Why shoot analogue colour photos?

[Milpool]

It’s only analogous from the hobby enjoyment perspective. What is high end about reversal film? I use Ektachrome but I’d rather use the Portra films (actually I’d rather use a good digital camera).

This is akin to trying to explain the true value of an expensive high end audio system to someone who has zero interest in the hobby, and would never want spend the kind of money required to own it.

 

[Pieter12]

Does that mean that it's safe for the film to put it into checked baggage, or that the TSA has no problem with you destroying your film that way?

The TSA really could care less.

 

[Chan Tran]

For me, slides were something for very boring family parties, with awkward holiday snaps. I would love to understand why some people cherish that workflow so much.

When I began I shot slides because I didn't do the printing myself. Now that I no longer have a darkroom I shoot slides because I can't do the printing myself. So actually shooting slides is to reduce the workflow down to shooting and viewing and bypass the processing step. I pushed process the Ektachrome once back in the late 70's but no more as I hate the result. So I just have my slide film processed as per manufacturer intended. I view my slides with a projector just like I view my digital on the computer screen. I never show my photos to anyone unless I was asked to do so.

 

[Pieter12]

In the days of yore, I shot reversal film because it was cheaper, no prints to pay for, and quicker turnaround if needed. But if I wanted a print, it had to be special because it cost $$ (at least for me at the time).

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Does that mean that it's safe for the film to put it into checked baggage, or that the TSA has no problem with you destroying your film that way?

I read it to mean they think developed film is OK to put in checked bags. They say that all undeveloped film should stay with you when you go through the checkpoints.

 

[dcy]

You would be surprised to learn how few photographers have actually produced an image on slide film, let alone viewed it directly.

I am of the age where slide film is a faint, nostalgic childhood memory. I remember my dad setting up the projector and me and my brother sitting in my parents' bed with them to watch the slides. If I recall correctly, the slides where not of a recent trip, but of our childhood, my parents' wedding, or further back in time.

I literally just realized right now that the must've been taken by my grandfather. I have no memory of him, but I know he was a photography enthusiast.

 

[George Mann]

What is high end about reversal film?

It is the only type of film that one can see all of its fidelity by viewing it directly.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Scanning my slides has an advantage over slide projection. You can set up the whole show on a memory card that is already plugged into your smart TV's USB jack. Then, when unsuspecting guests are over, you can easily switch the Super Bowl show they're watching to your favorite vacation slide show without having to set up anything and prewarning them to feign a headache and have to go home early. Of course, you'll never get them to visit again. But that might not be so bad.

 

[dcy]

For me, slides were something for very boring family parties, with awkward holiday snaps. I would love to understand why some people cherish that workflow so much.

I look back at slide film with nostalgia. My most vivid connection to my family's past was recorded in slide film.

 

[Don_ih]

My mother once accidentally received a box of slides since she bought the wrong kind of film. I remember it happening and I liked looking through the slides. But we had no projector so eventually those slides were thrown out.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Oh Alan ... a well done slide projector show is just so much more impressive than looking at images over the web or on a TV screen. Everyone did it at one time. But then there were those dreaded three-hour long vacation picture sessions of every motel between Boise and New Orleans, and the visit to the Croquet Hall of Fame. Then that era ended, and you got stuck watching dreaded holiday gathering videos of the same kind of boring stuff instead.

We didn't have anything like a movie theater in the mountains; but sometimes lecturers would come through and give slide shows of their exotic place travels in the basketball gym. When my brother was a young commercial photographer, he had a pal who repeatedly won international slide show competitions, and actually made a good living at it; he was a Leicaphile. I did very carefully choreographed slide shows of my own Pentax shots; and those images were quite good. But it would be another decade and a half before I learned how to make actual color prints myself.

 

[koraks]

I read it to mean they think developed film is OK to put in checked bags. They say that all undeveloped film should stay with you when you go through the checkpoints.

Good catch Alan, I missed that; your explanation is sensible.

 

[ChrisGalway]

Part of this thread seems to have morphed a bit into comparing film (especially transparency film) with CMOS sensors. (My OP excluded transparency film, for several reasons, but one was because I knew some people feel that scanned transparency film has exceptional qualities).

