Occasionally , for fun and experimentation ( with some of the new Cinema to Still films) , and we do an 'expired film ' shoot just for grins once and a while , but , day to day , no chance ..
ctrout wrote:
imagine how bland the artistic world would be if everyone had abandoned the old ways just because they were more time consuming, difficult, or less accurate.
This is spot on, I'd say.
I can understand others' disinterest in using film.
I can't understand the smaller set's contempt for those who do use film.
I started out with film and then fully moved to digital in 2005 until I was fortunate enough last year to get a mint Beseler 45M enlarger with darkroom equipment from a friend of mine as a gift. I first used this as an opportunity to connect digital photography and analog printing with digital negatives which I still love to use for my digital infrared photography. I got hooked and started developing my own B&W films (I am using 35 mm films for now) after realizing how much better silver gelatin prints (up to 11x14") looked which were directly made from these negatives.
I started experimenting with different developers and toners, all great learning, fun, and gathering experience there. This year I was offered a second Beseler enlarger with color head diffuser which I took. This allowed me to print from color negatives directly - I started developing my own color films with C-41 process followed by making color dye silver gelatin prints with the RA-4 process. The latter process is very time consuming, and so far I still print most of my color photos digitally with my PIXMA Pro-100 inkjet printer since the difference between a good color inkjet print and a color-dye silver gelatin print is less obvious compared to digital B&W versus silver gelatin B&W print. Color film still has a richness in tones which takes quite some post processing of digital files to accomplish the same.....just thinking back of some fall color shots I took both with Kodak Ektar 100 film and with my digital camera - the film colors were amazing without any further processing needed!
My point is that film is not better than digital or vice-versa, they are simply different. There are some situations where I prefer film and others where I only shoot digitally. Film and making prints from negatives is definitely more time-consuming, but I find it more fulfilling as a hobby. I found also a good way to merge old with new through the digital negative.
trogdon wrote:
Interesting set of responses, more praise for digital than I was expecting. Being 24, my first experiences with film were from my parents taking photos, but it wasn't something I used myself. Once they went digital, the film was gone for good. My first camera, the Sony NEX 5, was digital and couldn't be further from a film camera. That said, from intrigue (and chasing shallow DoF), I did end up shooting film, as many young photographers that grew up in a digital age seem to be doing these days. Even ilford has reported they are selling more film now than they were a few years ago, there is a bit of a resurgence. I've owned plenty of film cameras in my 6 years of active photography (Canon FD cameras, Minolta Maxxum cameras, a Contax G1, and most recently a Pentax 67), but I've always preferred digital. Especially since getting full frame I've stopped shooting 35mm film, I go through less than 2 rolls a year these days and don't plan on buying 35mm again. Partially this is due to my Costco stopping developing 35mm film, as it was $6 for dev and prints which was a lot of fun to get back. Now at $7 just for developing at a lab that's 40 minutes away, only medium format is worth the cost.
All this said, I agree with the overall sentiment of the thread. Film is not going to be like it was, and it's not the ideal way to shoot. I see a lot of young photographers getting caught up in film because it offers beautiful results with fantastic colors, but it really isn't future proof. Places to develop film will eventually stop, and those heavily vested in film these days are going to find themselves having to cope with a digital world at some point. ...Show more →
This is the catch for film - there are less options to have film (especially B&W film) developed - and if you find a place, get ready to spend quite some money for it even the development might not be the best. My advice is to keep full control over the whole process and learn how to develop film yourself - it isn't difficult. After you developed a few films on your own, you easily already made up for the cost of chemicals and some equipment compared to outside lab development of films. This year I shot 33 B&W films (about 1200 frames) and 8 color films (about 300 frames). Still using the same C-41 development package (including developer, Blix, stabilizer) which was purchased for $30 which I used to develop all 8 color films. If you store the solutions well, they last for a long time!
I agree that film has a bit of a renaissance now since many use film to stand out against the common digital picture flood. Still a niche, but a slowly growing niche as you can tell from steadily growing film and darkroom groups in social networks and increased interest in film-specific online forums.
Interesting approach to digitise...any details? OregonSun wrote:
The plethora of digital enthusiast responses is not surprising given this is a gear board whose members are largely obsessed with the newest/latest tech
I went back about 2 years ago, mostly for landscapes but also love shooting city/street on film. My film camera is a Pentax 67. I digitize using my 7D ii and a macro lens and use a digital processing/printing workflow. I shoot digital when I need autofocus (birds, mostly) or don't want to carry the weight.
Here's why I still love film:
6x7 and larger sensor sizes give DOF and field of view/perspective for a given focal length that will always be unavailable to FF and MF digital sensors.
Black and white film still looks better to me than converted digital files (unless maybe if I could afford a Leica monochrome).
Every shot counts, so I pay attention and choose carefully. This has vastly improved my seeing ability and understanding of light/exposure etc.
GAS is much less costly for old film gear, I have about $1500 into my Pentax 67 system, including 45mm, 55mm, 75mm shift, 90mm, 165mm, and 200mm. I spend about $1000 a year on film/processing. So in two years I've spent about the same as a 5D series body at launch price.
And of course, only film will survive the zombie apocalypse
gdanmitchell wrote:
I'm not quite following you here. Many of the reasons that folks like me who were brought up using film are no longer interested have been described in this thread.
