Why shoot analogue colour photos?

Pieter12 said:

Tell that to someone who has seen countless scratched, dirty prints with obvious splices projected at a secondary market theater.

Click to expand...

you're conflating cinematography with projection

st1 said:

you're conflating cinematography with projection

Click to expand...

I may be, but cinematography can only be appreciated that way. Was the movie shown if no one is watching?

Pieter12 said:

I may be, but cinematography can only be appreciated that way. Was the movie shown if no one is watching?

Click to expand...

both film and digital can be poorly projected, but nowadays film is far less likely to be, because it's become a special event to screen an actual film.

Oldwino said:

David Lynch on Film and Digital...

Click to expand...

not to suggest in any way that he's being disingenuous, but it's worth bearing in mind that he made these emphatic comments while promoting Inland Empire, shot on digital

st1 said:

there are still enough people who do care, that marketing bothers to take the time to allay their fears,

Click to expand...

That's not what the marketing is for. If a movie is shot on film now, it's seen as a selling point, to prove the production team cares about the character of the film - and not just about the profitability. It's distinguishing - and even people who can't see a difference (i.e., almost everyone) pick up on that. "Oh, it gets a special 'look' from being shot on film - how authentic of the movie-makers!"

Whereas the director may genuinely care. Probably does. But it's not publicized to assuage fears - no one has any fears about digital.

Don_ih said:

That's not what the marketing is for. If a movie is shot on film now, it's seen as a selling point, to prove the production team cares about the character of the film - and not just about the profitability. It's distinguishing - and even people who can't see a difference (i.e., almost everyone) pick up on that. "Oh, it gets a special 'look' from being shot on film - how authentic of the movie-makers!"

Whereas the director may genuinely care. Probably does. But it's not publicized to assuage fears - no one has any fears about digital.

Click to expand...

washi film

st1 said:

washi film

Click to expand...

The crow flies at midnight

Don_ih said:

That's not what the marketing is for. If a movie is shot on film now, it's seen as a selling point, to prove the production team cares about the character of the film - and not just about the profitability. It's distinguishing - and even people who can't see a difference (i.e., almost everyone) pick up on that. "Oh, it gets a special 'look' from being shot on film - how authentic of the movie-makers!"

Whereas the director may genuinely care. Probably does. But it's not publicized to assuage fears - no one has any fears about digital.

Click to expand...

yes, it's an expensive investment you can leverage for greater profit via marketing. the production team are far more concerned with the logistical practicalities of handling film. the director cares about being able to make the next movie, whatever the medium.

Just curious: does anyone recall that the OP's question was about still photography with color neg?

I don't have a strong opinion about "film vs digital," I have been known to use either. I don't think it is particularly useful to take the position that people carrying film cameras are doing it for a pose-value, or that movie directors are shooting on film for marketing purposes. Both are arguments about other people's motivations, and it is difficult enough to understand one's own motivations, let alone other people's.

I don't know for certain but being of an age where I am probably among the group who started photography in the middle of the 20th C. At 1st it was B&W them colour with Ektachromes, Kodachomes etc then in 1992 it was colour printing when RA4 became a true viable possibility. Then around 2000 digital became a workable possibility and yes I tried it but have never ever got on with it.

For me it was the loss or having something done for me and not requiring the skill. I learned a lot over the years and knowledge like that is a valuable skill that is gradually being lost. I enjoy colour printing and using film knowing it it is my skill that will affect the final reproduction and I can say I DID THAT!

The digital age has meant all manner of skills are being lost and probably most importantly the skill of one to one or face to face communication. How many times have you contacted a company to, shall we say change your car insurance and find the 'press the button options' does not cover what you need to discus. People do not like face to face communication and the company owners apparently do not care about their customers knowing that they need their services and will have to comply.

I shall continue to colour and black and white print so long as I can afford to. (it is getting expensive) The darkroom is 'my space' where I can listen to the radio and print. To get one right I may only manage to make a couple of prints in an evenings session, but the satisfaction of doing so far outweighs just picking up a print from the tray at the front of a digital printer. It does the job but where is the skill?

jmrochester said:

Just curious: does anyone recall that the OP's question was about still photography with color neg?

