Having gone 100% digital more than 10 years now, I was asked to shoot a friend's wedding on film! I then started to think of all my claims the latest years, that I would never shoot film again, found no reason for it etc.
So, over just one day's thinking I finally admited to myself, that I do miss shooting film on a pure manual camera every now and then, for some personal projects. Inspired by many recent discussions about the beauty of the non-linear behaviour of emulsion vs sensor and above all the romance of the process, I ve made up my mind and started looking for an old med format camera... I used to have a Rollei, an RZ etc but there all gone for a few $ back then. Thought to myself why didn't I keep just one body for some occations. Felt stupid. I now only have a 645 with Phase1 back and lots of Canon gear... I miss that 6X6 format for its simplicity and the sense of vintage photography, so I ll soon find one that suits me, on ebay. Probably a Hassie, cause I never had one.
I wonder how many of you out there feel the same?

An interesting question, because I recently sold off the last of my film cameras after going through much the same quandary every few months for several years.

What it comes down to in the end, I believe, is whether one is interested in the process or the results. If one is enamoured of the process, then go for it. But, do the whole thing, from shooting to processing to printing in the chemical darkroom.

If you're just going to shoot film, but then scan and print digitally, I'd have to ask - what's the point? The hassles of purchasing, storing, exposing and then getting film processed isn't terribly romantic or fun. The results will not be as good as current digital capture, so what's the point? And, of course, there's always the expense.

If you are going to do the whole darkroom thing, then it's another story. I can see the pleasure in that for some, but not for me. One of the happiest days in my life was the day that I closed my darkroom (after having one for more than 30 years).

I'd just rather be out shooting with todays fantastic tools than waxing romatic over "the good old days".
Michael

Ps: An friend teaches historic photographic processes at a local university and is one of the world's leading authorities on the subject. He is also one of the few people left in the world still making daguerreotypes the same way that they were 150 years ago. (Talk about nostalgia). But when it comes to doing photography his camera is a Nikon D700 and he prints with an Epson 4800.

You definitely got a point there Michael, and I do plan to use my old enlarger in the future. At the moment all I have in mind, is shooting monochrome and developing it myself every now and then. Yes I also plan to do some scanning, and the only point is to have some fun doing things in a different way than shooting digital and then applying a mimic grain I like etc
For sure I don't plan to go analogue or use a darkroom dailly, neither do my all my pro work on film. No way.
I agree, it can get pointless in a way, but right now I find it really inspiring shooting some film for some projects whenever I feel like it. Then again, I might regret the entire idea next year...
Saying that, I ll probably never feel like upgrading a 40 year old Hasselblad, cause there no real upgrade in terms of picture quality apart from film choices (if any). I wish I could feel the same about my P30, which already feels old, but there is no way my earnings allow any upgrades in the near future, but that's another story

Dear All,

The nature of the problem nowadays is that the world is sold on digital, is it not???

... and because of that, a good lab for developing is scarce to come by, lets not dare mention that a quality scan of film can be complete jaw dropping compared to digital, even more so if you stare down with a quality Schneider loupe on the original SLIDE. Film and digital simply are different. There is a another dimension there in film in its colors and drop off at brights and dark, not to mention that it comes complete pre-programmed with what is already a pleasent rendering, if exposed correct at a good condition. In that way, I would say that film is still superior to digiral today, but... the problem is that it must be made digital today, because... ehhh... the world is (oversold) on digital??? Often that is made on not top grade scanners, because that is what is available, and often also affordable. That to me is downside of film. Else, to be frank film is simpler. I should not say superior, since it might be incorrect word, but film is different to digital. Also... film should not merely be viewed on pixel level, but as an image. I still shoot slides; FUJI VELVIA 50 + FUJI PROVIA , but... I hate to say... not as much as I should... because they made film more difficult, simply selling the world on that digital and advanced auto all camera is made sold to be better than a simple one when you capture the magic moment, and to instead using a dslr snap the trigger hoping you get the magic shot as one of the captures.... - or am I being sarcastic, or... in seriousness do I actually have a good point?? I prefer the slow because yield better images, yet that is me.

I made this post the other year;- The MFDB vs Slide Film Challenge!, Mamiya ZD vs. 7II - http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=20970

In it I posted RAW files from Mamiya ZD 22MP digital back and asked people to do their own processing. I also stated that I was going to get film scans of Mamiya 7 Velvia 50 6x7 film scans of same scenes made, both on flat bed and drum scanners. To be frank, I believe both scanners were a tad too old technologies... nevertheless... one poster stated towards end "the film scans have a real wonderful quality to them. While looking at these last 100% crops, I find that I'm really drawn to them and the ZD images that looked so great before look lifeless in comparison."

Now any of you might wish to argue that a D3X or 1Ds3 beats the crap out of 6x7 slides and ZD. Sorry, I will disagree. There are qualities to the ZD files when shot at optimum conditions that beats that out of those two, albeit ZD is limited and is a problem camera (search my post ZD has problem).

