Why do you use film?

<p>I don't yet have a DSLR, but I have lots of film cameras. I borrowed a friends 7D and made a few exposures in Alaska, where I work. That was enough to convince me I want one for myself. Until recently, I was using a Kodak folder made in 1914 that makes 6x9cm images on film. Very impressive, in its way. I love film, but I'm not persuaded by many of the arguments made for its superiority over digital, and I have projects for which only digital is suitable. I use film because that's what I learned to use, and that's what kind of equipment I have. Inertia, plain and simple. I didn't make a choice between film and digital; there was no digital. I've invested heavily in time, effort and equipment, in film photography, but that won't keep me from adapting to a digital world. Image is information, and digital information is the new global currency. It's quite hilarious when posters post an image on the internet as proof of the superiority of film. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have projects for which only digital is suitable.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you give us some examples?</p>

<p>Inspecting a properly exposed and processed negative or transparency as one takes it from the drum gives a satisfaction that digital can not.<br>

I am concerned over the increasing cost of film and the cost and scarcity of chemicals though.</p>

<p>Because there is no other method to capture detailed and uninterpolated pictures. Because the organic capability of film perfected over 100 years carries perfection and simplicity and leaves the photographer uncluttered to communicate with the subject. Because film prints just look beautiful.</p>

<p>This is a short selection of just TMAX.</p>

<p>http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/Only-TMAX/15377450_94phW#1150707244_oYEBk</p>

<p>Happy New Years.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have projects for which only digital is suitable.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Can you give us some examples?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let's not.</p>

<p>I'm usually reluctant to entertain anything resembling a "versus" thread in the b&w forums because they serve no purpose here. Those types of debates usually are moved to the Casual Photo Conversations Forum.</p>

<p>Since the original question did not pose anything resembling yet another tiresome "film vs. digital", let's not digress. The question was "Why do you use film?", not "Why do you prefer film over digital?" or anything akin to that.</p>

<p>Lex,</p>

<p>While I have no interest in debating film v digital, I think your suggestion the OP didn't imply the same is naive. The question "why film?" clearly implies "and not digital". If the OP did not intend this implication, the question could have been better stated as, "Why do you photograph?", but as the replies to the OP suggest, we all understand the implication very clearly. I don't see anyone responding by contrasting film to glass plates, tintypes, Daguerrotypes, etc. I sympathize with your intentions, but let's not play this semantic cat and mouse game, either. </p>

<p>I am with Lex here on this one. The thread is moving nicely and I see that Lex want's to keep it that way.</p>

<p>Not naive, Jay. Just hopeful.</p>

<p>We can read anything we like into other people's comments. I choose to read into the original post an opportunity to indulge ourselves in praising our favorite medium while avoiding the tedious "versus" trap. Consider it a rhetorical challenge.</p>

<p>But it's up to our forum participants. My resolutions for this year includes cutting back on my tendency to micro-manage the forums I moderate. I'm already perilously close to that here so I'll shaddap now.</p>

<p>Today I processed another roll of found film. It's this sort of film time capsule excitement that keeps me hooked. The photograph details are in the 'details' tab of the photo. <a href="../photo/12230710">here</a></p><div></div>

<p>Early 60s Dodge and a Pontiac in the rear?</p>

<p>Larry,<br>

I looked them up, and I believe that's a '67 Dodge Coronet, and a '65 Pontiac Bonneville in the rear...</p>

<p>Oh Ya I was damn close. :)</p>

<p>Lex,</p>

<p>For the record, I never thought you micromanaged this or any other forum; you're the best moderator I know of. And, having taken some time to think about what this thread is really about, I think I was too quick with my earlier post. I think you're right; it is about loving film, and even if that mostly means "as opposed to digital", it's not the same as debating the differences. I apologize for my rash characterizations. <br>

So, in answering the question, "Why do you <em>love</em> film?", instead of the more utilitarian, <em>use </em>film, I'll offer the following:</p>

<p>Film is magical! That it works at all is amazing, and that it works so well seems miraculous. I love that I can make technically high quality images with antique, or even home made equipment requiring no electronics of any kind, and few moving parts. I love that film "insinuates" itself into images made with it, in the form of its unique characteristics. I love the element of chance, and the opportunity for happy accidents. I love the uncertainty of latent images and the anticipation of revealing them. I love the chemical process by which film becomes a negative. </p>

