Why shoot analogue colour photos?

[RezaLoghme]

Yeah MF + film + travel makes an interesting cocktail, see my threads in the MF section of the forum. Yet I came to realize that while it is a nice performance, many aspects of reality were against me.

So today, using a R body, some vintage R lens and something like the Orwo I recently tried is a nice, relaxing, un-performative variant of using colour film. Yet I have it developed and scanned by an artisan lab, my core (in)competency is making photos.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

I gave up on film for travel and vacations. Too inconvenient with security, theft, Xrays, customs inspections, etc. Too much to carry. Wife complains. So now I take a small digital camera that fits in my pocket and create video sldie shows of the vacation trying not to spend too much time on special shots. I save those for when I'm home and have the time and ease of transporting in my car.

 

[brian steinberger]

Yeah MF + film + travel makes an interesting cocktail, see my threads in the MF section of the forum. Yet I came to realize that while it is a nice performance, many aspects of reality were against me.

For me a Mamiya 6/7 or Bronica RF645 is the perfect travel camera for medium format. No larger than any average digital SLR/ mirrorless. Also a single TLR would be nice and simple.

 

[gbroadbridge]

I gave up on film for travel and vacations. Too inconvenient with security, theft, Xrays, customs inspections, etc. Too much to carry. Wife complains. So now I take a small digital camera that fits in my pocket and create video sldie shows of the vacation trying not to spend too much time on special shots. I save those for when I'm home and have the time and ease of transporting in my car.

+1. I have a Fuji X just for travel. Even that is at risk of being replaced by the smartphone.
Too much to see and do when travelling to spend time with an eye glued to a viewfinder.

 

[xkaes]

So today, using a R body, some vintage R lens and something like the Orwo I recently tried is a nice, relaxing, un-performative variant of using colour film. Yet I have it developed and scanned by an artisan lab, my core (in)competency is making photos.

When William Henry Jackson was young, he hauled mules up mountains in Wyoming -- in the late 1800's, to take pictures on 20x24" GLASS plates. Think about that for a moment. No trails, No darkroom, No nothing.

In his later years, he preferred a Kodak Pocket camera.

 

[MattKing]

When William Henry Jackson was young, he hauled mules up mountains in Wyoming

Somehow, I have a feeling that the mules probably hauled him up the mountain, not the other way around.
But yes, things were tougher back then!
Now I probably should Report myself - but I'm afraid I just couldn't resist!

 

[gbroadbridge]

Somehow, I have a feeling that the mules probably hauled him up the mountain, not the other way around.
But yes, things were tougher back then!
Now I probably should Report myself - but I'm afraid I just couldn't resist!

Ansel Adams these days would be using a smartphone, not stuck with Zones. He told me.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

+1. I have a Fuji X just for travel. Even that is at risk of being replaced by the smartphone.
Too much to see and do when travelling to spend time with an eye glued to a viewfinder.

I use a Sony RX100-IV. I like it better than a cellphone. Egrnomically it handles better and easier to snap. The flash is stronger than the cellphone, and it comes with an eye-level viewfinder as well as the back screen that washes out in bright sun. The eye finder is a lifesaver for me. Also, the articulating screen helps in some situations with pets and children down low.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

When William Henry Jackson was young, he hauled mules up mountains in Wyoming -- in the late 1800's, to take pictures on 20x24" GLASS plates. Think about that for a moment. No trails, No darkroom, No nothing.


In his later years, he preferred a Kodak Pocket camera.

No TSA.

