Film Users Won't Go Away

[fivegrand]

Film has a "permanence" that digital will just never come close to having.

It's kind of a spiritual thing, in a way.

Think also of the historical value of negatives and transparencies of those "missed" or "cast aside" images, later to be found and registered as being in some way very valuable - with digital images, if the shot is a "miss" or is not seen to have any kind of worth, *poof* it's gone forever, ceasing to exist in any way shape or form.

The best example of this that comes to mind is an aerial shot of Pearl Harbor in the midst of the bombing - if it weren't for people many years later coming back to that "worthless" image, Japanese submarines would not have been found to have been IN the harbor proper, which up until then, no one thought possible.

[HOUSCOUS]

If no one posted this before, here comes Agfa return: http://superheadz.com/agfa/index.html

[newtune3]

To me shooting film was way easier than digital. It had so much latitude and responce. I am on my second DSLR and still think that I took better photos with film. Now don't get me wrong, I don't wish to go back full time and I learn so much about photography by always knowing how I shot a shot. EXIF always gives me ap and shutter and ISO and lens length. Digital takes much more effort to get truely perfect shots. I find it so much harder to make good B&W with digital. There is no T-Max100 on my DSLR. Film is just not easy anymore. It is hard to get developed properly and B& W even harder. So on to a new 40D. What makes me dumb is the "P"rofessional mode on the camera. I need to go back to manual and set each shot. The bottom line for me is I spend more time in the hobby than ever before and I like that.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by venchka

<snipped?

Photography is just a little over 150 years old. Matthew Brady was on the battlefields less than 20 years after photography began. William Henry Jackson was photographing the west less than 50 years later. Ansel Adams, with the help of his burro, was packing 8x10 & 7x17 cameras into the High Sierra before the medium was 100 years old. The process has evolved rapidly. I'm thankful I have been around to appreciate and participate in a good bit of the evolution. I am also thankful that I can pick any point in the evolution of photography and use the equipment of that time.

One thing remains: A good photograph is a good photograph.

Brady was a late comer to war photography. The first war photographs were taken during the Mexican-American and later the Crimean War.

[johnastovall]

Film isn't going away and I think digital has had a very positive effect on photography by making many up and coming photographers go back to earlier processes which had laid dormant for years. We now have a lively and active alternative photographic process community.

I think we can thank digital for this by spurring a desire in many photographers to return photography's early roots.

[ol geezer]

I started out in photography working in the darkroom of a studio. After six months, the owner trained me with a with a 4X5 speed graphic.

Let the photographer who shot 2000 exposures try developing and reviewing 2000 4x5 sheet film. That should be incentive enough to force anyone to take a little time for correct composure and exposure.

[venchka]

Originally Posted by ol geezer

I started out in photography working in the darkroom of a studio. After six months, the owner trained me with a with a 4X5 speed graphic.

Let the photographer who shot 2000 exposures try developing and reviewing 2000 4x5 sheet film. That should be incentive enough to force anyone to take a little time for correct composure and exposure.

It happened! In 1969 I was assigned to a US Army photo lab in Germany. One day an Army photographer arrived with 3,000 exposed sheets of pack film. He had shot the film over a 2-3 week period of "War Games" in Turkey. It took some doing, but we got all the film developed and contact printed. Suffice to say, that job was probably 2 or 3 years worth of photos at our normal rate.

[dcnctx]

...nor will the muzzleloaders, the archers, the camp cooks, the sailors, and tons of other obsolete technology users. Their tools are all proven, fun, satisfying, and thank goodness all of these skills continue along with film photography. One never knows when the human race will require them all again. (Three cheers to change and to those slow to change - hip, hip, hoorah!)

[Angelo]

I was in Albuquerque NM last week and ran into an old timer who still shoots film (large and medium formats). Nice images I must say, of the beautiful scenery in his area.

He has a small business selling his prints but he gave me the impression that he was not doing too well. The rent on his store front must be awefully expensive (Old Town Albuquerque).
I spoke to him about digital photography and his reply was, "why change?". He showed me his dark room and the safe he keeps his negatives for safety. I remember how easy it was before digital and the precautions we all have to take now to back up our images when our HDs fail.

He keeps it simple. He was pretty adamant about anything having to do with digital. I was going to contact him to see some more of his work but would you believe, he doesn't have email or a web page.

Most old timers who refuse to enter the digital world, will at least, have their negs digitized as an additional back up, and to email to possible clients. This guy had every excuse why he does not want to enter the digital world. I was going to reason with him how important it is to, at least, know what digital is all about, but I got the impression that I would have had a fight on my hands.

As I left the store I said "you have beautiful images, good luck". His reply was "thanks, I need it". That's what gave me the impression that his business was not doing well.

His busness card only has a phone number. I may call him because I just can't get him off my mind.

[Tapper]

Well, I am no pro - just an amateur trying to find my way, enjoying the road there, and learning as I go. I'm also an opinionated SOB. So just a few observations on previous posts.