Click to expand...

OP's original post doesn't specify still photography, but in one moderator's mind (#242) this discussion is principally about stills. OP's post #246 welcomes the inclusion of cinema in the discussion. #334 is so far your only contribution to the discussion. I agree that it's difficult to follow the discussion when so many respondents seek not to add to the debate, but instead to restrict it to the limits of their own conventional wisdom, and so see no need to read the whole thread.

st1 said:

OP's original post doesn't specify still photography

Click to expand...

ChrisGalway said:

If you are going to digitally post-process colour photos

Click to expand...

We can also infer from OP's own work as well as the general context of Photrio with its strong emphasis on still photography that this is the scope he thought of when he asked his question. As always, the scope of a discussion can shift as it unfolds. If there's a problem with this, a moderator may intervene. This has not happened. My post #242 was (1) made on personal title and (2) indicated that the discussion about motion pictures involves a couple of caveats that do not apply or work out differently for still video. It should not be misinterpreted as a restriction of the scope of the thread.

st1 said:

I agree that it's difficult to follow the discussion when so many respondents seek not to add to the debate, but instead to restrict it to the limits of their own conventional wisdom, and so see no need to read the whole thread.

Click to expand...

People are free to add their "two cents' worth" as they please. If only because the central question in #1 informs after personal motives/choices. Debate is fine, but it was never a strict requirement, not in #1, and not in the nature or rules of the forum.

If you have concerns about the way the discussion unfolds, please use the 'report' function and we will look into it. So far I see from a moderator's perspective no need to intervene.

reddesert said:

I don't think it is particularly useful to take the position that people carrying film cameras are doing it for a pose-value, or that movie directors are shooting on film for marketing purposes.

Click to expand...

I don't think movie directors use film for marketing purposes. I think they use it for what it is - they want to use film, for whatever reasons they have or state. But marketing a film as being shot of film is just to give it some kind of distinguishing characteristic and has nothing to do with any supposed "stigma" digital has.

The people making the movie are very concerned with how it looks - much more than the audience is. There was a movie a few years ago called The Holdovers that was shot totally on digital but they wanted it to look like it could've been shot in the late 60s on film. Here's an interesting article on it.

I don't do streaming and lately I"ve been buying loads of Blue Ray discs off Amazon. Plenty of offers, for obvious reasons, and it's great to own a physical product and know I can watch the content whenever I fancy.

Anyhow, there are some Hollywood classics in there, Scorsese, De Palma, Coppola, Michael Mann, Malick, Cohen Brothers, Ridley Scott. All stuff shot on film and newly remastered or digitalised in 4K.

I'm not an expert on cinema and cinematography technique and obviously I don't know how these would have looked had they been native digital productions, but what I can say is they look uniformly wonderful, organic, and definitely different from modern digital productions for reasons that go far beyond lighting, colour grading etc.

Film grain? Perhaps. Old lenses rendering? Maybe. Digital post-processing? Possibly.

If I were a cinematographer today, I would definitely attempt to deep dive into those old movies, equipment and production workflows and try to understand what made that look, and if it could be replicated today. A proportion of the audience cares.

Don_ih said:

The people making the movie are very concerned with how it looks - much more than the audience is. There was a movie a few years ago called The Holdovers that was shot totally on digital but they wanted it to look like it could've been shot in the late 60s on film. Here's an interesting article on it.

Click to expand...

I'd say that people making movies are much more concerned about every aspect of the movie than the audience is.

There might be exceptions, though. I found Lynch's transition to digital very, erm, unfortunate for me. It might've liberated the artist from the hardship of working with film, but I'd be lying if I said I don't miss the visual beauty of his movies shot on film. You might argue that Lynch did it on purpose, but I really believe SOB didn't care (for better or worse). Soderbergh, for example, went full digital (down to shooting movies on iPhone), and never robbed us of any visual delights...

