why shoot 35mm film

[Andy K]

Sorry Robert, still not with you? Bias towards what?

 

[roteague]

Sorry Robert, still not with you? Bias towards what?

Digital and anything having to do with digital.

 

[Andy K]

Oh I see. I figured colour would be a neutral territory though.

 

[roteague]

Oh I see. I figured colour would be a neutral territory though.

You are probably right, their bias and condescending tone turns me off from anything useful they might say.

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

Going back to the original post question in this thread, I thought of the old Kodak advertising from very long ago. They use to state "You take the pictures, we do the rest." So for 35 mm, you can indeed just take the pictures, and have a (hopefully good) lab do the rest for you. While you could take your digital camera memory card and drop it off with a lab, doing that could involve a little bit of worrying about your memory card.

Go to some professional forums, and you will hear of memory cards failing. They do develop errors and wear out. What would you do if you got the memory card back from the lab, and it on longer worked, or worse yet, you got the card back and some images (or all of them) could not be recovered. Of course, a lab (or one hour place) could screw up your film too, so using film is not a guarantee of avoiding problems.

Using digital capture usually involves you becoming the lab. You take your memory card, and process the images. Few people drop off memory cards in order to get prints made by a lab. So the reason of "why digital capture" would be that you want to spend your time behind the computer acting as the lab.

People also go deeply into film usage, developing their own film, and doing their own prints. In a way, those individuals are also becoming their own labs. This is a different level of involvement.

Why I still use 35 mm is that I want to maximize my creative time as the time I spend behind the camera. With digital capture, unless I want to pay an assistant to process my RAW files for me, my time involvement is much longer in post processing than in taking the shots.

Usage needs are a better reason than technical limitations. We don't normally use small cameras on a tripod, so the ultimate resolutions won't happen with either approach . . . use cameras hand held, and you will get less small details in your images than if you used a tripod. If you want prints, then any film can now allow that easily. Prints from digital capture can mean more time involvement. If you want to share images through e-mail, or over the internet, then digital capture will take less time than scanning your film.

Rather than why 35 mm, or why a (somewhat) low cost digital camera, you should be asking yourself: Why photography? The uses you want to accomplish with your images should dictate your choices.

 

[gnashings]

Rather than why 35 mm, or why a (somewhat) low cost digital camera, you should be asking yourself: Why photography? The uses you want to accomplish with your images should dictate your choices.

Thanks - that is precisely what I wanted to say - you just did it better! I get so sidetracked sometimes!

 

[Dave Parker]

We don't normally use small cameras on a tripod, so the ultimate resolutions won't happen with either approach . . . use cameras hand held,

It is the rare image, that I take, even with my 35mm that it is NOT on a tripod, I learned a long time ago to maintain maximum sharpness, I have to shoot on a tripod..

Dave

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

It is the rare image, that I take, even with my 35mm that it is NOT on a tripod, I learned a long time ago to maintain maximum sharpness, I have to shoot on a tripod..

Dave

Good afternoon Dave,

I have also used 35 mm gear on a tripod, though that has not been my dominate usage. I find that if I am going to carry a tripod to a location, I usually just take along a large format camera, or sometimes medium format camera instead of 35 mm. Just a guess, but I would think there are more people using 35 mm cameras without a tripod most of the time; move upwards in formats, and I think the opposite becomes more true, especially with large format where I would imagine few do hand held imaging.

Ciao!

Gordon

 

[scottwesterman]

thanks again for all the replys i cant believe how many people have replied !
going back to the question as to what i wish to do with my images,i like to take pictures of my family at home and on holiday and when i get a special image i wish to have it blown up for wall mounting.I also agree with the having negs for in the future is a big plus for film cameras in general e.g ive just come back from spain where i took my digicam(fujis5600)i took 204 pictures and since coming back i have printed only 20-30,if i had taken my 35mm i would have had 204 negs and prints and wouldnt have cost me anymore to have the films developed vs my digital prints from photobox !!!!!

many thanks again ,if anyone has any opinions please feel free to join in !

scott.

 

[JBrunner]

Begin Zenning

Revisiting this thread, I thought of another reason. The main reason I shoot film. Tradition. Not the tradition of just the technology, although that is important, but rather the tradition of the practitioners. The exact thing that makes APUG special.

