Why shoot film

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Well, there is the storage problem ...

Agree. Here on my office they use 4k for surveillance of certain areas. 4k eats storage quite fast

 

[NJH]

Agree with all of you but the technology in that other place has always created those issues. I once lent a digicam to my brother when we went motor-racing one weekend several years back, he shot over 750 frames in no time at all. Don't think we printed a single one of them. I was then told by a sports pro this was pretty much run of the mill numbers for action photography. Since then computers and storage capacity have improved about 10 fold so no one is worried about taking 1000 images a day. One could argue that 10 fps digicams already killed the romance around capturing the decisive moment, 30 fps 4k+ footage and its nail in the coffin.

Shame because I have no interest in capturing snapshots of my own memories or experiences, a nice photograph however transcends that and recreates all the emotions that inspired me to press the button in the first place. Fairly soon we will be seeing the cost and weight of very large displays reducing dramatically, I predict at that point still imagery will go the same way as analog photography, especially for all commercial uses of stills.

 

[flavio81]

Since then computers and storage capacity have improved about 10 fold so no one is worried about taking 1000 images a day.

You still have to review 1000 images, so it is still a problem. Brain speed has not improved tenfold!

 

[DREW WILEY]

I only worry about taking one really GOOD image a day; the other 999 would be a sheer waste of time and shutter life anyway. Or look at it another
way, a sheet of 8x10 color film with processing is worth about twenty bucks, and a thousand shots a day would therefore equate to over seven million
dollars a year. Besides, even with small cameras, machine-gunners come back with far less edible game than a sniper. All it takes is one correct shot
at the right thing. After that, computer storage discs are only good for skeet shooting.

 

[flavio81]

I only worry about taking one really GOOD image a day; the other 999 would be a sheer waste of time and shutter life anyway.

My feelings exactly.

 

[tomfrh]

I once lent a digicam to my brother when we went motor-racing one weekend several years back, he shot over 750 frames in no time at all. Don't think we printed a single one of them. I was then told by a sports pro this was pretty much run of the mill numbers for action photography.

Yeah I shoot about 1000 when photographing my club races. Throw away 9 out of 10.

 

[tomfrh]

might as well shoot bursts of video

10fps bursts is pretty much that anyway.

 

[Mastrianni]

I think many people think that analog is a shrinking technology. In fact, in the past few years, it is growing. Most of that growth is attributed to the under 35 crowd. As long as that trend continues, well known professionals still use film, and the uptick in well known magazines actually requesting film continues, films death knell is a bit premature.
Check the increasing prices of analog cameras on Ebay,...a good market indicator.

 

[removed account4]

he shot over 750 frames in no time at all

auto winder film users did the same thing back when film was king .. you haven't worked a wedding
when the photographer shoots 15,000 views i suppose my parents' wedding album
each had like 10 images in them, and my great grandparents about 60ish years before ... about the same.

Don't think we printed a single one of them

hate to say this, but in 36 years i have not printed half of what i have shot, i have a pile of negatives about 1 foot high
i could print. sometimes it is more fun to make the exposures than it is to print ( or sometimes develop ) them

to each their own ...

 

[DREW WILEY]

A 15,000er doesn't sound like the kind of wedding photographer I'd hire. But I will admit that everyone with a DLSR these days assumes he's either a wedding photographer or web designer. I've had quite a few chuckles in recent years. One gal didn't didn't know how to use a flash rig on her digi, and every time it hit the back of someone's head instead of the bride n' groom. Then there are plenty of lights bounced off gawd awful ceiling or wall paint colors. The average attendee handed a cardboard box camera for the event often does better. My own wedding was photographed by my brother and myself, much in large format, and all hand-printed. People have also paid me to do THAT kind of shooting for personal events. I charge by the print, all mounted, matted, and framed, and not by the job, just like anything else intended for the fine art market. I think a lot of couples will regret
it when, instead of a nice album or framed picture on the wall, their wedding memories will exist only on a disc, greenish faces n' all.

 

[Mastrianni]

But I will admit that everyone with a DLSR these days assumes he's either a wedding photographer or web designer.

LOL,....my favorite is photogs trying to bounce light off of a 20 foot black ceiling in a nightclub.

 

[removed account4]

A 15,000er doesn't sound like the kind of wedding photographer I'd hire.

know drew, i know !
but the frame count and miulti media show is all that counts, unless it isn't ..
http://petapixel.com/2014/11/23/revisiting-case-wedding-photographer-threatened-300000-lawsuit/
and shooting sports ( or weddings ) is differnt than shooting landscapes

 

[fstop]

I think many people think that analog is a shrinking technology. In fact, in the past few years, it is growing. Most of that growth is attributed to the under 35 crowd. As long as that trend continues, well known professionals still use film, and the uptick in well known magazines actually requesting film continues, films death knell is a bit premature.
Check the increasing prices of analog cameras on Ebay,...a good market indicator.

