Why shoot film

[LAG]

... there is still something more "real" about being able to feel and hear the mechanical parts of a film camera....hear and feel the shutter fire, manually select a speed and feel/hear the mechanism tension....wind the film on manually or hear and feel a motor drive....it's a more tactile and somehow human experience. Yes, the shutter in my DSLR fires but that's it...

And all of that without forgetting the incredible and possible sound of "silence" with film (shutter) as well, or the feelings for larger film formats, without "the sound of the (wind)"!

Except that this is precisely what the OP asked us to do. They asked for 'reasons to shoot film' -- so while not a need, answering their question seemed reasonable, no? Of course bashing other people's choices is totally pointless and unnecessary, but when someone has specifically, effectively, asked for your reasons for your choice, then yes, there is a need to do so.

That's right!

 

[Agulliver]

OP asked us to provide explanations of why we shoot film. That can, of course, be done without slagging off digital. But there are certain situations where I would say film is preferable to digital.

 

[eddie]

Except that this is precisely what the OP asked us to do. They asked for 'reasons to shoot film' -- so while not a need, answering their question seemed reasonable, no? Of course bashing other people's choices is totally pointless and unnecessary, but when someone has specifically, effectively, asked for your reasons for your choice, then yes, there is a need to do so.

He asked if "digital is now as good as film quality". As "quality" isn't really quantifiable (in this case), it has devolved into arguments about high ISO's, etc.
I don't do any digital, but recognize its place. Still, what I do can't be done digitally, so its "quality" is low for me.

 

[Alan Gales]

He asked if "digital is now as good as film quality". As "quality" isn't really quantifiable (in this case), it has devolved into arguments about high ISO's, etc.
I don't do any digital, but recognize its place. Still, what I do can't be done digitally, so its "quality" is low for me.

Of course it can be done digitally. You just fix it in photoshop. Photoshop can do anything. Photoshop can make all your dreams come true!

Of course Eddie, you know me well enough to know that I'm joking.

 

[Ap507b]

For me a lot of it is down to the equipment & the way it handles. just feel shooting with an OM1, F2 or F3 is massively more enjoyable than using a DSLR. Not interested in which one is better quality wise. Don't care to be honest. It's all about fun.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I like to continuity of film and paper. Digital does not have that. Digital does not have grain and looks plasticy and increasing the number of pixels will not fix that. Film is fun to use and print. I have spent too much time sitting in front of a computer so far in my life and sitting in front of a computer to work with images is about as much fun as having a colonoscopy or prostrate exam.

 

[tomfrh]

Several of you have mentioned that film is more real. This is one of the big things for me too. Transparancies in particular. I love that my slides are direct imprints. When I project slides I'm right back there. Don Draper was right that slide projectors are time machines...

 

[removed account4]

Several of you have mentioned that film is more real. This is one of the big things for me too. Transparancies in particular. I love that my slides are direct imprints.

i'm sorry to ask this but why are slides more real than a digital file that is not manipulated or cropped in any way whatsoever?
aside from it being "tangible"....
i met people at a art-fair years ago and they exposed like they were shooting slides, perfect exposures
that they refused to crop, edit, &c in any way ... they submitted their images to a printer and made prints
as someone who exposed slides would have cibachromes or ilfachromes made ....
its all about the extreme... and it is a personal choice, like to shoot slide film or b/w or c41 or chromogenic b/w ..
and plenty of people use the non film media and have a great time and lots of fun, adn don't spent their free time tethered to the wall.

 

[RPC]

i'm sorry to ask this but why are slides more real than a digital file that is not manipulated or cropped in any way whatsoever?

As I said in an earlier post, I work at a lab and do color correction (color balance, density, contrast, and saturation adjustments) to digital images before printing. We have hundreds of clients from around the country that do mostly youth sports and can be considered professionals. Skin tones are used to judge and correct color.

They send in digital images that generally require lots of correction. A few clients do request no correction. I have never seen any they send in that didn't need any--some are way off. Despite this, they accept their results! I have never seen any that would be what I consider to be the quality level that a slide would give. Getting proper exposure is important with both slides and digital (due to limited dynamic range), but with digital one must also be diligent with white balancing the camera, and be sure that contrast and saturation are set correctly. All this is critical to record an image that does not require any correction, or is not overexposed. With slide film, image parameters are built into the film in manufacture, by people who know what they are doing. With digital, it is the user who must know what he is doing, which, at least with our clients, is a rare occurance.

