Why shoot analogue colour photos?

[Paul Howell]

I like color film, in the 60+ years I have maybe a 1000+ rolls, both negative and slide film. I find the tones to be more natural, easy to print. he first nail in my color coffin was not being able to get Kodak color paper in cut sizes, then came the pandemic. Could not find chemistry, C41 or R4. Inflation took a toll. At $10+ a roll, if I send to a lab for processing and prints another $30 for 4X5 prints. On my budget I only shoot digital.

 

[loccdor]

A few more...

No worries about memory card failures.
Mechanical cameras are ready to shoot in an instant.
Long exposures are an uncomplicated thing to do, as are multiple exposures.
I like to see a little grain in an image.
Medium format is much less expensive.
There is nostalgia and emotion in the way film renders.
I don't want to look at screens, especially in bright sunlight or on dark streets.
Lenses are cheaper.
I learn more about the imaging process when there are more manual steps.
Digital cameras have less variation in their design.
A process that has less room for error is more sterile and less interesting.
Simplicity can be liberating.
I already tried digital cameras and nothing compelled me to keep taking photos with them, I threw the photos in a folder and forgot about them until the next hard drive crash.

If my budget tightened, I'd make each shot more important and take less of them. And I'd sell half of my lenses and cameras.

 

[xkaes]

And let's not forget those DAMN **&&%*&$#^#$% batteries. Every time I want to use a digital camera I have to remember to check the batteries the day before, and always bring a spare -- same with memory cards (don't get me started -- until I find my BP pills).

 

[Don_ih]

I almost never use a camera that requires a battery.

 

[Richard Lawson]

Because each colour film has a characteristic look that is different to digital for me, and I prefer it.

I've tried and can't replicate them with processing digital myself. I find the Fuji cameras film simulations unconvincing when compared to the real thing.

 

[Pieter12]

I like taking pictures. And I don't give a flying f##k if the camera is digital or analog.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Why bother to digitally process anything when I've got a real color enlarger (actually, several of them) ? If I did that, I'd have to default to inkjet printing - not my cup of tea.

 

[brbo]

I think I can be convinced that shooting analogue B&W and scanning might be worthwhile ... to give a distinctive "look" to the final retro image, but surely there is less of a case for colour?

It's the other way around.

Anybody with modest post-processing skills can make digital look like BW film. It's harder to fake colour film.

 

[Taylor Nankervis]

Film in colour has a very distinctive look about it (especially films like Velvia, Provia and Ektachrome 100, among others in the past), very much different to the clinical, sharp, sterile output of digital (I really cannot stand looking at digital images which have been so overly sharpened and falsely colourised that it tears the retina!). With everything carried out in-camera — particularly precise attention to light and exposure, and the scarcest minimum of post, the look of film is retained, even when printed digitally on a wide-gamut output. My work only requires profiling to screen and print — there is no colour adjustment, no fiddling with HSB sliders, no sharpening and no cloning or cover-ups.

In my long-finished bicycle touring days (1978 to 2000), front cover and middle-spread pages of cycling magazines were always in colour — B&W was frowned upon by editors and slides were strongly preferred for submissions over negatives — the slide is the finished photograph, so it is much easier and quicker for editors to sort and select over the mental gymnastics of making sense of a colour negative. I always had dupes made of the slides. If I was lucky, the dupe was returned to me along with a handsome payment that went toward buying, in one memorable case (1987), a one-way ticket to New Zealand (sorry @Sean, the family called me back when they realised I was having way too much of a good time!!).

I have worked in B&W and darkroom practice (b&w then Ilfochrome Classic commercially), but that was now long ago; the novelty wore off as I explored the science and application of analogue-to-digital. And over the many years since, one love has endured, and that is mastering the expressive power and technical proficiency of colour. I'm forever careful preparing the cameras! Twenty-plus years back I found myself with a camera I forgot to load with my usual colour film and instead doubtfully bunged in a role of Pan F 50; I liked the results, but really, they did not light my fire in the same thrilling way as colour work does.

 

[c41]

My personal reason is that I feel a huge connection to the photos I get from colour film in a way that I just don't from digital images. I feel forever connected to the moment I took the photo and I use colour film to capture those kinds of moments, family/friends/events etc. I can't stress enough how different and immediate that 'connection' is to me. For slide film that feeling is just even stronger but slide film is so incredibly expensive now it's a rare luxury.

