Long Live Film!

One of the negative points about Capitalism is if something doesn't make a profit (esp after buy outs or take overs) then it's discontinued...the film industry need many more people to use film...and if only the billions of digital owners just used a film camera once a year it would help....long live the cheap film P&S cameras that are placed on wedding tables :)
 
I'm doing my part, I've returned to film and I'm planning to continue to using it as long as I can. Long Live Film! :)
 
Can I ask why you use film when digital is so more convenient? No chemicals, and you can do so much more in digital PP.
I have a Pentax mx with wide angle, standard 50mm and a 70-210 zoom, I've not used these for years, 25 at a guess.
 
Mqta said:
Can I ask why you use film when digital is so more convenient? No chemicals, and you can do so much more in digital PP.
I have a Pentax mx with wide angle, standard 50mm and a 70-210 zoom, I've not used these for years, 25 at a guess.
Click to expand...

I think you've missed the point here...
 
Mqta said:
Can I ask why you use film when digital is so more convenient? No chemicals, and you can do so much more in digital PP.
I have a Pentax mx with wide angle, standard 50mm and a 70-210 zoom, I've not used these for years, 25 at a guess.
Click to expand...

*facedesk*

How about because digital is sterile and boring? Or because film renders tones infinitely better? Or because film promotes taking it more slowly and as such *actually* improving? Or because digital takes a lot of the fun and reward out of photography? Or because you can do just as much post processing with a film shot once scanned? Or because most people shoot film to get exactly the look of film Instead of some lame attempt at an imitating filter? Or because film gives you a hard copy of the original that will outlive hard disks or tape? Or because larger formats of film thrash the hell out of digital in terms of stored information? Or because the lenses are basically just as good and far cheaper? Or because the whole process of taking and developing and printing from film is enjoyable? Or becau.... Never mind.
 
Last edited:
Mqta said:
Can I ask why you use film when digital is so more convenient? No chemicals, and you can do so much more in digital PP.
I have a Pentax mx with wide angle, standard 50mm and a 70-210 zoom, I've not used these for years, 25 at a guess.
Click to expand...

You can still digital PP at film image?! I edit often edit digital and film photos alongside.

Different strokes for different folks.
 
:LOL:@ Woodsy^


Mqta said:
I have a Pentax mx with wide angle, standard 50mm and a 70-210 zoom, I've not used these for years, 25 at a guess.
Click to expand...


S'bout time you knocked the dust off it and joined us then, you'll like it......honest..;)

And nobody will act like a ***** when you start a thread..:)
 
Last edited:
May I point the honourable Steve to Point Number 8 in this thread...pretty much says it all, I would have said similar, but with more swearing.:LOL:
 
For me there is something very special about the way that my old manual focus film gear handles that my DSLR can't compete with.

Yes the DSLR is easy to use & yes it takes a good picture but I find it & the whole digital process nowhere near as much fun as film & a film camera. I can see me using film for as long as it remains available.
 
Twas a serious question by the way, and thanks for the replies.
Apart from the Pentax I mentioned, i also have a Rollie 35 (twist out lens) which should be a good camera for 'street' photography, given it looks like a toy camera. Set the hyper focal distance / aperature, point and shoot.
 
Mqta said:
Apart from the Pentax I mentioned, i also have a Rollie 35 (twist out lens) which should be a good camera for 'street' photography, given it looks like a toy camera. Set the hyper focal distance / aperature, point and shoot.
Click to expand...

I had one of those, I gave it to somebody on here who'd been too energetic twisting out the lens on their own Rollei 35, never used it but it was a tiny thing.
 
Mqta said:
Twas a serious question by the way, and thanks for the replies.
Apart from the Pentax I mentioned, i also have a Rollie 35 (twist out lens) which should be a good camera for 'street' photography, given it looks like a toy camera. Set the hyper focal distance / aperature, point and shoot.
Click to expand...

I see you're in the north west, so why don't you wipe the dust off your Pentax and come and join us at the film meet in Llandudno next Saturday?

We are a friendly bunch really and as well as our liking for film cameras we also enjoy beer and err :beer:
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the offer, but its not practical this weekend.

One major advantage of film (as far as i can tell) is its near immunity to dust compared to digital. Ok dust gets on the mirror, but is easily dealt with.

Film also makes you stop, think and reconsider before pressing the shutter button, so it does develop a more careful approach to photography. Digital is so 'cheap' in terms of consumables that many just click away without thinking. Photography is in the mind, you either have it or you don't. I'm not sure I do when I compare my photos with others on here, but I find looking at the work of others helps me in my composition.
 
Mqta said:
One major advantage of film (as far as i can tell) is its near immunity to dust compared to digital. Ok dust gets on the mirror, but is easily dealt with.
Click to expand...

