Why shoot film
-
A
- Thread starter Bolex
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Durst Laborator L184 accessories; VADAP tilting Baseplate
- Started by jbrianfoto
-
Free Mini Radio triggers: Light pix lab Flash Q
- Started by RoboRepublic
-
Want to Buy Kodak Polytoner
- Started by Guillaume Zuili
-
For Sale PLAUBEL MAKINA 67 GRIP
- Started by Guillaume Zuili
-
For Sale FS: Gundlach-Manhattan Hyperion Diffusion 7in f/4 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
It depends what you mean by quality. If you mean resolution in lines per millimetre, then modern lenses and in body processing will out-resolve an old camera in an equivalent format. That's only half the story of course, and a lot of digital photographers are looking for ways of making their photographs less clinical, by using old lenses or post production tweaking, and manufacturers are including simulations that make them look less bland and generic. I'm not anti-digital imaging, and frequently use mirrorless and DSLR cameras in the knowledge the files they produce require a lot of work to get them how I want.
Speaking objectively, if your interest is black and white prints, film and silver/wet printing has much to commend it in terms of cost, aesthetic and market value. Colour chromogenic prints also carry bespoke value and offer some aesthetic advantages, though not as clear cut as monochrome. Digital offers many advantages over transparency film, partly for ease of exhibition, partly because the range of slide materials is no longer available. If your image making is largely or wholly via screen sharing, digital is the better medium, as it saves time and cost, and modern gear is better suited to pixel peeping. In the final analysis the answer is "it depends", but casual use of terms like "quality" and "better" suggests your photographic horizons may be limited to spec sheets and hype, which tell you nothing whatsoever about how good a photo is.
I disagree with your first two arguments but loving film is compatible. No offense but I would also add that perhaps is not the mythical stories, but being wrongly convinced by the modern ones!
Kind regards!
It strikes me to ask "why shoot film" on an analogue photography only website if you need an unbiased answer is like asking a butcher if eating meat is good for you
Funny yes! But IMHO the OP is legally asking for reasons (not for unbiased option, though the thread has turned into one vs other indeed) And for reasons about "Why film?" this is an appropriate place, isn't it? (I think)
Beautifully stated, I love it!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2012
- Messages
- 440
- Format
- Multi Format
Good luck getting that message heard in this forum. Haven't we all seen so many people over the years asking how to get the smallest grain, what are the sharpest lenses, how to do stand development to control contrast and enhance acutance using edge effects, how to push to ISO 25,000, faster autofocus, more frames per second, cheaper, better film, and so on. Now that the camera industry has handed us all of this and more on a silver platter digital is too clinical, not organic, people actually like grain, grain is good.
So the things film is best for are dwindling to nothing. I think all that is left is for us to enjoy film and darkroom work for what it is, rather than try to justify it based on comparisons to another media.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
that is great, fantastic even !
when i do commercial jobs i always look for the
best images i can get so for the ones that aren't strictly film+paper/archival
i use sensor based images. it is good to see that image quality has improved
since the numeric camera i first used in the mid 90s, and the one i currently use.
i have noticed that there is a lot of hysteria ( numeric hysteria ) about how good or how bad
things are. how certain flat beds are terrible and a snare drum or hindenburg is the way to go,
and i have found people that make all these claims are looking for different things than i am looking for.
i am happy using film, no matter how inconvenient it might be to someone who likes things instant, i am happy using film
to make things that are fun, and archivally stable or something that is tangible. I'm not afraid or upset by the other stuff
and i am happy to use them too for whatever .... and the device i use is about 12 or 13 years old, and the flat bed truck i use is
about the same age, and if measured by the tonnage i can stick in the back, it can hold a 6 foot by 8 foot frame without issue.
i tend not to listen to the hype because usually the hype is just like the game "telephone" it starts off as one thing, and ends up as another
YMMV
Hehe you are stirring a hornet nest with a poky-stick my friend
There is no question that *D* (do not dare to say it out loud in here), has surpassed 35mm in terms of resolution and on the high-ISO front. There should no doubt that people can now FINALLY photograph their black cat, trapped in a sack of coal, at night, during an eclipse, digitally. Film (usable IMHO and depending on usage), film stops at around ISO 1000-1600..I think. After that, it's a grainy contrast competition.
As for medium format, it has been surpassed by medium format *D* (good luck affording a H4D though... , or whatever the Hasselblads version is up to these days ^^).
