Why are you still using film camera?

At the moment there is nothing in the digital realm which matches my Contax TVS and G2. So one or both acompany me everywhere.

 

The D60 is for deliberate shooting when I fell the bulk justified.

1. I like the way it looks

 

2. I'm too busy trying out different lenses

 

3. I need instant gratification more than I have self-control and patience (i.e. I blow all my cash not need for necessities)

 

4. I look at a computer screen all day at work

 

5. I'm lazy - I've found a pretty good lab for what I do and it would be a hassle having to process digital files myself.

 

There's probably more!

6. I like big viewfinders

7. That annoying multiplier effect

Because I really like using my four Nikon F2's and I have some really good glass. They would be to hard/costly to replace with digital equivalents. Film is fun!

 

Wayne

Because my 12mm Voigtlander and 35mm APO Grandagon give me ultrawide performance

that my 1dsII can't even dream about. But the 1dsII is astounding in low light.

Reassurance!!My wife gave birth to triplets in May.I grabed my digital slr & shot away.Then I accidently formatted a full comfact flash card with irreplacable images on it.Then I thought,'do i really know if these images will exist in 40 years?' my answer to myself was,'No!'.Now alternate between film & digital.I scan the negs & then put them away for safekeeping.Reassurance.

I have two very good Nikon SLR bodies(FE2 and F100) with an equally good set and primes

and zooms. To duplicate the equivalent in digital is going to cost a lot, and I mean a lot,

of $$$$$. As others have stated, the film cameras do not become obsolete over a short

(and even a long) period of time.

 

Yes, if I were just starting out, I'd get a D70 and never know what I'm missing in a

viewfinder. I can't afford a D2X and that's what I'd need to be in the same ball park as my

film cameras.

I have 7 Canon FD bodies and 23 lenses, ranging from a 14 mm to a 500 mm. FD lenses are very high quality and extremely affordable.

 

I guess they 'll be useable for another 20 years or so. I think that after that time, my camera's will still work perfectly, but film will no longer be obtainable, and that we'll all be walking around with the digital equivalent of 70 mm camera's, taking photo's with 30 X zooms at a rate of 20 a second on a 50 terabyte flash card, having many tens of thousands of shots to select after our kid's birthday party.

 

If I had to replace my "old" stuff by digital stuff with the same quality, it'd cost me tens of thousands of dollars.

 

I enjoy getting my prints back from the lab and selecting.

 

I do a lot of B & W and enjoy the developing process and creative possibilities. As far as I know, there is still no specific B&W printer on the market...

 

I understand a good 35 mm negative is about equivalent to 8 MP.

 

I like to shoot with 800 and 1600 ASA film.

 

In the future, i'm thinking about buying a negative scanner, because I'm impressed with the possibilities of photo shop. But that means I'll have to get a computer at home, which I hate, since I spend a great deal of work on computers on the job already. In my off time I want nothing to do with computers.

 

Dirk.

Because I have a freezer full of the stuff....

Money and time. Unlike many others, I don't even have a decent computer to process images; then it would cost too much to find digital camera/lenses with same features as my n90s, fe2 etc. Finally, I shoot mainly b&w.

I already spend too much time on the computer:

 

1. For work

 

2. Reading photo.net!

 

I love my Yashica T4 and EOS 3. Like others, I don't want to bother with the processing.

 

Plus with the cost of film bodies dropping, you can get a nice used 1vHS for less than a 20D. A 1vHS!!!

will you take a machine gun to go duck hunting?

Manoj - if your question / comment is directed at me - no I don't bring a machine gun to go duck hunting because I don't hunt.

 

If it's a crack at my remark at getting a 1vHS for the price of a 20D, what does that matter? I was simply stating a price - given what others have said in previous posts about costs of digital vs. film, processing time, computer usage, etc.

 

Why be concerned about how other people spend their money? Sure, a 1v is perhaps a little too much gun for a birthday party, but then again maybe it isn't....

I use both digital and film, the choice depending on what I what I wish to achieve. I use the digital camera for much the same purpose that I used Leica M's in the past: a walk-around camera that basically functions as a 'photo sketchbook'; and for trying out new techniques that require a variety of relatively quick, cheap studies from a wide variety of angles/settings. On occasion I use the digital for final studies if a fleeting situation demands it; but generally I use medium format cameras to produce the more contempative shots that may later be printed 16 x 20 or larger.