Digital does not beat FILM. Film is different. Yet, I miss the simplicity of film... and to point the finding of a lab that with ease could process quality slide FILM, and make quality scans for cheap. This is in fact what turned me to digital in the first place, and claims that crummy D200 was superior to film Utter nonsense! As an amateur I have found that digital is MUCH more $$$ than film ever was, and I mean considerably many times more if you look for quality results and are not sold on new high tech technology and upgrading all time to latest incremental advancement in camera rather than image.

Years ago it was stated that a DSLR of 6MP beat 35mm film. Did it? Really, really? Utter nonsense. What experience has the reviewer? What year is viewer? What sensitivity of eye? Does a 20MP beat 35mm film? I dare say no, because film is different. That is not only in pixels, digital look different. One is better than the other, depending on subjects and situations. And... Yes!! I for sure miss the simplicity of using film. Actually, I have recent added 4x5 FILM and I am not please with my DP1 which is supposedly best capable image quality compact.... Well... I do not miss film scanning of 35mm scans.... many, slow.

Film was simple. Also in small camera you could have quality image capture, simply by plugging in that cheap sensor as was called FILM....

I miss that simplicity, and indeed low $. I now shoot Leaf, before I had F100 + Velvia 50, but to be honest... I also wanted larger format... which with digital translates to BIG $. B.t.w. my Aptus 65 is the first digital product I have found pleasing. 6MP rivaled 35mm film?? Nah....

Above is my view and observation.

Regards
Anders

No.

A. They don't make my film any more.
B. Trying to get decent scans of film that the lab had clearly folded, spindled, mutilated and, I suspect, raped is a non trivial PITA. In the end I had more vouchers for free development, not to mention excuses for murder, than I would ever need.

A. They don't? Hmmm....somebody better call Ilford, Kodak, Fuji, etc. and tell them.
B. Please don't equate your lackluster lab experience with a horrific act like rape.

When did Luminous Landscape become MySpace?

Hi,

The short answer is no.

Best regards
Erik

No and I don't regret it.

Do I miss film? NO

What's to miss? In my opinion the people that continually pine for the good old days have severe memory problems.

The photographers that still swear by film are only using it as a marketing ploy, to show what "arteests" they are because they still cling to an antiqainted media.

Just my opinion.


Michael

A. They don't.
B. The reference to murder is fine, tho?

The point about analog photography (film) that many people miss here, that Michael alluded to but didn't make an issue of, is that almost everyone who is using film today is doing it halfway - shooting the film, then scanning the negatives or transparencies.

If you do it analog all the way, including printing the negatives with an enlarger, you'll discover a different look to your prints that won't be the same as scanning and inkjet printing. In color, that may not be much of an issue for most people, but for me, it really makes a difference in black and white. I could hide grain in black and white very effectively with enlargers, but hiding noise etc. in digital hasn't been nearly as effective.

I do not miss film at all ...

I like 1,000 shot rolls of film and a darkroom that fits on my coffee table and lets me watch baseball while I develop images.

Never, ever going back.

DarkPenguin, they are still producing film - color, black & white, negative and slide.

And no, the reference to murder isn't fine.

I do miss a few things about the film 'experience'. I shot almost exclusively slide film. Probably the best was the anticipation, tearing open the mailers and spreading out those jewel-like slides on a light-table, and seeing that, yes, I nailed a perfect exposure on the best frame of the roll. And there's nothing quite like the neon saturation of a backlit velvia slide on a light table.

But then I remember getting back slides with lots of dirt on them, or parallel scratches across the emulsion on the best shots of the week. And trying to coax a bit of life out of those inky black shadows from the scanner, then spending tedious hours cloning out the myriad dust spots. On rare occasion I still fire up the scanner when I get a request for an old image, and it's just as much a pain as it ever was.

Then I'm happier than ever to be shooting digital.

And one film is the same as the next? I didn't say they don't make film. They distinctly do not make the film I was using.


Obviously I think context makes a difference.

I don't miss it because I still use it.

Regards, Art.

I never claimed one film was the same as the next. Of course they are different. Every film is different. It's one of the nice things about film.

What I don't get is why people are so eager to toss aside a couple hundred years of color chemistry aside so they can mix their own. If film was so terrible the film companies would have been long gone.

And I really don't get the argument that digital is somehow easier than film, be it traditional or hybrid. Sure, you no longer have to mix chemicals, stumble about in the dark, scan, or deal with crummy labs.

That's all been replaced by.....

- lightroom trashing your library
- hard drive failures (wave goodbye to your previous memories, digitron)
- crummy manufacturer ICC profiles
- expensive third party software and hardware solutions

All good points.

I never did traditional darkroom printing. (Either paid a lab or scanned and printed on an inkjet.) So I already had to deal with the ICC profiles, trashed hard drives, etc. With digital I lose the scanning step and gain flexibility at capture. Throw in the fact that there was only 1 film I really liked (in part because it scanned so wonderfully) and there is just no reason to go back.

I don't use my 35mm film cameras any more and haven't for years, but I still have an old Yashica Mat 124G double lens reflex camera that uses 120/220 film, and I like working with that camera because of the way it operates and the way it makes me think about each shot I make (only 12 exposures on 120 film).

Mike.

