Is shooting film still worth it in 2022 ?

[TomB_tx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1967 photography class in college the focus was on image capture. Final was to shoot a 12 exp roll of Kodachrome over the weekend. Class had them all processed, then we each had to show all 12 of our shots projected for critique by the class, with no post processing or reframing & cropping.

I still shoot digital the same way, trying to make each shot count.

[frame-it]

58 minutes ago, Steven said:

The film shot is much more interesting, I find ! 

yes i like that fuji industrial/CYO 100 a lot

[Advertisement]

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

[frame-it]

1 hour ago, Steven said:

My real problem is in low light. I'm still struggling, considering I don't like black and white photography. 

try/get a nice  iiif easy to shoot with and great for night pics in color at 800asa

Edited November 23, 2021 by frame-it

[FrozenInTime]

1 hour ago, Steven said:

I havent seen the scans yet. 

Still thinking digitally ! 

Part of the film experience is peering at fresh negatives with a loupe 🔍

[david strachan]

I still love my many film cameras and have them loaded from large format to 135 format. It's so lovely using old cameras...they work perfectly.  From Nikon FM-2 to Fujifilm SW617, to Pentax 645, and lovely others..inc Leica iiif and M6 classic. And my restored Linhof with it's double darks, and grafmatic (6) film holders. Several Crown Graphics..but prefer the Linhof.

Love the process and developing B&W and then scanning.

But...also love the digital flow with many cameras too.

Something new, and why not change occasionally?  The ease, and great  editing the digital files,  (LightRoom and PShop for me mainly) is just too much fun.  From a remarkable B&W to gorgeous colours...all can be had...And lovely prints without the huge space and investment in equipment and time using chemicals, which many of us have done...perhaps been there, done that. (But digital takes investment and time, and space too.)

Really not arguing, but just enjoy using both.

 

All best to all photographers whatever your preferences.

[plaidshirts]

9 hours ago, Steven said:

Probably not the first time this question is asked in since the digital revolution. But with the new Kodak price increase, it's fair to ask again. Is it still worth it to shoot film in 2022? 

I'm a child of digital. I grew up with smartphones and digital cameras. Film is something I discovered a few years ago, after I started shooting with digital. At that time, it just made no sense. It was too limiting. I stopped. 

I got back into film when I got into Leica, two years ago. I have now fourteen M film bodies, and I love them so much. The feeling of using them is amazing, and I like the photos I get on film. I actually learn and practise my skills much more when I shoot a film M than a digital M. But film has become so expensive to shoot (if you think of making the joke to tell me to sell 13 of my M bodies to finance my film costs for the next 10 years, it's not the point of the conversation). 

This week, I shot 27 rolls of film. At around 15 euros per roll and 15 euros for the dev, I've spent 800+ euros just this week. At this pace, it's around 40k per year, not taking into consideration the 2022 Kodak price increase. 

Therefore, I ask myself, can digital make me happy enough ? There are definitely some advantages: No huge recurrent costs, no need to wait for the photos, no risk to lose or damage the rolls in airports when travelling, no extra weight to carry around all day, no low light limitations.... and with a camera such as the M10D, one can get close to the film shooting experience, although nothing will ever replace the feeling of advancing the film, and rewinding the roll. 

But the real question is, can the final result be the same ? I know, I'm not the first one to try to replicate the film look on digital. But that's what this thread is about. Can one copy the film look in a digital file? 

Will it ever be as satisfying ? 

Yes, shooting film is still worth it and no (at least not yet), shooting digital isn’t as satisfying.

Most of my favorite photos were taken with film. Is that a coincidence or something related to the actual tools used? I’m not sure. But I do believe there is magic in film (especially with Leica gear) so I will continue to shoot it. And as long as it produces the photos that I like, you’d better believe it’s worth it.

 

[stray cat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been reading this thread with much interest. The question is a very good one, and I think it is a question people may well still be asking in 2032, 2042 and so on.

We are all individuals ("I'm not!" comes a cry from the back). Even as the subset of humanity called "photographers" (well, I'm using the term "humanity" loosely here) we all have our peculiarities, idiosyncrasies and preferences. In that regard, there will always be people who prefer using film, just as those that will prefer using digital and others who will prefer using both, or neither (cameraless pictures).

Steven's original question posited:

But the real question is, can the final result be the same ? I know, I'm not the first one to try to replicate the film look on digital. But that's what this thread is about. Can one copy the film look in a digital file? 

Will it ever be as satisfying ? 

And here the answers may be just as ambivalent as the questions. In the first part, in an objective sense, we may be able to somewhat replicate a "film" look with a digital file. Soften the image, add some fake grain, do whatever you like yada yada. So let's say "yes" to the first part of that question. A qualified yes, but let's let that pass for now. You might also then wonder why you are doing that? Are you just using digital for its convenience, perhaps because you're unable or unwilling to use film, when you actually prefer the look of film? Do you enjoy screwing with technically-perfect digital files to make them imperfect?

