How many photographer here still using SLR camera or film ?

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by saskia|1, Jul 19, 2008.

  1. I wonder to know how many photographer in the world still using SLR camera or film for their photograph?
    And what make they are still not move to digital, is there any reason still stay with film?

  2. I prefer digital for high volume, production oriented projects, such as event photography. It's more cost effective.

    But I dislike post processing. I don't want to be the lab. So for low volume event photography I still prefer film. Let someone else do the dirty work.

    B&W is different. The process *is* the enjoyable part, as much as making the exposures. Unfortunately I'm trying to figure out how to squeeze a darkroom into a closet in a small apartment. Not much different from the challenge faced by those who paint for enjoyment, tho'.
  3. I still shoot film exclusively. I make photographs for pleasure, and probably to sublimate my toxic sexual demons. If
    I made my living doing this, and thank gawd I don't, that would be a different matter.

    Anything serious of mine is usually medium format black and white landscape. For the stuff I shoot, medium format
    film photography still has certain advantages that I won't go into here. I am slow, and usually shoot from
    a tripod. So far this year, I've shot about a dozen rolls of 35mm, and 30 rolls of 120. This means in calendar 2008 I
    will expose fewer than 1500 frames.

    The numbers are so small it would be pointless for me to convert to digital right now, although I don't rule it out in the
  4. I use film, mainly for panoramics and medium format. It is hard to get that quality from digital, at least within reasonable cost. I shoot a bit more than Dave, but still far from enough to justify a 39Mp digital medium format back. I am looking forward to the Sony 25Mp DSLR. After that I will probably still shoot panoramics on film, but probably less than now.
  5. All my serious photography is still shot on film - b+w film, that is. I like the chemical image, I like the process, I like handling negs, paper and chemistry. Weird, I know, but then ask why painters still paint and sculptors still sculpt. To me, digital is too remote, it's 'in the box' and I can't touch it, it is kept isolated from me.
  6. If, and it is a big if, you want to look at the actual light struck surfaces that bear the marks that form the picture then nothing that has been touched by digital technology is worth looking at. Nothing, ever!

    Digital picture fabrication is the current mechanisation of traditional art practice; the old eye-brain-hand cycle of the painter merely being replaced by an equivalent camera-computer-printer cycle.
  7. I tried digital with a D100 for nine months. I now have about twenty film cameras ranging from from 6x6 and 6x9 folders, TLRs, A Bronica ETRS, a Mamiya RB67 and a home made 5x4"<br><br>I just don't like the amount of sitting at a computer time involved. I do enough of that at work.
  8. Actually I'm coming at it from the other direction. As a digital shooter I'm moving in to film, for a lot of the
    reasons people mention here and more. For one, I want to be a better photographer. Digital promotes the spray
    and pray mentality, automatic everything, push button photography. I like to slow down, look at the shot,
    compose the shot. While that can be done digitally, the digital mentality doesn't promote such thinking.

    I purchased 2 MF film cameras this year and am looking for a third. I purchased a 4x5 film camera as well. I
    love shooting those cameras. The Digital just isn't as fun. You cannot compare plugging in a memory card with
    pulling even relatively small 6x4.5mm film out of the tank and seeing your negatives. Then trying 4"x5" film -
    the quality of detail, the anticipation, did I develop it right? So much can go wrong that I start to really
    THINK what am I doing, why? Is this picture worth taking?

    Why do I shoot film? Because its fun, knowing that if i push that shutter button, it will cost me $2.50 for that
    sheet of film means I approach my photography much differently. Digital doesn't mean better, just different and
    it took a Medium Format Film camera for me to learn that. I prefer film black and white to digital black and
    white - no comparison. All the digital black and white's I've seen have an odd green hue to them under
    florescent lighting. It looks ugly and its because the inks that the mfg's use.

