Why shoot film

[Ko.Fe.]

Actually, I beg to differ right there. (ain't it typical? =) ), sounds to me like you shot jpeg.

I (almost) stopped reading it right here.

I'm far more advanced digital user than you and I'm also more capable with seeing of the difference. Knowledge and experience. I'm working with digital media since 1991. My income comes from "D" side, not the darkroom.

But it is same old by now story. Digital BW isn't different, it is not as good as film. For general public which you represent it is too hard to see. I don't want to make any insult, it is just what it is.

 

[michr]

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 bought a digital SLR about 10 years ago and I didn't really see what the fuss was about until I stopped using in-camera JPGs and started manipulating the RAW files. Once you go that route, you can expose the scene to your taste and whatever highlights and shadows that the camera captures, you can push and pull as you like. JPG throws way too much away to be useful, and auto-exposure and the JPG engine usually make decisions that I disagree with.

 

[Helinophoto]

I (almost) stopped reading it right here.
I'm far more advanced digital user than you and I'm also more capable with seeing of the difference.

Why are you making this into a pissing-contest? I am not impressed by your flickr, nor your website, so what's your point?

Knowledge and experience. I'm working with digital media since 1991. My income comes from "D" side, not the darkroom.
But it is same old by now story. Digital BW isn't different, it is not as good as film. For general public which you represent it is too hard to see. I don't want to make any insult, it is just what it is.

So what? I am a computer-engineer with 16 years experience and 11 years experience in heavy PS editing, and I've also gotten paid for my work, what's it to you? Anyone can make an income from photography, tells nothing about capabilities or knowledge.

You didn't only insult, you are also rude, my post tried to keep it civil, you decided to plump out with hot, meaningless air, I am done talking with you on this.

 

[Cholentpot]

I (almost) stopped reading it right here.

I'm far more advanced digital user than you and I'm also more capable with seeing of the difference. Knowledge and experience. I'm working with digital media since 1991. My income comes from "D" side, not the darkroom.

But it is same old by now story. Digital BW isn't different, it is not as good as film. For general public which you represent it is too hard to see. I don't want to make any insult, it is just what it is.

I heartily agree with the B&W. This is where digital cannot touch film. Film b&w on just about any format looks better.

 

[michr]

Unless your photography is forensic, surveillance, medical or something similar, it will have no practical purpose. So for almost everyone on this forum, and nearly every photography forum on the internet, we're talking about essentially useless, pleasure-based image making. To hear photography discussed on the 'net, you would imagine the number of megapixels or image sharpness is a life or death debate. It isn't.

So we're talking about eliciting an emotional response from a still photographic image. There are no limits to the range of photographic media that can achieve that goal, from pinhole shoebox cameras to large format monorail, via point and shoots and smartphones to old folding cameras. The aims, and the responses, are entirely subjective. Some of the most evocative photographs are family pictures, 2" square, dog-eared and stained, taken on cameras that were never much good in their day, but producing images that speak through the decades directly to the emotions. Photography uses objectivity as a starting point, and emotion is the only measure of its output.

Agreed 100%. The results are what matter, not the tools.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

A lot of people are into photography for different reasons. I like shooting film because I like working with it; the darkroom is challenging and a place I thrive in. It is very satisfying to me.
Digital, where I would need to spend even more time in front of a computer screen is exactly the opposite of what I want to do.

For me it doesn't matter if I make a print from a negative today or five years from now. There is no hurry at all. Only enjoyment. Those who must make a living from photography probably view it differently, or those who enjoy working in alternative processes there are definite advantages to digital.

Moral of story: shoot what satisfies you, or what suits your needs, or both. Enjoy it as much as possible. Both film and digital have proven themselves to be competent tools for image making. Now it's up to the photographer to create.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Why are you making this into a pissing-contest? I am not impressed by your flickr, nor your website, so what's your point?



So what? I am a computer-engineer with 16 years experience and 11 years experience in heavy PS editing, and I've also gotten paid for my work, what's it to you? Anyone can make an income from photography, tells nothing about capabilities or knowledge.

