A Farewell to Film

[andybarton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There are some very insightful thoughts on this subject on Inside Analogue Photo podcasts.

[Advertisement]

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

[250swb]

I'm using film at the moment (until Leica pull their finger out and repair my M9) and it all comes back to me with great pleasure. Choose a film, Tri-X at the moment, choose a nice developer to bring out the grain, Rodinal is my favourite, and develop it to suit my current taste for a bit more contrast. Hmmmm, not that different to making a digital image and applying a filter really.

 

There is nothing natural about film grain, its manipulated by the photographer to get the look they want, so whats different about that and doing the same in digital? Nothing apart from a load of claptrap luddite nostaligia. The reason there were so many films about was to give photographers the choice to choose colour, or grain, or contrast, to suit their vision, and how ironic it is that its those same photographers who now criticise digital images because manipulation (like adding grain, or saturating colour) isn't real! What is more real about choosing a grainy film when real life isn't grainy? Grain is the photographers equivalent to an artists brush strokes, with film it is chosen and commited to before making an image, with digital it can be chosen before or after making the image. Not much different really.

 

Film and digital are simply two ways to come to the same conclusion but from different directions. And the only way they could be separated is if the process is itself more important to the photographer than the final image, and technique has never been enough in its own right to create a great photograph.

 

Steve

[andybarton]

So, why DO digital photographers add grain to their shots? I have never understood that. "Just because..." I suppose.

 

When I shoot digital I want that clean, sterile look as absolutely noise-free as possible. When I shoot film, I want it to look like film.

[stunsworth]

When I shoot digital I want that clean, sterile look as absolutely noise-free as possible.

 

I don't like that over clean look. After 50+ years of looking at film photographs my brain is probably expecting to see something a little messier.

[lct]

So, why DO digital photographers add grain to their shots? I have never understood that. "Just because..." I suppose...

Yes just because i like that. Or just because i like that in B&W, not in color generally. Or more exactly because i like that in B&W to avoid plastic looking results if any. Less so with R-D1 than the M8 for instance. Less so at 1600 than 200 iso. And so on. Only the results count. To me at least. YMMV.

[andybarton]

MMDV

 

[Nicoleica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Although almost all of my photography is digital these days, I still love my old film cameras.

 

I have a collection of film cameras, folding, rangefinder and SLR, all of which are fully working, and are a joy to use.

 

In a few days I'm off on my summer hols to the Tyrol, and besides my digital cameras, I shall be carrying my 1951 Voigtlander and my 1960's Nikon F with me, along with my last rolls of Kodachrome. (So if anyone sees a mad old bat festooned with old cameras wandering around the alpine pastures, don't worry, it's only me. )

 

Both of these cameras have worked perfectly for the past 50 years or more, and I see no reason to cease using them yet. They are mechanically fine, and if cared for, and given a CLA every half century or so they should continue working for as long as film is possible to obtain.

 

So, as long as film can be obtained and processed, I shall still be using it. Although I'll be mainly using digital, film will still be an important part of my photographic life.

 

As far as I am concerned, they both have their strengths and weaknesses, but either is capable of giving great results. To my mind it is the end result that counts, and how we choose to get there should not matter too much.

[jhild]

Today I´m looking at my slides taken during the last 35 years, in twenty years I will look at my slides

taken right now and I know it won´t be a problem. Needless to say that all those shots have been and

will be taken with the same cameras.

Who on earth could say that about digital?

 

Jo

[andym911]

I rarely need immediate feedback, and the time to the final print is not a big issue for me as I am an amateur, a passionate one but an amateur.

 

When I look at the photographs I have framed and hung on the wall , 90% started life as film.

 

They are either darkroom prints or scanned Inkjet prints.

Only a couple of Digital images (Sensor) have made it to my wall.

 

I admit that all are Black and White and film will remain the preferred way to go for me for these.

I don't shoot much color so shooting Black and White on the M8 at 640 ASA might give me a look that I like but I still prefer the film images.This is purely a matter of taste.

 

I have no desire to manipulate in PS or other software to achieve the film look which I see as more pleasing.

 

At the end of the day the sense pf personal achievement always brings me back to film...I enjoy the need for good exposure and development, I watch closely the thermometer as I mix the chemicals,I am strict with myself about agitation and washing, and the pleasure of seeing that roll of film hung to dry is always great.

 

The hope and anticipation when looking at the Neg's is part of the photographic experience, and that is something I do because it gives me pleasure and satisfaction.

Sure sometimes I take the M8 out for convenience but normally not for myself but for others who are imaptient at seeing the images.

