Why are you still using film camera?

[keith_van_hulle1]

Because I don't need the crutch of instant feedback to know whether my skill and knowledge if enough to take a good picture. There seems to be so much fear today that, unless you can immediately view your shot on a 2" screen, you can't make a decent exposure.

[frank.schifano]

Why?

 

Because I'm an amateur and greater than 90% of all I shoot is B&W. I still haven't seen a digital camera that can produce a B&W print with the depth and character of a finely craftet wet print.

 

Because it isn't cost effective for me to make the switch.

 

Because I like the darkroom process.

[joel_blacher]

I shoot fine art nature subjects of all types. Here are the reasons that apply to me:

1)I'd rather put in the effort and time outside in the field than inside staring at a monitor.

2)There's nothing I need technically that film can't provide.

3)I can get all this inexpensive used film gear, and my 30 year old bodies are not obsolete :)

4)Slides on the lightbox! My work. My skill...with a camera. My mistakes to learn from, and my successes to enjoy.

If your business needs call for digital that's just fine (it makes sense). If you enjoy Photoshopping that's just fine too. There are great photographers shooting digital and that's fine as well (I bet they're not removing unwanted artifacts with software though...the great art is done in the field) . Someday if I have extra money I'll try digital, but why should I if my current gear does what I need it to? My opinion...valid only for me and my work...everyone has to do what sits well with them...and digital doesn't sit well with me.

[photojoe]

I often shoot 8x10 chromes. I haven't seen a digital camera than can do tilt/shift/swing and capture 800,000,000 pixels (8x10 sheet film scanned at 1000 DPI.)

 

Yes, that is 800 mega pixels, and it's ONLY 1000 DPI.

 

I'd hate to have to buy a computer, or even the collection of CF cards that could store the results of a single studio session.

[david_m]

Because I like to have a negative and film gives me much superior quality at a lower cost than digital possibly can.

[mawz]

A few reasons.

 

1. Cost. I shoot B&W, develop myself and buy used Cameras. This means I can shoot hundreds of rolls of film for the cost of 1 D70. Digital isn't cheaper if your workflow resembles mine.

 

2. Compatibility. I own a number of MF lenses which the lower-end Nikon bodies will not meter with. The D2H lacks resolution and the D2x is too much money.

 

3. Look. I primarily shoot fast B&W film. Digital B&W simply doesn't look like it (And isn't going to anytime soon due to the physics behind noise & grain).

 

4. Feel. I prefer using the Aperture ring to a control wheel for setting aperture (I shoot primarily in Aperture Priority these days). No Nikon digital body allows this

 

5. Quality. My (low-end) film scanner produces final images around 9.5MP after crop (11MP scans). Matching or beating it requires a minimum of a Fuji S3, and requires a D2x if I want to maintain lens compatibility. I can shoot for years at my current rate without spending the cost of a D2x.

 

6. Cheap Wide Angles. I've got it with film, don't with digital. And I shoot a fair bit around 24mm.

[j_smith6]

1) I like the feeling, that you don't know how the photo look before you develop the film :)

 

2)I like having negative in hand

 

3) Film SLRs are much more cheaper

 

4) For me it is harder to lose negative than CD with photos

 

5) You can scan negatives

 

6) Developing films in darkroom is so exciting (I'm going to make small darkroom soon... :)

[andrew robertson]

Infra red film mainly, plus I still use my Minox a lot. There's no digital camera worth a damn

that's even close to that small, and all the 'compact' digicams (3x the size of the Minox) lack

manual control completely, or bury everything in so many sub menus that by the time I am

ready to shoot the person is gone, river dried up, or mountain eroded into a molehill.

 

As far as quality? I can make 20x30 prints from a 6 MP large sensor camera that meet or

exceed the quality of any 35mm based print that large. Don't believe you can't unless you

try it.

[bob_gentile]

Inertia.

[charles_stobbs3]

I basically agree with Gregory Roush above that nothing else is as good as a slide and having already bought and paid for equipment to make slides why waste money on less capable equipment. Also I disagree that digital is anywhere near mature, many of the threads throughout photonet describe trading in their one year old super X for a new super duper Y. Lastly I have not read of any archival computer that will still work 50 years from now and be able to read 50 year old storage media.

[robert_nancarrow]

The whole process is much more tactile and hands on than digital, real men dig that about it. Similar to back in the old days being able to work on your own car, change the carburetor, etc. compared to now having to go to the dealer and have him re-chip it. Bob.

[groundglass]

Because unrolling a spool of negs in my bathroom feels like magic. Watching the hourglass spin while I download from a CF card doesn't. ;)

[Greg M]

Most of the people still shooting film do so because they are more fiscally responsible than me....

