fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

• Fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

• Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Film Is Not Dead Forum | Join Upload & Sell

end

My Reason For Film

bwcolor
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · My Reason For Film

I understand the concern, but only if you make a living from selling images. Otherwise, people will generally think what they are told to think. My use of the word ‘think’ truly makes the word an oxymoron.

Jul 24, 2026 at 02:13 PM

Pixelpuffin
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · My Reason For Film

Unless you are extremely proficient with film - bear in mind pros often shot Polaroids back in the day - then you simply don’t know if you got the shot until it’s been developed I don’t mean sharp focus I mean nuances of colour (or shades of grey) at the absolute correct exposure you wanted… if that meant you neededto under/over expose by 2/3rds then so be it.
In short none of us can guarantee that level of precision with film.. there are simply too many variables at play.
But I agree AI is the “new” photoshop…if I see a great image I now automatically just assume it was edited…a lot!!

In other words I no longer believe ANY pictures I see today.
So they might as well be AI

Now that’s tragic!

Edited on Jul 24, 2026 at 11:34 PM · View previous versions

Jul 24, 2026 at 08:50 PM

snegron7
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · My Reason For Film

Pixelpuffin wrote:
Unless you are extremely proficient with film - bear in mind pros often shot Polaroids back on the day - then you simply don’t know if you got the shot until it’s been developed. I don’t mean sharp focus I mean nuances of colour at the absolute correct exposure… if that meant you need to under/over expose thy 2/3rds then so be it.
In short none of us can guarantee that level of precision with film.. there are simply too many variables at play.
But I agree A1 is the new photoshop…if I see a great image I now automatically just...Show more →

I was actually "one of those photographers back in the day"! 😀 Polaroid backs were too expensive for me back then, so I had to be 100% sure that I was doing everything possible to nail the shot.

I was forced to learn the "sunny 16 rule" back around 1985 when I dropped my Nikon FM2N while covering a college track meet. It hit the ground prism-first and damaged its internal light meter. I continued using that meter-less camera until I could afford a second hand Nikon F3. From then on, I used my FM2N for B&W film and my used F3 for color film.

Fast forward a few decades, and now I'm too dependent on the awesome metering and lightning-fast feedback I get with my dslr's and mirrorless cameras. It's quick, convenient, and super effective. However, I'm willing to sacrifice that for more control over the ownership of my images.

I'm slowly reacquainting myself with film once again. In addition to my current film cameras that I've owned for years (Nikon S2 Rangefinder, Nikon F, F with FTN Photomic Viewfinder, F2A, F3hp, FM2N, F100, F5, N80), I've been buying all-mechanical cameras whenever I come across them (a few Canon FT QL's, FTb, Konica T3, Minolta SRT 200, Pentax Spotmatic SP 500) plus a few semi-electronic cameras as well (a couple of Pentax Super Programs).

I also still have my medium format equipment (Mamiya RB67, 645J, 645E), so that gives me better IQ than 35mm for whenever I need it.

The question for now is how do I plan to store/display the film images I capture? It would defeat the purpose (for me at least) to scan and upload my film images to any device that has cloud storage service access. Since building a full darkroom in my house at this time is not possible, I have no choice but to go back to what I used to do when I started my digital workflow; scan, print, save to external hard drives.

However, after the last two frustrating nights battling with Onedrive and Google Pictures, I've been caught off guard at how expensive SSD and external hard drives have gotten.

Jul 24, 2026 at 09:20 PM

speedgraphic
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #4 · My Reason For Film

You want an even more philosophical reason to use film? And I actually believe this though it tends to infuriate people.

Here is the deal: Digital images do not exist. Film images do. Simple as that. I want to create my art pieces on a medium that exists, and not on one that does not.

But you may say, ridiculous! I'm looking at the digital images on my computer right now! True enough, you can create images that you can see when represented via a software and hardware intermediary, but you can't take your hard drive apart and touch your images. They have no original. They are always, at every stage, being copied and re-copied. They require constant attention of 'some kind' in order to continue to be visible to us.

Another way to put it is, digital images exist in the same way that video games characters exist. If you buy a skin for your character in Fortnight, it has the same basic structure as a digital image. You can fire up some software and show someone your fortnight skin, you can even print it out! Just like a digital image.

