Film? cause it's easier

[Ian Taylor]

<p>lol</p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>Having not been on the Casual Forums page for a day or so this was an entertaining find. As my French-born wife would gladly say "la plus ca change, la plus c'est la meme chose". And so it is. Film. Digital. Pinhole projection. All the same thing at the end for me. It's an image. </p>

<p>Now let's argue about digital storage and back-up vs. throwing the negs in an old shoebox. We haven't done that one for a while!</p>

[tholte]

<p>"Sure...life is always about taking the easy way out, isn't it?" Not really, it's about results! Get good results with film, great! Get good results with digital, great! Doesn't have to be either or and most good photographers realise that, I think! </p>

[dan_south]

<p>I hope that your music projects work out at a rate better than one good effort out of 4,000. :-)</p>

<p>Maybe worry a bit less about the capture medium and invest some time on techniques to improve your keeper rate.</p>

<div></div>

[heningstepfield]

Well, just checking in on the thread....whew, ha ha, didn't think it was going to get

this entertaining...I travel 6 months out of the year, and that's where the camera

fetish that I'm going through exploded. Shot 5000 images on my 5d, just cause it

was there with me. Then shot a few rolls with a cheap film camera, simply enjoyed

the images more coming from the old point and shoot

So I snagged a T90 and an eos620, and a ton of cheap cameras, then I grabbed an

f100 ...luv the f100, and the hasselblad.

Maybe I will get the ratio down to 1 in 1000....as mentioned I buy expired film, and

process myself. I'm in Asia 6 months per year, expired film and processing chemicals are

cheap where I shop. I can shoot black and white at 10cents per shot including

development,

My film pics stood me about 1,000 dollars...not really that expensive if you get a few pics

you enjoy. Least that's the manner in which I'm seeing things, just thought to share

 

Want to clear up my bad description of my body of work, shot 20k pics last year about half digital and the other half film, the film was a mix of 35 and mf

I buy Shanghai gp3 mf film at 2dollars a roll..and 35 expired black and white at just over a buck a roll

.and that my friends is my math correction

I do haul out the digital if I'm shooting for coverage...such as family events, or if I'm in an airplane over something interesting...cause who wants to change film on a plane, but even at times like that I'll ensure that I have a film point and shoot handy with a fresh roll...cause I suspect which images I'll personally enjoy

 

I intend to keep shooting for another year or two, then I'll put them up for comment...but now shooting is simply for my own enjoyment...ha ha as I think I'd be crushed by the critics if I exposed myself as the novice I am...reading and shooting everyday...so with any luck....

[dhbebb]

<p>I can't say whether this guy is a troll or not, but shooting a lot of film (no matter how lousy the pictures are) is a great way of keeping film manufacturers in business!</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>Well, this is all interesting from an analytical point of view. Curious, Film Music, how do you scan the 'blat negatives?</p>

<p>It not unusual for people to go back to an older technology for whatever reason. This is what interests me, not film vs digital.<br>

On my next long journey I might take my a film Leica along with my Leica M 240. Reason. Dust. The biggest problem with digital cameras is dust on the sensor. The Leica, unlike my X-Pro 1, does not have an onboard sensor cleaner. I anticipate changing a lot of wide angle lenses. I will use those on the film camera and use a Minolta 24-35/3.5 zoom on the Leica M during the day.</p>

<p>But maybe not.</p>

<p>Anyway, whenever I get back into MF it will have to be film. Digital MF is too expensive.</p>

<p>I think for this tread to be successful we need to draw out the OP rather than argue with him.</p>

<p> </p>

[rapyke]

I, I'm afraid, get more than a little lost

by these threads... It is about pictures,

right?

 

Film, digital, point and shoot,

rangefinder, SLR, DSLR, mirror less...

These are all meaningless if there are

no pictures at the end of the day.

 

Choose the tool and processes that

work for you and have fun!

 

Just my non-geek opinion.

[sarah_fox]

<p>The question:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I can't say whether this guy is a troll or not,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The answer:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Well, just checking in on the thread....whew, ha ha, didn't think it was going to get this entertaining</p>

</blockquote>

[carbon_dragon]

Well I certainly have a lot of film taking up room in my freezer but that is really because I don't use it much these days.

When I take my Contax Aria out it takes great pictures as do my old Leicas but finding places to get the slides or the

negatives developed is problematic unless it's black and white (which I do myself if I can still remember how). I think if you

do film these days you really should look into doing your own color processing, however temperature sensitive it might be.

 

 

I'm sympathetic to film shooters these days and admire their dedication. But if it were me I'd miss such features as seeing

what I just shot, EVFs, live view, focus peaking, viewfinder magnification, and the great sensors my cameras have which

make it difficult for 35mm to compete with (obviously medium format would have an easier time competing).

 

 

I don't mind if the guy tilts at a few windmills.

[heningstepfield]

<p><strong>hi alex,</strong><br>

I scan the hass negs into my computer with a canon f9000, I think that's what it's called (don't have it with me...travelling) cost around 200bucks - i'm pleased with what I get out of it (for the few shots that matter..yup high ratio shooting here) some folks have gone to betterscanning.com and snagged new glass plates, this I think is a good idea as it appears to hold the negative flatter then the plastic that comes with the canon...this will be my next upgrade<br>

in the interest of saving time, I scan all in at a low rez then review, I then rescan at 50megs any pics I care to work on (LR and PS) then print<br>

for printing I snagged an Epson 2880, I use MIS ink, based upon the good suggestions by folks here, this combo is very inexpensive and delivers nice 13 x 19 from 35mm and 13 x 13 from my MF hass negs, I try to leave 1.25 inches on the top and bottom of the print to allow for matting/framing/signing<br>

along with a straight mat cutter, I snagged a circular one when I was in Shanghai...that little beast is a blast, specially if you mock up your pic to look old<br>

But I digress....ha ha back to defending myself as 'not a troll'...although perhaps wishing I was</p>

<p>so,</p>

<p>hi all,<br>

Nope, I'm not a troll, I seem to have touch a nerve with many, odd really cause if you look at my op you will see the information I was asking for<br>

copied for your ease of access (with a few spelling corrections):<br>

<strong><em>'....like I said...I fully understand that i'm nutz...but I do think film just looks better...I buy expired and process at home .,..so I'm not looking at film with a snobbish attitude...I just like looking at film...jpegs look like candy...that's all...I f$%ing hate candy)</em></strong><br>

<strong><em>thoughts?'</em></strong><br>

so there we have it i'm interested in learning if my thoughts are shared by others - that's it<br>

now, back to breakfast....coffee...where the#$# did I leave my coffee...and the beat goes on</p>

<p> </p>

[unangelino]

<p>The OP and responses are vintage pnet. The OP starts out by saying film is easier but ends up saying he prefers it to digital because he doesn't like candy. <em>Yawn</em>.</p>

<p>Then, the natives show up and give the OP his RDA of written sarcasm. <em>Yawn</em>.</p>

<p>In the end, the OP lays out all the work he does to shoot film (<em>easier?</em>) and reiterates that what he really wants is to know if anyone shares his thoughts. Some might, but most have moved on by now.</p>

<p>There's something about pnet that attracts <em>exactly</em> this kind of post and responses.</p>

<p>It's amusing and all, but more than a little predictable.</p>

<p>To the OP: Rock on. And, as you say, the beat does go on.</p>

[heningstepfield]

<p>On a lighter note, Lastweek I told my 5 year old that someday folks will stop making film, he looked sad, he enjoys outings with his Leicaz2x he watches while I develop his pics, it's a family thing, we enjoy it, the event takes a day to shoot, a day to develop and dry, then a Day to print and dry, then on another day an hour or two to matt and frame, yes, he signs and numbers his prints...he'll why not make it an event, All in all 4 days to get one pic up on a kid's wall allin, including a 5dollar frame for less then 10 bucks, darn affordable family fun...and a tad educational as we enter discussions on light and composition while shooting Ha ha, my son does like candy but has no clue as to what a JPEG is, but does know that a hasselblad roll is good for 12 exposures...so it's best to get a good reading with our trusty meter before firing off a shot Film forces us to slow down, I like that Signing off on this thread now, thanks to all for the excitement, see you next thread</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>Film forces us to slow down</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I don't understand this statement. I can work very deliberately with a digital camera mounted on a tripod, focusing the lens manually in Live View as I squint through my reading glasses, using tilt-shift lenses, previewing depth of field, fine-tuning exposure values, etc. Film doesn't slow me down. Working with digital CAN be as slow as shooting my 4x5 camera. And that's not counting the hours afterward when I'll be working with raw files.</p>