I don't miss film, but I'm having the hell of a good time walking around with and old Leica M2. I wouldn't even dream of shooting colour. just plain old grainy b&w. I stick with f11 or f16 @ hyperfocal and it is VERY fast to shoot this way. But then I'm not on the quest for uber IQ when walking around.

I just put my film camera on eBay and will finally be 100% digital. I found myself not developing my film and it was a big chore to go to my lab and drop it off. On top of that, I always ask for a digital scan of the images for my website and blog so why not just bypass the middle man.

Not dogging film but it is just getting too much for me with my digital workflow.

Got one of those with the obligatory 35 f2 Summicron. Carried it around for 2 decades starting in 1964. Now I prefer my cute little Fuji F31 for that role, it's much sharper.

Yeah I miss film. As long I don't remember too much, same way I miss my '59 VW. Bit OTOH I did just looked at the Steichen Conde Nast book, now there's an argument for film. But couldn't even come close to that with the M2, or F31.

I don't miss film itself.

Had a place in the late 90s for about a year where my roommate and I converted a small room into our darkroom. Our friends would come over to use it. It became a social thing. We'd help each other out, critique each others prints, have a few drinks. I miss that.

The final print is still what excites me the most regardless of how it got there. The digital workflow is an absolute joy for me now (now that I know what I'm doing--thanks mostly to Michael). I would never work with anything else on a day-to-day basis. The only digital aspect of photography I am reluctant to pursue is sharing photos over the web, just doesn't have the same effect for me when compared to the physical print.

Hmmm.
Have you seen Kodak lately? I live about an hour away from their headquarters. They've gone from an industrial powerhouse with >50,000 employees in Rochester alone to a rapidly cooling corpse with fewer than 12,000 terrified employees and a rapidly shrinking product line. They lost $353 million (!?!?!) in Q1 2009. Sales of film continue to fall like a stone, more than 29% since last year alone.

Film as a consumer product is doomed; most folks under the age of 25 will never shoot a roll in their lifetime, and digital is triumphant. There are still (rapidly shrinking) niche markets for large format and rollfilm, but they won't be enough to support more than a handful of boutique manufacturers within a few more years.

Hi,

I just would add that all those chemicals we used to have in the darkroom were not actually very good for our health. Although I enjoyed working in the dark room I developed some bad cough while doing military service and working in the dark room got less attractive. I never have been anything like Ansel Adams, either. To me digital was a relevation. I was thinking about a development machine for my dark room but I also started looking at printing photographs. When the Epson Stylus Photo arrived I was thinking about it, seriously. One of my friends had one on order, and it arrived at our office and my friend wanted to test but had no pictures. I supplied him with a scan from a Kodak Photo CD. After seeing half the print coming out of his printer I was on the phone to order my own Stylus Photo EX.

At that time I was mostly shooting Pentax 67 on Velvia (and I actually have a projector for those slides :-), so I got a scanner so I could scan medium format and started to use a Minolta Dimage 7i as walk around camera. Than in December 2005 I bought my first DSLR so my old lenses would be put to some use. Now I'm hooked on DSLR, have new lenses and still carry 15 kg/30 lb of equipment. The 67 stuff sees little use.

That said, I have a 70x100cm print made from a scanned 67 Velvia. It was a lot of effort but the result is very impressive. I also have a 100x50 cm from a stitched (semi) panorama taken with my Sony Alpha 100, that one is impressive, too. You can pixel peep at 25 cm, it's an immersive experience. The panoramic picture covers almost 180 in cylindrical perspective. From normal viewing distance it is just nice, but when I look at close distance it is almost as being there!

Best regards
Erik

I ve heard that before, but there are chemical engineers, whose research shows that inhaling modern Inks vapours from printers (and they don't always smell), is very bad for us too. Just to keep in mind.
But like I said before, I would not plan going back to film for profit, only shooting some 120 B/Wrolls on some lazy afternoons every now and then, that's what I miss. This entire argument has turned into what's better: Film or Digital, once again. There is no point in that I think. On a purelly 'having fun' basis, I like every process that involves hands and less sofisticated equipment. Have you ever made ice cream without modern ice cream makers? I consider the process as 'fun' and self rewarding for any strange reasons. Others may claim its easier to buy it ready made at some local-store and that it will taste much better. I won't blame those who don't want to use film ever again, but there is a reason balck and white films never stoped being made after color films where introduced and there is a reason film will never stop being made, aside the digital era and evolution. Sure it will become limited, but it will not cease to exist.

Film is to digital what the horse is to the automobile, or vinyl LPs are to CDs. People ride horses for recreation; it's fun to do, but hardly the most economical or efficient means of transport available. If you want to shoot film because you enjoy the darkroom experience, that's fine. But if you are a working professional who needs to deliver a high-quality image to the client in the shortest time frame possible, then film is pretty much a non-starter. If you know what you are doing with digital, the client can be reviewing and selecting proofs before the film shooter has the film dropped off at the lab, and in many cases the client can walk away from the shoot with finished prints or files.

