Why shoot analogue colour photos?

[foc]

I like to shoot colour film because:

• It gives me pleasure; is that not enough of a reason?
• I like the workflow.
• It feels nostalgic (I shot film professionally for many years)
• I like the delayed gratification of seeing the results.
• As an ex minlab owner, I like to support other labs by sending my colour films to them.

 

[ChrisGalway]

Why shoot analogue colour photos?​

Why not?

As the OP, can I point out that I was asking the question specifically for shooting colour negative film and then scanning it (for either printing or viewing on a screen). I suppose my point was: if you are going to convert to a digital file, why not start with a digital file? I was not referring to shooting colour transparency film (particularly if it is viewed optically), or for colour negative film which is then printed in the darkroom.

(An aside: I did colour printing 60+ years ago as a 16/17 year old in my home darkroom ... the solutions had to be at 25degC and the only practical way of achieving that for the required 3/4 trays of solution was to have the whole room at 25degC, too hot for someone living in Scotland! I still have a few of the prints, they have not faded in all that time.)

I think many people have responded that shooting film, using a mainly mechanical camera and old lenses is not only a pleasure in itself, but also gives a different "look" to pure digital (I mean using a digital camera and working on the digital files).

I've been inspired by the responses to dig out a couple of film cameras (a 90 year old folder and a more "modern" Mamiya 7ii) to re-visit shooting colour negative film. But having said that, on my travel photo-trips, when I take 2-4 cameras (+ the phone), one of them is always my Fuji X-series APS digital ... every shot can be printed at A3+ with stunning clarity (and added "grain" if I want!)

 

[ChrisGalway]

I like to shoot colour film because:

• It gives me pleasure; is that not enough of a reason?
• I like the workflow.
• It feels nostalgic (I shot film professionally for many years)
• I like the delayed gratification of seeing the results.
• As an ex minlab owner, I like to support other labs by sending my colour films to them.

• It gives me pleasure; is that not enough of a reason?

Definitely, and greetings from Galway, waiting for the rain to stop.

 

[albireo]

every shot can be printed at A3+ with stunning clarity (and added "grain" if I want!)

And you get those beautiful Fuji X-trans worms for free, too!

 

[RezaLoghme]

This post was stimulated by https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...p-better-than-kodak-gold-or-colorplus.215894/ but rather than go off-topic on that thread, I'll make the comment here:

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

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?

Of course, one perfectly valid response is: because it's so much more fun shooting film! And I'm sure there are many other good reasons, but I'm curious to know them.

I love shooting film, and all my B&W work uses film which is scanned, but when it comes to colour for prints etc, I now use a digital camera. I should add that my main hobby is stereo transparencies, viewed in an optical viewer, and digital displays come nowhere near the quality of a transparency viewed optically or directly, so of course I use film.

I should add that I dont have the luxury to have my own darkroom, and I also dont see it as my strength or interest. I am very much interested in the picture-taking part of the whole thing, and, to a lesser extent, in the technological and design side of cameras (especially the products of Leica and Hasselblad and their historical significance in the context of the world of photography).

Maybe I did not understand your question correctly, as I am not a native speaker, but why do you distinguish between colour and B/W when looking at digital vs. analog?

Your hobby is quite special - I wonder how photos which were taken digitally might look like when transferring them to transparencies?

 

[George Mann]

Don't need to clean the sensor as you just replace it. Cleaning sensor is a difficult task to me.

It's next to impossible without all the equipment the pro's use.

 

[Agulliver]

+1

I found that as well. When photos are "free", your whole approach changes. I instinctively end up taking many redundant photos of the same thing in the hopes that one will be slightly better than the rest, and I end up paying in the form of tedium at the computer. With film, entirely aside from the monetary cost of film, there's the simple fact that I have a finite number of shots. That makes every shot precious, and worthy of thought and consideration.




Ha. I envy you. For me, I've been having to mail my film to labs. With shipping included, I've been paying $14 to develop a roll that I purchased for $9. --- So... yeah... I purchased a C-41 kit. When I finish the roll of Color Plus that's in my camera right now, I'll have enough color film to crack open the kit and try my hand at C-41.

I realised the folly of scattergun digital shooting while on holiday in October 2013. I hadn't shot much film for a few years and was thinking that I'd probably use digital, especially for colour, and maybe shoot the occasional roll of B&W film. This was at a point in time when I had B&W developing equipment but no scanner. On said holiday two things happened. I shot over 1000 photos on a DSLR on one trip to a safari park, of which perhaps 40 were actually *good*. And I forgot the charger for the DSLR and had happened to pack a film SLR with two rolls of expired Tri-X. For the rest of the trip I was careful with the DSLR and shot more subjects on B&W film. And I rediscovered how fun film can be, and rediscovered being selective with my shots. Upon getting home I processed the Tri-X and had a local shop scan it for me, and put the results up with the good digital pics on social media....and people reacted so positively to the film that I was quite taken aback. I expected people I'd been on holiday with to be disappointed that many of the photos of them and the activities we did were B&W and grainy. Nope, the opposite. They were delighted to have been captured on film.