 

In general, my other reasons for using film echo those already expressed and see no need to reiterate. A personal reason is that I view fine photography as both an art and a craft. Whatever the medium used, an 'artist' needs to be able to control the tools and material they are using, otherwise the latter controls them and what is produced may be classified as 'happy accidents'. Shooting film, particularly slides, requires discipline and is a great way to keep one's photographic skills honed. Often the process, whether it be a photograph -- or painting or drawing for that matter -- takes on the quality of a form of meditation. Besides that, no matter one's level of skill, there is always an element of risk involved with film, and there a corresponding feeling of satisfaction when one views a newly processed image and it has precisely the effect(s) one intended.

 

There is no denying that similar results can be achieved digitally. And while there is also no denying that producing professional quality images via Photoshop requires skill, to me there isn't the same risk involved as there is film-based photography. It often seems to me that creating/manipulating images digitally is comparatively a bit too easy at times, and where is the challenge in that (rhetorically speaking)?

I'm using film cameras (along with digital) because I like the final prints created using film as the capture medium better than the ones I get from the DSLR. Also, films come in all sorts of flavors, which is nice - I can select from a variety of looks. A physical copy of the image always exists just in case my backing up scheme somehow fails.

 

I'm thinking about getting a 4x5 for landscape photography to complement my 35mm based film and digital systems. No pain, no real gain either.

I'd like to add that I do use my digital SLR as much as film and sometimes the results are nicer than anything I can get from 35 mm film, but more often than this, I like the film output. Also, the film cameras that I can afford are just so much better than the digitals which I can afford as cameras.

Because those movie projectors at cinemas enlarge 8mm film (smaller than 35mm) to 10,000 times their actual size.

 

Also, I'm asian and eat rice, so I love Grain.

Why does a carpenter who has a pneumatic hammer and chain saw still use his old hand saw and hammer? Because often it is the right tool for the job.

Ilkka - absolutely right and a cabinet-maker still uses his old razor sharp hand chisels for the fine work.

I look at it this way: if I wan`t to record images, I use digital. If I want no risk imagery, I use digital. If I want to shoot landscapes and I don`t mind some missing information here and there, especially when it comes to leafy trees, and lack of fine detail in the shadows, I use digital. If I don`t mind giving up the timeless quality, depth and longevity of film, again I use digital.

Now, if I want a challenge, and need to show an element of skill, require exremely fine detail with absolutely NO missing information, I use FILM. It doesn`t smudge the trees, doesn`t leave out important info and it doesn`t deprive me of the thrill I experience when checking out the trannies and see that I got it right! The digital is a great tool a for testing composition, exposure and lighting. When its all correct, I shoot film! Horses for courses, I guess.

My digital photography has tapered off. The multitudes of images posted on photo.net show that the vast majority of digital photographers SUCK BADLY, and have 99% more equipment than they really know what to do with.... They're lazy, prone to screwing with the image after taking it, and frequently concentrate on the WRONG aspects, ref the current multitudes of BUG pictures, which aside from being SHARP, have nothing of interest to offer to the viewer. (two flies copulating is a common one). Creativity does NOT improve with digital photography, only the volume of images. My current favorite is an EOS 630 SLR found on evilbay for FORTY bucks, complete with carrying case, good batteries and a pack of film. Scrounging around Tucson for a week resulted in liberating a TAMRON 28-200 71D in like new condition. (Even tho I'm NO zoom fan, this lens is NICE). so for LESS than 130 bucks, I have FIRST CLASS piece of photography equipment that more than likely is at the bottom of its value curve. And it makes me happy....My Olympus 8080 wide zoom now comes along as a backup. My most recent posting was taken with a sidewalk sale Olympus Stylus.....

I can buy top of line SLR gear for film which now is affordable, which I simply cannot do with digital equivalents, and if did it would get obsolete in no time.

 

The price differential I get from buying top of the line film gear to the equivalent digital stuff allows me to shoot a ton of film (which at my shooting frequency if quite a few years).

 

I don't have to worry that much about the longevity of the CD-ROMS compared to having film negatives.

 

I use film scanner to bridge into the digital world getting some of the benefits.