I can appreciate that might not make sense to anyone else but luckily I don't have to care about anyone else!

I can also use the cameras I already use for B&W and from which I print in my darkroom so I don't have to carry more equipment, just more film.

 

[reddesert]

I find that the nagging sensation of having a pile of color film negatives or slides in envelopes occasionally reminding me, "I really should edit those and get some of them sent out to be printed, or scanned and color-tweaked and printed," is similar to but different from the nagging sensation of having a large directory full of color digital images sometimes reminding me, "I really should edit those and get some of them sent out to be printed." So why not enjoy both?

 

[dcy]

If you are going to digitally post-process colour photos (colour negatives or positives), why bother to shoot analogue rather than digital (RAW)?

As the creator of the thread that motivated your post, I'd like to chime in.

When I first heard of the idea --- especially with DSLR scanning --- I thought it was really absurd. So you grab a film camera cause you don't want to shoot digital, and then grab your digital camera to take a photo of your photo. That's bananas!

Yet, that's what I am currently doing with color film. I can tell you why I'm doing it:

(1) Part of it is idle curiosity and novelty. --- The concept is still weird and new to me.

(2) Part of it is that the experience is totally different:

"Yes"... in theory I could take digital photos and use software to emulate the look of any film. But I don't want to do that.

Doing this kind of post-processing well requires effort, and requires skill that I neither have nor am interested in acquiring. I do not want to sit at a computer fiddling with app settings. I already sit at computer all day. One of the reasons I moved away from digital photography was that so much of it seemed to be about taking a zillion shots with reckless abandon, then hunching over a screen to painstakingly fiddle with knobs and dials to tune the image.

OMG! It made me want to tear my hair out!

I want to get out. I want to be up and about, walk around town, and when I get home I want to use my hands, pour chemistry in a tank, whoosh liquids in a tray, and just basically avoid the computer. Getting sunlight, and just the physicality of the whole process is both relaxing, and good for my mental health.

Film already looks like film. I am willing to hold my hose and do a small amount of digital editing to convert negatives into digital positives, but I very much want the film itself to play a large role in the final product, without a huge amount of editing. You can bet that if RA4 was easier and I has equipped to do it, I'd be doing that instead of digital scans. The digital scans are a compromise between what I'd like to do ideally and what I feel I can attain realistically.

 

[dcy]

I think lots of people have answered that exact question on here numerous times. It mostly boils down to they consider film to generate a preferable result to digital - a result they claim they cannot get a digital capture to have.

There's a YouTuber, Yvonne Hanson, who had a take along these lines: Can digital editing emulate film? Yes. Do I want to sit for hours at the computer and learn digital editing so I can spend hours to emulate film? No.

It's worth noting that she's a fan of particularly wonky films with weird effects (pre-exposed film, halation, redscale, etc) that would take more effort to emulate digitally.

 

[mshchem]

As the creator of the thread that motivated your post, I'd like to chime in.

When I first heard of the idea --- especially with DSLR scanning --- I thought it was really absurd. So you grab a film camera cause you don't want to shoot digital, and then grab your digital camera to take a photo of your photo. That's bananas!

Yet, that's what I am currently doing with color film. I can tell you why I'm doing it:

(1) Part of it is idle curiosity and novelty. --- The concept is still weird and new to me.

(2) Part of it is that the experience is totally different:

"Yes"... in theory I could take digital photos and use software to emulate the look of any film. But I don't want to do that.

Doing this kind of post-processing well requires effort, and requires skill that I neither have nor am interested in acquiring. I do not want to sit at a computer fiddling with app settings. I already sit at computer all day. One of the reasons I moved away from digital photography was that so much of it seemed to be about taking a zillion shots with reckless abandon, then hunching over a screen to painstakingly fiddle with knobs and dials to tune the image.

OMG! It made me want to tear my hair out!

I want to get out. I want to be up and about, walk around town, and when I get home I want to use my hands, pour chemistry in a tank, whoosh liquids in a tray, and just basically avoid the computer. Getting sunlight, and just the physicality of the whole process is both relaxing, and good for my mental health.