    For the record I shot over 25000 digital pictures last year shooting 2 hockey teams and college football. I
    still shoot digital, it has its place, but for real fun, I love to take out the film. No one knows what it is or
    thinks its some fancy digital camera better than their new dSLR. Its hilarious. Or they lecture me, I should go
    digital, its better.

    Digital does not mean better.
  9. Still sticking with film!

    The process behind a purely mechanical camera forces you to slow down, you can't just shoot hundred of images
    and then spends hours looking at those shots to 'figure out' what's to throw and what's to 'tweak' to make it look
    decent. OK, there are disappoitment, but for my favourite subject (landscapes!) there's still a lot to go for Velvia and
    medium format. For other stuff though (portrait, 'casual' photography,...) digital is great so long as you don't get too
    excited (and I mean, really too excited) with the shutter.
  10. Both. I use digital for anything I will probably want to share (like visiting relatives) and film for anything important to me (like travel, hobby, scenic).
  11. I should add that transparencies are my major film use and I see that it is now possible to make slides from digital files and I may try it sometine and if it is worthwhile I might switch entirely to digital.
  12. Digital is definately more convenient, but I wouldn't feel safe without my film camera(s). I get incredible 3D looking B&W images from my Mamiya 6X4.5. With my Nikon FE-2 I can shoot Infrared, slides and T-Max . With my Nikon FM-2, I can shoot in the rain, in sand storms, at the beach, in below zero temps etc.
  13. I use mainly digital for practicality, but see no reason to stop using film.<BR>
    Thats the point really, which more people seem to realise now, you don't have to move to digital, you just do both.
  14. I shoot mostly film for number of reasones.
  15. When digital first hit the street, I switched over to it, and stuck with it for the most part up until a year or so after the first Digital Rebel came out. I still used film cameras as well, but I tried to move to digital for most things and I found that I just didn't like the post processing, or some of the technical aspects that seemed to me to intrude on the enjoyment of photography. I found that while digital offered certain advantages, very few of them addressed problems that I personally had, and because of that, I went back to film.

    For the longest time I used 35mm film SLR cameras, but never could find one that really addressed all of my needs. I then moved to a medium format SLR system and found that this was much better in many ways, but still lacking something for certain situations. Now, and for the last few years, I have been very happily using 4x5 and medium format film for %90+ of what I do (digital being the remaining ~%10 - I no longer use 35mm film except in my stereo camera).

    While I can say that if film did completely disappear in my lifetime (which I feel is unlikely) I would certainly switch to digital rather than giving up photography all together, there is something that, for me, cannot be replaced by a computer. The process of darkroom work is very rewarding and I can honestly say that I would *greatly* miss it. Working in a wet darkroom is rewarding in a way that, again for me, just cannot be replaced with a computer. That could be due to technology overload, or the accelerated pace of life in general in this day in age, or it could just be fun to use my hands to create something - who knows. But developing and printing in my little bathroom darkroom is one of the most rewarding hobbies that I have and I am wont to let it go.

    - Randy
  16. I'm still shooting 35mm film, for lots of reasons, but mainly for quality. I think many people's experience of film has been the photolab unfortunately, where you get grainy/horrible oversharpened low-res prints, which explains film's bad press. When you see a 30x20 optical print from 35mm, it's hard to say that digital is really 'there'. Having said that full-frame 16MP slrs probably are, but I don't have £5000+ to spend on just the body, given a new Nikon F6 gives you a pro body, full frame, great resolution and colour for just £1200. Or get a second-hand Pentax LX and £300 gets you a pro MF body. Leaving you thousands left over for the glass that is going to make a difference to your photography.

