kmallick
Well-known
I like lagging edge technology and the whole process of loading, shooting, developing & printing. And although I use digital cameras, I enjoy the films ones to avoid this:
NickTrop
Mentor
1. Film cameras are fun and (can be) inexpensive. They're just more fun to shoot.
2. Film is also fun to process and develop
3. Larger format film exceeds digital IQ. Just does.
In small format, however, DSLR APS-C and above IQ almost matches that of film. It is (and has been for a couple years) better in low-light shooting situation. Photoediting software affords way more power to perfect an image in post than darkrooms ever could. You are in control of your own output with color - unlike a lab. And you can shoot 100's of shots without changing rolls of film every 24/35 frames, without the expense (and it is an expense) of film.
- at risk of stating the obvious.
2. Film is also fun to process and develop
3. Larger format film exceeds digital IQ. Just does.
In small format, however, DSLR APS-C and above IQ almost matches that of film. It is (and has been for a couple years) better in low-light shooting situation. Photoediting software affords way more power to perfect an image in post than darkrooms ever could. You are in control of your own output with color - unlike a lab. And you can shoot 100's of shots without changing rolls of film every 24/35 frames, without the expense (and it is an expense) of film.
- at risk of stating the obvious.
Mark_NLG
Newbie
To quote Robert Frost - " Two roads diverged in a wood and -I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference". I enjoy the craft of creating art with B&W film.
Cold
Established
I won't claim to be an artist by any means (in fact, I'm not sure I'd even call myself a photographer in any sense beyond "one who mashes a shutter release), but as one who shoots film, and one of this, apparently interesting sub-30 demographic, I figured I'd chime in.
For me, shooting (and now developing) film is attractive for three completely different reasons, each of which have been touched upon here. First, I can get very, very good equipment for a tiny fraction of the price of similar quality gear in the digital realm. Yes, I still shoot plenty of digital, and I enjoy it too, but compare a high-end consumer compact camera in film (say a Canonet) and digital (a G12), and the price difference is game-changing.
Second, as the masses march into the digital realm, film is, and will continue, to become a sort of lost art. Not that it'll ever truly go away completely, but 50 years from now, when unfamiliarity with film actually *is* fairly commonplace, finding some old codger that still shoots & develops film will be as rare as finding someone today that has a fully functioning Model T that they drive on a regular basis. Being a part of this sort of 'forgotten way' sort of makes me feel like a torch-bearer, and hopefully, at some point, I'll be able to pass it on. If I survive this life long enough, maybe to someone who, quite literally, has never worked with film in their lives.
Lastly, and probably most relevant, I shoot film because it appeals to some deep-seeded part of my personality that craves reality.
While I certainly respect a well done digital photo, and I fully understand that post-processing is a part of nearly any photographic process, I can't help but understand that, given the same starting photo and a set of instructions and values, nearly anyone could do the same work (granted, it's the lack of these instructions and values that separate the average from the good, but the point is still valid). I like a process that requires a unique personal touch on a real, tangible object, a process that you must be so completely involved in, that the results are uniquely yours. That another could go through the same motions and end up with a completely different end-result.
This desire is something that took me a long time to recognize for what it was, but it makes itself known in another of my favorite pastimes as well: fly fishing.
It's not the fishing that is so uniquely rewarding (though there's plenty to that as well...where two can fish the same water using the same equipment and where one catches nothing, the other does well), but the most relatable aspect is in tying flies, where each fly that I tie at my vise is uniquely mine, and where another, with the same materials, might end up with a very different fly indeed, due to the touch of a different hand.
There is a famous (among anglers) quote from John Buchan which, while it applies perfectly to fishing, is also equally relatable to many photographers and why they keep picking up the camera and going shooting:
"The charm of fishing is that it is the pursuit of what is elusive but attainable, a perpetual series of occasions for hope."
That next click of a shutter may be your best shot, so keep at it.
For me, shooting (and now developing) film is attractive for three completely different reasons, each of which have been touched upon here. First, I can get very, very good equipment for a tiny fraction of the price of similar quality gear in the digital realm. Yes, I still shoot plenty of digital, and I enjoy it too, but compare a high-end consumer compact camera in film (say a Canonet) and digital (a G12), and the price difference is game-changing.
Second, as the masses march into the digital realm, film is, and will continue, to become a sort of lost art. Not that it'll ever truly go away completely, but 50 years from now, when unfamiliarity with film actually *is* fairly commonplace, finding some old codger that still shoots & develops film will be as rare as finding someone today that has a fully functioning Model T that they drive on a regular basis. Being a part of this sort of 'forgotten way' sort of makes me feel like a torch-bearer, and hopefully, at some point, I'll be able to pass it on. If I survive this life long enough, maybe to someone who, quite literally, has never worked with film in their lives.
