Why shoot analogue colour photos?

[xkaes]

People who can play with cameras to enjoy themselves.

I understand the sentiment, but I think that denigrates those of us who are "artists" -- or strive to be.

Me, not included.

 

[Milpool]

Probably nearly if not 100% hobbyists (in the sense they aren’t earning a living with non-commercial photography and are instead doing it for the enjoyment). I don’t know if that makes a big difference or not when it comes to reasons for shooting color film vs digital, but anecdotally all but one of the pros I know selling their color work in reputable galleries have gone full digital.

As a film user the only real non-enjoyment related arguments left for film in my opinion are being outfitted with film/darkroom equipment (and not having the money to re-outfit for digital) and not having the time / wherewithal for the learning curve (assuming one is already skilled / accomplished in darkroom work). I’m not sure the equipment argument is even that solid but anyway.

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.

 

[RezaLoghme]

The few pros I know are 100% focused on their "project", being on location, capturing images. None of them is fiddling in the darkroom, or is using ancient tech.

In golf, many "hickory golf" societies exist, and I guess it must be super fun.

So, each to their own.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why shoot analogue colour photos?​

Why not?

That is most of my photography.

• 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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Here's what the TSA says about film:

Film​

Carry On Bags: Yes
Checked Bags: Yes
We recommend that you put undeveloped film and cameras containing undeveloped film in your carry-on bags or take undeveloped film with you to the checkpoint and ask for a hand inspection.
For more prohibited items, please go to the 'What Can I Bring?' page.

---

The final decision rests with the TSA officer on whether an item is allowed through the checkpoint.

Film | Transportation Security Administration

We recommend that you put undeveloped film and cameras containing undeveloped film in your carry-on bags or take undeveloped film with you to the checkpoint and ask for a hand inspection.

www.tsa.gov

Does anyone know if checks are waived if you are in TSA Pre-Check or TSA Trusted Travelers programs?

I disagree. Checked Bags: No, never

 

[koraks]

None of them is fiddling in the darkroom, or is using ancient tech.

I know some artists (for whom art is their main career choice, and, if they're lucky, source of income) who have chosen this route. They are generally quite outspoken why they choose this route. None of it has to do with fiddling with cameras, though. I do know that at least some of them enjoy the process of fidgeting with materials. Experimentation with a hands-on process is often present in art, so in that sense darkroom work fits perfectly well within the spectrum.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

After one has sorted the slides and put them in trays or a storage box. Other than sending the slides out for printing, about the most that one can do is to mount the slides in glass so the slide can be cropped.

 

[xkaes]

The inconvenience of bringing film

I can go on and on about the inconvenience of digital -- but I won't.

It's as big a PITA as film.

What did Frank Sinatra sing?????????????.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sounds like some awfully boring galleries, Milpool ... same inkjet media everywhere. Why bother to restore the paint on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel when the Venetian Casino in Las Vegas can do the same thing with mass-produced digitized wallpaper? Sure, precisely hanging huge sheets of wallpaper way up high is a skilled craft in its own right; but who will give a damn when it's all torn down a decade later?

 

[xkaes]

The few pros I know are 100% focused on their "project", being on location, capturing images. None of them is fiddling in the darkroom, or is using ancient tech.

Get a clue:

Steven Spielberg's upcoming 2026 film, currently titled "The Dish," is the latest big Spielberg movie that is expected to be shot on film,

 

[Pieter12]

Steven Spielberg works with incredible budgets, large crews and all kinds of industry support. Not anything like the circumstances of the great majority of pros.

 

[Milpool]

What do painting or wallpaper have to do with this? Seems like the kind of nonsense “analogy” that is trendy here. Don’t do that.

All I can say in defence of inkjet is that the work I’ve seen over the past few years by people who really know what they are doing (and are as exacting as they were in the darkroom) is at least as good as anything that has been done in the darkroom. I mean superb quality.

I don’t think that was the point of OP’s question though. I thought it was more along the lines of why shoot color film rather than digital if the intent is to digitize the resulting negative/positive anyway.

Sounds like some awfully boring galleries, Milpool ... same inkjet media everywhere. Why bother to restore the paint on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel when the Venetian Casino in Las Vegas can do the same thing with mass-produced digitized wallpaper? Sure, precisely hanging huge sheets of wallpaper way up high is a skilled craft in its own right; but who will give a damn when it's all torn down a decade later?

