• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Why ℗ Analogue Film in a digital Age?

You've eaten a fine cooked meal and can't stand microwave dinners.
 

Michael R 1974 said:
The preference for analog is a mixture of several things in various proportions depending on the person:

... -An image on film has some sort of inherent "integrity" ...
Click to expand...


These points are very prescient with me right now. All of the reasons and sentiments given are relevant and I have discovered, part of my decision and hold of film on me. I am attending a conference later this month on ecological processes and restoration of damaged grazing lands/rangelands. One day is specifically dedicated to shooting a quality landscape "photo point" as a ecological or historical reference, where a photo is taken at a specific point, landmark, GPS UTM coordinate, etc. and then retaken 5, 10, 25, 50, 100 years or so later for comparison of ecological processes, either restoration or further degradation.

As I prepare for this conference, I have had to wonder about the longevity of digital images and the ability to access a file, or the durability of a computer print, well in the future so that ecological processes that alter a landscape can be gauged, estimated, quantified, documented and turned into sound science, thus an understanding of the natural or anthropogenic process. Can digital images successfully do that? Are they meant for archival storage and usage? I don't know, and I doubt it. This does explain some of films hold onto me, but not all of it.

Romance of celluloid and silver halide images aside, there is a technical aspect and connection to my work as a ecologist and scientist that I do not fully trust to digital images. This forum is a wonderful place to discuss these things; I have felt somewhat isolated in my quest for film usage until now, as I am often surrounded by those who use spectral, remotely-sensed imagery to derive answers to hypothesis. But will that spectral data endure? I don't know and I don't know if the scientific community knows or will know.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

I would say that aesthetic qualities have everything to do with art. Perhaps you are referring to a definition of technical quality only.
 

For me I want to do it because I still can. I am afraid one day I can't do it anymore. Digital isn't going away in my lifetime so there is no rush to use it.
 
Because film is what my cameras take.
 
With film I advance to next frame!!!
 
Emulsions on different films and using different cameras.

For 135 and 120/220 we have a bunch of different cameras ( an indefinite number?) to shoot with and they can be free or cost many thousands of dollars. People can and do make them from anything and everything.

Try making a digital camera and make it shoot with 50 different sensors. (Digital emulsions?)

Film can be used traditionally or scanned and I am discovering the amazing latitude of over-exposed print film especially Portra! But from what I can tell compared to digital vs scanned film it is amazingly flexible. (However...It seems a new digital sensor tech may be able to trump that in the near future.Check out the Lytro Illum. It let's you focus later on and select the depth of field after taking the shot. )
 
Here's something else you can't do with digital - time travel. Spend a few hundred bucks on say a Leica III and a Summar, or a pre-war Contax. Or a $100 Kiev. Load the thing with Tri X and go out on the street, or take it to a bar with a band. You're using state of the art tech from ca. 1935, and you'll rapidly see that it is still pretty darn good by today's standards. You can make photos that look like they were made in the '30s without some stupid instagram app.
There's a primitive biathlon held in Vermont. Snowshoes and flintlocks. If you have to ask why...
 
It is the sleep factor


I find that working with digital leads me to more sleepless nights.

And working with film helps me sleep like a baby.

So just say that film keeps you young.
 
My fortune cookie eschewed this tidbit of info today. "Digital circuits are made from analog parts." No kidding!

With that said, these film vs digital threads are getting old. I didn't even bother to finish reading the first post but thought I share my fortune.

David
 

Latitude for one. There's no recovering data from an overloaded photo sensor. Grain is another. There's nothing pleasing about digital noise. That's more subjective. But both reasons have a lot to do with why I prefer analog over digital.
 
I did not take the plunge into digital until Sigma came out with their SD14 Foveon imager based SLR. My reasoning was based on my prior film experience, film records the whole spectra at every point. A Bayer masked imager, along with the necessary Anti-Aliasing "soft focus" filter, and high software dependance for color interpolation just is not what I feel acceptable to achieve maximal image quality. Just as with film, Foveon imager chips employ a layered geometry to detect Red, Green, and Blue at every photosite. My decision to buy the SD-14 was made after reading the patents Foveon reveived on their technology. Even with my SD14, I still prefer film as the more recent cameras from Sigma still fall short of what can easily be achieved with film. Besides, I picked up a Sigma SA-9 35mm SLR with a pair of lenses for $35, Even my Mamiya RB67 ProSD was under $300, while Sigma's SD1 Merrill Digital SLR Camera lists over $1,800 on B&H.
 
When you can walk a length of rice paper rolled out on the floor with out damaging the paper, leaving no marks or tears, you are fully in-the-moment and ready to use a film camera.
 