A properly scanned 6*7, with the proper film can most likely yield around 80-100 effective megapixels, that's not bad at all, but then again, that scanner costs as much as a H4D.... =D
I get around 40-50 mpx from my negatives, after adjusting the focus on my Epson v750. (after that, it's just 'larger' with no more detail to be had).
I am sure you can wet-print a medium-format-shot and use it as wallpaper with no problem
Large format is it's own class and will be for a few years still.
Anyway, I digress.....
Film isn't about the megapixels and resolution, for me at least.
I just LIKE using the medium, I like the process, processing, the craft that goes into it and the fact that it is an analog process. (or hybrid for many of my shots) .
It's also about tapping into a bit of history and to use cameras that demand that you use your brain. It prevents you from 'machinegunning' your shots too much and cheat by staring on that godawful LCD after every frigging shot, so you loose your rhythm. In that way, at least in my case, my photographic creative side gets a great deal more exercise and it's giving something else into my otherwise digital life (phones, computers, whatever we do these days, it's digital, and I work in IT, so I am so sick of it all and find analog photography to be a haven and a quiet place for my mind and soul).
It's another side of the story of photo-creation and it's simply enjoyable.
Did you know that Hasselblad had to make a film-back for their newest flagship?
Maybe it's also about the expression you can get from the film and processes you use?
As for cheap?
It depends where you live really.
eBay is a great place to pick up gear, as well as used markets and flea-markets.
The cheapest film out there is Fomapan, but if you dig a little deeper and buy bulk-film from quality vendors like Ilford, Kodak and Fuji, you can get away with less expenses (in 35mm).
For B&W I would recommend Fuji Acros (or Ilford Delta 100) for ISO 100 to anyone coming from *D*, simply because it's very clean and Tri-X (or the Ilford Delta 400) for 400.
As for Color, go for Kodak Portra 400, Portra 160 (for people) Ektar 100 (for travel) and Fuji 400h just to get something else than Portra 400 ^^
As for chemicals for B&W, I advice anyone that start out, to go for HC-110 as their main developer, you will not be shooting all that much. HC-110 will not go bad on you, it's extremely economical and will create lovely results.
Last edited:
I'm amazed at number of replies as I'm new on here.I recently met my great uncle who is 95 and has been in numerous films.in particular he had a small role in Stanley kubrickt clockwork orange .the guy was a genius and apparently a nice block according to my uncle. Kubrick apparently chose good film stock for his films and it occurred to me that long after my uncle departs this earth my great uncle will live on on a film reel safely stored in a vault or salt mine perhaps for hundreds of years in fact when u see my uncle in the film considering it was early 70s the quality is like it was shot yesterday the main problem with digital that i can honestly say is
1 equipment becomes obsolete by that I mean whilst cameras get updates in pixel size they get discarded quickly and canon no longer support the camera I found this with my canon 30d no longer supported and judged as old yet a old film camera from 40 years ago is perfectly useable film don't change but sensors do if u could rip the sensor out of a digital camera and simply update it the camera could thrive its lmost like the digital componets rot inside the camera
2. My friends all use there phones to take photos but what's the point if they are not developed or seen again
3 .unless you constantly transfer these photos from the photos are at risk of being lost to time
1 equipment becomes obsolete by that I mean whilst cameras get updates in pixel size they get discarded quickly and canon no longer support the camera I found this with my canon 30d no longer supported and judged as old yet a old film camera from 40 years ago is perfectly useable film don't change but sensors do if u could rip the sensor out of a digital camera and simply update it the camera could thrive its lmost like the digital componets rot inside the camera
2. My friends all use there phones to take photos but what's the point if they are not developed or seen again
3 .unless you constantly transfer these photos from the photos are at risk of being lost to time
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 13,935
- Format
- 8x10 Format
I'm not a photojournalistic or "street" type photographer at all, even when I've got a Nikon in my hands. But I absolutely love looking at old vintage
black and white film prints from small cameras, grainy, excessively contrasty, but with character, silvery. I even love the look of certain high speed
old-school color chrome films with their blatant dye clouds. Now go enlarge some pixels and see what you get - bland Lego blocks, that's about all.
black and white film prints from small cameras, grainy, excessively contrasty, but with character, silvery. I even love the look of certain high speed
old-school color chrome films with their blatant dye clouds. Now go enlarge some pixels and see what you get - bland Lego blocks, that's about all.