 

[Prest_400]

I can go on and on about the inconvenience of digital -- but I won't.

It's as big a PITA as film.

What did Frank Sinatra sing?????????????.

But my way is actually multiple ways. Not dismissing any of the ways: ramifications of assuming digital as a minaturized, compact and simple workflow with baked in processing. Again YMMV as everyone has a different use/perspective/workflow.

Film costs to purchase and develop, and increasingly so. Goes a bit back to the annals of digital convenience, and some concerns like storage (for stills) and batteries/energy usage are not that critical now; as well as owning a computer. Eg. finding film on the field when it is not ubiquitous anymore.

That said, I still plan to bring a medium format film camera loaded with Kodacolor for the next intercontinental trip. And some digital in whichever form to tag along... The more the merrier and the bar is serving pints of fixer

 

[DREW WILEY]

What's nonsensical about it? Many still appreciate a degree of hands-on craft, even in its quirkiness. Others might simply appreciate the tactile experience of working in a darkroom, as opposed to punching more keys. Frankly, the best inkjet prints I've ever seen were made by people with a lot of color darkroom experience prior to that - but the inkjets never gave the same impression, even if allegedly "better" due to a higher degree of "control". In other words, I prefer their pre-digital work more, and apparently so do others. There seems to be a lot more individual touch to it.

I live in the heart of Tech Land. You'd be amazed at how many times I've had high paid digital imaging pros and even CEOs bump into me on the trail with my tripod set up, who expressed a wish they could have the opportunity to work with a view camera too, and print in a real darkroom. Why would they want just more of the same ole "day job" on their time off?

 

[Milpool]

Well, yes, enjoying darkroom printing is a good enough reason to make darkroom prints. That’s about all there is to it.

What's nonsensical about it? Many still appreciate a degree of hands-on craft, even in its quirkiness. Others might simply appreciate the tactile experience of working in a darkroom, as opposed to punching more keys. Frankly, the best inkjet prints I've ever seen were made by people with a lot of color darkroom experience prior to that - but the inkjets never gave the same impression, even if allegedly "better" due to a higher degree of "control". In other words, I prefer their pre-digital work more, and apparently so do others. There seems to be a lot more individual touch to it.

I live in the heart of Tech Land. You'd be amazed at how many times I've had high paid digital imaging pros and even CEOs bump into me on the trail with my tripod set up, who expressed a wish they could have the opportunity to work with a view camera too, and print in a real darkroom. Why would they want just more of the same ole "day job" on their time off?

 

[DREW WILEY]

There are qualitative reasons as well, Milpool. An optical print has a different look than a digital one, capable of being more nuanced. Yeah, a highly skilled operator of an expensive laser printing device can hypothetically do something similar, especially in color, but might not have the schedule or insight to print with the same impact. Often there is simply no substitute for slow careful personal home cooking.

 

[Don_ih]

Wasn't this not going to be a digital vs film argument?

 

[Taylor Nankervis]

There are qualitative reasons as well, Milpool. An optical print has a different look than a digital one, capable of being more nuanced. Yeah, a highly skilled operator of an expensive laser printing device can hypothetically do something similar, especially in color, but might not have the schedule or insight to print with the same impact. Often there is simply no substitute for slow careful personal home cooking.

That "nuanced" bit you refer to has a lot more to do with the quality of the subject brough to film, not the printing. Wide-gamut printing today will match RVP50 easily, and the media will also provide what many people think is a "darkroom print" — particularly with Galerie media (among others). This has created a bit of a sensation here in Australia and is widely used in exhibitions; the vast variety of media types means works can be "custom fitted" for the very best result. Darkroom or digital, we know full well that viewers are not particularly interested in how images were printed, it is the quality of how well the photographer knows their subject — how to bring it effectively to film in a conscionable, sympathetic appealing oeuvre. The old, tired argument of "I print in the darkroom, so my prints are superior!" is a tired old trope that tugs fondly at the forelocks of fading era. What is most important is the quality of the image. Trash will get sneers and abject negativity. Conversely, the best and most beautiful work — who cares how it is printed! — that transports the viewer to another place, local or far away and holds their breath, is what brings the money in.

 

[reddesert]

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?

Yes. The problem is with the reader, or context. Alan posted a snippet from the "prohibited items" list. It means that you're allowed to put film into checked bags. It doesn't mean that you should put film into checked bags.

