20% off all products! Sale ends tonight at midnight EST.
Discussion
9 Years Ago
Does anyone here still use film regularly? If so, why? What do you like about film vs digital. Or if you only use digital, why?
Reply Order
9 Years Ago
I use only digital, and have bought many cameras. I recently bought a very expensive black magic camera for moving film. I use digital because of the editing ability. I'm able to edit and then revisit my real art and make corrections on originals. I miss the very traditional film cameras, don't you?
9 Years Ago
I have over 50,000 photos on my drive (I go to a lot of concerts!). If I got them developed at the mini size of 4"x6" for $0.39, I'd have conservatively spent $19,500 +taxes. And that'd include the 1000s that are out of focus and not worth developing at all.
No. Digital photography opened a world to me that I would never be able to afford otherwise.
9 Years Ago
Yes, I still regularly shoot film. Film has a certain look and feel (and some say soul) that digital just does not have. The costs involved also force me to slow way down and think carefully about whether a shot is worth it or not. I am 100 confident that this will ultimately contribute to me becoming a better photographer, also digital.
I find film photography much more fun and more rewarding than digital although I also enjoy digital. One is not better than the other, but they are definitely different.
This is a group on FAA about film photography (admined by yours truly)
http://fineartamerica.com/groups/film-fiends.html?tab=overview
9 Years Ago
Dean;
Yes! Although I imagine it's trains! The roll has been lying around in a drawer for years. I doubt it would come out very well.
9 Years Ago
For years I worked a second job -- partly to support my endless hunger for film (and developing that film, etc.).
I was so anxious to get out from under the cost of film that I switched to digital cameras l-o-n-g before it was wise to do so. My first digital camera offered a whopping 1/3 of a megapixel.
Yes . . . that's 1/3, NOT 13. ;-)
I miss shooting with film (though I never enjoyed the darkroom), but will only return to film if there's a huge LOTTO payout in my immediate future!
9 Years Ago
The short answer is yes.
Quite a few shoot on 35 mm, and medium format then use a digital converter to take advantage of the tonal qualities of the emulsion and then use the digital darkroom to take advantage of the incredible editing capabilities.
9 Years Ago
i don't think i could buy film if i wanted it, local stores stopped carrying the stuff years ago. and i don't know if they develop it there or not. i think kodak went out of business, which never helps. and i think if i handed a roll to the clerk, they would just look at me funny. digital is superior in every way. film i now need a specialty store to get.
---Mike Savad
9 Years Ago
Seems like I saw some Kodak 200 ISO film in a four pack at a store somewhat recently and was shocked at the price compared to back in the day. B&H has some Kodak listed at decent prices
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Roll-Film/ci/2545/N/4294548524+4291384683/
But I can't imagine ever using film again. Still can't imagine getting rid of the Elan 7 entirely though, because you never know either.
9 Years Ago
you can buy and develop film online and Kodak is still in business, albeit in a slimmed down form. And digital is not superior in every way. It might be for you because with film you couldn't produce your kind of work. For straight photography it can still be wonderful.
9 Years Ago
The other issue I run into with film is getting all of my slides scanned in at good quality and a decent price. I have loads of slides stored and no easy way to scan them in at present. Shooting more slides seems kinda silly to me at this time because of that.
9 Years Ago
I don't use film anymore because of the cost and then the time spent in the darkroom with chemicals. No thanks.
I take about 300 images a week. If I used film that would cost me some $200 a week for film.
Digital images are free after I buy a card.
Also, at my age working in a darkroom would be nothing but torture.
9 Years Ago
Slides are for projecting, really, but you can home scan them to a high quality. Unfortunately, what many of us thought was good enough back in the 80s and 90s often turns out to be pretty shoddy (camera shake etc, as well as the narrow tonal range) when compared with modern digital camera output.
I mostly shoot black and white, which I develop and scan or print myself. That way I have total involvement throughout the whole process (home developing is also a lot cheaper than using labs - something like 50c a film rather than $3-$4). Learning the effect of different developers and methods is also interesting, it's a craft in its own right.
Film may seem to cost a lot but the cameras and lenses are cheap, and medium format gives you quality that is at least as good as modern dslrs. You learn to shoot more selectively than with a DSLR.
9 Years Ago
Paul,
I agree with you about slides and then home scanning them to a high quality. Some of my slides from the 80's did come out really nice and I have posted the images here on FAA.
In the old days, I used Kodachrome and then made Cibachrome prints in my home darkroom (the chems were quite dangerous esp the bleach).
