Why do you use film?

<p>This:<br />2.) I personally like the "look" of film images.<br>

<br />Or, more correctly, I don't like the look of digital images. If you go to the Wedding Photos forum and do a search on "cardboard cutouts" you can see why I don't like the look of digital pictures. There is a long thread of techniques to minimize the cardboard cutout look but it is still there.</p>

<p>For me, a lot of the same reasons as you. I like the look of overexposed neg film for weddings a portraiture. I like the latitude for the highlights. I love the skin tones. But the big one......is the workflow.</p>

<p>When I use film for a wedding, I shoot it, drop it of for the lab, and download the scans. That's it. Done. No post processing in Photoshop. no countless hours prepping images from a wedding. Just download, sort, and release the event. It meant going from 20-30 hours of post for a wedding....to 2-3.</p>

<p>That's time I can spend better behind the camera, marketing, or with my family.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Same reason I prefer watercolor over oils and radio that uses radio waves over internet "radio". Nothing to do with superiority of one medium over another. Just a personal preference for and enjoyment of the process.\</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Coming to analogies I am a die hard fan of Fountain Pens, however in photography I only use digital as it is easier for me with my medical career!</p>

<ol>

<li>because I'm used to it;</li>

<li>because I found the films I like to use and that produce the pictures I want (Kodak PX, Kodak Portra NC + VC);</li>

<li>because I like the "softer" look of B&W film;</li>

<li>because I don't mind to wait to have my photos developed;</li>

<li>because waiting is good for my "relationship" with my photos;</li>

<li>because I found a store where I get them cheap;</li>

<li>because I found a lab where they are incomparable at developing;</li>

<li>because film is slow and makes me think before *every* frame I expose and I don't mind getting away with 1 (one) image walking around half a day;</li>

<li>because I've finally learnt to use my Nikon scanner;</li>

<li>because I can't stand the continuous obsolescence of digital equipment and I prefer to spend my money on film, rather than on new equipment.</li>

</ol>

<p>Because film has something digital will never have..........SOUL. I saw a bumper sticker yesterday, that really caught my eye. It said "Drum Machines Have No Soul". Being a drummer for the last almost 40 years, I can certainly identify with that.</p>

<p>And of course, I love working in my darkroom! When I have a hand printed print in my hands I feel like I have have actually <strong><em>made something. </em></strong>You just don't get that feeling when you click on the "print" button in Photoshop.</p>

 

<p>Here's why:<br>

http://www.outdoorphotoblog.com/2009/04/back-outside-beating-film-drum-loving.html<br>

AND,<br>

http://www.outdoorphotoblog.com/2011/01/i-appreciate-that.html<br>

Sorry for the redirects, but I've thought about this a lot, and have a lot to say... too much to re-type here ;-). Long live film!</p>

<p>Here's why:<br>

http://www.outdoorphotoblog.com/2009/04/back-outside-beating-film-drum-loving.html<br>

AND,<br>

http://www.outdoorphotoblog.com/2011/01/i-appreciate-that.html<br>

Sorry for the redirects, but I've thought about this a lot, and have a lot to say... too much to re-type here ;-). Long live film!</p>

<p>Here's why:<br>

http://www.outdoorphotoblog.com/2009/04/back-outside-beating-film-drum-loving.html<br>

AND,<br>

http://www.outdoorphotoblog.com/2011/01/i-appreciate-that.html<br>

Sorry for the redirects, but I've thought about this a lot, and have a lot to say... too much to re-type here ;-). Long live film!</p>

<p>Oops. Sorry about that ;-/</p>

<p><em>I prefer using a camera rather than a computer to take photos. I'll never go digital.</em></p>

<p>Digital cameras are every bit a camera as a film camera is. Not sure what planet your statement comes from.<br /> Sad you don't share your work Vincent digitally--perhaps even tragic, assuming you are a good photographer.<br /> <br />To quote, or paraphrase Geoff: I still too shoot some film based on traditionalist (pure nostalgia), masochistic, and "being different" reasons.</p>

<p>Because the feel of a film winder on a Hasselblad or F3 is somehow therapeutic.</p>

<p>My reasons are very simple.<br>

1. Because as of right now I can still use film. Someday I may not be able to. So why not use it while I can?<br>

2. Because I don't feel like spending $5000 or more for a digital camera. I wouldn't buy anything less as my first digital. Second, third, etc.. can be less.</p>

