why won't film just die already?!

[tonymp]

This thread takes me back to days gone by.
I was shooting film with mostly MF cameras ( starting with a Roleiflex 2.8f ) from the 70s onward until 2006 during which time I was by then using Bronicas, though I started using Minolta digital bridge cameras but only acting as substitute 'Polaroid' backs for my MF gear and it saved me a fair fortune, especially for studio work.

I did have a couple of Nikon film cameras plus decent pro grade lenses and eventually included Nikon digital SLRs into my serious kit but never used the auto exposure or auto settings and shot everything in manual with the aid of my trusty Gossen meter.
I shot quite a number of weddings each year and I never had any issues in shooting with film...the dynamic range was superb and one of the few older digital cameras which I'd use for weddings was the good old Fuji S5 Pro which I used for around 3 years and it too had an excellent dynamic range and with the correct software gave results similar to film, plus I could use my Nikon lenses on the S5 body too. If flash was needed I preferred my Metz hammerheads unless in studio.

Modern digital cameras have mostly moved on since 2012 when I more or less gave up serious photography but there will always be a place for film.
I think anyone wanting to seriously learn photography would do well to get hold of something like a Yashica TLR plus a decent meter and learn everything with one of those, after which they could move on to an SLR.

Even if they didn't want to go down the film route and they got themselves a decent digital camera, if they also got hold a decent light meter and learned how to use that for exposures, they'd probably learn more in a month about exposure, apertures and shutter speeds, composition etc by shooting in manual mode than they would learn in 2 years of point and shoot! The Sunny 16 rule is also a good friend to learn and master if a meter isn't to hand. Mounting the camera on a tripod with cable release is even better as long there is no action in the shot. It the best method for formal people shots as the subjects are more relaxed when you're not looking at them through a camera lens.

When shooting with film, one tends to make every shot count and think about what they want to achieve before pulling the trigger. The same can be applied to digital too and it will definitely lessen the workload of going through literally hundreds, if not thousands of mediocre images only to find the same number of decent shots could have been achieved with a little more care in half the time.
Anyway enough of this old time reminiscence.

 

[Steve Anchell]

One point that Bubba Jones made I will comment on.

Minolta camera was bought out by Konica. Konica sold Minolta's patents to Sony. Sony uses a proprietary RAW file, .ARW.

Minolta used a proprietary RAW file, .MRW. The majority of new software programs do not recognize .MRW files. Yes, they can still be converted to .DNG, but for how long? I have a collection of more than 100K b/w film images made over a period of 48 years. I can access and print any one of them at any time.

One point made by Jenny Mehlenbeck that I would also like to comment on.

Digital is not free. How often do you upgrade your computer? How much did that DSLR or MILC cost you? How much is a fast media card? How much is the monthly subscription to Adobe for the rest of your life, or the purchase of On1 software or NIK? How often do you pay to upgrade your software? And the RAID array you just bought? Don't use a RAID for backup? But you do have a half dozen or more lose drives, right? And you probably should get another one soon. What did they cost? When will they go down and are you 100% certain your backup system is working? When did you last test it with a restore?

Please don't get me wrong. I use digital almost every day for my work and in my classes. It's a truly remarkable medium and I absolutely love my Sony a7RII.

I use film when I want to decompress and spend quiet time in the darkroom, the door shut, the lights low (and orange), music to fit my mood, and no cell phone.

Digital is a wonderful medium but let's not make it the holy grail.

 

[dxqcanada]

... there ain't no grave can hold my body down ... hmm fitting song for old dead film horses

 

[acolvin]

F

I was casually browsing the eBay and noticed that old film cameras are commanding ridiculous prices.
an old Olympus Muji II going for $200, Yashica T4 (zeiss) trading for $400...and the Contax T4 (my old love) going for $1500 to $2000.

Why are people still clinging on to film in the age of far better digital technology?

Film won't die because there are plenty of good photographers who want to have more control over a composition which DSLR cameras don't always offer; also, understanding how and why light works the way in does in a camera (which is, in reality, all photography is: controlling light and how it reacts to film,) and being able to manipulate that requires an understanding of the mechanics. And that requires knowing how to operate a camera by thinking through the process and operating it manually. Yes, there may be folks out there trying to make a buck off older analog cameras, but collectors and good analog photographers will know automatically what a reasonable price is for an older camera. Also, asking why "film" won't die is a bit like asking why pen and paper won't die when there are word processors or why radio won't die when there are podcasts on one's iPhone. It's not a genuine question so much as it is a pronouncement by folks who seem to love technology for technology's sake and may have no understanding of how to competently operate an analog camera. I have four SLR's (my oldest is a Box Kodak Brownie ca. 1908) and one older DSRL. Just MHO.

 

[480sparky]

...........You can not change or alter film negatives. ..............

Sure you can. It's been done for the past........... oh,,.............170-some years.