Just my thought, but there seems to be many post that sounds like digital is "bland". I would say they are "Cold Perfections". Some picture call for a digital, perfect shoot. Some others (portraits, some landscapes) call for film, because they create a dreamy, nontemporal mood, that would I could only create by after procesing them on Photoshop, and truth be tell, I sucxk big time at Photoshop.
The best sport/actions shoot I've made where made with digital and they are great. Also, I got some extreme ISO shoot (52000) that film could never create.
Digital excel in those situations.
To each its own I would say.
The best sport/actions shoot I've made where made with digital and they are great. Also, I got some extreme ISO shoot (52000) that film could never create.
Digital excel in those situations.
To each its own I would say.
You'll probably find a camera repairer to fix your 30D if it goes wrong, whether it would be financially viable is another matter. I adopt the same approach to film cameras - don't pay much, and when they break they become ornaments.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 13,935
- Format
- 8x10 Format
There are some native things which only one respective category does best. But there are also scads of wannabee apps that TRY to make digital look
like something else - film grain, an impressionist painting, a mosquito silhouette landing on your film inside your camera bellows app. It's like eating imitation ice milk rather than real ice cream. It all gets so corny and monotonous.
like something else - film grain, an impressionist painting, a mosquito silhouette landing on your film inside your camera bellows app. It's like eating imitation ice milk rather than real ice cream. It all gets so corny and monotonous.
Yes, well put. Major moving of the goalposts now that digital has stepped up. I recall people saying 35mm film is worth a ridiculous TWENTY MEGAPIXELS. That was their metric of choice. They said it when digital cameras were 1 or 2 megapixels, so as to prove just how far ahead film is in terms of quality. Well those ridiculous numbers came and went, and 35mm digital is now 50 megapixels of detail. All of a sudden "pfft, megapixels, they don't count for nothing".
I agree. Film has its own merits and it should compete on those, not try and beat the prodigious newcomer in a technical battle.
I prefer the look of film, slide film in particular. Black and white darkroom prints are great too....
yeah i agree with you on that. I'm joined a lookslikefilm group. They don't look like film. The lightroom signature is all over them.
Cannot recall seeing claims of 35mm being 50 mpx. At best, a perfectly exposed Velvia, shot with quality glass and scanned with a superb scanner, is around 15 - 16, still enough for any size of print you may want.
- Don't forget that people also like to order products online, there are many lovely products out there, for example photos printed on acrylic-glass (which will make your slide look like.....a slide, only bigger), photo-books etc, in these cases, your actual and efficient MP-number DO count, up to a point (needs to be at least on-par with a typical 35mm slide or good c-41).
And just because something is shot on film (slides), it doesn't mean that nobody should try to get them printed via online services, people will do whatever
Last edited:
You can argue the aesthetics, the look of digital and film. Whether a digital frame has more information/detail compared to a 35mm of MF negative...but the two cannot really be compared quantitatively. Digital can be more convenient in some respects, and in the right circumstances yields a very clean picture. But film and digital do feel different, both during the shooting and afterwards looking at the photographs.
And obsolescence is built into every digital device. The gig I went to a week ago...the Samsung compact digital that I took was 4 years old and already considered obsolete. No more firmware upgrades, no support from the manufacturer other than outdated drivers etc. Though it works almost as well as when it was new, and in the right circumstances (it is a bit picky on exposure, and can be noisy) it produces nice photos.
However...the humble, rather ancient Halina 35X that I also took to that gig, as well as being a more tactile experience and getting me amazed looks from my fellow gig-goers...is working as well as it did when it left the factory in Hong Kong some 55 years or more ago, and benefits from the improvements in film emulsions over that time. I shot 50 exposures on that Halina, of which I would say 20 are good. I shot 78 on the Samsung, of which 20 were good. That's a far better strike rate for the film, and I was not being especially careful. The film photos just look more striking. Curiously, the band I photographed thought so too and saw fit to add my album to their official facebook page...where it was further shared by a radio station on the back of those B&W film images shot with a pretty mediocre 55 year old camera.
There's life in silver halide yet. There is something a little special about film, possibly intangible, which digital does not possess. Yes, I shoot both, yes I enjoy both...but I love film.
And obsolescence is built into every digital device. The gig I went to a week ago...the Samsung compact digital that I took was 4 years old and already considered obsolete. No more firmware upgrades, no support from the manufacturer other than outdated drivers etc. Though it works almost as well as when it was new, and in the right circumstances (it is a bit picky on exposure, and can be noisy) it produces nice photos.