Lastly, and probably most relevant, I shoot film because it appeals to some deep-seeded part of my personality that craves reality.
While I certainly respect a well done digital photo, and I fully understand that post-processing is a part of nearly any photographic process, I can't help but understand that, given the same starting photo and a set of instructions and values, nearly anyone could do the same work (granted, it's the lack of these instructions and values that separate the average from the good, but the point is still valid). I like a process that requires a unique personal touch on a real, tangible object, a process that you must be so completely involved in, that the results are uniquely yours. That another could go through the same motions and end up with a completely different end-result.
This desire is something that took me a long time to recognize for what it was, but it makes itself known in another of my favorite pastimes as well: fly fishing.
It's not the fishing that is so uniquely rewarding (though there's plenty to that as well...where two can fish the same water using the same equipment and where one catches nothing, the other does well), but the most relatable aspect is in tying flies, where each fly that I tie at my vise is uniquely mine, and where another, with the same materials, might end up with a very different fly indeed, due to the touch of a different hand.
There is a famous (among anglers) quote from John Buchan which, while it applies perfectly to fishing, is also equally relatable to many photographers and why they keep picking up the camera and going shooting:
"The charm of fishing is that it is the pursuit of what is elusive but attainable, a perpetual series of occasions for hope."
That next click of a shutter may be your best shot, so keep at it.
There is a famous (among anglers) quote from John Buchan which, while it applies perfectly to fishing, is also equally relatable to many photographers and why they keep picking up the camera and going shooting:
"The charm of fishing is that it is the pursuit of what is elusive but attainable, a perpetual series of occasions for hope."
That next click of a shutter may be your best shot, so keep at it.
Makes sense... it is what keeps you enthralled!
icebear
Mentor
Steve Bellayr
Mentor
For me the price of an M9-P or the M9 can not be justified for the amount of usage that it would receive.
zauhar
Mentor
'Cold' - very well-said! Nice to hear such deep thinking and feeling from the 'sub-30 demographic'.
Randy
Randy
Gumby
Mentor
... but... but, that's quite artistic. I'd buy a 16x20 of that to replace the Thomas Kinkade painting that is over my couch. Kinkade is so OBE.
BobYIL
Well-known
"Some great things never die.."
In the 60's I lived the decay of tubes.. transistors were in everything, welcomed by the audiophiles with praises to fill books. 40 years later the same audiophiles filled the books again, this time for tube gear. I remember of selling some last triodes at hand for a handful of dollars only to buy them back some 30 years later for up to 100 times a piece.
I was one of the customers who bought the first CD-players fell into the market and if I were told that time a day will come and some turntables will be offered for above $10.000, I would certainly be wondering of an era of hyperinflation ahead, for I was happy for selling my mint Thorens for 100 bucks.
There will always be a small category of us who hold what they were able to get with film over anything else digital could offer.. There will always be one or two out of 100 newcomers to photography to do the film way too.. and there will always be one or two out of 100 digital users who fall in love with film too besides digital.
For these small minority groups film production will continue.. just like what vinyl to CD has been since more than a decade.
(P.S. take a look at Erwitts Marilyn portrait in this link.. http://leicarumors.com/2012/09/12/l...-for-leica-by-elliott-erwitt.aspx/#more-17142 )
In the 60's I lived the decay of tubes.. transistors were in everything, welcomed by the audiophiles with praises to fill books. 40 years later the same audiophiles filled the books again, this time for tube gear. I remember of selling some last triodes at hand for a handful of dollars only to buy them back some 30 years later for up to 100 times a piece.
I was one of the customers who bought the first CD-players fell into the market and if I were told that time a day will come and some turntables will be offered for above $10.000, I would certainly be wondering of an era of hyperinflation ahead, for I was happy for selling my mint Thorens for 100 bucks.
There will always be a small category of us who hold what they were able to get with film over anything else digital could offer.. There will always be one or two out of 100 newcomers to photography to do the film way too.. and there will always be one or two out of 100 digital users who fall in love with film too besides digital.
For these small minority groups film production will continue.. just like what vinyl to CD has been since more than a decade.
(P.S. take a look at Erwitts Marilyn portrait in this link.. http://leicarumors.com/2012/09/12/l...-for-leica-by-elliott-erwitt.aspx/#more-17142 )
Bill Clark
Mentor
Film is where I began (cut my teeth!) my photography journey.
Recently my wife & I made a trip to L.A. to visit with our daughter and her family and I used 6 rolls, 36 exposures each, of D-100. Developed the rolls of film and had printed one roll by the weekend.
