Film

[xayraa33]

I was led to believe that film would go away and disappear once digital cameras got to be very good but luckily for us that like and use film this was not the case.

 

[pete hogan]

Video doesn’t seem to get any mention. I suppose that’s decided now for digital. And it’s advancing rapidly in production ability.

I like the ‘50s Leica and Zorki cameras. I shoot a little Tri-X, and it’s enjoyable. The routine photos are much quicker with an iPhone and quality is good for the purpose.

Film will continue.

 

[Godfrey]

Personally, I use both film and digital capture, and like what I get out of both of them. Using film lets me use neat old cameras that I like and produces results that look different from what I get with my digital cameras. That's not to say that one is better than the other ... I don't even know what that means; they're just different and I like the differences, and the similarities. Both let me produce expressive photos that carry my intent, my emotion, as I want it to be.

G

"Photography transcends the equipment and the medium of its capture. Good photography is the hard part, the other stuff is easy."

 

[jdriffill]

It's nice to have the physical artefact, the negatives, or positive slides, as a sort of (sort of!) permanent record. Digital files are fine but seem too ephemeral and keeping track of them is the devil of a job.
Not to mention the pleasure of using old cameras which were once completely unaffordable (that Agfa Super Silette I bought second-hand for 10 pounds in 1966 was as much as I could afford then and for many years after, whereas now...), and all the bits of paraphernalia that go along with film.
I suppose a large part of it is the huge nostalgia trip. But then photography is deeply tied up with nostalgia, preserving fragments of the past, is it not?

 

[DownUnder]

All these film posts have left me feeling nostalgic. Here are a couple things that I enjoyed about film back when I was toting around a couple of Canon F1 bodies with various lenses and when digital photography was a rumor on the distant horizon.

I loved to go shopping for film. In the late ‘80s - early ‘90s my photo buddy and I would take the train to Yodobashi Camera in Shinjuku. Back then the film section was massive. The refrigerated film cooler stretched from one side of the store to the other and it was stocked with so many different types and brands of film. There were posters everywhere showing example photos of the various films. In those days I was strictly shooting color reversal film and I’d always buy 2 or three bricks of 50 and 100 ASA film. Enough to last a few months of our weekend photo excursions. After shopping we’d head over to the Pentax Gallery. I’m not sure if the gallery is still there but at that time it was a real treat to see all the photographs on display; very inspirational.

And, another thing: I never developed my own film, the corner camera store did that for me; and back then in Yokosuka there was a camera store on almost every street corner. I’d get the slide film developed and instead of being mounted in plastic slide holders I get it in clear plastic sleeves. I’d rush home and put the sleeve on my light table and scrutinize each image with a big Pentax loupe. If I wanted something to be printed I’d mark the sleeve with a grease pencil (do they still make grease pencils?) and take it back to the camera shop to have it printed to whatever size I specified. My house was too small to hang pictures on the wall but my office walls were covered with my framed photographs. People used to visit my office just to see the pictures on the wall… it was terrific fun!

I’m retired now, all the corner camera shops are gone, I don’t have a photo buddy anymore and all my film cameras have been replaced with digital. I have lots of free time now and I shoot more than ever before, life is very good (knock on wood). I’m not going back to film but I can say that my memories of the good old days of shopping for film and our weekend photo trips are the best!

Oh, one last nostalgic thing; back then I used to go to the bookstore and buy photography magazines, lots of photography magazines. That was the only way we had to know what was going on in the photo world. The bookstore is gone now and the internet has replaced the magazines. Oh well.


All the best,

Mike

I agree with all of this. Yes, we film users are all relics now, like our equally ageing film cameras.

Now, lest some of you take this as criticism - I enjoy being a relic and using my ageing film cameras - my four Rolleiflexes, four Contax Gs, two Nikkormats, several other Nikons, a Zeiss Nettar, a Voigtlander Perkeo, and many others), as so many of you also do.

All supplemented by Nikon DSLRs, two D700s, a D800, and a Lumix GF1. Which I also enjoy using, if not quite as much as my older film gear, but needs must.