From an archival standpoint, digital photography is an utter disaster. Almost all storage mediums are relatively short lived. All access points to those storage mediums are relatively short lived. (How are your Zip Disks and Zip Drives doing these days?) Once you, the photographer, lose interest or die, who is going to maintain that cloud subscription? Who's going to keep updating your RAID? They require constant updates and electricity to just keep being available to us to view. Meaning you have to maintain their storage medium and computer environment, forever. No one, in 100 years, will find a box full of old digital images. If they do find the drives, good luck reading them with anything.

I do actually shoot a lot of digital images. I have a Hasselblad X2DII and I shoot with my phone all the damn time. But I consider this work to be temporary in nature and if I do happen to want something to last, I make sure it's printed via an archival pigment printer. So there are ways around the inherent 'non existence' of digital images. But let's be perfectly honest, how many of you are regularly printing your images using an archival pigment printer on decent paper stock?

Film, on the other hand, is perfectly happy to be properly developed and plopped in a Print File sleeve. Assuming pretty reasonable conditions and proper developing techniques, it will be find for 100+ years. Much longer in the case of a good B&W negative. Color negative and E6 sadly will start to degrade in a few decades if we're being completely honest. (RIP Kodachrome).

Again, sort of philosophically, the negatives themselves were present at the time of the image being made and the light that bounced off your subject is that same light that imprinted on your silver halides. If you go into Steve McCurry's archive and find the original Kodachrome of The Afghan Girl, that actual artifact sat in front of that girl and was handled by Steve McCurry himself, plus any number of Nat Geo staffers and technicians. Which is more intrinsically valuable? A theoretical raw file sitting on a hard drive, or an original artifact?

Jul 27, 2026 at 05:12 PM

OregonSun
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · My Reason For Film

speedgraphic wrote:
You want an even more philosophical reason to use film? And I actually believe this though it tends to infuriate people.

Here is the deal: Digital images do not exist. Film images do. Simple as that. I want to create my art pieces on a medium that exists, and not on one that does not.

But you may say, ridiculous! I'm looking at the digital images on my computer right now! True enough, you can create images that you can see when represented via a software and hardware intermediary, but you can't take your hard drive apart and touch your images. They have no original. They are always, at every stage, being copied and re-copied. They require constant attention of 'some kind' in order to continue to be visible to us.

Another way to put it is, digital images exist in the same way that video games characters exist. If you buy a skin for your character in Fortnight, it has the same basic structure as a digital image. You can fire up some software and show someone your fortnight skin, you can even print it out! Just like a digital image.

From an archival standpoint, digital photography is an utter disaster. Almost all storage mediums are relatively short lived. All access points to those storage mediums are relatively short lived. (How are your Zip Disks and Zip Drives doing these days?) Once you, the photographer, lose interest or die, who is going to maintain that cloud subscription? Who's going to keep updating your RAID? They require constant updates and electricity to just keep being available to us to view. Meaning you have to maintain their storage medium and computer environment, forever. No one, in 100 years, will find a box full of old digital images. If they do find the drives, good luck reading them with anything.

I do actually shoot a lot of digital images. I have a Hasselblad X2DII and I shoot with my phone all the damn time. But I consider this work to be temporary in nature and if I do happen to want something to last, I make sure it's printed via an archival pigment printer. So there are ways around the inherent 'non existence' of digital images. But let's be perfectly honest, how many of you are regularly printing your images using an archival pigment printer on decent paper stock?

Film, on the other hand, is perfectly happy to be properly developed and plopped in a Print File sleeve. Assuming pretty reasonable conditions and proper developing techniques, it will be find for 100+ years. Much longer in the case of a good B&W negative. Color negative and E6 sadly will start to degrade in a few decades if we're being completely honest. (RIP Kodachrome).

Again, sort of philosophically, the negatives themselves were present at the time of the image being made and the light that bounced off your subject is that same light that imprinted on your silver halides. If you go into Steve McCurry's archive and find the original Kodachrome of The Afghan Girl, that actual artifact sat in front of that girl and was handled by Steve McCurry himself, plus any number of Nat Geo staffers and technicians. Which is more intrinsically valuable? A theoretical raw file sitting on a hard drive, or an original artifact?...Show more →

Yep, that's my main reason too, only film is a physical artifact of the actual moment.

