Why do you shoot film... Digital is so much better!

[bambam]

And old cameras look so damn cool too

Ain't that the truth!

 

[compulsivehordr]

Digi vs Film: same lens and subject. Why I love film..


Devesa Plant Life Nikon D700
Devesa Plant Life Pan F Nikon F5

 

[Steven001]

Like all photography should be?

That one day is now. Get on with it. I'm at an age where my peers regularly tell me not to put off doing things: this advice is just as good for the under 60s.

You're exactly right! I think because with film i would only have x amount of shots to get it right, it would force me to spend more time over the shot. I know I should have the same attitude with digital, but in definitely getting there!

 

[Amp34]

You've clearly never seen a drum scan from aalso sharp medium format frame, it makes my mk2 look like a Fisher-Price toy for 10 year olds.

If you think digital's better purely on the basis that it's more popular than film then I'd respectfully suggest you do rather a lot more research.

I think there is a lot of non like for like comparisons in this thread. For example above, comparing medium format to a digital 35mm, not really fair. How about comparing it to a digital back with 60-100MP of resolution for example.

Also cost wise, not the most fair comparison in a lot of cases. We're comparing a 30 year old second hand camera with equally as old lenses with slbrand new state of the art kit. Considering, for 35mm at least, most modern lenses will fit on a film camera, cost is similar. A lot of 35mm shooters will be using old lenses with old cameras. Similar with medium format in many ways. Lots have old cameras, not many have new MF cameras, probably because they cost as much/more than high end DSLRs, similar with large format cameras. Now much can be said about the quality of old kit but I think that's a different argument (mainly that the film is more important unless you're blowing up to huge sizes).

It's quite telling that most here are talking about medium and large format, not 35mm film, which IMO has been outclassed by Digital in most ways, which is why digital 35mm (ish) has taken off. It's my understanding MF was never hugely popular, at least in the days of 35mm. It would be interesting to know the proportion of those using MF now to those 20 years ago.

I am dabbling in film because I want to try something "new" and hopefully it will improve my general photography because it makes me stop and think, is the exposure right, is the scene right, is there something annoying I can adjust the camera to remove etc.. I also like the different aspect ratios available, 6x6 is very different to 2x3 and even 3x4. I could crop in Photoshop but there is something very different to seeing the image in the aspect ratio when you shoot. I'd also love to try 6x17 at some point too. Alongside that the extra IQ is a draw, which is why I'm only interested in MF at the moment, not 35mm.

Unfortunately, while the camera only cost £150 (30 years old argument here...) The film is a killer. I spent £50 last week on 11 rolls of film and I'm looking at spending another £40 just to get three rolls developed and scanned. I'd love to get prints as well but I can't justify the cost! At least with camera equipment most of the equipment has basically no depreciation (camera excluded) and can be sold at about the price I bought it for, films not the case!

 

[steveclem]

Because apart from Leica, no manufacturer currently makes an analogue controlled digital camera. I agree with an earlier sentiment, DSLR are soulless lumps with almost as many buttons and switches as my computer keyboard.
Where can I get the digital equivalent of a Nikon F2,Canon EF, Konica T3?
Beautiful,solid cameras that just take pictures and not pretend to be the Starship Enteprise>>>

 

[PMN]

I think there is a lot of non like for like comparisons in this thread. For example above, comparing medium format to a digital 35mm, not really fair. How about comparing it to a digital back with 60-100MP of resolution for example.

I'd rather shoot black and white 35mm film than convert a RAW file from my 5D2, with respect if you think this is all about resolution you're kind of missing the point.

I genuinely mean this in a good natured way and it isn't my intention at all to be patronising (as I know this comment may sound so), but you say you're only just dabbling in film to try something new. I started shooting seriously on digital and thought it was the best thing since the discovery of bacon, but delving deeper into film pretty much completely changed the way I shoot and think about photography. Digital guys get too hung up on technical stuff like resolution, noise, etc, and while it's true medium format does give more resolution it's also (to me at least) equally about how that format 'feels' to use. I can't usually give a reason as to why I pick up one of my DSLR's, one of my 35mm film cameras or my medium format RB67, it's just a case of which one feels right for what I'm doing and it's largely an unconscious decision. The more experience you get using film the more that will make sense, and hopefully the more you'll understand why you can never make accurate "like-for-like" comparisons as you suggest. Much of film shooting is about feel and other weird stuff that can't really put into words.