Don_ih said:

I don't think movie directors use film for marketing purposes. I think they use it for what it is - they want to use film, for whatever reasons they have or state. But marketing a film as being shot of film is just to give it some kind of distinguishing characteristic and has nothing to do with any supposed "stigma" digital has.

The people making the movie are very concerned with how it looks - much more than the audience is. There was a movie a few years ago called The Holdovers that was shot totally on digital but they wanted it to look like it could've been shot in the late 60s on film. Here's an interesting article on it.

Click to expand...

I saw The Holdovers in the theater and it definitely gave me a 70's movie vibe, however watching clips from it on YouTube, not so much.

jmrochester said:

Just curious: does anyone recall that the OP's question was about still photography with color neg?

Click to expand...

I can give my perspective on this.

I'm a hobby photographer, unlike a lot of the professionals here... i just take photos for myself. I shoot A LOT of color neg film. Some slide film, and id like to get into shooting B&W. I get prints of every single roll I shoot, and i get large giclee prints to frame of my photos to decorate my house

In the 3rd grade I learned to shoot film in the early 1990s on my dads Canon AE1 Program in our class. I was in the Talented and Gifted (read: undiagnosed ADHD) class. We did a trip to a nature preserve, shot B&W and learned darkroom developing when we got back. 35 of my photos were junk. One of them i still have the print of somewhere. All of my baby and childhood photos are taken on this camera and i still have the prints.

Present day, I still have that AE1 Program and have shot photos on it for a few years and had it CLAed by the camera clinic. I shoot it in "manual mode" and it still shoots like new and is perfect. I now use a New F1 because I'm scared ill drop my dads old camera and its sentimental value is much higher than its replacement value. The F1 has a much more fun light meter to use with the circle and needle and is more usable for exposure.

I now have a young child, and take photos of her with the same camera and have prints for her to look at just like i did when i was growing up, and hopefully will give the AE1P to my kid when they get older.

I shoot 99% film because the process of choosing a film stock, getting good shots, getting bad shots, searching for aerochrome, trying expired film, cinema film, dumb film with hearts and smiley faces pre exposed onto them, etc is objectively just a fun hobby.

I feel like when i read the pros thoughts on this exact subject, people are so advanced in photography that sometimes nostalgia gets left out of the conversation. This makes sense because its literally their job and art.

For my film photos, i dont even own lightroom for a computer. I normally get my scans back. Adjust the W/B some on lightroom for iphone. Maybe crop but i try not to, and thats it. I like lens flare, and weird lens artifacts i get. If i want photos without any weird stuff going on ill just use my phone or mirrorless. Mirrorless vs manual film is a little silly to me sometimes. On my Fuji XM5, the process is set aperture priority, set iso, then just scroll the exposure comp wheel until the exposure looks right then shoot like 20 pictures for one. Its just not as fun as manual film photography.

For me its about fun and the process. We got the XM5 for digital to replace the iphone for photos when out and about and travelling, but we barely use it. Id say in this summer ive shot and developed 16 or so rolls of color neg, some rolls of slide, and have taken maybe 60 digital photos

To be fair though, i daily drive a 38 year old SUV and am technology adverse haha

If anyone cares to look at the original post, the question was not about shooting film per se, but why shoot film if one is going to digitize it in the end. Why not stay digital all the way? With the exception of those who shoot reversal film, relatively few have the skills or facilities to make analog prints. And there aren't many labs making custom analog color prints any more.

Pieter12 said:

If anyone cares to look at the original post, the question was not about shooting film per se, but why shoot film if one is going to digitize it in the end. Why not stay digital all the way? With the exception of those who shoot reversal film, relatively few have the skills or facilities to make analog prints. And there aren't many labs making custom analog color prints any more.

Click to expand...

As the gen Z would say: The vibes. (also i dont want to buy a new computer)

Digital -



Analog -

Not that I notice any big difference, it is all digital once you post it.

