How many people here use film?

[greatbasinwilds]

<p>FILM ALL THE WAY. Check out my website and you'll see what I mean... <a href="http://www.sierralifephotography.com">www.sierralifephotography.com</a> I am a pro and part of the experience of going on a photo shoot for me is GETTING AWAY FROM COMPUTERS and technology. Digitals seem just that, shooting a computer. When I shoot a film camera, I don't have the security of having hundreds of files on a memory card to store to. Nor can I take a picture and delete it if it's not to my liking. Nor can I accurately adjust everything via my digital camera. The bottom line is, when I shoot film, I have to work a little harder for the images I capture. I only have 36 shots to get it right the first time. If I make a mistake, there is no turning back. This forces me to retain that pure nature of photography skill, forcing me to expose my images right the first time to avoid wasting film. This means finding good composition and correct light exposure. The digital age has revolutionized photography for everyone, but unfortunately, has made things a little too easy for photographers. The digital train has yet to fascinate me and I don't think it ever will. Cheers everyone!</p><div></div>

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p>...good color film, such as Velvia</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now, there's an oxymoron....</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>"I only have 36 shots to get it right the first time. If I make a mistake, there is no turning back."</p>

<p>Isn't it possible to carry 2 rolls of film? Or would that add too much weight?</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>I shoot film and digital, professionally.</p>

 

[photo_smith]

<p>

 

 

<blockquote >

<p >..good color film, such as Velvia</p>

</blockquote>

<p >Now, there's an oxymoron....</p>

<br />

Not really, Velvia is an excellent colour film, if you don't like its colour palette that would be your personal choice.

<br />

 

 

</p>

[greatbasinwilds]

<p>Haha Marc you're right. =P I usually carry about 4 with me. </p>

[craig_sander]

<p>Film...100%.<br>

Will never go digital.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>"Film is dead Fred and I stand by my numbers."<br>

:) I needed a good laugh this morning. <br>

Film is still superior to digital in almost every aspect, not least for enjoyment. I shoot digital for 90% of my work, but when it is time to shoot just for me, it is film. 135 and 120 film. Digital leaves me cold. I paid $500 for a ten year old Nikon F5, and the funny thing is, it will be worth more than my D3's in a few years.</p>

[derek_kennedy]

<p>Well - I now have 20 cameras - of which 4 are digitals. So, 16 film cameras, one I cant use due to not being able to get film (camera made in 1957), 2 MF and the rest 35mm (actually the two 'new' cameras I dont know if they even work, just won two auctions on ebay, got several more I hope to win).</p>

<p>I like to actually use my older cameras and since they are 'older' - they are film. So yeah I shoot 35mm and 120.</p>

[derek_kennedy]

<p>Darn it, my math is out...3 mf cameras, not 2.<br>

Film is NOT dead in this house!</p>

[luca_stramare2]

<p>While it is true that the numbers are in the digital arena, I am noticing a return to film, as Tom said, for the enjoyment.<br>

The lab I send my slides to told me that the number of slide rolls they process every day is increasing, after bottoming in 2005. The store where I look for used cameras, accessories and lenses has no problem selling good cameras and, surprisignly, another shop offered some new Nikon N80 leftovers. They wish they had more.<br>

All film users have a trait in common. They are amateurs or pros shooting for pleasure and not for business, they know what they are doing and keep shooting film not because of the lack of choices but because they want the look and way od shooting of film.</p>

[erwingroen]

<p>I still use roll film in my photography, and I hope to continue using film for my cameras for as long as possible. Getting digital backs for my cameras would be quite expensive I would imagine, if not impossible to obtain!</p>

[diegobuono]

<p>Me! Just MF (120/220) film, 99.9% reversal film. No digital at all.</p>

[greatbasinwilds]

<p>"Digital leaves me cold"<br>

What a great way of putting it Tom. Nothing beats feeling that slide in your hand when you get it back from the photo lab. =D</p>

[peter_lagus]