    However the down sides are if you shoot a lot, film becomes overwhelming. It's also important to have a good scanner and be able to use it properly (not straight forward). And I feel I miss out on the convenience to share photos easily with friends etc on the internet. But then I might one day buy a D700 as a second body for more social photos, and use the F6 for my potential works of art ;)

  17. SCL


    I'm sure some day I'll switch completely to digital, having used it for nearly 10 years now. But at this point, I actually shoot about 50% film and 50% digital. I typically use film for fun and the really important shots, especially if I don't have the digital with me. I use digital for snaps, vacation shots, testing lenses and photographic experimentation, and lastly for product shots for Ebay. Both IMHO are just tools with slightly different capabilities, like saw blades in my cuts smoother crosscuts and the other cuts better ripcuts.
  18. For several years now, I have shot only b/w, and hence use only film. However, I have recently become interested in using color as a medium and am considering the jump to part-time digital due to cost effectiveness. I have MF, LF, and 35mm film cameras that I love and can't imagine giving up. But a 5D sure would be convenient on some occasions. JR
  19. IMHO, the nature of the question will probably give you a biased answer. As the number of film photographers shrinks, only the passionate will remain, and they'll be more apt to respond. The larger number of digital shooters likely don't care or barely remember film.

    I've shot an awful lot of film over the years, but I can't find the time anymore. Digital provides me with better results, on average, than film ever did. Worse, I think today's materials don't compare to what I could buy in the '70s and the prices are absurd. Unlike many, I like post processing at the computer. I still have 4x5, medium format and 35mm, plus my darkroom, and I love the wet process, but I'd give less than even odds that I'll ever use them again.
  20. I haven't touched film for years! I have no reason to... and I am glad. Digital is more convenient, I get great results with it (I am the only limitation, not the medium...) and it's greener too (no chemicals, no film, no waste, etc...).
  21. This month's news letter says:
    "-Cameras used:
    Digital SLR camera: 84%
    35 mm film camera: 44%
    Point-and-shoot digital camera: 41%
    Camera phone: 1%
    Medium format camera: 19%
    Large format camera: 5%
    Rangefinder: 12%
    Other: 4%
  22. WJT

    WJT Moderator

    Still shooting film (almost exclusively) and still enjoying it, however I am not enjoying its escalating price. All of my better work is done with MF and LF film. I prefer the way it looks over digital capture. I like having an actual physical representation of the image in my hands and in my archive. Regards.
  23. Giampi,

    I respect your opinions, but you're going to have to show me unbiased reports showing that digital is 'greener' before I'll believe that statement. You need to consider the whole picture (computers, scanners, camera bodies, chips) - their production, disposal, etc, when you make statements like that, and electronics are a seriously non-green product in general. Digital might be 'greener' if you only look at what is used to create any given image, but if you look at what goes into making and disposing of the tools required to get that image, it's not quite no chemicals, waste, etc...

    - Randy
  24. >>You need to consider the whole picture (computers, scanners, camera bodies, chips)<<

    I did - but, the whole picture is also that computers would exists REGARDLESS of digital cameras. Thus, it's a matter of percentages. Whereas a darkroom, film and its related chemical use exists ONLY for ONE purpose.

    If you are a professional photographer perhaps your computer use might be 80% editing and the rest emailing (a greener alternative to snail mail), writing, business accounting, etc... all of which are paperless.

    As for printing, since the image is edited before hand there is virtually NO waste (if you know what you are doing).

    But, professional photographers are NOT the majority of users, amateurs are and they use computers for a whole different set of things: gaming, movie watching, burning CD's, web browsing, shopping online, family accounting, learning, etc... All in all, computers are green unless you throw yours away every time a new model comes around.

    I always donate my older PCs to schools and/or other organizations, for example.

    As for chips, again...they exist regardless of use. Chip makers have been around forever and will be around for a long time. So, you have to look at percentages there as well.