 

[xtol121]

I frequently travel with my 5x7 camera and a box of 320TXP (12 flights so far this year, not much but not nothing). I keep my holders empty so I only have to worry about the exposed/unexposed boxes. TSA in the US and Mexico hasn’t been any more complicated than asking for a hand check. I understand it can become more complicated with more complicated travel, but my experience has been overwhelmingly positive. I’m not doing this for casual snapshots. I have an iPhone for random memories if necessary. I’ve mostly been working on long term projects and the value of shooting on my preferred format warrants the added heft and minor inconveniences. Everyone’s priorities are different so this becomes highly subjective, but if you value a certain format’s qualities I don’t think you need to compromise for anything but your own laziness (politely, your own “preferences”). We have it so good these days, but I do believe there is value in working with supposedly “archaic” formats. I believe that for me, and you could absolutely convince me that your case is different, and that has no value on my own relationship with this format. We’re all different people and have different priorities and preferences. Just make the work you’re happy to make!

 

[braxus]

Yes shooting film is so much more fun and satisfying then shooting digital. But digital has far surpassed film in terms of quality. But film has a look digital still can't quite do. Whether its the slightly off colors of film, or the grain structure giving texture to the image, or just the softer look of film to begin with (less clinical and more "character"). That said color film does have different coloring then digital, and I'd go out and say its less accurate. If you want a softer image- shoot film. I shoot both formats myself, because I can see the benefits of each type of shooting. And its good to have a backup for one or the other. Film is harder to shoot then digital, as it makes you work for your image. And you have to be very keen on taking that photo, because you only have a small amount of images you can make on film. I know Andy on here when ever he shoots color, he usually just shoots digital. Though lately he has dabbled in C41 color film. With large format film, you can technically get a huge rez scan made up, but again I'd question if a smaller digital camera could compete with that film file? That said I will always shoot film until the day I can't get it developed anymore. Or I just run out of film after the apocalypse has killed off film being sold. Im sure the government will at some point outlaw film all together so we stop using chemicals that they deem harmful to humans. I just hope my film cameras last that long before needing repairs that can no longer be fixed.

 

[ChrisGalway]

Alan Edward Klein said:
I gave up on film for travel and vacations. Too inconvenient with security, theft, Xrays, customs inspections, etc. Too much to carry. Wife complains. So now I take a small digital camera that fits in my pocket and create video sldie shows of the vacation trying not to spend too much time on special shots. I save those for when I'm home and have the time and ease of transporting in my car.

+1. I have a Fuji X just for travel. Even that is at risk of being replaced by the smartphone.
Too much to see and do when travelling to spend time with an eye glued to a viewfinder.

Well, I'm the opposite, I take nearly all my photos when traveling to various places in Europe and always take 3 film cameras (and an X-T30 digital), all in cabin baggage. (The clothes are only there to wrap around the cameras to protect them!) It's really little hassle nowadays to get the film hand-scanned, especially as the security staff at airports seem to know that CT scanners might damage film and are generally obliging. The main problem at airport security is those three film cameras, two are stereo, and nearly always the bag containing them is pulled aside for hand inspection ... they don't see weird cameras like that very often.

 

[Agulliver]

I don't find it particularly more difficult to travel with film in 2025 than it was in 1982, the first time I took a flight with film. There's one extra step... ask for a hand inspection. And nearly all airports in the world with the new CT scanners will action this now. I usually travel with *at least* three film cameras and a ziploc bag of film. It's actually no more difficult than travelling with lip balm in your cabin bag was with the X-ray machines. I simply accept that the new CT scanners are in place because they benefit the 95% or whatever it is who travel with tablets, laptops and lip balm and not film. It's not a big imposition on us though. It's not like film is banned or frowned upon. Thus far perhaps I've been lucky but I've had nothing but positive experiences with airports in London (Luton, Gatwick and Heathrow), Helsinki, Lanzarote, Mallorca, Tokyo Narita, Kansai International, O'Hare, Dallas Fort Worth, NW Arkansas. In fact I find things are better now than a few years ago because younger staff seem to have received info/training about film. Before all this, I'd get bemused looks, extra security checks, questions as to why I had 7 cameras in my cabin bag (I couldn't fit 8). And even those weren't a huge deal. Maybe an extra five minutes. When I'm about to fly for anything from 3 to 13 hours is any of that really an imposition? I don't think so. Obviously YMMV and people generally don't like changes. But certainly my experience is that flying with cameras and film as actually a little less unpleasant than 6 years ago. Off to Crete in a few weeks, probably taking at least four film cameras including super 8.