<p>seems like a waste of bandwidth to still be talking about this.<br>

BUT, FWIW i am a dedicated slide shooter. admittedly the few slides that really turn me on get scanned by color folio and are then printed.<br>

for a substantial remainder i have them scanned by scan cafe and do my own (much) less professional printing.<br>

i also have an extensive vinyl LP collection that I listen to on a tubed amplifier. so i guess i probably qualify as a luddite, but so far i haven't been seduced by all the hassle of digital.<br>

there is something intinsically satifying to me in analog output--be it audio or photographic.<br>

on a deeper and more philosophic level, there is basic truth displayed in a slide or a (film) photograph. yes i know there is/can be manipulation of the final image. but compared to the potential for digital manipulation, the analog photo represents what was actually seen/felt by the photographer.<br>

by continuing to emphasizing the ability to digitally manipulate our photos i fear that we run the risk of loosing our claim to the veracity of an image.<br>

FWIW, the object of the exercise is to make moving and enduring photographs--not to become expert computer manipulators/operators. so i am sorry to waste even more bandwidth.<br>

just one old curmudgeon's viewpoint.<br>

pete</p>

 

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>I'll second (or third or forth...whatever) the "Digital leaves me cold" saying. I find that there is a presence and depth to film images that I've never seen replicated with digital equipment.</p>

[Mike_R1664876643]

<p>Since buying my D80 in November 2006 I shoot both. I really like my D80 as a camera and defintely shoot a lot more digital photos than film simply because there is no cost per shot, but when it comes to results I just don't think digital comes close to film, at least in my experience. </p>

[d.f._griffith]

<p>Yep, film all the way for me. Sold my D70s(cheap) to my daughter in-law to take shots of my grandson. Gave my wife a digital point and shoot. Fuji film, slides and waiting to try out some ektar 100. My only issue, is which fixed lens rangefinder or slr and lens do I want to shoot with today. I felt so tied down to one or two lens with the D70s and the images had the same ole look. Plastic. I am way more selective and patient with film. Digital reminds me of the old war movies and machine guns. Keep putting the bullets out and you'll get one sooner or later.</p><div></div>

[rdm]

<p>i use film. I cant aford a nice DSLR and i figure unless i can get one that i can use all my Minolta lenses with, like an Olympus or Canon, im not going to waste money on a Point and shoot. Besides i have plenty of Film point and shoot cameras. And i am sure a digital wont draw the attention i get every time i use one of my classic range finders</p>

[joe_rogers1]

<blockquote>

<p>I'll second (or third or forth...whatever) the "Digital leaves me cold" saying. I find that there is a presence and depth to film images that I've never seen replicated with digital equipment.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While young (22) compared to you old skool film heads, I had to use film at uni for crime scene stuff and I do agre that it has a better selection of colours... digital images are often quite flat. They need to be developed digitally. They stand out nicer if they are over saturated a little I find. However what I dont like is someone heralding a heavily manipulated average-ish photo as a great picture... its simple an average picture with bells ans whistles tacked onto it. That said my best images taken with digital haven't 'had'<br /> to be photoshopped at all. I think parto fo the issue is that each sensor chip is different so different cameras will be different. ITs not like if everyone is using ilford FP4 then the results are repeatable. But if 1 person has a sony alpha another a cannon EOS and another a D80 then even with the same lighting, lenses and settings the results will be different.</p>

[peter_fitzsimons]

<p>Even if everyone used FP4, they'd have different cameras, lenses, developers, agitation methonds etc, etc, etc, not very repeatable.</p>

[dave_smythe]

<p>I bought a d70 with the 18-70 lens.<br>

I had a FE with 24 and 50 prime lenses and 75-150 lens.<br>

The d70 isnt as sharp because the prime lenses are better.<br>

To get the digital equivalent prime lenses for my d70 would cost me 800 or 900 just for the 24mm.<br>

The battery never runs out on my old FE.The FE weighs less.I take less useless shots.<br>

On my next trip to europe i think i will take the FE.I wont have to buy a voltage converter for the charger nor will the battery run out on a backpack...I find with digital i always have to upgrade.</p>

[graham_thompson1]

<p>Both but like most Grumpy Old Men I prefer film.</p>

[stan_noreika]

<p>Film, primarily slide film.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Without reading ther others and in short. </p>

<p>I use film just because I enjoy it and I am able to get very cheap 35mm or large format cameras and get a new experience. I am not a pro and I do landscapes at trips so its not every week so cost can be managed and scan times for that can be managed. </p>

<p>I do shoot mostly digiital but in due time when I do trips out, just maybe I shoot mainly film - larger formats.</p>