Why shoot film

Sirius Glass · Dec 16, 2016

Alan Gales said:
Hi Sirius!

I was a member of a local camera club for a bit. They projected their images and the quality of the projections was not good which was a shame because there were some really nice images being projected. An old Kodak projector with Kodachrome slides would have blown it away.

On another note, I sold one of the members a 4x5 monorail. I brought my Ries J100 in to support the camera. They couldn't believe the huge tripod I had. I told them that was my small tripod. I had left the A100 at home.

But those 35mm slides paled when compared to 2 1/4" x 2 1/4" slides.

Alan Gales · Dec 16, 2016

Sirius Glass said:
But those 35mm slides paled when compared to 2 1/4" x 2 1/4" slides.

I fully agree!

I was a member of St. Louis Camera Club back in the 1980's. We had a member who shot for National Geographic. He owned a Hasselblad and shot super slides. The 35mm slides paled in comparison to the super slides which were cropped from 2 1/4" by 2 1/4"!

rayonline_nz · Dec 16, 2016

Maybe b/w film has more a thing. What irks me is that like many I don't have a darkroom, I only have a flatbed scanner or pay additional for every roll and get mini-lab economical JPEGs or I pay heaps for the 1 or 2 per year and get a Imacon or drum scan done. Apart from the analogue look and the fun of doing it, on a results point of view it's not as good. At the timebeing, yup I shoot 6x7 and use a flatbed hahah (color and B/W).

For color the analogue slide projectors are more detailed than a 1080 HDTV. We haven't bought a 4k TV yet cos our current one still works. But that does little for prints.

Huss · Dec 17, 2016

I shoot film because I can buy old Nikkormats for $17, load them with Fuji C200 that Adorama had on clearance for $1.49/36exp and get results like this:

Agulliver · Dec 17, 2016

I don't buy that if I am shooting for the web, then digital is the only way to fly. A scanned film image still looks very different from the same image shot on film.

Just look at the attached image. One shot with a Nikon D50, the other with a Kiev 6C. Same location, 30 seconds apart, same subject. But they look different. Both are nice photos, for different reasons. Both ended up on the web, book of face to be exact...and now here. For B&W, when I really want, I can go from camera to facebook in an hour.

I agree that a printed film image, especially B&W, is a thing of beauty and I shall be getting my enlarger out next week. But even without a darkroom, film can be fun and rewarding. I've seen 8K digital projected and while it's impressive on some levels, it isn't the same as a 6x6 Kodachrome slide and never will be...nor even a 35mm slide.

Ultimately, film and digital cross over and to some extent are different methods of achieving the same end....but also can be used to different ends. In the end, I personally don't want to spend spend ages photoshopping or retouching my photos by hand. I find film better for that, but of course I shoot digi too.

Back to the attached photos....possibly worth noting that back in 2005 the D50 and the Tamron lens attached cost well the wrong side of £1000 combined. The Kiev and it's lens cost me £21 the same year, the film (Fuji Reala 100) was bought outdated and frozen 10 years ago...processing and scanning cost me £9.

fstop · Dec 17, 2016

"I don't buy that if I am shooting for the web, then digital is the only way to fly. A scanned film image still looks very different from the same image shot on film."

You are talking out of both sides of your head, you are condemning pixels on one hand and then turn around and try to defend scanning which pixelates an analog image. You need a real good scanner to approach the resolution of even amateur DSLRs. Plus the time it takes to send out for developing and returning, then scan and publish, I can make an image and publish in the same minute with DSLR without the expense of a developing and scanning equipment.
Even if you develop your own color film its hours even days before you have a useable image if you have to return to your facility to process film, with dslr you can transmit images from your location.
Time is money, it takes luck and skill to capture fleeting moments in time, it most cases all that matters is capturing the image.Sharing them needs to be done in a timely matter, no one cares about what happened at a sporting event 2 days ago.
Its another tool we have at our disposal, if you don't like don't use it, but don't slam me for my choice of medium.I sketch with pencil, paint with oils,sculp in metal are you going to tell me because I don't do it your way, it grants you license to belittle my choice of medium? I got two words for you.
Go sit in the corner and hold your breath until Nikon makes film cameras again.

