Should I keep my film camera?

[onlooker]

Well, I bought a Canon 20d (used), and am not only happy with the quality, but

also with the luxury of taking lots of pictures and only printing those I want.

But, I can't decide what to do with my remaining film (about 20 rolls, including

3 rolls of the rare Agfa Ultra 50) and my Canon Elan 7E. Have any of you been in

this same situation? I hate to keep things I won't use, so to those of you who

own good quality digital cameras, is there still a use for 35mm?

[Brian]

Are you for real, Larry? You've been signed up as a guest round here for years so you must have noticed a certain amount of controversy on this very topic. Try searching the archives.

[mitchfalk]

If your going to shoot film, shoot big film. 4x5 or bigger. 35mm and M/F are pretty much a dead issue, not because its obsolete, but because getting a reliable processing lab is becoming harder to find. Most of the good ones are gone and the those that are left are doing hit and miss work. With digital there is no middle man, the likelyhood of a foul up is much less . You are in complete control of your work.

[yann1]

I'd suggest you to keep them in a freezer, in case you miss them in a year or two...

[thomas_sullivan]

I kept all my film cams (35mm and Medium Format) to use with Black & White film that I develop myself and scan myself. If you only use color, I probably would sell it. If I had someone else develop my B&W film I probably would sell it. If I didn't scan my own film, I'd probably sell it. I still like the look of B&W film, and also, the film cam gives you more wide angle coverage (ie....no crop factor on the wide end)without spending a small fortune on a full frame digital.

 

As far as the Medium Format.....I just like it.

[pico_digoliardi]

Good grief! 23 rolls of film is just a few days of shooting, at the very most. Shoot it up, man!

 

Why do you even need to ask?

[doug grosjean]

I agree with Thomas Sullivan, as I also shoot a lot of B/W, mostly MF but also some 35mm.

 

Comes down to "What do you like?"

 

If you no longer want to use film, by all means, sell it all off, don't look back, and enjoy the heck out of your digital. It's a good unit.

 

OTOH...

 

Some people use both. I do. Digital is used for snapshots, and film is used for stuff where I want a negative / permanent backup. Or I want to enjoy the experience of souping B/W negs. Or I want to enjoy using the vintage Rolleiflex more than I want instant photos.

 

So we've come full circle: "What do you like?"

 

Bearing in mind - you can keep both. Film cameras aren't worth much on the open market these days....

[emwalker]

yes, you should keep your film camera.

[SCL]

Use it or lose it

[saikat.pathak]

I am scratching my head.....I have got 5 film bodies and zero digital.....

[ben conover]

Use it.

[screeny]

Sell the canon 20D :)

[michael_dimarzio]

I shot this picture with a 45 year old camera that doesn't use batteries, should I sell it? I can pack a 21, 35, 50, 85, an 135mm lenses in a pack space of a six pack of beer. Anything can be justified or denied, just do what you want.<div></div>

[robert lee]

Keep the camera. It's not worthwhile selling it; after expenses, you'll net maybe $80 for it on the used market.

 

Keep the film. Slow film should be good for a few years past expiration in the deep freeze.

[stemked]

Larry,

 

Obviously there are many thoughts on this. I still like to run my images over a light box. I'm a hobbiest, but when I take a photo somewhere in the back of my mind I feel I need to be careful because randomly shooting images would cost me a mint. I take great pride in being careful and not reckless when I take film images. I can't say I photograph that way when I use digital cameras. I simply use the tools differently.

 

But there is the obvious utility of digital. You can keep taking images until you get the one you want.

 

I have a friend who is kicking himself for parting with his film bodies. And then I have a friend who always saw film and chemicals used as harmful to the environment and he looks forward to the day when even fewer people are photographing with film.

 

So as a personal choice I will hold onto my film bodies (yes, plural). My wife on the other hand would like to reclaim the back room and get convert all the slides and photographs to photons of light.

[phule]

I'm keeping my Elan 7 (and my wife her Rebel 2000) as backup for trips. The film stays in the freezer.

 

Plus I still use my Canonet QL17 every once in a while.

 

When I get a second DSLR, the film SLR bodies will be given to other family members. So, in about 10 years then... :)

[dermot_conlan4]

Larry Mullin? for gods sake put down those drum sticks, they'll bring ya no good.

[edgreene]

I shoot film. And will until they stop making it.<br>I shoot digital for the ease of use & web display.<p>But my digital cannot, will not match print film for its latitude and its ability to record shadow detail.</i><p>We keep hearing about how digital has ``matched`` film or ``equaled`` film. That was supposed to have happened when DSLRs reached 6Mp.<br>But ``DIGITAL`` (the genre), is in the main, populated by hundreds of millions of ``Prosumer`` and dinky P&S cameras that work no better than $19.95 P&S film cameras from Target.<p>Further, any $100 Canon/Pentax/Nikon P&S film camera can still wipe the floor with 99.99% of digital cameras, their output clearly superior to all but high-end, +$3,000 DSLRs.<br>That is: unless you`re shooting a 10+Mp DSLR, film, especially film SLRs-still absolutely kicks digital butt.<p>When you compare digital to film, the comparisons have always been what digital-the genre, has done <i>compared to the limitations of <b>slide</b></i> film.

