Why do all we film guys keep holding on?

nikon_sam said:
Photography is more than just tripping a shutter button...for me it includes developing film and spending time in a darkroom...
I also love the feel of mechanical cameras...you know, the old style metal ones...even ones, dare I say, without batteries...
As an added bonus I love the look from the older lenses on these ancient machines I use...

I don't own a digital camera as yet other than my cell phone camera...I have taken over a thousand pictures with it so I'm not anti-digital just more pro-film...

As far as my gear ending up on Pawn Stars...most pawn shops aren't buying the film cameras I use...
Click to expand...


As film spirals inwards to a consumer level that can support a few remaining players it will be interesting to see what happens to the value of the more expensive cameras that use it. I think the truly beautiful film cameras like Linhof, Leica etc will retain value as shelf ornaments (some would say Leica are already there! :D) while the rest will become landfill.

It's all rather sad actually ... I'm sure railway buffs felt the same away about the passing of the steam era. There's little romance in a thundering great diesel locomotive IMO!
 
I like the look and feel of old metal cameras. I like the way they operate, their simplicity and the results I get from film. To me, digital is soulless.
 
Dirk said:
I like the look and feel of old metal cameras. I like the way they operate, their simplicity and the results I get from film. To me, digital is soulless.
Click to expand...


The closest digital has come to a camera with soul is the RD-1 IMO.
 
I love photographs and photography. I enjoy using fine cameras and the state of the art. It was not until 2002, having been involved with digital imaging since 1984, that I felt the time had come to start using digital cameras for my own work. In 2004, I stopped shooting film, sold all my film cameras, and concentrated on digital capture.

I learned a great deal from doing that.

For my needs, now, digital cameras now are quite mature. I have several and shoot with them quite a lot. What I love about digital has nothing to do with all the automation, bells and whistles. It has to do with the excellence of capturing light in this medium and then working out a rendering that satisfies me.

In 2010, I decided to add some film work back into my photography. Never did like working in a darkroom much, but I was good at it back in the day. Nowadays it's easier ... I shoot XP2 Super, have it processed at the local Walgreens, and scan it to digital for processing and printing. I have a nice brace of my favorite 35mm cameras, some Minox subminis, and (soon) a nice old 6x6 folder to work with, as well as a Polaroid SX-70. It's fun, it lets me use some neat older cameras, and I get very satisfying results with my hybrid process.

The ultimate capabilities of digital capture and processing blow away what I can get out of film, but there is a charm and mystery to working in the future with film. I rarely approach the ultimate capabilities of either medium ... photographs are about story and expression to me, not about bits, bytes, acutance and MTF curves. All that stuff is important and I know it well, but it's just the technological basis for making the photos.

So I don't hang on to doing film. I do photography. With whatever and however comes along to do it. :)
 
It is very simple. There is no digital camera that I know of, which can produce an image like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/radoslawpujan/7949801552/in/contacts/
If you add the advantage that film medium has in archiving, and lower cost, nowadays, of first class film cameras, the choice for me is a no brainer. Almost any pro photographer still prefers to shoot film for own pleasure. This speaks volumes.
 
kshapero said:
Why do all we film guys keep holding on?
Click to expand...

Why do people ask this over and over again?

With all due respect, I'm sick of all the doom talk regarding photography on film. "Film is not dead", but the more people repeat this stupid mantra, the more they're gonna think it should be, for some unknown reason. If you tell a lie many many times, it becomes the truth.

Also, a question like this threads title presumes that digital photography makes film photography obsolete. Again, why?

To me, and this is my personal opinion (shared by some, bashed by others) photography is all about the chemical process. Digital image recording is (again - to me - ) not photography. It's something else. Nice, but there's no emotion to it. And that's because I can't relate to the digital process. I don't see it and I can't grasp it. On an abstract level, I can somewhat understand what's going on, but there's no feel to it. There's nothing to see and nothing to feel.

Add to that the eternal frustration of maintaining hardware and software and the entire system that is supposed to keep your image making tools floating. Not to mention calibration, monitor viewing environment etc. Even when all this is working, there's an overwhelming armada of technical feedback requiring attention that you should not need to be bothered with.

I'm not saying analog photography comes without any of these problems. Indeed you can dwelve as deep into the technical side of the chemical process, but you don't need to. You can go along perfectly fine with a few bottles, trays, a lamp and your hands.

Overly complicated solutions may allow freedom of choice and unlimited opportunities, but in order to be able to concentrate on the content of your creativity, you need borders.

Digital photography will not be there for many years to come, and when it gets there, it's a bad solution to a problem that didn't exist.

If you don't know whether you prefer film or digital, do both until you know. Or don't choose, there's no reason.

My first and last contribution to this unnecessary discussion, with no offense intended.
 
jkrumsick said:
I wanted a bigger challenge (less fps = higher quality and slower photography). I wanted to be unique. I wanted to use high quality cameras that aren't plasticky. And you can buy great quality cameras for cheap... :).
Click to expand...

This.

And I can relate to Keith's rant: photography is art and not consumer-driven, entertainment-oriented crap!
 
