Reason for still using film (again)?

[KCS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been shooting about 30/70 film/digital for the last few years. But recently I've been leaving the digital at home and going out with film only. I'm pleased enough with the results that I'm seriously considering moving solely to film. I realize it's a very personal preference, but I just like the look of it, esp. b&w. I've long assumed that I 'needed' digitial for color, but I've been shooting Fuji Pro 400H and the new Portra 400, and am getting really nice results with both of those as well. There's something nice about not being tempted to chimp.

 

 

Karen

[spydrxx]

I switch off between the two media depending on what camera and/or lens combinations I want to use at a particular time...sort of like deciding which shirt to wear on a given day. Digital definitely for convenience, film mostly for B&W and home processing. Both provide satisfying results.

[Advertisement]

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

[tobey bilek]

For sure i like my Professional Digi Nikons, but a film Leica is so satisfying.

 

One day I was walking down the road at a local arboritum and another photographer was coming the other way. I got quite a stare as I had a big Nikon Digi and a 111F visable.

[andym911]

To be honest as long as film is still well available I can't see a reason for shooting digital unless you are a Pro.....

 

good light

 

andy

[Stealth3kpl]

My reason, and I suppose this guy's reason is fun.

Pete

[farnz]

I see enormous differences in the way that film and digital render light - in highlight transitions, in out-of-focus areas, in grain and so on. ...

I completely agree but for me the major difference is the way that film portrays shiny surfaces, for example, polished car bonnets. Film seems to add an extra dimension that is unavailable to digital that brings these surfaces to life. I can't explain it, I can just see it.

 

Pete.

[Xmas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I completely agree but for me the major difference is the way that film portrays shiny surfaces, for example, polished car bonnets. Film seems to add an extra dimension that is unavailable to digital that brings these surfaces to life. I can't explain it, I can just see it.

 

Pete.

 

Hi Pete

 

I think you are agreeing more than you think, the specular high lights (especially if they are small in area) will tend to 'full house' a digital sensor image, with film such areas will still have an unrealistic look but it will be more gradual, i.e. more realistic, the films characteristic for high lights is not two straight lines, but a 'shoulder' shape.

 

Using mono and a soft working developer (POTA) you can take stots of atomic weapon assembly as the weapon goes critical and is 'brighter than a thousand suns', note they did develope & use POTA...

 

Noel

[tomasis7]

the reason that film and digital shots look different, is that silver particles have several layers under emulsion so under development after exposed areas particles act and sort out in depth like you dig a hole or build a sand castle or lay impasto on oil painting.

 

That's why it gives deep look for silver as metal surfaces of car. Digital sensor is just single layer and records up to limited tones for every pixel.

 

I like other way films take, it is "limited info" of tones or as another say "curve with characteristic shoulders shape. It means no much post processing as I usually do for digital etc. Blurriness, glow and other things look different.

 

many things that are unique I find about films..

 

Sorry if I didnt explain at understandable way

Edited February 28, 2011 by tomasis7

[plasticman]

Incidentally, I was looking at the latest issue of LFI and the images by Liz Loh Taylor - some interesting subjects and composition, but I couldn't get over the digital look of the prints: disturbing halos around oof areas, blown highlights on faces, and so on.

 

I'm sure many will disagree, and I don't mean to criticize Taylor's work (apart from the digital rendering I found it quite interesting), but when I pulled out some old editions with lovely, subtle b&w work by photographers like Julia Baier (LFI English 2007/2), the side-by-side comparison was stunning.

[earleygallery]

To be honest as long as film is still well available I can't see a reason for shooting digital unless you are a Pro.....

 

good light

 

andy

 

This is a valid point.

 

Putting aside the 'big boys toys & must have latest/newest gadget' arguments, think about why you use digital (if you do), given the entirely personal nature of the decision.

 

I suspect that for most people the main reason for buying into digital was to have the latest gadget to play with.

 

Second to that is the convenience, not having to wait for results etc, the perception that digital images are 'free' once you've bought the camera. It's surprising how many amateur photographers no longer make prints - most people are simply looking at their images on computer screens and sharing on flickr/facebook etc. OK so it might not be so convenient now to get a film processed in some parts of the world, but it probably wasn't the case when you switched from film!