True, many things have changed with film since the 1980s and 1990s when it all seemed so perfect and the going was so good - but we still have many choices available to us, and it really is up to us to ensure the supplies go on being available - by buying.

 

[Evergreen States]

I like the solid feeling of old mechanical cameras. I like the simplicity in their operation. I like the look of film. I like the optical qualities of medium format lenses. I like the excitement in waiting for the pictures to come back.

I love shooting film cameras and hate everything else about the process. To answer Erik's question of why I don't like film:
1. Film is expensive to shoot
2. I never worked out a developing workflow due to:

- Being very clumsy and each time I have developed film I've dropped it on the bathroom floor, resulting in scratches, dust and pubic hairs getting stuck to the film
- I live with chronic back pain so fumbling to get the film on the reel is physically taxing and the pain gets worse the more flustered I get
- I live in an area with hard water but I get water spots even when I use nothing but distilled water
- Responsibly disposing of darkroom chemicals is not practical where I live


3. I do not have a scanning workflow due to
- Impatience
- Lack of space to have a scanner
- Frustration from previous failures
- I live in a semi-arid climate where controlling for dust is impractical

This is all without wet printing, which I have no interest in.

4. For these reasons, I prefer to have my film sent off for professional development and scanning. The problem is that it is very expensive and I am poor, with nothing but a disability pension. With practice, I would likely get better at many of the things I struggle with, but I cannot afford the financial outlay it would take to get all of the equipment and the film. And I'd still have the other problems.

 

[Erik van Straten]

gelatin silver print (summicron rigid 50mm f2) leica m2

Erik.

 

[Dogman]

This is really gorgeous printed on Epson Hot Press Natural matte paper. Fuji X-Pro2, CV 40/1.4 Nokton Classic SC lens.

 

[Coldkennels]

Reading all these posts just makes me wish everyone's age was visible to give some sort of context to each reply.

Personally, I'm in my mid-30s. And I remember going to a local photography club some years ago where every other member/attendee was in their 60s or early 70s, and each and every one of them was using digital, espousing the speed, convenience, ease of use, and quality.

Meanwhile, I'm there with my TLRs and screwmount Leicas, actually enjoying how fiddly and involved the whole process is - how much work it is to truly be in control of the whole process, from bulk rolling and handheld metering through to developing and the final wet print.

I've seen an argument made that for people who used film for decades, digital photography was a huge relief, and for young 'uns, film photography is a mere novelty. I fall somewhere in-between. I'm just old enough to have used film as a child, and appreciated both the process and the quality of prints back then, even from cheap C41. I'm also just old enough to have been hugely disappointed by APS and the complete lack of quality that revolutionary new format had (which I can't help but suspect was a big part of the reason people were willing to tolerate the slow and low-quality early digital cameras in hindsight!).

But, more importantly, while I got the tail end of film being the only game in town, I also have a father who worked with computers, so some of my earliest memories are of microcomputers like the old BBC Micro and ZX Spectrum, loading stuff from cassette tape and wrestling with command lines, and have spent basically my whole life in front of a keyboard for one reason or another. This gives me a foot in both camps, and while I'm more than capable of using digital stuff (and do for work regularly), not only do I not feel invested in it one bit, it isn't my idea of a good time.

As the world continues to get faster and faster, and more and more of our lives involves electronic devices in one form or another, it's nice to leave them behind for a couple of hours and truly switch off.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Since Coldkennels asked, I'm 64. I grew up using film and I think that might be one of the reasons I prefer it to digital, when I am doing work that is important to me. Lately I've been shooting a personal project and using cameras and lenses from the 1940's and 1950's. There have been some serious issues with the camera bodies (required servicing and adjustments in FFD) and none of the seventy-some-year-old lenses where in collimation, so those all had to be painstakingly collimated. After all that was squared away, it turned out the high shutter speeds on the two bodies were slow, even after a CLA by one of the best technicians. Basically one issue after another. My wife is baffled and keeps asking me "Why are you going thru all this trouble, why don't you just shoot digital?"

For me, an image on a negative has value. An image that is just 1's & 0's on a computer disk is just a throw away. Funny thing is, when I pass someday (hopefully far in the future) my thousands of negatives will probably be tossed, and the hard disks will probably be kept because they are more convenient.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Godfrey]

It's nice to have the physical artefact, the negatives, or positive slides, as a sort of (sort of!) permanent record. Digital files are fine but seem too ephemeral and keeping track of them is the devil of a job. ...

hmm. In my 55+ year history of doing photography, I'd have to say that a hugely greater percentage of my film images compared to digital capture images, both negative and transparency, have succumbed to Time and are forever lost. None of my digital capture images have been lost—it's so much easier to replicate, organize, and archive digital images at 100% fidelity infinitely!

The small smattering of prints made from the film images are the permanent record which still persists ... And I do the same with my digital images of any value: I make at least small prints from any of the ones I felt were "keepers", "good ones" etc. And I stuff both into shoeboxes randomly, the same way I always did before digital capture existed, for the sake of future discovery and surprise.

Film is fragile and transient. Negatives in particular are incomplete photographs ... they require interpretation and rendering to make a photograph. They should never be your 'archive' medium. IMO, of course.

G

 

[markjwyatt]

...In my 55+ year history of doing photography, I'd have to say that a hugely greater percentage of my film images compared to digital capture images, both negative and transparency, have succumbed to Time and are forever lost. None of my digital capture images have been lost—it's so much easier to replicate, organize, and archive digital images at 100% fidelity infinitely!

...

I have been scanning my old negatives (and new ones), so I have both the film and a digital version. I recently had a hard drive fail, and am currently at loss of some of my film scans, and my digital RAW files plus osme of the converted jpegs (I know, my fault, I may pay to recover). But- for the new (and old) film images I still have my negatives. Some of my old negs and slides aged better than others for sure.

 

[Ricoh]

There’s an overlap between digital and film and in a number of cases digital will do what’s required. I’m trying to find ways of making film do what digital can not, eg expose both sides. I see no point in wasting money on film, which after all is not inexpensive, when digital will do 99% of what’s required. It’s a no brainier when I already have digital cameras and the outlay has notionally been written off, ie I’ve paid-off the credit card bill a long time ago.

 

[Dogman]

Some people believe Kodachrome was archival. I have proof that it was not. To be fair, some of them was processed in the 70's by labs other than Kodak so that might have had something to do with it. Other slides show even worse fading and color shifts, especially Agfachromes processed by Agfa. Sadly some of my B&W negatives show fungus attacked them. I only shot color negative film for snapshots and most of it was tossed out years ago.

Conversely, my first computer's hard drive crashed, taking all the scans I had made with it except for a very few. Being stubborn, I didn't do back-ups until the second computer's drive crashed as well with a new batch of photos lost. That's when I went to using Macs and putting my photos on multiple additional drives. Whatever you use, it's not forever.

 

[AAlfano]

I shoot film because I like using all-mechanical manual focus cameras, I like the rendering of my old manual focus lenses, and I like the way film images look. I have two DSLRs and while I can get decent images out of them, I find their complexity annoying and I don't enjoy using them. My iPhone Xr is okay for snapshots, but when I look at the images on a larger screen, I find most of them barely acceptable and the colors and skin tones horrendous. (I have a couple of black-and-white camera apps that give me results I like.)

I don't harbor any illusions about my images persisting after I'm gone. My family isn't even interested in my images while I'm alive, but I'm not making images for anyone other than myself. I keep my negs and I have scans stored on multiple hard drives and backed up in at least three different locations online. I do not print anywhere near as much as I should. I would love to set up a darkroom and learn to make wet prints, but I have never had time (or space) to do that and I don't see that changing anytime in the future. Fortunately, I've found a lab that makes scans exactly the way I want them to look. I send off my film and get my negative and scans back just how I like them. Other than occasional slight cropping and leveling horizons, I almost never have to do anything to them in post. This makes me happy—a lot happier than I am with my digital files.

 

[Godfrey]

I have been scanning my old negatives (and new ones), so I have both the film and a digital version. I recently had a hard drive fail, and am currently at loss of some of my film scans, and my digital RAW files plus osme of the converted jpegs (I klnow, my fault, I may pay to recover). But- for the new (and old) film images I still have my negatives. Some of my old negs and slides aged better than others for sure.