    IN short, whereas film and its related chemicals only exist of their own end, computers and electronics exists for gazillion of uses, from microwave ovens to space shuttles.
  25. But, I do agree that, especially in the US, we have become a throw away society. In fact, some people equate that to wealth. Sort of a "I CAN, THEREFORE I TRASH" mentality. Extreme consumerism doesn't help either. But, that would be a long post ;p
  26. I shoot digital for work (in a non-professional setting) and film for pleasure. It is as simple as I just like my SLR better for a bunch of reasons. When I can afford a premium DSLR I'll make the switch completely to digital. I do have to add though that some of films characteristics (TMax 400 and such) will be hard to reproduce digitally. Of course one can always spend a bunch on software to mimic those characteristics.
  27. 99% film. Shoot a lot of MF.
  28. Beyond the media itself, many people that I talk to simply do not like digital cameras. Not everybody likes electronic push-button cameras. Many people use a hand-held meter and focus manually with digital cameras simply because they feel they get better control over the final images, so considering that they are manually focusing and metering manually, there really aren't any significant advantages in using a camera body that eats through batteries and has plastic buttons and knobs all over it. With film you can do "off the grid" shooting by using mechanical cameras and processing B&W on location in remote regions. Me, I shoot Olympus OM film cameras mostly and I've invested heavily into those lenses. I really enjoy the performance and the compact size of those lenses and cameras, and in the digital realm there is quite simply nothing that compares. Equipment prices to switch from all-film to digital is another thing holding many people who don't get paid to do their photography to film. It's a huge one-time expense considering the body, batteries, lenses and large diameter filters for the lenses etc etc.
  29. I use both and have bought both film and digital cameras this year.

    I do like the control I get with digital so I mostly scan my film into my computer. I also like the look I get from my digital prints.

    It doesn't have to be one or the other. It doesn't have to be expensive. Use whatever you like.
  30. Still shooting film with my trusty Nikon F2AS manual camera. Also do some
    medium and large format work. Have had my own wet darkroom since the
    1960's. I have a digital Canon for quick results, but can't really afford the cost of
    a faster CPU, Massive file storage, latest Photoshop software, etc. Prefer to be in
    darkroom and get a few great prints than spend my free hours in
    front of a monitor. Both film and digital have their good/bad points.

  31. SLR. Film. I'm cheap, and prefer to spend my money on film and cheap used film equipment, rather than on expensive new digital equipment. If I were starting from scratch, I'd probably go with digital, but I'm not. I grew up with film, and I like it. I like slides. Since I am a complete amateur beholden to nobody, I shoot what I like.
  32. I'm in love with my F5 and can not seem to part with it so film for now. I have a little canon p&s that I use for snapshots. I like shooting my 4x5 for some of the alternative processes. If I were to move to doing photography in a more professional capacity I would definitely branch out to digital. As things stand, I only shoot for myself so ... go film GO!
  33. I still shoot b&w film in small, medium, and large format. It's what I've always wanted to do since receiving my first camera from my father-in-law twenty-eight years ago. In time I managed to set up a darkroom at home. Somewhere along the way digital photography became popular. My wife gave me a digital camera, which I use occasionally in addition to film cameras. From time to time I send digital files to pictopia, a great photo service, for color prints. But b&w film photography has been my dream from the start. Check out my photonet gallery for samples of my film and digital photography.
  34. After using digital for a couple of years, I'm back to film. I liked my 30D but I *love* my F5 !
    And I just picked up a Stylus Epic for $20 that will just destroy my (now seldom used) Canon compact digital in terms of photo quality
  35. 35mm film. Too intrigued with the possibilities of emulsions to consider anything else. Have been able to attain previously unaffordable top quality equipment these last few years thanks to the craze for digital. I'm very impressed with the results from modern films, and the relative simplicity of film photography. I scan film and print digitally, and am quite satisfied. Where I lived previously, there was a good processing lab with overnight service, so even if I were shooting time sensitive things, I don't see a compelling reason not to shoot film, and many things in its favor.
  36. I own over 150 cameras, about which 8 are digital, (including canon a650is and nikon d70 and d200), and 7 non digital Leicas, 15 film Nikons, 8 Canon FDs, 12 Pentax spotmatics, 15 Minolta SLRS, many Kodak Retina's, many Voigtlanders, a few Zeiss. The big advantage of digital is (1) instant feedback, and (2) the equivalent of many rolls of film on one memory card. Film cameras are more elegant, made of metal and glass, not plastic. If you had to take your memory card to a photoshop and wait days to get prints, I would use film exclusively. I am a self confessed luddite, and I miss steam locomotives. I also miss intelligent responsible presidents like Eisenhower, under whom I was commissioned, as opposed to shyt for brains idiots like bush.
  37. Things of my own interest I shoot with film. For commercial work digital. B&W photography I still do with film, doesn't matter what.
  38. Having purchased an old Hasselblad only a couple of years ago, I revel in using it, the look and feel of it, that very satisfying
    "click" of the shutter, the results on the large negatives which make such lovely prints. I don't anticipate switching cameras or
    techniques since I have so much to learn on the camera I have.