First, I think it's perfectly fair, and accurate for a pro with many years of experience to expect a certain deference to his opinion. Been there, done that, still matters, whether it tweaks your ego or not. Tweaking egos won't help people hear you, of course. But reading a whole bunch of cruft on the intarweb is no comparison to feeding yourself for 20 years, period.

It's also a fact, that digital cameras promote spray and pray technique. You need only count your shots at the end of a days shooting, to know this is so. Is this bad? Depends on your talent. If you add talent to the spraying and praying, then digital can make you very productive indeed. Or, if you suck, as I do, then fanning that shuitter like Wyatt Earp in a western, can often give you a bunch of good pictures (and a whole slew of crapulence), achieved mainly by accident, that you would not otherwise have gotten. Not a bad thing, but it won't really help you learn to be a better photographer.

I love my digital camera, but I took up large format photography - because I know that hard work on the basics is the only sure way to improvement in technique and composition. And large format gives you no choice at all in that regard - either you bust ass, and think every factor of the shot through, or you don't even get an image. And there is no Photoshop safety net. I'm happy to say I'm now getting pretty decent exposures. Sadly, I'm still working on my vision and composition. So I still suck, but I am now pretty technically proficient at sucking.

Did I mention that I was originally a civil engineer? I never worked at it professionally, having gotten involved in network engineering right out of school. I guess you could say, I'm a technocrat. Man, I can spin bits like no other, and I love new tech. I am definately not a luddite by any stretch of the term. And I have no trouble understanding the technical side of photography at all. I could go write a long post about this thing or that, and if you didn't see my pictures, you wouldn't even know i suck.

So I realize it's odd that I have embraced view cameras and film. But beyond the learning, and forcing myself to foreswear spray and pray a while, I've come to appreciate the absolute jewel that is a 4x5 transparency, or the stark reality of a B&W print made with one. View cameras make magic. Of course, the engineer in me says "big lenses and big exposures capture more information." Optics, are still the fundamental rule, after all. So if you really think there's ever going to be a chance that your bitty little "full frame" chip in that 1dsMk6078 or D7066 will compare to something taken with a big wide lens on even a medium format camera (digital, film, or whatever), you're kidding yourself. Physics will still have its' say in things.

I would love to have a medium format back, but such things are beyond practical reach for the hobbyist, and even most pros. Thus, not practical technology yet, and out of the debate (for me at least). I can only hope, that the future will provide affordable 8x10 digital chips, which I can use my cherished large format lenses with. Until then, I'll make do with what is practical today. For me, that's a D200, a variety of medium format cameras bought cheap on Ebay, an old calumet rail view camera, and my cherished Tachihara Field 4x5. And a slew of lenses. You know what I hate most about new lenses? Their names. "L". What kind of a name is that? The 90mm lens I use with my Tachihara is a "Grandagon". Now there is a name. The Germans are such great lens namers.

Once upon a time, film was the only game in town. It was the answer to all questions. Now, we have a new tool, which is better for a great many things. But not all things. Film still has its place, and areas in which it excels. Wise workmen choose the right tool for the job. And expert workmen, know how to use all the tools at their disposal.

[brad]

Originally Posted by Tapper

It's also a fact, that digital cameras promote spray and pray technique. You need only count your shots at the end of a days shooting, to know this is so.

One could (and at the time, people did) also make the same argument about auto-winders. And fashion photographers through the late 70s and 80s and into the 90s using 35mm had auto-winders and shot with the same zeal digital shooters do now.... so you still cannot say that digital promotes it any more than auto-winders did.... all it did was make it more accessible to the average consumer.

[Chief]

I miss the smell of : fixer, developer and stop bath. The film rolling or hanging, the lights that always leaked

NOT !!!!

Gordon

[Ahh!]

Originally Posted by Chief

I miss the smell of : fixer, developer and stop bath. The film rolling or hanging, the lights that always leaked

NOT !!!!

Gordon

Maybe so, but you will never forget the aroma.

[lucian]

I think both film and digital have a place. Digital really helps to make things like this forum click.

I think using film/learning with film helps to instill a dicipline that is easier to ignore in digital.

I did a better job of counting and planning my shots using film but have a tendancy in digital to shoot a "few" more.

I love traditional darkroom work as much as I love the ability to get really creative on the computer.

In three years I plan on resurrecting my B&W darkroom and my Fuji 6x7 and RB-67 - just for the love of it. And if I'm still having fun after six months then maybe I can get my daughter and grandson interested. Who knows maybe I can turn it into a part-time retirement enterprise.

Regardless of which way you go I firmly believe that photographic life is so much better and easier when you get it right in the camera rather than relying on the darkroom (traditional or digital) to compensate for poor shooting.

Regardless of using film or digital - ya gotta see the light.

[akimartymar]

Weddings ans portraits= digital
any artwork I do= totally medium format B&W film

There's just something about B&W film and printing out the image on silver gelatin paper that is missing when it comes to digital B&W.