 

[TheBigYin]

... It's my understanding MF was never hugely popular, at least in the days of 35mm. It would be interesting to know the proportion of those using MF now to those 20 years ago.

MF was never hugely popular... hmmm...

wonder how all those wedding photographers managed BITD then... Hassy and 2 rolls of 220 was the standard wedding package back then

 

[TheGreatSoprendo]

Also cost wise, not the most fair comparison in a lot of cases. We're comparing a 30 year old second hand camera with equally as old lenses with slbrand new state of the art kit.

I think it is reasonable to argue the fact that high quality second hand film cameras can be bought cheaply these days, when discussing the economics of film v digital. The same does not apply to digital (where the only cheap cameras you can buy are inferior technically to pretty much all film cameras of any format, and probably on the verge of giving up the ghost).

 

[Andysnap]

The question is basically unanswerable or has so many answers that it is meaningless. Why do some people prefer to drive old cars or collect fine old china or paint or breed dogs? Because they enjoy it, because they can, because it gives them satisfaction. All comparisons are odious and digital v film more so than most, we use film because...because...because...all answers are acceptable and correct and argument is pointless.

Carry on....

Andy

 

[srichards]

The film camera I have now is one I could have never afforded when it came out in the late 90s. I coveted it. Classic car owners buy the cars they wanted when they were growing up and could never afford. Once you get older you can start buying those things that were on posters.

Film is a rich pudding for me. It's not something I want every day. It's an occasional treat. For every day use I still prefer digital as it is a lot less faffing about and I'm impatient.

 

[Steve Smith]

Much of film shooting is about feel and other weird stuff that can't really put into words.

Agreed.

It's something which we musicians/audio types might liken to the difference between valve and solid state guitar amplifiers.

The solid state amp is far better technically in terms of specifications, etc but guess which one most guitarists want to play through...


Steve.

 

[PMN]

The question is basically unanswerable or has so many answers that it is meaningless. Why do some people prefer to drive old cars or collect fine old china or paint or breed dogs? Because they enjoy it, because they can, because it gives them satisfaction. All comparisons are odious and digital v film more so than most, we use film because...because...because...all answers are acceptable and correct and argument is pointless.

Carry on....

Andy

Probably the best answer yet to be honest!

 

[RaglanSurf]

The question is basically unanswerable or has so many answers that it is meaningless. Why do some people prefer to drive old cars or collect fine old china or paint or breed dogs? Because they enjoy it, because they can, because it gives them satisfaction. All comparisons are odious and digital v film more so than most, we use film because...because...because...all answers are acceptable and correct and argument is pointless.

Carry on....

Andy

Probably the best answer yet to be honest!

^^^WHS^^^

Well done Andy, you've hit the analogue nail on the head

The film camera I have now is one I could have never afforded when it came out in the late 90s. I coveted it.

... Once you get older you can start buying those things that were on posters.
...
For every day use I still prefer digital as it is a lot less faffing about and I'm impatient.

I agree, I really have the best of both worlds with a variety of film cameras I can use and the convenience of digital.

Agreed.

It's something which we musicians/audio types might liken to the difference between valve and solid state guitar amplifiers.

The solid state amp is far better technically in terms of specifications, etc but guess which one most guitarists want to play through...


Steve.

Again, I combine the past and the present, I still have my vinyl albums and my Linn deck which is great when I've got the time to enjoy it but that doesn't stop me listening to music on the iPod on the go or when I'm busy doing stuff round the house and I can just stick it on shuffle

 

[PMN]

^^^WHS^^^

Well done Andy, you've hit the analogue nail on the head

I agree, I really have the best of both worlds with a variety of film cameras I can use and the convenience of digital.

