Why do we still love film ?

I started photography with film SLRs and now I am using digital SLRs,

but I am planning to start reshooting films. I just have one general

question for film lovers? that why do we still shoot film? Is it

because digital is STILL unaffordable or not satisfactory, because I

am contemplating a dedicated film scanner [Nikon V ED] for my Elan 7

[rest of my kit is 300D, 15mm fisheye, 17-40 L, 50mm 1.4, 70-200 f4 L

& 1.4x converter].

 

Would you guys share with me why do you still prefer film and what are

the reasons ?

 

Thank you very much.

what's not to love? if it ain't broke, don't fix it. film ain't broke.

For 35mm-style cameras, I've switched over to D100s for the convenience of digital. But I still shoot 120 b&w and color negative film. I like the longer tonal scale of negative films over digital.

Would you please elaborate ?

Film, while today still useful for specially applications, is generally inconvenient, has unhealthy chemistry, and is produced by environmentally unfriendly processes (i.e., see mess Kodak made over many decades in Rochester, NY). I for one will not cry when it inevitably, eventually becomes obsolete. I would not have said this even 5 years ago, but I predict film will be done within a decade: with the present rate of technology advances there will simplify be far superior ways to record light, at virtually all resolutions and for all lighting situations.

Brian

 

Film manufuacture may not be environmentally sensitive, but then neither is the manufacturing of semiconductors - a lot of fairly nasty chemicals are used.

If poker is a brainless game it would be no fun to play.

Most if not all digital cameras allow people to shoot brainlessly.

That makes them like food with no taste. See kids in action shooting digital cameras. They can produce images as good as yours with minimum effort. Of course people are not limitted to use them brainlessly.

What I am saying is it must be the fun of shooting film that makes you

want to shoot films again.

<I>Would you guys share with me why do you still prefer film and what are the reasons ?</i><P>Because you can't figure out how to use a dSLR and need the mini-lab operators to think for you when they color correct your film.<P>I agree with the guy above about 120, but 35mm has long been a waste of time for me.

Because a 2400dpi scan of a 4x5" sheet of film (large-format) yields a 115 megapixel image.

 

Ok, not the question you are asking :) For 35mm, I still shoot film because my 20-year old equipment yields excellent results and it would take $2000 to replace it with digital (new body, new lenses).

 

I also spend all day in front of a computer. Getting away is a relief-- I like shuffling around mounted 35mm slides on a lightboard instead of shuffling around files. Yes, it would be a real hassle if I wanted digital files for all these slides. But I only pick out a few slides here and there to scan for digital output.

 

I do own a digital P&S and use it frequently when I don't feel like carrying around an SLR. Some day, I will replace 35mm with a dSLR, but for my needs, it is not a priority.

 

Keep in mind that scanning film is slow and tedious.

there's a magic to film. its a craft. its not necessarily the end result (ie a photo)but the process. going into the dark room, putting chemicals together and Allakazam a negative. then you go into a different dark room put the negative in a holder a piece of paper underneath and Allakazam - a 8x10.

 

i've found i've gone more to less automatic processes. now i'm bulk loading b/w film, i'm saving up for an M6, i shoot 120 color slides with a manual bronica. i have a digital p/s which i use a fair amount. b ut it doesn't have the physiicality of film. i can't hold a digital image in my hand.

 

thats why i still use and love film. and whats interesting is that as digital takes over, its the oldest most mechanical processes that will survive. b/w film will survive just because hobbyists can do it themselves.

It's generally been my observation that process-orientation usually leads to banal results. This isn't just in photography - I know people who love knitting, and do it endlessly, and produce gifts people stuff in the bottom of drawers. People who focus on how to get a given result seem to produce far better results, if they have the requisite skills.

Well Dhiren, I'm 61, spent practically all of my adult life teaching myself to do high quality(in my opinion) silver based photography. I'm not about to chuck it to more or less start over.Also, like Claudia said,"if it ain't broke,don't fix it. Film ain't broke." Digital is about high profits, that's all,otherwise there would have just been a drop in units where film goes or replacement backs,no special lenses,either...Besides,to those that can afford it,the perception is that digital gives one an easy advantage in photography...Jim

I also have all the equipment I need to get the results I want, and many decades of experience at it, so there is nothing digital technology has to offer me that I am longing for. I am not, at this juncture in time, looking for someplace to sink more thousands of dollars into equipment that my wife could get nothing for should something happen to me, and I am also not looking for something that will take me a year or two or more to get back up to speed proficiency-wise. Film photography works for me _now_ and that's where I live, in the here and now. I am slowly and gently dabbling in digital so that if film is gone before I am, I can still do photography. But I have no short or long-term plans to switch over unless forced to by lack of film or exhorbitant prices.

Ben, well said...Jim

Dear Dhiren,

 

At times, I photograph and print digtally. But in the end, I enjoy darkroom printing much more than computer printing.

 

Neal Wydra

P C Headland brings up a good point. While film manufacturing and processing may have negative environmental impacts, the manufacturing of computers and all that go with them certainly is as much or more environmentally harmful. Disposal of computers, etc. has created a huge environmental problem, also. We have become even more of a "throw it away" society.