Comparing analogue film quality to digital CMOS image quality, even from a simplistic objective resolution perspective (let alone overall image quality), is not trivial. Technically, the Shannon sampling theorem should help (roughly stated, the pixel sampling should be at least twice that of the finest detail being recorded), but it's that "at least" part ... in the presence of noise/grain ... that makes the comparison tricky ... many practioners, based on their experience (not theory) would say it should be 3X-4X, not twice. I spent quite a lot of time in my past career comparing analogue and digital images, and it's not straightforward even considering only purely objective measures (which are just part of the story of course).

In my opinion, it is the appearance of the final image ... in the eyes of the person who made it ... that is the only thing that matters, and inevitably that means two people looking at two images, one taken with film and the other with a CMOS detector, will disagree as to which one is "better".

But my OP was not really concerned with technical image quality, but more with the rationale of shooting colour negative film in an old camera when you are then going to scan the film; my question was, why not just go digital all the way?

I'm not taking sides and by the way, there is no correct answer to my original question! All opinions have validity.

 

[koraks]

But my OP was not really concerned with technical image quality, but more with the rationale of shooting colour negative film in an old camera when you are then going to scan the film; my question was, why not just go digital all the way?

I think it's inevitable that wrapped into this question, for many people and at least in part, the question of technical quality (which comprises a number of dimensions) is inherently part of the equation. So it's inevitable that it's being put up for discussion. Whether it should be central to the discussion, let alone dominate the choice of one alternative over another, is another matter - and one that I feel would be sensible to discuss just as well. Which brings me to this:

In my opinion, it is the appearance of the final image ... in the eyes of the person who made it ... that is the only thing that matters, and inevitably that means two people looking at two images, one taken with film and the other with a CMOS detector, will disagree as to which one is "better".

I think the responses in the first few pages demonstrate that for a great many people, the final image and its appearance is not all that matters - unless perhaps you include in 'appearance' intangible aspects that result in something like "appearance to the mind's eye"...I'm referring to arguments some put forth about the desire to handle a particular kind of camera, or the fun they have handling film. While all these factors of course somehow affect the end result, some of them do so very indirectly and often with ambiguous effects on technical image quality.

The fact that people decide not only on the basis of the final image, but also the process of making it is inescapable and since most of us practice photography as a hobby, it's also natural. If we were all pro photographers (or pretended to be), the considerations might (would) have been different. I think we would have seen a lot more congruence in that case. If technical quality of the final image would be the dominant factor, the only thing that would have made much of a difference otherwise is budget. There would be those able to afford the best option, and lesser gods.

 

[gary mulder]

Slide film. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. But for me, a digital capture can easily outperform slide film, with less less hussle.

 

[ChrisGalway]

Slide film. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. But for me, a digital capture can easily outperform slide film, with less less hussle.

View attachment 407818

Everything looks good on a Mac!

 

[Carnie Bob]

I like working with film as there is a delay between exposure and seeing the results, this delay is part of my process to see if I can put into practice what is in my clouded mind.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Yes the delay is largely why I am using a film outfit, too.

 

[Agulliver]

I certainly don't shoot 8mm cine film because it's better in any way, shape or form than the 4K video I can shoot with my phone, or the 2K I can shoot with my camcorder. But it's jolly good fun and when I shoot a public event or segments of a music concert on B&W 8mm film that I can thankfully develop in my kitchen, it certainly looks nothing like the myriad phone videos that other people were shooting. And it gives me tremendous warm, fuzzy feelings to think that I shot on actual film, processed and edited it myself.

As for the original topic of colour photos. I don't shoot much slide film these days but I have shot some absolutely gorgeous Kodachorme and Ektachrome slides 20-25 years ago. A well curated slide show, not 96 photos most of which are duds or the same subject, is a thing of beauty. The slide projector or cine projectors come out for special occasions....for example next year marks 25 years since my first visit to Las Vegas where I shot 3 rolls of 135 Kodachrome, 200 feet of super 8 Kodachrome and 100 feet of super 8 Ekatchrome. I shall put all that into a roughly 20 minute presentation to be projected from the original media (re-editing the cine film) and it will be a fantastic way for my wife and I to reminisce with friends who didn't go on that trip with us, but who have all been to Vegas. I only wish Kodachrome had been around when I went to the Grand Canyon in 2013 and 2015. But, c'est la vie.