Film already looks like film. I am willing to hold my hose and do a small amount of digital editing to convert negatives into digital positives, but I very much want the film itself to play a large role in the final product, without a huge amount of editing. You can bet that if RA4 was easier and I has equipped to do it, I'd be doing that instead of digital scans. The digital scans are a compromise between what I'd like to do ideally and what I feel I can attain realistically.

Today, I was faced with do I want to run around with my cousin, me lugging a digital camera or a Leica M with a roll of Ektar. I choose a chrome MP, while we were having coffee a nice fellow commented to me nice old camera That wouldn't have happened if it would have been a D850. (I told him the camera wasn't that old but I had plenty that were )

 

[Pieter12]

The fuss and bother of doing a proper digital scan of color negative is about equal to that of adjusting a digital file to have a more film-like look. Both take time and skill to do well. A lot of what makes film photos have a certain look is the lenses. Adapters are available to use some of those on modern digital cameras. A lot of the appeal of film photography is about boasting rights, trendiness and stubbornness.

 

[Oldwino]

For me, digital means less time on the computer. Color balance is so good now in digital photography, that most shots require a minimum of effort to post process.
Film, on the other hand, is much more labor intensive - development, scanning and then post processing all add extra time. Color correcting film scans is often more labor intensive than digital, and often seems impossible to get “right”.

Is it worth it? A lot of the time, yes. Film still looks like film.

 

[gbroadbridge]

Each new roll of film is the same as putting a new sensor into a digital camera.

 

[halfaman]

Doing this kind of post-processing well requires effort, and requires skill that I neither have nor am interested in acquiring. I do not want to sit at a computer fiddling with app settings. I already sit at computer all day. One of the reasons I moved away from digital photography was that so much of it seemed to be about taking a zillion shots with reckless abandon, then hunching over a screen to painstakingly fiddle with knobs and dials to tune the image.

That is a very common. I would say that half of the people I know shooting film are in IT/software business. The only person I know devoted to Super 8 works in an independent studio producing video features and has worked also on television. For him digital video is job, Super 8 is pure fun. He told me once: "I don't want perfection, that is for work"

 

[koraks]

Each new roll of film is the same as putting a new sensor into a digital camera.

What's the advantage of this, though?

 

[ChrisGalway]

Really interesting responses! In fact they have inspired me to load some colour film into my Mamiya 7ii, which I feel fortunate to own, a lovely camera and a delight to use (but it does have a battery!)

When I originally posted, I was thinking about the detector side (colour film v CMOS) but I realise now that an important aspect is the camera (particularly medium/ large format) and lenses. On the lens side, it's not only that older lenses for film have a distinct look, but that the focal lengths are longer for medium and large format, with correspondingly less depth of field and distinctive bokeh.

I should mention that I get great satisfaction in using quite old cameras, mainly folders; using an 80-90 year old camera is a reward in itself.

 

[albireo]

A few more...

No worries about memory card failures.
Mechanical cameras are ready to shoot in an instant.
Long exposures are an uncomplicated thing to do, as are multiple exposures.
I like to see a little grain in an image.
Medium format is much less expensive.
There is nostalgia and emotion in the way film renders.
I don't want to look at screens, especially in bright sunlight or on dark streets.
Lenses are cheaper.
I learn more about the imaging process when there are more manual steps.
Digital cameras have less variation in their design.
A process that has less room for error is more sterile and less interesting.
Simplicity can be liberating.
I already tried digital cameras and nothing compelled me to keep taking photos with them, I threw the photos in a folder and forgot about them until the next hard drive crash.

If my budget tightened, I'd make each shot more important and take less of them. And I'd sell half of my lenses and cameras.

Great list thanks, should be pinned for all times this question get asked.

For many people out there interested in this hobby in 2025, there is so much more about film photography than just making prints in a darkroom.

 

[koraks]

For many people out there interested in this hobby in 2025, there is so much more about film photography than just making prints in a darkroom.

In addition to printing, there's also camera collecting, working on cameras, handling/fondling cameras, experimenting/playing with chemistry, exploring the theoretical aspects of photochemistry and related fields like sensitometry, the fun of shopping/buying stuff and collecting, trying out different materials, talking and arguing to/with people about what you like doing. And there's also photography. But that's of course just a minor aspect of the whole complex.