<div></div>

<p>That looks like a double exposure, the first one looks like trees and the second one looks like it was shot in the other direction, The first landscape and the second portrait if I had to guess. Either way it looks cool.</p>

<p>My guess is that this comment by Maris Rusis was skimmed over by some readers:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To me that's important - the slide or negative has a contemporary relationship with the subject! If someone shot a negative during WWII, it's <em>from</em> that time, both image and material. A digital file is not the same thing. Just my opinion FWIW.</p>

<p>But my answer: I like the tactility and the way it renders certain things in certain ways. I also like the packaging and the connection to movie and photographic history.</p>

<p>Clay, <br>

It's not a double exposure. The dendrite forms are the result of hot, humid storage conditions. There are other frames from the same roll with blooms in addition to the dendrites. Fascinating stuff!</p>

<p>Because my Nikon F2A and F5 can't take pictures without film.</p>

<p>Well I need film for my FM2 to work......</p>

<p><a title="emma_reading by photogsjm, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4145/5039495618_6d64270381.jpg" alt="emma_reading" width="500" height="316" /></a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>To me that's important - the slide or negative has a contemporary relationship with the subject! If someone shot a negative during WWII, it's <em>from</em> that time, both image and material.</p>

<p>Karim,</p>

<p>Why is that important to you? What value does the physical artifact of the negative add to the image itself? Surely the information contained in the image itself "has a contemporary relationship with the subject". Why is the negative important? The negative degrades over time, degrading the image information with it, and the contemporary relationship. This seems like romanticism and nostalgia more than an intrinsic value. </p>

</blockquote>

For some, there's a preciousness about the physical. Like a flower fresh. Or music live. Or being in the picture as compared to seeing it pinned to a bulletin board for the internet.

 

To me, my favorite color slides are unique. I don't expect them to last forever. But for now, they are valuable. So the availability of film is required. At least to me.

<p>The negative is important because it is what the photograph was made from. It is also something tangible from that time period. Somewhere in my Grandmother's house is a shoe box of negatives from WWII that my Grandfather took during WWII. Unfortunately they have never been printed and are at the moment misplaced.<br>

Romanticism and nostalgia, possibly but with the negative, you can reprint the photograph so it still has some intrinsic value.</p>

<p>Because I have some of the now classic film cameras that I could not afford when I was young. I just love the way they feel and sound and smell. There is something magical for me about cameras that are mostly metal and mechanical. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why is that important to you? What value does the physical artifact of the negative add to the image itself?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, "image" --- essence does not entail physicality, objects also have value precisely because they're objects. Certainly art objects do. It's a primate thing. Or something. As far as monetized value, a negative or transparency is unique, therefore perfectly rare, whereas a digital file can be copied with perfect fidelity infinitely many times, making it less valuable, surely, all else being equal. (This is also why, to me, a darkroom print is more valuable than a digital print.) How much is an Adams negative worth? How much is an Adams reproduction on a web page? They're both images. I have some roll film transparencies between glass. They're jewel-like. I enjoy handling them, holding them up to the light, obsessing over their care. I deleted their high-resolution scans to make room for some software. I mean files, who cares.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Brian,<br>

I think your comparisons of fresh flowers and live music to a negative are strained, at best. Surely, those things are more like being at the scene as opposed to seeing a photograph of it. The negative is not the thing itself, but an abstract mediary between the scene and the print. Even a chrome is not the scene, but like a print, a representation of the scene. Why should looking at a chrome be substantially different than looking at a monitor, or a print? </p>

<p>Clay, </p>

<p>Many photographs can be made from a single negative, and none will be identical, and the ones made later will suffer some degradation from the negative. Is the degradation important, too, or is it just noise accumulated over time, and degrading the original image? Yes, we can print old negatives, but we can also print old digital files, so there has to be something more to it than that. Why is it important to have a tangible mediary? </p>

<p>Because nothing else smells like a fresh bag f film. Its a stupid question. So why do you photograph things?</p>