However...the humble, rather ancient Halina 35X that I also took to that gig, as well as being a more tactile experience and getting me amazed looks from my fellow gig-goers...is working as well as it did when it left the factory in Hong Kong some 55 years or more ago, and benefits from the improvements in film emulsions over that time. I shot 50 exposures on that Halina, of which I would say 20 are good. I shot 78 on the Samsung, of which 20 were good. That's a far better strike rate for the film, and I was not being especially careful. The film photos just look more striking. Curiously, the band I photographed thought so too and saw fit to add my album to their official facebook page...where it was further shared by a radio station on the back of those B&W film images shot with a pretty mediocre 55 year old camera.
There's life in silver halide yet. There is something a little special about film, possibly intangible, which digital does not possess. Yes, I shoot both, yes I enjoy both...but I love film.
That's certainly true, but it shows lack of aesthetic sense rather than an inability of the medium.
It took me a long time to warm to digital photography because the default output was so bland. I still think it lacks something film possesses, a kind of organic quality that's easier to see than describe, but digital can be made to look much more pleasing than the files that typically come out of the camera. For my taste they are over sharpened, over saturated and contain insufficient blacks, and that's just for starters. It's not a case of aping film, it's a matter of arriving at a look that isn't a caricature or gratuitously artificial, from an almost infinite range of possibilities, and is sustainable across subject matter and technological change. Most people want to see the difference the new model offers for the cash they've laid out, I seek something that gives me the repeatability of a known film. It's possible with digital, but entails more effort, and a keen sense of exactly the appearance you're looking for, and an avoidance of novelty.
I was talking about 50 megapixel 35mm digital, e.g. Canon 5drs, which captures far more detail than 35mm velvia. 15 or 20 years ago people said you'd need 20 megapixel to beat 35mm. They said it to emphasise film's superiority. Digital at that time was 1 or 2 megapixel, and 20 megapixel cameras were farcical. Back then megapixels were proof of film's superiority. Once digital pulled ahead in terms of resolution people started saying resolution doesn't matter...
I agree that 35mm velvia is around 15, that's what I've seen, and agrees with others. Why do you think it's big enough for anything?
Last edited:
I see what you are saying indeed.
I think it's related to what you need for those kinds of print-sizes:
Your average Joe rarely goes past 30*40 cm, most cameras today (as well as a nice 35mm film) can cover that perfectly well with very good quality.
But when you get sub 8mpx, then it is too low to get a satisfactory 30*40 cm print.
I think that was what the argument was about in the beginning of the millennium.
The argument now is probably similar; For the typical print-size the average Joe prints, the MPX doesn't matter. It's like using medium-format to print 6*7 prints.....or something along those lines.
But I am sure many also just said that, to end the discussion all together as *D* surpassed 35mm film
Based on my answer above, I mean "everything" as in just about every print-size a normal consumer would usually print. (35mm film was the consumer format)
Sorry for being unclear.
The (self taken) pictures I've seen hanging in people's homes over the years and in the analog hayday, have rarely been above 30*40 cm. Anything above that, have been shots from professionals, at least that's my impression.
- that's what I meant with "big enough for anything" ^^
Even today, where people shoot with 25-30 mpx, they usually rarely go over A4 (if they even print), the large prints are usually studio-stuff from pros (with the same types of cameras).
Last edited:
... But we can not generalise. The problem I see here with this kind of arguments is a conventional attitude with that sort "of needs" and only for some people. Film photography has improved since the very first day, no doubt about it, just like digital photography has itself (and with those improvements from the former arrived the latter, by the way) and we should not underestimate neither of them.
I agree we should not justify anything: Is Film who doesn't need to say Hello, it was already here before!
I agree we should not compare anything: Is Digital who needs to achive equality, although it is still far behind!
In my humble opinion, no pictures call for a specific media outcome, no Sir!
False
Excuse me tomfrh, no one can deny the obvious advances in technology, but I insist, is not the number of the pixels the important, it is the size or each one! (at least for the light it is, perhaps not for some people) because it's a simple physical question, in a 36x24 mm sensor (if you want to talk about 35 mm) the more pixels you add to that sensor size, the smaller the size they must be, with the increase of resolution right, but with the obvious consequences in quality too!
Those years ago, people were right then with the argument, and wrong with the (emphasise of superiority) attitude at the same time. Resolution matters, then and now, but tomfrh it matters to achive quality, and megapixels arrived (piling up) in quantity (per inch), whereas quality has many other factors involved (many).
