Why do you use film?

Photographica · Nov 27, 2013

I use film because of the process and science. When I set up for a shot, some of the things I think about are: how thick will the emulsion be in that highlight? How thin will the emulsion be in that shadow? How do I manipulate the camera to get the focus I want? What compromises do I have to resolve? How do I develop the film? How do I make the print? Do I make a print? AGAIN, what compromises do I make? How do I display the print? Do I throw the print away?

For me, film is a means to a journey that I enjoy.

Bill

David Lyga · Nov 27, 2013

Perhaps this explains it best: a negative provides a visual, tangible image that most assuredly is 'there'. A digital capture provides a theoretical image that will not manifest until the software confirms this (and, hopefully, at that).

As analogy, take traveling: you have two distinct ways to take money. Either a debit/credit card or travelers cheques. Now the Travelers Cheques are: cumbersome, lower exchange rate, lines to wait in, etc, BUT...their denomination is readily ascertainable and if lost, can be replaced MUCH more readily than a card can (usually, as AMEX might have immediate replacement, I do not know). The fact remains is this: do you want convenience over avoidance of disaster? I like the more conservative approach: I do not wish to be stranded, so travelers cheques seem to be more in line with reality, cumbersome as they are. - David Lyga

irvd2x · Nov 27, 2013

Paul..you have covered most of the reasons I came back to film.I reacquired a Linhof 617s..a Mamiya 6 someday soon..and a little Olympus Trip 35..and shoot film with intention knowing as I shoot that I am making a physical photograph..and not simply a theoretical file.
And those nig chromes on the light table.
mmmmm!!!

Sent from my LG-P509 using Tapatalk 2

Hatchetman · Nov 27, 2013

There are practical reasons to use film as well.

I shot some digital photos this past weekend for our Christmas card. It was a contrasty scene, but nothing out of the ordinary. My fair-skinned daughter's face was completely blown out and the images were unusable. I was using my Canon 5Dii, which is a very nice camera. I guarantee had I been using my EOS 3 and Portra film, they would have come out just fine. Yes, I could have probably bracketed the scene and shot in RAW and used Photoshop and digital would have gotten the job done. Lesson learned -> next time plan ahead and shoot a roll of film.

Truzi · Nov 27, 2013

David, I really like your analogy. It is similar to why my next car will likely have a distributor - it is more robust and tangible.

Copyhat · Nov 27, 2013

I started my quest with photography and film at the same time earlier this year with a $6 Konica Autoreflex T3 full mechanical 35mm. Picked it up at the second hand store because I like peculiar obsolete stuff in general (think open reel tape decks, record players, 70's stuff) and the sweet sound of the shutter meant that I had to own it.

Found out a couple of days later that film apparently still is wide available and has many fans online; why not try to shoot a roll? Did it once and decided to bring it with me on summer holiday through Europe. Great colours, I especially like the Fujicolor C200 for the saturated greens and Agfacolor Vista 400 for saturated red/orange hues, just much more interesting and exciting to use film in general. Gonna have a go at slide film when spring arrives.

Alan Klein · Nov 27, 2013

Let me add my thoughts to some very good ideas already mentioned. It slows me down. It makes me think about what I'm doing. It improves my photography. No chimping here. It creates anticipation waiting for the developing negatives and chromes to come back from the processor. (I don't have nor want a darkroom. There's no space anyway). It hasn't gotten boring. It's nice to handle and use the old MF equipment.

When you finally scan it and post it on line or print it (rarely right now), you have a feeling of accomplishment. Here's one I just posted. It took over a month from the time I shot it until now. Film teaches patience. http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/11021823226/

David Lyga · Nov 27, 2013

Truzi said:
David, I really like your analogy. It is similar to why my next car will likely have a distributor - it is more robust and tangible.

And, Truzi, it will probably be why my next car will be continued use of public transport! - David Lyga

StoneNYC · Nov 27, 2013

Hatchetman said:
There are practical reasons to use film as well.

I shot some digital photos this past weekend for our Christmas card. It was a contrasty scene, but nothing out of the ordinary. My fair-skinned daughter's face was completely blown out and the images were unusable. I was using my Canon 5Dii, which is a very nice camera. I guarantee had I been using my EOS 3 and Portra film, they would have come out just fine. Yes, I could have probably bracketed the scene and shot in RAW and used Photoshop and digital would have gotten the job done. Lesson learned -> next time plan ahead and shoot a roll of film.

There's no reason that should have happened with a digital camera, you shouldn't blame the digital for your own failures of exposure when you can look right at the back(not that you need to, but you have that option if you're unsure if the exposure and you're not using a separate meter), I own the same camera and you have to try really hard to blow stuff out on that thing. I agree film has a little more play in c-41 or B&W film, but you blowing out your daughters face isn't the digital camera, that's your ability to properly use it.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, I'm not defending digital, I love film, and shoot more film than digital, I just didn't like that example because it's a false example IMO.