You didn't only insult, you are also rude, my post tried to keep it civil, you decided to plump out with hot, meaningless air, I am done talking with you on this.

Sorry, I'm not just "anyone making income from photography". I started to deal with computer based still and motion picture editing, special effects and post production since 1991. Computer-engineer (IT) means nothing to me in terms of IQ/PP and my digital image processing is more than twice longer than you. I was using "After Effects" while it was still CoSa, not Adobe. It is not only longer it is on different than just PS editing level. I was dealing with companies like Getris Images, Quantel and Discreet Logic on CEO level to get their solutions to big PP/SE houses.

If you feel offended by someone who tells you what you are wrong and it is based with broader knowledge and experience, here is nothing I can do about it.

 

[Jim Jones]

In the quibbling between analog and digital photographers, the main difference is between the photographers, not between the equipment and its products. Each type of camera (and their many variations) has their advantages. I treasure my Leica because of its fine engineering and craftsmanship. I value digital cameras for their convenience and low light performance. I admire some older large cameras for their elegance. I remain amazed at the variety of accessories once available for Nikon and Leica systems.

However, what a person does with whatever camera should be more important than what kind of camera it is. Sometimes the choice of equipment does have much impact on the results. The harsh grittiness of low light photography on the film of decades ago imparts a sense of that era which would be lost with the clinical perfection of today's digital camera. Those digital cameras record information in sports and some other situations that I once never dreamed would become possible. George Eastman brought photography to the masses. Now, digital equipment gives almost everyone the opportunity to easily produce technically fine photographs and electronically spread those photos around the World. Yet, film remains supreme for some photographic processes. The choice between traditional and digital photography is for each person to make. It is like the difference between journalists and poets. Each may write about the same event with totally different results. Each have their adherents. The World needs both.

 

[xtolsniffer]

For me it's about want and need. if I need a shot - whether for a brochure, event or whatever, I'll use D* - (I'll leave the '*' in there because it's fun). D* is fast, convenient, cheap (per shot), reliable and the results are great. You know you've got the shots in the bag, but there is very little creative connection in there for me. When I started with Digital, I was excited about working with images on a computer for a few months, then I got bored. I use computers all day, why would I want to hobby to use them too? I got record shots, a record of the object or person or event, the creativity that was left was in capturing the right moment, and that became easier and easier because I could just keep on shooting until i got what I wanted.

Now if I want a shot, I'll use film because I have to fully engage myself in the process. I have to decide how the scene and light will interact with a particular film. I may have to work with Velvia and have long shutter times (five minutes is my longest) which means I have to think about support, timing etc etc. Each shot is a challenge, then each shot in the darkroom is a challenge which takes skill. When I see a final result that has worked, I know it's down to me developing (excuse the pun) as a photographer, it's more me and less the technology.

When someone sees me struggling with an RB67 trying to do 1:1 macro of a flower on a windy day (this takes both number 1 and 2 extension tubes, a 140mm macro lens, and a very strong tripod head), they very rightly ask "wouldn't it be easier with digital?" And of course the answer is yes, but I patiently explain that it's about the journey, not the destination. I guess it's the same reason that I could hop in my car and drive to the Yorkshire Dales. It would be fast, comfortable and reliable. Instead, I'll strap my tripod to my Royal Enfield Bullet and ride there, you end up at the same place, but only one way gives you the satisfaction.

 

[kb3lms]

Why shoot film?

Because I can.

 

[blockend]

I bought a digital SLR about 10 years ago and I didn't really see what the fuss was about until I stopped using in-camera JPGs and started manipulating the RAW files. Once you go that route, you can expose the scene to your taste and whatever highlights and shadows that the camera captures, you can push and pull as you like. JPG throws way too much away to be useful, and auto-exposure and the JPG engine usually make decisions that I disagree with.

I would add that digital photography can be a useful educational tool. Although I'd spent three decades in darkrooms before I picked up a digital camera, I gained an renewed appreciation for exactly how much exposure was required for a particular kind of shot.

One example is the fashion for high contrast street photography that tells the story through highlights alone. Although I'm not an adherent of the style personally, it relies on an exact sense of how much underexposure to give a shot. In the old days, unlike large format work that could be precisely metered, or slide work that could be equally meticulously spot-metered, street photographers on the move tended to guess a stop-and-a-half for backlight (as did some point and shoot cameras). Now a histogram can confirm that to crush the black shadows completely a photo requires 1.7. or 2.3 or 4.2 stops.

Obviously darkroom skills made up for some of this guesswork, and the so-called ISO invariance of the newest cameras makes such decisions largely historical, but the technique taught me an exactitude with the hand held camera I hadn't previously possessed, that fed back into film photography. For some people the guesswork and manipulation of film is much of the fun, but I treat digital images like slide film, shoot sparsely and expose perfectly. At least it saves RSI pushing the delete key!

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

... 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

Sorry but why false to the extreme ISO? whats the top ISO you have obtained using film? Ive been able to push it to 6400 with usable results (12800 but result wherent that pleasing). On digital (Canon 6d) I'v usable and pleasing photos (monochrome mode) with ISO 102,400. Can you said that for film? Let me say this again, we are talking about usable result, not muddled shapes and grains.


Don't misunderand me, 9.5 (I use half frame cameras as well) out of 10 photos I make are made with film. I'm just like to be objective about facts.

Of course, I rather have a 3200 film shot than a 102,400 on digital hanging on my wall, but facts are fact.

Please let me know if Im wrong (most likely I'm, not as arrogant as to believe Im know everything). Would like to heard people results using extreme ISO on film.

 

[onre]

I developed some film today and got a really good reminder why I shoot film.

The cast iron bird makes me do it.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

...
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.

Totally agree. They are both differents. I love the monochrome you can get from DSLR. Still, they are way different than film B/W.

Having both tools increase you level of expression, so I think the obvious thing to do is have the better of both worlds.

Regards.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I developed some film today and got a really good reminder why I shoot film.

The cast iron bird makes me do it.

Lovely

 

[R.Gould]

why do I shoot film, simple, I enjoy using cameras that are 50 years or more old, I only shoot black and white, and I love being in the darkroom, love darkroom printing, I have nothing at all against Digi, in fact if I was doing colour work then I could have been tempted to go digital, but for me personally I would not get the same amount of enjoyment out of a digital camera and the light room, I have tried it, and it is simply not for me, but friends of mine love digi, just a simple case of horses for courses

 

[R.Gould]

Lovely

I developed some film today and got a really good reminder why I shoot film.

The cast iron bird makes me do it.

Simply lovely,

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

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.

Agree with the "user experience" Agulliver. I find the automatic satisfaction from digital cameras a bit "tasteless". Something is missing. I got that "whole process" with film cameras. I too roll my own film (Tri-X and Delta 100 right now) and the loading the camera, seein how many shoots you got left, measuring and calculate each shoot, etc. it give a pleasure on its own.

Question Agulliver, whats the highest ISO you can get with fil ? Not really arguing, just curious.

Regards

 

[removed account4]

I find the automatic satisfaction from digital cameras a bit "tasteless"

tasteless ?

i find it to be exactly the same as when we had a working yashica t4,
and would drop off 10 rolls a week at the neighborhood sam's club
( their ship to fuji service was cheap and fantastic ).
or when i used to use a polaroid sx70, or peel apart #59 film.
maybe tasteless means something different in your mother tongue,
but i don't find anything about using an electronic camera tasteless at all,
i find it to be exactly the same as using its cousin.
to each their own i suppose

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

tasteless ?

i find it to be exactly the same as when we had a working yashica t4,
and would drop off 10 rolls a week at the neighborhood sam's club
( their ship to fuji service was cheap and fantastic ).
or when i used to use a polaroid sx70, or peel apart #59 film.
maybe tasteless means something different in your mother tongue,
but i don't find anything about using an electronic camera tasteless at all,
i find it to be exactly the same as using its cousin.
to each their own i suppose

I said " I find the automatic satisfaction from digital cameras a bit "tasteless". ". I cant talk about your experience or your likes.


