why shoot 35mm film

Always use musical analogy as a photographic touchstone or reality check.

Today, sharpness has become an obsession in imaging. A little neurosis always makes life interesting, but sharpness is only part of the picture. The musical analogue to sharpness is volume. Being able to play extremely loud is exactly the same as being able to make extremely sharp pictures.

Intonation, tempo, rhythm, and emotion are a few of the other qualitites that make music worthwhile, and are essential to photography as well.

Digital imaging has many good qualities, and it has many shortcomings. Tempo, or a sense of time, is easier to manage in a camera that responds as quickly as a Leica and it is NOT possible in a digital minicam that goes off sometime after you push the button.

Most importantly, film offers a musical range of tonality. The problem is that we need to learn how to use it. Like playing a piano, it takes time and commitment. The rewards have traditionally been worth the trouble.

.

df cardwell said:

The musical analogue to sharpness is volume.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I always thought of an overly bright tonal balance as the musical analogue of photographic sharpness. The "if it's got brittle exaggerated highs, it's a good sounding, high definition recording" school of (non) thought. I've only walked out on one concert in my life, and it was because the sound had such a piercing and loud high frequency balance, not just volume. Kind of like looking at a photo that's printed 4 grades too high in contrast, or an oversharpened jpeg. I also don't think of a monotonic subwoofer, even a very loud one, as "sharp".

Lee

Realizing that 35mm film cameras and digital cameras look and operate close to the same, the reason to use 35mm is because it is film-based rather than based on the virtual image. In other words, in my opinion, digital is synthetic photography. It is designed to produce something that looks similar to a photograph but it's not. With 35mm film, you produce a negative--something that is tactile, a thing. With digital imaging, you produce a file--it doesn't offer any sense of creation or satisfaction in the producing. I enjoy the process of making a real photograph.

I didn't read the other responses--just offering my opinion without getting into a discussion. Everybody has an opinion and I'm sure you've been getting them as well as catching some grief for even asking the question.

Lee L said:

Interesting. I always thought of an overly bright tonal balance as the musical analogue of photographic sharpness. The "if it's got brittle exaggerated highs, it's a good sounding, high definition recording" school of (non) thought. I've only walked out on one concert in my life, and it was because the sound had such a piercing and loud high frequency balance, not just volume. Kind of like looking at a photo that's printed 4 grades too high in contrast, or an oversharpened jpeg. I also don't think of a monotonic subwoofer, even a very loud one, as "sharp".

Lee

Click to expand...

Good stuff... refining the analogy.

d

Digital will always be a box full of circuits and electronic equipment. It's too complicated to be simple intuitive art. Its so different from painting and regular photography.

Sure modern SLR's are as complicated as digital cameras, but If I could chose I'd throw it all out, or use my old mechanical SLR if It didn't broke (after 30 years)

What I don't like so much about digital photography is that its so controled. You exactly know how much sensors you have and how they work. The predictability takes away the mistery, the poetry of it.
Also, you get to see it in real time. I don't like that. It's like taking screenshots from a megapixe TV camera, no magic in it, you know exactly how it will turn out

Film images also don't age in terms of esthetics.
Sure some MTV kids complain about how films from 60's look like, but most openminded filmgoers feel a bit of nostalgy when watching old movies.
Same goes for Kodachrome home movies, most associate that look with memories, past, nostalgy.
But I've never seen anyone associate 80's VHS home video footage with such feelings. It just looks bad.

The flaws of film of yesterday are nostalgy of today, the flaws of video/digital of yesterday are simply outdated technology today.

When you hear old recordings or vinyl records, that's the same feeling film of yesterday brings.
When you hear a digital recording, you don't stop and think, gee that sounds like mid 90's sound, because it doesn't sound like anything specific, it has no texture, no flaws or distortions, nothing to give it character.
But when you hear an old tape recorded in early 80's or 70's, hear a bit of tape saturation, some limiter effects etc. it sounds vintage, it adds to the flavour of yesterday.

In 20 years, most DSLR images will be considered technically flawed. I doubt anyone will sigh at the sight of how once digital images were noisy and full of moirre.

Digital photography is good for photographying now for now,
film is good for photographying now for ever. (as long as you can find a way to save it from deteriorating)

in 20 years modern DSLR images will look like security camera recordings compared to how digital photography will look by then. And I don't see anyone excited about the look of security cameras from 20 years ago. It's just junk equipment and flawed images.

If you have ever tasted fake beer, I bet you'll be reminded of digital prints compared to 35mm film prints. That's the best kind of analogy I can come up with.

35mm film is great, but not a digital format for it, and I just don't know why.

I shoot film for one reason: the darkroom. To me, the darkroom is a wonderful land steeped in ancient magics. I love developing my film and pulling that strip off the reel to see the images that have appeared. Throwing that piece of paper into the developer and seeing the image arise from nothingness is amazing. No matter how good programs like Photoshop get, how closely they will enable you to emulate film, no matter the bells and whistles that they are able to cram into a DSLR, they will never, ever be able to replicate even the tiniest bit of the magic of the darkroom.

I specifically shoot 35mm right now simply because I haven't bought a medium format yet and I do stress yet.

These are from last night. RC still looks far better than inkjet print-out.