Jul 27, 2026 at 10:00 PM

chez
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #6 · My Reason For Film

speedgraphic wrote:
You want an even more philosophical reason to use film? And I actually believe this though it tends to infuriate people.

Here is the deal: Digital images do not exist. Film images do. Simple as that. I want to create my art pieces on a medium that exists, and not on one that does not.

But you may say, ridiculous! I'm looking at the digital images on my computer right now! True enough, you can create images that you can see when represented via a software and hardware intermediary, but you can't take your hard drive apart and touch your images. They have no original. They are always, at every stage, being copied and re-copied. They require constant attention of 'some kind' in order to continue to be visible to us.

Another way to put it is, digital images exist in the same way that video games characters exist. If you buy a skin for your character in Fortnight, it has the same basic structure as a digital image. You can fire up some software and show someone your fortnight skin, you can even print it out! Just like a digital image.

From an archival standpoint, digital photography is an utter disaster. Almost all storage mediums are relatively short lived. All access points to those storage mediums are relatively short lived. (How are your Zip Disks and Zip Drives doing these days?) Once you, the photographer, lose interest or die, who is going to maintain that cloud subscription? Who's going to keep updating your RAID? They require constant updates and electricity to just keep being available to us to view. Meaning you have to maintain their storage medium and computer environment, forever. No one, in 100 years, will find a box full of old digital images. If they do find the drives, good luck reading them with anything.

I do actually shoot a lot of digital images. I have a Hasselblad X2DII and I shoot with my phone all the damn time. But I consider this work to be temporary in nature and if I do happen to want something to last, I make sure it's printed via an archival pigment printer. So there are ways around the inherent 'non existence' of digital images. But let's be perfectly honest, how many of you are regularly printing your images using an archival pigment printer on decent paper stock?

Film, on the other hand, is perfectly happy to be properly developed and plopped in a Print File sleeve. Assuming pretty reasonable conditions and proper developing techniques, it will be find for 100+ years. Much longer in the case of a good B&W negative. Color negative and E6 sadly will start to degrade in a few decades if we're being completely honest. (RIP Kodachrome).

Again, sort of philosophically, the negatives themselves were present at the time of the image being made and the light that bounced off your subject is that same light that imprinted on your silver halides. If you go into Steve McCurry's archive and find the original Kodachrome of The Afghan Girl, that actual artifact sat in front of that girl and was handled by Steve McCurry himself, plus any number of Nat Geo staffers and technicians. Which is more intrinsically valuable? A theoretical raw file sitting on a hard drive, or an original artifact?...Show more →

Well my formal wedding negatives burned down with the studio they were in…so much for the touchy feely thing. If they were digital, they’d be up in the cloud backed up multiple times…available today just like 40 years ago.

Jul 27, 2026 at 10:28 PM

speedgraphic
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #7 · My Reason For Film

I never said film was indestructible. Also film scans can and do exist in the cloud. Best of both worlds.

Jul 28, 2026 at 06:14 AM

johnvanr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #8 · My Reason For Film

speedgraphic wrote:
You want an even more philosophical reason to use film? And I actually believe this though it tends to infuriate people.

Here is the deal: Digital images do not exist. Film images do. Simple as that. I want to create my art pieces on a medium that exists, and not on one that does not.

But you may say, ridiculous! I'm looking at the digital images on my computer right now! True enough, you can create images that you can see when represented via a software and hardware intermediary, but you can't take your hard drive apart and touch your images. They have no original. They are always, at every stage, being copied and re-copied. They require constant attention of 'some kind' in order to continue to be visible to us.

Another way to put it is, digital images exist in the same way that video games characters exist. If you buy a skin for your character in Fortnight, it has the same basic structure as a digital image. You can fire up some software and show someone your fortnight skin, you can even print it out! Just like a digital image.