Digital images can last indefinitely, but that doesn't mean that no steps need to be taken to conserve them.
The same is true of film based images, athough the conservation details are different.

As for working with one or the other, analog gives the photographer more direct control over how the image is presented, IMHO. With digital you are somewhat at the mercy of the software authors. Rather than a collection of dark room techniques, materials and chemistry, the digital worker ends up with a collection of photoshop filters. I prefer the analog approach.
 
I myself worked backwards, in a sense, from digital to film.

Once I gained enough confidence to know what I was doing, due mostly to being able, using a digital camera, to review my work immediately and make corrections on the fly, I sought out film because of its reputation. The majority of the photos I admired were taken using large format cameras, and I assumed I would be able to replicate them with a better tool. Why both with 10 vs. 16 megapixels, when you can jump straight to the equivalent of hundreds for relatively little money?

I really hate to see the newcomers re-invent the wheel every couple of years. A lot of photography's solved problems have nothing to do with the physical medium. I feel like working with film for the last few years makes me feel like a more seasoned photographer, as if I'd learned what I know over the years of working with the medium, instead of just getting the benefit of the combined experience of others.

I work with film now because it's available, and I recognize it will not always be cheap and abundant. I've already missed the boat with Kodachrome, I never shot a single image. I don't want to make the same mistake with what's left of film. I like to take a historical approach and learn in depth. I am not a believer that new technology is capable of completely supplanting old in the sense of being universally better (but it's true digital offers some advantages over film as well). I take a much broader view.

I work in front of a computer. The last thing I need is more time sitting, so film photography keeps my on my feet, both photographing and in the dark room.

Finally, I like film photography and analog printing because it's relatively easy to get started with but difficult to master. Like any great game, this is what keeps me playing.
 
Then there are those of us who are using Film to Archive Digital Images.. a complete circle .
 

Yes, digital images look pretty sterile across the entire ISO spectrum now. Grain is something I embrace.

And the street shooter doesn't have the same luxuries as the landscape photographer -- that is, the ability to bracket or fire off several exposures of the same scene.

Again, I'm not making the case that this is why analog is inherently better than digital. I'm just stating my own personal reasons. Yes, with me, it's also about the things you suggested (enjoyment, magic, nostalgia) -- but I have practical reasons too.
 

Yes! The Sigma cameras are the only digital cameras I'll bother with. I can see how they'd appeal to analog shooters, as they offer something that works a little bit more like film. Bayer is more akin to autochrome.
 
I have been shooting film for 35 years, digital for 20, I know them both very very well. The way it is going for me is to largely phase out digital out of my career path and just do black and white fine art, so far so good. That being said I have been working with pair of new Nikon D810 cameras and they are truly spectacular in operation and final results, I could very well stop the upgrade path with these and call it good.

I don't hate digital the tool, just the age and the mentality. But I truly love film and working in my darkroom more and more each day. I just **love** doing photography for a living, I doubt I could just do it as a mere hobby at this point, I would lose all the freedom I have and it would not be nearly the fun it is now...
 
PKM-25 said:
I doubt I could just do it as a mere hobby at this point, I would lose all the freedom I have and it would not be nearly the fun it is now...
Click to expand...

Surely as a hobby you have more freedom?
 
In a fast changing world, film represents permanence, or something close. Look at a digital forum thread from, say, 2011, and the topics seems impossibly arcane, with cameras everyone was clamouring for having been superseded, perhaps more than once. Also, on the rare occasions I take a good photo on digital, I always wish it was on film.
 
cliveh said:
Surely as a hobby you have more freedom?
Click to expand...

In my case, not even close...

Before I went full time in this I was always working those 8 hours not doing photography, pining for the after hours or the weekends. Now I shoot basically for my self or only take on commissioned work that appeals to me. Sure, the first ten years were kind of rough from an income standpoint but the last ten have been amazing, especially the last five.

Also, I have a legacy for my images in the town I live, they hold a societal purpose that is already valued and I am still alive. This is why when I read about how free enthusiasts feel that they don't have to try to earn a living with photography, I shake my head in disbelief, because they are obviously by default focusing on those who struggle, not those who are truly living the dream...
 

I have always felt that way.
 
There are so many reasons to continue shooting film verses digital, and it makes me so happy that all these digital buffs don't realize that. Know why? Because I don't wait in line at the last local photo shop, and I don't have issues finding the camera accessories I need, and I pay 500 dollars for a mamiya that was 5000 dollars just a decade ago. All the attention is wrongfully directed at digital right now, which means more cheap film gear for people like us!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register