites you or it doesn't. It really does not matter. I have and use a digital camera, a lightweight Kevlar canoe, a state-of-the-art 100 watt amateur radio with all the bells and whistles, and even a modern muzzle loading rifle. They all have one thing in common, they do the work for you. You simply push the button.

These items all work great, there is no argument about that. But they take away two things: 1. Rising to the challenged of getting it right, and 2. the tactile feel of actually making an inanimate object do what you, not some technical company guru, wants to accomplish.

If you do not understand the appeal of a wood and canvas canoe, as it flexes under the force of your paddle stroke, communicating with a foreign country with Morse code from a 5 watt transmitter you cobbled together on your work bench, sharpening the flint on flintlock rifle so it fires nearly as fast as a cartridge rifle; then the nuances of working with film, mixing chemicals and techniques to weak your results, or successfully setting up a view camera for the perfect shot, are probably of little interest.

For others, they are joys to behold.

 

[snowbear]

I think the thread has run its course. The OP and a few others are no longer in the building.

 

[terri]

Seriously. Why won't the film v digital debate just die already? I've been bored for over a decade.

Everyone should shoot the style that works best for their own situations. And then post your work here at TPF!