Why do you choose to use film?

[pgomena]

1. I like to have a physical manifestation of what I saw in the field.
2. I own a couple of decent cameras and lenses. The image quality I can produce blows away any digital camera I can afford.
3. My cameras won't be obsolete in 3 years, don't need batteries, and have no menus to sort through or blinking indicators.
4. A roll of 120 film just feels right in my hand.
5. My negatives can't be accidentally deleted.

Peter Gomena

 

[faustotesta]

Here are my reasons:
1) Because in the 70s it was the only choice (i started taking pictures in 1977 with a polaroid)

2) I like the look of colours.

3) Memories remain with an analog shot. Most of my family pictures are made of blurred/out of focus pictures. Had they been taken with a digital point and shoot would have been erased and not printed. Nowadays looking at those "photographically" indecent pictures i realize they are a precious piece of history.

4) Shooting analog forces you to think and concentrate on what you're doing. Having 36 shots (or 16,12,10....) only makes your brain cells
work at their best in order to get good pictures.

5) When future generations (thousands of years from now) will find the ruins in my village i want them to think "This house contains precious remainders of the pasts. In particular Pictures and texts. The inhabitants of this apartment were years ahead respect to their neighbours who all have only small boxes with cables hanging, grey circles with a hole in the middle, and monitors with nothig inside. We don't know what this stuff is. But we think that it means that human beings at those times, after progressing a lot, suddenly went back....."

Ciao

 

[panchro-press]

Why bother with fake when I can have the real?

 

[Laurent]

Do you mean there's something else ?

...

more seriously (uh ?) it has to do with the process which I like a lot (the "mad scientist" factor !) as well as the cameras that show some craftmanship (at least that's the case for my Rolleiflex and Tachihara, less true for the EOS3).

I also love the finished product, be it slides, B&W negatives or prints.

Finally, it gives me a good reason not to sit in front of a computer (I'm working in IT, so I spend waaaaay too much time in front of a screen)

 

[Mark Antony]

Why use film? I guess its a question I get asked quite a bit.
I like the physicality of the media, I actually have the negs in a file rather than just an electronic file-I think this makes them safer, it certainly makes me feel more secure.

I like using my Rolleiflex, the square viewfinder and mechanical feel.

More difficult to express is a of a feeling of something not so quantifiable.
If you look at TV programs from the late 1960's to mid 70's you'll see a depth and clarity almost 3D like, I'm not kidding just watch an old episode of the Saint with Roger Moore then look at later digitally or video cam shot stuff from the 90's-it looks flat and dull in comparison.

For me film exhibits something that just has depth and almost reality, nearly all digital work I see is flat and un-dynamic. I don't think its dynamic range (because I see it in transparencies) or even lighting, there is for me at least something in a film originated image that most digital seems to lack.

 

[Edward_S]

As others on this thread have already said, a photographic negative gives you a direct link back to the scene that was photographed, no matter how long ago. A negative is a tangible object; something that was present at the time the camera shutter was released, when the events in front of the camera were actually happening, and light bouncing off the actual objects made their mark on the film. It's almost a direct physical connection between the negative and the subject of the photograph, something which becomes more and more precious with the passage of time.

 

[perkeleellinen]

I like printing in the darkroom.
I like how rewarding it is to emerge into daylight with a great print.
I like the rigour of projecting slides.
I like exploiting the inherent constraints (number of exposures).
I like the thought that goes into working around other constraints (ISO, B&W or colour).
I like the how people are interested in what I do because it's now novel.
I even enjoy the snide comments from elderly men (they're always men) who get flustered upon seeing a film photographer.

 

[Steve Smith]

I even enjoy the snide comments from elderly men (they're always men) who get flustered upon seeing a film photographer.

I have never experienced that. With the age of the cameras I use, the normal response is "I used to have one of those" or "my father/grandfather used to have one of those".
There is the occasional "can you still get film for it?" question but that is best left un-answered so they can come to their own conclusion after they think about it for a few minutes!


Steve.

 

[hpulley]

Because I like film. I like buying it, using it, developing it, printing it in the darkroom.