 

[john.margetts]

...........You can not change or alter film negatives. ..............

Sure you can. It's been done for the past........... oh,,.............170-some years.

Reducers, intensifiers, toners, scalpels, ink, . . .

Each of my Photographers Almanacs contain a dozen or so pages of formulae for improving negatives.

Sent from my 8070 using Tapatalk

 

[tim48v]

The main reason I shoot 4x5 film is the camera. Even the most basic large format camera (excluding the Travelwide), gives me tilt, shift and swing. This makes a huge difference in the resulting image. Sure, there are some shift/tilt lenses available but they are more limiting (and not cheap).

Yeah, I've got decent digitals (too many micro 4/3s and a Sony A7Rii) but I often miss having the movements. (Yes, you can fake it in photoshop, to a point, but it doesn't feel the same.)

Also, a properly scanned 4x5 color transparency will be equivalent to several gigapixels. Even the last Star Wars films were filmed: that is, shot on analog film.

In the end, it comes down to which process do you like. After all, my daughter makes her living teaching people how to ride horses (we've had cars for how long?), I have friends who hunt big game with a bow (even though they own numerous rifles) and many new albums are being released, as well, albums, pressed on vinyl.

 

[pixmedic]

occasionally i think about going back to film. specifically medium format. been on and off that road a few times over the years.
then i remember what it feels like every time i try and get back into film.

 

[480sparky]

The main reason I shoot 4x5 film is the camera. Even the most basic large format camera (excluding the Travelwide), gives me tilt, shift and swing. This makes a huge difference in the resulting image. Sure, there are some shift/tilt lenses available but they are more limiting (and not cheap)......

I enjoy shooting 4x5 not only for the joy of shooting with film large enough to serve dinner on, but it's also a great conversation starter. A lot of people are amazed that my "ancient camera that's been restored" is really only 4 years old.

...........Also, a properly scanned 4x5 color transparency will be equivalent to several gigapixels. .............

I tried scanning a 4x5 black & white neg at the highest resolution I have in my scanner. My computer choked up and had to be rebooted. I think I'd end up with a 1.2gp image if I had the horsepower under the hood of my desktop machine.


Back a few years ago when I got my darkroom back up and running, I invited the neighbor's grandkids (the, ages 7-12) over to watch me make a wet print. They were absolutely amazed. No computer. No monitor. No mouse. No sliders. No Save As at the end.......

 

[Jollyprof]

I got into photography shooting film with an old 1970s Nikkormat and loved the darkroom experience of printing the photos. My current biggest issue with potentially going back to film is finding a decent darkroom to use open to the public (and I am willing to pay). When I first started photography (mid 90s), I had the good fortune to be at Oregon State University, which had a community arts center with a darkroom anyone could join and pay to use. I am now in SoCal and have found it almost impossible to find a good darkroom to use. I work at a University, but darkroom only available to students actively enrolled in photography classes. I do not have currently have the resources (ownership of my living space, etc.) for a home darkroom. So, for me, it is simply a practical problem - if you know a good darkroom in SoCal I could potentially use, please let me know!! I’d like to dust off the Nikkormat and try out a Yashica Mat-124 I picked up. Thanks!!

 

[maxxremis]

I am not totally convinced that digital photos have a 100% advantage over film.
Some expert would have to convince me of this.

 

[Jeff15]

Whats film................??????

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

Why are people still clinging on to film in the age of far better digital technology?

I have never understood this argument, or the obvious contradiction it highlights.

Images are the point of photography. So in light of the far better technology you would expect to see the flaws and how *sub-standard* old film images were. The should pale in comparison, but they don't. Not only do they all hold up and are as emotive as they ever were but modern film images can still stand up to being the equal or better of modern digital.

So if the argument doesn't stand even a mild scrutiny of the images produced by each then what is the comparison of *better* based on?

It boils down quite simply to, "my camera is better than yours."

Though we universally like to proclaim it's the photographer we seem to spend most of our time trying to prove it's the camera.

As to why I use film I probably summed it up best in an article I posted on this forum:

Musings on Mull

 

[D300Rob]

For me, the first thing that comes to mind about film. If film died, no more movies. It is still shot on film, not digital. Also, film still has a unique quality that is not on digital. It seems so many digital shooters are spray and pray, and fix it in PS or LR. Not that much latitude with film. Get it right in camera, tweaking if needed later, not planning on spending hours to fix.

 

[john.margetts]

For me, the first thing that comes to mind about film. If film died, no more movies. It is still shot on film, not digital. Also, film still has a unique quality that is not on digital. It seems so many digital shooters are spray and pray, and fix it in PS or LR. Not that much latitude with film. Get it right in camera, tweaking if needed later, not planning on spending hours to fix.

Most movies have been shot with digital cameras for some years now. Those directors that insist on using film are in a minority.


Sent from my 8070 using Tapatalk