Why do I shoot Film?

[zlatkob]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been thinking about what you wrote for a while and concluded that the cost of using film was something I really didn't like.

 

For me the most wonderful and delightful thing about a roll of film was the pictures you could make with it. It wasn't the box or the cassette or the smell or any of the physical attributes. The physicality of film was the least interesting thing about film. The excitement in photography was "I'm going to make pictures!" ... not "I'm going to use film!" Digital holds all of that wonder and delight, but at a much lower cost-per-click. For me, digital is the realization of a once impossible dream of having free film. Of course it's not literally free, but the complete re-usability of the media makes it as near to free as I could have ever imagined.

 

Winogrand proved that the often-touted thoughtfulness, deliberateness and slowness ("taking fewer photos") of working with film is not something inherent in the medium. It's just a way of working or (for some) it isn't, irrespective of the medium.

[CalArts 99]

I've been thinking about what you wrote for a while and concluded that the cost of using film was something I really didn't like.

 

 

Well, I hope you didn't spend too much time coming up with that epiphany. Film has always cost money.

 

One just has to use it appropriately and conscientiously (like anything in life) and decide for themselves whether a project is best suited for film or for digital. The project I mentioned in my earlier post was funded entirely by a grant. So why not use film? And I used a lot of it (plus $$ for scans.) But when I was in grad school and before digital was even a practical option, sometimes it was choosing between a box or roll of film and a bowl of Ramen noodles.

 

Now I have the opportunity to make choices on which media to use, which I really didn't have before. Sometimes it'll be film and sometimes not. It's all good. But I do readily admit that I have a certain draw towards using film and for my own subjective aesthetic reasons. But hey, people buy $25,000 Leica kits for their own personal reasons, too. A $10,000 Noctilux is a lot of Ramen noodles....

[erl]

Cost of film V's cost of digital?

 

Like everything, it is "how much do you want to spend? It's optional.

 

I think I spent (spend) far more on supporting my digital habit than I ever did on my film habit, and I do have a darned good darkroom set up, both colour and B&W. But this sort of 'argument' goes nowhere. Reality is, I do both because I like to. Both have supported me financially, but now I just enjoy it (both).

[AlanG]

Well, I hope you didn't spend too much time coming up with that epiphany. Film has always cost money.

 

 

Yes I always knew that film cost money. But I was spending the time thinking about how much that fact actually altered what I did in photography over my career and in personal photography. While you posted that you liked the idea of the promise of the exposures that can be made on a roll of film... I like the promise of having virtually no limit on the number of exposures I can make.

 

Just last week I was working with an art director shooting a dusk exterior of a very modernistic bridge. We shot from way before dusk from 7 PM until pretty dark at 8:15. So I covered the whole range of light changing in that time and also varied my composition a few times for variety. I mentioned to him that back when I used 4x5 E-6 film, that cost around $5 a sheet with processing, I could not have provided nearly that kind of coverage. He would have had fewer choices to work with.

[sblitz]

Digital isn't free. With digital you pay for all the film up front. An mm costs 8000 or so, how many rolls of film plus development and scanning and then figure the time line for how long it takes yu shoot that many roles.......limit on other side is life of the mm. So there is your break even. The look is another matter, personal, how much are you willing to pay for that?

[CalArts 99]

Yes I always knew that film cost money. But I was spending the time thinking about how much that fact actually altered what I did in photography over my career and in personal photography. While you posted that you liked the idea of the promise of the exposures that can be made on a roll of film... I like the promise of having virtually no limit on the number of exposures I can make.

 

Just last week I was working with an art director shooting a dusk exterior of a very modernistic bridge. We shot from way before dusk from 7 PM until pretty dark at 8:15. So I covered the whole range of light changing in that time and also varied my composition a few times for variety. I mentioned to him that back when I used 4x5 E-6 film, that cost around $5 a sheet with processing, I could not have provided nearly that kind of coverage. He would have had fewer choices to work with.

 

What has been really helpful for me using digital is to use digital capture as a 'storyboard tool.' I can start a project by rehearsing it and experimenting with it through digital. Then I'll decide later if I want to do it on film or digitally. In grad school it got pretty expensive to work through a project (plus you often need to make large proof prints to help you visualize the evolution of it and can't always rely on contact sheets, etc..)

 

It's interesting to note that we got through a 'film only' life without any problems. I think we might have even been more clever in getting around any roadblocks. Plus those 'roadblocks' never really existed since we didn't have digital anyway. It's only now when we can compare using both side by side do we tend to get into the pros and cons of each medium. So sure, in comparison we will certainly talk about things like costs.

 

In respect to what sblitz just posted, there's a thread going on about buying a camera and the OP mentioned owning the M8, then sold it for the M9, and now wanting the new M240. Yes, that's a lot of expense over a fairly short time considering a 38 year-old M4 can still use the same lenses albeit with film. That sort of digital upgrade path can buy a lot of film and processing (assuming one actually doesn't mind using film.) But that's probably another story for another time.

 

Many commercial photographers here offer both film and digital based products. It seems to be an advantage for them (and with digital they just hire somebody like Industrial Color and don't even bother with really owning any gear themselves.) Of course they are well established and well known and have major clients with big pockets. But the majority of commercial photographers clearly benefit from digital for the costs alone and to be able to remain competitive (anybody with a store bought digital camera seems to have become a 'professional' photographer these days; again, that's another story for another time.)

 

btw, my post about 'the promise that a roll of film offered me' was more nostalgic reminiscing than anything else. But it still feels that way when I hold a box of 35mm film or 4x5 sheet film in my hands. For sure, I like the idea that I have several hundred images available with a small CF card in my hand, but it's just not the same kind of feeling. And yes, I freely admit it's all a romanticized emotion. Nonetheless, it's real for me.

[andym911]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Gents lets be really honest.....

 

the guys that don't really understand why people use film and prefer it are missing something.

 

its not about cost or quality or immediacy or any of that logical stuff and argumentation.

 

lets leave it at that

 

film is a magnificent medíum on which to capture images forever..and it is a pleasure doing it.

 

thats about it

 

andy

[AlanG]

Gents lets be really honest.....

 

the guys that don't really understand why people use film and prefer it are missing something.

 

its not about cost or quality or immediacy or any of that logical stuff and argumentation.

 

lets leave it at that

 

film is a magnificent medíum on which to capture images forever..and it is a pleasure doing it.

 

thats about it

 

andy

 

I think it is great that people get satisfaction from shooting film. I just see many of the statements here as personal affirmations not as arguments. There is no universal truth to it. I simply pointed out that if one throws away a family computer without examining or saving the photos on it that is no different from the countless times that family negatives and prints get discarded. Those digital family images can be shared with countless people very easily and stored on-line. Of course many people turn their analog photos into digital photos in order to take advantage of this and other conveniences of digital photography.

 

And one can criticize someone for shooting what one feels is an "excessive" number of digital photos. But one could say the same thing about many film photographers. And maybe some film photographers save money compared to some digital photographers. Each to his own how to enjoy one's approach to photography.

 

I felt I had pretty good mastery of the materials and process of film photography but did not especially enjoy the process of using film for quite a few reason I won't go into. So my affirmation is that digital works better for me.

 

As far as I can see there are four basic reasons for shooting film today. Perhaps there are more but anything else I can come up with is debatable.

 

1. You like the look you get with film. Whether or not you have a lot of experience with shooting digital photos.

2. You like the materials and process of film photography. Maybe it is measuring up to the challenge or other things about it that can only be done this way.

3. You want to use specific film cameras for whatever reasons.

4. You are required to use film for some application or by a client.

[AlanG]

It's interesting to note that we got through a 'film only' life without any problems.

 

I can't speak for you but having used it for about 40 years I had countless problems.

[erl]

I can't speak for you but having used it for about 40 years I had countless problems.

 

Yes, and now it is all repeating itself with digital!

 

It was never meant to be easy.

 

.... but still fun.

[pico]

I am still wondering about those whose 'film' workflow ends with scanning the negative.

 

We are losing the ability to see how optical prints on silver halide paper are entirely different from digital. Printing your own work will involve your hands (if you have half a brain) and introduce transitions I have never, ever seen in photo-chopped manipulations of scans.

 

I will make a crazy proposition - people with strictly digital means will eventually struggle to make silver negatives they can project upon silver paper in the darkroom to achieve what I suggest above. Not real soon. Not within my lifetime, perhaps, but it will happen. When every print is slightly different, then differences are important. Eventually, photographers will (or should) wish to be something other than another cog in the digital machine

.

[zlatkob]

Eventually, photographers will (or should) wish to be something other than another cog in the digital machine.

 

Calling photographers cogs in the digital machine isn't very nice. Isn't this exactly what the OP was talking about but in reverse, i.e., an attack on digital? — "I believe it is daft to attack a medium that someone else uses just because you don’t. We are not children! Take pictures with whatever you want, as long as it is what suits you. But don’t tell other people what they should be shooting with."

[AlanG]

We are losing the ability to see how optical prints on silver halide paper are entirely different from digital.

 

Is this because the digital printers have gotten so good? Because I can't see a difference using mine.

[StS]

(...) I simply pointed out that if one throws away a family computer without examining or saving the photos on it that is no different from the countless times that family negatives and prints get discarded. (...)

 

Sorry for not expressing myself more clearly, the data were stored to the new PC and the backup, before the HDD was deleted. I would never throw away any pictures, anything, which appears us for granted today might be more interesting in twenty years.

 

I wanted to point out a different topic, the screening process - on the PC, my mother had a folder, say, for example, "Holidays in Ireland 2012". So, you know, what you have in principle, but don't bother to open this folder if you are saving a complete HDD. Finding a few films on negatives mean you have a quick look, recognize some family members, start to wonder about the occasion and time it was taken.

 

Digital gives most of these data immediately, but due to the amount of pictures, one does not start browsing, if the content is a whole HDD. It is great, if one looks for a picture of a special occasion on a known date, but does not give the sensation of re-discovering something, which was lost.

 

Stefan

[MarkP]

I love digital but to some extent I missed B&W film until I got the Monochrom.

Now it is not a non-issue for me.

 

However, I still really miss the simplicity of transparency film:

expose, process, view slides...done!

[CalArts 99]

I can't speak for you but having used it for about 40 years I had countless problems.

 

"Without any problems" in the sense that we produced work in the days of film only. It's all we had. Unless you stomped your feet and complained that it was all too hard and too expensive for you. But why would you when there was no substitute at the time? The point being is that there was no choice and we all survived quite well (clearly there's a tremendous amount of valuable work that was done before digital.)

 

Now if you're thinking of technical glitches, then sure there was/is plenty of that. Just like with anything. Poor processing from the lab, light leaks, bent pins in CF cards, electronics going bad, drives giving up the ghost, etc., etc..

 

Is this because the digital printers have gotten so good? Because I can't see a difference using mine.

 

If you can't see a difference with a continuous tone analog print and a print made to look like continuous tone but instead is made up of tiny screened ink dots, then I say you're as blind as a bat.

 

But if you feel that a continuous tone RA print produced from a digital file on a laser Océ digital printer looks like a conventional analog print, then I'll agree wholeheartedly with you.

 

Anyway this is all getting redundant and somewhat tedious/juvenile. It's just different media, folks. Pick your poison and just make an effort to use it well.

[AlanG]

 

If you can't see a difference with a continuous tone analog print and a print made to look like continuous tone but instead is made up of tiny screened ink dots, then I say you're as blind as a bat.

 

I just looked at a print from my ipf6100 via a 4X loupe and can't see any dots. Just the surface texture of the matte paper. But when I say that digital printers have improved I mean that I never make color prints that overall look as good as these inkjet prints... not what it would look like under a lot of magnification. A lot of that is due to the control one has working from a digital file. I am pleased with the b/w output too. If one can make better analog b/w prints, it is unlikely I would as you have to keep up with your printing skills by printing often and spending a lot of time to make a few good prints. And I have no desire to do that anymore. This digital printer has light gray, medium gray, black, and matte black inks and 30,720 nozzles so it has very tiny dots and doesn't have to dither so much to make smooth transitions.

 

In any case having in house capability to make occasional 24x36 inch analog color and b/w prints as I now have via a digital printer is not practical at all for me or probably many others. So what difference would it make even if it were a tiny bit better?

 

I used to have the facility to make 20x24 color prints (Cibachrome and Kodak R and C types.) And that required a large darkroom, a chem mix area, and enough volume to keep the processes in control via reflection densitometry reading from daily control test strips and plotting them on a graph. How many here are doing this or want to?

[AlanG]

... Finding a few films on negatives mean you have a quick look, recognize some family members, start to wonder about the occasion and time it was taken.

 

Digital gives most of these data immediately, but due to the amount of pictures, one does not start browsing, if the content is a whole HDD. It is great, if one looks for a picture of a special occasion on a known date, but does not give the sensation of re-discovering something, which was lost.

 

Stefan

 

Sometimes it can be pretty hard to look through negatives to tell who is in them and you may have to study them closely to decide if the photo is very interesting.

 

Back in 1963 I was eleven and found a blue box of old family negatives in my parent's house. I got intrigued and learned how to make contact prints from them. I worked in my closet at night. Without that discovery of negatives, I don't know if I would have become a photographer. But even my parents didn't know who was in most of those old photos and I quickly got bored printing them and started shooting my own photos.

 

Out of sentimentality, that blue box is sitting in my office 8 feet from me at this minute and I still have no desire to scan or print them because I don't know the story behind any of the photos and most are not very good anyway. Yes I periodically look through them and wonder and wonder and wonder. At least my parents labeled the back of most family prints.

[erl]

Inkjet dots V's darkroom analog.

Well yes I can see a difference, I know the difference and I have done more than my share of producing both, but I can't see those dots, even if they are there. If I can't see them, they're not 'really' there!

 

Which is better? Very hard to say. Depends on your POV. Simply put, they are different and I can appreciate both. Because I have not run my chem process for prints for some time I have lapsed into hybrid production. ie. full col or B&W film processing then scanning. IMO it is a very good combo with benefits attributed to both processes. The cost effectiveness of 'one image, one print' with digital printing is great. With analog I often had to reprint multiple times to 'get it perfect'. Digital is cost saving a bit there, but I still felt I was being more creative when printing in the darkroom. My digital prints reach 'correct' colour faster.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[CalArts 99]

I just looked at a print from my ipf6100 via a 4X loupe and can't see any dots. Just the surface texture of the matte paper. But when I say that digital printers have improved I mean that I never make color prints that overall look as good as these inkjet prints... not what it would look like under a lot of magnification. A lot of that is due to the control one has working from a digital file. I am pleased with the b/w output too. If one can make better analog b/w prints, it is unlikely I would as you have to keep up with your printing skills by printing often and spending a lot of time to make a few good prints. And I have no desire to do that anymore. This digital printer has light gray, medium gray, black, and matte black inks and 30,720 nozzles so it has very tiny dots and doesn't have to dither so much to make smooth transitions.

 

In any case having in house capability to make occasional 24x36 inch analog color and b/w prints as I now have via a digital printer is not practical at all for me or probably many others. So what difference would it make even if it were a tiny bit better?

 

I used to have the facility to make 20x24 color prints (Cibachrome and Kodak R and C types.) And that required a large darkroom, a chem mix area, and enough volume to keep the processes in control via reflection densitometry reading from daily control test strips and plotting them on a graph. How many here are doing this or want to?

 

Just for the record, I never said anything about any issues of seeing the dots. Only that they are made up of dots and aren't true continuous tone prints like analog prints. They look different.

 

Ink printing has indeed vastly improved. The improvement comes from the ink sets and the screening and dithering of the drivers and RIPs currently available. The size of the head's nozzles and their corresponding droplets have clearly improved, too. But they aren't continuous tone prints. From a distance they may appear to be such, but they are ink sitting on paper and can be recognized quite easily from a continuous tone print. However they can be quite spectacular as ink prints. I have no problems with a well produced ink print. But I won't say it looks the same as an analog print. They are simply different.

 

As we know, an issue with ink prints is metamerism; the shifts that occur under different lighting with pigmented inks encapsulated in resin. The droplets dry on the surface of the paper and since the ink is a solid and with varying sizes it will reflect light differently across the paper. With dye inks there really wasn't that issue especially since the ink mixes together as it dries. And then there's bronzing as different densities reflect light unevenly on the paper's surface. This happens primarily with baryta papers although it also occurs on matte papers depending on the ink reception coating of the paper. B+W is problematic with metamerism when using conventional inksets. I haven't yet found a commercial RIP that can print B+W like a pure black carbon inkset can, including Color Byte's consumer ImagePrint RIP (which claims to have zero metamerism.) And to be sure, there is metamerism with conventional analog prints but it's not nearly as pronounced as with ink prints.

 

These issues have improved dramatically but they are still there.

 

I personally like producing ink prints on certain papers (such as Canson, the makers of Arches and Rives.) But for certain images/projects, if I want an actual continuous tone analog print, I'll print from a digital file with an Océ or Durst Lambda. Then you get the best of both worlds: a digital malleable file that you can prepare to your heart's content but printed onto a chemical processed analog sheet of paper (Fuji, Kodak, Ilford) as a continuous tone print.

 

I haven't been in a darkroom since 1999. And clearly no one can afford an Océ (unless you're doing a massive amount of printing and selling your services.) But we have it readily available via commercial service bureaus. And a Lightjet print looks very different from an ink print. It looks the same as a darkroom analog print, because it is one.

 

Modern ink printers do an excellent job of making an ink print. They are light years away from the original dye based ink printers we once used. But they are absolutely different than an analog print. One has to choose what works for them in any given situation. But no, (and like you) I won't be back in a darkroom ever again to print. But I appreciate that people still do conventional printing and for reasons that are important to them.

 

btw, I find that coating matte prints with ClearShield Type C satin (Detail View) makes a big difference in reflectivity and issues of metamerism with pigmented inks. On matte paper it ends up giving the paper the same reflectivity as early Agfa Brovira.