Client, who likes what I do, took my wife & I out to a fancy restaurant for dinner. Showed her the B&W 4/6 photos and now she wants to book a session with me and use film for capture!
This will be fun!
Gosh I love the photography business.
Recently my wife & I made a trip to L.A. to visit with our daughter and her family and I used 6 rolls, 36 exposures each, of D-100. Developed the rolls of film and had printed one roll by the weekend.
Client, who likes what I do, took my wife & I out to a fancy restaurant for dinner. Showed her the B&W 4/6 photos and now she wants to book a session with me and use film for capture!
This will be fun!
Gosh I love the photography business.
hendriphile
Well-known
BobYIL;1964756...if I were told that time a day will come and some turntables will be offered for above $10.000 said:Today you can spend well over $200,000 on a turntable/cartridge/phono-preamp.
As the grooves in your LP reflect the soundwaves created at the recording session, so the photons that inspired you to press the shutter are reflected in the slide or negative you hold in your hand years later. If this be metaphysics, make the most of it!
jtm6
Well-known
I went back to film. I got tired of waiting for a reasonable FF digital camera.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Digital photography captures reality as well as film, and film can be used for fakery as well as digital. Look up Jerry Uelsmann.
That is true of film too. I can teach ANYONE to make technically perfect photographs. The aesthetics are not medium dependent.
You do realize that you are not, and never can be, "Completely involved" in film, because IT IS A PRODUCT OF MASS INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION. Film is made in factories by industrial workers who often know nothing about how it is used, and don't care. Its just a factory job. The engineers who design it are the ones who get credit for the 'look' of film photos, and unless you are one of them, you are not completely involved in film. Its no different than using a digital camera, another manufactured good made in factories by industrial workers and designed by engineers.
There is nothing magical or mystical about film photography, and you are not a better photographer because you choose to work in that medium. There are many types of photography, as there are many types of paintings. Is a painter who uses oil paint 'better' than one who uses acrylics? Of course not. If one painter is better than another it is because he has something to show the world and the skill to make it happen in whatever medium he chooses. Just like photography.
Cold
Established
Sorry, Chris. You completely missed the point I was trying to make. Next time around, I'll try to explain myself a bit more fully.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
It's very true what Chris has said here IMO ... there is nothing magical or mystical about film.
This perception has only arisen since the mass movement towards digital ... it wasn't talked about prior to this ... it was just the way you took photographs!
This perception has only arisen since the mass movement towards digital ... it wasn't talked about prior to this ... it was just the way you took photographs!
Cold
Established
It's not that there is anything magical or mystical about it to me, and I never meant to suggest that (if that's been the takeaway from my post, by the majority of readers, then I've been misunderstood).
Rather, for me, it's simply a more physical hands on process. (More physical, more hands-on...it's relative.)
When I process digital files, I feel like I'm filling out a form or playing a video game. When I develop film or handle negatives, I feel like I'm actually doing and accomplishing.
Rather, for me, it's simply a more physical hands on process. (More physical, more hands-on...it's relative.)
When I process digital files, I feel like I'm filling out a form or playing a video game. When I develop film or handle negatives, I feel like I'm actually doing and accomplishing.
literiter
Well-known
Just think, 50 years from now, someone will be holding up an ancient D800, M10 or something or other and exclaiming "Now this camera had soul...."
FrankS
Registered User
dimension2
Member
I like the new avatar Akiva.
'Mysticism?' ... I think with the constant, relentless roll out of new digital gear the stability of film and the cameras that use it is reassuring. I'm finding this constant barrage of new digital cameras pretty tedious personally ... it's de-valuing what I regard as a legitimate art form and turning it into more twenty first century consumer driven crap to amuse the masses.
I could go on and on but won't get any closer than that. Neatly summed up. What would life be without these lively discussions and coffee?
For the longer, uncut version...
I started off with digital and spent a year getting my basics right (the instant feedback with digital does have advantages in the learning phases). Got to film through a 1960's rangefinder, and have been mostly shooting film since.
I guess I could still call myself young (late 20s?), am something of a technophile, and I find it interesting to hear about the advances that are being made in the digital photographic community (including the new compact full-frame offing <ducks for cover>), purely from the technological aspects of what's being accomplished.
As a photographer, however, I have however come to enjoy the simplicity that the old film cameras offered. A rangefinder, with a defunct light meter, has me doing the math on getting the light right, Sunny 16 and such. No autofocus, no high burst rates, no fancy doohickeys to twiddle around with, and with an IS0 400 film, I am left with two variables to worry about. I end up putting more thought into each frame, and the occasional brain cramps aside, I've come to like that.
Like they say, it's the process that keeps me with film.