It's because of my typo. I wrote "can't" twice, but I only intended it for the second one. My original post is now edited.
MAubrey wrote:
I can't understand the smaller set's contempt for those who do use film.
I wouldn't use the word "contempt", but I have no patience with the holier-than-thou hipsters who think their photography is more "real" and "authentic" because the shoot with a Diana instead of a DSLR.
They also think that poor technique - underexposed negatives, haphazard composition, out of focus subjects, light leaks, dirty negatives represent real film photography.
These are the same twerps who call records "vinyls". They claim" vinyls" sound better, all the while chewing up their "vinyl's by playing them on their cheap Crosley turntables. Yeah, right.
OTOH, I have tremendous respect for those who still shoot film and strive to present photos with both artistic and technical merit.
BTW, I own a Diana. I also have 10k+ records that I play on my three turntables.
freetime101 wrote:
Image quality - is film still better?
Hasn't been for quite some time.
A very fine grain FF35 film frame is said to top out at perhaps 12-14 megapixels of resolving power, from what I've read. That's ignoring that less advanced optical technology and the lack of chimping/EVF/etc reduced your odds of actually hitting optimal resolution.
Even dynamic range I would argue digital has been ahead for a pretty good while. At least compared to slide, and in my opinion negative. My belief is that digital clipping was simply more noticeable because it was so much more abrupt.
Now, as to the vagaries of color rendition, that's a lot harder to define objectively. Personally I believe anyone who doesn't think you can match any film look with digital just isn't shooting raw, but YMMV.
jcolwell wrote:
According to some people, so is film. Same old, same old.
No, not really the same. Film has still always been there, always there to buy in the local supermarket (35mm). Vinyl though had disappeared completely from mainstream shops here (I know it has carried on in specialist shops etc), but recently albums have reappeared in my local supermarket. I was surprised to say the least!
I still shoot film in my Fuji 6x9 and 4x5 Tachihara, all B&W. I still cannot produce the B&W look from digital that I get from shooting Agfa or Fuji film. I shoot film as a hobby, process my own film and scan the film to create a digital file. This file has different characteristics than one produced from digital...a difference I like.
If you are one that clicks away 1000 images in an outing...film is not for you. But using film gives you a different look depending on the film and gives you another option to create your vision. I use both digital and film, depending on what I want to produce. Neither is better than the other...just different.
I was all film before 2005, bought a Nikon D80 and shot very little film (mostly 4x5 b&w,) and then got very bored. Started buying vintage cameras (especially 1920s-1930s folding cameras) and vintage 4x5 lenses about 2010. I loved them! Today I shoot about 60% digital (only color) and 40% film (only b&w.) Why? Several reasons:
1. I can use lenses all the way back through time to the beginning of photography (have two lenses from the 1840s, four from 1850s.) I can replicate the look of just about every decade of photography.
2. Fun. It's a lot of fun to use historical gear--learning who made it, who used it, learning how to use it, and taking my own shots.
3. I love the classic look I get from uncoated pre-WW2 lenses, and pre-Civil War (<1860) lenses. My shots look differently from everyone elses'.
4. I get a feeling of connection to the past with the photographers who photo'd the subjects I now photo.
5. A classic film camera has a solid feel that's lacking in today's plastic bodies.
6. A big brass Petzval mounted on a wooden field camera is a work of art itself!
7. My historical/collectible gear is holding its value very well. If and when I sell it to get something else, I always get back what I paid for it. This is unlike the expensive digital cameras whose value drops like a rock.
Digital is faster and more practical, but it just isn't as much fun.
Kent in SD
Century Camera No. 41 (c.1905) with 6 in. Velostigmat in Volute shutter
Marshall, MN (1942 Leica IIIc, Leica Elmar 9cm f4, HP5)
I don't care personally about the quality difference but I still shoot a lot of 35mm film because I enjoy the process and the cameras I have to work with. I shoot medium format on occasion as well.
I am quite a fan of the more methodical, mechanical nature of my Leica M bodies, I fell in love with them 10 years ago and vowed to jump into that system when the time was right and a couple years ago I was able to do just that. For me, shooting film provides me with a tangible experience when it comes to my personal photography. I do shoot digital on an M Monochrom and a Ricoh GR, but that's it.
I definitely appreciate the convenience of digital and wouldn't want to be without it, but I also certainly don't want to be without my "archaic" cameras and ancient processes either
I basically follow the process outlined in the above link. I do six shots per 6x7 frame, stitched in LR/PS. I end up with approx 7500 x 6500 pixel files at 240 ppi. That is enough to see the film grain before seeing the pixels when zooming in.
Yep...sometimes the journey is more important than the destination. I'm thinking many people here grew up on digital...and its the cat's meow. Us more seasoned photogs appreciate slowing down at times and enjoying the journey.
Since I am not called the thread killer for nothing-let me add a thought that will kill it off for sure.
I await the day when we have TRUE medium format sensors. I shot 56 x45mm, 56 x56mm, 56x 70mm, and 56x90mm film formats back in the day (a Kodak Medalist 6x9 being my favorite) 33x44mm medium format? Come on guys, it is to laugh.
My impression is that while digital's made a lot of people better technicians, it hasn't done a thing for their ability to rouse emotion. Heavy postprocessing is a giveaway. Insipid photo? Just add vignetting and a frame. Now it's art.
I don't know what gives people the 'eye,' but it sure as hell isn't gear.