Firecracker's very nice shots reminds me; would you rather stop down, extend the exposure on the enlargement, burn the sky in and let the film show you more detail, or would you prefer to make a selection, feather it, darken the selection, and be greeted with neutral density at best and noise at worst?

firecracker said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's a very accurate observation: when digital movie production came into the forefront around the late 90's we could root for the underdog. Some projects that could have never been possible with film suddenly became a workable reality. For instance, Atanarjuat (the running man) is a movie realised by Inuits based on a traditional legend, and was shot in digital video, which lowered enormously the bar to get into into production. I need not elaborate on the economic conditions of these people. In the case of motion pictures, film was hitherto associated with Hollywood and sprawling budgets, pace Nouvelle Vague cinéma or Super 8 / 16mm.

With digital photo, on the other hand, digital is no underdog. It's the male suburban wet dream: it's expensive, has aggressive marketing, cocky feature race, direct email integration, and the lure of easy, high-quality home porn, or the ability to post your dick to the entire world to admire. In the realm of still, film has recently became the underdog.

My perception of the CCD vs film question is influenced by this same underdog situation: I'd rather pay for an indie film shot on digi with a reduced crew than I'd go see an exhibit of inkjet prints. Perhaps that's because I can see a purpose, an urge to create in the first, while I see complacency in the second.

That may come to change, as digital becomes the vernacular in both still and motion picture. Still photographers who capitalise on the urge to create seem to prefer the box/Lomo camera aesthetics, unlike their motion picture counterparts who rely on digital video. The box/Lomo style is becoming more and more of an anachronism, given that the most available camera for everyone is now their cellphone, not a crappy Instamatic. We are seeing a consolidation of the digital as a vernacular image aesthetics, the same way Polaroids, Instamatics, or Super 8 were the photographic vernacular of the 70's-80's. (Actually, I just saw earlier today a short film on the net shot with a cellphone camera.)

Eventually the value system associated with digi/film should settle into something stable and perhaps consistent, but for now we're still playing musical chair.

Andy K said:

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?

Click to expand...

Andy K,

Sorry I did not make myself clear. My response was directed toward scottwesterman who stated that he already owned a 35mm SLR and a digital camera. I think that since he owns both, he should use both.

I shoot film because I don't want to sit on a computer processing my photos, printing my photos, or looking at my photos. I don't email photos or post them online so I don't see digital as being a benefit to me. But more so, I enjoy the mental process of analog photography. I enjoy the time spent determing how to obtain the best shot. I'd rather spend 20 minutes trying to determine the best composition, rather than taking a number of pics feeling confident that one will be outstanding. I'm willing to risk that the choices I make will not produce the image that I wanted. I can live with that. Am I wasting film and money with mistakes made on film? I do not consider learning to be a waste. The more I shoot the more satisfied I am with what I produce.

To me, shooting film is enjoyable and fulfilling.

Film

there's nothing more satisfying than developing your own film.
I like digital don't get me wrong but it doesn't give me the buzz that film does.
I think film does give better tones and I really hate B&W shot in digital and love it shot in film.

I'm trying to be unbiased but.....

there you go.

I've enjoyed checking back here and reading the replies. Almost all serve to confirm my love for film, be it 35mm or medium format (the formats I use).

One more reason that I appreciate using film is because it keeps me excited about photography. For the short time that I used a digital slr I found that I quickly became bored with looking at ALL my photos. My fault..... I overshot just because I could. More does not equate better.
Shooting black and white film, I am more discriminate in what I photograph, put more thought into making a photo and I end up with less frames and more keepers.

The whole process of film photography works better for me and keeps it both fun and exciting.

You should use 35mm if you like to use film and enjoy the process, but if you have to ask why you should use it your missing the point. If you have used both then make up your own mind.
I like to use film because I like the way it looks, I don't care if a digital has more or less resolution, or whatever, I have seen enough digital photos to know that I prefer film, & the more BS I hear about digital the more determined I become to stick to film for my own work, even if it is irrational!

Just an idle thought, but since no-one else has said it:

Does anyone else enjoy 35mm casettes? The little hard shells, compact, holding your images safely inside until processed? Somehow physically more reassuring than digital wheat-thins for image storage? Same thing that I prefer about 35 over 120; I love 120 negatives, but paper wrapped on a spool just never feels as secure as little metal wrapped and capped 35mm cassettes.

More seriously, I continue to shoot 35mm because since end of college, I've been able to afford professional (often 20 -30 years out of date, but be that as it may) cameras, with 100% viewfinders, good glass, that I can actually see through. These are now cheap (Nikon F2s just over $200, F3 over $300), while the equivalent digital body is over $2000? When something costs as much as a used car, I tend to treat it differently and not use it as hard, thereby limiting the cases where I'll have it to take pictures with.

Ergonomics, man. Same reason why I told someone that I still used an F2 when I could afford an F5; if I'm going to carry something the size of a P67, I expect the negative to be the size of a neg from a P67.

I guess after watching this thread for a number of days.. the reason I shoot 35mm over digital......is ......because I can! and as long as I can, I don't wish or want to move to digital...

Dave

thanks once again for all the replys , it has made very interersting reading and i hope you have all enjoyed reading them too.
cheers scott