why won't film just die already?!

[DanOstergren]

I equate old cameras and rare film to rare toys, classic cars, etc. There is clearly a collector's market, and because of that it will never die. It doesn't matter if digital is "better", it just doesn't have much nostalgia or value to a collector. Even as someone who has shot primarily with digital cameras, I have a major interest in old 8x10 film cameras and Rolleiflex TLR cameras, and would love to own and use them for portraits and fashion images. To me it's simply another way of creating self expression and learning something new about a craft that I'm very passionate about. It really has nothing to do with the quality of the photo, and to be honest I think "quality" is something that should be judged based on what's in the photo, not in how it was conceived.

 

[vin88]

I equate old cameras and rare film to rare toys, classic cars, etc. There is clearly a collector's market, and because of that it will never die. It doesn't matter if digital is "better", it just doesn't have much nostalgia or value to a collector. Even as someone who has shot primarily with digital cameras, I have a major interest in old 8x10 film cameras and Rolleiflex TLR cameras, and would love to own and use them for portraits and fashion images. To me it's simply another way of creating self expression and learning something new about a craft that I'm very passionate about. It really has nothing to do with the quality of the photo, and to be honest I think "quality" is something that should be judged based on what's in the photo, not in how it was conceived.

digital cameras are great, but, can quit right in the middle of a shoot; "the computer age".

 

[DanOstergren]

I equate old cameras and rare film to rare toys, classic cars, etc. There is clearly a collector's market, and because of that it will never die. It doesn't matter if digital is "better", it just doesn't have much nostalgia or value to a collector. Even as someone who has shot primarily with digital cameras, I have a major interest in old 8x10 film cameras and Rolleiflex TLR cameras, and would love to own and use them for portraits and fashion images. To me it's simply another way of creating self expression and learning something new about a craft that I'm very passionate about. It really has nothing to do with the quality of the photo, and to be honest I think "quality" is something that should be judged based on what's in the photo, not in how it was conceived.

digital cameras are great, but, can quit right in the middle of a shoot; "the computer age".

Honestly I think this is the case for anything with mechanical function, whether it's digital or not. This includes the function of film cameras.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Well for all the perfectly good reasons for film already mentioned, the bottom line is for some, it is just more fun.

Be it the bigger challenge, a connection to the past, a chance to use highly crafted cameras built by long dead master crafts men or simply to step away from the day to day world of endless electronic gadgetry.

It is not an either/or situation, it is more of a "Well this looks interesting" appeal.

 

[limr]

I equate old cameras and rare film to rare toys, classic cars, etc. There is clearly a collector's market, and because of that it will never die. It doesn't matter if digital is "better", it just doesn't have much nostalgia or value to a collector. Even as someone who has shot primarily with digital cameras, I have a major interest in old 8x10 film cameras and Rolleiflex TLR cameras, and would love to own and use them for portraits and fashion images. To me it's simply another way of creating self expression and learning something new about a craft that I'm very passionate about. It really has nothing to do with the quality of the photo, and to be honest I think "quality" is something that should be judged based on what's in the photo, not in how it was conceived.

digital cameras are great, but, can quit right in the middle of a shoot; "the computer age".

Honestly I think this is the case for anything with mechanical function, whether it's digital or not. This includes the function of film cameras.

Absolutely true - film cameras can fail in the middle of a roll as well and screw things up. Just one nitpick: there are mechanical failures and there are electronic failures. While it's true that some of my totally manual cameras have had issues with things like sticky shutters or film advance from time to time, the film cameras that I have that require batteries and have more complicated electronics have been less reliable than my purely mechanical cameras. When my Olympus OM-2 has a dead battery? Can't use it. Might as well be a paper weight. When my K1000 has a dead battery? I use my phone as a light meter or wing it using Sunny 16 and keep shooting.

 

[CALNNC]

I had to comment on this statement about old cameras and film. Those are with us for the same reason vintage motor vehicles, steam locomotives, rotary engine aircraft, muzzle loaders, and tube stereos and radios are with us. They are loved by many, restored, fun to operate and use, and just appreciated. Digital is great and convenient, but the skill and technical aspects of film, make things more interesting for some. In the day when you took a shot with a camera you made F stop and speed adjustments , had picked the right film for the situation, and produced a great picture, compared to today when it is mostly the microprocessor doing it for you to produce a just as good, maybe even better picture. But where is the real skill in that?

 

[wmurnahan]

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?

For me, I won't give up film because you can't get the luster and depth in the black with an ink jet print that you can with a silver oxide paper print. Look at an Ansel Adams, there is detail even in his darkest shadow, the black has a shine/shimmer, not flat like an ink jet.

 

[chuasam]

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?