Within a year I'd got myself a scanner and started buying colour film again. I still shoot it alongside digital and B&W film, and I definitely shoot more B&W film than colour....but I've found it is fun, I enjoy taking photos on colour film. I certainly don't do it to brag, I get very embarrassed at things like that. There may occasionally be an element of stubbornness on my part, or it could simply be a case of a perverse sense of enjoying making things difficult for myself. I also like finding ways to make old technology work in the modern world. It's certainly nothing to do with being trendy for me, I've been shooting film since 1977and even when I did reduce my film usage for a few years....I resumed full speed way before the film resurgence.

I am *very* fortunate to have a lab operated by someone with over 50 years experience within walking distance of my house. That her lab is also possibly the cheapest in the UK is simply another bonus. When she retires or passes away, I shall probably take up colour processing.

 

[foc]

Definitely, and greetings from Galway, waiting for the rain to stop.

Greetings from Sligo, dry and sunny here.

 

[Prest_400]

Next time you see people having a discussion about why their like their hobby, and you personally do not like their hobby, instead of butting in to say that "a lot of the appeal of [your hobby] is boasting, trendiness, and stubbornness", please consider just scrolling.

Scrolling to the next post is always a strong option.

I agree that the ad hominem statement is not the best, but as with all hobbies and niches there can be a bunch of snobs. From what I observe there is a small cult of Leica, Hassie or Mamiya (7) bearing photographers. But IMO as you write, it's a just ignore if the appeal is only gear or limited to whatever other characteristic.

The color chemistry will go bad before I shoot enough film to use it all. It is cheaper to send out the film and get a set of prints that waste the color processing and then doing my printing for one roll of film.

Same here, when accounting for time and some inconsistency risks (Paterson tanks vs a minilab), I just prefer having it lab processed. Currently sitting on a batch of about 15 rolls 120 which I will probably send out but considering if I will get it scanned there or finally fix my camera scan workflow.

As the OP, can I point out that I was asking the question specifically for shooting colour negative film and then scanning it (for either printing or viewing on a screen). I suppose my point was: if you are going to convert to a digital file, why not start with a digital file? I was not referring to shooting colour transparency film (particularly if it is viewed optically), or for colour negative film which is then printed in the darkroom.

(An aside: I did colour printing 60+ years ago as a 16/17 year old in my home darkroom ... the solutions had to be at 25degC and the only practical way of achieving that for the required 3/4 trays of solution was to have the whole room at 25degC, too hot for someone living in Scotland! I still have a few of the prints, they have not faded in all that time.)

I think many people have responded that shooting film, using a mainly mechanical camera and old lenses is not only a pleasure in itself, but also gives a different "look" to pure digital (I mean using a digital camera and working on the digital files).

I've been inspired by the responses to dig out a couple of film cameras (a 90 year old folder and a more "modern" Mamiya 7ii) to re-visit shooting colour negative film. But having said that, on my travel photo-trips, when I take 2-4 cameras (+ the phone), one of them is always my Fuji X-series APS digital ... every shot can be printed at A3+ with stunning clarity (and added "grain" if I want!)

My case is like others here, it probably started with just being the de facto standard format (C41 color) which despite the digital age, I just picked up.
Nowadays I do sometimes think of the why.... I put up with the logistics, develop/scan (lab) and weight (Medium format) when digital does great color itself. Lately I have been using more modern cameras which aside of the format itself (6x9, 645) they do not have the elegance of the classics. If there is a bit of a no, I did really stop a lot of my 35mm shooting in the last couple years. I do miss the elegance of some great 70s manual SLRs in 35mm which don't quite have a comparative model in medium format.

On the other hand, I am more of a Jpeg shooter in digital. Whereas the more targeted pace in film makes me more of an editor there, specially in B&W given a totally analog workflow.

IMO Mamiya 7II is a top of the line medium format and would love it but the prices for them are insane, appears very practical for travel yet is medium format. Which, back to topic. An environmental portrait, consider it taken with Portra, with a 80-90mm in 6x7-6x9 can be wonderful and has a something that isn't really replicated in digital. Yes, there is digital medium format or a high performance FF which has a similar look but it is not quite the same. Then, even if it is a large negative, still has the color characteristics and (slight) granularity.

 

[ChrisGalway]

.......

Maybe I did not understand your question correctly, as I am not a native speaker, but why do you distinguish between colour and B/W when looking at digital vs. analog?

Your hobby is quite special - I wonder how photos which were taken digitally might look like when transferring them to transparencies?