Best
If high ISO was unobtainable with film, I do wonder how and why I was engaged to take photographs sans flash in a night club in the early 2000s...using 12,800ISO with Ilford Delta 3200.
In this digital age, might we assume that film looks different to 90% of the photos which are currently being made? That alone is a reason to shoot film. But ultimately, I shoot film because I enjoy it...from rolling the films from bulk (when appropriate), loading the camera, winding on to the first shot...exposing the frames, developing (or sending to a lab) to the final result...I find the entire process enjoyable. With digital, I find all the post work in order to get a truly satisfactory image something of a drag. And I say that as a person who loves computers.
In this digital age, might we assume that film looks different to 90% of the photos which are currently being made? That alone is a reason to shoot film. But ultimately, I shoot film because I enjoy it...from rolling the films from bulk (when appropriate), loading the camera, winding on to the first shot...exposing the frames, developing (or sending to a lab) to the final result...I find the entire process enjoyable. With digital, I find all the post work in order to get a truly satisfactory image something of a drag. And I say that as a person who loves computers.
The biggest difference between film and digital is the amount of images that end up in print. In film days nearly every amateur photograph taken resulted in a printed image or slide, and a good proportion of enthusiast and professional shots ended in some kind of hard copy. Now 99.999% of shutter clicks result in ephemeral data. You can argue the screen has replaced the print as the destination of choice, but that preference is not without consequences. Hard drives aren't choosy about what goes on them, the greatest photograph ever taken and an old gas bill are a similar set of binary data.
The print represents a different kind of presence and importance to a screen image, and people continue to treat a printed photograph as something to contemplate in a way the ever updating screen rarely does. Digital photography makes the still image less important in practice if not in theory.
The print represents a different kind of presence and importance to a screen image, and people continue to treat a printed photograph as something to contemplate in a way the ever updating screen rarely does. Digital photography makes the still image less important in practice if not in theory.
I didn't bother with Canon after 5D MKII and newer. It is more pixels and high ISO but grossly plastic in rendering. Nowhere near to color or bw film tonality range. Sorry, "love" film and be able to see it is different capabilities
I didn't bother with Canon after 5D MKII and newer. It is more pixels and high ISO but grossly plastic in rendering. Nowhere near to color or bw film tonality range. Sorry, "love" film and be able to see it is different capabilities
Actually, I beg to differ right there. (ain't it typical? =) ), sounds to me like you shot jpeg and told the camera to do all kinds of things to your shots
I just don't think it's right to put down one or the other, especially these days.
I've done quite advanced *D* processing and manipulations and can testify that you are wrong, very.
( I am no master by far, but I do know my way around, have a look at my flickr-stream, the processed model shots to see some of the various stuff on there, warning; it's a good mess of film and *D* with no clear direction or thought, I am not trying to prove anything else than that I've worked with PS to some extent:
Note: None of the models had black paint or wings attached and none were actually shot under water.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/22614607@N08/ )
Plasticy? Perhaps in 2005, where interpolation (adding pixels in post) and excessive noise-reduction, created very weird results.
If you shoot raw with *D* today, and then zoom all the way in, right before PS decides to show individual pixels, you will be amazed on how much detail is in there. I do the same with some of my medium-format shots, especially the ones from my Rolleiflex 2.8F and Rolleinar, and, I can tell you that there is nothing wrong with the *D*, or the MF film in this regard. (since I have a rather mediocre scanner, I cannot pull out all the information from my MF films). Still, the level of detail and tones are simply astounding in both media often rendered slightly differently. (*D* tend to be more neutral and "crash" with pixels as you get too close, while film goes on and on, until all you see are blotches of dye-clouds/grain, the tone, resolution and hues also vary from film to film).
As for B&W, I feel that my results with the *D* differ greatly from film. They are not better or worse, but, since *D* behaves more like slide-film, the B&W's tend to look different (always dependent on processing off-course).
Not better or worse, just different.
I get B&W shots with *D* that I cannot reproduce with film, maybe because I suck at film and darkroom....or it may be related to how the various "zones" tend to sit, and that you can pull out shadow-detail, almost at will with *D*, while (especially color) film never really 'crash' in the highlights?
I also get B&W shots with film that I cannot reproduce with *D* either and that is one of the reason i do shoot real, genuine, no kidding black and white, and color film. ^^
I think they complement each-other quite well in this regard, but working with *D* -only-, really kills my spirit
....film is way more fun.
Last edited:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |