Why manual cameras and why film..

[david_held]

<p>I can't agree more. It is refreshing to see that the digitalists have not gone on the attack. I do own a digital, but I much prefer using each and every film camera I own. There is something satisfying in holding a camera that is a substantial piece of equipment, composing the shot and then printing the result. Maybe the results aren't quite as desired, but, I always feel that at least I tried my best rather than using a digital and firing the shutter multiple times to get one decent shot.</p>

[kevin_dixey2]

<p>\ It's really pretty funny the looks I get sometimes from people that have gone all digital. I think because (like some of you) I work with computers every day. I worked in pre-press and digital imaging for years and had to spend a lot of time convincing people that digital was viable for what we were doing. I remember thinking that digital cameras where a real revolution when I bought my first Olympus D500 with a whole .6 megapixel imager and 16MB Smartcards. </p>

<p>I'm not sure why but a few years back I just started it feel that it was all just too much. I felt like the ability to shoot thousands of images had turned my photography into more of a exercise in documenting things rather than creating images. I turned to film and just got hooked on it. It was like meditation. I was able to lose myself in the art of it. I think part of it is that computers represent work so I retreated into something that was the polar opposite of that.</p>

<p>I do think that knowing how to use film and a manual camera is a valuable thing for anyone that likes to take pictures to know. Learning how to use film, calculate exposer and such can only help regardless of which way you go.</p>

[sw12dz]

<p>I just love taking photographs. Always have and always will. Digital or film, doesn't matter. I like the instant gratification of digital and I look forward with anticipation when picking up my film from the lab to see if my images turned out as I hoped they would.</p>

<p>I carry both film and digital cameras on vacation and in my car. I still like the look of film prints over digital prints. I like the fact that I can go into a museum or art gallery where no flash photography is allowed and set the ISO on my DSLR on 6200 and come away with descent photos.</p>

<p>I like setting up my LF camera and taking 15+ minutes to capture one image. The majority of travel photos on my walls were captured on film. It's also nice to be able to stick the memory card from the DSLR into my laptop and send my elderly parents photos from wherever I am in the world.</p>

<p>What I'm trying to convey is that both film and digital have their place. Those of us who frequent the Classic Camera Forum just have a special connection with old film cameras and taking photos they way they were meant to be taken.</p>

[kevin_dixey2]

<blockquote>

<p>What I'm trying to convey is that both film and digital have their place. Those of us who frequent the Classic Camera Forum just have a special connection with old film cameras and taking photos they way they were meant to be taken.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Amen.</p>

[keith selmes]

<p>why manual film cameras ? because its fun.</p>

<p> I drive a car for practicality and I walk for pleasure and relaxation.</p>

<p>I don't think it needs to be any more complicated than that.</p>

 

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>I'm Stuart on this. I think we have a dichotomy here, "Photography" on the one hand and "Digital Imaging" on the other. They're both great. They have shared qualities, but the processes are vastly different. Somewhere along the line we began to accept "Digital Photography" as a reality, but I don't know if such a thing exists. Can you really create "photographs" with your cellphone? In my definition, photographic images are produced on film and thence in a darkroom or mechanical equivalent by traditional chemical means, <strong>using an image produced by the projection of light</strong> . These can be in the form of a print, or a transparency. This is quite different from an image produced by the digital recording of light, and subsequent digital recreation. Even the prints from a Fuji Frontier barely qualify, being the product of a digital scanning process. Is an ink-jet print a "photographic" print?</p>

<p><strong>The moment you scan a negative, pure photography goes out the window, any discussion of the finer points of lens or film quality becomes irrelevant.</strong></p>

<p>But it's all a head-banging sort of discussion. I relish the freedom digital cameras give me to create images, in terms of cost, immediacy and convenience, and I love the photographic process from un-boxing the film, through the smells and magic of the darkroom, to admiring a well-mounted print. While I can make a video on my 5D, it terminates my "photography" when the image is captured. Lets enjoy the rare privilege of "having it both ways"!</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>last time I started a post like this the digital guys ate me alive</p>

</blockquote>

<p>so you posted it again because....? ? </p>

<ul>

<li>You think maybe this hasn't yet been discussed enough?</li>

<li>You're trolling?</li>

<li>You hope to find people who agree with you here -- like tossing the coin again and again until it comes up the way you want? </li>

</ul>

<p> </p>

[patrick_stack]

<p>Kevin -</p>

<p>I understood the question as sensibly posed and without insult to anyone. Louis and Rick said it all perfectly, couldn't add anything to it. I'm pleased that most posted a pleasant, well thought out post, a few were unable to resist the acid barb. So go the public forums. Fair question, thanks.</p>

<p>Patrick </p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>No one has to justify whatever means of photography they chose.</p>

<p>I don't view film and digital as that different. I want to produce an image. The type output I want can be the deciding factor in whether I use a film camera or a digital, difference in quality, not so much.</p>

<p>I was using mechanical film cameras some 50 years ago. The films of today are greatly improved. You can get an inexpensive film camera for little output. As long as it has been cared for the picture you take with modern films can be higher in quality.</p>

<p>That being said I am astonished by the quality of DSLRs available today. I have a Canon XSi. It is a 12MP APS-C camera. The quality of color images is better than anything I got in a 35mm camera. </p>

<p>Does that mean digital wins? No. I still use film cameras. Why? I like them. They are fun. They take images of great quality. I like the historical aspects.</p>

<p><strong>"The moment you scan a negative, pure photography goes out the window, any discussion of the finer points of lens or film quality becomes irrelevant."</strong></p>

<p><strong>I totally disagree. With whatever camera I use I am doing photography. I find using a SLR or a DSLR closer in use than using a large format camera, focusing on a ground-glass and using movements. </strong></p>

<p><strong>Those of us using digital talk more concerning the finer points of lens quality than I remember over 50 years of film use. Look at what is available concerning modern lens tests. We pick apart every aspect of the tests. We closely compare results to similar lenses and to results from other makers.</strong></p>

<p><strong>Also camera tests these days are to a much higher standard. DPReview does tests that cover over 25 pages. Every sensor gets run through the mill. We see not only the written test results but also test images. We then pick apart each test so that all that is left is the carcass.</strong></p>

<p><strong>I think people have to realize that this may be the golden age of photography. Film cameras are very affordable. It is possible to buy into several system cameras with a wide assortment of lenses. Film has never been better. It may be a little harder to find but using mail order makes it easier. I find looking at a Freestyle catalog every so often puts my mind at ease concerning film availability. <br /> </strong></p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>Louis, Rick, and Stuart said it quite well. I disagree though with the idea that photography is <em>only</em> about making images and visual exploration and seeing light and whatever else. While these are some of the most important elements, for me the cameras themselves are an important part of photography as well. I love manual cameras and film because I love the entire experience of using a manual camera and...well, Louis really said it perfectly. At the same time though, I love digital photography just as much as I love film and film gear. While I can absolutely wax poetic about my Minolta XD11, Canon EF, or my OM-1, I can wax just as poetic about my Canon 7D. It's an amazing tool that I love for the same reasons I love my manual cameras, and is probably one of my favorite possessions. I really just love everything about photography and just about everything that allows me to enjoy it, regardless of the form it takes. Thanks for posing the question Kevin; I've enjoyed the discussion.</p>

[charles_freeland]

<p> I'm pleasantly surprised by this surge of support for film and for mechanical cameras at Photo.net. Like many others who've posted here, I, am often asked if I wouldn't be interested in "going digital". "The costs are lower", its advocates tell me, "there's so much storage capacity", "digital images rival or surpass 35mm film", "digi is so convenient". But, none of this persuades me. Last evening, I was looking at an album of wedding photographs taken at a friend's wedding by a professional using a digital system. Some of the photos had been converted from digital color to a digital version of sepia-toned black and white. I turned from those images and looked at a black and white photograph I'd taken with one of my old Leicas and then hand printed on a warm-toned fiber-base paper, and saw how much better it looked to me than the digital pics. So long as film is available, I see no good reason to sell off my Leica and Hasselblad camera systems, cameras I've owned and enjoyed for many years, in favor of a DSLR. I'm glad I'm not alone in this.</p>

[Rob_the_waste]

<p>Just before Christmas, I went on a shopping trip to Buffalo, and came back with a digicam. I've spent the past couple of months getting more comfortable with it. Then yesterday, I dropped off a roll of film that I shot with my Moskva 2... ta da, I'm back.</p>

[kevin_dixey2]

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>so you posted it again because....? ?</p>

</blockquote>

He didn't post again, I did. No, I don't consider it trolling. Trolling would be posting it in a DSLR forum just to get a rise out of people. I got nothing against folks and their DSLR's, I have one too. Also, trolling would be bashing digital which I don't feel I did that (although I did grouse about the cost). I have been using digital a long time and have probably logged more time using digital than a lot of folks. My complaint was the attitude I sometimes get when I choose to shoot film. I get irritated when I get taken to task for shooting film as if I am some sort of uninformed fool.

