Why manual cameras and why film..

[kevin_dixey2]

<p>I get asked quite a lot why I like to shoot film. I also get chided about not shooting digital "because it's so much cheaper than shooting film". Well, I'd like to call bullsh*t on that last part. For the record, I have a DSLR (A Nikon D40) and I think it a very nice camera. Before that I used an Olympus E500 and despite my affection for OM gear I really didn't care for it. I also spent a few years doing product photography for a small manufacturing company and in that time I probably shot around 350K images using an E500 and a Canon 10D. I have spent nearly 20 years working in digital imaging. Suffice to say I am not a luddite that is afraid of computers. I have even taken digital cameras into the Cascade mountains of WA state for 2 weeks so I know digital CAN be used that way (but I wouldn't choose to do it again).</p>

<p>There are a lot of things where I think digital is terrific. When I was doing product shots with quick turnaround leading to production on packaging digital was terrific. I think it is a boon to journalists, but when it comes to my own personal stuff I prefer film. Be that as it may my main problem is with the "digital is cheaper" argument. I bought my D40 as a refurb and spent around $400. In addition I bought two 2GB SD cards, a card reader (I didn't have one that read SD cards) and an extra battery. All that set me back around $150. That gets me a decent camera with a decent kit lens and the stuff to keep it running for about $550. For $550 I can buy a LOT of manual equipment and have plenty left over for film. Add a copy of PSP or Photoshop, a photo printer, photo paper, ink and an extra hard drive to hold your photos (and when you can put 900+ images on a single SD card they add up quick) and you are looking at a significant outlay. This is all going on the assumption that you already HAVE a computer.</p>

<p>Now, I'm not here to poo poo digital. I think it is fine and I have a number of digital devices and where appropriate they are great but using film is not some weird arcane form of alchemy that is outrageously expensive and without any practical use. Film is a terrific way to take photos. Manual cameras are a great way to learn photography and some of this old gear is waaaaaaay nicer than the new stuff and the cost of entry can be quite reasonable.</p>

<p>Okay I'm done...I feel better.</p>

<p> </p>

[User_4525289]

<p>Kevin, even my 11 year old son knows that film is way better than digital.</p>

[vinny_walsh]

<p>I get those same questions as most of us shooting film do. I have no interest in changing the way I make photographs. There's not substitute for composing an image on a large ground glass. All the gear I have works fine with film and paper. Everyone else's need for the "easier" and "cheaper" route has changed and will continue to change product availability for those of us who aren't looking for the latest and greatest high resolution whatever. Color film will be the first to go unavailable and that stinks! I'm in the process of doing a "special order" for c41 chemicals here in los angeles. Why? Because no one uses the stuff anymore. I don't care what type of gear everyone else is using but I don't like being forced to change my ways.</p>

[rod_larson]

<p>Old, high quality cameras are really cheap and so is film processing. And those old cameras<br>

are really fun to use.</p>

[zane1664879013]

<p><img src="file:///G:/DCIM/100CANON/IMG_1477.JPG" alt="" /> <em>Add a copy of PSP or Photoshop, a photo printer, photo paper, ink...<br /> </em></p>

<p>None of those are necessary. There are many simple photo editing applications freely available including a heavyweight tool (the gimp). Printing 4x6" at home is foolish and costly when you can have a print service do them for well under 20 cents each (or 11 cents at Sam's Club). Larger prints may be cheaper to do at home, depending on volume.</p>

<p><em>an extra hard drive to hold your photos (and when you can put 900+ images on a single SD card they add up quick)</em></p>

<p>Some self-discipline is needed here -- you need to learn to edit your photos down to only the best ones. It's not that hard.</p>

<p><em>This is all going on the assumption that you already HAVE a computer.</em></p>

<p>You don't have to own a computer. Shoot your pics and take it to the photo store or kiosk and print only the ones you want. They will put the keepers on CD for you as well. Or, edit the bad ones out using your camera before going to the store. I'll admit it helps to have a computer, though.</p>

<p>But I sense you already know these things, and just feel the need to publicly air your personal preference for film. That's fine, I like shooting film too, but I know perfectly well that a good digital camera does the same job, and does it cheaper the more frames you shoot. The math isn't hard to do, and it overwhelmingly supports digital even at modest usage levels.</p>

[bj_larsson]

<p>I shoot what I like.</p>

<p>I don't have to justify anything to anyone. And it doesn't have to be either or. :)</p>

[yann1]

<p>Once you start shooting with a Rolleiflex, a Leica or Leica clone rangefinder, or... and step a foot in a darkroom, these questions should make you smile politely.<br>

Many people have lots of theories about what is good and what is bad, other simply and humbly do what they like turning their back to all this.</p>

[kevin_dixey2]

<p>Zane...its true that I do understand that digital can be very cost effective. I am not so much irritated at digital as I am the looks I get when I tell people that I am shooting film. </p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p><strong>Why manual camera?</strong><br>

For me, when I shoot with a handcrafted, finely made mechanical manual camera several things take place. First, the tactile pleasure of handling such a device brings great pleasure and second, the basic simplicity of operation puts one more directly into picture making process. I shoot less but think more. And they still work amazingly well for the intended task..<br>

Also, don't discount the fact that generations of people came to learn photography with these kinds of cameras and are just comfortable with those tools. Add in the beautiful, or sometimes kooky, industrial designs, historical interest, engineering innovations, great optics, and sheer variety, and you will understand why manual cameras hold interest for many.</p>

<p><strong>Why film?</strong><br>

Because it's what those cameras take.</p>

[steve salmons]

<p>As a hobbyist, convenience or cheapness do not even have to come into consideration. It is a hobby because I enjoy doing photography with mechanical manual cameras and black and white film. It is the process of arriving at the image that is just as important to me as the end result. Sometimes it can be even more important.<br>

And as Yann says: " <em>Once you start using a Rolleiflex, a Leica..... etc</em> " I find that I engage in the process more than if I am using digital hardware. I might add Hasselblad, Crown Graphic, Nikon F and many more to that list.</p>

[paul_goutiere]

<p>If I were a professional I would likely have a different take on the "film vs digital" debate. I'm not a pro, but have used cameras for over 50 years as a amateur.<br>

<br /> Switching to digital, for <strong>me</strong> , would <strong>not</strong> be a cost saving and as for improving my images; this is a completely subjective discussion which <strong>I haven't the talent nor the inclination to get into.</strong><br>

<br /> Continuing to upgrade a digital system must be expensive. Reliability and longevity of the equipment must be considered in the equation. (Often it is easier to replace a digital camera than to repair it.) How many rolls of film, and processing would it take to equal the cost of a cost of a good digital camera. When you must replace the digital camera in two or three years...how many rolls of film etc.<br>

<br /> The cost of media storage must be high, with a digital system, assuming you want to keep the images you have taken.<br>

<br /> How do you preserve, into perpetuity, any images? How much will this cost? I agree, film takes up more real estate than digital, but it will stay with me for at least to the end of my days for merely the expense of the space to keep it. How much will it cost to maintain images from a digital system for 50 to 100 years? ( No we don't know how long CDs last. We won't know untill we can retrieve images 100 years from now that they will last 100 years)<br>

<br /> A person who wishes to explore the advantages of traditional film photography will find that they may buy a used system for less than the digital alternative. A Pentax Spotmatic, in pretty good nick can cost as little as $50.00, Hasselblad in similar condition can cost on average $1,200.00. Not bad. (how much is a Canon EOS-1D Mark IV, how long will you own it?)<br>

<br /> Manual film cameras are reliable. My completely manual Nikon F2, which I bought used in 1985, is still a completely viable camera. I still use it a lot. It has never been serviced, but shutter and meter still bang on. My Leica M2 still hearty after 55 years of pretty good use and perhaps we should mention my Rolleiflex Automat, more than viable since 1954. ( We can all tell stories of out Spotmatics, Contaxes, Kodak Retinas etc.)<br /> I wouldn't think you should have to justify using film cameras anyway.</p>

<p> </p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't think you should have to justify using film cameras anyway.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You don't always have to. Sometimes the comments I get are more positive such as: <em>"Ooh, a real camera"</em> and <em>"I used to have one of those".</em></p>

<p>They are however often followed by the usual idiot question of <em>"can you still get film for those?"</em> as if I just like pointing it and listening to the shutter click!</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>Was going to comment for me, but Louis Meluso said it all and better than I could.</p>

[gene m]

<p>Digital is fast food. Film is, well, you know.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>No one should tell any of you that you shouldn't use film if that is what you want to do. I still have some film cameras and like to use them. But for most of my liesure time picture taking, I use digital these days. The reasons are complicated. I've gone out and shot the exact same pictures with film and digital cameras and don't find there is much to distinguish between them these days. And there are a few characteristics with digital that I like a lot.</p>

<p>First, you can go out with a digital camera and take 100 or 3 pictures without feeling the pressure to conform to the number of shots on your roll of film. Second, I like the instant feedback of knowing if I have the shot. Third, I like shooting infrared, and the Leica M8 is a great digital infrared machine -- allowing me to shoot infrared without changing bags (and I can experiment with false color).</p>

<p>I'm not saying any of you should change your opinion. But for me, both have valuable features to offer the photographer. I think digital photographers should try the occasional film camera, and film photographers should give digital a try as well.</p>

[zane1664879013]

<p><em>Continuing to upgrade a digital system must be expensive. Reliability and longevity of the equipment must be considered in the equation. (Often it is easier to replace a digital camera than to repair it.) How many rolls of film, and processing would it take to equal the cost of a cost of a good digital camera. When you must replace the digital camera in two or three years...how many rolls of film etc.<br /> </em></p>

<p>Funny, I'm still using my digital SLR from 2005. I feel no need to upgrade, either, until high-ISO images are nearly noise-free. I have bought a couple of compacts in that time, to get anti-shake and video, but could easily have done without. The "forced upgrades" of digital technology that many people complain about is a myth.</p>