 

They day a digital SLR can be purchased for what a new film SLR can be purchased for today many more will move in that direction. Even at todays all-time low prices, let's face it, digital SLR's are still damn expensive compared to what an N80/Elan 7 cost.

[raczoliver]

1. I love the smell of developer and the process of developing my own film and enlarging my own prints.

 

2. I mostly shoot medium format now, which blows away any digital print I have ever seen.

 

3. Believe it or not, it is cheaper. For the price of a D70 I got a Bronica SQ-A system with three lenses, two backs and a body, all in superb condition. The quality blows the D70 away, as I said.

 

4. I sometimes like the look of grain. I never like the look of digital noise.

 

5. All the DSLR's that I could afford have crappy viewfinders. I hate crappy viewfinders. You can get a very nice film camera for much less money.

 

6. If I get bored of my gear, I can sell it to other film guys and buy another one of the same amount of money. Who will buy my consumer DSLR when there is a new one out, which is better than the one I'm selling, and probably costs less?

[bhneely]

Photography is meditation for me. Get the 501 CM on the tripod, find the shot, line it up. Look at it again. Take a meter reading (Weston Master analog - it was my dad's). Check depth of field, shoot, crank the film. Look for the next shot...

 

Get out the bottles, the tank, the thermometer (analog dial), turn out the lights, load the film onto the roll, close the tank, turn on the lights, start the timer, pour in the developer, agitate for 30 seconds, then for 5 seconds every 30 after that, stop bath, fixer (same as developer), open the tank halfway through and <i>just look at that magic</i>.

 

Even describing the process while sitting in my gray cube at the day job relaxes me. (clearly, I'm not working too hard, though)

 

brian

[pbizarro]

1. Because my EOS 1V refuses to fail;

2. Because Fuji slide film has never been better;

3. Because A4 prints from my scanned slides still look great;

4. Because it is still cost-effective for me;

5. Because for the price of one EOS 1V DSLR equivalent, I can buy 4 EOS 1Vs;

5. Because if the hard-drive/backups fail, I still have the slides.

[bill_thorlin]

Because I'm happy.

 

Happy with the results be it slide or print.

 

Happy to wait a few days - feel no need for "instant"

 

Happy with my camera now that I know it so well.

 

Happy not to be trendy and up to date.

 

Happy not to have to spend even more hours in front of a monitor.

 

Just off to bury my head in the sand or talk to another dinosaur.

[ronald_smith2]

I have one word - lattitude! When shooting digital files, you often do not have a second chance. Yes, I could shoot RAW with my G6 but that is a very time-consuming endeavour. Try exposing for JPEG's without the need to alter anything - it's exactly the same philosopy as shooting slide film.

 

Both mediums work well, togther, IMHO, so enjoy *both* and be happy=)

[Brian]

<P>I'm curious that you need to ask. There's an unspoken implication in the question (possibly in the word "still") that film cameras are somehow obsolete. You have had a lot of civil and informative answers but I don't feel the need to justify what I do. And you might do well to look at some images in search of the answer to your question.</P> <P>There are a lot of images displayed on photo.net and I suggest you look at some and try and determine: (a) were they digital or film capture; (b) did any of them depend for success on being the one or the other. Then come back and tell us.</P>

[vdp]

I love the feel of my Contax cameras, especially the RX.

I'm not a professional photographer, I do what I do for the pleasure of it and since I am not technically savy I get pleasure from keeping things (for me) as simple as possible.

I'm not about to give up my Zeiss lenses for any other brand.

[joseph_smith3]

Because I like taking a perfect image in the camera. That is why I use slide film 90% of the time. I know you can do this with a DSLR, but read on.

 

Because I like cameras with decent viewfinders that take interchangeable lenses.I like viewfinders that you can see thru and focus with.

 

Because I do not want to spend any time fooling around with the image after I take it to make it look better, etc. Especially if that means doing it on a pc cooped up in my house.

 

Because I cannot afford to liquidate my extensive system of camera bodies and lenses and accessories and purchase a new system of cameras and lenses that might be worth very litle in a few years due to technological obsolescence. As an amateur, even if I could afford it, I would not do it. If I were a pro and this was a money making business, then my decision matrix might be different.

 

Joe Smith

[bob_champoux]

Wanting and needing a camera that functions in cold weather...

[charles_stobbs3]

I hope digital manufacturers are reading this thread. Obviously they have a fairly long way to go but if they heed the lessons to be learned here nirvana may lie ahead.

[pvp]

At prices ranging from $15,000 to $20,000, I can't afford a 4x5 digital back that can match what I get from film. Not to mention a laptop for the field, extra batteries, backup media, a llama or two...

[ras1500]

Because I have five film camers + lenses and accessories that all still work. Also, three of them will operate without batteries.