Why you should shoot FILM

[Steve Smith]

great thread! Steve Smith for president,

Of which country?



Steve.

 

[Steve Smith]

On a serious note your can't turn back the clock, film has had it's day and digital is here.

They are both here and they both work just fine. I predict that they are both going to co-exist for a long time.

Oh the joy we had, do I miss it? No not one bit.

That's the best reason I can think of for you not doing it.



Steve.

 

[Rattrap]

I'd like a medium format film camera loaded with HP5 or FP4 but I'm afraid I wouldn't go back to the darkroom with it, I'd scan it................................Mind you, the new house has a big attic....................................hmmmm.

 

[Carl V]

It's fair to say film isn't sold in the same volume as 20 or 30 years ago but it isn't dead just yet. As far as black & white is concerned there is still some demand for it, even my local Jessops stock some Ilford film and paper.

I mentioned in a previous thread that I spoke with a guy a couple of months back who worked at Ilford about film and chemistry/paper availability, and it appears there's more demand for their products now than there was a few years ago. I regularly visit Bob Rigby Photographic near Macclesfield where I can purchase film in bulk packs, and here again was told pretty much the same thing.

Digital is without doubt convenient and I would love to try it one day. But as a hobby, darkroom work for me is enjoyable and at least I don't have a wife to nag me for spending too many hours in it.

 

[Steve Smith]

This is turning into a much better film vs. digital thread than those which occur on some other forums. I think we can all agree that we should do whatever we want to do personally and not do what we think other people expect us to do.

Whilst I am 100% a film user, I don't try to change people from digital to film (although I am quite pleased if they do it for themselves).

Trying to change a digital user to film is as pointless as trying to make a bungee jumper take up stamp collecting instead.


If someone asks about film I will give advice - sometimes I might even loan or give them a camera.

Lets just all go out and take pictures using whichever bit of light sensitive material we choose.


Steve.

 

[fontmoss]

for absolutely NO benefit

really? just because you didnt enjoy film doesnt mean someone else wont and i struggle to see how digi SLR quality is better than film, equal in cases but superior?

I know the UK doesnt have a president, I live in Spain

EDIT: meant to say i dont see film as being without a lot of drawbacks but its hardly relegated to horse and carriage status. surely more like some folk enjoy driving modern cars with ABS etc whilst others prefer old drum braked sketchy jobs?

 

[Steve Smith]

I'd like a medium format film camera loaded with HP5 or FP4 but I'm afraid I wouldn't go back to the darkroom with it, I'd scan it................................Mind you, the new house has a big attic....................................hmmmm.

There is another option.

Ilford have started to provide a process and print service for black and white film - any black and white film, not just their own.

They process the film then use a modified Fuji mini-lab to expose and process the prints on real photographic paper.

I have not tried it myself yet but people who have speak very highly of it.

http://www.ilfordlab.com

As an example, if you had a camera that gives you twelve 6x6cm images then Ilford will process the film and give you twelve 6" x 6" prints for £11

There is an additional by-product of this too which may be of interest to those of you using that new fangled digital process. Convert your files to black and white and upload them to Ilford's site and they will produce proper black and white prints for you. Say goodbye to not quite black and white prints from your inkjet printer with a green or magenta tint. They won't fade in sunlight either.


Steve.

 

[Steve Smith]

I know the UK doesnt have a president, I live in Spain

Well, OK but the commute each morning might take a while.

surely more like some folk enjoy driving modern cars with ABS etc whilst others prefer old drum braked sketchy jobs?

That's true. A few weeks ago my wife sold her five year old VW Beetle and bought a 1948 Morris Eight.


Steve.

 

[Rattrap]

Steve, that is very interesting, very interesting. Every time I've looked a t B&W printing from digital I've been put off by the faff and results but that could be the answer. Now to Ebay for a 2nd hand Mamiya

 

[Steve Smith]

I shot film for 25 years before digi turned up - thank F for digi is all I can say of those 25 'wasted' years

It couldn't have been that bad or would have found something else to do!

Don't you think that 25 years of shooting film without the luxury of a little screen on the back taught you how to expose properly on film or digital?


Steve.

 

[fontmoss]

1948 Morris Eight

nice!

 

[EdinburghGary]

I am in film infancy, and having some real teething problems with Scans. It is an absolute joy though, I hope to be better with film than I am with Digital.

Gary.

 

[dazzajl]

What I find odd about these threads, where those of us that once upon an olden age, shot film commercially end up. Is that no-one mentions missing the risk. I can't be the only one that still misses that buzz of working without the safety net of Histograms. Lord knows I love the things, totally amazing but there is no possibility of every really getting it wrong.

You know the shot is in the bag almost before the echo of the shutter has faded.

There was a massive buzz from never knowing for a fact that the shot was good until the slides hit the light box. However good you are, faith in your craft and knowledge, and the facts before your eyes are never the same when your reputation and livelihood are on line every time.