Again, I combine the past and the present, I still have my vinyl albums and my Linn deck which is great when I've got the time to enjoy it but that doesn't stop me listening to music on the iPod on the go or when I'm busy doing stuff round the house and I can just stick it on shuffle

In a couple of hours I'll be in my office listening to digital music while scanning film, definitely the best of both worlds! Maybe I should put a record deck in there just for shiggles.

 

[Amp34]

I'd rather shoot black and white 35mm film than convert a RAW file from my 5D2, with respect if you think this is all about resolution you're kind of mising the point.

I genuinely mean this in a good natured way and it isn't my intention at all to be patronising (as I know this comment may sound so), but you say you're only just dabbling in film to try something new. I started shooting seriously on digital and thought it was the best thing since the discovery of bacon, but delving deeper into film pretty much completely changed the way I shoot and think about photography. Digital guys get too hung up on technical stuff like resolution, noise, etc, and while it's true medium format does give more resolution it's also (to me at least) equally about how that format 'feels' to use. I can't usually give a reason as to why I pick up one of my DSLR's, one of my 35mm film cameras or my medium format RB67, it's just a case of which one feels right for what I'm doing and it's largely an unconscious decision. The more experience you get using film the more that will make sense, and hopefully the more you'll understand why you can never make accurate "like-for-like" comparisons as you suggest. Much of film shooting is about feel and other weird stuff that can't really put into words.

Perhaps, and I understand there is a different feel to film, much like there is a different feel to DSLR output and compact output alongside the massive difference between feel of 35mm and MF film. I still don't believe you can really compare MF film to 35mm digital, which appears to be the case for many in this thread.

MF was never hugely popular... hmmm...

wonder how all those wedding photographers managed BITD then... Hassy and 2 rolls of 220 was the standard wedding package back then

And how many wedding photogs were there compared to casual shooters shooting holiday snaps? My point stands

I'm not aiming at a particular market, just the overall numbers using different types of equipment, whether in a commercial or casual way.

I think it is reasonable to argue the fact that high quality second hand film cameras can be bought cheaply these days, when discussing the economics of film v digital. The same does not apply to digital (where the only cheap cameras you can buy are inferior technically to pretty much all film cameras of any format, and probably on the verge of giving up the ghost).

How about a 1D or eve the 5D. No, not £10 like many film cameras can be had for but that extra cost can be recouped pretty quickly with film and developing costs, not even counting the cost of scanners, dark room kit and other film exclusive equipment which is generally film exclusive, rather than a laptop or computer that has assorted uses. I just think the idea that film is cheaper overall isn't correct. Yes, the upfront cost of a camera is more expensive for digital but for everything else film is a lot more expensive and really starts to add up.

 

[excalibur2]

erm well my use of film average out to about £1.50 a week.....anyway how can you put a price on a hobby.

 

[PMN]

I still don't believe you can really compare MF film to 35mm digital, which appears to be the case for many in this thread.

Again, and once more without wanting to sound patronising, perhaps with more experience in film you'll understand why such comparisons are made. To comment on something you really need to understand it first.

 

[Amp34]

Agreed.

It's something which we musicians/audio types might liken to the difference between valve and solid state guitar amplifiers.

The solid state amp is far better technically in terms of specifications, etc but guess which one most guitarists want to play through...


Steve.

The first question in my head when I read that was... Placebo effect? Or longhand... Is that because you are subconsciously told it's better? You've read articles stating there is just something about it, that all the greats used to prefer it and a little bit of peer pressure/snobbery that if you prefer the technically better equipment you aren't a true artist?

Thats the whole premise advertising is based on and it's prevelent in many areas. Doesnt mean you're wrong for liking it but it also doesn't mean it's "better", more you're told it's "better" so you tell yourself it is.

Probably the best answer yet to be honest!

Agreed!

 

[Amp34]

Again, and once more without wanting to sound patronising, perhaps with more experience in film you'll understand why such comparisons are made. To comment on something you really need to understand it first.

And again you appear to be missing my point. We'll let it be.

I'll carry on playing with my DSLR and my MF camera, I may even see if I can find my old 35mm film camera...

 

[PMN]

Thats the whole premise advertising is based on and it's prevelent in many areas. Doesnt mean you're wrong for liking it but it also doesn't mean it's "better", more you're told it's "better" so you tell yourself it is.

Who says everyone forms their opinions based on advertising? I know your quote/comment was aimed at Steve but personally after almost 20 years of professional audio experience I know enough to be able to ignore what adverts tell me and make my own mind up.

You're really barking up the wrong tree in how you're approaching this!

 

[FruitFlakes]

I do it for the hipster street cred, mostly.

 

[PMN]

I do it for the hipster street cred, mostly.

Thank you for making me look like a total fool laughing out loud to myself on the train!

All I can say is I hope all your images are either square or have exposed sprocket holes, otherwise you're merely playing at being cool...

 

[skysh4rk]

I still don't believe you can really compare MF film to 35mm digital, which appears to be the case for many in this thread.

Many professionals who formerly used medium format systems (e.g., wedding photographers) have now moved on to 35mm digital (many for reasons of convenience), so a comparison in this regard would seem perfectly reasonable given that the markets overlap.

Furthermore, many digital folks, especially those using the Nikon D800, have been comparing their camera output to medium format, so I don't see how it would be problematic for medium format users to compare their results to digital.

 

[Amp34]

Who says everyone forms their opinions based on advertising? I know your quote/comment was aimed at Steve but personally after almost 20 years of professional audio experience I know enough to be able to ignore what adverts tell me and make my own mind up.

You're really barking up the wrong tree in how you're approaching this!

Advertising doesn't have to be brash and in your face. Sometimes the best form of advertising is subtle.

I've made a mistake here yep, sorry. In future I will use this forum the same way I use Apple forums, ask specific questions and not get involved in debates... :bonk:

 

[Steve Smith]

In the case of the valve guitar amp, it's the deficiencies in the design which make it preferable.

The way it starts to distort when pushed, the compression you get from the power supply voltage dropping when putting out more power.

All of these things would make it look bad on paper but in reality are what make it a joy to use.

My normal small pub gigging amplifier is a 1970s Watkins with a massive seventeen watts.

Perfect in a small pub and gloriously good on a large stage with a microphone put in front of it.

If you tried that with a seventeen watt transistor amplifier engineered to perfection, it would sound awful.


Steve.

 

[PMN]

I've made a mistake here yep, sorry. In future I will use this forum the same way I use Apple forums, ask specific questions and not get involved in debates... :bonk:

Well after admitting you're only dabbling in film to try something new you then proceed to tell a forum full of people very conversant with both analogue and digital formats how it is. How did you expect it to go?!

 

[Amp34]

Many professionals who formerly used medium format systems (e.g., wedding photographers) have now moved on to 35mm digital (many for reasons of convenience), so a comparison in this regard would seem perfectly reasonable given that the markets overlap.

Furthermore, many digital folks, especially those using the Nikon D800, have been comparing their camera output to medium format, so I don't see how it would be problematic for medium format users to compare their results to digital.

That's a reasonable response.

I can see your point there, however I'd ask the question ,are there other reasons as well, for example medium format digital being too expensive? I'm guessing that's not a major factor but something worth thinking about.

IMO it doesn't negate the point I was trying to say that stating film is better because a used 20 year old MF camera is only a couple of hundred, compared to a brand new top end Digital SLR with brand new lenses being a few thousand. How much is a new MF (film) camera from a reputable company?

Film is fun to play with, different and interesting, no need to argue that its cheaper when in reality like for like it's not really. Just enjoy it, I'm enjoying it, which is why I'm justifying the cost over digital.

 

[Steve Smith]

Thats the whole premise advertising is based on and it's prevelent in many areas. Doesnt mean you're wrong for liking it but it also doesn't mean it's "better", more you're told it's "better" so you tell yourself it is.

Nothing to do with advertising.

Better is not a definitive measure, it's a subjective thing. What's best for me could be the worst possible choice for you.

I like valve amps because of the way they sound. I don't know what Paul uses for bass but I suspect he uses a solid state amplifier as these are more suitable for bass (although one play through an Ampeg SVT could change your mind!).

I use film because I hate computers and like processing and printing. Others might prefer difgital because they like the immediacy of downloading then working on an image and hate the idea of faffing around in a darkroom.

None of us are wrong and we are all right.

