do you still use film?

[dellzeqq]

I've got one of SigSilverPrinters prints on my mantelpiece. The quality is just extraordinary. Every molecule is in the right place. But.......

when your phone can do this

just by pointing and clicking and a bit of souping up of the contrast then it seems to me that film must be the preserve of the real enthusiast.

Do you still use film, and. if you do, why?

 

[Black Sheep]

yes.

until recently i could not afford a digital SLR, and have two decent film SLR's (anyone remember the canon AE-1?) with a set of lenses for each.
both are fully manual and easier to focus than my Nikon D90 due to the focusing plates of a traditional 35mm camera but then again, I've not had it long.

to match a decent film SLR its not all about the mega pixels, its about sensor size, sensitivity and a whole host of other things.

 

[Coco]

No, but I'm going back to it.

I've seen a few web sites lately that are devoted to film photography and it's really started to inspire me.

Going to dig out the BRonica this weekend and have a play.

Nice photo BTW.

 

[Smokin Joe]

Yes, because when the film is printed I have a permanent record of whatever image I wanted to capture.

I know you can have that with digital too, but human nature being what it is the photographs get left on the pc or the phone and eventually disappear when they are accidentally erased or the device packs up. I'd bet that the majority of photographs taken now disappear into the ether in time.

 

[Globalti]

Digital photos are devalued by their sheer numbers and, as the post above suggests, will not last as a medium unless they are printed off. Film photography will continue amongst enthusiasts in the same way that vinyl has outlasted compact cassettes and probably also CDs.

 

[Melvil]

I'm a digital photographer, but I learnt (a GCSE, back in the day) photography with a film camera and lots of larks fiddling about with negative spindles and the like in darkrooms.

I love film and think that black and white film has terrific advantages over digital in its whole look, its feel and the way that things don't immediately go from white to black (as on digital) there is more of an analogue curve.

However, as goes colour, I'm not so convinced. Medium format film can obviously outperform digital in terms of enlargement and detail but I can't see any other amazing improvements, just a lot more time and energy spent in processing it. I tend to use ND filters to slow down the exposure speed of my camera on digital and this kind of effect is very similar regardless of whether you use film or digital processing.

However, at the end of the day, idea beats gear every single time. I've seen someone with a pinhole camera made out of a matchbox, loaded with single frames of film, who has produced pictures which are frankly amazing. Someone with ability can use anything and make great pictures.

 

[dellzeqq]

However, at the end of the day, idea beats gear every single time.

Your flickr stream demonstrates that brilliantly - you've even got a great picture of Selfridges in Birmingham. Chapeau!

 

[theclaud]

Wow - what wonderful pictures, Melvil.

 

[tyred]

I have to say I love film. Using normal colour film is possibly a bit pointless ( I still do though) but for black and white, film is so superior to anything I've ever seen in digital. There is the added bonus also that you can develop and print your own B&W film quite easily, it's a lot of fun, very rewarding and you can stand back and admire your handiwork. I've recently become a big fan of colour slide film for landscape photography. There is no equal in terms of quality and depth of colour IMO.

Shooting on film concentrates the mind on what you want to achieve as well imo. I've noted that when I'm taking a photograph with my film SLR, I stand back, look at it from all the available angles, choose the one I want and take possibly just one exposure, possibly bracketing if there is a question over lighting conditions. I still do this with a digital camera. People who use digital SLRs exclusively often take hundred of photographs and hope that one turns out okay.

 

[tyred]

Of course it needs to be said that some town centre labs should not be allowed anywhere near a film. If you are unhappy with the prints you get from one, try another one. When you find a lab which does a decent job, keep using them. The local Boots is hopeless, I had photos which came back with horribly washed out colours, I took some of the negatives to Snappy Snaps and asked them to make prints from them and had excellent photos.

 

[marzjennings]

I'm a digital photographer, but I learnt (a GCSE, back in the day) photography with a film camera and lots of larks fiddling about with negative spindles and the like in darkrooms.

I love film and think that black and white film has terrific advantages over digital in its whole look, its feel and the way that things don't immediately go from white to black (as on digital) there is more of an analogue curve.

However, as goes colour, I'm not so convinced. Medium format film can obviously outperform digital in terms of enlargement and detail but I can't see any other amazing improvements, just a lot more time and energy spent in processing it. I tend to use ND filters to slow down the exposure speed of my camera on digital and this kind of effect is very similar regardless of whether you use film or digital processing.

However, at the end of the day, idea beats gear every single time. I've seen someone with a pinhole camera made out of a matchbox, loaded with single frames of film, who has produced pictures which are frankly amazing. Someone with ability can use anything and make great pictures.

I completely agree that it's the eye and not the camera and regardless of what some folks spend on their camera they still manage to get poor shots. That'll be me as my wife's the pro.

But, I don't think there is an obvious gap between medium format and digital. With the new H4D shooting at 50 megapixels, the difference between film and digital is almost nothing. (No we don't have a H4D) And once we cram NASA 100 megapixels technology into a hand held camera we'll be capturing information we can't even see.

So while there's still a discussion to be had in the medium format world about best in show, for 35mm photography digital has film beat hands down. 35mm film users aren't enthusiasts but diehards (sorry) OR someone who feels that the whole process from shoot to develop to print is itself the art form, which is cool.

By the way, some great shots on the flickr stream there, good eye.

 

[User169]

Pushing it a little further, do you (still) use a camera? I hope to be able to get over to this exhibition at the V&A showcasing camera-less photography...

http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/ph...camera-less-photography/exhibition/index.html

 

[Kestevan]

I'm still using film, mainly because I've got a decent selection of lenses etc for my SLR.

When I look at the cost of replacing the body with a digital unit I keep thinking how many shiny new bike bits it would buy...... so far the bike keeps winning

 

[tyred]

. 35mm film users aren't enthusiasts but diehards (sorry) OR

Or someone who has a decent amount of 35mm kit but cannot afford to buy the MF gear that I would love just at the moment.

 

[asterix]

Of course it needs to be said that some town centre labs should not be allowed anywhere near a film. If you are unhappy with the prints you get from one, try another one. When you find a lab which does a decent job, keep using them. The local Boots is hopeless, I had photos which came back with horribly washed out colours, I took some of the negatives to Snappy Snaps and asked them to make prints from them and had excellent photos.

That's what I like about digital. But Melvil's pictures make my effort look very ordinary (other than that they are a memento of my experiences).