Keeps you sharp.

 

[Steve Smith]

nice!

Indeed!

Bakelite trim!

Now back to our regular program.... oh yes.... these were taken digitally. But in my defense, the six shots the insurance company wanted were done with film. Much easier - especially when you don't own an inkjet printer!



Steve.

 

[Steve Smith]

What I find odd about these threads, where those of us that once upon an olden age, shot film commercially end up. Is that no-one mentions missing the risk. I can't be the only one that still misses that buzz of working without the safety net of Histograms. Lord knows I love the things, totally amazing but there is no possibility of every really getting it wrong.

You know the shot is in the bag almost before the echo of the shutter has faded.

There was a massive buzz from never knowing for a fact that the shot was good until the slides hit the light box. However good you are, faith in your craft and knowledge, and the facts before your eyes are never the same when your reputation and livelihood are on line every time.

Keeps you sharp.

Did you not use Polaroid for commercial test shots? Actually, thinking how expensive the pack film was/is I don't think I would.

If you know how to meter and know how your film reacts, you shouldn't have a problem really.


Steve.

 

[dazzajl]

I always had a real problem with polaroid. It reacts so differently to film that all I ever learnt was that if the pola looked perfect, I was in trouble.

 

[HoppyUK]

So you don't like film then ?

I love film. I just love digital more

I still hanker after a 5x4in technical camera, but that's just romanticism. When I had one, I hardly ever used it :shrug:

 

[Voyager]

Although I started this thread because I'd just enjoyed the article I linked to - it was also a bit of a cheeky dig at the Why you should shoot RAW thread.

For me (as an amateur) the problem with 'digital' the seemingly forever 18 month upgrade costs. New, new, new. Bigger, better, bolder. We've got film cameras in the house we've had for decades that still work as they did when they were new and 30 year old negatives and slides that are still printable. We've also got aged digital cameras that have failed in use - either electronically or emotionally and have been dumped in a draw - and the backed up images from them that always were (technically) woeful will never look that good printed.

For 'prints' I'd prefer to always shoot on slide film. But then I'd also like to have a reasonably local lab that could scan them as part of the developing process at a reasonable cost. But then that's because I've got used to think about what I'm taking and why. Although at other times (and probably way more often) I need a 'snapshot' camera and digital really is the perfect tool for that.

 

[Steve Smith]

Although at other times (and probably way more often) I need a 'snapshot' camera and digital really is the perfect tool for that.

I think it depends on the final use. If your 'snapshots' are only going to appear in e-mails, e-bay listings or just general illustrations on websites (like my pics of my wife's 'new' car, above) without ever being printed then digital is fine.

The general public's adoption of digital seems strange to me though. I still think that for general snapshots, e.g. family parties, nights out, etc. it is easier to drop a roll of film off at your local processor (Boots, Tesco, etc.) than it is to sit at your PC at home running them off on your printer.

I think people get brainwashed by 'new toy syndrome' and want to keep up with what everyone else has.


Steve.

 

[DiddyDave]

It couldn't have been that bad or would have found something else to do!

Don't you think that 25 years of shooting film without the luxury of a little screen on the back taught you how to expose properly on film or digital?


Steve.

Yup - that was a bit of a silly statement (been out with a friend for a loooooong liquid lunch before writing that )

What I really mean is that for me digital has finally allowed me to 'develop & print' my images to my style - I've never had a darkroom and (aside from slides) always found that a real disadvantage overall

Yes - it did mean I had to try very hard at the taking stage, which in itself is a valuable learning tool often missed to newbies with digital being so 'easy', but as I could never dodge & burn, etc. I found it more than a little frustrating

I also disagree that we 'need' to keep upgrading all the time, just that many get sucked into doing so by marketing hype. I see no reason for my D2Xs to not still be a great camera in 5-10 years time even though there'll be a D9xxx out by then!

So while I do appreciate film is ace and still has a place, for me it doesn't any more. Just like having a digital camera and having to email your images off to someone else to PP wouldn't hold much interest either :shake:

DD

 

[DiddyDave]

The general public's adoption of digital seems strange to me though. I still think that for general snapshots, e.g. family parties, nights out, etc. it is easier to drop a roll of film off at your local processor (Boots, Tesco, etc.) than it is to sit at your PC at home running them off on your printer.

I think people get brainwashed by 'new toy syndrome' and want to keep up with what everyone else has.


Steve.

ABSOLUTELY with that

There must be millions of people's holiday images stuck on hardrdrives that'll never get look at, whereas finding an old packet of snaps in the loft is always fun

DD

 

[inkiboo]

I just saw a post where someone said using film was harder to use than digital and someone then replied "No".