And contrary to what some of the film purists claim, digital technology (when used competently) has significantly increased the technical quality of the final delivered product. It's just like people who claim vinyl LPs have better sound quality than CDs. CDs beat vinyl by every measurable criteria, but a small minority still prefer the sound of vinyl. They do so NOT because LPs have better fidelity than CDs in any way (S/N ratio, THD, frequency response, etc.), but because they like the "flavor" that the LP imparts to the recording. But many of these people insist that LPs are higher fidelity than CDs anyway; they confuse their preference for that "flavor" of sound with the actual fidelity of the recording medium. Many film enthusiasts jump to the same confusion; they claim that film is better than digital because digital images are "too clean" and they prefer the grain of film, or they prefer the color rendering of Velvia or Portra or whatever to the color rendering of digital (never mind the fact that the color palette of digital is totally adjustable with profiles...), or film has some undefinable "special" characteristic that makes it superior. What both the LP and film proponents fail to recognize is that theirs is an acquired taste not shared by the majority, and never will be. There's nothing wrong with enjoying film photography any more than riding a horse or listening to an LP is "wrong", but anyone who claims that film is "better" than digital is just as misguided and wrong as someone who claims that horses are superior to cars as a general means of transportation.

Film isn't going to go away completely, but it's becoming a small niche market just like vinyl LP and equestrian enthusiasts. I haven't shot film in years and don't miss it a bit.

Do I miss film? Yes.
Would I go back to shoot film? Probably no.

I enjoyed the experience, particularly with monochrome, of shooting, developing the film, then making lovely prints in my nice, snug darkroom. Sometimes when printing I would crank up the music and be jigging around whilst rocking the trays late into the night. But ultimately it is the end result that counts, and I am inherently lazy. Now I can do a shoot, download and see the pictures quickly, have lots of control over the image, then make a print on any one of a wide choice of papers.
So I have fond memories of film, but when it comes to choosing I opt for digital. My FM2 Nikons, the Mamiya RB67, and my multigrade-head enlarger are in the cupboard. Perhaps they will come out one day.

Jonathan used the very good analogy of LP records versus CD. It is not really a question of which is best, more which you prefer or find more convenient. I did not mind the hassle and limitations of film while there was no choice.

I could also use the analogy of the evolution in bicycles. Some of my best memories are of my old early 1980's racing bikes. They had six-speed non indexed gears, toe-clips and leather straps, steel frames and forks. They were very light and really no slower than a modern bike. However, I now have a titanium frame, carbon forks and seat post, both of which really soak up the vibration from the road. There are ten sprockets and the gears are indexed, which makes them east to shift even when under load. Feet are held on to clipless pedals, which are more secure than clips and straps and also quicker to exit. So while there is nothing wrong with the old bikes, in truth they are just not as nice to ride as the newer types.

This is a good analogy to film, but not like you think. LP's were preferred in the early days of digital because digital had some terrible distortions, mostly due to the lousy DAC's used by the studios. Neil Young's comments about analogue sound being "continuous" and digital discrete were off the mark, and distracted many people from the root problems. Modern CD's are very good due to improvements on the recording end, but they are still stuck in the 44 khz standard, so it's an unfortunate limit that LP's do not suffer from. The very serious problem with LP's is the needle in the groove, and the transducer between it and the electronics. Digital cameras have their own limitations, but not (yet) because of adherence to standards of resolution.

What's missing in most discussions of film is comparisons based on the whole process from capture to printing with an enlarger. When you scan the film and then print digitally, the comparison isn't valid.

There's an article here on shooting film with large format cameras and the pleasures it brings. To each his own, or her own as the case may be.

Mike.

The end of film might not be due to quality but, I fear, price. I recently looked at a pro catalogue and prices are horrific. Considering the usual way one uses 35mm film - used 35mm film - it would be a very expensive medium with which to continue working. I suppose the less that´s sold then the higher the price until the market simply implodes and that´s it: finis!

Thinking about this recently - still have an F3 in mint condition and a freezer bursting with transparency stock and some b/w - I was tempted to use this material up before the labs stop E6 altogether (given up hope of using the last of my Kodachrome...) until I reasoned that at about 8€ (more or less eight quid UK) a pop to process it would cost a hell of a lot of money for dubious return.

Then it struck me: for me, the charm of film wasn´t really all to do with film - much was to do with the cameras. Mention has been made of the Nikon FM ranges - I had both an FM and an FM2n at one time simply for the high synch. and would NOT classify them in the same league as the F, F2 and F3 or even that awful F4s which refused to load, ever, quicker than on the third attempt. The good Nikons just felt right.

It was the same with the 500C and CM - they just felt better than anything else I ever handled. That the old Rollei TLR was a far better tool hand-held because there was no bouncing mirror is neither here nor there. It is a matter of feel. Which is where I think film finds much of its romance. But, all that aside, if price were still right I would certainly enjoy walking the F3 more than the D200! Also, were dedicated 120 film scanners meant for mere mortals, then 120 film would be a most attractive alternative for me.

But the darkroom beyond simply developing b/w film? Never again, regardless of how good one thought one was.

Rob C

I miss the prices we could charge for simple shots in the days of film

Other than that I dont miss it one bit

Kodak's film division is profitable, it's the digital side of the house that's bleeding.

And, yes, I do miss film because:

• Digital makes it too easy for people to share bad images
• Office cubes are now covered with images printed on color laser printers
• It now takes 4 hours for my neighbor to show me his vacation pics
• I'm convinced that, in spite of my backups, that I'll lose digital images
• I spend too much time processing digital photos on the computer
• Darkroom work is really fun
• I can easily afford 4x5 film; I can't afford a scanning back

Hi,

Here in Sweden horseback riding is very popular among young ladies, i guess that at least half of them are riding horses, although only a few can afford to own a horse, but I have seen very few ladies shooting film.

Best regards
Erik

Robert is right. Much discussion here about the price of film and processing. Of course, for large-volume work, that's a consideration. But for the occasional amateur shooter, it's still dramatically cheaper to shoot film for anything you want to print really large. I could buy a nice used 4X5 camera, a couple of good lenses, and a serviceable scanner for a small fraction of the cost of a new MF digital back. Sure, I don't like the idea of spending $5 every time I trip the shutter either, but if I only do that a dozen or so times in a year, it's still way less pain than a $25,000 back.

And then there's the obsolescence factor. Any digital back I get today will be superseded with a better model in a couple of years, while my 1950's 4X5 stuff keeps chugging right along. Sure, there are some sharper Digitars and so forth available now, but my 70's vintage Super Angulon can still do some nice shooting on 4X5.

I know many are very enthusiastic about stitching, and I've had some success with it myself. That's great for static subjects, but I don't see it working too well for, say, a balloon ascension. (I realize this means someone will now post a balloon shot they compiled from 25 Sony Alpha exposures.)

I'm sure that the whole film industry will collapse at some point soon. We just won't be able to get any MF or 4X5 film when that happens. There hasn't been any movement at all towards affordable scanning backs, that I've seen anyway. Which leaves...what? Maybe mix-your-own wet plate formulas from the dinosaur days?

Of course, in the consumer arena, the economics is completely opposite. For the price of a 35mm film body, not too many rolls of film, processing, and single 4x6 prints, you can buy a digital point-and-shoot that delivers greater convenience and measurably better image quality by any criteria you may choose to measure.

I used to love my Leicas. I used to love rolling my own 35mm cassettes from hundred foot rolls of Tri X. I used to love my Rollei. I used to love my 4 x 5. I used to love loading film holders in the dark. I used to love developing a stack of 35mm film rolls in a stainless steel tank at the kitchen sink after loading them in a big dark bag. I used to love my darkroom. I used to love making big prints in my darkroom.

I wouldn't go back to any of it on a bet. Digital images -- at least at the 35mm level -- are far, far superior to anything film ever gave me. The color's far better. The only time film could come close to the same color quality was when I was in a studio and could match the lighting precisely to the film. I have thousands of deteriorating negatives and transparencies. The Ektachromes I shot in the fifties are now almost complete blank. The Kodachromes still hold up, but their scans need a lot of color adjustment in Photoshop. The Tri X has deteriorated noticeably. With digital I have a world of control possibilities I could only dream about in film days and I haven't yet had to spot a digital print because of dust. I'm not worried about losing my digital files. I have several levels of backups. The stuff that's on DVDs should last for somewhere around seventy years. Within that period of time our technology will have come up with storage that'll last seven hundred years or seven thousand years.

Film is dead! Long live digital!

for me, it boils down to this:

"different strokes for different folks"

"different tools for different people"

I don't poo-poo digital, even though my friends ask me why I just don't use their P&S to take the picture. I have started taking pictures, well more, portraits, of those same friends, on film.

so far, they've really liked what they've seen. now they don't question my methods, only ask how long it'll take for me to get them a contact sheet so they can see what I shot. that makes me excited to shoot film more. just that sense of anticipation, not really knowing EXACTLY what you got. maybe, maybe, you got the shot you were hoping for, sometimes not. But when that happens, another shot shows itself to you, and you decide sometimes that you prefer that one.

I like the sense of mystery. And for me, I KNOW WHAT I'M GOING TO GET, EVEN BEFORE I TRIP THE SHUTTER.

this comes from testing, and analyzing of my methods and equipment, maximizing the most of it I can to get what I want.

I also prefer the 'look' of film grain vs digital noise. For me, pictures can't be made of squares, pixels, whatever you call them.

Now, I am using the hybrid method (shooting film, generally 4x5 or 6x7cm --> then scanning and doing minor corrections in PS)

even though I'm 21, and having grown up with the rise of the computer to what it is capable of today, I cannot sit in front of one, I'm actually writing this reply in 3 segments stretched so far over a 25 minute period, shows how I can't sit in front of a screen for long )

Well, now that I'm coming up on 45 minutes to complete this somehow simple reply, one that many may snicker at, but think where I'm coming from, not from the standpoint of a "snapshooter", but of an aspiring artist.

have people given up oil or watercolor painting even though the computer may be able to produce "superior" results? NO...

in the end, its the image that matters. Whether you're being paid thousands of dollars to shoot a campaign for a fashion company, using the best lighting and camera equipment; or taking a picture on your vacation. in the end, if you can't get the image, You're not worth a damn. and you've just wasted your time. I don't care to waste time anymore, just enjoy the time I have left here. Maximizing what I have available to me.

so, I'll be using film for as long as I can. At least for my personal work. Professional(in the future, after finishing school), I can't be as sure. But none of us can tell the future. We can only speculate. I love the ease of curves adjustment with PS though. Its absolutely tremendous. Much easier than having to make multiple contrast masks and having to worry about pin registration and all that, I've done it. But for now, my little P&S Nikon will suffice for ebay photos, but for my work I want to remember, it will be on film.

oh... cost is another reason for me too. I got 24 10sht boxes of 4x5 Portra 400nc a few months back, and so far have gone through 2 boxes, working on the 3rd now. I paid $10 per box. 240 shots for 240 dollars. 95% will be keepers. To me, this is cheaper than digital. I have lenses that are older than me by 3x, and even if I don't use them every day, sometimes I don't use them for months, they still wait for me to use them, and to create pictures in a wonderful way that they only can. Scanning is the hard part financially. $40-100 per drum scan(that's with a bulk discount) adds up really fast, and I have to be really choosy about which ones I want scanned at the moment. My entire 4x5 kit I accrued over the last 2 years totaled less than 2 grand. And I have some great glass, schneider's, fuji's, and a caltar. All are top-notch, and when used properly, produce stellar results. Pricing a 5d II(is that what its called?) on B&h, sheesh, body only is $2700 + lenses, say, another 2-3 grand. I could buy a Mac pro and a nice used scanner for that, and still have some left over

phew.... that took almost an hour. Off to bed now, shooting in the am tomorrow.


Night everyone, blessings


Dan

You won't when your client has expectations and it's your butt getting fired if you don't meet them. Mystery bad, knowing seconds after capture you got the shot, good.



I love the cognitive dissonance here. You are turning all of your images into little colored squares called pixels, even if you captured them with film initially. And if you're shooting digital with something other than a P&S, noise really isn't noticeable unless you're shooting at ISO settings much higher than 400.



Which is why most people shoot digital rather than film. You can get an image that is objectively better by any criteria you may choose to define, and know whether or not you got exactly what you want within seconds of shutter release, as opposed to days later when you get the negatives back from processing. If something isn't quite right, being able to see it immediately, make the correction, and reshoot on the spot is a lot while everything is set up is way less hassle than having to do a reshoot days later.



Don't count on using film professionally. Most pros went digital years ago, for reasons of cost, quality, and convenience. Digital beats film on all three.



You obviously failed accounting. If 95% of your shots are keepers (a claim I strongly suspect is bullshit, unless you have a pathetically low standard for a "keeper"), you need to factor in the cost of processing and scanning. $40/scan x 216 keepers = $8640. At $100/scan, you're out $21,600 for those 216 keepers. And then there's processing; the going rate seems to be a little over $3.00 per sheet, plus shipping & handling in both directions.

Now let's say you're a working pro and shoot 250 images per month. You're spending over $1000/month just on film and processing. Now you've got to scan your film. You can either pay $40-100 per keeper to have them scanned, or you can buy your own scanner and figure a minimum of 30 minutes of your time per scan to clean the film as best you can, scan it, and then retouch out the dust spots, hairs, and other crap that was missed by the cleaning process. If your time working is worth $100/hour, that's $50/scan, plus the cost of wear and tear on your equipment. In three years, you'll have spent more than you would have if you'd bought a top-of-the-line medium-format digital kit with all the bells and whistles. This is how working pros can justify spending $40,000 on a digital back; as outrageous as that price may be, it's still way cheaper than shooting an equivalent amount of film when you figure the service life of the back.

If you want to use film for low-volume personal artistic work because you enjoy the process of working with film, great. There's nothing at all wrong with that. But trying to justify it on the basis of cost and "pictures can't be made of squares, pixels, whatever" is just plain silly.

I just sold my last film (5X8) camera and have some lens boards and a few lenses to go. I'm looking forward to the results that a medium format digital back will provide. If I had not come across this thread I wouldn't have thought of film.

I didnt read all of the posts as I am cruising quickly here so if this is a repost oh well... Only thing I miss about film is the PRICE we used to charge vs the effort we actually put in

Man I miss THOSE good old days thats for sure. Film was literally much easier $$$ as a pro ( for me it was at least )

Aside from that? I dont miss film one single bit. Not even for nostalgia. I recall a key roll getting fogged by a stoned assistant on a big job that landed me in trouble once for starters... I could go on but I digress.

Mostly, no, I don't miss film. What I miss is the sense of occasion that film provided. Film made photography momentous in a way that's lost with digital. Because each shot on film cost money every time you pressed the shutter button, one tended to be more deliberate when shooting. Photography was harder work and the process itself more of an adventure and an act of faith. The chemicals involved were highly toxic and the results were not immediate and far less certain. Photographers waited, and prayed, a lot more. The no-man's land between the act and the results gave photographs an almost magical aura that is now gone. Today, we can snap away without giving it any thought. Digital has made photography cheap, commonplace and safe as milk, even if the photographs themselves are better technically.