Comparing the two like imaging genres is disingenuous, in that digital mimics transparency/slide film. In that regard, some facets of digital have even surpassed <I>transparency</I> film.<br>But the limitations of transparency film haunt digital still, the only thing saving digital-the genre are ``<I>post-processing</I>`` programs like Photoshop.<br>Without Photoshop and its ilk, digital would and does suck-big time. But then, the same thing goes for slides: their known limitations have been more or less overcome by digital.<p>That said, and again pointing to post-processing, both digital and slide/transparency film benefit the most.<p>There is a constant droning litany about ``noise``. We who shoot print film see ``grain`` but in 99% of all instances, we embrace ``grain`` as part of the genre. Factually, some print film users shoot at ISO 25,600 <i>just to see what size grain we can produce</i>. <br>Digital users, afflicted with the foibles of slide and transparency shooters, abhor ``noise`` as most common people would avoid leprosy.<br>Because digital and transparencies are projected or viewed backlit, it makes perfect sense to avoid ``noise``.<p>That said, print film is for <I>prints</I>, <I>not made to be shown backlit or projected</I>.<br>Print film (<I>nearly 100% of the time</i>) easily go to 16� X 20� with no sweat. A <I>properly exposed</I>, properly developed negative also easily makes 20� X 24� prints.<br>Moreover, film is also B&W and Infrared imaging, places where all but the best DSLR digital cameras (<I>including medium format backs</I>)fear to tread, but are imaging genres wherein 40-50 year-old film SLRs simply wallow like hogs in slop.<p>I shoot digital, but like Clint Eastwood said in ``Magnum Force``;<br>``<I>A man has <b>got</b> to know his limitations</I>`` and right now, 2006, Digital�s more <b>obvious</b> limitations (<i>remembering that without ``post processing`` digital is a crippled medium</i>) makes me stay with film.

[david j.lee]

do you have some automatic swiss watches you might want to get rid of...?

[joshua_dollins]

Digital is great but does have limits. Post processing is a must so a good pc and software is also. And though image quality is about the same film seems to have the edge especially when printing really large photos. I like to own and use both film and digi.

[colin carron]

I kept one of my film cameras as although it was nearly new it was worth very little. I sold my old manual Nikon gear as it still had a value.

[photo5]

I sold all my 35mm ilm equipment back in 2005 thinking I would just shoot digital. I was

wrong. I missed slide film. So I bought a Nikon F3HP, AIS 28mm f2.8, AIS 50mm f1.8 E, AI

105mm f2.5, and an AIS 35mm f2. Just recently I found a near mint 55mm f2.8 micro-

nikkor which is now my favorite lens on the F3HP. It's pretty much glued to the camera.

Although I love shooting with my Nikon D70s with 18-70mm kit lens and Tokina

12-24mm lens, I can still mount the 105mm or any others too. And I usually bring my

F3HP along when I go out shooting. I love the experience using that camera, and I love

viewing slides more than a slideshow on my Powerbook.

 

Keep you film gear. It's worth more in the closet than what you can get for it on eBay.

 

Dave

[robert_williams8]

I have given this a lot of thought. The following is part of my response to a recent Digital Horizons article by Rob Sheppard of Outdoor Photographer.

 

Dear Rob:

 

I always look forward to the arrival of my photo magazines, particularly Outdoor Photographer. I am always amused to see so much space given to articles defensive of digital, like "Truth and Reality." I hope the readers realize that the bulk of the fare on the digital / film divide is written by commercial photographers who, by the nature of their business, must provide editors with a salable product. Your announcement that digital cameras "now offer better results" may be true for you, but your emphasis on the "results" that you can achieve are not necessarily the goals of your readers.

 

I feel the creative process is inherently inverted and compromised with digital. Most film photographers don't have a darkroom. For most of us, the process must be complete before the shutter is released. Certainly I avail myself of polarizers, grad filters, lens shades, and other aids to overcome the limitations of film latitude. If I get it right, I have not only a good photograph but also the satisfaction of mastering the medium. That medium is light. Tempering the light to �take� a good photo (light) graph (visual representation) defines photography.

 

There are many other ways to �make� an image: painting, drawing with crayons, CAD, or digital capture. A lot of us don't equate these with photography. There is more at play here than mere semantics. One �takes� a photograph -- one �makes� an image. I feel that images produced digitally should be labeled just so: images, not photographs, as Popular Photography (and Imaging) has done.

 

Mastery of Photoshop is a computer skill, possibly even an artistic skill, but it is not a photographic skill. Scanning a negative and / or manipulating a file in Photoshop is, to me, cheating. I don�t erase power lines, contrails, offending trees, or other distractions from my photographs. I spend the time and effort creating a composition where they are naturally absent, which is a truer rendition of a scene than one in which the image (not the light) has been modified. Perhaps editing in Photoshop is fine for a pro that depends on the result (money from a salable image), but it leaves me cold.