Since mid-July I am trying the D800E with a bunch of software Phase One C1, CNX2, LR4 and CS6. Magnificent resolution, brilliant colors, the best dynamic range of the industry, shadows can come out as if illuminated with a flashlight with a slight move of the slider.

When it comes to B&W however, no matter how long I spend in front of the computer, it still is a far cry from what I get from a roll of HP5 developed in D76 with an attention nothing further than tying the laces of my shoes.
 
kshapero said:
Love to hear from the under 30 crowd. Interested in your perspective, too.
Click to expand...

I've never owned a digital camera, and I'm 25. I just don't like it. I remember being ten with a 110 camera and blasting through the entire roll in an afternoon because I took two or three good pictures. Just a few years ago, all I used was an 80s Kodak point and shoot. I lost it, and decided to spend thirty bucks on a Mamiya SLR, and it's all been downhill from there.

I like having something composed, framed and metered, and then saying "nahhh" because I know it's not going to be a good picture. I like having to wait to see what came out. I like being able to take credit for being the one who took the picture and got the exposure correct, not the camera. I guess if i had an M9, it would work just like my Bessa. The thing is, most mortals can't afford an M9. And I feel like it would take the fun out of it all anyhow. Also, none of my cameras will ever be outdated, or need a firmware update.
 
kshapero said:
Love to hear from the under 30 crowd. Interested in your perspective, too.
Click to expand...

My friends, most of my peers and I really enjoy the hands-on and tactile experience of film processing and darkroom printing. They also feel more like they are making the photo when they shoot using manual cameras. It doesn't hurt that it's not terribly expensive either when compared with digital full frame (especially now that the 5D3 is at 5K $NZ), especially for them since they really slow down when they pick up a film camera.

I use digital mostly for wedding shoots now, but that's mostly for the turnaround time
 
When The transistor came out they said it would be the end of valves, but it wasn't.
When CDs came out they said it would be the end of vinyl, but it wasn't, in fact it looks like CDs are on their way out and vinyl is making a come back in some areas.
I am confident that one way or another film and chemical processing will continue, even though it may be a niche market.

One point about film came to mind, do vegan photographers now prefer digital?
 
kshapero said:
Love to hear from the under 30 crowd. Interested in your perspective, too.
Click to expand...
I am 24, and I really love film. The reason is simply because film is unique and it gives me interesting experience and results.
I'm also tired of people seeing my photos I took with the digitals and then say 'I wish I have a fancy camera like yours' and also when I go out with friends with DSLRs, they would start conversations about how many MPs you got, high ISO and stuff. I don't need that ;)
So uniqueness is one, experience is another, and there's also that learning process, so you really need to learn the light, how harsh or soft it is, where it falls, what to meter for, etc.
Lately I have been shooting exclusively with my Rolleicord and Sekonic handheld meter.
 
While hearing is a sense designed for instant perception, vision allows slower, more complete study of the environment.

Maximum utilization of vision in the photographic process currently requires the use of film cameras--both for proportion and nuance.

I find digital photography a convenience lacking maximum visual fulfillment.

The opportunities for studied recording of the visual world are greater with film.

Texsport
 
I'm 24, and I bounce between digital and film. I'm also a professional photographer. I would use mainly film if I had access to a coolscan 9000 or similar level scanner - mainly medium format as it is still better technically (in my mind) than full frame digital.

One of the big things for me is that I find it very very difficult to get color, tones, and contrast looking 'right' with digital files from just about any digital camera. I can sometimes do it, but usually I just keep having to print it, go back and make corrections 100 times and finally accept that it's never going to be perfect.
With film on the other hand, a lot of the time I scan it, and do a quick contrast adjustment, and it looks absolutely flat out perfect. Especially with medium format film.

The other thing about film that keeps me holding on is that it implies that I am an ARTIST not a student with a camera. It implies that I am dedicated to my profession. Every man and lady and their dog knows the canon/nikon DSLR lineup and unfortunately everyone judges you by your gear. Bust out a mamiya 7 or a hassleblad and the same people don't make comments/judgement/comparisons - as far as they're concerned, you're just doing something differently to everyone else, and it's kind of interesting, and they want to let you 'do your thing'.

I see a LOT of fellow pros using film when possible too, so I don't think its really declining amongst people who take their photography seriously. A lot of teenagers are shooting on film due to it's spontaneity and the fact that they don't view digital photos as 'prints' too.
 
I'm indifferent. Grew up with film and I'm sticking with it, but I could easily make the jump to digital IF there were a digital camera that was worth it.

I would love any of these cameras:

Digital Rolleiflex -- does not exist
An M9 equivalent for $2000 -- does not exist
An R-d1 with a .72 viewfinder -- does not exist
 
Joakim Målare said:
Why do people ask this over and over again?

With all due respect, I'm sick of all the doom talk regarding photography on film. "Film is not dead...
Click to expand...

It doesn't seem to me to just be about FvD or FID... there are many older guys on photo forums who like (I'm just guessing here; maybe its not really a matter of pride) -- well, let's just say... IDENTIFY with -- the image of being old fuddy-duddies and technology dinosaurs, and enjoy a bit of banter on that topic with like-minded folks. It also could be that those older guys on photo forums are seeking reassurance that some younger people also can relate to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top