    I like the look of film and, although I scan prints so I'll have digital versions, I don't like "post-production", as it's called. I like
    having prints to look at and share. Wading through hundreds of digital photos, including mine, exhausts me, I don't do it.

    I also like having the financial limitations of film. The cost of processing deters me from shooting hundreds of photos in one
    afternoon, like some people with whom I go out shooting. The photos I take are ones I really want. If I bracket shots, I pay
    attention to the results, having noted f/stop and shutter speed when I took them. With rare exceptions, I shoot fewer than 36
    shots/week. The time period between shooting and getting the film back from the lab gives me something to look forward to.
  39. stp


    Like Marc, I use both and have purchased film as well as digital equipment this year (and last, and the year before that...).
    While both have their distinct advantages that are best in various situations, overall I prefer film, especially medium format
    and Velvia 100.
  40. FWIW, I still sometimes get that "oops" feeling in my stomach when I realize I just loaded a CF card in bright sunlight. Then I think for a second and remember that it's ok. Old habits die hard.
  41. Me,it's only film. Why spend several thousand for a digital that, as the film magazines said, "equals film". When they are talking about 35? When 35 is one of the smallest film formats ever made. I shoot medium format and large. Don't plan on changing. Digital is fine, I use to have one. I'm happy with what I have, and besides, since I plan on getting back into the old processes. Which are contact printed. Large negs are what I need anyway.
    When digital came out, the pros bought DSLR's because it was cheaper than buying a digital back for their blad's and RB 67's.That's why there are so many low cost medium formats out there.
    Not, because a DSLR is better than a 6x7.
  42. I'm currently between systems, due to financial situations, and trying to decide on the best dslr for my needs. Sick of
    the obsolescence with digital cams, when the Nikon D200 came out it was highly rated, but after a year and a half, it is
    now considered "old school," because of the Nikon D3 and D300, D700.....Also considering adding more film equipment
    because of the dependence on electrical systems in today's modern cameras, my Canon G9 froze up several days ago,
    and will not respond to anything, when i needed a digital camera, it was dead in the water, and my $500 digital p/s was
    worthless when I needed it the most! Thank goodness that I had my Olympus Stylus Epic! So I am looking for a
    mostly mechanical camera now, so I won't be crippled if the electrical system goes out!

