Why shoot film

[Les Sarile]

Is digital higher qaulity than 35mm photography? Sorry folks, yes. 35mm is a small format any which way you take it. Digital 35mm blows analog 35 out of the water in clarity, latitude and just about much else. In a few years I suppose it will over take MF too...

You don't have to apologize for your own personal experience because as far as you are concerned this may be true to the best of your knowledge and abilities. Of course this does not apply to others.

 

[RPC]

You don't have to apologize for your own personal experience because as far as you are concerned this may be true to the best of your knowledge and abilities. Of course this does not apply to others.

+1

 

[MattKing]

Is digital higher qaulity than 35mm photography? Sorry folks, yes. 35mm is a small format any which way you take it. Digital 35mm blows analog 35 out of the water in clarity, latitude and just about much else. In a few years I suppose it will over take MF too...

All true I suppose, if you choose particular metrics, and play in digital's ballpark.
There are, however, aesthetic and personal and even technical metrics where the qualities of film and optical techniques are very high in quality as well. Superior in fact, if you include the enjoyment that I get from the film and darkroom choices that I make.
With relatively low effort, I can achieve really high technical quality with 35mm. Distinctly higher quality than was easily available from 35mm when I started with it in the 1970s.
If you are looking to shoot high resolution billboards, bring your bank on side and buy or rent the best digital equipment you can.
But if you just want to create really wonderful photographs, you can choose the weapons you like best, and that can certainly include film.
APUG chooses to feature analogue processes and materials exclusively. That is healthy for APUG, and enjoyable for most of us here. But that doesn't mean that the rules that apply to APUG have any application to our photography in general. For that, we can freely make our own choices, which can include really wonderful film and darkroom choices.

 

[Les Sarile]

All true I suppose, if you choose particular metrics, and play in digital's ballpark.

By any quantifiable metrics this is not true.

 

[one90guy]

I started with film in 1968, got my first digital in 2009 and use both now. I shoot digital in color only and B/W film in 35mm and medium format. I started bird photography a few years ago and like the digital for the speed of the camera. My B/W I put a lot more thought in what the final photo will be. And the darkroom is magic IMHO, watching that white sheet in the developer and the greys and blacks start to show. Use both, decide if you like one or the other, are use both.

David

 

[1L6E6VHF]

Is not true

I cringe at the thought that new devices will have an algorithm that may detect that an image is a personal photo (as opposed to a live scene) and block one from taking a picture of their own photo.


LAG said:
Very funny, but unlikely event (losing the pictures of her son, neither the phone, nor the name of the child)

(1L6E6VHF):
It's a feminine given name (in the USA)

Do you still have the handheld phone you were using in 1996?

 

[LAG]

It would be silly to go bk to college just for the darkroom and do the same course again even if they still teach film techniques??

No, it would not

35mm is a small format any which way you take it.

But that "small" format from nearly 100 years ago, was until a relatively short time ago, the "biggest" on digital ... that's an important indication

Digital 35mm blows analog 35 out of the water in clarity, latitude and just about much else...

In a few years I suppose it will over take MF too...

No Sir! ... and not in a few years either!

I cringe at the thought that new devices will have an algorithm that may detect that an image is a personal photo (as opposed to a live scene) and block one from taking a picture of their own photo.

Excuse me 1L6E6VHF, when I told you "Not true" I meant that, as opposed to your opinion, I am sure that an image preserved on a PC today "will be readable" by the software on future devices"

It's a feminine given name (in the USA)

Do you still have the handheld phone you were using in 1996?

I would like to clarify that I found that example funny: "a mother saying to her child that she has no pictures being little because she threw out the mobile"

I'm sorry if my comment hurted you, I had no other intention.

On the other hand, I do not have my 1996 handheld phone, but I could have the images, and that's the idea I was trying to say to you.

 

[1L6E6VHF]

Thanks for the reply!

No harm done

 

[fstop]

I'm not a pro. If my rent was hanging on photography you'd bet I'd be shooting digital.

I shoot as a hobby so I shoot what I want. Shooting and developing film sets me apart from everyone else I know who dabbles in photography, it makes my work unique. It also gives me access to tools that others don't want anymore.

Is digital higher qaulity than 35mm photography? Sorry folks, yes. 35mm is a small format any which way you take it. Digital 35mm blows analog 35 out of the water in clarity, latitude and just about much else. In a few years I suppose it will over take MF too...

A few years? say hello to my little friend. The Hasselblad H5D-200c
muhahahhaahaha

 

[Sirius Glass]

A few years? say hello to my little friend. The Hasselblad H5D-200c
muhahahhaahaha

The greatness of your wisdom never ceases to impress me.

 

[Cholentpot]

A few years? say hello to my little friend. The Hasselblad H5D-200c
muhahahhaahaha

Ok, affordable MF digital. Something I don't need a mortgage to buy...

 

[Sirius Glass]

It is not a photograph unless you can hold a RC or double weight paper FB print. Otherwise you have a stink-jet and your fingers smell like the prepositional objects in line three of my signature.