The second part - will it ever be as satisfying? Well, clearly, that's for each of us to decide for ourselves. I'd say most of us here have at least tried both digital and film, and now practise that which is best for us (or both, or neither). For myself, I've found that with film there is more to the picture than the picture itself. I offer the following example - as simply an example, mind you, not as a great photograph - as to why I find film more satisfying:

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!

(cross-posted from "I Like Film" and apologies to Steven because I realize you don't care for black and white, but this is my most recent scan).

I wouldn't think there's anything about the subject or the range of tones that a digital can't have captured. But to me, I look at the grain, I look at the 'softness' in the sharpness, I even look at the rebate area of the negative and I think: "That's it. A 35mm Summicron lens and Tri-X. Photo heaven." Developed by me in XTOL at my home. On a roll I carried in my bag, then loaded in the camera, and which now sits in a physical file alongside all my other photos on film, dating back to the early 1970s (apart from that digital excursion in the mid naughties 🤭). Any image of which can I scan, take into the darkroom, print, scratch, burn, whatever. These physical negatives track the journey of my life. And they were there with me, every time.

Yes, film is expensive, a hassle, needs to be physically present and maintained, and all the rest. But in short, photos shot on film give me, personally, a visceral response that photos taken on digital just never did. And I know this won't answer Steven's questions, but this is why I, personally, find shooting on film more satisfying.

 

[tedd]

What does film look like? Because colour neg is basically a RAW file and if you're just having a lab process it then you may as well be shooting JPEG's with an Instagram filter to make it "interesting." What are you doing with your final results? I've posted photos taken on film M (colour neg) next to digital M (with edits on both to make them look how I envision it) using the same lens and no one on Instagram could tell the difference between them with any certainty. Maybe on a large print you could. IMO traditional, cubic grain BnW film with darkroom processing and printing absolutely has its place and is worth it in 2022. Colour neg (and even slide 😬) got outdated a long time ago in my book, except maybe 4x5 and larger.

PS you have too many cameras. No one ever owns a mechanical Leica, we just look after them until it's the next persons turn. 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Steven said:

Nice! Color or BW? 

Primarily B&W because that's my preference, but I.can process colour too, negative and reversal. Print up to A2 size with inkjet printers, one for B&W, ( Piezograpy Pro ), the other for colour.

[LocalHero1953]

I have no wish to make digital look like film. When I am shooting and post processing in Lightroom, I have an image in my head of the look I am trying to achieve, but it is a mood, atmosphere, or composition, never a conscious thought of making it look like film. I see the adverts and threads here for presets to make your image look like a particular film stock and usually just pass over them. My recent return to film (4x5 and 35mm) has shown me, again, the very real differences between a scanned film image and a digital image with basic processing of each: in B&W, the colour responses are just different (e.g. photographing a red brick house), and in negatives the treatment of highlights and shadows is just totally different. I have no doubt that one can make a digital image look like a film one (and vice versa), but I don't really want to - if I did, I wouldn't be shooting both film and digital. I'm glad to have both. 

Edited November 23, 2021 by LocalHero1953

[250swb]

9 hours ago, Steven said:

The truth is, the amount I shoot is not the problem I have with film. I can shoot 20 rolls a day, I can afford it. My real problem is in low light. I'm still struggling, considering I don't like black and white photography. 

There is a very fine photographer on the forum called @frame-it who does lots of very interesting colour work on film, in cities, at night. But maybe use digital for night time shots and add some grain to look like film. Or just decide it's an impossible dream. Many film photographers follow in the tradition of early cavemen and cavewomen who had the perfect answer to night time, when it got dark and hunting became impossible, they went to bed. But possibly realigning to film after using digital takes more time, film photography isn't always 24hr open access, but sooner or later dedicated film photographers learn to work with their medium happy for what it can do instead of what it can't do.

 

 

[Al Brown]

Shooting film worth financially? No.
Shooting film worth aesthetically? Absolutely.
Can you repeat the film feel in digital post-processing? Yes, but not really.

I have benn shooting film half of my career. The workflow went something like this: To the publishing house fridges to get the order of film (max. 2 rolls per editorial image) and polaroids, shoot, to the lab for clip test, come back and determine push/pull processing (or nothing), come back to get the developed slides, to the editor, select images, take them to the HELL drum scanner lab a few floors down the editorial offices, pick up oily film after scanning, check scans and layout at the DTP office, check match prints. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

I could not wait to go digital in 2003. Could not stand to see another film roll for a decade. In recent years I am back shooting some film again, most recently with my gold M4-2 and Nikon 35Ti, scanning on my Epson Perfection Photo. But as far as I can tell, for me, 35mm is too small. I have always been shooting 120 slides (with that 1/3rd of a stop accuracy) on Mamiya RZ67II, Hasselblad 503CW and Pentax 645 and 67. I carried my 120 film cameras everywhere. Namibia, Mongolia, Madagascar, Tahiti, you name it. Seriously considering getting a 6x7 or 6x9 camera again (Like the "Texas Leica" Fuji 690GWIII - they say it would take a 250-megapixel sensor equivalent to resolve a 6x9 negative). 120 negs and slides are just something else.

Edited November 23, 2021 by Al Brown

[ianman]

Redundant post. Removed

Edited November 23, 2021 by ianman

[Steven]

10 hours ago, FrozenInTime said:

Still thinking digitally ! 

Part of the film experience is peering at fresh negatives with a loupe 🔍

I've tried developing colour film, and I didn't like the process, nor the result. 

[Steven]

5 hours ago, stray cat said:

I've been reading this thread with much interest. The question is a very good one, and I think it is a question people may well still be asking in 2032, 2042 and so on.

We are all individuals ("I'm not!" comes a cry from the back). Even as the subset of humanity called "photographers" (well, I'm using the term "humanity" loosely here) we all have our peculiarities, idiosyncrasies and preferences. In that regard, there will always be people who prefer using film, just as those that will prefer using digital and others who will prefer using both, or neither (cameraless pictures).

Steven's original question posited:

But the real question is, can the final result be the same ? I know, I'm not the first one to try to replicate the film look on digital. But that's what this thread is about. Can one copy the film look in a digital file? 

Will it ever be as satisfying ? 

And here the answers may be just as ambivalent as the questions. In the first part, in an objective sense, we may be able to somewhat replicate a "film" look with a digital file. Soften the image, add some fake grain, do whatever you like yada yada. So let's say "yes" to the first part of that question. A qualified yes, but let's let that pass for now. You might also then wonder why you are doing that? Are you just using digital for its convenience, perhaps because you're unable or unwilling to use film, when you actually prefer the look of film? Do you enjoy screwing with technically-perfect digital files to make them imperfect?

The second part - will it ever be as satisfying? Well, clearly, that's for each of us to decide for ourselves. I'd say most of us here have at least tried both digital and film, and now practise that which is best for us (or both, or neither). For myself, I've found that with film there is more to the picture than the picture itself. I offer the following example - as simply an example, mind you, not as a great photograph - as to why I find film more satisfying:

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!

(cross-posted from "I Like Film" and apologies to Steven because I realize you don't care for black and white, but this is my most recent scan).

I wouldn't think there's anything about the subject or the range of tones that a digital can't have captured. But to me, I look at the grain, I look at the 'softness' in the sharpness, I even look at the rebate area of the negative and I think: "That's it. A 35mm Summicron lens and Tri-X. Photo heaven." Developed by me in XTOL at my home. On a roll I carried in my bag, then loaded in the camera, and which now sits in a physical file alongside all my other photos on film, dating back to the early 1970s (apart from that digital excursion in the mid naughties 🤭). Any image of which can I scan, take into the darkroom, print, scratch, burn, whatever. These physical negatives track the journey of my life. And they were there with me, every time.

Yes, film is expensive, a hassle, needs to be physically present and maintained, and all the rest. But in short, photos shot on film give me, personally, a visceral response that photos taken on digital just never did. And I know this won't answer Steven's questions, but this is why I, personally, find shooting on film more satisfying.

 

Great photo, great post! 

[Steven]

4 hours ago, tedd said:

PS you have too many cameras.

I strongly disagree with this statement. 

 

4 hours ago, tedd said:

No one ever owns a mechanical Leica, we just look after them until it's the next persons turn. 

Sure, they can, and potentially will outlive me. But until then, I own them. They're mine. I tell them what to do. 

Edited November 23, 2021 by Steven

[Steven]

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

Or just decide it's an impossible dream

Dreadful, but you might be right. Maybe you just solved a big problem for me. 

[Steven]

1 hour ago, Al Brown said:

Seriously considering getting a 6x7

After loving to shoot with a Mamiya 6 for the past month, I just ordered a Mamiya 7ii, to experiment with 6x7. Such a great camera. It's the M7 of medium format: AE, rangefinder, awesome lens, more compact than anything else... EDIT: oh, and every hipster on YouTube uses it. Like the M7/M6...

Edited November 23, 2021 by Steven

[otto.f]

4 hours ago, tedd said:

No one ever owns a mechanical Leica, we just look after them until it's the next persons turn. 

??? I own an M4 since 1990, and many Luf members with me, what are you talking about?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ianman]

8 minutes ago, Steven said:

I tell them what to do.

Getting them to obey is the difficult part.