You've obviously never tried dust spotting a 20x24 inch wet print then! :p
 
Woodsy said:
How about because digital is sterile and boring? Or because film renders tones infinitely better? Or because film promotes taking it more slowly and as such *actually* improving? Or because digital takes a lot of the fun and reward out of photography? Or because you can do just as much post processing with a film shot once scanned? Or because most people shoot film to get exactly the look of film Instead of some lame attempt at an imitating filter? Or because film gives you a hard copy of the original that will outlive hard disks or tape? Or because larger formats of film thrash the hell out of digital in terms of stored information? Or because the lenses are basically just as good and far cheaper? Or because the whole process of taking and developing and printing from film is enjoyable? Or becau.... Never mind.
Click to expand...

Yes.... all of that.


Steve.
 
Woodsy said:
Or because film promotes taking it more slowly and as such *actually* improving?
Click to expand...

So digital shooters never *properly* improve?

I can't remember ever disagreeing with you mate but I very strongly disagree with your tone in this reply. I realise this is the film and conventional bit of the forum but Mqta has raised a perfectly reasonable question that should be responded to in a perfectly reasonable way rather than making it sound like every digital shooter on the planet is merely 'playing at it'.

Both formats have their place and if you're in touch with what you're doing you'll use them for their own individual strengths, to so vehemently write one or the other off makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me. Even less so when the original question was really quite innocent.
 
Last edited:
Knowing Woodsy, its highly unlikely he is suggesting you can't improve your photography by shooting digital, after all, TPOTY 2009 winnar shoots digital..:)

Film focuses the mind in a way digital doesn't.
 
joxby said:
Knowing Woodsy, its highly unlikely he is suggesting you can't improve your photography by shooting digital, after all, TPOTY 2009 winnar shoots digital..:)

Film focuses the mind in a way digital doesn't.
Click to expand...

Of course, I've discovered that for myself. :)

My point still stands though, there's no need to be quite so blunt.

Incidentally, Mr Joxby, are you around Centenary Square on Saturday?
 
Last edited:
PMN said:
So digital shooters never *properly* improve?

I can't remember ever disagreeing with you mate but I very strongly disagree with your tone in this reply. I realise this is the film and conventional bit of the forum but Mqta has raised a perfectly reasonable question that should be responded to in a perfectly reasonable way rather than making it sound like every digital shooter on the planet is merely 'playing at it'.
Click to expand...

Ok, let me begin by apologising if my tone came across as blunt. I can certainly appreciate how it may be read as such. I will say however, that at the time it was very easy to perceive Mqta's response as similar to that of the typical digital troll arriving in here, making an inflammatory comment solely to get peoples backs up. As it turns out, that was not the case this time, and so I again apologise if I over stepped the mark. Equally, and being fair, if said comment had been made with the sole intention of ticking people off, my tone would not have been questioned. It is only with the benefit of hindsight thanks to Mqta's clarification that this has become an issue. In either case, I'll hold my hands up and apologiseto Mqta, yourself and anyone else I've offended - I over stepped the mark.

PMN said:
Both formats have their place and if you're in touch with what you're doing you'll use them for their own individual strengths, to so vehemently write one or the other off makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me. Even less so when the original question was really quite innocent.
Click to expand...

Indeed they do have their own strengths and my not stating any of the advantages with digital should not instantly mean I don't have any love for the medium. I do. I still love and use my D700. If I were to stand up for digital I'd say that it was Far more convenient, lighter, cheaper when time averaged, safer in terms of image security and chance of loss, smaller, far greater image storing capabilities, far easier to manipulate when on a short time scale, more portable... I could go on. Understand that I am not saying that digital users are simply playing the game. As Joxby said however, film offers that *something* which does focus the mind, and does change the way you approach photography. Having shot film and digital in mixed measure since I was 16, I stand by my point that film forces improvement far more effectively than digital because that is the experience I have had, both in myself and watching others. If that makes me a film snob, even though I would certainly not class myself as one, then so be it. I stand by all my other points in that post, even if the tone was perceived to be off.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you're a film snob at all and I don't think anyone else here is either for that matter, this is a remarkably un-snobby little sub-section which is why the tone of your reply struck me as being a little on the... Erm... Fierce side. :)

I do understand how film focusses you differently to digital and that's something I've learned in my meagre few years shooting film seriously, my reply was more to the context of how you worded your comment so perhaps the wider meaning has become somewhat distorted. :)
 
Get a room you two :puke:
 
Don't worry Nick, I'll give you a hug as well if I can make it to the LF meet :D

Rob is just jealous as he is usually the one who gets the hugs.
 
and you're like.........upset about that:thinking:

last thing I'd want on a night out is a kebab flavoured man cuddle from a dribblin mess of beer burps...lol
 
Me too, the concept of me plowing through 9 pints is laughable ;)
 
PMN said:
Incidentally, Mr Joxby, are you around Centenary Square on Saturday?
Click to expand...


lol..


well just to smash this thread in to off topic oblivion...

Today it was mentioned during casual banter that the organisers of whatever is happnin there....(I dunno what that is, need to know basis an all that crap)...wanted us to work Friday night, clearly this would curtail our usual friday night dribbly mess man cuddle session, for which we would want compensating, so I dunno what's happening there, if anything, no doubt I'll find out at 5 to going home time that I ain't going home :/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top