 

[removed account4]

It is not a photograph unless you can hold a RC or double weight paper FB print. Otherwise you have a stink-jet and your fingers smell like the prepositional objects in line three of my signature.

what a load of malarky

what about diapositives ?
carbon prints?
bromoil prints?
photograveurs?
cyanotypes?
platinum/paladium /planotypes?
light jet prints?
argotypes?
christotypes?
ambrotypes?
tintypes?
ferrotypes?
dags?
cabinet cards?
glass cyanotypes?
and bob carnie +other printers make
beautiful ink jet prints as well as
calotype?
salt prints?

too many to list

 

[Sirius Glass]

It is not a photograph unless you can hold a RC or double weight paper FB print. Otherwise you have a stink-jet and your fingers smell like the prepositional objects in line three of my signature.

what a load of malarky

what about diapositives ?
carbon prints?
bromoil prints?
photograveurs?
cyanotypes?
platinum/paladium /planotypes?
light jet prints?
argotypes?
christotypes?
ambrotypes?
tintypes?
ferrotypes?
dags?
cabinet cards?
glass cyanotypes?
and bob carnie +other printers make
beautiful ink jet prints as well...

I wanted a short response. I was not attempting to cover as many ways as possible. Just the concept. But thank you for expanding the list.

 

[Alan Gales]

Ok, affordable MF digital. Something I don't need a mortgage to buy...

Fujifilm is coming out with a new medium format digital mirrorless camera. They say that the price will be somewhere south of $10,000. More like a good used car loan.

Sure makes used Hasselblad film cameras look cheap!

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

A few years? say hello to my little friend. The Hasselblad H5D-200c
muhahahhaahaha

Doesn't that cost around £32760?
Let me do the maths for you:
I use 100ft bulk roll of Fomapan 400 or Kentmere 400 per month. That costs around the £40. A 1/4 of a bottle of Rodinal need for development cost around £2, fixer about £1 and the sheets for archive maybe another £3. So, it is about £45-48 per month.
Do you know how many months will take me shooting film to reach the £32k that the H5D costs?
That will be 728 months or around 60 years.
I don't think I am going to live for another 60 years, so I'll probably won't spend that much.

 

[Cholentpot]

Fujifilm is coming out with a new medium format digital mirrorless camera. They say that the price will be somewhere south of $10,000. More like a good used car loan.

Sure makes used Hasselblad film cameras look cheap!

And then you need to buy the lenses...

 

[Bill Burk]

You know it's not the camera that makes a great photograph.

It's the tripod.

Lately I've been thinking in terms of the photographer, compared to a musician. While I am very happy to listen to Brian Eno on synthesizer (because that's his chosen instrument)... I am also happy to hear Stéphane Grappelli on violin... I wouldn't want to hear him on synth.



So it's the photographer's choice of medium, whatever makes that person happy, is what they should use. I'm happy to see work by a spirited and passionate worker in any medium.

 

[RPC]

True, Bill, and hopefully we will help him make that choice.

 

[Alan Gales]

And then you need to buy the lenses...

Yep.

 

[jscott]

Great thoughts on this thread...

To me, it's HANDS ON (film) vs hands not required (dig).

 

[Ai Print]

Ok, affordable MF digital. Something I don't need a mortgage to buy...

I have 12 backs for my Hasselblad V system, 10x 12 exposure backs, one 24 exposure and a 50MP CFV50c that was only 10K, paid for it self it two months. And I do fun photography too, super fun actually.

I use both film and digital and all with systems that use film and digital components with seamless integration. In fact, I have been using digital for so long that it feels just as second nature and old hat as film.

But I don't consider them the same as I hold a darkroom based black and white print in higher regard than ever before. With a stellar silver print, I take credit for the full outcome, not software or mouse clicks or worse, swipes of a finger using an app on a smart phone.

 

[Agulliver]

In most film vs. digital discussions, it seems resolution is always the big topic. In my experience, there are many other issues.

This.

You can have two digi cameras with the same resolution...let's just pick 8MP out of the air. But one might have a much better quality sensor than the other. Indeed a great 6MP sensor can take better pictures than a poor 24MP sensor. Then those nifty compact cameras might well have lovely optics, lots of features...but a piddly small sensor which means effectively infinite depth of field. And almost always a small range of apertures to choose from.

Your point on dynamic range is spot on too. I do tend to under expose 1/3 stop with digital as the results of over exposure end up requiring a heck of a lot of work in post. At least with a moderate under exposure I can simply adjust the tone curve or light level in a few seconds. I do love computers, but not sitting at one for an hour in order to get 10 decent photos from a trip to the zoo. I'm not a pro either, so I do this for fun and because I enjoy it. And while I certainly do a lot of digital, I find film more fun.

 

[FujiLove]

Another recommendation for good value film in the UK is 7DayShop (https://www.7dayshop.com/)

They have some great prices, especially on 120 film, and offer bulk discounts and free delivery.

 

[FujiLove]

One lovely thing about shooting film these days is you can buy a top quality, state-of-the-art camera and lens (Hasselblad, Rolleiflex, Leica etc.) and just give it a go. If you don't like it, or the results it gives, sell it and you will likely find you're not one penny out of pocket. Try the same with digital and you'll be paying a lot of money for your failed experiment.

And yes, I know you can buy an expensive film Leica brand new which will leave you broke after selling it, and you can pick up really decent older digital equipment these days, but generally film cameras are a lot safer bet if you're on a tight budget.