Comment on "why film"

I don't see the problem with using both. I refuse to choose between which one is better bla bla bla. They both act the same way as every other camera ever made, they let light in in a pre-determined quantity, they react to that light and form an image. And while I'm processing my film in my darkroom my computer is processing the files.

in either case, both cameras get the job done, and using one that's digital with a crop factor I get double duty out of my lenses, so that's a nice bonus as well.

Neither medium is better or worse. Between spending plenty of time setting up presets for my PP for digital and testing my films and development times I've managed to tweak both mediums to give very close results.

The point of my ramblings is that I don't care what medium I'm shooting, all I care about is that I'm out taking pictures.
 
tmfabian said:
I don't see the problem with using both. I refuse to choose between which one is better bla bla bla. They both act the same way as every other camera ever made, they let light in in a pre-determined quantity, they react to that light and form an image. ...

... I don't care what medium I'm shooting, all I care about is that I'm out taking pictures.
Click to expand...

If you feel that there is no advantage to either , why do both. There is no doubt that digital imaging is much more convenient than film photography. If they both lead to the same place, do you use film soley for the experience?

I think there are qualitative differences between pictures made with film and those made digitally.
 
Chris101 said:
If you feel that there is no advantage to either , why do both. There is no doubt that digital imaging is much more convenient than film photography. If they both lead to the same place, do you use film soley for the experience?

I think there are qualitative differences between pictures made with film and those made digitally.
Click to expand...

I use both for a few reasons.
When shooting both for the same job I use them to back each other up....Film backs up digital in case of file corruption, Digital backs up film in case of development error.
I get double duty out of my lenses
The m7 is very quiet and I use that when that is a necessity
If the job needs to be in color I shoot digital
If the job needs to be used online I shoot digital

I don't share your sentiment that digital is more convenient than film, I find both equally convenient as well as equally inconvenient...film has to be developed and dried and all that noise but getting a good b&w print out of film is a cake walk for me, Digital doesn't need to be developed or dried, but I had to purchase a 2TB server to store my images on, and that's already filling up and getting a good B&W print out of digital is finicky at best(I've had good results with the epson exhibition fiber paper, but even that needs to be viewed under the right light source to look b&w)


I never said there weren't differences...i believe i said "... I've managed to tweak both mediums to give very close results..." and by that I simply meant they can live together contently.

But yes, from time to time, I just really enjoy spending time in my darkroom.
 
Your reasons for shooting both are very logical, especially the last two of the list. I used to use a film camera as a backup to digital, but now I just use a second digital camera when I need one (weddings, etc.) But I shoot film when I specifically want the film experience (which is often), and digital when I want it fast (which is becoming rarer.)
 
I was in a gallery the other day looking at some prints that were all shot digitally, and post-processed in the usual manner. Some of the work was incredibly compelling. A few days earlier I had been in a gallery looking at some prints that were all shot and printed in the traditional manner...all 35mm. I found the same thing---some very compelling work. Never once when when viewing these photographs, both captured using such different technologies, did I ever reflect on how they were captured. That info came from the brochures. A good photograph stands on its own two feet regardless of how it was captured.

---Rem
 
Just got some prints back taken with a 1936 Leica Summar with some light haze + some expired (2003) Kodak Gold 100. You can Photoshop till the cows come home, and nevah replicate the look of these photos - nevah!!! (Why you would want to is another question, entirely :) )
 
Learn as much as you can about digital - because it will eventually prevail.
I'm a film shooter since 1960 and see no sane rational reason to resist digital. I'll still shoot film until it becames too big a PITA to continue . . . but I'll be shooting on the "Dark Side" as well. So long as my eyes cannot readly tell the difference between film or digital capture - digital will get the nod.
I still have two open reel tape decks . . . I just like to watch the reels go round and round ad hear music come out the speakers. . .
I have a couple cassette decks and a boatload of cassettes.
I'm not actively recording open reel or cassette.
I'm just resigning myself to reality - not without some regret or sadness - but there it is.
Deal with it. .

Paul
 
I have plenty of reasons to shoot both digital and film, and I do. But, after actually attempting to go mostly digital a couple years ago (albeit in a half-assed way), what I found is that I kept going back to shooting film because it works for me. I can make it do exactly what I want without even thinking about it, and having that kind of command of the tools you use is incredibly important. So, really, if what is already working for you really well is still working really well, why change it? Sure, be open to new tools, but film still does well what it has always done well.
 
I realized that digital was the holy grail I'd been looking for all those years.
Click to expand...


Jeeze, tough night? I just spent too much time reading your carpet bombing, RD1 sucks, newly announced digital technology sucks, film sucks. Give it a break.

Disagreement over everything, to what end?????

Oh, let me save you the trouble, I suck too.
 
In my youth, I had film cameras, but I did not get into photography, as in learning the fundamentals, until I picked up a Canon 350D. So I certainly have digital to thank for helping to crystallize my interest in photography. However, three factors redirected me to film:

-Lack of an affordable digital rangefinder
-Lack of an affordable full frame DSLR
-The engaging grain in Daido Moriyama's photos

I do not have any desire to go back to a digital camera now; it is not an issue of principle, as I use a digital scanner, but I love Tri-X and the overall process of using a film camera.
 
At my state of personal development I discover I have not the talent nor wit, to tell the difference between the product of a digital camera or a film camera. You'd think I could because the wife and I own a gallery, and we see the stuff all day.

I'm never really sure 'till I've read the artist's statement.

Personally I like film cameras:
-I really like the idea that I can take credit for the picture and not some camera factory engineer. ie. I focused the camera, I set the shutter speed, I held the camera steady, I set the ISO, I chose the film, I composed and shot carefully knowing I only had 12 or 36 exposures.
-I like the simplicity of the cameras that use film. Think Leica M2, Nikon F2 etc. and the fact that these cameras are not battery dependent.
-I like the fact that you can pick up a old beater, perhaps a Pentax Spotmatic, that has been sitting on a shelf for 10 years and successfully run a roll of film through it.
-I like the fact that my Nikon F2, manufactured in 1971, will give images equal to a friends Nikon D200 (that he's already replaced after 2 years).
-I really like the fact that I know film has lasted 100 years and more. ( I don't know that digital will)

etc. etc.
 
Many good reasons have been given that apply to me too.

But My First reason is a simple issue of costs.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
remegius said:
A good photograph stands on its own two feet regardless of how it was captured.

---Rem
Click to expand...
Amen.

to answer the question though:
i shoot film because i like the "surprise" i get when i finally get to see the negatives for the first time. whether they're under/over exposed, out of focus, scratched, etc. when i shoot digital i spend too much time looking at the lcd screen and less time paying attention to what i'm shooting and looking for new photographic opportunities. i enjoy the anticipation in waiting those days/weeks it can take between taking a picture and seeing it processed. i find it fun to see images and say "oh, i forgot i took that".

i also like the limitations that a roll of film can give you with a certain number of available images and certain iso. my 4gb card on my nikon can take a hek of a lot of pictures but with 3 or 4 rolls in your pocket you're very limited and you have to be picky. and sometimes you just can't take a picture. if you've got 100 speed film in the camera and the meter is telling you a 1/4 second exposure wide open, guess what, you're pretty screwed. sure you could push the film but at the expense at everything else on the same roll.

maybe i'm just not disciplined enough with digital.

- chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top