    I'm starting to wonder just how much camera we really need to make quality photos.....
  43. I do, because I can.
  44. hey, we are many yet
  45. Jet- I threw away two Leica R 5 bodies because the electrical systems are crap, it can happen even with film cameras, not to mention me jamming the lens mount on the hasselblad.
  46. I do. I have seven cameras obtained in the course of 20 years. All film, except for a point and shoot digital I use for snaps. The other six are large format, medium and 35mm. Why do I keep using film? I like it. I know how. For the longest time, digital output could not compete with analog -- that's not true anymore, so I have some of my negs scanned and printed by digital labs. Very good results. I am loathe to buy anything better than a point and shoot for taking the image -- the technology is improving so rapidly that I worry I am buying at the steepest part of the technology curve -- next year, all your digital cameras will be left in the dust by gigapixel sensors. That kind of thing. It took me a long time to buy a CD player, just for this reason. Anyway, I'll play with my film cameras for the time being -- no one is working on producing a better medium format film camera than a 500C/M Hasselblad, or a Leica M3 -- much less my Kodak Masterview 8x10!
  47. Still film. I shoot with an Olympus OM-1 and an OM-1n. I'll probably go at least part digital some day, but I don't see the point anytime soon. Its a hobby and I really enjoy film. I also don't have the money to afford sink thousands of dollars in to my hobby. One of these days when full frame sensor cameras come down in price quite a bit I'll probably get one, but until I am earning more money (well more like when my wife and I are done having kids and they are in school) and full frame cameras come down to at most $1,500 it isn't going to happen. To many lenses I would be forced to replace if I want both ultra wide angle lenses and also fast wide angle lenses and way to much money I would have to spend getting them.

    Even then I'll probably still use film a fair amount, its just a lot of fun for me.

    I probably expose a roll of film every couple of weeks these days, mostly because I shoot a lot of pictures of my son (5 months). On vacations I might only shoot 1-2 rolls if it is going to my in-laws at the beach. If it is a big vacation such as Europe I probably average 1.5 rolls a day, though I am in to photography a lot more then I was the last time I took a major trip (about 2 years ago now), so I would suspect my rate would be closer to 2.5-3 rolls a day. Still maybe only 40-50 rolls of film a year.
  48. I shoot 100% film. I have no desire to go digital and have a computer and software make images for me.
  49. I shoot both. 80%digital 20%film. Besides the obvious differences in the hardware and workflow, I don't see a lot of differences in my photography. My images still look like my images. I go to my film cameras mostly for fun B&W photography and for shooting in less-than-friendly shooting conditions (rain, dust, salt spray etc). I am drawn to my Canon F-1's and FD lenses because I enjoy the feel of using a precision, mechanical device. I still get better prints from my scanned 6x6 Bronica negs than from 35mm digital anything.
  50. I shoot about 5 rolls of film per month on average. All kinds. I like to have slide film cross processed. And I love my medium formats, most of which are completely manual. I just starting shooting with a Polaroid ProPack, because it was so cheap on ebay. And I still try to dust off my 35mm's and take them out for a shoot once in a while. I feel more artistic with film cameras. I like knowing that I know exposures, and that I understand light. I like knowing I'm old school. I'm not embarrassed to wip out a cheap-ass Holga.

    With all that said, the majority of today's assignment work expects digital, and digital has its merits. I always end up shooting way too many pictures with digital, and it can be a bitch to have to sift through thousands of pictures to pull out the good ones, and then edit in photoshop.
  51. I bought a NIkon D300 and just love it. So much in fact that it has revived my interest in photography. In no
    time, out came the old SLR, Olympus OM4T, shot a couple rolls with it. I love the mechanical feel, it is slower,
    no immediate results, but you do get the satisfying mirror clunk, and you do have to wind it..
    Not to be outdone, I then re-purchased my #1 camera, a Contax IIa RF. I just shot a roll with it. 30 minutes
    later I was dusting off my dormant darkroom and developing my first roll in maybe 10 years.
    The magic of chemicals, silver, darkness and light is still there. I can't wait to print.

    Digital will always be a tool and what the D300 does is amazing. Film and mechanical cameras will always hold a
    fascination and a different feel. Capuccino vs Espresso , they're both excellent
  52. I only shoot film, mostly MF (two Holgas, an SL66 and a Fuji GA645i). After learning how much it costs to pro-scan
    MF colour, I'm now shooting 90% b+w. I love the unpredictability of film cameras (especially Holgas) and the feeling
    of satisfaction when everything goes well. I like the fact that I shoot, develop and print the film myself using darkroom
    skills. I'm now teaching myself hand-colouring, toning, making paper negatives and other experimental skills. I have
    nothing against digital, but I'm still learning how to use film. <P> BTW, this year was the first year that
    Japan's photo industry didn't announce the sales figures for film cameras.
  53. >>have a computer and software make images for me.<<

    LOL! Computers and cameras don't make images, the photographer does it! Just like film, developing tanks,
    chemicals and papers don't make images for you. It requires skills to use the tools at hand in order to produces
    worthwhile images with ANY medium.

