what are the reasons we shoot film today?

[friedeye]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Film simply makes us better photographers. It teaches us about capturing light - and that's the craft part of the art. We have to think about the shot before we trip the shutter, as opposed to letting the camera do the thinking or fixing it later, in PP.

 

And film and digital aren't mutually exclusive: The specific qualities of film stock can relate directly to digital and inform how we shoot digitally. Think of a sensor as a film with a huge range. My M9 absolutely informs my M3 usage and vice versa.

 

One of the reasons we love Leica is that the company believes this, too. Although I sincerely hope they never chase Sony, et al, into AF land -- or use a sensor that is clean to 12,800. Because then, everything's going to look the same. At least until it's messed with in post -- and then, at that time, the art won't be made with the camera, rather, the computer. And the craft of taking a photograph (rather than post processing) will be lost.

[Berth]

Film simply makes us better photographers. It teaches us about capturing light - and that's the craft part of the art. We have to think about the shot before we trip the shutter, as opposed to letting the camera do the thinking or fixing it later, in PP.

 

And film and digital aren't mutually exclusive: The specific qualities of film stock can relate directly to digital and inform how we shoot digitally. Think of a sensor as a film with a huge range. My M9 absolutely informs my M3 usage and vice versa. .....

 

Yes

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[erl]

I will never have the depth of experience with digital that I have with film, simply because I probably wont live long enough!

 

I feel as though my film cameras understand me, whereas my digital cameras can't even think!

 

Then there is the smell and tactile stuff, already mentioned. Yes, that's for me.

 

Thankfully I am able to enjoy both.

 

The best? The one one I am using at the time.

[benedict297]

Great question! I've only gotten into photography about 5 years ago and up to this yr all my experience has been with digital. I wanted to try film because of the experience as well as the fact that one is now able to get pretty well made gear at reasonably good prices.

 

Having used the equipment for a few months, I like the fact that it just allows me to worry about shooting. With film there is no chance to review so you try and make every shot count and once you have shot it, you don't really get to worry coz you can't !!

 

I won't say that it makes one a better photographer that is way to subjective but I do feel that film still has a place and compliments the current digital world.

 

I am now looking forward to try and develop my own film.. The only problem is that I'm gonna need a scanner soon!!!

[Guest Mr. B]

Because I have a passion for film photography that does not carry over to digital imaging.

Because I have been using film and making my own black and white prints since I first learned how when I was in 8th grade back in 1967.

Because I like the challenge of using film.

Because I have had my own darkroom for forty years.

Because I own several high end film cameras in three different formats.

Because I only photograph for myself. I do not have to answer to clients any longer as I once did for over eighteen years.

Because I know how to use film.

Because I understand exposure. I don't need a computerized camera to figure exposure and focus for me.

Because I don't like having to sit in front of a computer any more than I already have to.

Because I don't feel the need to follow the crowd.

Because I don't listen to the current camera manufactures as to what medium I need to use to make my photographs.

Because I don't need instant results.

Because I like using my Leica film camera and lenses and will not spend $7000 on a camera body that will be old technology in two years and will need to be upgraded.

Because I have spent so many enjoyable decades processing my film and making my prints to give that all up and never do it again just to let a computer take charge is totally unacceptable to me. I have made thousands of digital images, but the feeling is not the same as when I use film.

As long as film is available and I am able I will continue to use film for my personal photographs. I do own a point and shoot that I use for family photos, and I do occasionally take a photo with my phone.

Long live TriX.

Those are a few of the reasons I still enjoy using film.

Regards

Mr. B

[atournas]

Because shooting with an all-manual, all-metallic, battery-independent camera is one of the joys of this life; and...

 

Because that intimate relationship grown between the photographer and his/her loyal film camera is missing from a digital camera use; but...

 

In NO way because of any film over digital superiority as regards image quality (apart from little subjective interpretations now and then).

 

Paul

 

P.S. - I find the attached chart quite informative.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[NJH]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't because the numbers are nonsense.

 

Over on one of the other forums a guy posted some real shots of test charts he shot with Nikon F film and the same lens on a D700.

