why do you use film ????

Analog is a mature technology. It works. I want to make photos and not have to fight with software upgrades and people messing about with apps.

And the buzz from seeing a print develop in the tray doesn't diminish. Don't get that with an ink jet print.

The draw for digital imaging has always been convenience -- simplification of the imaging process so the photographer can focus on creativity.

I have always been drawn to interests that are defined by their technical challenge: Scale plastic models as a kid, maintaining a Fiat Spider as a daily driver for years, astrophotography, film and dry plate photography. It also explains my optical engineering profession. In all these, there is an involved, unguaranteed process that is far more interesting than the end result. This is true for analog photography even when assuming an interesting subject properly composed. There are plenty of chances to screw up irreversibly along the way.

In digital photography, like many other interests that I don't care for, the results tend to be more interesting than the guaranteed (and often minimally-involved) process.

Wild stallion (film) vs common workhorse (digital)...what an apt analogy by jim10219. Cannot be expressed more concisely.

Because I am a print maker and don't have interest in computers or digits.

I've spent literally hundreds of hours comparing the Look & Feel of digital and film. I'm finally arriving at a personal conclusion about what it is. I like images with gentle tonality and truckloads of greyscale, but yet without getting excessively flat. This type of film image always seems more natural to my eye - closer to what my eye/brain perception is. Digital - even if it has more resolution - has a synthetic look which hurts my brain. I'm very concerned that a consensus is currently being formed by the public about what constitutes a natural-looking image - they are starting to believe that the hard, clinical images produced by phones and DSLRs are an accurate representation of the visual experience that happens in their brain, which is nonsense. But the general public no longer regularly view images from the 1960s and earlier, many of which have a soft and long dynamic range plus more pastel-like colours.

There's only one digicam in existence whose images I sort of like: the old Nikon D70 (ignoring the awful highlights). Just something about the L&F - no idea what it is.

So after that rambling paragraph - I use film to get natural-looking pictures.

tomfrh said:

Because film counts.

Click to expand...

hi tomfrh
what do you mean film counts, its real ?

The OP's question prompts some interesting reflection about why we shoot film. I shoot film for black & white only, but that accounts for 80% of my photography. Some of my reasons for shooting film for black & white:

Aesthetics. For reasons that I can't explain well, I prefer the look of a black and white silver print over a digital print. It's hard for me to put a finger on exactly why. Others have described digital black and white as having a "clinical" look, and I think that's a good description. I used to subscribe to Lenswork magazine. Loved the black and white work that was presented there. But over time, as more of the work was digitally captured, I didn't like the aesthetics as much. It had that hyper-sharp clinical look. Some of it also has an HDR (high dynamic range) look that screams "this is a digital image." Looking at the latest edition of Lenswork reinforced that once again. I still think that well-printed, silver-based black and white images just look better.

Process. When I make a print in the darkroom, I feel like I'm crafting something by hand. It's challenging, but soothing at the same time. I don't get that feeling by looking at an image on a PC monitor and working on it in software. Not even remotely. This might stem from the fact that my profession doesn't entail working with my hands; it entails a lot of time looking at a PC monitor (spreadsheets, email, business system software). So the the last thing I want to do at home is spend more hours staring at a monitor. Editing images on a PC feels mechanical, clinical to me. In contrast, printing in the darkroom has soul. After a darkroom printing session, I feel like I've made something. It's a very rewarding feeling. By way of comparison, my brother is a mechanic for an airline, working with his hands all day. When he gets home, he likes to edit his digital images on the PC. He finds that very relaxing. I guess it's all about perspective...

I also like having a tangible negative. If properly stored, I know it will last a lifetime. That appeals to me. I also just like looking at negatives on a lightbox.

There may be other reasons as well, but those described above are the most important to me. I do like film cameras and the lack of perpetual upgrade pressure, but my main reasons for shooting film are those described above.

Dale

The OP's question prompts some interesting reflection about why we shoot film. I shoot film for black & white only, but that accounts for 80% of my photography. Some of my reasons for shooting film for black & white:

Aesthetics. For reasons that I can't explain well, I prefer the look of a black and white silver print over a digital print. It's hard for me to put a finger on exactly why. Others have described digital black and white as having a "clinical" look, and I think that's a good description. I used to subscribe to Lenswork magazine. Loved the black and white work that was presented there. But over time, as more of the work was digitally captured, I didn't like the aesthetics as much. It had that hyper-sharp clinical look. Some of it also has an HDR (high dynamic range) look that screams "this is a digital image." Looking at the latest edition of Lenswork reinforced that once again. I still think that well-printed, silver-based black and white images just look better.

