Why do I prefer film?

[jpa66]

First of all, this is NOT an anti-digital rant. It's simply an attempt to understand why I choose film over digital, and perhaps other people feel this way as well.

After reading the Head Bartender's newest forum thread about closed camera stores, I got to thinking about the ones that I missed, which lead me to thinking about the film that I missed, which lead me to thinking about Why in god's name do I still shoot film?

I finally realized that I simply enjoy the look of film, the process of taking a photograph with film, and the process of developing it ( both the negatives and the actual photograph ).

I actually bought a dslr ( Nikon D70 ) around the time that it came out, and used it exclusively for about two years. After that, the novelty seemed to wear off, and I started missing the types of images that I got with film. I also missed the process. I quit using my dslr about two years ago, and gave it away last year ( to my father-in-law ). I don't miss it in the least.

BUT ( the reason that I'm posting this ) I started to realize that one of the reasons that I love film so much is because I detest change. I hate it. I've been using film, and have been excited about it, since I was a little kid back in the early '70's. My grandmother gave me my first camera ( a plastic 127 cheapie from Sears or Kmart ). I love the entire process of film photography.

When digital came around I was intrigued and fell under its spell for a short while, but realized that my true love was film. I suppose that what I'm trying to say is that, while I prefer the look of film to digital personally, part of it may well be that I'm so emotionally involved with film photography that I'll probably never be a complete digital convert.

While I still feel that I can be objective and explain to myself why I choose film over digital, I wonder how much of my opinion is truly objective, and how much is based upon my emotional connection to film. In the end, I don't really care, though - why waste time trying to figure something out? When it's right, it's right.

Jan

[codester80]

Jan, I think you've said what is the heart of all us film users.

[shadowfox]

... And you've said it so perfectly that we don't even hear a peep from people who think the opposite way

[Nikon Bob]

Originally Posted by shadowfox

... And you've said it so perfectly that we don't even hear a peep from people who think the opposite way

Well said for sure. I don't think you will hear much from the "other" side because at this point in time nobody should care what medium you use so long as you are happy with it.

Bob

[shadowfox]

Originally Posted by Nikon Bob

Well said for sure. I don't think you will hear much from the "other" side because at this point in time nobody should care what medium you use so long as you are happy with it.

Bob

Sure, Bob.
If you say so.

[Nikon Bob]

Originally Posted by shadowfox

Sure, Bob.
If you say so.

Same back at you Will.

Bob

[muf]

I like photographs. When I shoot in digital, I keep the pictures on my pc. When I shoot film, I have to develop and print them. But I really like photographs. There is something real about them. Family one's especially. Much more real than looking at a digital image on a monitor or tv screen. Photo's are just something I grew up with that I associate with photography. Very few people that are soley digital print their pictures. That's a fact! They simply hoard them on a hard drive. I really don't get that. I also prefer the look that my film pictures have. Whenever I have printed my digital pictures, they look a little lifeless. Flat. Can't really explain it. But like the OP. I just prefer film.

It's refreshing to read that the recent Spielberg film, Warhorse, was shot entirely in film. One review I read stated that the picture "never looked so lustrous". I enjoyed reading that, as I 'get it'.

Paul

[Reddot9]

It really doesn't matter, i.e., film or digital. Its what you prefer and what counts is the image.

[noimmunity]

Originally Posted by jpa66

F the process of developing it ( both the negatives and the actual photograph ). ... I also missed the process.

Another vote for process.

OT, it is also the main reason why I also really like digital.

Two very different processes, two different kinds of joy.

[Basset]

Originally Posted by noimmunity

Another vote for process.

OT, it is also the main reason why I also really like digital.

Two very different processes, two different kinds of joy.

I would agree here.

As for the film look, various digital processing programs (AlienSkin Exposure, Nik Silver EfexPro ColorEfex Pro) can fairly readily generate the look of many photos made with different films and processes. And the software improves each year.

What film provides for me is the "surprise" factor in street photography, which generates many failures. There's not only the surprise that in seeing -- days or weeks later -- how a split-second shooting decision turned out better than hoped in the focus and composition, but also the surprise in seeing how the colors, shades, textures came out. Film presents me at times with a look that I'd never have thought to create in a digital shot, and provides the basis for similar looks in future film or digital shots.

[traveler_101]

Originally Posted by jpa66

I finally realized that I simply enjoy the look of film, the process of taking a photograph with film, and the process of developing it ( both the negatives and the actual photograph ). . . .