For me, I won't give up film because you can't get the luster and depth in the black with an ink jet print that you can with a silver oxide paper print. Look at an Ansel Adams, there is detail even in his darkest shadow, the black has a shine/shimmer, not flat like an ink jet.

Fair. But a lot of these film shooters are just using Fuji superia 400 in a old point and shoot camera

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

 

[chuasam]

I equate old cameras and rare film to rare toys, classic cars, etc. There is clearly a collector's market, and because of that it will never die. It doesn't matter if digital is "better", it just doesn't have much nostalgia or value to a collector. Even as someone who has shot primarily with digital cameras, I have a major interest in old 8x10 film cameras and Rolleiflex TLR cameras, and would love to own and use them for portraits and fashion images. To me it's simply another way of creating self expression and learning something new about a craft that I'm very passionate about. It really has nothing to do with the quality of the photo, and to be honest I think "quality" is something that should be judged based on what's in the photo, not in how it was conceived.

digital cameras are great, but, can quit right in the middle of a shoot; "the computer age".

Honestly I think this is the case for anything with mechanical function, whether it's digital or not. This includes the function of film cameras.

Absolutely true - film cameras can fail in the middle of a roll as well and screw things up. Just one nitpick: there are mechanical failures and there are electronic failures. While it's true that some of my totally manual cameras have had issues with things like sticky shutters or film advance from time to time, the film cameras that I have that require batteries and have more complicated electronics have been less reliable than my purely mechanical cameras. When my Olympus OM-2 has a dead battery? Can't use it. Might as well be a paper weight. When my K1000 has a dead battery? I use my phone as a light meter or wing it using Sunny 16 and keep shooting.

In all my years of photography I have never been stopped by a dead battery. I always have a spare.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

 

[john.margetts]

For me, I won't give up film because you can't get the luster and depth in the black with an ink jet print that you can with a silver oxide paper print. Look at an Ansel Adams, there is detail even in his darkest shadow, the black has a shine/shimmer, not flat like an ink jet.

just a gentle correction - not intending much by this - but the black in an analogue print is metallic silver not silver oxide.



Sent from my 8070 using Tapatalk

 

[limr]

I equate old cameras and rare film to rare toys, classic cars, etc. There is clearly a collector's market, and because of that it will never die. It doesn't matter if digital is "better", it just doesn't have much nostalgia or value to a collector. Even as someone who has shot primarily with digital cameras, I have a major interest in old 8x10 film cameras and Rolleiflex TLR cameras, and would love to own and use them for portraits and fashion images. To me it's simply another way of creating self expression and learning something new about a craft that I'm very passionate about. It really has nothing to do with the quality of the photo, and to be honest I think "quality" is something that should be judged based on what's in the photo, not in how it was conceived.

digital cameras are great, but, can quit right in the middle of a shoot; "the computer age".

Honestly I think this is the case for anything with mechanical function, whether it's digital or not. This includes the function of film cameras.

Absolutely true - film cameras can fail in the middle of a roll as well and screw things up. Just one nitpick: there are mechanical failures and there are electronic failures. While it's true that some of my totally manual cameras have had issues with things like sticky shutters or film advance from time to time, the film cameras that I have that require batteries and have more complicated electronics have been less reliable than my purely mechanical cameras. When my Olympus OM-2 has a dead battery? Can't use it. Might as well be a paper weight. When my K1000 has a dead battery? I use my phone as a light meter or wing it using Sunny 16 and keep shooting.

In all my years of photography I have never been stopped by a dead battery. I always have a spare.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

How nice for you.

 

[Overread]

Digital cameras run out of battery power
Film cameras run out of film unless they were more modern ones which have all kinds of electric wizardry in them*

Both hate you if you dunk them in salt water.


*Canon even had a couple with eye tracking to monitor your eye and use it for focus point selection!

 

[480sparky]

..For me, I won't give up film because you can't get the luster and depth in the black with an ink jet print that you can with a silver oxide paper print. Look at an Ansel Adams, there is detail even in his darkest shadow, the black has a shine/shimmer, not flat like an ink jet.

Of course, you have to look at an original. Not a copy.

 

[webestang64]

*Canon even had a couple with eye tracking to monitor your eye and use it for focus point selection!

LOVE my Canon A2E.

 

[terri]

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?

For me, I won't give up film because you can't get the luster and depth in the black with an ink jet print that you can with a silver oxide paper print. Look at an Ansel Adams, there is detail even in his darkest shadow, the black has a shine/shimmer, not flat like an ink jet.

Fair. But a lot of these film shooters are just using Fuji superia 400 in a old point and shoot camera

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

Really? Point and shoot? The film shooters I know use regular SLRs or TLR like Rolleis. Do you have any actual statistics to support this assertion?