Film cameras. Are they worth it?

[darkroom12]

I agree, that’s why I gave up on 35mm. I loved using 35mm cameras but in the long run it’s worth the effort vs the Sony. I miss using slide film, holding the positives is cool.
I think the look of 35mm can be pretty much got with presets now. I have one from Marstan labs and it gives it enough of a film look for me. There’s still life in 6x6 for me at the moment but I’m not sure for how long

Do you not think using digital all the time can make you lazy because the camera does most of the donkey work? I can get a 12x16 out of most of my negatives, both colour and B&W (I can't print larger) but who wants to print that large all the time?

 

[cambsno]

To answer the question - Yes!

I have had a number of film cameras over the years including an M2 and an M6 (which was beautiful). I now 'only have' a 100yo Box brownie, which i have run a couple of rolls though just as thats about as basic as you can get, a cheap Ilford 35mm 60s camera and my love, a Rolleicord Va.

The Rolleicord can take some lovely images, and have a great look to them, and if you nail it, the look is not far off a new digital camera!

My dad used to fly, and while flying in comfort and speed in a Cessna or similar was fine, there was something about flying more slowly in a Tiger Moth! It was just more fun, even if it was more hassle! The sense of achievement i get from nailing a great shot is better than nailing it on my Fuji.

 

[Asha]

it's epensive

if you shoot a roll of film every outing then yes it can become expensive so why not try being VERY selective of when you fire the shutter ( ie on scenes that really please you) , that way you may find that 36 exposures can last quite a while and ffer you a great deal thus making the cost seem negligible.

Film has a fantastic way of slowing us down , not in a boring way, quite the contrary, it makes one assess a given scene more acutely and ultimately offers the opportunity to end up with more keepers than what many people get by machine gunning with their digital outfits.

Have a dabble at LF film for a while and then go back to smaller formats and digital..... it can put a completely different aspect on how one sees every potential photograph regardless of format or medium.

 

[Asha]

who wants to print that large all the time

All my prints that I keep for myself, barring portraits, are 12x16 or A3 if scanned/ inkjet printed.

I personally find 10x8 child’s play and like a mini format in the darkroom tbh.
Nothing wrong with that size or even smaller if it suits other folk of course.

 

[Asha]

Image quality is very poor compared to a modern digital

I don’t see that they can be compared when they are methods of registering an image on completely different mediums from different eras.
Each medium renders a completely different result so it’s not a level playing field.

 

[Ben johns]

Do you not think using digital all the time can make you lazy because the camera does most of the donkey work? I can get a 12x16 out of most of my negatives, both colour and B&W (I can't print larger) but who wants to print that large all the time?

Not really, all the camera does for me is focus, I use my digital cameras on full manual with centre autofocus, basically the same as a film camera with a meter. All using film does is make me more selective. Plus I’ve used my TLR far more than my digital, I was talking more about 35mm though

 

[cambsno]

Image quality is very poor compared to a modern digital camera of course, but I like the "look" and of course film is a great learning tool because it forces us to measure twice and cut once, rather than just blaze away.

I don't think so. A couple taken from last year - One with a Fuji XT3 & 16-55 lens, the other (square) with a Rolleicord Va, fully manual. With film, I barely edit (otherwise it defeats the object of using film) but would have straightened and cropped.

The were taken on different days (and from memory the scan was not at full size) but pretty comparable - the Fuji has more contrast and saturation, quite possibly PP and the film was Portra 160 which I just love the look of.

DF0F6E11-9253-4C5F-8201-F4DF65E99601 by Simon Owens, on Flickr

E9B2471B-E76D-4FF4-BD25-460E0E811BCD by Simon Owens, on Flickr

 

[Mr Badger]

Snip:

Image quality is very poor compared to a modern digital camera of course,

Image quality is very poor compared to a modern digital camera is it?

Here's a standard 'large' size scan done by a good film lab (not a drum scan though, which would be higher quality) of a 35mm print film shot (taken on Kodak Ektar 100). Feel free to click on the image to view it larger in Flickr, but bear in mind it was downsized in Photoshop to upload it there.

 

[THIRTYFIVEMILL]

My dad used to fly, and while flying in comfort and speed in a Cessna or similar was fine, there was something about flying more slowly in a Tiger Moth! It was just more fun, even if it was more hassle! The sense of achievement i get from nailing a great shot is better than nailing it on my Fuji.

As a pilot, I get that completely and the sense of achievement nailing a great shot with film. I remember that, too but mostly because I only ever nailed about 3 shots in every 36 in the film days. Not much better now but with digital I can immediately delete it and spare my blushes.

 

[Boots]

I feel the original question is rather pointless. It's a bit like saying "Vinyl records, are they worth it". To some (most) people they are not, those people have a variety of other ways of getting their music that does not rely on antiquated technology that should be consigned to the scrap heap. To other people, vinyl records are absolutely critical and a very large part of their enjoyment of the music they listen to.

The point I'm trying to make is that both sets of people are right. The different methods are - different! The mechanisms are different, the constraints imposed are not the same, and the end results are discernibly unique.

@cambsno posts a couple of pictures above (Linky) that perfectly demonstrate the point. The two pictures are, on the face of it, very similar. But most people would look at them and say that there are differences - they may, or may not, have the technical words to describe those differences, that doesn't matter. Some people will prefer one, some the other, and some will say they don't mind which. All those views are equally valid. I know which one I prefer (and I think I know which one was originated on film, but perhaps I'm wrong).

If the original poster cannot see any difference, then please sell your film camera to someone who will use it.

 

[Dael_Pix]

Sell it. Rather than letting it sit unused sell it on here or eBay and let someone who wants to shoot film make use of it.

It doesn't belong to me

 

[Nod]

Give it back to the owner then.

 

[RichardC27]

It doesn't belong to me

Give it back to the owner or ask them what you can do with it then. Don't just sling it back in the cupboard to sit gathering dust, somebody somewhere will make use of it and take some photos with it

 

[Dael_Pix]

The camera belongs to my father. It won't father dust because it's in a case

 

[soupdragon]

The camera belongs to my father. It won't father dust because it's in a case

I didn't know dust procreated in that fashion.
I learn something every day.

 

[fujilover]

yes if you like the film look. otherwise no

 

[Mr Badger]

@Garry Edwards I didn't have time to reply properly last night, so just put up a comparison shot for you to have a look at. I think film had perhaps come on a bit since you last used it, or perhaps film scanning has? If you want to give your Nikon F100 a try then I'd suggest you get a roll of Kodak Ektar 100 and use it in sunny conditions (the sort of conditions that would have favoured Kodachrome 64), then let us know and we can suggest a couple of film labs for you to send it to, which shouldn't cost you a fortune for a develop and scan service. For black and white, then try Fuji Acros 100 II, as that's a nice fine grained film that should give you lots of detail.

From your avatar it looks like you are something of a countryman, if so, then comparing a film camera to a digital camera is probably similar to comparing a split cane fly rod to a modern carbon fibre one. Yes, the modern rod will cast a line further and more easily than a cane rod and it weighs less, but if trying to present a dry fly gently at lesser distance then a good-quality cane rod will still do the job very nicely indeed.... and, when you hook a fish, you will be able to feel every kick and movement from it right down to the palm of your hand. Which doesn't happen to the same extent with a carbon rod. For rods below 9ft 6in (where the weight of a cane rod becomes less evident) a split cane rod is still very usable and enjoyable to fish with, in the right circumstances. I have digital and film cameras and enjoy using both. I also have carbon and cane fly rods, and enjoy using both. To be honest, I think I have more actual fun and satisfaction using these old 'obsolete' items. However, I wouldn't want to have to use a film camera professionally every day (unless as a niche market, costed and charged out accordingly), that's a job for a modern digital camera, which gives you immediate results to check, and you can take hundreds of shots with for no real cost (other than wear and tear on the camera). So it's horses for courses really; I think most people who have a classic car also have a modern car for every-day use. For me, that's how it is with cameras... and fly rods.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Snip:

Image quality is very poor compared to a modern digital camera is it?

Here's a standard 'large' size scan done by a good film lab (not a drum scan though, which would be higher quality) of a 35mm print film shot (taken on Kodak Ektar 100). Feel free to click on the image to view it larger in Flickr, but bear in mind it was downsized in Photoshop to upload it there.

I'm not going to argue the relative qualities of film -v- digital and, anyway, I fully accept that great technicians, using the finest grain film developed in fine grain soup and printed by an expert can achieve great things. Ernst Leitz demonstrated that, time and time again, with their sample photos when I was starting out on my photography career, and there was also the famous "You're never alone with a Strand photo (taken on a Leica from memory) that ended up as a 48-sheet poster.