From an archival standpoint, digital photography is an utter disaster. Almost all storage mediums are relatively short lived. All access points to those storage mediums are relatively short lived. (How are your Zip Disks and Zip Drives doing these days?) Once you, the photographer, lose interest or die, who is going to maintain that cloud subscription? Who's going to keep updating your RAID? They require constant updates and electricity to just keep being available to us to view. Meaning you have to maintain their storage medium and computer environment, forever. No one, in 100 years, will find a box full of old digital images. If they do find the drives, good luck reading them with anything.

I do actually shoot a lot of digital images. I have a Hasselblad X2DII and I shoot with my phone all the damn time. But I consider this work to be temporary in nature and if I do happen to want something to last, I make sure it's printed via an archival pigment printer. So there are ways around the inherent 'non existence' of digital images. But let's be perfectly honest, how many of you are regularly printing your images using an archival pigment printer on decent paper stock?

Film, on the other hand, is perfectly happy to be properly developed and plopped in a Print File sleeve. Assuming pretty reasonable conditions and proper developing techniques, it will be find for 100+ years. Much longer in the case of a good B&W negative. Color negative and E6 sadly will start to degrade in a few decades if we're being completely honest. (RIP Kodachrome).

Again, sort of philosophically, the negatives themselves were present at the time of the image being made and the light that bounced off your subject is that same light that imprinted on your silver halides. If you go into Steve McCurry's archive and find the original Kodachrome of The Afghan Girl, that actual artifact sat in front of that girl and was handled by Steve McCurry himself, plus any number of Nat Geo staffers and technicians. Which is more intrinsically valuable? A theoretical raw file sitting on a hard drive, or an original artifact?...Show more →

Philosophically, yes. Practically, it don’t make much of a difference anymore.

Jul 28, 2026 at 06:52 AM

speedgraphic
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #9 · My Reason For Film

I don't agree. It makes a very large difference to me. There are just so many unpleasant aspects of shooting digital as well. LR catalogs filling up with images only to be forgotten. The constant impulse to edit and re-edit as your taste changes over time. The constant impulse to over shoot every scene. It goes on and on.

Ironically I find smart phones to be the best and purest form of 'shooting digitally'. They're always on you, they're incredibly easy to use and take almost all technical choices away from you. And most importantly, the gallery system does a pretty good job of showing you your old images on a recurring basis. As when Apple sends a 'reminder' about a memories segment. Plus, the sharing capability is unmatched.

Even with the X2DII sitting on my desk I'm more likely to make a given photo with the Leica app and frankly it looks pretty damn good up to small-moderate/small print sizes. We also have an Aura Fame at home, which I really can't recommend enough for snapshots and vacation images.

But again, I consider these images just sort of ephemeral and out of my direct control in many ways. Where as I spent about 20 minutes last night sleeving various Kentmere 200 and Portra 160 negatives that I shot on a Mamiya 6 in Ireland this year. It was a direct process that I do with my hands while listening to a podcast. Just little tasks like that are why I got into photography in the first place. I never wanted to spend my life behind a computer monitor. I know 'exactly' where those original artifacts are and I know that they're preserved in a sealed binder. If my studio burns down, well I have bigger problems than the loss of the negatives!

Jul 28, 2026 at 08:58 AM

johnvanr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #10 · My Reason For Film

Jul 28, 2026 at 12:10 PM

chez
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #11 · My Reason For Film

johnvanr wrote:
That’s mostly you, though. I don’t reprocess my digital images, I don’t overshoot digitally and I’ve a ton of negatives from the past that are also forgotten.

And if I had to choose between spending time in a darkroom vs spending time in front of a computer, I’d choose the latter. In reality, I enjoy neither very much.

Yes, I remember in the darkroom days you’d have to devote hours for processing with the pre-setup and the post cleanup. With processing a digital image, I could be productive even if I only have 1/2 hour to devote to it.

Jul 28, 2026 at 02:37 PM

James Markus
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #12 · My Reason For Film

The camera obscura took too long.

Jul 28, 2026 at 09:11 PM

campy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · My Reason For Film

You want to look authentic then walk around with this baby around your neck.

Jul 29, 2026 at 01:47 AM

panos.v
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · My Reason For Film

speedgraphic wrote:
I don't agree. It makes a very large difference to me. There are just so many unpleasant aspects of shooting digital as well. LR catalogs filling up with images only to be forgotten. The constant impulse to edit and re-edit as your taste changes over time. The constant impulse to over shoot every scene. It goes on and on.