I'm sorry, but whilst I love film and see the benefits it has, that is just nonsense. Digital is MUCH easier to use than film; I'm not really sure how anyone could argue that?

 

[inkiboo]

The general public's adoption of digital seems strange to me though. I still think that for general snapshots, e.g. family parties, nights out, etc. it is easier to drop a roll of film off at your local processor (Boots, Tesco, etc.) than it is to sit at your PC at home running them off on your printer.

Wouldn't it be just as easy to pop your memory card in to your local processor?

I think the main point however is that most people don't want to produce prints from their photos. They can download from the camera and share them with family and friends around the world in seconds.

It's great you are so pro film but it would appear your opinion of digital photography is tainted by your love of it.

 

[Voyager]

I think it depends on the final use. If your 'snapshots' are only going to appear in e-mails, e-bay listings or just general illustrations on websites (like my pics of my wife's 'new' car, above) without ever being printed then digital is fine.

Yeah, digital images for the digital media.

The general public's adoption of digital seems strange to me though. I still think that for general snapshots, e.g. family parties, nights out, etc. it is easier to drop a roll of film off at your local processor (Boots, Tesco, etc.) than it is to sit at your PC at home running them off on your printer.

I think people get brainwashed by 'new toy syndrome' and want to keep up with what everyone else has.

Completely agree.

Perhaps digital imaging is what 'toggers' do - while photographers take pictures?

 

[Voyager]

I also disagree that we 'need' to keep upgrading all the time, just that many get sucked into doing so by marketing hype. I see no reason for my D2Xs to not still be a great camera in 5-10 years time even though there'll be a D9xxx out by then!

I suspect that once they stop working repair, if even possible, will be uneconomic.

 

[Steve Smith]

There must be millions of people's holiday images stuck on hardrdrives that'll never get look at, whereas finding an old packet of snaps in the loft is always fun

The example I always use is one of clearing out a relative's house after a death. If you find an old album 99% of people are going to look through it and a family member will usually keep hold of it. I can't say the same for a CD of images or a hard drive containing them.

The real eager 'digital is the only way, everything else is crap' brigade often cite multiple backups and re-writing DVDs every year to maintain their files.

This is fine whilst they are alive but once they are gone, those files are going to disappear.


Steve.

 

[Steve Smith]

I just saw a post where someone said using film was harder to use than digital and someone then replied "No".

I'm sorry, but whilst I love film and see the benefits it has, that is just nonsense. Digital is MUCH easier to use than film; I'm not really sure how anyone could argue that?

That was me.

How easy is this?

1. Put film in camera.

2. Take pictures.

3. Take film to minilab.

4. Pick up prints an hour or a day later.

I am talking about the average person's use of photography here, not the advanced amateur or professional. e.g. pictures at parties, evenings out, etc.

If you are doing your own processing and printing then perhaps you have a point but it's still not really harder, just different.



Steve.

 

[inkiboo]

That was me.

How easy is this?

1. Put film in camera.

2. Take pictures.

3. Take film to minilab.

4. Pick up prints an hour or a day later.

I am talking about the average person's use of photography here, not the advanced amateur or professional. e.g. pictures at parties, evenings out, etc.

If you are doing your own processing and printing then perhaps you have a point but it's still not really harder, just different.



Steve.

Again, you are talking about a flow that involves making prints.

Digital allows you to do the workflow you describe just as easily (and if we want to get anal, sticking a memory card in a camera is easier than putting film in) but also allows you see your photos without having to print them.

Your workflow means they have to go to a shop and wait for prints to see their photos; digital workflow means they can see instantly on a screen or just download to a computer.

Surely that is easier and more flexible to the average person than film?

 

[Steve Smith]

Again, you are talking about a flow that involves making prints.

I thought that's what photography was all about.

Your workflow means they have to go to a shop and wait for prints to see their photos

Most people go to shops anyway. Many supermarkets have minilabs and there is a Boot's in most high streets.

digital workflow means they can see instantly on a screen or just download to a computer.

Is that all you want to do with your images? If so, there's no need to join the new camera every two years race. Something around 1 million pixels resolution should be fine.


Steve.

 

[inkiboo]

I thought that's what photography was all about.

Then you and I disagree fundamentally.

Most people go to shops anyway. Many supermarkets have minilabs and there is a Boot's in most high streets.

This is now getting silly. Again, it's great you love film but to use the above as an argument of the ease of film compared to digital is laughable.

Is that all you want to do with your images? If so, there's no need to join the new camera every two years race. Something around 1 million pixels resolution should be fine.

Oh yes, 1 million pixels is fine ... less than the resolution of most monitors. I think it is best I leave talking with you because that is possibly the most ludicrous thing I have ever read regards film vs digital.

 

[EdinburghGary]

Chillax guys

Surely both methods are right, as long as the end user enjoys and uses their chosen method?

I like being a filthy whore and dabbling in both

Gary.