[wildflower art]

<p>Dear Film music,<br>

I am thrilled and enthusiastic I found your thread. Film provides bold attachment to subject, which, civilization endorses and I think film endures. I love film because shooting digital leaves me feeling empty handed. I love the physical slide, I find the possession of the slide provides authority and commanding. The tastes I get from your color show a real love of subject above any superstition. To make film more relevant, I would love to have a standard image size for printing, web, and storing for digital so the mediums are convertible.<br>

Perhaps a camera company will agree to print out contact prints of digital images that can be scanned in with less quality loss. Does the future provide for better archives of digital prints? Do you suggest a standard way (size, pixel density, and paper) to print a digital image for printing, sharing, and storing? If you were a publisher, you could get an email of an image and a print out of the contact, Wi-Fi to their printer to print out the standard. </p>

<p>At keh.com, film equipment remains a "top seller" in many categories, including professional cameras, and some items are scarce. Film is getting harder to find and process, and may soon not be produced in some foreseeable future. For instance, my grocer no longer processes film and many hour photo stores are gone. With them, so are the camera stores (except for Staples and Bestbuy). More people are taking digital pictures with the iPhone then any other camera. Someone is using film, finding the professional film cameras a great teaching tool for their work, suggesting a huge market is still there, for cost reasons alone. <br>

Many people are getting burned in digital photography, and your love of the tradition should inspire us all. Digital has turned the SLR into a standard means of communication. Digital is bringing thousands of people up to the challenge of using an SLR. Digital has turned photography more professional. This means many people are having their hearts broken everyday. </p>

<p>Thank you,</p>

<p>Matthew</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>Nope, I'm not a troll …</em><br>

Accepting this at face value, I would make two points:<br>

1) It is an entirely commendable thing to give large sums of money to the honest hardworking purveyors of cameras, film and processing services who toil many a long day in the photographic trade for nary a thought of personal gain :-)<br>

2) It is also not illegal (in fact it can be quite fun) to collect and play with cameras and other photo gear BUT … if you have any interest in photography (i.e. producing pictures that mean anything), you should swing your attention right away from equipment, pare your approach down to the basics (one camera, one lens, irrelevant whether film-based or digital ) and try to figure out what you actually trying to SAY.</p>

[heningstepfield]

<p>hi dan, film does force us to slow down, nothing wrong with going the same slow speed with dig, if that's your bag - glad you are taking this approach<br>

(I suspect many aren't)<br>

Matthew, whew thanks....ha ha, thought I was in this one all alone....sinking, least now we can toss a life-line to each other<br>

interesting thoughts on a standard Matthew, i'll give this some thought, as I have yet to venture into that concept with any consideration...my initial thoughts are, I like it. Especially the archiving ramifications you have cited.<br>

I remember 10 or so years ago I was at a producer's conference and a panel sat chatting about the new and exciting world of HD, an older experienced pro, working as an executive for the National Film Board (of Canada) - then asked what the new standard would do with respect to archiving, I still remember everyone's' faces when the question was poorly answered with a then noted concern of sunspots and the earth's magnetic fields as being factors that could delete all (ha ha, I hope things and understandings have improved over the last decade or so but hey...time will tell)<br>

I'm no doubt influenced by the fact that today I can afford to run film through a gate, personally - back when I was growing up - I simply choose beer over film (man's got to make choices...and film was way too expensive...kids have dig today...least once they get a camera they are not constrained to shoot to their ability...this is a big plus that dig has over film..it really isn't a one-sided argument)<br>

nonetheless,<br>

really enjoy sharing the art of film today with my son, can't see too many more generation being able to extend this medium into a weekly family hobby, what we create today may well be the last of the film to be handed down to future generations<br>

My son and I started shooting digital a tad over a year ago, but we would do very little with what we created in camera.<br>