Ironically I find smart phones to be the best and purest form of 'shooting digitally'. They're always on you, they're incredibly easy to use and take almost all technical choices away from you. And most importantly, the gallery system does a...Show more →

I mean ok sure it works for you and you like it. I do like shooting film but also shoot digital and just don't see the difference anymore (not in output but overall hassle and process). Do images end up in overfilling LR catalogs with images to be forgotten? Well how is that different with the dozens of boxes of negatives in the basement? With LR I can at least do a search, even look for people (with the people cataloguing it does now) with a few clicks vs going through boxes and trying to vaguely remember when an image was and decyphering negatives against a light bulb. So different things for different people.

As for time spent on a computer, having spent a bit of time on my workflow my time editing an image is 2-3 clicks to apply a profile or two and some straighten/crop (just like you'd do with film images).

Finally, you mention some compulsions:
1. editing changes as preferences change, see my point about editing in 2-3 clicks but in any case, isn't that the same as going through different stocks and formats? We've all done it. Start with 35mm, then debate portra vs gold then go to 120, debate square vs 6x7 or panoramic etc. Not even going into B&W processing options and combinations
2. overshooting every scene. That's just you, sorry. I look at my lightroom catalogues and they average the same number of images over the years even though the first few are film only and now they are digital.

So...like we said, different things for different people. If it works for you cool but it is not like the one and true way for everyone.

Jul 29, 2026 at 03:58 AM

Desmolicious
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · My Reason For Film

Last weekend I shot digital w my Leica M10r. I really liked my eventual results after editing but I gotta look into creating one click profiles because each one required fiddling with the DNGs.
I've never tried DNG + JPG capture, so maybe I should look into that but it seems like there is only one JPG option (unlike Fuji, Olympus, Nikons I've used where it seems there are infirite possibilities!).

When I shoot film and scan - the process seems much quicker. Basically invert in NLP and one or two slight adjustments and I'm done.
Of course the real overall time is much longer - shoot the film, get it developed, scan it.....

Jul 29, 2026 at 02:35 PM

bwcolor
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · My Reason For Film

Desmolicious wrote:
Last weekend I shot digital w my Leica M10r. I really liked my eventual results after editing but I gotta look into creating one click profiles because each one required fiddling with the DNGs.
I've never tried DNG + JPG capture, so maybe I should look into that but it seems like there is only one JPG option (unlike Fuji, Olympus, Nikons I've used where it seems there are infirite possibilities!).

When I shoot film and scan - the process seems much quicker. Basically invert in NLP and one or two slight adjustments and I'm done.
Of course the real overall time is...Show more →

When I consistently shoot one camera and follow through with a set post processing routine, then things go quickly. When I shoot a camera/film stock infrequently, then post processing can be more difficult.

As far as digital vs analog.. both workflows can work when the photographer does his/her job. As far as enjoying the process, that is a totally personal preference.

Jul 29, 2026 at 03:35 PM

thirtyfivefifty
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · My Reason For Film

If you’re worried your work will be mistaken for AI, you’re creating for an AI audience, not yourself. Honestly, that’s worse than AI, leading to creative slop alongside AI slop. The real problem is losing your own creative voice. Photography has been manipulated since its earliest days, film included.

Honestly, shoot whatever medium you love.

Sep 06, 2026 at 12:32 AM

bwcolor
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #18 · My Reason For Film

As a general response, I really don’t care about AI created images. I care should AI put people out of work, kill people, make for more effective propaganda and governmental mind control. In other words, I care should and when (which is now) AI takes away personal freedom.

I’m immune to AI with respect to photography, as long as equipment and materials are still produced. I shoot because I enjoy the process. I really don’t care if anyone else likes the end product.

It would be interesting to have a more advanced AI model critique your work. Then ask yourself if you even care what the response might be.

How many of you use a wet darkroom? If not, isn’t your hybrid workflow a digital workflow. True, you have a real image outside of the digital realm, but to post, print and the like you are fully digital..except for those with a darkroom, or that pay for darkroom prints.

Sep 06, 2026 at 12:00 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Film Is Not Dead Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end