 

[inkiboo]

Chillax guys

Surely both methods are right, as long as the end user enjoys and uses their chosen method?

Forgive me if my reaction seemed over the top but I think to suggest that all you need for digital is a 1 megapixel camera is just an utter joke.

You are right, film and digital both have their place but if film really was easier than most consumers would use it. But they don't, and that says a lot. I love both film and digital and have benefitted from having a film background before moving to digital.

However, digital has librerated photography and has made it accessible to a much wider audience by making it significantly easier and cheaper to take photos.

 

[EdinburghGary]

Forgive me if my reaction seemed over the top but I think to suggest that all you need for digital is a 1 megapixel camera is just an utter joke.

You are right, film and digital both have their place but if film really was easier than most consumers would use it. But they don't, and that says a lot. I love both film and digital and have benefitted from having a film background before moving to digital.

However, digital has librerated photography and has made it accessible to a much wider audience by making it significantly easier and cheaper to take photos.

I guess if someone *thinks* its easier, than they are allowed to. On both sides of the argument. It's when people attempt to FORCE that opinion onto others, do problems start.

No one here can EVER be right. Film is easier than digital for some, and vice versa! Take my father in law. He cringes at the thought of anything digital, a real technophobe. Film will always be *easier* for him as a result.

Gary.

 

[Steve Smith]

Forgive me if my reaction seemed over the top but I think to suggest that all you need for digital is a 1 megapixel camera is just an utter joke.

1 million pixels will give you an image about 11" x 17" on a monitor at 72dpi

If that's all you are ever going to view them at then that's all you need to capture them at.

Up until now this has been a very nice, civil discussion and I hope it stays this way. It's easy to get the wrong idea when responses are just words on a screen without the benefit of body language or the spoken word.

Most things I write are fairly tongue in cheek anyway.

If I want a heated digital vs. film debate I will go and start (another) one on Photo.Net!!!



Steve.

 

[inkiboo]

I guess if someone *thinks* its easier, than they are allowed to. On both sides of the argument. It's when people attempt to FORCE that opinion onto others, do problems start.

No one here can EVER be right. Film is easier than digital for some, and vice versa! Take my father in law. He cringes at the thought of anything digital, a real technophobe. Film will always be *easier* for him as a result.

Gary.

I think we are getting into fine (and potentially long) argument into subjective opinions and rights and wrongs. What I will say is that I don't see how going to shop can be easier than seeing your photos on a computer/camera for most people.

As for technophobes, my Dad was exactly the same and he is now a proud owner of a number of digital cameras!

 

[Steve Smith]

However, digital has librerated photography and has made it accessible to a much wider audience by making it significantly easier and cheaper to take photos.

I agree with this bit 100%. Kodak did this to photography in the first half of the last century with their slogan 'You press the shutter, we'll do this rest'.

I suppose that after the 1970s photography fell out of favour as an amateur pastime giving way in some part to the emergence of home computers and video games. Digital has definitely given it a bit of a kickstart.


Steve.

 

[Carl V]

I also agree with Steve and Inkiboo with regards to digital making photography more accessible. Take as an example, I have a work mate who is in his late 50's and has only just recently taken up photography again with a digital camera. He dabbled in a darkroom in the 1980's with colour but didn't feel as though he would get the hang of it (his own words).

He knows I still use film and there is always a friendly banter between the two of us with regards to me working with chemicals and him sat in front of his computer. The funny thing is that he was a technophobe not that long ago and he now knows more about computers than I do.

But the point I'm trying to make is that we both enjoy the same hobby, but we just go about it in a different way. At least he knows about film whilst I on the other hand know precious little about digital.

 

[cyclone]

The film vs digital debate is pretty pointless. Probably more pointless than mac vs pc and Nikon vs Canon as we all know mac and Nikon are best.
Most people will argue a debate from their own perspective, even if we try not to we'll probably still have a slant.

Everybody is at a different place in their photography and that comes down to many factors e.g. experience, artistic ability, geographical location, interests etc.

I don't think digital is cheaper, but neither is film. It depends on what you're doing with it.
I'm pretty sure digital is cheaper for me, as I sometimes 'spray 'n' pray' and actually print very little. I'm very much in the learning process and seeing instant results on the computer screen and even on the LCD is hugely beneficial.

I'd love to give film a bash, but my fears are that I'd just waste it taking poor shots, my Grandad has an old Nikon SLR body I might have a play with. But he shoots a D80, it's his fault I have one, maybe that says a lot, or maybe it just says something?

 

[Voyager]

Surely that is easier and more flexible to the average person than film?

As long as the 'average person' has a suitable computer and quality printer and the skill and time to do it, sure.

 

[Voyager]

I stepped back in time.....

From the same blogger I posted yesterday (even though I'm not convinced that some of you arguing here have read that one either.....)