<p><em>The cost of media storage must be high, with a digital system, assuming you want to keep the images you have taken.</em></p>

<p>Archive-quality DVDs are twenty cents each - sounds cheap to me. Film isn't foolproof anyway, as I have just spent a few months scanning old family photos and negatives. Black and white film and prints from 50+ years ago look terrific, but some color prints and negatives have faded or color-shifted badly. There's no easy answer to archiving images.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>The "forced upgrades" of digital technology that many people complain about is a myth.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Whilst it's not a forced upgrade, the majority do feel the need to get the newer models as they are introduced. However, this was also true with film cameras but perrhaps the upgrades were not so often.</p>

 

[CosteaM]

<blockquote>

<p>I shoot less but think more</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was on the Digital wagon for a while but I understood quickly that it summarizes what most people are after these days: cheap, easy and make very little use of your gray matter. As Gene said... fast food.<br>

This is where I'm different; I work on computers 9-5 Mon-Fri so when I'm on my own I like to go back to basics. Like Louis said I shoot less but think more, try to understand what goes behind the curtain, control the light and the development. Experiment with developers and be myself in my darkroom. We gave up the little time we use to have for ourselves.<br>

Everything today is automatic and people go nuts about all the gimmicks that big manufacturers put on the market. Some are good and helpful but most are just another way to enslave you. For me analog photography enriches your mind and soul and makes you work hard to master the process. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p >[<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=614297">Gene M</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub8.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 23, 2010; 07:44 a.m.</p>

 

<p>Digital is fast food. Film is, well, you know.]<br>

one could say film is a full course meal:</p>

 

[mark_medin]

<p>There are places where digital can have an advantage, but the cash outlay for a digital system that can equal film is rather high. It's like people who rhapsodize over a Kindle, not thinking how many books one must buy from Amazon to justify the cost of the device. I have a large number of cameras, and for all those I own (with many lenses also), I still could not afford a high-end Canon or Nikon digital with a single lens. Not to mention that I've had three digital cameras die on me, setting me back at least $1,000 as none were economically repairable. So I'll shoot film until there is no film to shoot.</p>

[kevin_dixey2]

<p>I agree that one is not "forced" to continually upgrade but it has been my experience that many people do get into a continuous cycle of buying bigger and presumably better items. I have a friend that is a great example of this. He has an Olympus E500 (bought it when I bought mine) and he is continually looking to buy a new camera (even though he has a box full of digital and film cameras). Right now he is hot on buying a full frame DSLR so he can print larger images. The problem is that he has never to the best of my knowledge ever printed anything larger than 8x10. He wants something because of a perception that what he has is inadequate. I suppose the same has always been true but it just seems so much more so with digital because of how fast things change.</p>

<p>I've tried to point out that he could do more to improve his pictures by taking a class or just shooting than by dropping a few thousand on a new body but it fell on deaf ears. It's a shame too because he has some really nice old film gear that is a lot nicer than his digital stuff but he won't touch it anymore.</p>

 

[leo_papandreou1]

<p>Nowadays I use digital as an adjunct to something else, because it's so easy and convenient that I can concentrate on something else. But for photography qua hobby I want the opposite of ease and convenience, which detract from a sense of satisfaction, and <em>I don't want files</em> . Anyone who's handled and held up to the light a medium or large format transparency or even just projected a slide will understand what I'm talking about.</p><div></div>

[russ_britt3]

<p>Thanks Guys, last time I started a post like this the digital guys ate me alive.<br>

Heck I don't even use a zoom lens. I shot film in totally manual cameras, fixed focal length lens and use a hand held flash ambient meter and even use EV settings.<br>

I am really itching to get my darkroom set up again as my pro lab stopped printing B&W. Heck I prefer graded papers too.<br>

You know, my daughters are getting caught up in a new fad, buying vinyl albums , using turntables......you can still buy LPs.....?</p>

<p>(But you can make a digital picture of a place that you have never even been to, go figure.)</p>

[frank.schifano]

<p>Leo, I understand completely what you mean. And heck, it doesn't even take a medium or large format transparency to do it. Even a well exposed and developed B&W negative is a thing of beauty in itself. Throw one of those puppies into an enlarger and make a good print - nice...</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<p>Haven't shot film in over three years. Color film development is getting problematic where I live. Used to be able to drop film off at 9:00am and it was done at 11:00 - no more. I don't think I can get E6 processed locally at all and would have to mail it somewhere. Same with 120, 220, and 4x5 C41. Haven't been in my darkroom in over 5 years, and probably won't use it unless I have something in B&W I want done. Digital is as challenging as the film processes, just in different ways. You have to be meticulous in your workflow, and like film processes you need to work on the last 5% - which makes the entire image.</p>

<p>Don't care about all of the equipment justifications, costs arguments etc. - that's all simply self-justification for your choices. Same with the "feel," tactile qualities, etc. - never did get into that anymore than I like the way my aluminum handled Rigid pipe wrenches feel. </p>

<p>Photography should be about making images and visual exploration - not equipment and processes.</p>