Some have said that film has a greater color gamut than digital. I think that may be true and one of the reasons film was easier to color correct than digital, and why some think slides, and film in general, looks more "real".

 

[Alan Gales]

I shot my step granddaughter who is as pale as Casper the ghost with her boyfriend who is a Native American along with their daughter who is of course mixed and in-between in complexion. I used my Fujifilm X-100s digital camera shooting jpeg with the camera's tiny flash as fill, outdoors. All three skin tones were excellent. I don't know that I could have gotten that with slide film. I do like the look of Portra though.

I did see a couple pictures of an apple tree on the web. One shot with digital and one shot with film. The film image was way better because it showed all the apples that were on the tree. The Bayer array sensor of the digital camera could not reproduce every apple. In fact quite a few were missing.

Does film or digital look more real? It's an interesting question. Another interesting question is do you want it to look real?

 

[Europan]

continuity of film and paper

This. We can touch the continuum, develop a feel for the materials. When in the digital realm one remains there, separated from the materials.

 

[RPC]

Proper settings will give decent skin tones with digital, but because of the greater dynamic range of negative film, it gave the most consistantly good results at my lab. Even small amounts of overexposure with digital can cause skin tones to have a compressed look, loosing detail and tonality, and saturation and contrast to rise, unlike film. Color negative film is my medium of choice for color over digital, especially for people pictures. Try overexposing CN film 1-3 stops, and compare it with digital overexposed 1-3 stops. CN film is the clear winner.

It is said that raw format is comparable to negative film's dynamic range, but can be impractical to use for many photographers and labs, who typically use compressed formats which cause most of the problems with digital, which is unfortunate.

 

[tomfrh]

i'm sorry to ask this but why are slides more real than a digital file that is not manipulated or cropped in any way whatsoever?
aside from it being "tangible"....

Because slides are a direct imprint, a physical artifact - like a fossil or a fingerprint.

The slide was there, and light from the subject touched it, and that's what you're looking at.

 

[tomfrh]

Skin tones are used to judge and correct color.

What's the actual process? Do you adjust white balance until skin tones look right?

 

[blockend]

Proper settings will give decent skin tones with digital, but because of the greater dynamic range of negative film, it gave the most consistantly good results at my lab.

Is this still true? The latest digital cameras have something like 15 stops dynamic range. Digital responds rather like slide film, badly to overexposure, more tolerant of under exposure, but with more recovery possibilities.

 

[CMoore]

Why.?
Well.....the camera won't take pictures if there is no film in it.

 

[removed account4]

Because slides are a direct imprint, a physical artifact - like a fossil or a fingerprint.

The slide was there, and light from the subject touched it, and that's what you're looking at.

thanks
i forgot a d-file is a 2nd generation of the same imprint so it is 1step removed..

im glad you are able to see a difference in all of this, i wish fuji and other color-slide film makers
had YOU ( and others with the same viewpoint ! ) as part of their ad campaigns, to keep the medium alive
because unfortunately it seems that that magical image making medium might not be around
for years to come, unless you make black and white slides with a reversal kit.

 

[Jim Jones]

Because slides are a direct imprint, a physical artifact - like a fossil or a fingerprint.

The slide was there, and light from the subject touched it, and that's what you're looking at.

So is a Daguerreotype, and with twice the experience as we had with Kodachrome we ought to have solved most of the technical problems in making them.

 

[RPC]

What's the actual process? Do you adjust white balance until skin tones look right?

White balance is something a photographer does (or sadly, often doesn't do) with a digital camera before shooting to adjust the camera to the color temperature of the light used to shoot with. Some use an auto setting for this.

I work at a lab, and color correct the photographers' images after they have been shot and sent to us, by viewing them on a calibrated monitor. We have a thumbwheel device connected to a computer to adjust the red, green and blue components of the image as well as density, contrast and saturation. We generally look at skin tones and adjust those for natural-to-warm color. The software we use was made by Kodak and called DP2, and is designed for speed (unlike Photoshop, which is way too slow) and high volume labs like ours. At times our color correcting team gets thousands of images each day and we have to be able to color correct them very fast.

After color correcting an image, it is saved to a server and later printed on RA-4 type laser printers.