Jim Jones · Dec 17, 2016

Film certainly still has its uses in photography, but digital can do most of what film can, and a lot more with a little editing. In the examples above, adjusting the exposure would have eliminated some of the differences in the two photos. Curve adjustment of the digital image would have eliminated most other differences. Once a digital image is perfected, multiple copies are quick and easy. Recently I took 410 digital photos at a local high school basketball game, culled them down to 166, and gave them on CDs to the school, ready for printing, posting online, or used in the yearbook and other publications. In the good old days of film, it would have taken longer to give the school a dozen B&W prints of my choice, and cost me more. I wouldn't have bothered.

Les Sarile · Dec 17, 2016

Jim Jones said:
In the good old days of film, it would have taken longer to give the school a dozen B&W prints of my choice, and cost me more. I wouldn't have bothered.

If it's not worth the bother it is worth doing?

Les Sarile · Dec 17, 2016

fstop said:
Sharing them needs to be done in a timely matter, no one cares about what happened at a sporting event 2 days ago.

If in 2 days nobody cares about it then most likely it wasn't worth noting.

David Heintz · Dec 17, 2016

I think some of you are missing the point. No one in their right mind disputes the overwhelming position digital photography currently enjoys - and for many good reasons. To me, the only controversy is how long the Nikons and Canons will be making any kind of camera, as the smart phones get better and continue to proliferate.

Film photography, in 2016-17, is not a competitor to digital. To me it is a small segment with its own benefits and disadvantages (although I confess that I have a film camera in my hand 80% of the time lately.) Unless I was an artist, I would never consider film photography as a means to earn a living, as in recording sports and news events, event photography, etc (although some are doing quite well with film as an auxiliary to the latter.) Film's "instantaneous gratification" lies not in seeing the image on a screen immediately; it is the image in your mind that you saw as you pressed the shutter, and what you will make as you go through the process of making a film photograph.

That, then, is the real difference. You can take a digital photo and be done with it right there. Just send it via wifi, and move on to the next one. Sure, not everyone does that, and you can indeed fiddle with digital for hours on end (I do!) But, with film, you absolutely have to work it. No choice. Days in the process. You have an actual, physical product in your hand that you are working on. Then you scan it, and it looks so much "worse" than your digital images. But wait! What does "worse" mean here? Certainly not as bitingly sharp, across the frame. (Little chance for crops here - hope you shot it right in the camera.) Colors are, well, different. Like there is a light haze across the image. And what is that granular stuff in those blue skies? Now. Look at it again. Is it really "worse" or is it "different?" In many ways, it is, dare I say it, "better." And, truth be told, you did enjoy the film process after all didn't you? Driving over to the shop to drop off/pick up your film. Scanning the negatives. Bringing something back from the emulsion. And, look away from your computer for a minute: you still have all of those negatives to hold on to! If you store them with patience, you can, ten years from now, find your favorite image and make it emerge again!

I am shooting with a film camera made over twenty years ago. How many out there shoot with a digital camera made twenty, or ten, or even five tears ago?

Huss · Dec 17, 2016

fstop said:
Go sit in the corner and hold your breath until Nikon makes film cameras again.

Nikon currently makes the best film SLR ever, the F6.

fyi I shoot film and digital, depending on the appropriate tool for the job.
But my preference is for film.

Sirius Glass · Dec 17, 2016

So basically, if it not worth doing then digital is good enough. If it worth doing then use film. Ok, got it. Also if one want to change the image around and add things that were never there so one can play in la la land, then digital is the way to go, although crystal meth or LSD can do the same thing.

fstop · Dec 17, 2016

Les Sarile said:
If in 2 days nobody cares about it then most likely it wasn't worth noting.