Because I prefer the way it looks. I don't know if you can quantitatively say it is better as I get slapped all the time for saying it is better but in a qualitative sense I just prefer how it looks, how it reacts to light. I like taking a picture that I took; not even a Raw image in digital is the one I took, it has passed through many physical and software filters to make a picture and I find it is often impossible to make it look like what I visualized for my shot, getting the colors and the highlights right just takes too much time and the result is unsatisfactory. Film just looks better.

Like others have said I like having something tangible I can hold in my hand for the picture I took. Memory cards, hard drives and backup devices may be reformatted. This shows that there is nothing tangible about digital and it is just a few storage media failures or operator errors away from not being there at all. Sure, my negatives and prints may all be ruined somehow through fire, flood or poor handling and storage but not simply by bits being set back to zero in the blink of an eye. With luck my analog media will degrage at worst slowly over time and you'll still be able to look at them and tell what they are when I'm gone while my digital media may not be readible or have a reader available in 50 years time.

Film photography just makes me happy.

 

[ptschantz]

I chose film because:
a) I work on a computer all day so digital doesn't have any appeal for me on that front.
b) I prefer B&W photos, with film I can shoot them directly.
c) I like the idea of learning to develop my own film and make my own prints.

 

[Steve Roberts]

It's all pretty much been said now, but there are some things that just seem to me to have a place in the natural order of life - Ford Cortinas, vinyl records, Sony quarter inch reel-to-reel tape recorders, fish and chips, News at Ten, Bruce Forsyth, wet Sundays and so on are examples. As with analogue photography, they have been staples of my half century on the planet and so for me digital photography rankles, along with front wheel drive cars, iPods (whatever they are), health food, TVAM, Ant and bl***y Dec and holidays in the sun. In short, I'm just an Old Fart. For those of you outside the UK who haven't had the experience of Ant and Dec grinning at you every time you switch on your telly, you don't know how lucky you are!

Steve

 

[RPippin]

I don't want to support an industry that produces the carbon footprint that the digital market produces. If you think about it, it is a constantly depreciating asset. From cameras that become obsolete within 18 months, to the computer and software needed to support digital capture, it becomes a never ending quest for the magic bullet. Images produced can be replicated over and over with a click of the mouse. Where's the fun in that? I enjoy the organic process of development and printing in my darkroom. I can make images that are just as bad with film as I can with digital, but I enjoy the experience more.

 

[removed account4]

I love old culture and its products.

umut

i LOVE this !!

 

[flatulent1]

Because I have some really cool film gear. And some really expensive film gear that hit rock bottom when digital took off. If prices were normal I couldn't possibly have some of the high-end cameras and lenses I do have.

Secondary reasons: I don't want to become a Photoshop expert when I can spend my time perfecting my Unreal Tournament skills. I have lost far too many files to hard drive or operating system 'issues' for me to take digital seriously. Every time I step in the darkroom is a chance to relive my youth by mistakenly processing a roll of XP2 in XTOL.

 

[thefizz]

Because i can touch it.

I like this answer.

 

[rtuttle]

For one film doesn't crash! All hard drives are rated in "mean time between failures". It's not if it's when it's gonna fail. Film is universal. How many times have you read about a cache of film from a famous artist or even just a family relative? You take the film to darkroom and print away. In 100 years from now how would you extract images off of any media? You can't backup forever!

 

[alapin]

Why not? Because there is no such thing as accidental delete in film. What you shoot is on the film. Film requires that you take your time in shooting the frame, where with a digital you may just fire away a number of times trying to capture the moment, which may have pasted.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I love film and darkroom. Can't bring myself to love digital. And I have tried.

 

[CD55]

Like most people here it's what I grew up on it and still enjoy using it.

You must want a lot of opinions though since you posted the same question at Photo.net.
http://photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00XywR

 

[railwayman3]

I've used film since being introduced to "serious" photography at the school photographic club.

When reasonably-priced digital cameras appeared, I was quite excited for a while by being able to take loads of pictures at little cost, and not worry about failures, which were easily deleted.

After a while, I began to realise that using a camera like a machine-gun in the hope of the occasional "hit" wasn't my style and gave me no real satisfaction. So back I came to the "considered", quiet and slow approach to picture-taking which film provides, and a new interest in careful composition, understanding light, films, exposures and processing. I like to think that it's more akin to the approach of an artist or painter (though I'm afraid that drawing and painting are way outside my ability!).