Hatchetman · Nov 27, 2013

I knew someone would come to the defense of digital! I didn't even look at viewfinder or histogram. I assumed people used digital b/c its so easy to use! Point and shoot, right? Nope. If I wanted to get all Ansel Adams and spotmeter crap and average out exposures and calculate zones, I would have brought out the 4x5. But it was like 12 degrees, the wind was blowing, kids had taken their coats off, dog was feisty.

I would have had a better chance with one of those new Ilford disposables!

StoneNYC · Nov 27, 2013

Hatchetman said:
I knew someone would come to the defense of digital! I didn't even look at viewfinder or histogram. I assumed people used digital b/c its so easy to use! Point and shoot, right? Nope. If I wanted to get all Ansel Adams and spotmeter crap and average out exposures and calculate zones, I would have brought out the 4x5. But it was like 12 degrees, the wind was blowing, kids had taken their coats off, dog was feisty.

I would have had a better chance with one of those new Ilford disposables!

Haha! Should have used film.... lol

Hatchetman · Nov 27, 2013

Dynamic Range FIAL!

Cropped sections from photo in question. Again, not saying digital could not have handled this, but that film would have handled it easily with nothing more than sunny-16.

StoneNYC · Nov 27, 2013

Hatchetman said:
Cropped sections from photo in question. Again, not saying digital could not have handled this, but that film would have handled it easily with nothing more than sunny-16.

well the whole exposure is off, like, it's overexposed by at least a stop or two to begin with...

Also, did you save this as a RAW file or just jpg... because that could also be a huge reason you can't pull the detail?

ANYWAY... this isn't a digital discussion forum so you can't answer that here anyway haha, but anyway, film is grand so yay film!

Hatchetman · Nov 27, 2013

Well, yeah its overexposed by a stop, I see that NOW. Not very forgiving, is it? And no, not RAW because you can't rapid fire shoot (pets) without overloading the buffer along with other processing issues we don't need to talk about here.

So yeah, film has some advantages other than these touchy feely mystical qualities people were talking about.

StoneNYC · Nov 27, 2013

Hatchetman said:
Well, yeah its overexposed by a stop, I see that NOW. Not very forgiving, is it? And no, not RAW because you can't rapid fire shoot (pets) without overloading the buffer along with other processing issues we don't need to talk about here.

So yeah, film has some advantages other than these touchy feely mystical qualities people were talking about.

AH that's your main problem, you're using JPG not RAW... no wonder, not a good comparison haha... for you film guys I'll talk in terms of film to be PC....

He's shooting with..... Fuji FP100C and getting a print, instead of shooting with Portra, and then wondering why the over exposed image can't get any info in the blown highlights, because the image is final, you don't have a digital negative (RAW), you have a digital print (JPG) so you're not going to be able to pull info... nuff said on that subject.

STILL why do I shoot film? cause it's friggin awesome!!! (and you don't have to machine gun your pets with it... hehe).

Sirius Glass · Nov 27, 2013

What is RAW? Are you cooking meat?

Christopher Walrath · Nov 27, 2013

Well, geez, Steve. Not if it's RAW.

Sirius Glass · Nov 27, 2013

Right! I figured that the meat would start off RAW and end up in Medium Format.

BradS · Nov 27, 2013

why do I use film?

what a bizarre question...as if I would set up the camera, compose, focus, measure the light, calculate an exposure and trip the shutter....only to expose the...what? air molecules inside the film chamber? I use film because...well, because photography is kinda a meaningless activity without film in the camera...isn't it?

Christopher Walrath · Nov 27, 2013

Me, I'm just to dumb and old fashioned for digital. Not to mention, there have been some statutes passed regarding my being allowed to use certain types of technology, part of which might or might not be digital photography.

No, it's just, by and large, that it is all I have ever used. Don't see that changing much in the future.

StoneNYC · Nov 27, 2013

Christopher Walrath said:
Me, I'm just to dumb and old fashioned for digital. Not to mention, there have been some statutes passed regarding my being allowed to use certain types of technology, part of which might or might not be digital photography.

No, it's just, by and large, that it is all I have ever used. Don't see that changing much in the future.

What statutes?

StoneNYC · Nov 27, 2013

Sirius Glass said:
Right! I figured that the meat would start off RAW and end up in Medium Format.

Haha yea no cooking my meat if possible the less cooked the better for me, and large format if possible, need my protein for carrying the camera

markbarendt · Nov 27, 2013

Christopher Walrath said:
Well, geez, Steve. Not if it's RAW.

Maybe steak tartare?

There is also "blue" which is basically where you show the steak the flame quickly on each side and throw it on the plate.

RattyMouse · Nov 27, 2013

BradS said:
why do I use film?

what a bizarre question...as if I would set up the camera, compose, focus, measure the light, calculate an exposure and trip the shutter....only to expose the...what? air molecules inside the film chamber? I use film because...well, because photography is kinda a meaningless activity without film in the camera...isn't it?

I've never met anyone who does not know that photographic sensors exist.

StoneNYC · Nov 27, 2013

RattyMouse said:
I've never met anyone who does not know that photographic sensors exist.

My thought on his comment, was actually that hey maybe there's no film in the camera, because it's a wet plate

Why do you use film?

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency