Why shoot film

[Bolex]

hey bolex

there is nothing wrong with either or.
i like film ( or paper, or glass, or plastic or metal ) better mainly because
it is something tangible i can retain when
the solar flare destroys all the electronics
and i like getting my hands dirty as peter said.
i also like digital because i can keep the lady down the road
with a mni lab employed. very few people make prints anymore
so i want to help, one print at a time, and because i like to make xerox prints
and wax them, and make something analog from them.
there are no rules anymore, there aren't any this is better or that is better, for me at least
there are a lot of ways to make photographic images now, and i think that is great, that way
it is only one's imagination that is holding them back, not the ways to make an image.
unfortunately lots and lots and lots of people use equipment ( doesnt'matter what kind it is)
as a reason for making something, they seem to have it backwards ( IMHO )
the camera, or format or media shouldn't be the reason, instead of the end result, the thing they made being the reason

whatever you end up making+doing, don't forget to have fun, that is the most important thing.
john

Many thanks just a bit about my reentry to film I just acquired a Minolta dynax 500i super film camera year 1995 with two sigma lens 28 to 80mm and 70 to 300 1.4 _5.6 macro super lens as well as a cobra 700 flash and what looks like a portable component so it can be used off the shoe. I paid just over 35 pound on eBay. Listed as excellent used condition upon arrival I have discovered that there is what looks like a blue haze about a quarter in size when looked thru the viewfinder with the lens off the camera I can also see some dust and tiny hair fragments i have lightly gone over the mirror with a camera brush to no avail. My questions if anyone can help please are 1 what is this light blue haze and will it affect photos taken 2 will the dust hair fragments show up on photos 3 can anyone tell me anything about this camera it is very light but looks cheaply made compared to say newer canon digital camera .I use to use a Minolta dynax years ago and found it good it was a grey coloured but can't remember model now and I use to use ilfordord paper in the darkroom.Are these two lenses respectable at all and what would they have retailed for back in 90s were the lenses back then more expensive than today's. I use bolex as I once picked up a vintage canon 8mm camera from a car boot for a fiver I knew nothing about it and managed to get film from a place in London but it was not cheap costing 25pound with film and process for 4minutes but my god the quality was fantastic and the colours like the old wizard of Oz technicolour in fact I created a time capsule several years ago for my daughter when she was born and stored a film shot on this as well as on a bolex p2 I bet they will be in better nick than the DVD I also put in there. I got really interested in these bolex film cameras they were like Rolex watches I equivalent or leicacameras e not that I have seen one they were about 250 pound in the early 60s several thousand today yet can be picked up for less than 30pound some are wonderful to look at in there own right which makes me think how come an old leica can be worth so much but Bolex camerasand the like being nearly worthless or is it because people don't realise there are a few places the film can be obtained from I wonder. To think the canon was 50 years old yet the light Meter still worked incredible I also have a bolex projector and again it's so damn well made .

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Hi im new to.... photography and am amazed ... having some three times the number of pixels.

is digital now as good as film quality ???

For measuring quality by pixels it absolutely is. Hopefully you aren't as blind as it is

 

[1L6E6VHF]

Of course, I started out shooting film because there was no such thing as a digital camera in the day. I continued with film when it provided good image quality that only a very expensive digital camera could equal.

Now I still shoot film because it produces "real" images that will always be accessible and transferable to whatever image file software may exist in the future.

I'm surprised that the last point has not been raised by anyone. When someone takes their pictures on a digital camera (and especially the one built into a smartphone), that image usually stays with the device. Yes, one can have prints made, or copy the image files to a desktop computer, but, in actuality, very few people get around to doing that. Further hampering image preservation is the fact that an image preserved on a PC today may be unreadable with the software on future devices.

If a child born today were to ask her mother, in 2036, "What did I look like when I was little?", the mother's answer will be: "Sorry, Brystil, those pictures were on a phone I threw out a long time ago".

That being said, I still find annoyances with digital cameras in the present day. Since a digital camera is running a powerful microprocessor, it needs a lot more battery power, and at the most inconvenient times, the battery dies or the digital camera goes into the power saver timeout. The batteries in film cameras are far more reliable, and never proprietary (and of course, many film cameras don't need a battery at all, the X-25 even shot flash with a motor drive and had no place for a battery).

Of course, a digital image (if no print has been made from it), needs hardware to be seen. A 80" 4K display remains expensive, and an 80" x 80" square 4K display (allowing presentation of square, horizontal, or vertical images in their entirety) is nowhere in sight.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I use film and darkroom printing because it's what I enjoy. Digital doesn't make me happy.

 

[LAG]

... Here are a few reasons that I have no doubt others will add to or disagree with: ...

4. The images will still be there in 30 years. I want to look up a document I wrote once at university. Here, have a look for a XYwrite file on this 5.25" floppy disk... Computers fail. Formats change. Those backups you carefully took get misplaced -- or the restore software doesn't exist any more -- or the disk format changes, or the CDs you wrote on have delaminated with age, or your new computer no longer has a SCSI / Firewire / USB-A connector. For all the promise of perfect, reliable copies, digital technology has been a terrible, terrible disappointment when it comes to durability. By contrast, pick up a book that was published 150 years ago. It might smell a bit musty, have a bit of mould growing on it; the pages might be yellowed but it is still as clearly readable as the day it was printed. Likewise, negatives are really durable and if processed and stored with even marginal care, remain printable for a very, very long time. ...

Well, I disagree with this

...'Digital photography has no soul'. By this I interpret what she meant as meaning, pick up a digital camera and snap away and you are almost assured of success ...

Myself, I like to think of a different and possibly more complex comparison:- Buy a box with flatpack pre-cut furniture and you will be able to assemble it into an object with a use (but possibly little aesthetic worth). Make 50 and they will all be more or less the same. Consider this as a digital image.

Now take a craftsman who, given the right tools and a few pieces of selected timber, appropriate tools and a few nails, screws and glue, makes a similar object using his hands and skill. Provide enough materials to make 50 to the same design, and each individual will be subtly different, but just as satisfying and aesthetically good to look at. Yes skill takes time to aquire and that is what makes it all worth while - IMPROVEMENT.

None of this 'I want it and I want it now'. If something takes time to make or aquire it will have more personal value. Consider this as the photograph made with film and it will bring with it, a lot of satisfaction to own and use.

and I disagree with this

... make twenty prints from a digital file, every print will be exactly the same ...

I disagree with this

... and using film makes you think about the exposure, after all, with digital you can fire off as much as you like, bound to get 1 good shot of 10 or 20 of the picture in front of the lens, with MF you have at the most 16 frames, sometime 12 or 8, with 35mm you have 36, maybe 38, so you think about every shot, try to make every shot count, and one last thing, the number of times I have seen a digi user miss some great shots while looking at the screen to check their last, sometimes average shot, while a film user takes the shot, winds the film on and is instantly ready for the next,

and I disagree

The answer is, they're just different. You don't have to choose. Use both and see which you like. It's a none question, like do you prefer lithography or screenprint, orange or green, sky or grass.

For whom?

...A 36.3MP FX-Format CMOS Sensor will give you outstanding quality on the net or printed...

Again, I disagree

... film is a medium as is digital,water color,pencil,oil paint. You choose the medium you want for your art.You as the artist put the soul into the image.To claim digital is soulless only means your work has no soul.

But, I agree with this

...there are a lot of ways to make photographic images now, and i think that is great, that way
it is only one's imagination that is holding them back, not the ways to make an image...

And I completely agree with this!

 

[blockend]

For whom?

For whom what? Nothing in my post prompted your reply. I said people didn't have to choose film or digital, one or the other. I can't see how "for whom" is relevant.

 

[Ian Grant]

I use film and darkroom printing because it's what I enjoy. Digital doesn't make me happy.

Totally agree, and I've shot a lot of images with both film and digital and can and have make hybrid prints from scans if I want to, but it's boring

I see Digital as just another way of capture along with B&W, Colour Negative, Colour Reversal. Polaroid, alternative processes, You choose what works best for your images, in my case where possible that's film.

Ian

 

[eddie]

I use film and darkroom printing because it's what I enjoy. Digital doesn't make me happy.

I'm with Thomas on this. My decision to use film has nothing to do with "quality". It has everything to do with how the process makes me feel. I enjoy it and, because I do, I'm motivated to do it. I produce more of it and (hopefully) get better at it. I learned a long time ago (not only related to photography) that it's impossible to excel at things one has no passion to pursue. I think this is especially true in creative endeavors. But, those are my personal reasons. Others decisions on which to pursue may be different, but they are equally as valid, as long as passion is part of the equation.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

What Thomas Bertilsson said.... and I like working with large negatives for alternative processes such as Carbon Transfer and Kallitype...

 

[Slixtiesix]

My overall impression is that all these film vs. digital flamewars have ended some years ago and I am glad about that. Digital has its qualities, as does film. I like shooting it because it is fun (not only shooting, but also darkroom work) and because of the quality you can get in medium format. Yes it is true that using film costs money, but this is only a disadvantage as long as you want to see your pictures on screen. If a print is the final aim, shooting film can be cheaper indeed! Especially if it is fine art B/W work you are into. Having a digital file printed on Ilford Galerie FB Digital will cost at least 5x the amount of doing your own FB prints in the darkroom.

 

[Bill Burk]

Bolex,

Welcome to APUG. I think if the blue haze is there when you take off the lens... It's not through the lens, so it's not going to be on the film.

I agree with Thomas Bertilsson, film makes me happy.

 

[Agulliver]

I love computers. I've been a geek since 1981. But I get no satisfaction from editing photos on a PC...I do get satisfaction from composing a shot in the camera, shooting the frame, processing the film by hand and so on....and whether I print using an enlarger or scan, the whole process is more tactile, fun and satisfying than shooting digital - which I do as well...it's just less fun and satisfying.

I would imagine we've all had a hard drive fail. I keep two separate backups of everything on my server, one in the house and one in an outbuilding just in case. Experience tells me that is the only way I can preserve digital media. Formats, connection standards and even power supplies change with the wind. If I wished to access the hard drive sitting at the bottom of my drawer from my Atari ST days I would need to take it to a specialist or invest in an obsolete adaptor for my PC. Assuming the data is still there. So I ensure that not only do I backup to my two external hard drives, but that I keep their format up to date. What was once SCSI, was then IDE, then EIDE, then SATA and so on...it requires continued investment.

My film negatives, going back to around 1977, sit in sleeves, in nice ring binders as they have done all these years. I've not lost a single negative since I actually started bothering to store them properly.

So...for me, film photography is more fun, more hands-on and tactile, and I genuinely believe it is less hassle and less expense to keep the images safe. And it doesn't even have to be slow....with B&W film, processing by hand and drying in the bathroom at 40C I can go from camera to facebook in under and hour. Later, if I choose, I can set up the enlarger and produce real prints - and again the whole experience is more hands-on than making digital prints.

I don't hate digital. I have two digital cameras which get a lot of use. My Nikon D50 is on 45,000 shutter firings and my Samsung compact has taken 9000 photos...so I am not a film Nazi or anything. But I do find I enjoy shooting film more. Digital is for the convenience, or for when I can't lug a film camera around.

 

[LAG]

For whom what? Nothing in my posted prompted your reply. I said people didn't have to choose film or digital, one or the other. I can't see how "for whom" is relevant.

Sorry, for whom is different? Don't worry, it doesn't matter ... Thank you

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why?

1. I have the equipment.
2. I know how to use it.
3. I have a darkroom.
4. I can develop and print the film.
5. I enjoy shooting film.
6. The quality is much better than digital.
7. I enjoy developing and printing the film.
8. I have near top of the line and top of the line equipment for a tiny fraction of the cost of digital.
9. Film looks better and prints better.
10. Film has a better dynamic range.
11. Both RC and Fiber prints look and feel much much better than Stink-Jet.

 

[Alan Gales]

is digital now as good as film quality ???and secondly why does film endure and where would you recommend the cheapest and best place to buy and process it today thanks

I shoot film and digital and enjoy both.

If you are talking about sharpness then it's pretty much a moot point unless cost gets involved. I saw a comparison between a Phase 1 80 megapixel back to an 8x10 camera. Under perfect conditions the 8x10 won but now there is a 100 megapixel back out there. Of course the 80 megapixel back cost $30,000 and a brand new 8x10 film holder costs $200.

Film used to win in dynamic range but digital is really catching up.

Film does have a different look. Even digitally scanned film looks different than digital. I shot a series of photos of my daughter with her prom date a few years ago. Some I shot with a Hasselblad 500/cm and some with a Nikon D300. I brought them up in Lightroom and my daughter much preferred the film images. I showed them to my step-daughter and she preferred the digital images.

My little digital Fujifilm X100s has film modes on it where it tries to recreate the look of different films. If digital looked better then why the film modes?

Then there is the process. Many prefer shooting and printing from film cameras. I just love composing an image on my 8x10 ground glass. Some can't wait to get home from work and get into their darkroom. They have no interest in sitting in front of a computer.


I don't know if it is the cheapest but B&H is pretty reasonable on film. Freestyle has more options. I develop my own b&w and use a local lab for color. Of course you can develop color at home too.