But, my view is that it's largely the process that attracts many, rather than the result, and there's nothing wrong with that but it can possibly cloud the judgement. Early digital cameras were terrible but from memory the better digital cameras surpassed the image quality of 35mm cameras about 18 years or so ago, and then surpassed medium format cameras soon afterwards. I think that my first really good digital camera was about 2005 and then I bought into medium format digital too. Of course, as a working photographer, there were very sound commercial reasons for that as well as image quality.

@Garry Edwards I didn't have time to reply properly last night, so just put up a comparison shot for you to have a look at. I think film had perhaps come on a bit since you last used it, or perhaps film scanning has? If you want to give your Nikon F100 a try then I'd suggest you get a roll of Kodak Ektar 100 and use it in sunny conditions (the sort of conditions that would have favoured Kodachrome 64), then let us know and we can suggest a couple of film labs for you to send it to, which shouldn't cost you a fortune for a develop and scan service. For black and white, then try Fuji Acros 100 II, as that's a nice fine grained film that should give you lots of detail.

From your avatar it looks like you are something of a countryman, if so, then comparing a film camera to a digital camera is probably similar to comparing a split cane fly rod to a modern carbon fibre one. Yes, the modern rod will cast a line further and more easily than a cane rod and it weighs less, but if trying to present a dry fly gently at lesser distance then a good-quality cane rod will still do the job very nicely indeed.... and, when you hook a fish, you will be able to feel every kick and movement from it right down to the palm of your hand. Which doesn't happen to the same extent with a carbon rod. For rods below 9ft 6in (where the weight of a cane rod becomes less evident) a split cane rod is still very usable and enjoyable to fish with, in the right circumstances. I have digital and film cameras and enjoy using both. I also have carbon and cane fly rods, and enjoy using both. To be honest, I think I have more actual fun and satisfaction using these old 'obsolete' items. However, I wouldn't want to have to use a film camera professionally every day (unless as a niche market, costed and charged out accordingly), that's a job for a modern digital camera, which gives you immediate results to check, and you can take hundreds of shots with for no real cost (other than wear and tear on the camera). So it's horses for courses really; I think most people who have a classic car also have a modern car for every day use. For me, that's how it is with cameras... and fly rods.

No, my avatar shows that my sport is missing clay pigeons I'm pretty much a townie, although as it happens we do own a small farm, which we use as a horse rescue and rehoming centre, so sorry but your J.R. Harley analogy doesn't work with me, there's no time for fishing

I don't know whether film scanning has come on a bit or not, I was using 5 x 4 film until I retired and used to get it scanned on a drum scanner, the quality of the scanning was pretty breathtaking.

But, I do accept your points.

 

[Ed Sutton]

From your avatar it looks like you are something of a countryman, if so, then comparing a film camera to a digital camera is probably similar to comparing a split cane fly rod to a modern carbon fibre one.

In my circles we call bamboo rods 'panda fodder'. Not bad for growing beans up either, although fibreglass lasts longer.

 

[Mr Badger]

In my circles we call bamboo rods 'panda fodder'. Not bad for growing beans up either, although fibreglass lasts longer.

Yes, but your circles involve float-watching and maggot drowning, not highly-skilled fluff chucking like mine!

 

[Ed Sutton]

Yes, but your circles involve float-watching and maggot drowning, not highly-skilled fluff chucking like mine!

I've done the fluff chucking.



Albeit with budgies for pike!

 

[Retune]

I'm not going to argue the relative qualities of film -v- digital and, anyway, I fully accept that great technicians, using the finest grain film developed in fine grain soup and printed by an expert can achieve great things. Ernst Leitz demonstrated that, time and time again, with their sample photos when I was starting out on my photography career, and there was also the famous "You're never alone with a Strand photo (taken on a Leica from memory) that ended up as a 48-sheet poster.

Although it's possible to achieve excellent fine-grain results that challenge digital, as Mr Badger's and Simon's examples demonstrate, a lot of the interest these days is at the other end of the scale, where the physical characteristics of film are much more obvious and even desirable (e.g. grainy Tri-X). This is something you can't reproduce digitally, ghastly Instagram filters aside. In the 'late analogue' era, most technically-minded photographers wanted as little visible grain as possible, and then made the natural transition to digital, which gave them what they were trying to achieve all along, with added convenience. Those still using film are now free to experiment with it as an 'alternative process', in some cases accentuating the things that everyone was trying to minimise 25 years ago. Some people are using it because it looks different, rather than seeking to emulate the clinically high image quality of digital.

 

[Mr Badger]

Although it's possible to achieve excellent fine-grain results that challenge digital, as Mr Badger's and Simon's examples demonstrate, a lot of the interest these days is at the other end of the scale, where the physical characteristics of film are much more obvious and even desirable (e.g. grainy Tri-X). This is something you can't reproduce digitally, ghastly Instagram filters aside. In the 'late analogue' era, most technically-minded photographers wanted as little visible grain as possible, and then made the natural transition to digital, which gave them what they were trying to achieve all along, with added convenience. Those still using film are now free to experiment with it as an 'alternative process', in some cases accentuating the things that everyone was trying to minimise 25 years ago. Some people are using it because it looks different, rather than seeking to emulate the clinically high image quality of digital.

Or using the combined effect of the particular camera and film to match the feel and mood of the subject. Which I think is good fun to explore, if you enjoy that sort of thing.




I think the 1924 Kodak Brownie box camera that I took that photo with cost me about £1.50 in 1979, and it still works fine today. Was that camera worth it?

 

[Topsy]

This has turned into an interesting discussion albeit a little away from the original question. I too am a user of both digital and film having cut my teeth in the days before (long before) digital I have come back to film in the recent past. I use digital mostly because I find it convenient, especially if I am out with no particular shot in mind, I can see my results quickly, it doesn't matter if I only take a couple of shots on a trip as I don't have to wait to finish the film or lose the rest of the frames. I have digital MF which is stunning IQ and that gets used for my "serious" landscapes and I have APSC and FF for more general photography. In film I have both 35mm and 6x6 MF which I use when I am out for specific shots knowing that I will use most of the frames on the roll. I am happy with the results from both mediums but find the greater detail and sharpness comes from my digital MF but it isn't all about detail and sharpness so there is room in my life for both. I have just started a long term project to photograph Dartmoor (there's a theme but I am not ready to share it yet), I shall recce the project shots with my APSC stuff planning to return with my film MF to do the actual project shots, the end result will be a book but that is 2 years away. I could do the project on my digital but for the eventual look and the "twee" subject I feel film will suit better. Like I said though there is room for both in my life and I will continue to do other "serious" landscaping using my digital MF.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I have just started a long term project to photograph Dartmoor

Years ago, when I crossed Dartmoor on a daily basis, the only things I found worth snapping were the ponies and some of the humans who lived there...

 

[Topsy]

Years ago, when I crossed Dartmoor on a daily basis, the only things I found worth snapping were the ponies and some of the humans who lived there...

View attachment 312238

View attachment 312239

There's so much more to Dartmoor.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

There's so much more to Dartmoor.

I lived next to the moor for more than ten years. There is only so much empty rock and grassland I can take.

 

[Remedi]

Or using the combined effect of the particular camera and film to match the feel and mood of the subject. Which I think is good fun to explore, if you enjoy that sort of thing.




I think the 1924 Kodak Brownie box camera that I took that photo with cost me about £1.50 in 1979, and it still works fine today. Was that camera worth it?

Love this one. Film stock does capture 'people' in a certain way that looks interesting i think. Was this taken at some kind of recreation event? Very nice capture.

 

[redsnappa]

If you have been taken in by the quest for "tack sharpness", then film is useless.

Total b****x. If you are not getting sharp images with film you are doing it wrong.

 

[moggi1964]

I've done the fluff chucking.



Albeit with budgies for pike!

Sorry but i had to quote this post because it made me laugh so hard that it deserves a second life. Unlike the budgies!

 

[Ed Sutton]

Sorry but i had to quote this post because it made me laugh so hard that it deserves a second life. Unlike the budgies!

They're not actual budgies.

 

[john.margetts]

Total b****x. If you are not getting sharp images with film you are doing it wrong.

The nature of film - the light sensitive part being a relatively thick layer - means that a film image can never be as sharp as a digital image taken with the same lens.

 

[Phil V]

Total b****x. If you are not getting sharp images with film you are doing it wrong.

All depends how you define ‘sharp’. Digital has been out resolving film for years.
My 20d produced better results than any 35mm camera I ever owned. And my 6d is better than the med format I used.

 

[Plain Nev]

if you shoot a roll of film every outing then yes it can become expensive so why not try being VERY selective of when you fire the shutter ( ie on scenes that really please you) , that way you may find that 36 exposures can last quite a while and ffer you a great deal thus making the cost seem negligible.