Once we changed to film, we used our hands more, it was tactile, shooting, developing (I don't allow him to touch chems (too much)...he can watch though...agitating when his mother is not looking), printing, matting/framing, signing - it is simply more of a process then holding up a dig camera in auto, pointing, shooting, then maybe printing before losing the data somehow (ha ha...yup, happened more then once on a family vacation...in-laws still hate me) and yes you can point and shoot a film camera, but if you are developing your film then you still experience the magic of a latent image coming to life...which hits me as mind blowing (magic really)<br>

to each his own...I'm simply getting more out of film and the process it demands <strong>and the end look</strong>, glad you are feeling the same Matthew, now let's get ready to protect the body....or run...ha ha, cause unless this thread has gone stealth, I expect to be beaten up...or at least poked with a dull stick for our public statements of religious conviction.....but hey, I've been wrong before</p>

<p> </p>

[heningstepfield]

<p>Hi David,<br>

My love of photography is shooting street in Asia. specifically, as subject matter, I bounce between those who are seeking daily survival to those that are reaping the rewards of preferred positions. I once read a statement by an artist, he only goes into nature to find subjects of leaves, as in his mind he can only choose from a few versions, while in nature there exists billions to choose from. I see street as billions to choose from.<br>

I have gone through much gear in a short period of time attempting to find a solid film kit that will allow me to shoot street<br>

currently what I enjoy is a Nikon f100 with a 20-80, a 70- 300 vr, and of course a 50mm which sometimes comes or not depending upon the light I think I'm going to battle (my 50 prime is a 1.8...the zooms are way slower)<br>

I snag blad if I'm going anywhere that highlights nature...a park, or an ocean for instance, tripod optional...usually not<br>

if my son is along for the ride, he takes a film point and shoot, we change between us whenever either of us wishes<br>

there you have it, the preferred kit(s) came together quickly...we really do not questions what we take into the field today, it's beyond gear at this point...which I think was the point you were making...i'm listening<br>

although,<br>

I am guilty of buying most any point and shoot 35mm that I see, provided it's under $5...but hey we all have our faults. I generally push a roll through a newly acquired P&S, then toss most into a drawer. A few have managed to stay out of the drawer, those being, an Olympus mj 1 and 2, a leica z2x, and a few Nikons, an L35af2 and a one touch...all gotten for less the $5 each cept the Leica, which stood me a total of $68...bought it for my son so I could break the $5 rule that I have set for myself<br>

3 or 4 days per week, for 6mnths this last year, I spend several hours a day, roaming the streets of Asia seeking decisive moments<br>

to-date, out of thousands of shots, I only have a handful that I'm pleased with....but every time I place camera to face...I prey that I've got another,....ha ha, then I forget what I was just shooting and begin to seek out yet another moment in the attempt to freeze time again<br>

zero confusion on my subject...just learning the process of becoming a photographer..in the field...committed to action (yup, semi-retirement has its perks...you can do most anything you'd care to as long as it's cheap and fun, WTF...although I work hard at it, I really fail to take it too seriously, as not to enjoy the process)<br>

whatever works for whatever reason...don't forget to have fun...buy a film point and shoot...and see if it tempts ya</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm simply getting more out of film and the process it demands and the end look</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is nothing wrong with this. But your <em>preference</em> in the end has got nothing to do with film being easier, or delivering more keepers, or JPEGs looking like candy, or other wide-sweeping statements. It only means you prefer using one thing over the other. Fine.<br>

Do whatever you prefer; but if you think your photography is getting better by shooting film, you're obsessing too much with the recording media and too little with the actual images you create. As David said, "<em>try to figure out what you actually trying to SAY</em>".<br>

And I guess that's applicable to this thread as well.<strong><br /></strong></p>

[keith reeder]

<p>@ Paul Cervantes</p>

<p>Interesting that you feel a sense of entitlement to criticise the responses to this thread while at the same time contributing <em>absolutely nothing of value whatsoever</em> to it. </p>

<p>The OP is indeed coming across in a rather trollish, flamebaiting way, and many of his declarations are at best debatable and at worst just plain silly: those in the thread who have made these points are absolutely right to do so, if only to disabuse those who might read it down the line of the notion that what the OP says is anything more than opinionated hyperbole.</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>I think the main problem with this thread was basically the title - "Film? cause it's easier"</p>

<p>Clearly it's not easier as the OP essentially admits, and all the statements about 'candy' etc. further added to the impression that this was just a troll. It turns out he was somewhat more considered than that and maybe first impressions were (justifiably) false.</p>