 

[dpurdy]

Craft oriented people like doing things by hand. Rolling up their sleeves and getting wet and dirty.
People who love computers prefer digital.
Some people like to cook their own meals and others would prefer to go to a restaurant and have dinner served to them.
I roast my own coffee beans, make all sorts of fermented foods and drinks including wine and cider, cook my own meals, mix my own developers and sensitizers, process my on film, coat my own papers and get no pleasure from working my images on the computer.
It is just a matter of what sort of person you are. No longer anything to do with quality.
Dennis

 

[Alan Klein]

Film smells good.

 

[MattKing]

Because if I get dust on my "sensor", I just wind to a new one.

And because I like the depth of field choices that longer, standard and moderate wide angle lenses offer me.

 

[BMbikerider]

Well, I disagree with this



and I disagree with this



I disagree with this



and I disagree



For whom?



Again, I disagree



But, I agree with this



And I completely agree with this!

Does that make you dissagreeable!

 

[Alan W]

I have bought some fantastic film gear over the past decade.Stuff that I would never have been able to afford if it weren't for the occurrence of digital technology.I'm trying out camera and lens combinations that I couldn't possibly have dreamed of back in the '90's.I have tried digital,and indeed photograph my sons soccer games on a Nikon d3200,but I don't get much satisfaction from it.Satisfaction for me is in the potential of the roll of film in the camera i'm currently using.In short,I'm with Thomas as well.

 

[LAG]

... I still shoot film because it produces "real" images that will always be accessible and transferable to whatever image file software may exist in the future...

Is not true

If a child born today were to ask her mother, in 2036, "What did I look like when I was little?", the mother's answer will be: "Sorry, Brystil, those pictures were on a phone I threw out a long time ago.

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

I learned a long time ago (not only related to photography) that it's impossible to excel at things one has no passion to pursue.

Exactly! That's why all kind of disciplines are included

I love computers. I've been a geek since 1981. But I get no satisfaction from editing photos on a PC...I do get satisfaction from composing a shot in the camera, shooting the frame, processing the film by hand and so on....and whether I print using an enlarger or scan, the whole process is more tactile, fun and satisfying than shooting digital - which I do as well...it's just less fun and satisfying.

I would imagine we've all had a hard drive fail. I keep two separate backups of everything on my server, one in the house and one in an outbuilding just in case. Experience tells me that is the only way I can preserve digital media. Formats, connection standards and even power supplies change with the wind. If I wished to access the hard drive sitting at the bottom of my drawer from my Atari ST days I would need to take it to a specialist or invest in an obsolete adaptor for my PC. Assuming the data is still there. So I ensure that not only do I backup to my two external hard drives, but that I keep their format up to date. What was once SCSI, was then IDE, then EIDE, then SATA and so on...it requires continued investment

If you love computers you should know firsthand that there are universal image formats, readable and invariable, regardless of the format method of the data storage, since the very first digital camera

Does that make you dissagreeable!

I disagree, makes me a dissenting voice, and only in the cases mentioned

 

[Bolex]

I live in gt Yarmouth our last proper family run photography shop closed few years back and the other does not do film anymore , I have historically found said supermarkets quality poor , I use snapfish for digital .i would love to. Use a darkroom facility if one existed close to me . 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??

 

[RPC]

I work as a color corrector in a large lab and have color corrected thousands of both film (color negative) and digital images, and I have to say I prefer color negative film. We don't do film anymore but when we did, film was much easier to color correct than digital. Film was very consistant in overall quality when it came in, compared to digital.

Film was much more consistant in color balance, contrast and saturation. With digital, those parameters are often all over the place in images from customers. It seems with higher end cameras you can adust these parameters but the photographers don't know how to set them right or don't bother. If the parameters are too far off, they cannot be completely corrected.

Perhaps the biggest problem I see is with dynamic range. Digital images often come in overexposed. With film, it very seldom happened. And when digital is overexposed, it can look terrible compared to film (mostly from the compression used). In my experience, even a small amount can cause noticible degradation. To prevent this, some set their camera to underexpose as with slides. Digital handles underexposure better than overexposure, but still creates its own problems.

The moral: If one carefully exposes, and correctly white balances, and all parameters are set correctly, good images can be achieved with digital. Otherwise count on a lot of post work.

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

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why?

1. I have the equipment.
2. I know how to use it.
3. I have a darkroom.
4. I can develop and print the film.
5. I enjoy shooting film.
6. The quality is much better than digital.
7. I enjoy developing and printing the film.
8. I have near top of the line and top of the line equipment for a tiny fraction of the cost of digital.
9. Film looks better and prints better.
10. Film has a better dynamic range.
11. Both RC and Fiber prints look and feel much much better than Stink-Jet.

I do not like using them bulky muggle pixels, I like to record the photograph on the molecular level.

 

[Cholentpot]

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...