That's true there is new blood coming in.

 

[chromacomaphoto]

I only worry about taking one really GOOD image a day; the other 999 would be a sheer waste of time and shutter life anyway. Or look at it another
way, a sheet of 8x10 color film with processing is worth about twenty bucks, and a thousand shots a day would therefore equate to over seven million
dollars a year. Besides, even with small cameras, machine-gunners come back with far less edible game than a sniper. All it takes is one correct shot
at the right thing. After that, computer storage discs are only good for skeet shooting.

Love the analogy to shooting. I quite agree. There's something just so much more rewarding about one shot, one kill with a manual film camera for me.

In addition and to the original thread topic: I shoot film because I like to enjoy the 'old world craftsmanship' feel to the whole thing from start to finish (assuming you are developing your own film and then making prints). What's newer isn't always better I think.

It's quite right about the analogue growth and new blood (a lot from younger people too). I recall seeing how in the U.K. a few years ago, the biggest consistent growth sector of the audiophile market was in the British turntable industry. Loads of growth, new designs, new products and support for keeping up with all the old stuff as well. This is the kind of thing happening with film that I see where I live. Young teens are sometimes buying the new films that have only just come into stock before the old timers can even get to it in some shops!

 

[fstop]

The problem with the new interest is there is not enough to encourage manufacturers to support it with new cameras.It will never return to the level it was at in the mid 70s early 80s.

 

[Agulliver]

Thinking of fast action sports, someone earlier in the thread said that it is not possible to photograph such events without a digital camera.

I therefore pose the question how pre-digital photos of fast action sports exist?

It can be done of course, but the technique is different. Rather than a scattergun burst shooting approach, where one may well shoot hundreds of digital images and obtain two or three keepers....with film one finds "the moment". My personal modus operandi is to focus on a spot where I hope something worthy of photographing will happen....and wait...and then try to fire that shutter just at the crucial moment. In this way I have managed to successfully photograph motorsport (F1, F3000, Sports prototypes, banger racing), basketball and athletics successfully. Did I have 100 usable images from my day? Nope...maybe 20. But nor did I have 3000 photos that were not quite right.

I've done the digital burst shooting too, and certainly it works...but is less fun. I also feel removed from the process...rather like hitting a key on a synthesiser and merely instructing it to play a pre-programmed series of notes....instead of actually playing the tune.

 

[chromacomaphoto]

The problem with the new interest is there is not enough to encourage manufacturers to support it with new cameras.It will never return to the level it was at in the mid 70s early 80s.

Oh yeah, absolutely... I quite agree. One of the reasons why I like to (mainly) use 100% mechanical, always repairable film cameras.

 

[Agulliver]

It will never will be like the olden days....but that doesn't necessarily matter. Production of small volumes of film cameras will continue and there are literally millions of older, working cameras out there...or non-working examples that can either be coaxed back into life or used as donors for spares. I'm yet to come across a mechanical camera which doesn't work to some degree....even if some functions are not working I can still take a picture with one.

My guess is that the electronic marvels of the 80s and 90s will not last as long as the all mechanical cameras that were produced up to the 60s.

 

[Jim Jones]

Thinking of fast action sports, someone earlier in the thread said that it is not possible to photograph such events without a digital camera.

I therefore pose the question how pre-digital photos of fast action sports exist?

It can be done of course, but the technique is different. Rather than a scattergun burst shooting approach, where one may well shoot hundreds of digital images and obtain two or three keepers....with film one finds "the moment". My personal modus operandi is to focus on a spot where I hope something worthy of photographing will happen....and wait...and then try to fire that shutter just at the crucial moment. In this way I have managed to successfully photograph motorsport (F1, F3000, Sports prototypes, banger racing), basketball and athletics successfully. Did I have 100 usable images from my day? Nope...maybe 20. But nor did I have 3000 photos that were not quite right.

I've done the digital burst shooting too, and certainly it works...but is less fun. I also feel removed from the process...rather like hitting a key on a synthesiser and merely instructing it to play a pre-programmed series of notes....instead of actually playing the tune.

Like you I try to shoot just once at the right time. With the negligible shutter delay of a Leica rangefinder it worked well. A hundred years ago it even worked with mammoth 5x7 Graflex cameras and 1000mm lenses. One has to anticipate both the action and the shutter delay of some more sophisticated cameras. As for keepers, now I might shoot a hundred frames at a basketball game, give half of the images to the hometown school, and occasionally print one for myself. Controlling everything and making just one shot count is more rewarding.