 

I feel that taking digital shortcuts rather then addressing problems before shutter release is corroding the art of photography by emphasizing the "result," rather than emphasizing the photographers skill and commitment to achieving an acceptable photograph.

I do use both digital and film. I use digital primarily for my work in a resource management

agency for documentary purposes. It is the better medium because of the ease and speed of filing for archival purposes and for communicating images to other managers or government agencies. I also like digital for snapshots because of the ease of emailing to friends and relatives. Though I take normal care in composition, lighting, and camera functions, they are still snapshots.

The digital camera is, for me, a fine tool for what I use it for, images I won�t waste film on.

 

I will concede that the digital camera can be utilized as a great teaching tool because one can inexpensively review results in near real time rather than wait for the processors to return the film. This can be a great help in learning one�s own style of composition and content.

 

When I do get the opportunity to dedicate some time to a photograph, I use a manual film camera. I learned to control depth of field by using the appropriate lenses and exposures. I don't like auto focus, I don't like matrix metering, I don't like auto wind, I don't like the 169 page instruction manual which came with my last digital camera. I don't like having to disable the automatic functions to get control over the composition. I already have a manual camera! I also know what ALL of the functions are on my cameras and that allows me to concentrate on the photograph and not the equipment.

 

As far as the cameras go, digital cameras are built with planned obsolescence in mind. At this point in time the equipment and software is developing so rapidly that today�s wonder is outdated in short order. I just don�t see a �classic,� plastic digital camera being produced any time soon.

 

For an outdoor photographer, durability must be considered. The current crop of cameras, lenses, and accessories are built primarily of plastic, and only the extremely expensive top end offerings have any concessions to durability like seals and gaskets. How many of today�s crop of digital cameras will still be working as well as my 1977 Nikon FM years hence? One set of light seals and foam in 28 years of heavy use under every imaginable condition an outdoor photographer could wish to encounter, and a few you'd rather not.

 

I hate batteries. I briefly had an AE-1 with an electronic shutter. It took fine photographs until it got cold, or the battery weak, and then it became a brick. My Voightlander, my Leicas, my Retinas, have never failed to work because a battery went dead. I never lost a shot before that electronic camera. I haven't lost a shot since because I went to a Nikon FM, and later, F2's. The battery powers the light meter, which I only use as a suggestion anyway.

 

An important element for me is the pleasure derived from using a finely crafted tool and accessories. Granted that today�s computer designed zoom lenses are fragile marvels of complexity, but they still lack the tactile pleasure of a finely made prime lens. I also believe that virtually all zooms with any significant span of focal length compromise quality somewhere in their range, unlike prime lenses.

 

Weight? Granted, my F2AS is heavier than its digital counterpart when taken alone, but I don't have to have a laptop, memory devices, charging devices, pounds of batteries, yards of cables, or any other impedimenta than a tripod.

 

Please don't drive a stake through films' heart yet, as there are generations of photographers who prefer it as a medium, and feel that "photographs" are light, captured on film. I derive my pleasure in photography from the process and mastery of the medium, and that medium is light.

 

Or, the short answer is no, don't sell your film camera. Good shootin', Bob.

 

 

[jerry_friedman]

To Robert Williams:

 

I thought your letter very well written and to the point. Perhaps, because I also fee that digital is both good and bad, I found your assessment of digital "computering" with Photoshop also very much on target. I love digital for putting pictures on ebay. It has made my life much easier and I sell half a dozen items each week. For my own photography, which is MF black and white, I use several Rolleiflex cameras. I agree about batteries. I used to love using a Pen FT with Tech Pan, but the 625 battery grief grew old and Tech Pan is no more. I have a large darkroom and plenty of time (happily retired) and I continue to find "wet work" extremely satisfying. Indeed, I have even expanded my darkroom recently with a (now hold on to your socks...) an old Spiratone Slot Stabilization Processor (for which chemistry is still availabe from Clayton) which is more fun than you can imagine. I use an aristo cold light head which I adapted to an old Kodak Enlarger 1,(more fun with duct tape) which is roughly as old as I am. -- As i wrote, I love digital for ebay. It is possible that, in terms of quality of picture, digital can do most everything that 35mm color film can do. Black and white is something else again. But while digital can easily crop, control saturation for a clearer picture or even control sharpening, I never feel that I am really doing photography. In the end, I put a better color picture of a camera on ebay than I did before using black and white film for ebay stuff, but the pictures look plasticky in some way. It IS fine image making, which is fine, I guess. -- I hope dark room work and film photography does not prove to be a generational thing: could it be that in the future making images with a cell phone will become the predominant way pictures are made? I guess that is no worse than any other change in technology, and maybe some cell phones will be really really good, too. So, thank you for your long letter to Outdoor Photography. It was eloquent and to the point.

 

Regards, Jerry