<p>I totally understand the magic of watching an image appear in the developing tray and if it's a hobby that can be shared with your kids, that's wonderful. I started processing and printing my own film when I was 8 and loved every aspect of the process, it really is a fun and absorbing medium.</p>

<p>However, if we are talking about images then it's just a different capture medium. Passion, timing, color, lighting, composition, impact, etc. are not dependent or influenced by the capture medium and it's a mistake to confuse the two. Photography is a big tent with many different passions in it, including camera collecting, academic study of past masters, a love of technology and acquisition of the latest products, wet processing and printing, the love of images and self improvement, telling a story and conveying a message, exhibiting, etc. All are equally valid and give immense pleasure to millions, it's not necessary to put something down because your interests lie elsewhere.</p>

<p>Personally, photography has been my sole living for my entire life - initially film and since 2005, exclusively digital - it has been, and remains, one of my abiding passions. My desire to produce the best images I can has not been affected by the switch in media at all. Placing undue importance on the capture medium - if images are the goal - is a big mistake. No-one cares what kind of word processor a novel was written with - or indeed if it was written longhand with a pencil. Content is king.</p>

[heningstepfield]

<p>hi - the world went through a similar evolution when audio changed from tape to dig about 12 or so years ago <br>

ask any working audio engineer who experienced both worlds, the capture medium does in-fact have an impact on the final product (both in-terms of process and, in the case of audio, the sound) <br>

in the case of photography the difference between a negative and a jpeg (or whatever) is real in-terms of many qualities, certainly the 'look' is one quality that is impacted by the choice of capture medium<br>

My title held a question mark....ha ha, i'm not certain that was ingested widely...perhaps it was my presentation of the words that followed that focused attention away from what I thought was an offering of simply irony<br>

of course film takes longer, but I like the process and the end product more then what I'm getting out of a dig camera. which speaks to the point raised several time now <br>

'<em>try to figure out what you actually trying to SAY</em>"<br>

I believe that the answer to that lay in-part both in the selection of subject matter and the medium of capture that best presents the subject<br>

for me, shooting street (mostly folks trying to survive another day) in Asia, I prefer film, for all of it's patina. I find when I shoot street in asia with a dig, what comes back is nice pictures of struggling folks...boring...film nails street IMO<br>

so let's all please get beyond the 'figure out your subject' statements and the 'you only need one lens' statements'<br>

because although you may only require one lens to take a pic, several will allow you options, it's a preference thing, and for me matters not, I enjoy my kit, I hope you enjoy yours regardless of the number of lenses you carry<br>

If I may thank everyone again for their thoughts, I realize I have touched a few nerves in a negative manner - for this, I apologize, ha ha...I am enjoying the challenges that folks are presenting, it is helping me to further understand just why I like film so much...keep'em coming...but to all - let's play nice, I'm not here to hurt anyone....really </p>

 

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I find when I shoot street in asia with a dig, what comes back is nice pictures of struggling folks...boring...film nails street IMO</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Having seen plenty, more than plenty, of great digital street shots from Asia, I have to say that you are only talking about yourself. Maybe you should consider not shooting "struggling folks," I find that is usually a problem.<br>

<br>

And until you show something, nobody knows what you are talking about.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>The nice thing about photography as a hobby is that we can indulge in any number of ways, and there's really no right or wrong, only personal preference. There is also no obligation whatsoever for anyone to meet another's expectation. </p>

<p>Maybe film is still too new to be embraced as something other than an obsolete medium. The OP's audio analogy probably illustrates this well - make an audio recording on magnetic tape and you'll be seen as a hipster marketer or at best as retro-cool, but go back another generation and cut the audio direct to acetate on a 1930's Presto disc cutter, with the right genre of music, and you will have achieved something worthy of historical preservation.<br>

<a href="http://the78project.com/watch/">http://the78project.com/watch/</a> </p>

[heningstepfield]

Hi Jeff, I'm not about to change my subject because it's hard, I enjoy the challenge, I'll shoot another year before I post...I'm in no rush to

publish..ha ha, and my shooting ratio would leave very few examples of my hi ratio work To currently chat about...saw a doc on a

landscape photographer he said he stayed on a location for 17 months once before he got a pic that worked for him...I like this

approach

 

Michael, I enjoyed your post, very positive