Film has a fantastic way of slowing us down , not in a boring way, quite the contrary, it makes one assess a given scene more acutely and ultimately offers the opportunity to end up with more keepers than what many people get by machine gunning with their digital outfits.

I learnt to take photographs on a Pentax MX and you just were sparing with what you shot. I drifted away and came back to digital cameras many years later and I still take photographs that way. It always bemuses me when I see people taking dozens of shots just to get an image. Old habits, I suppose.

 

[RaglanSurf]

I have an old Pentax film camera and I've thought about using it with black and white film.

Is it worth the money to buy film and get them developed since it's epensive?

Financially, possibly not but it is good for the soul and it will make you more attractive and cleverer

 

[moggi1964]

Financially, possibly not but it is good for the soul and it will make you more attractive and cleverer

And that is the final word on the subject because let's be honest, what else matters

 

[ShinySideUp]

I was interested in the statement that old stuff gives lower quality pictures mentioned earlier and that got me thinking, and looking on the internet. Take these two pictures, the colour one on digital the B&W on film from the 1950's:






Sure, the monochrome one is not as sharp but in this case does it really matter? I love to see pictures like this, it gives me a chance to look at a photograph and not wonder what camera was used, how much post-processing was required, what lens, what aperture. It really doesn't matter, when it comes to pictures like this film or digital is irrelevant. It's the picture not it's quality that often (but by no means always) matters.

Can't give copyright credit as don't know who took them, downloaded from Bing.

 

[Retune]

By the magic of Tineye, I can tell you the colour shot is by Evan Vucci for AP, and the B&W is from the Bettmann archive, licensed by Getty:

George Floyd's brother criticizes violent protesters: 'Don’t tear up your town'

The younger brother of George Floyd is calling for the end of violent protests and riots that have escalated in the U.S. over the past week.

www.foxnews.com

A young Yippie hangs onto a lamp post and vents his anger at...

A young Yippie hangs onto a lamp post and vents his anger at advancing National Guard troops who had been called into disperse a mob of Yippies. Some 2,500 Yippies had gathered early and were staging...

www.gettyimages.co.uk

You should replace the uploaded images by inline links, as they are in copyright.

I agree that 'image quality' is secondary here, as it is for many journalistic images (and photographs in general).

 

[ShinySideUp]

By the magic of Tineye, I can tell you the colour shot is by Evan Vucci for AP, and the B&W is from the Bettmann archive, licensed by Getty:

George Floyd's brother criticizes violent protesters: 'Don’t tear up your town'

The younger brother of George Floyd is calling for the end of violent protests and riots that have escalated in the U.S. over the past week.

www.foxnews.com

A young Yippie hangs onto a lamp post and vents his anger at...

A young Yippie hangs onto a lamp post and vents his anger at advancing National Guard troops who had been called into disperse a mob of Yippies. Some 2,500 Yippies had gathered early and were staging...

www.gettyimages.co.uk

You should replace the uploaded images by inline links, as they are in copyright.

I agree that 'image quality' is secondary here, as it is for many journalistic images (and photographs in general).

I was under the impression that I could use even copyright images as 'examples' as it is obvious there is no intent to gain advantage or reward from said images, perhaps I was wrong. Nevertheless, I shall look at Tineye, sounds useful.

 

[Phil V]

I was interested in the statement that old stuff gives lower quality pictures mentioned earlier and that got me thinking, and looking on the internet. Take these two pictures, the colour one on digital the B&W on film from the 1950's:
Sure, the monochrome one is not as sharp but in this case does it really matter? I love to see pictures like this, it gives me a chance to look at a photograph and not wonder what camera was used, how much post-processing was required, what lens, what aperture. It really doesn't matter, when it comes to pictures like this film or digital is irrelevant. It's the picture not it's quality that often (but by no means always) matters.

Can't give copyright credit as don't know who took them, downloaded from Bing.

But as you say; actual image quality is irrelevant in those images.
so your point is lost half way through your post.

So; just to be clear, pure IQ is so much better from digital, but that doesn’t make film ‘inferior’, it’s a different medium with its own qualities. And nor does it in any way reduce the importance of our film based archives.

But simply as a counterpoint to ‘if you think film isn’t sharp you’re using it wrong’, my point is that film is clearly out resolved by digital and has been for a long time.