 

Personally I feel there is a place for both mediums for my purposes. Yes I love the convenience of digital at times, and yes, I mostly scan my film and print digitally, but I much prefer the look of my film images.

 

I don't see how anyone who is serious about the art of photography, can be without a film camera.

[Joachim123]

Agreed!!! I realize for the pros digital gives instant results. However, I have no desire to go digital.

 

It should come down to a matter of choice, those who love and want to use film will do so. Those who like digital can do the same.

[sm23221]

With a 35mm scanned film image, how large can one print an image with an inkjet and still achieve acceptable results? I've made 16x20's with my M9 that could probably go quite a bit larger without noticing much degredation.

 

Thanks in advance.

[wildlightphoto]

... think about why you use digital (if you do), given the entirely personal nature of the decision.

 

I suspect that for most people the main reason for buying into digital was to have the latest gadget to play with.

 

Second to that is the convenience...

 

Let's not forget that the whole idea behind the original Leica was convenience vs. the big cameras of that time.

 

With a 35mm scanned film image, how large can one print an image with an inkjet and still achieve acceptable results?

 

This probably depends on what one considers acceptable. I was quite happy with my 16x20 prints from drum scanned Kodachrome until I started printing the DMR's files. Now I've limited prints from slides to 11x14.

[ddp]

I sold my M8 late last fall after realizing that I simply prefer the way my Leica lenses when used in a film setting. IMHO - they don't render the same on digital, and I have tested the M9 as well. I bought a Rolleiflex 3.5 E planar TLR to "replace" the M8 and kept the film M bodies. I still shoot a decent amount of film for my personal work, and for the corporate day & weddings - it's all Nikon DSLR.

 

They all have their place, but for me I truly prefer the subtleties and transitions one gets with film. I don't care if it's an M9, D3 or Phase One system...I like what I get with film, and that's reason enough for me.

[Guest nafpie]

[...] a roll of TriX [...] I see no difference in the final print from my M9 files [...]

 

Yeah, it's pretty much the same.

 

Like all those film-must-not-die-threads: pretty much the same.

 

Stefan

[pico]

With a 35mm scanned film image, how large can one print an image with an inkjet and still achieve acceptable results? I've made 16x20's with my M9 that could probably go quite a bit larger without noticing much degredation.

 

It all depends upon viewing distance.

[WarriorJazz]

the reason that film and digital shots look different, is that silver particles have several layers under emulsion so under development after exposed areas particles act and sort out in depth like you dig a hole or build a sand castle or lay impasto on oil painting.

 

That's why it gives deep look for silver as metal surfaces of car. Digital sensor is just single layer and records up to limited tones for every pixel.

 

I like other way films take, it is "limited info" of tones or as another say "curve with characteristic shoulders shape. It means no much post processing as I usually do for digital etc. Blurriness, glow and other things look different.

 

many things that are unique I find about films..

 

Sorry if I didnt explain at understandable way

 

Loved the way you explained this.

[pgk]

I completely agree but for me the major difference is the way that film portrays shiny surfaces, for example, polished car bonnets. Film seems to add an extra dimension that is unavailable to digital that brings these surfaces to life. I can't explain it, I can just see it.

 

Pete.

Its called high intensity reciprocity law failure and it results in a distortion of the way film reproduces extreme overexposure. (I'm not even sure its a 'curve' - more a wavy line I think!). Many of us were brought up with this as one of film's attributes and have grown used to the way extreme highlights look when rendered on film. So whilst I can understand why you like the effect it is actually the result of a technical 'failure'.

 

However, since most photographers who are now starting in photography will only use digital, for them the 'look' of high intensity areas will be different and no doubt photographers will simply get used to the way digital 'doesn't' handle extreme overexposure.

 

In a few years I wonder which rendering will be preferred and by who?

[farnz]

Its called high intensity reciprocity law failure and it results in a distortion of the way film reproduces extreme overexposure. ,,,

Interesting. I cut my teeth on medium format night shooting with Velvia so I'm familiar with reciprocity law failure requiring a doubling of the shutter speed from about 2 seconds onward to achieve correct exposure. Is "high intensity" a different form of reciprocity failure?

 

Pete.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Stealth3kpl]

It sounds like it's at the other end of the curve.

Pete