Process. When I make a print in the darkroom, I feel like I'm crafting something by hand. It's challenging, but soothing at the same time. I don't get that feeling by looking at an image on a PC monitor and working on it in software. Not even remotely. This might stem from the fact that my profession doesn't entail working with my hands; it entails a lot of time looking at a PC monitor (spreadsheets, email, business system software). So the the last thing I want to do at home is spend more hours staring at a monitor. Editing images on a PC feels mechanical, clinical to me. In contrast, printing in the darkroom has soul. After a darkroom printing session, I feel like I've made something. It's a very rewarding feeling. By way of comparison, my brother is a mechanic for an airline, working with his hands all day. When he gets home, he likes to edit his digital images on the PC. He finds that very relaxing. I guess it's all about perspective...

I also like having a tangible negative. If properly stored, I know it will last a lifetime. That appeals to me. I also just like looking at negatives on a lightbox.

There may be other reasons as well, but those described above are the most important to me. I do like film cameras and the lack of perpetual upgrade pressure, but my main reasons for shooting film are those described above.

Dale

I wonder if John's question might be better worded: "Can you explain why you use film? If so, how?

I enjoy the process.
I enjoy playing with cameras that are different.
While digital got me interested in photography as a serious hobby, I very soon grew tired of the arms race that many get into with digital photography.

For film it is the more organic (less IQ) look. I have been convincing myself to shoot less slides b/c it is so expensive and I need to ship overseas for development but I guess I might use it lesser but won't give it up.

For casual stuff, product type shots and studio type I think digital has it better though.

MattKing said:

I wonder if John's question might be better worded: "Can you explain why you use film? If so, how?

Click to expand...

hi matt

that might work ..
what i was trying to do without coming right out and saying it was
trying to figure out if there was a philosophical reason for using film
or any sort of recording medium ( im an equal opportunity post writer here )
aside from the mundane reasons i half listed above ... but mundane reasons are
good too ...

I shoot film because it is another tool for photographic expression.

In my mind it is not remotely 'better' than digital, and in a great many ways it is horribly inferior, but rather it is a different tool to work with, and has different properties to exploit. One of the biggest draws for me has been the negative sizes. Medium format digital is barely in my price range, and even that would require a massive stretch and excessive sacrifice of other things in life to afford for me right now, and I would rather spend the money else where. But medium format film can not only be had at a fraction of the price to work with, but also includes the geeky pleasure of playing around with chemistry.

And then there are the technical aspects of working with a large format camera, which are simply impractical for me to do digitally.

I like the photographic print, whether that be a 6 x 4 from the high street or a fine 15 x 10 on the best fibre paper. Film has a set of well understood expectations about its limitations and potential, and is not subject to technical escalation. The silver print is not much more expensive than a digital print of the same quality, and I have the gear to achieve it without a continued upgrade programme.

I'm not anti-digital, for screen sharing it's the ideal medium. For the printed photograph, I prefer film.

There is nothing that compares to holding a print made on photographic paper or looking a well make mounted chemical photographic print.

I use film because it was the only format available at the time I was learning to shoot. I find no reason to stop shooting film simply because a new format is now all the rage. I do admit I use both film and digital, but film will always have a place in my heart, and as long as I can still land film, I will use film.

jnanian said:

hi tomfrh
what do you mean film counts, its real ?

Click to expand...

Limited shots and a price on each shot. Clicking the shutter actually counts!

tomfrh said:

Limited shots and a price on each shot. Clicking the shutter actually counts!

Click to expand...

sorry, im still confused, that's i'll just imagine what it means

Why do you use film, jnanian?

jnanian said:

sorry, im still confused

Click to expand...

What I mean is your film is a limited resource, like water in the desert, so how you use it is of significance.

thanks tom

Because I am in love with film. I love the process, how it looks, how I feel when shooting film.....

(Kinda like asking me why I am with my husband... I can give you a long list of his endearing qualities, but it would never give you a complete "why". The most complete answer is "Because I love him".)

hi kevin

i use film for a handful of reasons, i think it is fun, and i enjoy everything
about emulsion based art ( even making the emulsion ) but the only
philisophical reason i can think of why i like it is because it is my memory.

'cause it's hands on and unique in this day and age.

Also the equipment is awesome and affordable.

I shot some amazing pictures with a digital camera and my SD card got corrupted.... Didn't want to spend the $60 to recover them and now I regret it. Film is much more tangible than a bunch of ones and zeros displayed on a screen that is slowly making you blind. Its quite affordable (I got an entire darkroom and two cameras to do color prints for less than what you would normally spend on a good digital camera and a few lenses) and has a nice feel to it when you are actually making something that you will be proud of instead of screwing around on a computer paying $9 a month for Photoshop. In fact I could probably get a nice film camera every so often just from the money I've saved from not buying Photoshop. Film does cost money, but that makes it more important to at least try and make an effort into taking good pictures and carefully thinking out the image. I currently shoot less every month than a Photoshop subscription, so it is more worth it, but one could do without Photoshop. I've taken great pictures with a digital camera that do not need editing, but film as a medium is too cool to pass up while it's still here.