    You obviously have never used digital imaging at a professional level, or at any level for that matter or you
    wouldn't make statements such as the one you made. If you take your film to the lab I guess you don't make the
    pictures either, eh?

    The principles of photography haven't magically changed just because we use a different medium.

    As for the digital medium, just like darkroom work (if you do your own), digital imaging requires an in-depth
    knowledge of the tools, the medium itself, the techniques and a great amount of experience to produce high
    quality images.

    I have done my own darkroom work for both B&W and color film for well over 20 years and I can speak for both film
    and digital imaging with a respectable amount of experience: I would NEVER make such a simplistic statement as
    you have made to advocate or even justify the use ANY medium over another.

    It's pure nonsense and it needed to be pointed out.
  54. 'Just got another extra SLR body off Ebay. Main film Kodachrome, sometimes Ektachrome GX. Happy this way. Why the need to "switch"? What is it that I'm missing?
  55. Sheesh, Giamps, lighten up. It's obviously a rhetorical statement based on opinion. I don't think he's trying to start a riot. That's my job.
  56. I like B&W and digital doesnt offer the same quality at the price.
    I have a pro camera (200 bucks) something I could never afford if I shot with pixels (a D3 is $5000). And i can buy 12000 feet of film (2160 rolls of 36 or 77760 frames) before I make up that price difference. So cost is the first thing that drew me away from digital.

    I like to work in my darkroom, its fun, relaxing and amazing. Its where i learned photography and ive never seen reason to not love playing with chemistry. Im not so keen on sitting at a computer and using PS, then printing my stuff. Which, while im at printing, is just as expensive. High quality ink costs more than high quality chemistry. High quality inkjet paper costs more than high quality fiber based silver paper. A high quality printer costs more than a high quality enlarger and some trays.

    You have to be more careful. It makes you better and focus more on what you are doing. Ive seen people on vacation who literally, walk a short way to a small beach (which BTW is beautiful and ive seen dozens of photos of it in books etc.) They stand there, hold their finger on the shutter, wave the camera back and forth, change the zoom, repeat the rapid fire machine gun approach and then walk back to their car. They must have a ton of memory cards. And sure, they probably got some good shots, but that doesnt make them a good photographer.

    I find it a lot more fun.

    so, to sum that up, cost, concentration and fun/reward.
  57. I shoot some film, in 35mm and 6x7. I like traditional black and white film although I don't make darkroom prints; I scan the images and then print digitally. I also shoot some C-41 and E-6 film when I am tired of digital post-processing. The advantage is that I don't have to work on the images on the computer before I get to see the prints or slides, which is extremely satisfying.

    But most of my photography I do digitally.
  58. i use film slr and rangefinders, and shoot only in B&W. i process my film, and print my stuff. i also mount and frame the
    few ones i like. i am an amateur, meaning i earn my money doing something else. if i were a proffessional photographer i
    probably would use digital.
  59. ">>have a computer and software make images for me.<< "

    If one can have a computer and software make images for them, why do people complain about sitting all day in front of a computer using PS to make a few prints?

    It seems like they have defeated their own argument.
  60. If I had a darkroom, I would probably use B&W film all the time. It's so relaxing, I can spend hours in there trying different things. Back when I had access I would go in late at night and spend hours in there every week. Since I don't, most of my work is done digital, especially the work I'm hired to do.
  61. I'm 100% film all the time. I work in B&W medium and large format for my paid and personal work.

