Future of Film

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, it was way back so I don't know if many would have known what was being referenced. I'm sorry if it is controversial to you. But when anyone asks me if I think they should go with film or digital (e.g. therefore they obviously don't have a compelling reason to use film) I recommend digital.

 

As for the 1/400 th of a second... Leica hasn't offered that on a film M. Nor do they offered auto-bracketing or on a film M. (And the motor is gone too.) This has nothing to do with digital vs. film but just shows how the film M is a bit more limited. And since Leica says they will not be making a new film M, this won't change whereas digital cameras, M and others, will continue to evolve.

 

Scanner technology may change on the higher levels... I can't say, but many pro-sumer models are gone. E-6 processing has been around for about 35 years and hasn't changed much. Nor has b/w processing. Film at best has improved very slightly in the past 7 years but if you consider various emulsions and formats hat have been dropped, you can't call that progress. I don't see any variable color balancing ISO 6,400-104,000 slide film out there.

 

Alan, as a film photographer, I have no wish, desire or need for any of these features you mention, I really can cope quite well within the limitations of my cameras and film thank you, and some of my snaps turn out OK.

[AlanG]

.

 

As for the 1/400 th of a second...

 

Correction... I meant to write 1/4000th

[earleygallery]

So what ?

[AlanG]

Alan, as a film photographer, I have no wish, desire or need for any of these features you mention, I really can cope quite well within the limitations of my cameras and film thank you, and some of my snaps turn out OK.

 

So be it. But I wasn't addressing only one individual. And of course one could reasonably assume that most of those on a Leica M film forum are happy to work within those limitations. Back when I sold cameras in the 60's some models were offered with a top speed of 1/1000th along with a less expensive version with a top speed of 1/500th and perhaps lacking an accessory shoe or some other minor feature.

 

What is superfluous to one photographer is a necessity to another. (Some absolutely require fast shutter speeds or high flash sync.) You can choose to carry one or several lenses. If you only carry ISO 100-400 film, you will limit what you can do in low light, depth of field, grain, or freezing action in some circumstances. When I was in high school, I only used 35mm and mostly Tri-X. When I got to college I learned to appreciate what a view camera and various materials and processes could do.

 

I am totally amazed by the scope of photography that is possible with a single modern digital camera, raw processor, and post production skills. Having these tools certainly has broadened the range of what I try to do. Everyone is different, but I wouldn't take the approach that there is a technique or feature in a current or future camera that I'd never have a use for. For instance, I'd love to be able to take clear hand held fast images under almost totally dark conditions. Maybe some day there will be such a good focus tracking system that it can keep a subject's eyes in perfect focus no matter how fast that subject is moving. I don't care to limit my choices, but I have nothing against others limiting theirs.

 

And if someone chooses a limit of one film and one lens and shoots in only one style, that might be a good way for that person to express his/her vision. Maybe the OP wants to explore some variation of this and maybe it is in addition to using digital photography. He can certainly go back to film along with setting up a darkroom with the likelihood that he'll be able to get some kind of film, chemicals, and paper for quite some time. Perhaps it could be a fun hobby for him again as he said he did it in the past. I have a sentimental spot for this approach too. But I wouldn't personally do it again as I feel that digital offers a much wider pallet of tools for me to draw from and is adding to them all the time.

[Stealth3kpl]

Film is as dead as the 35mm format. Talk about being stuck in the past.

http://www.hasselblad.co.uk/media/2231320/uk_h4d-40_datasheet_v2.pdf

[plasticman]

Alan - I think the fundamental problem is your repetitive characterization of film and film cameras as 'limited'.

I'm going to leave aside a technical discussion of the 'advances' (such as a faster shutter speed), because I want to concentrate on the underlying practicalities for a second (and because, as James has pointed-out, you name features that most M-film shooters don't actually need or want).

 

Just speaking from my own experience now, I've found that the lack of distractions (be they alternative ISOs at the flick of a switch, or chimping, or looking at histograms, or live-view or whatever else that is considered 'better' in a digital camera) has paradoxically freed me to make much better photographs with my M6 than I was (and am) making with my M8.

 

The simplicity and precisely the limitations imposed by film leave me with one thing to concentrate on - and that is the unity or harmony of composition and light. Furthermore, because I'm never frightened when using film by the limited way a digital sensor handles light, I can shoot in conditions that I wouldn't even dare to do with a digital camera (black cats in dark rooms being the exception where digital wins, of course - if that's what you need to shoot...)

 

Essentially, everything I need is in the three controls on a film camera. The infinite possibilities embodied by these is more than enough for me.

[Guest nafpie]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

... alternative ISOs at the flick of a switch, or chimping, or looking at histograms, or live-view ...