"Now let's say you're a working pro and shoot 250 images per month. You're spending over $1000/month just on film and processing. Now you've got to scan your film. You can either pay $40-100 per keeper to have them scanned, or you can buy your own scanner and figure a minimum of 30 minutes of your time per scan to clean the film as best you can, scan it, and then retouch out the dust spots, hairs, and other crap that was missed by the cleaning process. If your time working is worth $100/hour, that's $50/scan, plus the cost of wear and tear on your equipment. In three years, you'll have spent more than you would have if you'd bought a top-of-the-line medium-format digital kit with all the bells and whistles. This is how working pros can justify spending $40,000 on a digital back; as outrageous as that price may be, it's still way cheaper than shooting an equivalent amount of film when you figure the service life of the back."

Jonathan,

I agree with your comments about the cost of shooting film but this is only of concern if you are shooting on spec. All of my commission shoots were paid in full by the publishing company. I exposed film and handed it over (short and sweet in comparison to digital) the film was later returned to me. My invoice included all film, processing, mounting, captioning and delivery costs. If a client offered even very good payment to scan and process the images I would politely decline to avoid having to sit in front a computer when I could be putting my time to a more enjoyable and profitable use - capturing more images.

I accept that shooting digital is easier as key moments can instantly be checked (have I captured impact perfectly during a golf sequence?). On the other, through experience, I knew exactly what Velvia would look from an exposure angle before I pressed the shutter whether during a tournament or staged work with reflectors/lights. Working with the Velvia 90% of the time was predictable as it was 'Photoshopped' by the manufacturer - e.g. Velvia provides rich black backgrounds when the subject is in full light with a background in total shade.

I marvel at digital technology but not the time that it demands, especially shooting RAW. Once all of the images have been processed and captioned I accept that many benefits exist over film, especially from a library point of view - much less storage space, infinite duplicates of the same quality as the master file and metadata to easily locate specific image requests. However for commission shoots where the client pays all fees and deals with the scanning and preparation for repro film is much easier to handle in comparison to processing RAW files.

Sitting in front of a computer is not my idea of fun, I have a love hate relationship with computers. Just as well that I cannot abide the thought of wasting my time on twitter, facebook, or any other such drivel. If it wasn't for photography I doubt that I would bother much at all with computers as I can think of better things to do with my time.

Maybe it's time to join ranks with the singer Liley Allen and become a neo luddite http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/22/luddite_allen/

My experience is totally opposite--RAW is a big time saver over scanning film. After color calibrating ACR to my cameras, getting color right is usually a simple matter of selecting a white balance, and making creative color tweaks is easy when starting from a neutral/accurate color palette. In many cases, I can apply settings from one hand-tweaked image to several RAWs, and let the computer fuss over the details while I do other stuff.

I only miss film for nostalgic reasons, so not really [lol]

For me personally the big advantage of digital is threefold :
- Instant feedback, both when shooting as well as PP and printing, gives me a much faster learning curve
- Reproducability, slight changes in film/paper/chemicals/temperature/dodging-burning always put some guesswork into trying to achieve the exact same end-result.
- Control, lightroom & photoshop have given me much more control to achieve my desired result (mainly color and tonality balance)

I still have a huge respect for good film/chemical darkroom shooters, but as a hobby I cannot invest the same time and effort to learn it as well. Therefore I have fully embraced a digital workflow.

I have to say no.
For years, I was a puritan, going neva neva neva. I loved working in the darkroom. Eventually I gave in and I got a secondhand imacon photo scanner for a good price and started scanning my negs and slides and working on photoshop. I have to say I get just as much satisfaction working in photoshop than in the darkroom. I eventually went completely digital and now shoot with a h3d and cambo wide Ds and a canon eos 5d. The fact that I never have to deal with processing of film both in terms of time and cost, changing from bw to colour and many other factors only makes my life a lot simpler. (Although there are other factors that have cancelled those benifits out. It's called approaching 40. But that's another story !!)

I could easily spend 3 or 4 hours working on my landscapes in photoshop. I try to only do editing that's similar to darkroom work only with unlimited control. I love the way you can lock into small areas and completely affect the style and mood of the photo not really achievable in the darkroom.

Jonathan,

I did mention that digital is a big time saver over scanning film and totally agree. Whether digital is a time saver for the photographer depends on the photographic discipline and client's requirements. Prior to digital scanners 35mm film was less time consuming to use as a sports photographer. I only had to dupe, mount and add a couple of lines of caption to make a living. After the busiest of golf tournaments, such as the Open Championship and Ryder Cup, I could get the film processed, duped, mounted and captioned by late afternoon, and by the skin of my teeth post the dupes the same day to various foreign magazines - all monthly magazines.

Time can cost money but it is also precious. Whilst the lab was processing my films I was free to relax or get on with other work - often washing my clothes ready to jet off to another event. Recuperating after walking an Open championship course for six days (includes practice days) laden like a pack mule (600mm, 300mm + two zooms) and concentrating on squeezing the best possible images out of lousy backgrounds is taxing and requires some rest, regardless of mental and physical fitness. I took a pedometer with me to St Andrews during the 2000 Open Championship and recorded 11.7 miles in one day alone. Fortunately I can wind myself up and keep walking for many more miles but still require a breather.