 

 

I don't care that people want to shoot digital. I do however sometimes get fed up with getting lectured about my choice to shoot film. I usually just smile and say something polite, but I was something about a remark someone made the yesterday when they saw me shooting film sent me over the edge. I'm back and I feel better for having vented.

 

 

[kevin_dixey2]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't view film and digital as that different. I want to produce an image. The type output I want can be the deciding factor in whether I use a film camera or a digital, difference in quality, not so much.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I would agree that practically speaking there isn't THAT much difference anymore. I would argue that you can get bigger enlargements with film at a lower cost because the full frame camera bodies are quite spendy. That however is a pretty minor thing and for most folks they are equivalent. </p>

<p>Like I said I have logged more than a few images using digital and for me there is something missing. I find that I simply don't have as much fun as I do when I shoot film. Perhaps I like the feel of the old mechanical cameras or the process of working with film. Maybe it is uncertainty of what the images will look like. I really don't have an explanation. I can't explain it any better than that. I have a good friend (and very talented photographer) that makes his living shooting exotic cars. He has a gorgeous full frame Canon and some really nice glass to go with it. Yet, I don't find that I wish I had his setup. It just doesn't do anything for me (well maybe the lenses). FWIW he thinks I'm nuts to shoot film.</p>

<p>Now, I admit that I do like having y images in digital form in that I can archive, organize and generally control my images much better than I could with them siting in shoe boxes. I like to shoot film and then get it scanned if possible (we have a few local options for that)...and yes that <strong>process</strong> would be easier if I was shooting digital but I like film.</p>

<p>Now, where's my abacus?<br>

 

 

</p>

[User_2000406]

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

<p>I've found this true for myself even with auto-focus matrix-metered auto-wind film cameras. It's too easy to just snap away, and somehow things like depth of field and care in composition just seem to drop by the wayside.</p>

<p>Now film cameras like this, or even more so the digital SLRs, are enormously useful when photographing any kind of action. And of course, with some discipline one can be careful and thoughtful in using any kind of camera. Still, when the technology makes it too easy to snap away it can be too easy to do just that. </p>

<p>Having to select my focus makes me look at depth of field, and the shutter speed while I'm at it, and then to look more carefully at my composition as well. Ironically, too much automation seems to get in the way of my creative process. Maybe I'm just an old fogie.</p>

<p> </p>

[paul_goutiere]

<blockquote>

<p>I've found this true for myself even with auto-focus matrix-metered auto-wind film cameras. It's too easy to just snap away, and somehow things like depth of field and care in composition just seem to drop by the wayside.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is my problem. I recently bought a Nikon F4s which is only motor drive, of course. It is just a little too easy to push the button for an extra shot, then before you know it.....no more film. I think I study the image a bit more with my F2 and F3 but I like the meter on the F4s.</p>

 

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

[marc_rochkind]

Speaking only of the cost issue, which was one of the OP's main points: I think his analysis is faulty.

 

Photoshop, computer, hard drives, printers, etc. are not part of the camera/medium--they are a replacement for the darkroom. Enlargers, film tanks, film driers, trays, paper washers and driers, chemicals, exposure meters, filters, chemicals, and the necessary room and plumbing cost money, too. If you don't do your own processing and instead send it out, well, you can send out your digital files, too.

 

Many film photographers use a digital "darkroom". For them, add in scanning costs, and keep the photoshop, computer, printer, etc.

 

Finally, the analysis seriously underestimates the cost of film, paper, and chemicals. 1000 exposures on film cost more than a digital camera kit.

 

So, while I completely understand many reasons for preferring film, I just don't believe that cost can be one of them.