Back then I also used Leica Rangefinders with Kodachrome and then Cibachrome prints...that's quite a fantastic trio for really fun images.
However, for me, Digital photography is just too seductive (along with Mac computers and Epson printers)....
9 Years Ago
I don't miss the expense, the waiting or the chemicals.
Although sometimes I miss the magic of seeing a print develop in the tray. I never had a proper darkroom set up - pulled out a cheap enlarger and set i up in a large closet or basement bathroom. Never got to the point of feeling I was achieving what I wanted. I think I learned in three years with digital what it would have taken me 30 to learn with film.
In some ways film/digital is kind of like cooking/baking. So many things can go wrong with ingredient measurements.
9 Years Ago
Paul, I heard about that but never seen where, I take it it's not Kodak brand though, right?
I still have a roll of Kodak High Speed Infrared and a roll of Ektachrome Professional Infrared EIR film in my fridge, they been in there for many years. I'm not even sure why I still keep them other than as a memento of those days.
9 Years Ago
I use film, but only B/W. I learned to develop and process my own prints, and I feel like a magician when it comes out. I have an old Nikon FE2, and I love using it.
9 Years Ago
I use B&W and color film. Was just on a trip from Texas through to Florida, and shot 35mm, and medium format film, as well as digital.
9 Years Ago
Richard,
Rollei and Ilford both still do IR film, you can get them from B&H
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=rollei+infrared&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/118759-REG/Ilford_1829189_SFX_200_Infrared_135_36.html
9 Years Ago
Has anyone tried sending film for developing and having them put them in a digital account, so that you can then edit or examine them more closely on the computer, only printing what you really want to print? Is this kind of developing not good enough? I've only used this kind of developing for family pictures, or developed and printed my own, but it sounds like some of you are talking about a more expensive developer that you send the film to.
But I was thinking of buying a film camera again and trying this (above) as a method of keeping costs down a little as well as being able to edit in Photoshop Elements or Paintshop Pro.
I'd still use digital, but I really love the look of the film photography. Looking in this thread and Dean's film photography thread is making me more interested than I already was in getting another film camera.
9 Years Ago
I had a roll of 35mm Velvia scanned by a leading specialist UK film processor at the same time they processed it (shot with a Canon EOS 1v, which is one of the most modern and advanced 35mm film cameras ever made, using L-class Canon lenses) and felt that the results were inferior to what I could do myself. I guess they were all auto-scanned with some obvious sharpening, whereas I do separate settings for every frame.
Colour processing chemistry is very uniform, as long as you are sure that the lab is properly run the equipment is cleaned and does not overuse chemicals or have them standing for days at a time without the machine being used, then you really shouldn't see any difference between the cheapest high-street lab and the most expensive specialist place. I have, however, found small dirt streaks on negatives from a small High Street processor, which makes me nervous about local labs (though you may live somewhere where a lot more film is processed than the town I am in, in which case the equipment will probably be more professionally maintained).
9 Years Ago
I only use film cameras regularly as decorations or paper-weights. I have an old 4"x5" with a Schneider 127 mm lens and old 35mm EOS 630 camera. Photography has developed now such that flim is only relevant to history. Digital does not cause one to speed-up and waste exposures but makes this easier, and less expensive, to do
My Epson Expression flat bed scanner came with a medium (slide/negative) back-lighting feature (optional) and can compete with old drum scanners.
There is not newer software for it to run on Window (TM) past XPS but it worked on 486 machines.
This image below was scanned from 4"x5" flim.
Yes; This is WAY too expensive but this tree and cellar where where Mary Lightheart perched to protest old growth tree removal for Kohl's construction back before digital. CMNPark in the press.
9 Years Ago
@Teal - for 35mm I generally have the store scan and put them on CD. Some do this very well and others not so much. When they aren't great I rescan them myself. I've pretty much started scanning all my medium format myself due to the cost. However, a really good scanner makes a big difference.
This is a basic scan from the outfit that developed the film. I've been thinking of rescanning it to get more resolution.
9 Years Ago
I have friends and relatives that hunt with the bow and arrow, and others that claim that vinyl is superior to CDs. I personally think that everyone has their own view.
I have been in the the photographic industry for over 40 years as a professional and have photographed with many different films and formats. I recently sold a variety of 35mm and medium format cameras (645,6x6,6x7,6x9) to purchase a lens to fit my newest digital DSLR. With digital the quality is there and the cost minimal. I still scan old negatives and transparencies to produce fine art photographs.