Why shoot film

[R.Gould]

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

I've got 2 of them, lovely little cameras

 

[Cholentpot]

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

Fun little camera. Gives that tunnel swirly bokeh stuff. I hate guessfocus camera though, so I put a rangefinder in the cold shoe.

If you look real close you can see a ship on the horizon.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

I've got 2 of them, lovely little cameras

It was my first serious camera. I put a range finder on the cold shoe attachment and shot many rolls of Kodachrome and Ektachrome at the New York World's Fair in 1964.

 

[Alan Gales]

It was my first serious camera. I put a range finder on the cold shoe attachment and shot many rolls of Kodachrome and Ektachrome at the New York World's Fair in 1964.

First Sirius serious camera?

 

[Cholentpot]

It was my first serious camera. I put a range finder on the cold shoe attachment and shot many rolls of Kodachrome and Ektachrome at the New York World's Fair in 1964.

I see that great minds think alike. Mine came with a rangefinder. It made a bunch of my cameras more useful. I stuck the RF on my Kodak Signet and put it back in rotation.

 

[Sirius Glass]

First Sirius serious camera?

Siriusly

 

[Agulliver]

"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.

Whoa there...I am not condemning pixels. I'm saying that the film and digital image of the same subject have different looks. I think they're both fairly decent photographs and some of the shots I took that day look better on film....some on digital.

Time isn't money for me because I'm simply an enthusiast. I'd be the first to to agree that for news gathering, sports and many other pro applications these days the speed of digital makes it the obvious choice.

That said, with B&W I can go from camera to facebook in under an hour. With E6 movie film I've gone from camera to projector in under two hours. But that's not to compete with digital. As you so correctly point out, I could improve the digitally captured image of the horse by faffing around in Photoshop. As much as I love computers, I don't enjoy faffing with Photoshop.

no one cares about what happened at a sporting event 2 days ago.

I shall forthwith destroy all images older than two days. And assume that all photos of past sporting events published online and in print are heinous mistakes.

No...wait...I've been asked to print several sets of negatives I shot back in 2003/4. A rock band has requested new scans of negatives I shot in 1996/7.

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

No need, but thanks for the advice.

 

[fstop]

No...wait...I've been asked to print several sets of negatives I shot back in 2003/4. A rock band has requested new scans of negatives I shot in 1996/7.

Must have been the Stones, every other band from 60s is dead or nearly.

 

[paul ron]

what a bunch of kidz!

hahahahahaha

 

[paul ron]

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.

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

im spittin coffee all over my got dam monitor!

hahahahahaha

 

[fdonadio]

I've watched this thread for weeks without posting. I knew it would come down to "film x digital".

Answering the OP's question: I shoot film because I prefer it over digital. I like the process. I like the simplicity of mechanical film cameras. I like the "rituals" involved, like loading film and feeling its smell. I like the fact that I don't have an instant preview of what I just shot. I like the smell of chemicals. I like to be alone in the dark developing film. I never grow tired of watching the image appearing on the paper inside the developer. I like the fact that I don't have to deal with a computer to look at my photos.

Quality? That's subjective, most of the time. And who would say large format film quality isn't good enough?


Cheers,
Flavio

 

[shufih]

overall, it's about the process. from shooting, developing, scanning. there's much variety to learn from them

 

[Huss]

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 u gotta admit it is pretty sweet that Leica does that. Annd it's not their fault noone else does.

 

[fstop]

R-5 is remarkably affordable.

 

[Larry the sailor]

Sometimes the journey is more important than the destination.

I work in a fairly high-tech industry. I spend my work night with my hands on computers, high-speed fiber optic equipment, TCP/IP this, TCP/IP that....
I've even got some moderately high-end digital camera gear that I use regularly but the longer I've used it the less pleasure I have derived from it. My Canon 70D and L glass is good stuff but I still have to wonder if it will have the life span of the film cameras I have.
My AE-1 is 35 years old and has had 1 CLA and works like a champ. The nearly 50 year old Yashica Mat 124 keeps clicking along. The RB67 is 45+ years old and still makes a fantastic image.
I have no idea how old my Toyo 45AX is but being an all mechanical I expect it and the mechanical lenses to have a long and happy life so long as I provide appropriate care for them.
The tactile process of film is my catharsis to the digital world.

I also dabble is a number of other "primitive" hobbies. I've got a small coal fired forge that from time to time I do a little light blacksmith work with. I occasionally make bows from a single piece of wood as well as arrows handmade from locally sourced materials and I've successfully taken small game with them. Flintlocks and black powder are also part of my repertoire.
For fun I'll take "old, slow and sometimes messy" over high-tech any day.

 

[ME Super]

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.

If you're throwing it out but it still works, I'll take the ME Super off your hands! Those are great little cameras.

The closest I'll probably get to owning a Leica is the Leitz Pradovit Color 250 projector I picked up off of the big auction site a few months ago. I snagged it for about $50 USD including shipping. All it needed was a bulb.

 

[Cholentpot]

If you're throwing it out but it still works, I'll take the ME Super off your hands! Those are great little cameras.

The closest I'll probably get to owning a Leica is the Leitz Pradovit Color 250 projector I picked up off of the big auction site a few months ago. I snagged it for about $50 USD including shipping. All it needed was a bulb.

Cold dead hands for the ME Super.

Smallest full frame SLR ever made and it works great for me. I've shot many many rolls through it, I use the Supe and K1000 interchangeably. Load the Supe up with color and the K1000 with b&w or vice versa.