Pieter12 said:

If anyone cares to look at the original post, the question was not about shooting film per se, but why shoot film if one is going to digitize it in the end. Why not stay digital all the way? With the exception of those who shoot reversal film, relatively few have the skills or facilities to make analog prints. And there aren't many labs making custom analog color prints any more

Click to expand...

The dilemma exactly. Half of the color analog pathway is digital, at least for most people. And, even if (as I wrote somewhere way earlier in this thread), film can have a particular look (or vibe) that digital doesn't do so well...Is it still worth it? I understand the "it's the process" or the "it's the journey not the destination" aspects, but are we just fooling ourselves a little bit here?

Pieter12 said:

Not that I notice any big difference, it is all digital once you post it.

Click to expand...

haha youre right, but for someone like me, its mostly grain and artifacts and stuff like that

A scanned color negative generally doesn't look much like one that originated from a digital camera. The larger you go with format or slower with film speed (reducing grain) will cause them to look a little more alike. The modernity of the lens also has an impact.

For example, pictures taken with the Fuji GW690 camera can appear somewhat digital-looking to me. It's partially the high-resolving lens and partially the format size. The only time 35mm approached that was using the nearly grainless Adox CMS 20 II (to which there is no close color equivalent). In all other cases, given a reasonable resolution, I could immediately tell 35mm from digital.

Here's the last picture I took on my GW690 before it died, on the very low-grain Provia 100F. A two minute exposure by the very dim ambient light from the window. Even this doesn't quite look digital to me.

On top of other important aspects that have been mentioned, another key reason why -especially very young- modern digital photographers want to use colour film and old cameras is that they have incorporated the many failures/shortcomings/quirks of aging film cameras, film, and improper exposure and development as a crucial component of their creative process.

Let that sink in for a moment if you're >60 years old and you were there when film photography was the only thing available.

Back then, if you were somewhat serious about your photography, you probably wanted squeaky clean images, hated grain, rejoiced at every new 'ultra-fine' grain Ektarish product that hit the market, sought to achieve only the very best exposure and demanded the very best processing.

This is not a goal anymore for many film photographers. They can obtain those squeaky clean documents with any phone, any time of the day, reproducibly - repeatedly.

People the age of your grandchildren, who are visual communicators in a way you are not (images must travel fast, to all corners of the world, to all people in a group of friends, now, not tomorrow via mailed print) don't want to give up the idea of sharing visual content via tiktok/etc but are fascinated by the idea of an old device introducing a number of artifacts on to the final image that have been widely accepted as desirable.

Why are they desirable? Not sure. A different thread. The randomness? The nostalgia? Maybe both and then some.

What are those features? I can think of a few on top of my head.

-The glowing halation of street lamps produced by Cinestill film etc. -> very much noticeable even from a scan
-Light leaks hitting the frame at random -> very much noticeable even from a scan
-Exaggerated noisiness caused by scanning a severely underexposed, perhaps overdeveloped negative -> a very recognisable look which is NATIVE to scanned C41 film
-Lens flare from poorly coated old lenses -> very much visible even on a scan.
-Unpredictable colour shifts from long expired, poorly preserved film -> very much sought after, and definitely noticeable even from a scan
-fungus/major dust problem in lens -> soft filter effect, very much visible even from a scan
-Shutter curtain issues, film advance issues, accidental double exposures -> all often considered desirable and part and parcel of an old, malfunctioning film camera and readily noticeable from a scan.

And so on and so forth.

'Yes but I can rEPRoDuCe ALL of that in Photoshop and Lightroom!!!"

The users I've described up here won't own Photoshop or Lightroom. They'll probably get a Macbook pro at uni in some years. Now all they have is a Steam Deck, a phone and an ipad to do 'homework'.

Those who are slightly older, and probably own a LR subscription, and probably own a DSLR of sorts, probably can't be arsed to try and simulate the above sitting at the computer. Why, if you can achieve the real thing with a small, interesting, old object and some film?

So film, scanned film, scanned film whose development and scanning is outsourced to a lab, gives many new adopters an opportunity to get images back with 'filters' preapplied by everything that happened upstream.