OK, I still use digital sometimes, but it's really only for quick snapshots of the kids, and as a recording medium, mainly for work, where a non-archival record is needed, perhaps to be sent with an email, but which can be discarded when its purpose is served.

 

[Diapositivo]

I use both film (135) and digital. I scan my film.

I use film for several reasons:

1) Much better renditions of highlights (nice "foot" instead of white blotch);
1b) I also prefer the clean rendition of the shadows (nice "shoulder" instead of noisy mud);
2) High quality available with good desktop scanner (higher than my serious APS-C 10mp camera);
3) Possibility to use film with small, unobtrusive cameras, getting high quality and no attention;
4) Peace of mind from having my picture in a solid format, rather than as mere "information" that I have to endlessly backup;
5) I now develop slides by myself, and I like the entire experience. Developing by myself, film becomes inexpensive;

Also, film forces me to think twice, or thrice, before taking a picture. Film is very good for a relaxed and thoughtful approach to photography. In theory one can force this kind of discipline to one's photographic attitude also with digital, but in practice the mind "knows" that with digital the incremental cost is zero, so the final result in my case is always more pictures and less "study" before taking a picture.

Fabrizio

 

[Simon R Galley]

Firstly, I obviously have a very, very 'vested' interest in film..........

But really the true 'value' of film never truly occurred to me before the advent of viable d****l cameras.

When you image on film it could not be simpler to me, your image is unique, especially but not exclusively in monochrome. You can be standing next to someone with the same camera, lens, film etc etc then take a photograph and both your images will be different. You will process differently and you will most certainly print differently from anybody else..thats it, you took it, you made it, its yours, nobody else can do it like you do it, an original.....

To me its also the creative drive, to use my knowledge and experience to make something as 'good' as I can, I am never going to be a Sexton or a Rudman or a Salgado but I can go through exactly the same creative loop as they do.

Finally everyone here at HARMAN knows the value of our heritage, it drives you to hopefully produce great products ( and I am absolutely sure its the same in KODAK and FUJI and FOMA and whoever ) but imaging on film is important for our personal and national cultural heritage. Billions and billions of photographs ( and motion picture of course ) have been taken on film and they actually EXIST, they can be stored, they can be printed they can be archived and they visually depict literally 'everything' since the 19th century.

With d*****l we honestly risk loosing so much, because if its not valued at that moment its lost for ever never mind the potential loss through storage technology in the future, its very simple, when your Mother went to the drug store to pick up her 36 prints in nineteen hundred and whatever she only liked three and actually only framed one but the other 33 were not thrown away they were 'valuable' and boy they were because she put them in a shoe box at the back of a wardrobe and she created history... yours.....that you can still enjoy.

Thats why I will always love and use film.

Simon.

ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[thedancefloor]

Darkrooms get you laid.

 

[David Brown]

Familiarity. I started with film in the 1960s. And I still like it.

It's my hobby, so I do what I like.

You read my mind.

I'm good at what I can do with film. It took me a long time to get here. I do some digital, but I am a long, long way from the level of ability I have with film. Plus, I still prefer black and white.

It's like asking a painter why they didn't give up oils when acrylics came out. Some did, some didn't. Choice.

 

[PhotoBob]

Using Film

It has been quite encouraging reading all the reasons why we still use film.
I was listening to the radio the other day and the observation was that d.. camera sales were down because of the improved quality of in-mobile phone cameras. Technology is constantly changing the imaging landscape at a dizzying pace making me wonder where this type of ephemeral imaging will lead. I certainly don't want to constantly listen to the clicking of new bells and whistles, newer ... faster ... bigger when I am content to spend my efforts at improving my endeavours to be the best fine-art photographer I can be.
I enjoy the process. Several years ago, I entered prints into an exhibition and one of them won 1st prize. I reflect on that experience and realise that I captured the image, developed the Ilford film and printed the image.
Film photography is thought inducing from composition to exposure to temperatures and timing ...
Film photography keeps the brain active in a world where you don't necessarily need to memorise phone numbers, don't need to know how to tie shoes or tell time with an analogue time piece ...
I respect and use technology all the time, but I think it is important once-in-awhile to consider how it is causing change in society and in people.