I quit using my dslr about two years ago, and gave it away last year ( to my father-in-law ). I don't miss it in the least. . . .

BUT ( the reason that I'm posting this ) I started to realize that one of the reasons that I love film so much is because I detest change. I hate it. . . .

When digital came around I was intrigued and fell under its spell for a short while, but realized that my true love was film. I suppose that what I'm trying to say is that, while I prefer the look of film to digital personally, part of it may well be that I'm so emotionally involved with film photography that I'll probably never be a complete digital convert.

Thanks for the posting, Jan.

I was never under digital's spell but went to it after a long hiatus from photography because I thought there was no other choice. The DSLR's completely automatic and highly technical character made me despair and wish for a return to the "old days."

In the last year I have picked up film again--now in more serious way than back in the 70s and 80s when I had a Canon SLR with a 50m lens--and I absolutely LOVE the look or rather looks of the images compared to digital. At this point I am scanning negatives so it is not a pure technology, but a kind of hybrid.

The point for me is that film is a medium that leaves its distinctive imprint on the image. Digital is about "sharpness" and then "hyper-sharpness."

I am really looking forward to the next stage of developing my own and learning how to manipulate developing agents and film types.

Right now I am really into it.

[Oldskewl808]

Originally Posted by traveler_101

Thanks for the posting, Jan.

I was never under digital's spell but went to it after a long hiatus from photography because I thought there was no other choice. The DSLR's completely automatic and highly technical character made me despair and wish for a return to the "old days."

In the last year I have picked up film again--now in more serious way than back in the 70s and 80s when I had a Canon SLR with a 50m lens--and I absolutely LOVE the look or rather looks of the images compared to digital. At this point I am scanning negatives so it is not a pure technology, but a kind of hybrid.

The point for me is that film is a medium that leaves its distinctive imprint on the image. Digital is about "sharpness" and then "hyper-sharpness."

I am really looking forward to the next stage of developing my own and learning how to manipulate developing agents and film types.

Right now I am really into it.

I am wondering about the Sharpness thing though. I just found a great deal on a X100 and picked it up to see what all the fuss is about. Took it out for a couple shoots and I noticed something about the shots in Photobucket editor. When I edit photos taken with my Hexanon equipped 35mm cameras the "sharpness" edit function will make them actually look blurry because they are sharper than what that edit function can provide. When I use the same sharpness edit function with the shots from the X100 it will make them sharper! why is this? May just be a Photobucket thing, but so far I was happy with how my film photos were working in it.
I just cant seem to pry my self away from film though. The simple act of picking the film type, and loading it. The mystery and anticipation of how the shots came out. I even like the feel of advancing the film, it's like cocking a gun for the next shot.
Of course the main thing for me is the images themselves. I just cannot see the depth, contrast, character, beauty, and 3D rendering that I get with film. The digital shots just seem to look so sterile.

[emasterphoto]

Originally Posted by Oldskewl808

Of course the main thing for me is the images themselves. I just cannot see the depth, contrast, character, beauty, and 3D rendering that I get with film. The digital shots just seem to look so sterile.

This has nothing to do with the media, but your approach to it. Your digital shots are sterile because you're not investing enough of yourself into making them otherwise. Basing an opinion on digital (or film if coming from the opposite side) on a few half-hearted trial shoots isn't very fair to the media.

[Oldskewl808]

Originally Posted by emasterphoto

This has nothing to do with the media, but your approach to it. Your digital shots are sterile because you're not investing enough of yourself into making them otherwise. Basing an opinion on digital (or film if coming from the opposite side) on a few half-hearted trial shoots isn't very fair to the media.

Maybe your right, because I don't feel like I get into "the zone" when I shoot digital.

[emasterphoto]

Originally Posted by Oldskewl808

Maybe your right, because I don't feel like I get into "the zone" when I shoot digital.

I very well may be, but I hope you didn't take what I said as a personal knock against you; it's just an observation I made based on a number of conversations I've seen here and there and my own experience.

In fact, I get the same feeling shooting film that you do when shooting digital. I like film cameras for many of the same reasons you do, but the connection is nowhere near as intimate on a creative level for me as when I shoot digital. Ironic, considering I grew up with and learned on film, but then again film was always a bit stifling because unless I had access to a darkroom it was very hard if not impossible to work creatively with it. Digital eliminated that barrier for me, along with the cost barrier, so I naturally took to it.

I will say though, that shooting film has influenced my digital work in a positive way, which is why I keep shooting it. If anything, it has allowed me to envision how to make my digital images more "organic", and whereas a lot of other digital shooters are going for more and more clarity in their images, I'm finding I'm flowing in the opposite direction now and am pushing for more grittiness and character. Depends on what I'm shooting, of course.

[jpa66]

Originally Posted by emasterphoto

This has nothing to do with the media, but your approach to it. Your digital shots are sterile because you're not investing enough of yourself into making them otherwise. Basing an opinion on digital (or film if coming from the opposite side) on a few half-hearted trial shoots isn't very fair to the media.

I've taken many shots with my dslr ( when I had it ) that I really liked, but I felt that something was missing. For me, it was the relationship and history that I have with film that lead me back to it, and away from digital. This leads to the point that I was trying to make: I prefer film for many reasons, but probably the most powerful reason is my emotional connection to the entire process. I can't distance myself from that, nor do I want to.

[emasterphoto]

Originally Posted by jpa66

I've taken many shots with my dslr ( when I had it ) that I really liked, but I felt that something was missing. For me, it was the relationship and history that I have with film that lead me back to it, and away from digital. This leads to the point that I was trying to make: I prefer film for many reasons, but probably the most powerful reason is my emotional connection to the entire process. I can't distance myself from that, nor do I want to.

Definitely can't fault you for have the feelings that you do, they're what works for you and that's fine. The only thing I would suggest is that you may want to really consider whether or not your emotional attachment to film is an actual benefit to you artistically, and not perhaps a hinderance in the long run that prevents you from exploring opportunities that might lead to a wider visual vocabulary. In other words, are you simply using it as a justification to stay within your comfort zone and nothing more? If so, that may not be such a good thing. Discomfort promotes growth and that's never a bad thing.

[santino]

different look, still a better archival grade, totally different workflow (I can touch the film, it's alive), uniqueness of the picture (be it negative or print - at least a lith print), less expensive rfs and my strange feeling, that every time when I get a good digital shot I speak to myself "damn, why didn't I take the shot on film".

[kanzlr]

great post jpa66

Actually, it's the same for me, just the other way around. I did photograph film for years till I was able to buy my first DSLR (Minolta 5D). I never looked back. I did not like the process involved with film (I had access to a darkroom, minilab, etc.), I never liked the look. Digital just gives a so much cleaner file. I hate "character" induced by some film

But it is great to read such a nice and meaningful post about your reasons

[mdarnton]

Originally Posted by jpa66

BUT ( the reason that I'm posting this ) I started to realize that one of the reasons that I love film so much is because I detest change.

HEY, YOU KIDS GET OFFA MY LAWN!!

OK, now that that's out of my system, for me, I think I just prefer B&W, and there's something about holding a digital camera that prevents me from thinking that way. I'm sure I could get around that, but I'm too lazy to try. :-)

[chopsteeks]

After a few months of soul searching as to why photography was not getting me excited anymore....I decided to go back to film again. I am not abandoning digital per se as I still intend to use digital for family snapshots.....

But invested a great deal of $$$ to set up my darkroom. Picked up a 4x5 enlarger....etc.

When post processing digital images...converting them to b/w....found myself desperately putting as much 'grain effect' on these digital images.

I tried to un-sharpen some of them as the images seemed to be so sharp. I will apply some 'blurring effect' .... Digital images seemed to be too perfect..

These images did not represent the images in my head....

So I went to view a few gallery exhibitions of traditional b/w prints. Oh those photos with pronounced grains....oh so beautiful...

That fire inside me got lit again.

[drec]

I just like the idea of having negs that will last more than my lifetime. If you can't look at a photo, and it was nice, what is the point of spending all sorts of money on equipment?

I am a lazy guy and the costs in terms of doing work either come up front (processing film/scanning or printing) or later (maintaining the digital archive over the years, on top of easier processing/printing). I think I'll get the hard work done up front and have it easier later.

[Paul Jenkin]

I use film. Mostly. Why? Probably because I've used it since my youth in the early 1970s and, having bought into the digital expeience (and liked it) I find the "look" of film photos - less precise colours, grain and softer transitions between shades within the colour or mono pallette.

Digital comes into its own when convenience and profit maximisation are the main drivers. Nevertheless, I wouldn't be without my D700. Despite the D800 having 36.3MP (akin to a MF camera sensor) I don't see any point spending £2,500 for a piece of kit that I expect won't out-perform my Hasselblad, Rolleiflex or Mamiya 7 when it comes to pure image quality in the sort of environment I tend to shoot.