 

--Marc

[jason]

<p>IMHO the one is not better than the other! The problem in the answers is the possibilities of i hope honest errors..Digital. The storage on CD or DVD is NOT permanent. The discs deteriorate in a short space of time.Less than 5 years. Wait till You see "no read file","place CD in drive"...This is a monumental problem. On the other hand "who" will decipher all your negatives, hopefully self processed B/W ? Digital is cheaper. Everybody in the digital camp though are Luddites! All of you have replaced the same type of equipment as in film days.. The DSLR and for the well heeled, Leica M9. Why? The lil compact point and shoot cameras such as Pentax Optio, Canon Supershots, Nikon, etc do everything one needs even for a pro job unless for "billboard". C'mon most of you have 4x6 or at best 8x12.. Thats me! Does the results of film look better ? You betcha! My daughter's wedding album by the hired pro(i was in retinue) are lousy. Nikon D3, D90 etc. The few things i shot with my old Leica M3 especially the bride and bridesmaids by available light, are so superior technically. They would have been even better if optically printed. We all have our own opinions and way of doing things. Try some experiments.<br>

See if my way is better on your back? Carry an old small camera like a Leica-M or film slr, Canon Ae-1p or Pentax Spotmatic. It ain't gonna bust your bank..Try P+S Digital. Photography ought to be fun!It always is for me. Pro-job or for me..</p>

[mike dixon]

<blockquote>

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

 

</blockquote>

<p>Do you mean the "Do you find shooting digital a lot like dry firing a gun?" thread you posted here: http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00VZAJ</p>

<p>I'm not sure who the "digital guys" were or where they "ate you alive." Nobody bought your analogy, but nobody seemed to care that you prefer film, either.</p>

[kevin_dixey2]

<blockquote>

<p>Finally, the analysis seriously underestimates the cost of film, paper, and chemicals. 1000 exposures on film cost more than a digital camera kit.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is a good point I porbably DID underestimate the cost of these things but you do not NEED to develop them yourself, there are decent places to have that done. You can do the same with digital (meaning not have a computer or printer) but IMHO it is a lot less practical. If I am shooting film I can simply reload and continue shooting. If my film card fills up (and yes it takes a lot longer) I have to unload it to a computer. There is also the issue of long term storage to think about. Merely writing images to CD or DVD doesn't provide image fidelity like many people think so there is an increased cost of properly archiving them . If you choose to print them then there is the cost of paper and ink which can be quite high. I would say that the model of shooting images and printing only the ones you like many folks shooting digital follow (including me) would be most like shooting film and getting it processed but not having any prints made. I would be curious to see how that stacks up cost wise.<br>

<br /><br>

In looking at my initial post I agree that my analysis of the cost of digital is faulty (I was pretty peeved at the time so its not surprising). I still take issue with the idea that shooting film is somehow inferior to digital it was the impetus for my original post) it's simply different and I continue to feel like shooting film suits me better than digital. </p>

<p><br /></p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>You asked 2 questions in one sentence.<br>

1. Why manual camera? Because it is easier to use than an automatic camera.<br>

2. Why film? Because I still can.</p>

[zlight_b]

<p>it really depends on whether thinks of a camera as simply a tool for some other end such as an image; or as an end in itself which also by the way, comes with images attached. add a mix of emotions, feelings, tactile pleasures, the sheer joy of good craftsmanship and design...you know where I'm going with this!<br>

one of the biggest problem with digital is this: like computers, there is absolutely no end to something "better" (and bigger) around the end of the "product cycle". This inevitable development is not unconnected with "bigger" not "better" holes in the pocketbook. I till have an old advert. poster for Nikon F...it says "An SLR that defies obsolescence"....with digital, that era is over...replaced by a never ending, manic rush of pixel-envy.<br>

BTW, I do enjoy my Nikon D300. In addition to the Nikon F3, FM2, FE2, FA when I need to experience pleasure.</p>

[zlight_b]

<p>unfortunately, with digital, this happens too:</p>

<p>"My backup failed and I'm not sure what to do. Everything from 2009 was on it. I had started burning CDs of it as a 2nd backup but didn't get through everything. I'm a nervous wreck right now. Has anyone had an success recovering images with a WD external drive?"<br>

sad. hope she recovers the images.</p>

[brian_hedrick]

<p>I have inherited my fathers antique camera collection and most of them still work. I have a digital for snapshots but if I am at all serious about what I am shooting then I use film. I am just a hobbiest but I am also an engineer and I love the form and function of the classic camers. I also feel that the images from film feel more real, like the difference between vinal and cd's. That being said, I have no problem with digital and I do not begrudge anyone using digital, I do what I like and they should do the same.</p>