Our technology isn't changing and obsolescing every three days. Generations of technique, visual and technical that can be learned and built on by the practitioner. When there is something new, and good, it is measured, tested, learned, and if worthy, adopted into the process.
New things don't invalidate and pander down to the previous method, instead all is enriched, and everything ads to the whole.

I use the same basic tools the legends of photography had at their disposal. I can't blame the gear if I am consistently falling short. I can't look to the next update, release, gizmo or chip, and pretend that that it is going to elevate me.

Want to make pictures like Adams, the Westons, or any other you desire, admire, or to follow your own unique vision?

I dare to say its not in a box of bytes, or collection of circuits. The technical ability to produce compelling images was in place long ago. Digital has no tradition. It changes too fast. It has to eat its own yesterday every day to continue.

We have only ourselves to look to.

Our tradition.

The rest is just hype. Especially the d****** stuff.

End Zenning.

 

[Dave Parker]

You misunderstood my reply. I mean IF for no other reason you should want to have a hard copy. I shoot only film so why would I not consider film not to be of high value?

I guess I may have read your reply wrong..sorry, interpetation on the net is 100% inacurate, and in this case, I guess I read it wrong.

Dave

 

[Ara Ghajanian]

I photographed a band at a club the other night without using a flash. I used Delta 3200 film and I was getting readings like f4 at 1/60 sec. You can't do that with digital.

Why not just buy a really nice Nikon film scanner for $600? You'll never need a digital camera because the files I get off that scanner blow away most prosumer digital SLRs in terms of quality and file size. We're talking 300ppi at 13"x19" with the dynamic range of film. Then you can save the rest of your money and buy a nice Nikon manual camera and some lenses and still have money left over for film. Also remember, memory cards aren't cheap and they aren't foolproof either as we are led to believe. So you don't get to see your photos in the LCD right after you shoot them, big freakin deal.

People have been making incredible images since the dawn of photography without digital cameras. What makes you think your images will be better if you have a DSLR? Unless you're a pro and your clients demand you to use a digital camera, then I don't see a point to it.
Ara

 

[roteague]

Why not just buy a really nice Nikon film scanner for $600? You'll never need a digital camera because the files I get off that scanner blow away most prosumer digital SLRs in terms of quality and file size. We're talking 300ppi at 13"x19" with the dynamic range of film.

Ara, good point! I have a Minolta film scanner, which goes to 5400dpi and will do 16x multi-sampling. It creates some really nice files.

 

[edz]

i would like everyone opinions as to why i should shoot 35mm (slr) film over a digicam (5.2mp with full manual features).
as many opinions as possible please !!!!!
thanks for the help scott.

Film is cheap. Mass processing in German drugstores is cheap (as little as 5 EUROcents a print and under 1 EURO for developing). Cameras can be cheap. Results are excellent.

If I want special prints I can handle them in my darkroom. I don't have a light jet or any other equivalent technology in my toolchest---- and outsourcing is quite expensive.

If I want to do b&W (which I often do) there is NO other option than film. The total cost for film and chemicals is a wee bit higher than for C-41 but still a tiny fraction of the real cost just a few years ago. Its quick and comfortable and using microfilms I can get resolution significantly higher than one can with ANY equivalently sized digital camera.

Its also about fun and style. I like old mechanical cameras. I like their feel and I find I can get more reliable pictures from them than from any of the auto-thingee..

I don't care much for digital cameras. Its not that I'm digital-phobic.. can hardly be as I think I was among the pioneers of digital capture--- back to the days of E&S machines. Its not that I don't have the hardware either.. OK no light jets but enough hardware to render a film for Pixar But... I don't have the need.

Why would I want to bother with a digital camera?

 

[stark raving]

I can't shoot Velvia, Provia, Sensia, Agfa, Efke, TriX, Adox, APHS, Tmax, Acros, Foma, Berger, Forte, FP4, FP5, Delta, Fotomika, Maco, Rollei, infrared, Plus X, Portra, 64T, Ektachrome, or Kodachrome and so on and so forth in a DSLR.

Kodachrome...... see you saved the best for last!!!! (putting on flame suit, running and hiding now!)