Why do I do it? Because I enjoy the choice of digital, colour negative, B&W negative, cine, and often one MF camera. I find it fun. And I don't find the airport security much of an imposition. I was a little anxious the first couple of times I had to ask for a hand inspection but it's second nature now. I know I would enjoy the photography aspect of travelling less if I limited myself to digital. And I would be imposing that limit on myself, because there's absolutely no restrictions on flying with film.

 

[dcy]

Yes shooting film is so much more fun and satisfying then shooting digital. But digital has far surpassed film in terms of quality.

I think this partly explains the apparent popularity of films and cameras that are objectively "bad" and proud of it --- redscale film, "lomographic" films, toy cameras, etc.

If I want top quality and color accuracy, no camera or film that I can buy will approach what my digital camera can do. In a way, that means that film is free to be its own thing. I want film to look like film --- yes, soft, a bit grainy, and with a particular color palette.

 

[ChrisGalway]

I don't find it particularly more difficult to travel with film in 2025 than it was in 1982, the first time I took a flight with film. There's one extra step... ask for a hand inspection. And nearly all airports in the world with the new CT scanners will action this now. I usually travel with *at least* three film cameras and a ziploc bag of film. It's actually no more difficult than travelling with lip balm in your cabin bag was with the X-ray machines. I simply accept that the new CT scanners are in place because they benefit the 95% or whatever it is who travel with tablets, laptops and lip balm and not film. It's not a big imposition on us though. It's not like film is banned or frowned upon. Thus far perhaps I've been lucky but I've had nothing but positive experiences with airports in London (Luton, Gatwick and Heathrow), Helsinki, Lanzarote, Mallorca, Tokyo Narita, Kansai International, O'Hare, Dallas Fort Worth, NW Arkansas. In fact I find things are better now than a few years ago because younger staff seem to have received info/training about film. Before all this, I'd get bemused looks, extra security checks, questions as to why I had 7 cameras in my cabin bag (I couldn't fit 8). And even those weren't a huge deal. Maybe an extra five minutes. When I'm about to fly for anything from 3 to 13 hours is any of that really an imposition? I don't think so. Obviously YMMV and people generally don't like changes. But certainly my experience is that flying with cameras and film as actually a little less unpleasant than 6 years ago. Off to Crete in a few weeks, probably taking at least four film cameras including super 8.

Why do I do it? Because I enjoy the choice of digital, colour negative, B&W negative, cine, and often one MF camera. I find it fun. And I don't find the airport security much of an imposition. I was a little anxious the first couple of times I had to ask for a hand inspection but it's second nature now. I know I would enjoy the photography aspect of travelling less if I limited myself to digital. And I would be imposing that limit on myself, because there's absolutely no restrictions on flying with film.

Wow, I thought I was being adventurous with 3 film cameras + one digital on my trips! I agree with you, it really is no problem at airport security, I think with the introduction of CT scanners all the staff are more aware of exceptions that need hand-inspection.

I would urge anyone in two minds about taking film cameras on holiday/photo trips to do so.

 

[moggi1964]

I shoot less colour than B&W as I currently only develop my own B&W.

When I do shoot colour it is either positive (Velvia) or one of the new Harman colour films. They add something different to the colour work I do with my digital camera.

 

[dcy]

Wow, I thought I was being adventurous with 3 film cameras + one digital on my trips! I agree with you, it really is no problem at airport security, I think with the introduction of CT scanners all the staff are more aware of exceptions that need hand-inspection.

I would urge anyone in two minds about taking film cameras on holiday/photo trips to do so.