DPUG.ORG

 

... a real test with some real numbers we can all look at and agree or not rather than a load of pseudo scientific rambling with little to no hard evidence to back it up (talking about 99% of the film vs digital analysis that has appeared on the web over the years).

[atournas]

... a real test with some real numbers we can all look at and agree or not rather than a load of pseudo scientific rambling with little to no hard evidence to back it up ...

 

Of course, real field shots offer a better "feeling" of an image's quality. I, myself, occasionally turn to the chart I attached to my recent post for just rough estimates; hoverer, everyone with a scientific background will recognize traces of usable trends in the chart, like the exponential border between the two modes of imaging material and the spread of color sensitivity vs. pixel counting. The author of the chart, after all, is a known planetary scientist with extensive imaging experience (ClarkVision.com: about R. N. Clark).

 

But I guess we have no issue for long debates here.

 

Paul

[car_tyre_bresson]

In NO way because of any film over digital superiority as regards image quality (apart from little subjective interpretations now and then).

 

For most who shoot film (I bet including you), image quality would be hardly the primary motive. It's sort of an equivalent of learning martial arts for several years of rigourous practice and application instead of buying a gun and randomly firing to kill the opponent. It's not about the killing!

 

Ajay.

[xalo]

An additional reason is that the projection of slide film is so enjoyable to me. I hope the medium remains accessible for a long time and one way to ensure this is to use it.

 

Alexander

[atournas]

For most who shoot film (I bet including you), image quality would be hardly the primary motive ...Ajay.

 

No, image quality is not behind my (still) extensive use of film. It's the feeling of the camera and the joy of applying well-tested, old-fashioned techniques, like the zone system. Sometimes I catch myself exposing for the shadows (plus a couple of stops) with a digital camera! I guess it's not easy to change habits.

 

Paul

[Guest Mr. B]

For most who shoot film (I bet including you), image quality would be hardly the primary motive. It's sort of an equivalent of learning martial arts for several years of rigourous practice and application instead of buying a gun and randomly firing to kill the opponent. It's not about the killing!

 

Ajay.

 

Good analogy.

Mr. B

[bideford]

I have just returned to the joy of using film after many years using digital only - so I'm probably still in my honeymoon period so perhaps I'm a little less subjective at the moment. Plus I'm hybrid - no darkroom for me, just a bag, a Paterson (for B&W) and Asda (for C41) - converting to digital with a Plustek negative scanner and using Lightroom 5 to post process, as required. I am no pro (obviously!) so printing is selective and minimal.

 

What I would say is that without a doubt going back to film has had the same step change in my photography as I experienced when I went from a DSLR to a Leica M8.2.

 

I guess it is all about slowing down and taking the time to consider and compose before clicking that shutter.

 

I now really understand exposure. Not that I did not understand it before - it's just that with no instant review you are forced to take more notice and consider it a whole lot more. Using an non metered camera (even with a hand held lightmeter) certainly puts you there - and even a metered camera requires more thought/consideration. Again - no instant review or histograms to fall back on.

 

I now really consider the composition of each exposure - again it is not that I did not before but with limited exposures (and a cost for each one) you have to be so much more selective. Going out for a day with one or two rolls of film requires you to manage your exposures - something that seeing 999 exposures remaining simply does not encourage.

 

As I think I have said before, less is certainly more. The lessons I am learning from returning to film can only help to improve my use of digital. And I will continue to enjoy using both mediums.

 

James

[LucisPictor]

Three main reasons for me:

 

1. Because I love to use my beautiful, old film cameras.

2. Because it slows you down a bit.

3. Because it's fun!

[christoph_d]

... because I thought long and hard if I would make better pictures using Digital cameras - and the answer is NO.

 

Rgds

 

Christoph

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mijo]

I've gone back to film b/c sitting in a darkroom is my form of meditation. Then only thing keeping me from going back to film completely, and selling off my M-E, is the high cost of film and paper (the amount of time is a nonfactor for me). I also enjoy going to my community darkroom and listening to the older photogs talk about the "good old days".