 

There is no necessity to use that tools during digital photography. Just ignore them, if it makes you feeling more free..

 

Give it a try, it works!

[plasticman]

There is no necessity to use that tools during digital photography. Just ignore them, if it makes you feeling more free..

 

Give it a try, it works!

 

Sigh. I hear this all the time - the 'you don't have to use all the buttons' mantra.

 

What I find in my actual, real experience, is that people who claim that they never chimp or say that they use their digital cameras just the same as their old film cameras actually chimp and click buttons and delete all the time. I joked about this on another thread - but I actually got the answer from a compulsive chimper/photo-snob that he was 'only checking the histogram' each time he clicked through the last five images while we were out together recently.

 

In any case, I actually do it less than most myself - the RD1s was good for this, because the screen could be folded away and forgotten, and on my M8 I never change from ISO320 - but I still find that digital distracts me from the almost zen essentials of the film experience, and I frankly disbelieve the people who claim otherwise.

 

But regardless of anything else, I can't get away from the fundamental difference: my film images are immeasurably better.

 

As for the whole 'limitations' debate: I found that when I took an etching course while I was at school, the most liberating and creative aspect was that suddenly the only available means of expression was a piece of metal scratching on a wax surface, and then the length of time for each scratch in the acid bath. No amount of color could rival the purity and directness of that mark.

 

And I guess the digital crowd look down on the miserable and limited works of Shakespeare: his word-processor was so excruciatingly primitive.

[Guest nafpie]

Sigh. I hear this all the time - the 'you don't have to use all the buttons' mantra.

 

Do you think the 'you shouldn't have all the buttons' mantra is more pleasingly?

[earleygallery]

The saying is "Less is more" and is often so true.

[pop]

The saying is "Less is more" and is often so true.

 

You mean, like, why does the camera need a shutter and shutter release button when it already has a lens cap?

[Stealth3kpl]

Sigh. I hear this all the time - the 'you don't have to use all the buttons' mantra.

 

What I find in my actual, real experience, is that people who claim that they never chimp or say that they use their digital cameras just the same as their old film cameras actually chimp and click buttons and delete all the time.

 

I think this is very true. If you are going to expose correctly with digital it is very important to regard the histogram. I certainly can't move on without checking the histogram and then repeating the shot. This is one of the reasons I'm taking a respite from digital. My pet hate with digital is blown highlights. This is why I don't think film is obsolete.

Another reason is ergonomics. My D700 is wonderful but it is very big as are its lenses. Using the compact M6/MP has been wonderful. It has full frame so I can exploit shallow depth of field. It has the interchangable lenses of Leica. I don't get sensor bluming issues that i might get with a digital compact. I don't get peeved with chromatic aberration. I don't get Moire effects I'd see frequently with my M8.2.

 

When there is a compact, full frame 35mm, high dynamic range sensor with no bluming/moire/red edge/centerfold issues that costs less than £2000, no, lets say £4000, that I don't have to worry about charging, that is when film will be obsolete for me, but for others it still won't be obsolete.

Pete

[Frank Sprow]

Perhaps an observation from my wife would be appropriate. She is not a serious photographer nor a highly involved music aficionado.

 

When I am playing a vinyl record on good equipment (VPI/Ruby/McIntosh/Wilson) she often comes into the room and sits down and listens. This has yet to happen when the source is good digital (Mark Levinson CD player, rest the same).

 

Looking at big digital source prints (M9, pro lab printed) she again will look awhile but generally not with great interest. Prints from my M7 (primarily B&W) get many more favorable comments.

 

For many things digital is wonderful but I thought I 'd pass this along.

[AlanG]

Alan - I think the fundamental problem is your repetitive characterization of film and film cameras as 'limited'.

 

The biggest limitation of film vs. digital for me was that with film, I and my clients had no way of knowing if I actually got the images we wanted until we left the location. This often led to over-shooting and some stress.

 

You may not have as many buttons on a film camera, but you have to make at least as many choices. There are numerous films to choose from and you may need to make a choice in a given situation. I often had to meter for color (or had to test in advance when working with discharge bulbs or other discontinuous spectrum sources) and I carried a complete range of CC filters in 70mm glass (Linhof), 52mm glass (Nikon) and 3" and 4" gels for my view cameras. Plus I had to shoot Polaroids and then shoot again with the "film" camera (compensating as experience would tell me.) I sometimes shot on 6x6 mostly for the ability to proof on Polaroid and then ended up shooting on 6x6 plus 35mm. When I shot 4x5 I'd have to mark all the film very carefully. Then I'd have one transparency from each set-up processed. I'd look at it and sometimes need to have adjustments made (push or pull) for the other images. With 6x6 I'd shoot a test frame of each scene on a test roll for the same thing. So I might not have processed film until two days after a shoot. Then since 1996, I had to scan everything.

