kanzlr
Hexaneur
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
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
emasterphoto
Established
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.
emasterphoto
Established
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.
jpa66
Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
No, not simply staying within my comfort zone. I prefer film over digital for more than simply emotional reasons ( it's just a very powerful one, and one that I have acknowledged to myself ). One of the many other reasons is that I would rather spend hours in a darkroom getting the print the way that I like as opposed to sitting at a computer and fidgeting with the image in Photoshop. Different strokes for different folks...
emasterphoto
Established
mdarnton
Well-known
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
Newbie
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 $$$ to set up my darkroom. Picked up a 4x5 enlarger....etc.
When post processing digital images...converting them to b/w....found myself desperately putting as much 'grain effect' on these digital images.
I tried to un-sharpen some of them as the images seemed to be so sharp. I will apply some 'blurring effect' .... Digital images seemed to be too perfect..
These images did not represent the images in my head....
So I went to view a few gallery exhibitions of traditional b/w prints. Oh those photos with pronounced grains....oh so beautiful...
That fire inside me got lit again.
But invested a great deal of $$$ 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
Rangeflounder
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.
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.
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.
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.
Basset
Member
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.