 

[LAG]

...I was then told by a sports pro this was pretty much run of the mill numbers for action photography. ... One could argue that 10 fps digicams already killed the romance around capturing the decisive moment, ...

Because there is also the fact that some Photographic disciplines (and sports is one of them …) grew up to satisfy and adapt itself to other needs (...) which requiered other fast and “cheaper” solutions (but bear in mind that the technology was already there with film as well). In those cases the "decisive moment" is based on business needs or market demands (…) where so much money were/is at stake, so the romance is out of the question (...) Photography gets another "dimension", losing perhaps part of its technical rigorousness at the expense of other priorities.

Talking about priorities I remember part of the informal speech of a famous Photographer years ago, who said that “when it comes time to my daily photographs, family, friends ... I forget about everything, use my pocket dig. & shot in jpg, but when I have to handle with a landscape, well, that’s another thing, I prepare everthing carefully tripod, filters, blah, blah, blah …” (...?)

... Of course everyone puts their heart, or mind (or both or none) where it seems to be best, important or trascendental for them, and obviously everyone is free to think and act without having no interest at all, or putting less effort for their personal snapshots - or depending on the medium used -, or thinking in the end that "one thoughtful Photograph" is Better.

But for those having double standards, do not come to tell me where to find the romance or any other values, is not my case at least, I don't lower my standards whatever the cause, whatever the subject, whatever the medium, whatever the result.

But indeed, to each their own.

I only worry about taking one really GOOD image a day...

But ... that vision in independent from digital or film, isn't it?, then with regard to the goals, each one makes his personal numbers.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Thinking of fast action sports, someone earlier in the thread said that it is not possible to photograph such events without a digital camera.

I therefore pose the question how pre-digital photos of fast action sports exist?

It can be done of course, but the technique is different. Rather than a scattergun burst shooting approach, where one may well shoot hundreds of digital images and obtain two or three keepers....with film one finds "the moment". My personal modus operandi is to focus on a spot where I hope something worthy of photographing will happen....and wait...and then try to fire that shutter just at the crucial moment. In this way I have managed to successfully photograph motorsport (F1, F3000, Sports prototypes, banger racing), basketball and athletics successfully. Did I have 100 usable images from my day? Nope...maybe 20. But nor did I have 3000 photos that were not quite right.

I've done the digital burst shooting too, and certainly it works...but is less fun. I also feel removed from the process...rather like hitting a key on a synthesiser and merely instructing it to play a pre-programmed series of notes....instead of actually playing the tune.

Yes, you are correct. It requires something that the digisnappers do not have ==> Talent and skill

 

[DREW WILEY]

I wonder if people could even tie their own shoelaces these days without a smartphone app telling them how to do it. On the flip side, I have trouble
making a phone call on those miserable devices, and have never learned how to text or take a picture on one, nor do I wish to learn. Life is so much
better without all that obnoxious electronic nagging. But how did people take pictures for darn near two hundred years previous? Heck, my own brother took action shots with a handheld Linhof 4x5 Technika, and used flash or a gyro stabilizer if needed. The official photographer for the Blue
Angels still uses a handheld 4x5 film Graflex with a sportfinder. He's flying so fast (and flying his own jet at the same time) that he starts pressing the shutter seven miles behind the jets in formation, then makes the actual exposure as he flies by. I've often watched this from a hill above my house,
where I can see the whole pattern of their activity over SF Bay. He even bags a mountain or cloud in the background at exactly the right spot in the
overall composition. That's called reflexes and experience. But try doing it with a stupid cellphone held at arm's length. It would probably zip toward
the water at the speed of a bullet, and skip on the surface clear into the marsh in the next county, an appropriate ending.

 

[Agulliver]

The thing with me is...I am also a geek...I love computers, haven't been without a smartphone for a decade, am considered a Facebook legend....yet everything I've said about the difference I feel between shooting film and digital holds. No smartphone that I have used can even match a half decent compact camera.

 

[LAG]

In my humble opinion, so absurd is to give divine proprieties to a near two hundred year-old camera, such as to give clumsy proprieties to a current mobile-camera.

In both cases, what matters is what is behind them (...) attached with the feeling of learning, and also with ability and cleverness, ... when possible!

 

[Agulliver]

But if the same person gets behind two cameras and prefers one......

I was looking for fast action sports photographed with Graflex Speed Graphics and found this....I imagine most people were aware of it but I wasn't....

http://petapixel.com/2013/02/08/david-burnetts-speed-graphic-photos-of-the-london-2012-olympics/