<p>Because of the colour, film has history, it is tangible, because my childhood with taken with film, because shots in museums were taken with film. If I take any old books out it is film, the icons of travel might be Coca Cola and Kodak. </p>

<p>No or little post processing. It takes time, it's not instant, it's more of a challenge to get more things right in the camera. Be it in the camera operation or going thru your archives and take a film out to scan or take it to the lab for them to make a print for you. </p>

<p>Particularly like slides because the slide is the final product for me, I don't scan and fix. Neg film has a more film feel to it for me. Not a Kodachrome look but a minor nevertheless. Modern slide of what is left look a bit too modern for me sometimes. It's just sharp, grainfree and saturated. </p>

<p>I enjoy using film because I've always used it. To be honest though I enjoy using digital as much as film and when I think about it, I just really enjoy using cameras and taking pictures no matter which medium I'm using. I have a wonderful Canon 7D that I absolutely love but like Ross B, I just recently bought a Nikon F100 and a few lenses, and am in heaven!</p>

<p>time slips by so quickly... using film requires me to be thoughtful and use some of that fleeting commodity and make something i think has value and enjoy doing.</p>

<p>1- I love shooting film for the look it gives me.<br>

2- Mixing chemicals to develop my films is something I love to do.<br>

3- Hoarding film is therapeutic to me.<br>

4- As several have already pointed out, there's a magical moment in time when the image begins to appear in the developing tray. Knowing that I controlled the negative and the print gives me a warped feeling of being completed somehow.<br>

5- There is something very personal to me about holding a chunk of metal with a bunch of levers and dials, and switches on it. The mechanicalness of it all makes me feel warm when I switch and dial and twist until it's just right to click.<br>

6- I have some cameras that are over 100 years old that are fully functional and I still put film through them. It satisfies me to use these while I wonder how many people and places they captured before I became a keeper of them.<br>

7- Because developing a time capsule of found film and being able to peek into someone else's life so many years ago satisfies a strange curiosity of mine. Digital cameras don't have 20 year old time capsules in them. :-)<br>

8- I could never afford a $60,000 60 megapixel camera, but shooting 25 ISO 5x7 film gives me finer resolution and detail, and I don't have to spend hours massaging the image with a computer.<br>

9- Finally, to me film is just plain fun. I watched a print come to life in a converted bathroom darkroom 30 years ago, and was sucked into the world of film...it has me...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Being that I teach photography part-time and work at a photo store full-time, I am able to see a lot more to either side than most people. I'll give you the objective answer first.</p>

<p> Objectively, most people will not see the difference between a roll of 35mm film and a digital image shot with a D90, 50D, or better. If you buy pro film and take it to a good lab, or develop your own black and white using a developer that works well with that film, you can. But if you shoot Kodak Max400 or Tri-X and bring it to a lab where they push everything through using D76, the development process (and in some cases the film itself) does not support the broader tonal range luddites rant about. Plus 95% of film printers use a scanner and a digital processor, so it's not exactly still analog.<br>

If you shoot 120, there is still great advantage to film. This is because "35mm" digital cameras are affordable, while "120mm" digital cameras are not. Most people with jobs can afford a $1000 camera if they save up long enough, but $10,000 is out of the question for almost all of us.</p>

<p>Subjectively, I shoot film because I know a few tricks to eke out dynamic range that most others do not. I know that I can overexpose my film by two or three stops, and then water down the developer and use cold water to reduce contrast and 'recover' those blown-out areas. Or I can use a staining developer to further recover highlights. All of which allow for a longer tone curve than is available with digital. Where I shooting and processing as per the normal instructions though, I wouldn't get that extra range.</p>

<p>Also, I prefer film as my style is influenced very much by the old film noir films, and my old Hasselblad lenses and film capture that much more effectively than my new Nikon lenses and a memory card.</p>

<p>But for paid work, I almost always shoot digital. Film has a 'surprise' factor that simply won't do if I'm worried about getting paid.</p>