I still find shooting colour film fun and that it does things visually that I don't get with digital. Maybe it's the "imperfections". Maybe it's the way I use both media. I don't especially know. But I know I enjoy it.

Someone mentioned being unable to explain high quality audio systems to people who aren't interested. Back in the late 90s and 2000s before the "vinyl revival", I used to take some pleasure in putting on a record for people on my system and seeing their jaws drop. More than one followed the cables to ensure I wasn't having a laugh or being dishonest. People can be brought to the water and encouraged to drink.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Oh Alan ... a well done slide projector show is just so much more impressive than looking at images over the web or on a TV screen. Everyone did it at one time. But then there were those dreaded three-hour long vacation picture sessions of every motel between Boise and New Orleans, and the visit to the Croquet Hall of Fame. Then that era ended, and you got stuck watching dreaded holiday gathering videos of the same kind of boring stuff instead.

We didn't have anything like a movie theater in the mountains; but sometimes lecturers would come through and give slide shows of their exotic place travels in the basketball gym. When my brother was a young commercial photographer, he had a pal who repeatedly won international slide show competitions, and actually made a good living at it; he was a Leicaphile. I did very carefully choreographed slide shows of my own Pentax shots; and those images were quite good. But it would be another decade and a half before I learned how to make actual color prints myself.

There's another kind of slide projection that should be outlawed today. That's when your cousin pulls you over to their side and starts finger flipping through hundreds of their cellphone shots to show you their vacation to Italy and you have to watch about ten similar shots of the statue of David - all from the front.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Good catch Alan, I missed that; your explanation is sensible.

Well, I had to read it three times to make sense out of it. You'd think that with our government spending $6 trillion a year, they could write a sentence that's clear to the readers and explains the policy simply so you don't get arrested on your vacation.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Part of this thread seems to have morphed a bit into comparing film (especially transparency film) with CMOS sensors. (My OP excluded transparency film, for several reasons, but one was because I knew some people feel that scanned transparency film has exceptional qualities).

Comparing analogue film quality to digital CMOS image quality, even from a simplistic objective resolution perspective (let alone overall image quality), is not trivial. Technically, the Shannon sampling theorem should help (roughly stated, the pixel sampling should be at least twice that of the finest detail being recorded), but it's that "at least" part ... in the presence of noise/grain ... that makes the comparison tricky ... many practioners, based on their experience (not theory) would say it should be 3X-4X, not twice. I spent quite a lot of time in my past career comparing analogue and digital images, and it's not straightforward even considering only purely objective measures (which are just part of the story of course).

In my opinion, it is the appearance of the final image ... in the eyes of the person who made it ... that is the only thing that matters, and inevitably that means two people looking at two images, one taken with film and the other with a CMOS detector, will disagree as to which one is "better".

But my OP was not really concerned with technical image quality, but more with the rationale of shooting colour negative film in an old camera when you are then going to scan the film; my question was, why not just go digital all the way?

I'm not taking sides and by the way, there is no correct answer to my original question! All opinions have validity.

Not mentioned, usually, is that ego plays a part. Being different has a certain attractiveness to it. We may deny it, but it's there. "I shoot film!"

 

[RezaLoghme]

Why do people love corks instead of screw-caps, when it comes to wine bottles?
Why do hobby chefs use expensive Japanese knives which no pro would ever use in the daily grind of a gourmet restaurant?
Because they love them, irrationally.

I will take an educated guess and say that in this forum, probably 60-70% are hobbyists. People who can play with cameras to enjoy themselves. Let them have their fun; their preferences are likely to be different from people who have to earn money with cameras.

 

[xkaes]

Sure but I said so because you only need the basic 24MP to have better details than a frame of 35mm film.

Kinda, sorta. That's why I have a 24mp digital camera, but I also have Agfa APX 25 and Kodak Ektar 25 in 35mm. No match -- in my opinion. 35mm wins -- but I'll admit, not in fake color saturation. And it's a waste of time to compare a 24MP camera to a 4x5 with APX 25 or Ektar.

 

[BMbikerider]

Why not? It is my choice. obviously not yours.