 

[RPC]

Is this still true? The latest digital cameras have something like 15 stops dynamic range. Digital responds rather like slide film, badly to overexposure, more tolerant of under exposure, but with more recovery possibilities.

As I said in my earlier post, RAW format is suppose to have a dynamic range comparable to negative film, and allows "recovery possibilities". But when compressed to a format like JPEG, used by many photographers, the dynamic range drops considerably and then is more like slide film. Using the RAW format means huge file sizes. This and other problems makes it it impractical for most photographers to use routinely.

 

[blockend]

Using the RAW format means huge file sizes. This and other problems makes it it impractical for most photographers to use routinely.

Do you mean a way of using RAW files as a direct print source? I don't know how that would work. Digital photographers routinely shoot RAW, or RAW + jpeg, and convert to TIFF. What matters to me is how things look in a final print, whether that be C-type, monochrome silver, inkjet or lithograph in a book. It's quite hard to tell what medium was used originally from a print, especially if colours are tweaked or shot on a vintage lens.

 

[thuggins]

i'm sorry to ask this but why are slides more real than a digital file that is not manipulated or cropped in any way whatsoever?
aside from it being "tangible"....
i met people at a art-fair years ago and they exposed like they were shooting slides, perfect exposures
that they refused to crop, edit, &c in any way ... they submitted their images to a printer and made prints
as someone who exposed slides would have cibachromes or ilfachromes made ....
its all about the extreme... and it is a personal choice, like to shoot slide film or b/w or c41 or chromogenic b/w ..
and plenty of people use the non film media and have a great time and lots of fun, adn don't spent their free time tethered to the wall.

You keep referring to the print as if that were the intended end product. Although I have had slides printed, that is an ancillary object for permanent display. The slide itself is always the true end product. Looking at a slide projected onto a good screen is one thing, but viewing them directly with magnification and a backlight is sublime. As a colleague commented once, it is like standing there looking at the scene.

As I mentioned before, everyone here uses d!%!!+@l and we certainly understand its strengths and appreciate its capabilities. It would be absolutely foolish for me to take my OM-1 and 600mm Zuiko with slide film to a sporting event. The lens itself is over six pounds and there would be no way to focus it in time, let alone set the exposure. To get a single, decent shot on an entire roll would be sheer luck. With my micro four thirds the equivalent lens is tiny by comparison and the auto-everything produces consistently good shots.

But those good shot are not great shots. For shooting landscapes or anything with fine textures, film (and especially slides) will always win out because these textures are captured faithfully. That how film works, it captures the actual light in a very organic, "natural" way. Many folks here have hit on the "plastic" look of d!%!+@l images. That is because the world is not made up of little squares arrayed in neat rows and columns, resolved with edge enhancement algorithms and "corrected" with heaven only knows what filters.

Alan's point about the apple tree is spot on, and mirrors the example I posted earlier. Any image that has fine detail will always look different on film than d!%!+@l. And by "different" we mean to say more natural and realistic, more warm and accessible. On a slide this can be seen directly, without any intervening processing to lose or obscure the quality.

 

[tomfrh]

Looking at a slide projected onto a good screen is one thing, but viewing them directly with magnification and a backlight is sublime.

It sure is.

Projection is just as good too in my opinion, better perhaps..

 

[Clumsy Eddie]

I still shoot film because I like to. (I was going to write more, but this seems to cover it.)

With best regards.

Clumsy Eddie(Stephen)

 

[RPC]

Do you mean a way of using RAW files as a direct print source? I don't know how that would work. Digital photographers routinely shoot RAW, or RAW + jpeg, and convert to TIFF. What matters to me is how things look in a final print, whether that be C-type, monochrome silver, inkjet or lithograph in a book. It's quite hard to tell what medium was used originally from a print, especially if colours are tweaked or shot on a vintage lens.

I am no expert on the matter, but my understanding is that one can let the RAW file conversion to JPEG or other format take place in the camera, or save the RAW file to a computer, and with the proper software, perform the conversion there, which allows one, by taking advantage of the larger dynamic range of the RAW file, to make corrections to improve the converted quality, before sending to the lab. In some cases the RAW file may be sent to a lab to let them do the correction and conversion before printing. Workflow slows so it is best if the photographer just endeavors to shoot it right to begin with. Does this make sense to you?