I have only recently (1 year) been into photography as a hobby. But strangely enough, I am heavily into film. I like deciding which films to use, loading the film, firing away, hearing it rewind, looking at the slides on a light table, etc. - the physicality of it, as a previous poster mentioned. Also, and most importantly for me, I like having a physical hard copy in the form of a negative or slide. You cant get this with digital (except maybe a CD ROM - but that has no appeal to me).

I also have a digital P&S, and use it for snapshots when i dont want to lug around an SLR and lenses. Yes, I can see that digital has many technical advantages - if i shot images for a living, I would definitely use digital for most things. The ease and convenience, with the results in a digital format. Hey, we live in a digital world. But for me, with Photography as a Hobby, I somehow find digital capture (not editing) lifeless from a creative standpoint. You can push that button all day long, you dont need to plan, the shots are free. Purely psychological, I understand, but I find no joy in countless clicks - I would rather Know I am buring an image premanently onto a pice of film when i fire, and I had better make it a worthwile shot, as film isnt free.

But again, this is just me. Before all the Digital Photogs attack, let me restate that I realize that yes, digital is superior if you have to do this for a living.

Upe, your assessment about B/W film is right on. In addition the character and differences

in grains and textures found in the various B/W films is very difficult to replicate digitally.

Color slide and color negative films now those can be replicated with a DSLR.

I am a beginner when it comes to photography and shoot all film. I can definitely say its a decision I dont regret. I enjoy experimenting with different types of film and seeing the actual results on a light box or projector as opposed to sitting in front of a computer pointing and clicking my way through photoshop while my eyes glaze over. Digital definitely has its advantages however. With that being said the main reason I'm hesitant about digital is the obselescence of the equipment. I'd rather not spend $2,000 on a body knowing full well that in 2-3 years Canon will make one that is twice as good for the same price and now the one I own is worth a few hundred bucks.

Because a digital back for my 8 x 10 view camera would cost a fortune.

<i>While film manufacturing and processing may have negative environmental impacts, the manufacturing of computers and all that go with them certainly is as much or more environmentally harmful.

</i>

<p>

Apparently "certainly" = "I haven't the first clue and am just pulling this out of my ass."

<p>

It's a dumb comparison anyway, since people will own computers for other reasons.

I think its partly the familiarity with it. Its also fun to be able to pick your film of choice, load it in, hear the winder go, and in the end actually be able to see the image without equipment (aka computer) with your own eyes. I think the anticipation of waiting for it to be developed also boosts the excitement to see the results. With digital you throw in a card (what the heck is inside those things anyways?), and see the results right away which kind of takes away some of the anticipation. Digital to me is not as much fun, other then playing in Photoshop- but I can do that with film to.

 

Same idea with records. Outdated format but people still use it. You can even take a sewing needle to the grooves and actually hear some of the sound. If we ever got to the point when power is no longer available, all those digital images would be unviewable (unless they were printed off).

 

But lets face it- digital is the future and WILL replace film completely. It will be a weird day when movie theaters are completely replaced with electronic projectors. I expect that in my lifetime. How they will replace IMAX I wonder though.

Resolution--my old Mamiya Press on slow film can clearly outresolve my 1ds II.

 

Dynamic Range--digital's single biggest failing.

 

Safety--There are plenty of places I'd be nervous with my 1ds II. If they get my Mamiya I

can easily afford another one. Plus I've got to imagine even stupid criminals would realize

the old, ugly Mamiya wasn't worth the trouble.

 

Wide angles--Retrofocus wides are still inferior to more symmetrical wides, especially

towards the corners. I've got a 24/1.4 for my Canon, lauded as a great lens, but, with

enough light, the 50/6.3 on my Mamiya totally destroys it.

 

Replacement cycle--when my three-year-old E-10 was stolen it was more obsolete than

my 35-year-old Mamiya.

 

But yeah, it's mostly 120 + digital for me these days. The only thing I shoot 35mm for is

my 12mm Voigtlander, for which there is no digital or 6x9 equivalent. And even that I may

give up when my stock of Tech Pan runs out. Very occasionally I'll mount up a 50 on one

of my Russian rangefinders if stealth matters. The 35mm SLRs I keep for backup and for

cheap, convenient film testing, but actually intentionally taking pictures with them? Very

unlikely.

Because unless you want to spend a LOT of time in Photoshop, each digital camera can produce 1 Contrast range, and one colour palette. I prefer to be able to make that decision when I select which film to use. Even though I now scan most of my film, I still find I have less to do in photoshop to get what I want. I also worry about ongevity. Can nayone even read 5.25 floppies anymore?

 

I am not one of those who thinks digital is a dead end though. Someday it will replace film, but that day isn't here yet, not for me at least. For others who prefer working in digital good for them. I've seen beautiful work, it just doesn't work for me.

Investment in equipment: a D70 or 300d cost about 800-900 Euros and what do you get

for that: a consumer quality, plastic camera. A film camera in that price range offers much

more quality and value for money.

 

Furthermore, I rather spend the hours behind my Mac being outside and taking photos....

 

Remco Jan Woldhuis