[too old to care]

I do not get much enjoyment out of shooting digital and then looking at the image on a computer. Printing a digital photo is not much better. But, I do get enjoyment out of rolling film onto a spool and developing it, then working in the darkroom printing photos. Something about the whole experience that is rewarding for me.

 

Wayne

[gberger]

I guess it's because I started on film in the 1930's, when Kodachrome and an Argus camera were my birthday presents. Then, I discovered the pleasure in shooting, developing and printing Kodak Plus X as well as Tri X.

 

I ran out of having a darkroom and printing capability in 1945, so I switched to transparencies 100% (Kodachrome and later, Fuji). I added color print, and settled into a 90% trannies and 10% print when the demands of "family photography" became evident.

 

I graduated from an Argus to a IIIc, then an M4, followed by an M6, and finally an M7. (21, 24, 28 35 and 50 mm lenses, with 35 and 50 essential)

 

I'm used to the 36 exposure rolls, sending them out for development, using light table for sorting, mounting the best slides in glass and using a projector - - - so, why change ??

 

IMO, there's a very clear difference between digital instant gratification and waiting to see what I captured on film. Further, with transparencies, I don't have to spend otherwise enjoyable hours glued to a computer to post process, but using my iMac for other purposes.

 

Just a thought

[Herr Barnack]

Oh, hell - now this thread has me second guessing my decision to take a romp in the sheets with that sloe-eyed steamy digital strumpet we call the M240!!

 

I have not yet paid the house madam in Wetzlar for the company of that most elite and alluring of digital seductresses - but the point of no return is bearing down upon me.

 

Were she not so fast and easy and good at her chosen profession, I have my doubts that my eye would have ever wandered astray from the charms of the good and wholesome girl named M4-P who waits faithfully at home with nary a complaint regarding my false-hearted and adulterine machinations.

 

What an unfaithful and weak-willed creature I have become!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[srvjrg]

Hello every one,

 

I have been member of the forum for a while, but this is my first post. I think asking why some people still using film, is like saying that film is not a viable option but a remanent of something obsolete by its own merit, I cannot agree with that, I agree with the postulate that digital is a solution to mimic an image on a computer file, and that has a lot of advantages as a solution for the requirements of a fast pace business, for example, and that it can produce the same or better output than film (of course it depends on what you understand as "better"). I think that, when speaking about digital, the real hero is the computer scientist who is able to understand how nature works in order to write software to run in computer, able to "see" (camera), and to record a file containing data that needs more software in order to be translated into information that looks like an image to the human eye, and that is an amazing achievement. The trend shows that digital is seen as the best for some as it can produce instant (faster) results to people that need them that way, in that case what is important is the image, it doesn´t matter if it is a temporary file converted into a cell phone image by software, or an image posted in an internet photo album, or a printed image, this is ok if it is what you are looking for, and it has its place, but there are people, like me, who is looking for something more than a computer output, in my case I am looking for the "foot print" of a moment of time captured by nature action, something that can be transformed into a tactile object, again by nature's action, and for me this is magic, I am not saying that the act of inducing an electric charge in a photocell when being hit by a photon is not nature, actually it is, but while the data from the photocell needs to be translated according to a computer programmer's understanding of nature, the film acts according to a chemical reaction programmed by nature, and because of that, it is worth all time a effort involved in film photography. So, for me film is not obsolete at all, is a different way to relate to photography, a different way to understand the process and the output. Why I use film ? because it is pure magic. Digital may be magic too, but it is a different kind of magic, and it has its place.

 

But at the end:

 

"To take photographs means to recognise- simultaneously and within fraction of a second- both the fact itself and the rigorous organisation of the visually perceived forms that give it meaning. It is putting one's head, one's eye, one´s heart on the same axis." Henry Cartier- Bresson (with all respect).

 

"Enyone can take a snapshot. Even a machine. But not every one is able to observe. Photography is only art insofar as it makes use of the art of observing. Observing is a fundamental literary process. Even reality has to be shaped if one wants to make it speak out." Friederich Dürrenmatt (with all respect).

 

Thanks a lot, sorry for the long post and for any English mistake. (By the way I use Leica MP, Leica IIIF and Canon EOS 1D Mk II).

 

Jorge Saravia