 

Have to go now as my film is nearly dry and I want to warm up my scanner in time:D

 

Enjoy digital , while you can;)

 

andy

[mooky]

Today I´m looking at my slides taken during the last 35 years, in twenty years I will look at my slides

taken right now and I know it won´t be a problem. Needless to say that all those shots have been and

will be taken with the same cameras.

Who on earth could say that about digital?

 

Jo

 

And that's the 'rub' isn't it? We know the camera bodies themselves won't outlast film camera bodies, and there are still rather large questions about digital image longevity - stored in non-print form, of course. Whatever one likes.

 

So digital, for all it's promise still has to stand the test of a long time, film has done that, and still does. Happiness is a beautiful, well thought, deliberately recorded, Transparency...in my little world...for as long as I can.

[stunsworth]

Happiness is a beautiful, well thought, deliberately recorded, Transparency...in my little world...for as long as I can.

 

Which of course unless it's Kodachrome will fade away to nothing <grin>.

[lars_bergquist]

Well that was some thread I started.

 

I did never (check me) suggest that nobody should use film anymore. People will continue to use film until the customer base has shrunk to where manufacturing film is no longer viable. Nobody knows when that will happen. And 35mm will probably be the last to go.

 

Decisions as to the preferred working medium are of course utterly personal. I stated mine. But I do stand by my statement regarding grain and hairy legs. There is something inside me, I do not know what (probably some piece of morality that has worked loose and lodged in the wrong place) that says that we should not try to deny or hide what medium we are working in. I could also mention large gold-framed portraits printed on a linen-structured substrate so as to simulate an oil painting ...

 

Your various reactions have been very interesting. Thank you all for participating.

 

The old man, once smelling evilly of hypo but now reasonably deodorized

[SJP]

The old man, once smelling evilly of hypo but now reasonably deodorized

 

How about modifying a M2 to make (small) Daguerrotypes? I am sure that Daguerrotypes have unique tonal characteristics that AgX and digital cannot match.

 

Both my M2 and M8 are great fun although I use the latter more and I think I agree that fake "film" grain is not the way forward.

[Nicoleica]

 

How about modifying a M2 to make (small) Daguerrotypes? I am sure that Daguerrotypes have unique tonal characteristics that AgX and digital cannot match.

 

 

Daguerrotypes would be comfortable in the modern world, as they have a similar visibility angle problem as many laptop displays.

 

(The old bat who used to polish Master William's windows.)

[Steve Ash]

Normally I do not bother about grain. Actually I have never seen a good image that was belittled by grain. But I have seen plenty of images where grain added to the mood.

 

Speed and instant feedback is the only advantage of digital imaging that I appreciate. But it does not improve the image itself.

 

Regards

Steve

[dickgrafixstop]

As I've grown older if not wiser, I am definetly more lazy. I no longer look forward to hours in a darkroom, the chemistry and it's odors, and the physical mess of the whole process.

The shift to digital has required me to learn new computer skills, discover the basics and nuances of Photoshop and it's various plug-ins, and invest in a whole new secondary level of electronic equipment - but what fun. Today's technology gives marvelous results, but

I still can't bear to rid myself of a host of film based dinosaurs which now serve more as

industrial sculpture and paperweights. I tell myslef that I may someday be overcome with nostalgia and actually use those things again, but I'm still not convinced.

[euston]

Thank you, Lars, for starting a thoughtful and interesting thread. I drifted away from photography during the film age. It was the advent of digital photography that brought me back and I'm very glad that it did.

 

I never had my own darkroom but now I have thanks to digital technology. Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop enable me to complete the photographic process that starts with the exposure. It doesn’t matter to me whether I am exposing a frame of film or a sensor. What matters to me is that I can now see the process all the way through to screen or print thanks to digital technology.

 

The medium I used most was transparency film and my preferred display method was to project slides onto a screen. Viewing my digital photographs on a large computer or television screen comes very close to the way I used to look at and share my pictures. What’s more, I print much more often now than I ever did in my film days.

 

I can appreciate the light-capturing immediacy and tactile physicality of film that some photographers enjoy and want to cling on to. For me, however, digital technology has opened up opportunities for developing and processing photos that I never had before. It’s an aspect of photography that I’m enjoying more and more as I develop my darkroom skills.

[microview]

 

Just a speculative thought, do we have any idea if an M8 or M9 will still be working in 60 years like the an M2 or M3? Just wondering .

 

But will film still be available in 2070?:D:D

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pop]

Daguerrotypes would be comfortable in the modern worl

 

Ever since I've seen one, I am lost to the world of rational photography. HDR doesn't even come close.

[Nicoleica]

Ever since I've seen one, I am lost to the world of rational photography. HDR doesn't even come close.

 

I agree. Once you have seen the wonders of a good Daguerrotype, nothing is quite the same again. Such a pity that their limitations in other ways hastened their demise.