One other point - you don't have to hate one to love the other.


Steve.

 

[RaglanSurf]

So, not wanting to cast doubts on Simon's (Cambsno) motivation for posting this question in the first place but his lack of participation is evident.

Is it possible he's pulled up a chair and is enjoying the show, whilst dunking his Bourbon biscuit into a nice cup of tea?

Now, don't get me wrong I like a good debate as much as the next man and Simon is a long standing member of the forum and regularly joins in a variety of discussions, I have even traded with Simon in the classifieds section but I find this kind of post a bit too troll-like.

Of course I might be completely mistaken and doing the man a disservice and if that is the case I apologise unreservedly

 

[Amp34]

Well after admitting you're only dabbling in film to try something new you then proceed to tell a forumI full of people very conversant with both analogue and digital formats how it is. How did you expect it to go?!

Where did i say I was very conversant? I was just stating I do have a little experience in shooting 35mm film years ago! I'll admit though, I jumped to digital as soon as it was justifyable because I found the results far more pleasing than 35mm film... The step up to MF image quality is a big jump (although I will admit that won't just be because of the format change!).

 

[Amp34]

Nothing to do with advertising.

Better is not a definitive measure, it's a subjective thing. What's best for me could be the worst possible choice for you.

I like valve amps because of the way they sound. I don't know what Paul uses for bass but I suspect he uses a solid state amplifier as these are more suitable for bass (although one play through an Ampeg SVT could change your mind!).

I use film because I hate computers and like processing and printing. Others might prefer difgital because they like the immediacy of downloading then working on an image and hate the idea of faffing around in a darkroom.

None of us are wrong and we are all right.

One other point - you don't have to hate one to love the other.


Steve.

The only reason I suggested advertising and convention over genuine personal preference was because you said most guitarists want to play through it. I agree, personal preference is paramount, which is why we always get ourselves into these messes in debate threads.

 

[FruitFlakes]

Thank you for making me look like a total fool laughing out loud to myself on the train!

All I can say is I hope all your images are either square or have exposed sprocket holes, otherwise you're merely playing at being cool...

I regularly shoot with two Rolleiflexes. Enough said.

 

[PMN]

Where did i say I was very conversant? I was just stating I do have a little experience in shooting 35mm film years ago! I'll admit though, I jumped to digital as soon as it was justifyable because I found the results far more pleasing than 35mm film... The step up to MF image quality is a big jump (although I will admit that won't just be because of the format change!).

I never said you were very conversant, in fact you not being very conversant was the basis of my entire point.

Anyway, I have 75 year old film to go scan so I'll leave you to it.

 

[Andysnap]

But, to be fair, this hasn't sunk into a mess. This is an honest, open debate about what people prefer, there hasn't been one post so far that has made me slap my head. Just a nice and interesting chat about a subject we all enjoy.

Carry on....

Andy

I never realised I was so wise....

 

[PMN]

But, to be fair, this hasn't sunk into a mess. This is an honest, open debate about what people prefer, there hasn't been one post so far that has made me slap my head. Just a nice and interesting chat about a subject we all enjoy.

Carry on....

And this is the reason F&C is the only section I really visit on TP these days!

 

[Amp34]

I never said you were very conversant, in fact you not being very conversant was the basis of my entire point.

Anyway, I have 75 year old film to go scan so I'll leave you to it.

Ah yes... That's what you get when you reply and are supposed to be working. it makes much more sense now! I assumed you were trying to say I was stating I knew it all, rather than it being my opinion from a more outsiders point of view.

 

[RaglanSurf]

But, to be fair, this hasn't sunk into a mess. This is an honest, open debate about what people prefer, there hasn't been one post so far that has made me slap my head. Just a nice and interesting chat about a subject we all enjoy.

Carry on....

Andy

I never realised I was so wise....

As has been said before you are F&C's very own sage

 

[Andysnap]

I think I'm more parsley than sage but I'll take whatever is thrown my way.

 

[TheBigYin]

As has been said before you are F&C's very own sage

Give him some onions and tell him to get stuffed....

 

[Andysnap]

^^^ Won't be the first time....nor the last I imagine