I started shooting film less than 2 years ago, but in the handful of trips I've done in that time, I have always taken a film camera with me. Never had the security agent say "no" when I asked them to check the film by hand. I just have it neatly packed in a zip-lock bag and I hand it to the agent and say "Hi, this is film, could you please check it by hand?" and they just grab it and do the thing with that magic wand that checks for chemical explosives.

 

[koraks]

7 cameras in my cabin bag (I couldn't fit 8)

To carry my own millstone
Out of the trees

4:56AM

 

[xkaes]

But digital has far surpassed film in terms of quality.

That certainly is NEWS to me!

 

[xkaes]

I'd question if a smaller digital camera could compete with that film file?

Try it, you'll like it.

 

[koraks]

That certainly is NEWS to me!

'Quality' is a difficult concept as it can mean so many things and there's the likelihood of subjective factors playing a role. I will only speak for myself and based on my own experience, which involves comparing 35mm and small-format (APS-C & FF) digital with final output being print (optical or inkjet). In terms of technical quality (resolving power, acutance, color fidelity, defect rate etc.) digital has a very big edge in my own experience. Anecdotal reports from others involve similar experiences, with FF digital rivaling what they could previously achieve with MF or LF film, in particular for color. But the preference can easily flip the other way if the particular charm of film and analog materials is given emphasis.

I do note that it's hard to find people without a strong bias to either side of the equation and willing to assess the question in as neutral a way as humanly possible. Emotion creeps into it very readily and muddies the water - which is one reason why (and I'm speaking as a moderator for a moment now) we have a 'no X vs Y debates' rule here on Photrio, as these tend to quickly get out of hand. In principle we're very much OK with a dispassionate exchange on the merits of different media in relation to each other, as long as it doesn't involve ridicule, rejection or scolding of those with opposing views.

 

[gary mulder]

I do note that it's hard to find people without a strong bias to either side of the equation and willing to assess the question in as neutral a way as humanly possible. Emotion creeps into it very readily and muddies the water - which is one reason why (and I'm speaking as a moderator for a moment now) we have a 'no X vs Y debates' rule here on Photrio, as these tend to quickly get out of hand. In principle we're very much OK with a dispassionate exchange on the merits of different media in relation to each other, as long as it doesn't involve ridicule, rejection or scolding of those with opposing views.

My wallet keeps jelling at me that prices of sheet film are insane. Maybe it emotion but never the less considering the availability of color sheet film I can actually buy the same has happened to a lot of photographers.

 

[Agulliver]

Quality and accuracy.....I can certainly take very good photos with my DSLRs and even my compact digital, but how does one quantify quality? Or even accuracy? The cameras can all automatically select white balance or allow me some (or total) freedom to set my own. Even my phone does that. But then so can a little filtering making colour prints, or 30 seconds in the editing software of your choice. Even if the native WB is locked into your film. Same with digital too, it's not uncommon to tweak the colour balance in post.

Quality.....digital photos at low ISO are likely to be less grainy but that's not really an indicator of quality. It's all rather subjective. In the end, I shoot both but find the film to be more fun.

 

[Chan Tran]

Quality and accuracy.....I can certainly take very good photos with my DSLRs and even my compact digital, but how does one quantify quality? Or even accuracy? The cameras can all automatically select white balance or allow me some (or total) freedom to set my own. Even my phone does that. But then so can a little filtering making colour prints, or 30 seconds in the editing software of your choice. Even if the native WB is locked into your film. Same with digital too, it's not uncommon to tweak the colour balance in post.

Quality.....digital photos at low ISO are likely to be less grainy but that's not really an indicator of quality. It's all rather subjective. In the end, I shoot both but find the film to be more fun.

One thing I know for sure that if the imaging sensor and the film are of equal size the digital imaging sensor can capture more details than film.

 

[xkaes]

Depends on the sensor, of course. I have wondered how many 200MP 24x36 sensors will be made and sold. Currently, I know I could not afford it. So what is possible and what's affordable is part of this "equation".