I was probably wrong to distinguish between B&W and colour negative ... but my "reasoning" (prejudice?) was that B&W has a retro/old-fashioned look where using scanned film is more distinct than digital.

Yes, medium format film-based stereo is very specialised, there are probably <50 people in the world still doing this! The reason to do it is that a pair of medium format (usually 50x50 mm each when mounted) stereo images looks amazing in a lighted optical viewer. Digital displays, even those in Apple's Vision One headset, do match the quality of a well exposed and processed colour transparency.

Taking the photos digitally (you would need a 100+Mpixel detector) and printing them on transparency film is no longer possible in practice, as the medium format film writers that existed 25+ years ago are no longer in operation, and anyway do not have sufficient resolution. You just can't beat film in this application.

 

[xkaes]

It. does. And it is true for many.

"Some"? Sure. Many? I'm sure you have some survey data to back this up -- or is that just your opinion? Do "many" have the same opinion as yours -- or just "some"?

 

[xkaes]

And there are slews of Leica users (wearers?) who fit the boasting/status profile.

"Slews"? I'm sure you have proof of that. I've met ONE in my entire life -- but I really wouldn't call her a "braggart" or "snob" about it.

 

[xkaes]

For something completely different try 4x5 or even 8x10 Portra. That's different

Or 8x11 -- MILLIMETERS -- Minox!

 

[albireo]

as with all hobbies and niches there can be a bunch of snobs.

Definitely, I'd agree!

From what I observe there is a small cult of Leica, Hassie or Mamiya (7) bearing photographers.

There probably is.

As there is, probably, also a cult of of film photography fans who have the privilege of owning or accessing a darkroom, use C41 film only to make home made prints, obsess about their printing and look down with disdain at people who tend to be interested in film photography but not in wet printing their colour negatives.

Mind you - you don't tend to see this type of snob out in the street that much, as, unlike those snobby Leica fans, few darkroom snobs go walking with their RA4 prints hanging from their necks.

 

[koraks]

I was probably wrong to distinguish between B&W and colour negative ... but my "reasoning" (prejudice?) was that B&W has a retro/old-fashioned look where using scanned film is more distinct than digital.

I don't think you're wrong in differentiating between B&W and color in this context. In fact, I think it's a very sensible distinction to make. But I'm not sure whether I'd formulate the distinction in the way you did.

Overall, when we practice color photography, most of us strive for a result that looks natural/plausible - so nothing too outlandish when it comes to color balance and contrast. There are plenty of exceptions of course, but for the most part, this seems to be what the Photrio population is doing. In the B&W arena, it seems that at least some (and I'd wager to say, 'most') of us strive for results that depart very distinctly from reality - and not just in the sense of removing color from it. We manipulate contrast, often locally in parts of the tonal scale (e.g. compression) and/or parts of the image (e.g. through dodging, burning etc.), but at least globally in the image to make it fit the output medium. Notice how often we expand or contract the tonal scale of a color photograph to the output medium - it's more rare, and quite often 'doesn't feel right'.

Then there's the matter of grain and detail rendering which I think plays a subtly different role in B&W and color. For one thing, in color captures, the 'grain' (either digital noise or dye clouds) is not monochromatic and thus much easier adds a distraction. In B&W, some grain tends to improve acutance without automatically bringing a chromatic penalty.

Another aspect is the editing (wet/dark or dry/digital) and how we come to an end result that pleases us. While 'editing' as such occurs in all four domains (digital/wet, color/B&W), the nature of the challenge and the toolset differs at least to an extent, placing different requirements on our mindset, competencies and (often) materials.

Yes, the above takes a vast and complex domain in perhaps irresponsibly big strides. I do feel that within the crass generalizations lies some truth. Thus, I think the distinction is sensible to make and I think you were right in doing so.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I went through a similar thought process, and came to a similar conclusion. For the past 6 or 7 years, I have chosen to make nearly all of my b&w photos on film, and nearly all of my color photos with a digital camera. I decide beforehand if the photo is going to be b&w or color, and that determines which camera I use. Honestly, I have seen digital photos processed as b&w which I like very much (including a few of my own). But what I didn't like was getting back home with an SD card full of RAW files and agonizing over every shot whether it should be color or b&w. For me it was better to make that decision in the field, and burn my bridges behind me.

The real reason I continue to shoot b&w film has less to do with the "distinctive look" of my results and more to do with enjoying the experience of using my analog cameras. The view through the big bright viewfinder of my Pentax MX is much prettier than what I see in the EVF of my mirrorless digital camera. And while the viewfinder of my Rolleicord is not as bright, it is big.