 

[Pieter12]

Wasn't this not going to be a digital vs film argument?

Hard to avoid given the title and question asked.

 

[Milpool]

But the question is (I think) if it is a given the final thing to be viewed will not be a darkroom print, why shoot color film and then scan it etc. vs just shooting with a digital camera in the first place.

There are qualitative reasons as well, Milpool. An optical print has a different look than a digital one, capable of being more nuanced. Yeah, a highly skilled operator of an expensive laser printing device can hypothetically do something similar, especially in color, but might not have the schedule or insight to print with the same impact. Often there is simply no substitute for slow careful personal home cooking.

 

[Taylor Nankervis]

But the question is (I think) if it is a given the final thing to be viewed will not be a darkroom print, why shoot color film and then scan it etc. vs just shooting with a digital camera in the first place.

Not the full enlightened story!
Film, scanning and production is a professional, qualified job in many pro-level labs that cater heavily for analogue with production to "less traditional" printing means. The process, handled sympathetically with no floss or artifice, produces a unique look that is not the same (by any stretch!) as alternative production.

 

[gbroadbridge]

But the question is (I think) if it is a given the final thing to be viewed will not be a darkroom print, why shoot color film and then scan it etc. vs just shooting with a digital camera in the first place.

You may as well ask why many Feature films are being shot on 35mm Film, edited digitally and then, for the most part, being displayed in cinemas digitally.

The answer is in the film workflow and aesthetic which cannot be duplicated digitally.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Workflow-wise, going straight from digital capture to a digital print obviously alleviates the need for scanning. But specifics films have their own "look", and by being limited in that respect, a photographer is more apt to master his chosen medium than if he has the opportunity to go hog wild any direction he chooses with innumerable apps. Less is more. Restraint is a virtue. Know thy film!

Getting ideal results from a commercial printing service with high-end equipment requires excellent communication with them as to what you really want. A modern Lightjet or Chromira laser setup can invert a chrome and output it on Fuji Supergloss to give a look much like Cibachrome. I have to do the inversion via precision internegatives, which is getting quite expensive these days, besides the tedious labor involved with potentially multiple 8x10 preliminary masks. But the end result can be stunning, while still preserving the native look of the chrome. It's a lot easier to start with a color neg original instead; and the combination of large format Ektar and Fujiflex Supergloss is a marriage made in heaven.

Much of the beauty of Cibachrome lay in its idiosyncrasies, including its high contrast. I specialized in Ciba from its inception till its demise. But when the handwriting was on the wall, I started working parallel with Fuji RA4 media while it, as well as CN film itself, was evolving better and better. I have a couple of high-output custom additive (RGB) large format enlargers which made quite a difference with Ciba. But with Fuji media, the difference is only marginally better than my ordinary CMY 10X10 Durst subtractive colorhead, which is less finicky to use.

 

[Taylor Nankervis]

^^ RA4 is very much on the way out here in Australia, overtaken by operational simplicity and lower maintenance costs of giclée, along with the vastly larger variety of media. Downunder is a small market in terms of photography compared to e.g. USA, and technology drives preferences (along with some obvious sly persuasion!). The RA4 prints I had produced in Melbourne ceased 18 months ago when replacement parts for the Kodak RA4 could not be sourced; lack of demand for RA4 prints meant the machines were idle for too long, chemical costs accelerated and Kodak discontinued its most favoured media (metallic-finish). I believe the two machines were then summarily carted off and scrapped. The room they once occupied is now a climate-controlled storage area for media!

Fuji crystal archive hasn't been seen here for years. It looks to have been replaced by Galerie Crystal Gloss (non-RA4) — not quite IC mirror-gloss, but still very eye-catching. It is my default media for rainforest imaging — the vast number of greens call for a wide gamut output with a media that showcases the beauty of these wet and cold places that are my wilderness stamping grounds.

Yes, Ilfochrome was very high contrast and restrictive, which is why the onus on nailing the exposure for chrome users was so very vitally important — there was only so much we could do to reduce contrast, or by some magic-wand waving, "fill-in" blocked shadows (as if!!) which were far too often the tell-tale signs of less than polished exposure mastery or exposing in profoundly unsuitable conditions. In my early days I was also guilty of stuffing up exposures, chiefly with 35mm, not MF or LF where metering was handheld multi-spot methodology — 'tis far easier to meter with the larger formats than the tiny, compressed 35mm frame.