    - CJ
  62. I do, though not all the time. I used DSLR's for the past hree years or so, but this spring picked up a batch of Portra 160 and
    400 and have shot it for the past few months. I shoot my D300 for publication, but for personal projects use my old OM-4ti's.
    It's quick, small, and full-frame.
  63. I'm on my 3rd DSLR and have had a few digital point-and-shoots, but I enjoy shooting film more than digital ..and all things considered, I'd much rather look at prints from film than digital-whatever-megapixel. Not because digital is less quality, but because the whole effect is different. Perhaps that issue with lack of random grain I experience with film, and digital pictures of very real situations appearing less than real . all factor into the equation. And then there are the issues with color, tone, etc. .. suffice to say digital tries unsuccesfully to do it to my liking and film pretty much nails it with simplicity .. each to their own.

    This month's news letter says: "-Cameras used: Digital SLR camera: 84% 35 mm film camera: 44% Point-and-shoot digital camera: 41% Camera phone: 1% Medium format camera: 19% Large format camera: 5% Rangefinder: 12% Other: 4% --- These are meaningless statistics that taken at face value don't tell us what photographers prefer, what they use, nor why they choose a particular medium .. at best they tell us what people with internet access to photonet like to talk about. That's about it.

    Simply stated, some people shun film because they like digital better, they need digital to be profitable, or they believe it is more ecoo-friendly (nonsense), and others simply prefer an abstraction of film. Yes there are many who frequently say their digital pictures look better than film. While such logic frequently brings to mind the phrase "what are you smoking?" I understand many photographers choose digital for personal and professional reasons. I don't have to do that.

    However, the opposite is equally true. Film is easy to use, gives good picture quality for virtually all subjects in 35mm; and in medium and large format film remains competitive in older cameras with superior quality. All things being equal (and they seldom are) film emulsions are very good and when a photogapher gets repeatedly good results with a handful of chosen films . he spends less time on photonet talking about photography and just doing it. It can indeed be liberating to know a film and how to expose it .. rather than spending countless hours wasted on the internet comparing megapixels, camera features, software and printing issus with others just as confused about the latest technology as the person posting a photonet question. It does indeed make for lively discussions and for sharing information and techniques .. I consider it valuable even when I may disagree.

    Before dismissing film perhaps one should master it and then decide if they want to continue shooting it, because if you leave it to manufactures they would rather sell you a digital camera every year where they make huge profits as oppossed to deriving profit from film sales .. and film cameras .. since digital has arrived on the scene the bonus to the photo industry has been in the billions of dollars ... so what photographers like may no longer be viable or important .. we are collectively being educated that new technology is better and that we have to buy it more frequently .. I'm 3 DLRS and counting.

    I like film for my personal photography. I use digital for clients unless they demand film. Those that are happy with digital photograpy are, um .. easier to please.
  64. I still use film and doubt that I will ever buy a digital camera except perhaps as a toy. I love using velvia for its saturation and look. I love getting my slides back and projecting them onto a large screen, its fun and more WOW when you get it right. Just my 2 cents
  65. I bought a D70s when it came out. I loved it at first because I could experiment with shots that I normally wouldn't have attempted with film (such as this one. ) However six months later, after struggling with the shortcomings of the D70s camera body, I was back shooting film with my pro body Nikons. At first I was shooting with both the digital and film bodies. Sometimes I would shoot the same thing with both and the film always looked better to me. I now only use the D70s for infrared through a Hoya R72 filter since Kodak HIE has been discontinued.
  66. Glad to know that there are still many photographer keep shoot in film for their photograph. Everyone here have own reason whether choose film or digital. I love take shot using film for all my photograph. I just worry as the digital technology has growing so fast and offer the easiest way for photographer that love to using digital camera than film, and its has affected to the industry that produce anything related with film like in my country, Indonesia its now difficult to get slide film and lab that still can develop slide film due to the industry has change following the market demand as said in news letter that mostly people now using Digital SLR for their photograph.
  67. Finding local labs that will carefully process slide film is getting to be difficult here in the United States also.

Share This Page