Unlike many who don't like the computer part, I actually enjoy the digital darkroom (Lightroom) a lot more than I enjoy working in a wet darkroom. I don't have a darkroom at home, but since 2019 I have taken two semesters of photography classes which gave me access to a well-equipped university darkroom. I discovered I don't care that much about prints. I have made few nice looking photography books on my computer and had them printed by Blurb, but otherwise, I am content for my photos to be viewed on a screen.


It seems funny to me that "clinical" "sharp" and "sterile" have become dirty words. ;-)

During the entire history of analog photography, every lens designer, camera maker, and film manufacturer worked diligently towards the goal of making photographs that were as sharp and accurate as humanly possible. Sure there were a few exceptions, some special purpose lenses that were designed to be soft for portraiture, but generally speaking sharp was the goal. As near as I can tell, to say a photograph is "clinical" is to say the photograph is accurate. And people who don't like clinical photographs, seem to like some degree of "character" -- aka vignetting, distortion, flair, coloration, etc. -- all defects that the photo industry worked so long and hard to eliminate. These photographers are a hard lot to please. ;-)

I don't print much anymore and dump photos on Flickr and video slide shows on YouTube or store in memory cards for display on my 75" TV. I use Adobe Premiere Elements. It can be very creative if you enjoy working on your computer. Samples below. Of course I use both digitally captured and scanned analog to create these shows.

 

[RezaLoghme]

"Slews"? I'm sure you have proof of that. I've met ONE in my entire life -- but I really wouldn't call her a "braggart" or "snob" about it.

Here, I plead guilty. Unfortunately, nobody in my world gives a toss about my weird German cameras.

 

[Wayne]

Because it requires physical interaction with the physical world, instead of more mind-numbing detachment of navigating life through screens

 

[destroya]

I am going thru a mental wrestling match now. i have an upcoming trip to london, paris and munich in nov. I usually always take film with me, but for some resason im thinking of bringing dig for color and then film for b&w. I know I am over thinking this, but traveling with film can be difficult at times for me. I do love old school slide shows much better then slide shows on a tv. I know I will most likely shoot all film, but over the last year ive shot less and less film. life is full of difficult, (sometimes meaningless) decisions.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I am going thru a mental wrestling match now. i have an upcoming trip to london, paris and munich in nov. I usually always take film with me, but for some resason im thinking of bringing dig for color and then film for b&w. I know I am over thinking this, but traveling with film can be difficult at times for me. I do love old school slide shows much better then slide shows on a tv. I know I will most likely shoot all film, but over the last year ive shot less and less film. life is full of difficult, (sometimes meaningless) decisions.

Bring your film body and buy film locally and have it developed locally. job jobbed.

 

[Chan Tran]

Bring your film body and buy film locally and have it developed locally. job jobbed.

I brought my roll of film to the local camera store for processing recently. They did it in house a few months ago but now they send them out. No longer developed locally.

 

[RezaLoghme]

In destroya's case he/she/they can plan ahead, "book" some labs in advance etc.

 

[AERO]

You want a list of options?
It's of course a moot point to ask the 'why not' question. There's always plenty of answers. The value is in the positive arguments. I'd love to hear yours.

Preference.

 

[koraks]

I see, very...insightful.

 

[Prest_400]

I am going thru a mental wrestling match now. i have an upcoming trip to london, paris and munich in nov. I usually always take film with me, but for some resason im thinking of bringing dig for color and then film for b&w. I know I am over thinking this, but traveling with film can be difficult at times for me. I do love old school slide shows much better then slide shows on a tv. I know I will most likely shoot all film, but over the last year ive shot less and less film. life is full of difficult, (sometimes meaningless) decisions.

The inconvenience of bringing film is mostly to have it hand checked in the airports with CT scanners, get it anyways scanned if they have the old Xrays, and keep the cameras unloaded during transit as you might not know what kind of security type is in place.

Despite having only done it about once (Asia), having shot a big bunch of medium format film allowed me to visit some interesting film labs and get in touch with the local community. This is something that otherwise would not be done as a digital photographer. It does take some time, as you have to at least drop off the film. I usually go off lab and community lists which are available online, and cross check the comments and reviews before deciding where to take the film.

I'm planning another trip to Asia this autumn and plan to bring along a P645n and Kodak Gold + HP5/FP4; then develop the color along the route which will pass by some capital cities with film photography infrastructure.
Which is not really so optimal, as the P645 is a huge pro camera, convenient with automation yet unelegant. 645 too gets its own share of "why" and all together is also a bit in line of the "why" of this thread.

Bringing medium format with travel in mind and compact, light, convenient (RFs) makes for an interesting Venn diagram. Digital's convenience skips this kerfuffle, but then again... it's not film. Somehow I've interiorised this whole (anachronistic?) logistics needed for film, and enjoy the end result with some workout and gymnastics good for brain plasticity.
Mind you I thought "I won't be carrying a medium format for travel to another continent", yet I plan for another round.