Your context and mine are pretty different. I probably shoot 2 or 3 rolls per week (maybe less). I've develope all my film myself (probably send like 5 rolls to develope in about 15 years). I do my photography for a hobby and expend many minutes on every shoot. I enjoy the loading the camera, get the composition and exposure right (I agree I can do that too with my dslr) and then develop the roll. For me thats account for a whole day.

When I do digital, the rutine is turn the camera on,prepare the composition and exposure, shoot and thats about it. I get automatic results, which is good, but its missing something (all the additional steps required for a film shoot), so for me, its tasteless (from Oxford dictionary Tasteless= Lacking flavour).

As you said, and totally agree with you, to each their own.

 

[Helinophoto]

tasteless ?

I think he means it in the context of diet coke vs real coca cola (it's an example, don't fret people, I know some of you like diet coke! ) .......or a similar analogy, not tasteless as in tactless or disgusting

And I agree with him too ^^

 

[thuggins]

This has been a great discussion and I would like to commend my fellow APUGers for comments that are generally civil, constructive and informative. As an aside, I was recently on another type of forum where someone had asked a perfectly legitimate and common question regarding RAW vs .jpg. The absolute nastiness of many of the responses was unbelievable. If you ever need a big helping of schadenfreude to go along with the memories from ~10 years ago when we were trying to have a rational discussion of the relative merits of this new medium, make some popcorn, go to a d!&!+@l forum, and chuckle as they eat their own.

This is really about the only place that we can have a discussion like this as we are the only folks who have actually explored the question from both sides. I would hazard to guess that everyone who has posted here has at least one of those electrical picture making thingies and extensive experience in using it. That being said, the comments here pretty much distill down to two main areas.

I. Product

There is simply no comparison between what film is able to capture when compared to d!&!+@l. If you want to see a simple but clear example with your own eyes go to:

www.thermojetstove.com/Tonality

The limitations of this sort of detail in a d!&!+@l image are not going to go away with next year's camera model; they are locked in by the laws of physics and the energy of a photon. Perhaps someday an imaging technology will be developed that isn't based on little squares in a Cartesian matrix carved onto a silicon chip, but until that happens this is a real limit and a real difference between the two technologies.

Various folks here have thrown out the old "10 - 20 MP" canard that gets recycled every time this topic comes up. It's such a handy snippet to throw out when you want to shut down a discussion. A while back someone tried that in another posting, claiming as his authority that "he had worked for Kodak". Another participant kept pressing him on the provenance of that number until he finally, begrudgingly revealed that "10 - 20 MP" was a marketing decision made in the early '90's when Kodak was developing the Photo CD. Testing showed that at 10 - 20 MP the average consumer considered a d!&!+@l image to be equivalent to a photochemical print. The number has nothing to do with actual capability or any stringent testing.


II. Process

Last month I was out shooting fall foliage with a MF folder that's about 60 years old. The clouds were racing across the sky so fast it looked like time lapse and I had five shots to expend from this beautiful overlook. I stood there for quite a while, admiring the view, sizing up compositions, watching the pattern of the cloud shadows as they raced over the ground, and noting how the needle of my Ikophot moved as I panned over the scene. Another gentleman was there with an electrical picture making thingy sitting on a tripod automatically clicking off an exposure every second or so. He confided that he was shooting in RAW so he could fix the image in post processing. After shooting a couple hundred exposures he picked up his gear and left. I don't know if there is a name for that guy's hobby, but whatever it was it was certainly not photography.

 

[Helinophoto]

Maybe he was focus staking

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I think he means it in the context of diet coke vs real coca cola (it's an example, don't fret people, I know some of you like diet coke! ) .......or a similar analogy, not tasteless as in tactless or disgusting

And I agree with him too ^^

Yeah something along those lines Helinophoto. I enjoy a Diet Coke then and again, the same with digital photography. Great in its own way. Tasteless as in missing something, in other words, all the additional steps needed to get film photography.

Best Regards

Marcelo

P.S.- For those on USA, have a nice Thanks Giving day

 

[fstop]

Why shoot film?

Because I can.

Best answer yet.no jabs, no insults.