Why do you choose to use film?

[theoria]

my 3 reasons

1. Aesthetics. Some say the film look can be repilicated in PP, though some things, like the way negative film records highlights, make me think there isn't enough information stored for that. Some more technologically knowledgeable people my add some further reasons but anyway, if possible, I must confess, I wasn't able to do it perfectly. Anyway doctoring images takes too much time.

2. Ergonomics. Why can't modern DSLR manufacturers make cameras the size of my Pentax ME/ME super/ Super A?

3. Economics. The difference between an excellent film SH camera and a FF dslr is more than 2000 $/Euro. With that money,at 4-5$/E a roll, I can buy 400-500 films, which which would last me for more years than it would take the FF behemoth to become obsolete. (I process my own BW film, so it costs me close to nothing, and the developing of a color film is approx 0.75E in my part of the world). I also shoot MF (my favourite medium), and here digital is inaccessible for the hobbyist.
Of course , in theory it is possible to take 100.000 and more pictures with a digital, making the cost per picture more advantageous. Well, 100k shutter actuations require a lot of passion and perseverance, but I discovered that the more I progress in my hobby, the more I become selective with what I shoot. Anyway, I hate to clutter my hdd with GBs of shots I know even before pressing the button that would turn be junk, but I still shoot, as they come for free. Anyway, if you are looking for the ultimate bargain, and not for quality, the most reasonable option would be to shoot with your phone, as it saves the thousands of euros usually paid for gear.

 

[mopar_guy]

Why not use film?

It looks like the OP has hit a nerve with this question. Why film? Simply put, Film works and it works quite well. So why not use an imaging system that works. Why not? The only real advantage that the other system has over analog is that of speed. You can capture a digital image and transmit the image anywhere in the world in a couple of minutes. You can actually do so with a cell phone. If you want to look at the analog imaging system, there are several thousand posts on APUG.org.

 

[DrZish]

For me its because I am around computers all the time for my job. Therefore with film I can have the enjoyment of not being around computers. In addition, I've been doing black an white darkroom work since Jr. High and just find it more fun and somehow easier than trying to do it on a computer.

Tony

 

[whlogan]

I started with film in 1949 and have been at it since. Rolleiflexes keep coming, the count is now 27 and may not stop there. Cameras, of course are only part of the reason. The results that one holds in his or her hands are the real reason. The print and how they look and affect you and others are what matters and I really think that words often fail to adequately describe that feature of film work.They "look" different. They "are" different. The prints have a depth to them that digital prints mostly fail to have; a life, if you will; they can reach into your soul and speak to you as Moonrise can or as Flatiron can. I wish I were as good a photo philosopher as Brooks Jensen, then I could really explain this properly, but alas, I am a mere mortal.
Logan

 

[131802]

This is a question I've asked myself many times, and I think the answer is that it annoys my digital friends.

 

[thegman]

I started off with digital and tried out film, and it stuck. I contemplated Leica M8 and Epson RD-1s, but they were pricey and not full frame (I like wide lenses). I saw that Voigtlander and Zeiss made reasonably priced but very nice cameras, and sprung for a Zeiss Ikon. I loved it from the moment I took it out of the box, and loved the results too. I now own 4 film cameras, and don't take my one digital camera anywhere. I much prefer the process of shooting film, which for me is "shoot and forget", no chimping, no analysing histograms, I just take the shot and keep walking. I also prefer the results, my first ever roll was Ilford XP2 and it was just superb, black was black and white was white, with digital it was all grey. I then shot Velvia and that was even more striking, I now realise why blue seas looked so blue in the travel brochures.

The only thing I don't like about film is the number of ways it can go wrong, bad processing, scanning etc, but the benefits far outweigh these problems. Put simply, it's nicer to shoot film, and nicer to look at the results.

 

[Naples]

This is a question I've asked myself many times, and I think the answer is that it annoys my digital friends.

Along that vein, although this is not so much why I use film, but, over Christmas I was at the local Ritz Camera on two separate occasions to get prints from scans of two photos I shot with Tri-X 135.

Each time, as I chitchatted with my friend behind the counter (who actually is a film guy), the lady customer behind me glanced at my photo, complemented it, and asked how I shot it.

And each time she could not believe I had used a Nikon N80 35mm with Tri-X. One was stunned when she asked if I had used PS to enhance it and I said “No”.

 

[2F/2F]

There are many reasons for those who started on film to keep using it, and many people in the thread have stated this as a reason. The infrastructure and experience are already there, and a film process provides everything that these people need. Not wanting to deal with changing carries a ton of weight, IMHO. What worries me is that these reasons do not apply to people who started on digital. The important thing to me at this point in photographic history is not keeping film users from going digital. They are going to go if that is what they want. I am more concerned with bringing in new adopters of film imaging to carry the torch. As always, education of younger generations is key to our own survival as film photographers, by means of providing the survival of our methods and materials.

 

[Maris]

I choose film because it forms the initial step in making pictures of things out of light sensitive substances. But I usually choose more. Film of itself is usually not enough except in the uncommon instance where camera-original material is the final product. The other film is the stuff coated on paper. By linguistic convention it's called photographic paper but at it's technical heart it works the same as film. Film, photographic paper plus film, or photographic paper alone are manifestations of what is really at stake; photography itself.

Somewhat abstract philosophising follows:
Photography, as it was invented and then practiced for the next 170 years or so, is the only known way to make image based pictures that are physically and indexically linked to their subject matter. It would be unthinkable indeed if a picture-making process offering this unique combination of qualities was ditched and never taken up again.

In the grand context of things there are several picture-making processes in which the first step is "lens makes image". Examples include realist painting, drawing, camera obscura sketches, digital pictures, and photography. Of these photography is only one that delivers pictures that come into existence because they are directly penetrated by a physical sample of their subject matter.

In another grand context there are several image categories that have an assuredly indexical relationship to their subject matter. Examples include life-casts, death masks, silicon rubber moulds, brass rubbings, footprints, coal peels, and photographs. Of these indexical processes the only one that includes the "lens makes image" quality is photography.

In the long run the salvation of photography lies not in how its pictures look. Resolution, colour accuracy, and tonal fidelity don't count. Digital technology, even in its present infancy, can generate any resolution, colour, or tone you like with or without reference to anything external.

Its the special relationship photography has to its subjects and consequently the special relationship it offers to me that keeps it in my attention as a picture form worth looking at.

 

[KOG]

I use film because it is MAGIC!

It has alchemy, and ritual enough to rival the incantations of shamans.

It uses all the senses not just sight; the scent of darkroom chemicals, the taste of 120 film stickers, the tactile quality of holding film by its edges, and sounds galore.

Besides that - it's fun!

Kevin

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Somewhat abstract philosophising follows...

Excellent.

Ken

 

[Worker 11811]

Why do people continue to paint with oils when they can take photographs?

Why do people still play the violin when they can use a synthesizer?

Because it's mastery of a medium of expression.

Painting a picture with a brush and oil paint on canvas allows the painter to express his vision in a way that no other can. It is about mastery of the use of brush and paint. It is about movement. It is about the act of creation of your work. Playing a violin, expressing yourself through music is the same. It is about physics, movement, speed, dexterity and timing. You could easily use a computer to generate music that sounds almost identical but it wouldn't have the same meaning.

It doesn't matter how long it takes to make a painting. Some painters take months or years to paint one canvas. I have seen artists on the street paint landscapes in less than a minute. So what if a digicam can take a photo and display it 10 seconds later?

Quality isn't a concern, either. Fauvist painters, abstractionists and/or cubists seemingly make globs of paint on canvas that don't necessarily resemble the subject at all. There are painters who can paint photo realistic art that you couldn't tell from a photo without standing a foot from the canvas.

Painters paint, musicians play, sculptors sculpt, actors perform and photographers make pictures, not for speed, convenience or image quality. (Not necessarily.) People do these things because it satisfies their need to express themselves using a particular medium.

In order to complete that expression, people must learn their craft. They must learn to use the tools and methods of their chosen art form to further their goals. It is a life long journey of learning, discovery and practice to master one's craft.

One can not simply decide to make a work of art and produce it the next day. You have to study. In order to study, you have to DO it.

Why do people fix cars? Why do people build projects out of wood? Why do they build model airplanes? Why do people play sorts? Because they LIKE to! A traditional photographer does not need to justify himself any more than a shade tree mechanic needs to justify himself.

The difference, here, is that photography has utility outside of simple expression. Photos can be documentary. They can be artistic. They can be commercial. They can be prurient. The photographer might express himself THROUGH the utility of his work. A photojournalist might document the cruelty and tragedy of a war by showing soldiers killing civilians. A commercial photographer might show the beauty of a model wearing the latest fashions. Both of those photographers are expressing something THROUGH the utility of their medium.

I think that this blurring of the lines between expression and utility that confuses people. All they see is a picture frame. All they touch is a page in a magazine. All they know is the sidebar in a newspaper article. They don't necessarily see the expression of the photographer. IF they do, it is often confused with the topic of the article itself.

Because the demands of mass media are pushing us toward digital technology to satisfy our hunger for imagery, people lose sight of the fact that traditional photography is a craft just like being a musician, a sculptor, a painter or anything else.

Why don't people question you when you say you like to play baseball? Why don't they question you if you say you like to collect Teddy Bears?

Why should people question me when I tell them that I have a fully functional darkroom in my basement?

 

[hpulley]

Painting and drawing and sculpture do have utility as well! They used to have more utility before photography, CAD software and manufacturing but they did and still do have uses today.

People do question why I like to play baseball but that's mostly because I'm terrible at baseball...

 

[benjiboy]

I use film because that's what my cameras take.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I use film because that's what my cameras take.

Same here! Besides I'm a analog guy in a digital world.

Jeff

 

[softshock]

All this analog versus digital talk around here is starting to remind me of my synthesizer forum.

 

[Worker 11811]

Painting and drawing and sculpture do have utility as well! They used to have more utility before photography, CAD software and manufacturing but they did and still do have uses today.

People do question why I like to play baseball but that's mostly because I'm terrible at baseball...

We still have Eugene Iverd's original paintings that appeared on the cover of the Saturday Evening Post. They have utility as commercial works yet they still stand on their own as art.

I think that there are fewer photos that stand on their own as art or expressive works because they are commercial work or because they were documentary photos for a news story, for example. This, I believe, blurs people's view of photography.

"Why do you make traditional photos when you can use digital?" people ask.

I say it's not JUST about the image but about the medium, the process and the mastery of that process.

As you photograph with a film camera, as you develop film, as you print images, you go through a process of thinking and expression that is manifested in the final product. Without that process, the final expression would not be the same.

Would the Venus de Milo have been the same if Alexandros had used 3-D lithography and a CAD program?

We have also discussed the effect that the medium has on the viewer. The depth, richness and overall appearance of a traditional photograph can have a different effect on the viewer than other mediums.

Would a sculpture which was exactly the same as Venus de Milo except for the fact that it was carved from a tree trunk with a chain saw have the same effect on the viewer?

 

[Peter de Groot]

Why do I use film? I started out with analogue but I never got the hang of it. Then digital came. I bought a digital slr so I could learn quicker about aperture, focal lenth, dof etc. Then I decided I want to learn more of the origins of photography so I bought an Agfa Clack and started shooting. One thing led to another and now I am going to an art school where the first two years are analogue only. Well in the second year you may use the digi cam sometimes.

For me I feel more creative when I hold my Yashica mat or pentax me super with tri-x loaded. I want to learn to shoot one photo and that is a good one. Then I want to learn to print it so it will become a very good photograph. With digital I don't have it that strong. I like to use it. It brought me to the point that I decided I want to be a professional photographer when I grow up (I am 37 btw). But to (try to) create art I want to do that the old fashioned way. It takes more effort and for me the reward is bigger because of that. And if other people like it too then yohoo!

 

[tony lockerbie]

Wow Worker11811, you answer a question just like my wife does, very impressive! If someone asks me why I use film (and they do a lot) I will give them a copy of your post. Really it is about the process for me, I have always loved it. Not really a question of quality anymore, as digital is now working well, but the alchemy always sucks me in.
Plus the fact that there is so much interesting old analogue gear around that's available for peanuts, puts me in hog heaven really.

 

[Steve Smith]

Wow Worker11811, you answer a question just like my wife does, very impressive! If someone asks me why I use film (and they do a lot) I will give them a copy of your post.

Yes. Very impressive. Perhaps he could place his last two posts on the same titled thread currently active on Photo Net.



Steve.

 

[TaoPhoto]

Painting and drawing and sculpture do have utility as well! They used to have more utility before photography, CAD software and manufacturing but they did and still do have uses today.

Does our photography have to be useful? I make pictures for the sake of making them, and I use film because it's very nature leads to different creative places than a digital camera does. I don't care if my photography is useful, though I hope it is honest, at times beautiful, and even noble once in a while.

My biggest reason for staying with film is basic: the world is not constructed in rows of same-sized little balls, all in a grid. Film captures the world more honestly, to me, with all of the world's beauty and flaws. Digital photography attempts to fool us into thinking that the world is ordered and ultra-sharp. That's simply not the world I live in.

 

[Worker 11811]

I did not mean that a thing must have utility to be valid.

In fact, I'm saying the opposite. It seems like some people imply that things must have utility for them to be valid. It is this false sense of validity that makes people reject the idea of using traditional photography for its own sake.

TaoPhoto, I, like you, don't like the Cartesian nature of digital photography. I think the psychological effect of viewing a Cartesian coordinate image versus a random grain image is different. I prefer the random structure as well.

You guys have covered most of the technical and aesthetic reasons for preferring traditional photography. I agree with >90% of that but most of that argument is old hat to us. I'm going for something more than that.

To that end, I argue that process is as important or even more important than product.

 

[hpulley]

Does our photography have to be useful? I make pictures for the sake of making them, and I use film because it's very nature leads to different creative places than a digital camera does. I don't care if my photography is useful, though I hope it is honest, at times beautiful, and even noble once in a while.

My biggest reason for staying with film is basic: the world is not constructed in rows of same-sized little balls, all in a grid. Film captures the world more honestly, to me, with all of the world's beauty and flaws. Digital photography attempts to fool us into thinking that the world is ordered and ultra-sharp. That's simply not the world I live in.

No, it doesn't need to have utility. Most of mine certainly doesn't to anyone but me.

I've heard art defined sociologically as something which a culture can only do as a luxury. It marks a point when there is enough leisure time, rather than spending every waking moment hunting and evading predators, so that art can be created. As such art probably shouldn't have utility, art with utility would be considered work.

You know what, I agree completely with your second point. It is something I hate about all digital input and output, it is too regular. They need filters to avoid stair stepping diagonals all over the place. With film there are chemical activation energies and energy levels so there are some quantized levels but at least it isn't a regular grid everyone. Well said.

 

[stradibarrius]

To me, film just seems to be more in my control...more basic. No processor in the camera trying to out think me or correct my screw ups. For me it's just more fun!!!!

 

[hpulley]

To me, film just seems to be more in my control...more basic. No processor in the camera trying to out think me or correct my screw ups. For me it's just more fun!!!!

That's what I hate about the current Nikon commercials with the tagline, "I'm getting photography lessons... from my Camera!" Ugh...