I don't consider being sat in front of a computer, dealing with several hundred images, relaxing or resting, it's a processing chore to render stock images into shape, no matter how pleasing the material is. I prefer to light the subject and create the look in camera without the requirement for a computer - there is no acceptable digital solution capable of this to date AFAIK . With Velvia an image style was predictable and took less time than digital to develop as the look was created by the quality of light chosen (natural, artificial or a combination of both) in relation to the film's properties, the processing chore was thankfully not mine. As an example I attach a standard 'bread an butter' image captured on Velvia that has the same blacks present on the original slide - the background was a distracting set of bushes banished by a combination of reflectors and Velvia's high contrast characteristics. I accept that I can achieve this simple effect, and almost 'any' effect that I desire with digital but it's not as instant as exposing film as I must sit in front of a computer to accomplish it. This style of photography was totally predictable with film through experience.

When you photograph a sporting event that has a playing arena spread over a great distance the lighting angles, direction, and colour temperature will be all over the shop. This is regardless of careful planning to gain knowledge of the venue, backgrounds presented, best lighting gained from the angle of the sun (good and bad) for subject and background and predicting where interesting moments might occur. These factors, regardless of software skills, applying pre sets and batch processing, demand a brutal amount of time being sat at a computer.

I have been calibrating my cameras since Tom For's kindly released his free ACR calibration tool, some 5 years or more, and have spent countless hours in the last 12 years digging ever deeper into colour management and digital workflows. I still use light meters, (calibrated to my sensor) to nail the exposure accurately to speed up batch processing but this still only provides me with a RAW file exposed to 255 or intentionally over exposed by +1/3 - 2/3rds as a starting point only. I am still left with a flat lack lustre RAW image (a good thing to be flat but diametrically opposite to my tastes) that requires massaging to my preferred look, sure I can use RAW pre-sets but I am also spoilt by the ability in Photoshop to further tweak the image.

The digital process required to furnish a high quality image reminds me of applying metadata as an analogy - I can add a basic template to the whole shoot (akin to camera profile and colour temp across all images), apply competitor's names in batches and keyword pre-sets (RAW exposure settings applied to similar camera exposures) but I will still have to apply specific keywords to certain images and not others (Brush tool in Lightroom and/or layers in photoshop) - tedious time consuming but necessary tasks.

At a golf tournament snappers used to finish around 8p.m. and then meet up at a local restaurant for sustenance and to relax. These days agency photographers are often still sat in the media centre sorting and captioning images. For a colleague of mine who lives out of a suitcase he has a constant battle keeping hard drives free of space and captioning images until late at night in his hotel room to be clear for the next shoot - before digital he merely sent the film back to his well staffed agency and his task was completed! He also detests the additional routine processing chores that digital photography demands.

Computers are a bind if you shoot several hundred images over several days and your DNA dictates a goal to provide quality images.

I would imagine that most photojournalists prefer digital. They don't need to carry chemicals and a scanner around in an additional suitcase, or rely on the wife's hairdryer to dry their film.

Nick,

I don't take pics for money and don't worry about tight deadlines, but I share the impatience with the time I have to spend at my computer. In my case I accept it, but don't enjoy it much.

I was just curious about something. From your comments, I take away two main things, 1) you were very familiar with the film you used and what you could do with it and 2) you outsourced the lab work and were satisfied with the results. I don't know to what extent you can achieve 1) again with digicams, but I wonder if there exists ways to outsource the digital lab work. Is there someone who provides that service? It seems to me there must be, but I've never had to worry about it. The digital age may have an advantage here because geography doesn't matter so much, and you can use the same service provider no matter where you travel, rather than use different labs across the country (my assumption about how you had to work up to now).

Nick

Never shot sports but did do large but sporadic batches of work at a time. It was beautiful to land at Heathrow or Gatwick from wherever, drive up to Hemel Hempstead, drop the Kodachrome off at Kodak, check into the Post House, have a good meal (when Forte still owned it) and a sleep, then pick up the films next day and go up to Scotland and home. A day or so at the lightbox and that part of the work was over. I would have dreaded doing those jobs in digital; I never wanted to be a professional scanner or any other form of pre-press technician, just a photographer. You can hardly do that anymore.

It is fine to say, as many do, that today there is more control; yes, there probably is, but who wanted it in the first place? There was nothing broken the way things were and photographer responsibility lay in the shooting. That was more than enough, thanks all the same. And the money wasn't bad either!

Rob C

I do not care a lot about the technical differences between film and digital: my lack of abilities still eclipses any advantage that one method could have over the other, my badly composed photos will be irremediably badly composed, independently of any resolution or latitude.

But digital has something that film could not give me: instant reward. Each photograph is like an experiment to me, a puzzle to solve, a challenge; I need to see what the camera captured, change some parameter, and try again, right then and there. Perhaps some day I will be as experienced as Nick Walker, and I will know exactly what I will get even before I make the shot; but probably that day I will get bored of photography.

Leaving other considerations apart, I suspect there is a great deal of "feeling" involved in this film versus digital dilemma. Like when you hold a particular camera and it gives you the "feeing" that you are going to take better photographs with it. Or when you put a prime on the camera, and get that "feeling" that it has just the focal length that you need, even if you have a zoom that covers exactly the same focal length. I think film gives that "feeling" to some photographers.