 

I really can't see this as being simpler than digital and it did impose some limitations. Film was always complicated and a pain to me. It also was wasteful. Besides the overshooting, I'd end up throwing away a lot of good film, as I'd carry high speed and other films that would rarely be needed and when a batch of film got low, I'd give it away as I wanted to shoot entire jobs on a single emulsion that I had previously tested. Digital is much easier. If you aren't under the pressures of always delivering a "nearly perfect" job and if you shoot neg film, it might not seem so complex.

[pop]

The biggest limitation of film vs. digital for me was that with film, I and my clients had no way of knowing if I actually got the images we wanted until we left the location. This often led to over-shooting and some stress.

 

That and the costs per shot are for me the most important points in favor of digital imaging. However, it's a bit offset by the brittleness of the digital image. Most films are more forgiving. Hence, the demand for immediate feedback is partially generated by the medium itself.

[jaapv]

Alan feels film is limiting - for his shooting - and rightly so. Mani feels film is liberating - for his shooting - and rightly so. Guys, you can keep up this discussion for the next decade without one convincing the other....

[pico]

I found Alan's observations to be candid and valid. For the day-job I shoot digital video and do some digital stills. It is all for web display, and some magazine work (small images), and my bosses (too many) are most comfortable with digital stills. Everyone demands digital video, although we have a couple 16mm cameras languishing on the shelf. I see still photography moving with the same determination that video has. (We have many tricks to make digital video look like film, but one can still tell the differences, although they don't care.)

 

However, all personal work other than stitched panos is done on film. I've no desire to take digital technology into my home. It just does not work for me, in any way whatsoever.

 

This strikes me as a perfect balance. I would be so unhappy if I had to abandon film.

 

This thread has been the most considerate 'digital or film' thread I've read in the history of the Internet. (Yes, I am that old.)

[Nikkor AIS]

Personally I feel like I have just begun to scratch the surface with film. Even after 25 years there is still so much to learn. Especailly with the introduction of scanning to digital files.

Not to mention the making tradional prints. The same is true in learning to process the digital files from my D3's(No Leica M9 yet) I think where these discussions go off the rails is when on side trys to convince the other see it there way.

 

So in discloser Im a photographer and I shoot digital and film. I shoot with Nikon DSLR and rangefinder Leica M, Im getting back in to shoting 4X5 in a big way. I just made a substantial purchace of film(B+W) and Im looking to get another DSLR Nikon with Video.

 

 

Now in saying that there has never been a better time to shoot film. Especailly for Leica M. The used camera's prices are ripe for the picking and while there not exactly giving them away. Compared to what they want for a M9, film M camera's like a minty used Lecia MP are a great value. If you live in a large urban center it's still possible to buy film and shoot it off, dropping it off and getting a Cd made. Mean while you can be taking more pictures.And even if you lose the Cd you alway got the negatives.

 

 

One thing you have to consider is that if your end goal is making large photographic prints. Film is still king. I keep this in mind when Im paying for film and processing.

And while the notion that Digtial is free people dont account for the computers hard drives

storage media and deprecaition of the digital camera's.

 

 

Film will never die.

 

 

 

 

Nikkor 300 2.8 IF-ED AIS on F2AS MD2 on Tri -X /D76

 

Gregory

[adan]

What does "I enjoy using film" have to do with its future? What does "Film is better than digital" - open to debate, but let's assume it's true - have to do with its future?

 

When LIFE magazine folded, it still had 10,000,000 subscribers. But the instant it began losing money (due to a long-term decline in ad revenues finally dropping below production costs), those 10,000,000 happy readers became charity cases, dependent on Time-Life stockholders being willing to carry them at a loss. Which didn't happen.

 

Eventually, every film type will have its "Kodachrome moment" - when it is no longer a profitable product. We can certainly debate when that will occur for any given process or specific film (on the one hand, C-41 faces challenges in consumer processing infrastructure - on the other, it gets a big subsidy from Hollywood/Bollywood. Etc.)

 

"I like using film" is a good argument for using film. It is not a good argument for the long-term survival prospects of film, one way or the other.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pop]

"I like using film" is a good argument for using film. It is not a good argument for the long-term survival prospects of film, one way or the other.

 

"I like using petrol" or "electricity" or any of a number of other products is having a profound effect on the industries which deliver those products as well as on the industries serving those. Actually, using those products is what has the impact.

 

It is not a qualitative question. It does not matter when few people assert their liking for a product. It is a purely quantitative question. If enough people not only like using but actually use films and related products in exchange for the necessary funds, the industry most likely will supply the goods. If not, not.