<p>See my post on this site:<br>

http://www.photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00XtrY<br>

In spite of RAW, black and white is MUCH more forgiving.</p>

<p>I choose film because it forms the initial step in making pictures of things out of light sensitive substances. But I usually choose more. Film of itself is usually not enough except in the uncommon instance where camera-original material is the final product. The <em>other</em> film is the stuff coated on paper. By linguistic convention it's called photographic paper but at its technical heart it works the same as film. Film, photographic paper plus film, or photographic paper alone are key ingredients of what is really at stake; photography itself.<br /> <br /> Somewhat abstract philosophising follows:<br /> Photography, as it was invented and then practiced for the next 170 years or so, is the only known way to make image based pictures that are physically and indexically linked to their subject matter. It would be unthinkable indeed if a picture-making process offering this unique combination of qualities was ditched and never taken up again.<br /> <br /> In the grand context of things there are several picture-making processes in which the first step is "lens makes image". Examples include realist painting, drawing, camera obscura sketches, video production, digital pictures, and photography. Of these photography is only one that delivers pictures that come into existence because they are directly penetrated by a physical sample of their subject matter.<br /> <br /> In another grand context there are several image categories that have an assuredly indexical relationship to their subject matter. Examples include life-casts, death masks, silicon rubber moulds, brass rubbings, footprints, coal peels, and photographs. Of these indexical processes the only one that includes the "lens makes image" quality is photography.<br /> <br /> In the long run the salvation of photography lies not in how its pictures look. Resolution, colour accuracy, and tonal fidelity don't count. Digital technology, even in its present infancy, can mimic any resolution, colour, or tone you like with or without reference to anything external.<br /> <br /> Its the special relationship photography has to its subjects and consequently the special relationship it offers to me that keeps it uppermost in my attention as a picture form supremely worth looking at.</p>

<p>Digital certainly has its benefits but I find more pleasure from shooting a roll of film. I am happy to ditch the fire & forget mentality of my DSLR for having to think about every shot. For me, the more I put in, the more I get out.<br>

I also prefer the way that my old manual focus cameras handle & shoot compared to a hunk of plastic DSLR with push buttons & dials everywhere. I just like the whole film process, being it trying different films & developing my own B&W. I also don't think digital will ever come close to replacing slide film for me. There is just something about slides.</p>

<p>I prefer the way it looks to digital, in particular a fiber based black and white analog print has detail and tonal range that inkjets simply can't ever match. The shadows on analog prints have a depth and dimensionality you can almost reach into. I like color slides and C-prints too. But I could live with Analog color going away, but analog B&W is simply unmatched by anything digital.<br>

I do shoot a great deal of digital as well, so I'm not completely against that form of photography. They CAN co exist...</p>

<p><em>"Because I don't feel like spending $5000 or more for a digital camera."</em></p>

<p>200 rolls of film cost AT LEAST $3,000 for processing & printing.<br /> A $5,000 digital body will last 3-4 years, what is that worth - 400+ rolls of film?</p>

<p>(I just spent $41 yesterday for 31 prints from one roll of Ektar 100 -- 5x7" prints with a hi-res CD scan as well... the film itself was what, another $6?... also add in the extra travel time & gasoline to drop off/retrieve the prcoessing.)</p>

<p>Yes it's true that you may spend as much as a high end DSLR for film and its processing but not everyone, especially hobbyists, can drop $5,000+ all at once. Spread that cost over 4-5 years then it becomes more manageable.<br>

I use both digital and film(not analog!) and having recently just got a micro 4/3rd Panasonic G1, I'm having fun putting my Canon FD lenses to use with it.<br>

As to the original topic, I love film because of its look, having it in my hands, and basically it's what I was brought up on. Plus looking at some negatives I shot about 15 years ago and scanning it in, I can always print it out. </p>

<p>I choose film when making very long exposures, such as star trails, avoiding the problems with noise encountered with digital cameras. I also choose film when I want to record smooth gradations of tones, film records the scene a bit differently than digital sensors. I like the look of film. I use medium format for its high resolution (6x7 film has 4 x the area of a full frame sensor), shallow depth of field with longer lenses (good for portraits). Shooting digital is enjoyable, but I learned hard whatever I know from trial and error with film, which was costly, but worth it. Cost makes you think twice before you press the shutter. Hastiness is not a photographer's friend.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I just spent $41 yesterday for 31 prints from one roll of Ektar 100 -- 5x7" prints with a hi-res CD scan as well... the film itself was what, another $6?... also add in the extra travel time & gasoline to drop off/retrieve the prcoessing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yikes! At nearly $50/roll, that would be my last roll of color film. But since this was originally posted in the B&W film forum, it can be done for as little as ~$2.50 with chems for 120 and probably under $2/roll for bulkloaded 35mm, of course w/o prints.</p>