Who won the last F-1 race? last Indy 500? last Daytona 500? last man to walk on the moon? without looking it up.No one reports on events that happened a week ago, they report on CURRENT events.

paul ron · Dec 17, 2016

Huss said:
Nikon currently makes the best film SLR ever, the F6.

fyi I shoot film and digital, depending on the appropriate tool for the job.
But my preference is for film.

with so many old overbuilt film cameras built like tanks plus being all mechanical.... there will always be plenty of them around for a long long time.

butttttttt........ as for advantages of digital, what I like best of all... when you have too many files cluttering up your computer n external hard drives n redundant backups, flash drives, solid state memory drives.... you have no idea where n what all those weird numbered files are..... just do control A, then hit the delete key! ALL GONE! FREE AT LAST! it was so painless too. cleared up 1 terrabyte in a few seconds! that would have been tons of boxes filled with negatives. yeah im loving digital... all those fond memories at the summer place, the kids n family fun, those archived digital ive been backing up for years.. GONE!

and the archaeological digs in the future will turn up no records of humans on this planet during the dark ages of technology... the paperless society that never existed as they wonder what a 5.15" floppy might have on it, tons of made in china electronics in garbage dumps. Hold up a CD to the sun to see whats on it? hahahahahaha

ooohhhhhh... as for cost effective side.... yeah cheap now but a potential money pit. lets not forget you will have to convert all your images FOREVER! to whatever the new memory media n format or computer is, in say, 10 years from now, at the rate new n better keep hitting the streets?.. Microsoft and Apple decides its time to make you obsolete again?.... maybe sooner! Chasing technology has me so excited. it will cost me a life time of earnings just to afford to keep my digital photos. Remember all those VCR tapes you converted to CDs? hahaha then had to put them on DVDs.. oh its blue ray now, and then... and then... and then.... yeah how long will that last before you give up or run out of money to afford conversions of millions of photos? hind sight is 20/20?.. learn your lessons from the beta/vcr tapes days?

film has a proven longevity track record I doubt digital will ever match. Easy to store n you can see what you have on the spot.

but I shoot both anyway. my worthless casual stuff is digital. most of what I do is on film because I like having a negative I can put on my belly in the sun and be able to make a sun tan print of.

if I want to share my work.. i'll scan negs, despite how crappy it looks digitized.

Les Sarile · Dec 17, 2016

fstop said:
No one reports on events that happened a week ago, they report on CURRENT events.

Current events is current events and is certainly not something new.

Historical events is of course another matter altogether. It is what current events are always being compared to and will outlast a current event unless it takes over as the new historical event. Nobody remembers those who came close.

quixotic · Dec 17, 2016

Nothing beats a good chrome sandwiched in a Gepe slide holder with anti-newton glass, when there's a light table and a magnifying glass close by...except perhaps a good stereo pair done by a Fuji W3, when they're viewed under a mirrored stereoscope. One's analogue and one's digital converted to 4x6 prints, and I still can't decide which turns me on the most.

ciniframe · Dec 17, 2016

Ok, I love film cameras, not all mind you, but the wonderful metal mechanical marvels of the mid 60's to mid 70's.
My ideal digital; I pick up my empty OM-1, open and un-clip the film back, clip on a back with a digital sensor. Exposure control, focusing, etc all remains the same as with film. If I want I can switch to the film back at any time.
Since this digital back will never be made the only choice is to continue with film.

I'm not picky, the sensor could be sub full frame, say 18X24mm (I prefer a ratio of 3:4 over 2:3) and not a gazillion pixels either, 12M nice fat low light, low noise pixels would be just about right.

Rtcjr · Dec 17, 2016

fstop said:
"I don't buy that if I am shooting for the web, then digital is the only way to fly. A scanned film image still looks very different from the same image shot on film."

You are talking out of both sides of your head, you are condemning pixels on one hand and then turn around and try to defend scanning which pixelates an analog image. You need a real good scanner to approach the resolution of even amateur DSLRs. Plus the time it takes to send out for developing and returning, then scan and publish, I can make an image and publish in the same minute with DSLR without the expense of a developing and scanning equipment.
Even if you develop your own color film its hours even days before you have a useable image if you have to return to your facility to process film, with dslr you can transmit images from your location.
Time is money, it takes luck and skill to capture fleeting moments in time, it most cases all that matters is capturing the image.Sharing them needs to be done in a timely matter, no one cares about what happened at a sporting event 2 days ago.
Its another tool we have at our disposal, if you don't like don't use it, but don't slam me for my choice of medium.I sketch with pencil, paint with oils,sculp in metal are you going to tell me because I don't do it your way, it grants you license to belittle my choice of medium? I got two words for you.
Go sit in the corner and hold your breath until Nikon makes film cameras again.

umm..nope...