 

[copake_ham]

i would like everyone opinions as to why i should shoot 35mm (slr) film over a digicam (5.2mp with full manual features).
as many opinions as possible please !!!!!
thanks for the help scott.

It kind of begs the question: Why would anyone ask this on a film photography website?

Seems to be an intent to incite folks.....

 

[roteague]

It kind of begs the question: Why would anyone ask this on a film photography website?

Seems to be an intent to incite folks.....

I don't know. It gets people to really think about the decisions they have made.

 

[scottwesterman]

i would just like to point out i did not intend to incite anyone , i am very new to photography and wished to have a different opinion because lots of other site and magazines (af for example) are so digital biased that you cannot get a fair comparison in views , i understand that this website is film biased but that gives me both sides of the story !
i never meant to offend or upset anyone !
thanks for all your replys
scott.

 

[narsuitus]

i would like everyone opinions as to why i should shoot 35mm (slr) film over a digicam (5.2mp with full manual features).

Many of the responses you received in this thread described why the members in this forum prefer to shoot a film camera rather than a digital camera. If you were really asking why you should shoot a 35mm SLR over a 5.2mp digicam, then I think that is a decision that you can only make for yourself.

Personally, I think you should shoot both.

 

[Sportera]

I agree with most comments here. Grain can be attractive, noise is ugly so in low light film wins everytime.

I find the digital look to be plastic and lifeless. No matter how much it glows on your monitor, when its outputted to an inkjet or other media it lacks something that is there in a fine fiber print.

I'm an art photographer, if I had to classify what I do that would be it.
I don't do PJ, or wedding, very little portraits these days. All of these disciplines in photography demand digital these days to stay competitive. It has to do with speed and little to do with quality.

For B&W there is no question, film is king. Even scanned film is more attractive to eye.

 

[Andy K]

Personally, I think you should shoot both.

Why? Why should I invest a lot of money in an imaging system that has built in obsolescence, which does not do what I want to do and which holds zero interest for me?

 

[avandesande]

so you can sell stuff on ebay....

Why? Why should I invest a lot of money in an imaging system that has built in obsolescence, which does not do what I want to do and which holds zero interest for me?

 

[Shawn Mielke]

I'll reiterate my first post on this thread. Basically, if you're a normal professional in the modern world, you probably are shooting both digital as well as film, at some point. I am currently not really a professional shooter; I shoot for myself, and occasionally for friends or friends of friends. More than once have I been lured by digital because a number of professional applications make digital make a lot of sense to me. It isn't all about prints out there, and, yes exactly, on the computer screen, where a lot of work is based, sometimes exclusively, digital can look VERY good (and why not? Lot of talented people in the world, using all kinds of media). And if you're a working shooter, you probably will feel the crunch of obselescence far less than a personal artist shooter. So I guess what I'm saying is: if you work, shoot whatever. If you DON'T work and you shoot for yourself, you might at least start with 35mm. Your money will go farther and your equipment will remain relevant for longer. Digital just isn't a very good investment (yet?) unless your income corresponds directly to it.

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

i would just like to point out i did not intend to incite anyone , i am very new to photography and wished to have a different opinion because lots of other site and magazines (af for example) are so digital biased that you cannot get a fair comparison in views , i understand that this website is film biased but that gives me both sides of the story !
i never meant to offend or upset anyone !
thanks for all your replys
scott.

Really, I don't think you upset anyone. Of course, by asking here, you expected a biased answer toward film fotography, didn't you? That said, You sure understand that - in theory - the answers you got here are insufficient to get a balanced information and take a decision. IN THEORY.

Because, IN PRACTICE, there is a lot of people here who have pluri-decennial experience with film photography, and unless we all got blind recently, there MUST be some reason if film photography is still so much loved, and expecially by those who have most experience.

Last, my personal opinion: the more you take care PERSONALLY of the steps involved in traditional photography, the more the difference will pop up. If you do by hand all things from film development to photograph printing, film photography will win HANDS DOWN over digital inkjetting, both in B&W and color, whatever your local salesman may say.

 

[firecracker]

Somehow, good-quality digital movie cameras are okay to me, but not digital still cameras! I don't know why I get so critical about that. I really don't.