The abyssal difference between film images and prints, and digital images, is that film and prints' survival depends upon the qualities of the materials and chemicals they are made of and the environment in which they are stored. Digital images' survival depends upon the quality of the backup and archiving system you use, which means policy, implementation, and maintenance. Digital image files, for best archival security, should be in in a 'working' storage repository and replicated twice into two 'archive' storage repositories, all three being independent of the other.

I designed my backup and archive system somewhere around 2003. Since then I have had a half a dozen hard drives go bad ... Because of my policies, implementation, and maintenance, the most I've ever lost is about 30 minutes worth of in-progress editing work, never once an original file or a finished, rendered image suitable for printing.

Policy now, with very mature digitization and scanning methodologies in hand, is to scan all film and original prints (read instant film there) immediately after processing and embed the resulting digital image files into the main system with appropriate annotation as to when/where/what/equipment included. Once I have that, what happens to the negatives and original prints is mostly irrelevant because I almost never re-scan or use them further. I usually end up giving away the bes of the instant film prints, because they *are* originals and unique AND finished, as gifts. Negatives are just raw material and aren't worth much to give away since no one else can interpret them into finished photos as I would anyway.

G

 

[Godfrey]

I shoot film because I like using all-mechanical manual focus cameras, I like the rendering of my old manual focus lenses, and I like the way film images look.
...
I don't harbor any illusions about my images persisting after I'm gone. My family isn't even interested in my images while I'm alive, but I'm not making images for anyone other than myself. ...

Similar to my own reasons to keep using film as well.

I also do not have any illusions about what happens to my photos after I'm gone. On the rare occasions when I feel something I've produced is worth having persist, I make a small book of whatever it is I have made and register it with the Library of Congress, submitting a full resolution digital copy with that registration. If someone finds value in it at some unknown, future time, great. Otherwise, the cost is minimal and I don't mind the tiny burden of work and time to preserve something I like for the future to discover and ponder about...

G

 

[AAlfano]

Similar to my own reasons to keep using film as well.

I also do not have any illusions about what happens to my photos after I'm gone. On the rare occasions when I feel something I've produced is worth having persist, I make a small book of whatever it is I have made and register it with the Library of Congress, submitting a full resolution digital copy with that registration. If someone finds value in it at some unknown, future time, great. Otherwise, the cost is minimal and I don't mind the tiny burden of work and time to preserve something I like for the future to discover and ponder about...

G

This is a brilliant idea. Thanks Gofrey!

 

[pete hogan]

I’m 78, and I’ve been taking photos steadily for 70 years. What a great thread OP Bill started here. Lots of introspection by all.

Film is a wonderful technology, and it’s been good to us. I have a few Kodachrome slides from the ‘50s, and they’re in good shape. My wife recently threw out a couple thousand slides. We threw out thousands of prints during our senior moving progression over the past 10 years. Many of those were from our parents, up to 100 years old and still in good condition. Couldn’t get her to save our Carousel projectors, either. She has a few “permanent” binders is all.

Digital is wonderful too. We rely completely on the Apple eco system to hold ours. A good lab deals with my modest film processing-to-digital needs. I print a few at 4x6 on an $80 HP Envy, good for admiring. But plenty of respect here for those who want more than that.

As I noted earlier, the ‘50s Leica and Zorki cameras are what I keep to enjoy. Good gear. And a supply of Tri-X, much from friends letting it go.

And I remember the unique aroma of the Kodak stores in Illinois back then.

I’m confident now that there will be enough business to keep the film system going for a long time. I wasn’t so confident a few years ago.

 

[Finglas]

For me, it is mainly the cameras, including the feel of the film wind on lever, between every shot, the uncluttered viewfinder, and that film simply slows you down, makes you think of the photo being taken and the opposite too - is very quick to deploy to get that fast developing scene in front of you... no 'on' button needed... my cameras have only ever been film, and manual focus too. Age late 50's now and in Dublin we still have some good places that will develop film, colour and black and white, but not slide/transparency.... that's overseas now