Sirius Glass · Dec 18, 2016

paul ron said:
...
butttttttt........ as for advantages of digital, what I like best of all... when you have too many files cluttering up your computer n external hard drives n redundant backups, flash drives, solid state memory drives.... you have no idea where n what all those weird numbered files are..... just do control A, then hit the delete key! ALL GONE! FREE AT LAST! it was so painless too. cleared up 1 terrabyte in a few seconds! that would have been tons of boxes filled with negatives. yeah im loving digital... all those fond memories at the summer place, the kids n family fun, those archived digital ive been backing up for years.. GONE!

Actually the Windoz operation systems [Windoz 3.1, Windoz 95, Windoz 98, Vista, Windoz 7, Windoz 8.1, Windoz 10 for example] does that automatically to help the PC user avoid complex filing systems.

Cholentpot · Dec 18, 2016

ciniframe said:
Ok, I love film cameras, not all mind you, but the wonderful metal mechanical marvels of the mid 60's to mid 70's.
My ideal digital; I pick up my empty OM-1, open and un-clip the film back, clip on a back with a digital sensor. Exposure control, focusing, etc all remains the same as with film. If I want I can switch to the film back at any time.
Since this digital back will never be made the only choice is to continue with film.

I'm not picky, the sensor could be sub full frame, say 18X24mm (I prefer a ratio of 3:4 over 2:3) and not a gazillion pixels either, 12M nice fat low light, low noise pixels would be just about right.

I've said this before.

Give me a digital camera with a 50mm lens or equivalent. Manual focus, aperture, shutter and white balance. Nothing else. No screen, no flash, no nothing. Sure, you can make a grip that can expand the options. But the base is just that. One click, one photo. FF, APS-C, M4/3 I don't care. I would throw out all my equipment and just carry that one camera.

It'd be nicer to get a sensor for all my old cameras though...Kodak? You listening?

Les Sarile · Dec 18, 2016

I am not sure why some people feel compelled to declare their love for digital on APUG - specifically on this thread about why we use film?

Obviously there are many reasons why we use some photographic tool over another and convenience is certainly compelling particularly since everyone has a smart phone. As is typical, I had my smartphone and used it to take this pic.

Good thing I brought my Pentax LX loaded with Kodak Portra 800 as it obviously captured a much better version of the same scene.

Just one of many reasons of why. I use film

Huss · Dec 18, 2016

Cholentpot said:
I've said this before.

Give me a digital camera with a 50mm lens or equivalent. Manual focus, aperture, shutter and white balance. Nothing else. No screen, no flash, no nothing. Sure, you can make a grip that can expand the options. But the base is just that. One click, one photo. FF, APS-C, M4/3 I don't care. I would throw out all my equipment and just carry that one camera.

Here it is. This is exactly what you have described. Let us know how you like it:

https://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M-D

What equipment are you going to throw out?

Sirius Glass · Dec 18, 2016

Les Sarile said:
I am not sure why some people feel compelled to declare their love for digital on APUG - specifically on this thread about why we use film?

They do that because they have deep seeded social and personal inadequacies that they are unable to deal with so they have immature outbursts. Much like releasing a fart, it just bursts out of them.

Cholentpot · Dec 18, 2016

Huss said:
Here it is. This is exactly what you have described. Let us know how you like it:

https://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M-D

What equipment are you going to throw out?

I knew someone would come on down with a Leica. Even if I sold everything I own photography wise I still would be far short of owning one of these.

But hey if you want to know what I would be throwing out?

Nikon F3, Nikkormat, 2 K1000s, AE-1, Cannonette, C3, OM-1, OM-G, EOS A2, EOS 500n, PEN EE-3, Promaster PK 2600, M645, Bronica S2, Lubitiel 2, Richoflex IV, ME Super, T50, Land 1something, Brownie No.2, Polaroid 600, Vito II, a bucket of lenses and a t2i.

If I sold all of these and the lenses, freezer of film, flashes, diffuses, enlargers, tanks and chems I still wouldn't be able to buy a Leica.

Sirius Glass · Dec 18, 2016

Wow, there really is another Vito II user out there!

Why shoot film

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency