# why film photography?



## Asia

Hello everyone 

I have read this forum for a couple of weeks and trying to find an answer to my question:

What makes film photography irreplaceable by digital one? Why so many people admit that digital photos are not that good?

I hope that there are enthusiasts of photography who could share their opinion and convince me that traditional photo do have soul 

I would appreciate your help!  I am writing a project on the film photography phenomenon and I would be glad to support it with your opinion.

Thank you in advance


----------



## dxqcanada

What have you figured out so far ?


I would not say "irreplaceable" ... eventually the capabilities/price of the Digital Sensor/Camera will equal or exceed Film.

Film has greater exposure latitude. 

Some will say that Film has greater resolution.

The capture source (Film vs. Sensor) is user changeable. If you need different properties you can easily change the Film type used ... especially for those that shoot Infrared.

It is cheaper to get a Medium/Large format in Film. Medium/Large format Digital Sensors are extremely priced.

Nostalgia. Many Film shooters that have converted to Digital still miss the feeling of working with Film and Film camera's.


----------



## Asia

Thank you for response 

Till know I found out that opinions are divided. Film enthusiasts claim that digital cameras kill the art of photography. On the other hand, people whose job is connected with cameras admit that the digital cameras facilitate their work (e.g. taking a lot of photos and then working and retouching them).

I am looking for information about particular scenes which you could capture only while using analog camera (or only with digital one).


----------



## terri

> I am looking for information about particular scenes which you could capture only while using analog camera (or only with digital one).


Hi there, I hope you have posted your counterpoint (Why just digital?) question in the Digital Forum, for balance. This is the type of question that can easily lead to flame wars, as some people feel quite passionately either way, and I cannot allow that.  So please word your questions and responses carefully as you proceed.

Having said that, to give you my reply, I am film-only user for anything that matters. I do own a digital point & shoot for quick snaps I plan to convert to jpeg and mail to family members or friends. 

My real work is in what is generally referred to alternative photographic techniques, and though Photoshop can be used to mimic just about anything, it is the reward of being hands-on, both in the darkroom and at my drafting table, that matters. I do bromoil printmaking, lith prints, toning and/or hand coloring on B&W silver gelatin prints, shoot infrared film and, until my cache in the fridge is gone, work with Polaroid film for emulsion lifts, image transfers, and manipulations. 

It all involves a direct, hands-on involvement which is personally fulfilling and very rewarding. And Photoshop is boring to me because a) I work at a computer all day and it's the last thing I would turn to for a creative outlet and b) it cuts out too many of my senses. I want to engage all 5 senses in the creative process for the most enrichment, and the darkroom, inking a bromoil print or hand coloring with photo oils, includes not only sight and sound but the keen sense of touch, smell and yes, even taste. 

In short, for me, working with film is irreplaceable.


----------



## c.cloudwalker

I would not say irreplaceable either. Some people don't even know what film photography is 

Frankly, I think it depends on the part of the photo world you are talking about. In commercial, I don't see the point of shooting film. Of course, when I said that in another thread recently, someone talked of a magazine wanting film photos... But talking to some ex clients about the studio I'm opening this year, they all told me to go digital.

It makes sense to me. Why want film that will have to get scanned since all the work done with that photo once it leaves your studio will be done in the digital world? It's been a while since I've kept up with the printing industry but, from what I understand, you go from the computer files straight to a printing plate. Maybe even straight to press?

Are there very small publications out there that still use the old ways of working? Most probably. But I'm ready to bet that it is more a question of cost of the equipment than anything else.

And I don't see how digital would kill the art of photography. The art of photography is in the image, not the format in which you shoot.

Now, if you're talking about photography as an art form, that's another problem entirely. Photography had a hell of a time getting accepted by the collectors as a valid art form because, in part (mostly?), of the possibility of multiple prints. A concept they did not have to deal with with painting. This is reflected in the prices art photogs get for their work.

A very few are getting even with painters but most are far, far behind. Just a couple months ago, I found some Jerry Uelsmann prints for $1200. A painter of his renown would get at least 10 times that.

Another problem for collectors was the longevity of the photo print. How long before it fades?

Both of those problems are making a come back with digital photography. At least according to the fine art photo galleries I have talked to.

But that is the mercantile aspect of art photography. As far as the artist work is concerned (and of course I'm only talking for myself here) you lose the hands on approach with digital. The experience in front of a computer will never equal that of the darkroom and other analog PP work.

When terri talks of smell I can't help and smile because that is what I miss most about the darkroom. And what about the magic of the image coming into existence onto the paper? Some artists push the hands on approach as far as making their own paper.

My studio will be equipped with both digital and film gear including a darkroom. The digital for my commercial work and the film for my personal/art work. The film will also be useful when I develop the teaching side of the studio. Someone recently made me realize, maybe, part of the reason that a lot of photo schools still require the students to start with a film camera.

This person was talking about how long it took him to master his DSLR and I thought, well, with a simple all manual film camera it takes about an hour, if that. After all, once the correct ISO is set, all one has to deal with is shutter speed and aperture... And then you can get right into the more important stuff like proper exposure, etc.

If my wife was to read this, she'd joke about how this is one of my typical yes and no answer. :er:


----------



## jbylake

For me, part of the "film" experience, is what makes it interesting to me.
Caveat: I am going to buy a decent digital camera sometime this year, but it's purely for the "convienience" factor.  I will use it for commercial use primarily, such as putting products on our website, quickly.

As far as everything else goes, I'll just stick with film.  Experimenting with films, all kinds of development techniques, etc, is for me, part of what I'm refering to as the "film" experience.  Could be that I "grew up" with film, I don't know.  But, if this makes sense, and it could just be a wierd part of my personal philosophy, but film is more of an "organic experience", and digital is more sterile".

Just opinion, but I guess that's all you can get here, is "subjective" opinion.

J.:mrgreen:


----------



## Jerry Avenaim

I was asked in another thread to post a link to my recent article here. I hope I'm not breaking the rules. :meh:

I just wrote an article on the subject of the title below. Your thoughts and comments are always appreciated on the blog - Photography and the Art of Discipline.






Halle Berry Copyright ©Jerry Avenaim Photography, Inc. 2009​
Jerry Avenaim
Web Site
Blog Site


----------



## djacobox372

I shoot film for these reasons:

1) digital cannot match the quality of medium and large format film.

2) film grain is more pleasant to look at then digital noise. 

3) digital photograhers spend a lot of time in photoshop trying to match the "style" of color slide film, I just go straight to the source.

4) film gear is retro, cool and cheap.


----------



## c.cloudwalker

Jerry Avenaim said:


> I hope I'm not breaking the rules. :meh:



I certainly hope I didn't get you in trouble    but I can't imagine posting such a relevant entry would.

To the mods, IT"S MY FAULT!


----------



## jbylake

Jerry Avenaim said:


> I was asked in another thread to post a link to my recent article here. I hope I'm not breaking the rules. :meh:
> 
> I just wrote an article on the subject of the title below. Your thoughts and comments are always appreciated on the blog - Photography and the Art of Discipline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Halle Berry Copyright ©Jerry Avenaim Photography, Inc. 2009​
> Jerry Avenaim
> Web Site
> Blog Site


Absolutely relevant, and very interesting take on the subject.  

J.:mrgreen:


----------



## Asia

Thank you all for your responses!

I understand that I have formulated the question in controversial way (maybe in order to interest you)  Sorry if I offenced someone.



			
				terri said:
			
		

> Having said that, to give you my reply, I am film-only user for anything that matters. I do own a digital point & shoot for quick snaps I plan to convert to jpeg and mail to family members or friends.



If it was a piece of advice, you would say that both film and digital photography are some kind of supplements - sometimes it is better to use film but sometimes using digital camera facilitates all the matters.




			
				c.cloudwalker said:
			
		

> And I don't see how digital would kill the art of photography. The art of photography is in the image, not the format in which you shoot.



By "art of photography" we could understand various issues - one is the art as the result (extraordinary picture) and one is the...let say effort which you put into taking photo. IMO taking photos using digital camera is simple and you can see the efect right away (passing over the minimal cost of it). While using analog camera requires some knowledge and experience (I'm not talking about the automatic (?) cameras but about the more advanced ones).



			
				djacobox372 said:
			
		

> 3) digital photograhers spend a lot of time in photoshop trying to match the "style" of color slide film, I just go straight to the source.



I totally agree! It seems that digital pictures are not that well thought out cause there is always time to make them better and better.



Once more - thank you all! I did not expect such extensive comments


----------



## J.Kendall

learning with film will teach you a lot about composition, lighting, etc. Its sad because the college I'll be going to next year is going completely digital soon. Last summer I went on a visit there, asked to see the darkroom, and no one could get me there. Even the people who actually knew where it was said it was closing down anyway. Made me want to cry a little.


----------



## Asia

One more question about the photography itself

What is the difference between photography taken by digital camera and analog one? Is the difference visible at the first glance?

I understand what you have written about the film grain, pixels, etc But is it like that, that usually professionalists could distinguish what picture is taken using film? Or there is no difference when we combine two photos of excellent quality.


----------



## Torus34

The question of film/digital can be approached from many, many perspectives.  Mischief occurs when the question is addressed only in its broadest aspect.  This is what Terri is referring to above when noting 'flame' wars.  In such a broad context, film/digital is about as meaningless a concept as Ford/Chevrolet or Canon/Nikon.  Or, for that matter, Doors/Led Zeppelin.

When one asks the question in a very limited context, a reasonable non-controversial agreement can usually be reached.  If the question is, for instance, one concerning cost/exposure* once one has purchased the basic equipment, I should think that digital is a clear winner.

Please note, though, that in terms of photography as an approach to art, as opposed to photography as a commercial tool, a very different set of standards apply.  To ask an artist why he/she uses film instead of digital or, conversely, digital versus film, maps directly onto asking a traditional medium artist why he/she uses pastel or watercolor or acrylic when oils are available.  As a question, it's a non-starter.  The artist uses whatever medium permits the closest approach to the visualization of the final work.

In matters of art, _de gustibus non est disputandum_.

*Digital exposures can be viewed as thumbnails in camera with no processing cost incurred.


----------



## c.cloudwalker

Asia said:


> IMO taking photos using digital camera is simple and you can see the efect right away (passing over the minimal cost of it). While using analog camera requires some knowledge and experience



The skill set required is somewhat the same whether you shoot in digital or film. An image is properly composed, properly lit, properly exposed, etc in the same manner no matter what. As far as shooting is concerned a good digital photographer can be as good shooting film and vice versa.

The only thing that really changes is the PP. In one case it is done on a computer and, in the other, in a darkroom.

Ultimately, neither is better, it is mostly a question of preference. There is good and bad on both sides.

In a way it is the same debate as the vinyl vs CD one. Some people prefer one and some prefer the other. And then there's people like me who enjoy CDs because all of a sudden I can hear things that never came thru on the vinyl but I also enjoy the warmth of the sound on vinyl.


----------



## Actor

I  have a collection of film gear which I have accumulated over the years (decades?) that cost me several hundred (thousand?) dollars.  The value of this stuff has decreased so much that even if I sold all of it I would not have enough to buy a decent DSLR.
Once you have pushed the shutter the processes are completely different.  With film I feel like an accomplished master.  With digital I feel like a compleat idiot.
The manual for may wife's DSLR is over 200 pages.  The manual for my latest film SLR is 25 pages.
DSLRs are so complex that, even on manual mode, I do not feel I have complete control.
PhotoShop is prohibitively expensive.
Inkjets do not begin to match photographic prints.
With the great unwashed going digital, film gives me the feeling of being part of an exclusive elite.


----------



## apertureman

My modest take on it:

1. I don't have a DSLR, and in the last few years my plans to buy one have been cut to the root by other events (like my upcoming wedding) that require a major part of my income. I have been eyeballing one for a while, but never saved enough money to buy one.

2. I love the way colors and tones come out on film (color and BW respectively). The potential to render great colors is just built into the film... no need to do much tweaking on Photoshop.

3. If you like the way your pictures turned out, you can get them printed right from the negative or a positive, no chips or inks required, just a good photographic paper.

4. Sure, there is more waiting time. Speaking of myself, I send my films out for processing only once every 2 months or so, because I don't snap that many pictures. I just keep the films in my garage at freezing temperatures until I'm ready to send them out and get the best deal. However, I don't spend hours on Photoshop trying to achieve the great results, and while I'm waiting for my film to get processed, I just go ahead and shoot some more.

5. I got to play with my future brother-in-law's DSLR and it was fun until eventually I got bored looking at a million snapshots and the only difference between them being either the subject location or a different emotion on the subject's face. I lost interest soon enough. I couldn't wait to go back to using my film SLR and anticipate the results I would get. Not to undermine digital, but from my own experience: I can skim through thousands of digital pictures like play cards, but I can spend minutes looking at a single picture made with my film camera.

6. Film challenges a person to take better pictures to begin with, and not having to "fix" them later. It makes us do research, read books, take courses, try different processes, to try to get a good picture.

I am not trying to say that digital photos are bad and film once are good, great photos can be achieved in both mediums. To me, the more work photographer (not only equipment) puts into producing great photos, the more personal it becomes. It is more work for me to produce great shots with film, than digital, which is so highly automated nowadays.


----------



## RancerDS

Actor said:


> I have a collection of film gear which I have accumulated over the years (decades?) that cost me several hundred (thousand?) dollars. The value of this stuff has decreased so much that even if I sold all of it I would not have enough to buy a decent DSLR.<snip>



This is exactly why I shoot film.  SLR film equipment was so far out of my reach price-wise BUT is now affordable.  So my entry costs are low... even though I'd bought/traded/acquired over a dozen 35mm SLR's.

Buy film and then paying development costs is an investment.  I had a couple of fair P&S digitals but never satisified with most shots.  Knowing I am paying something for every single frame means I make conscious choices.  That is even though no more than 18 frames out of 24 are worth showing to anyone else without embarrassment.

I'm not organized quite yet.  So having a digital SLR would probably mean 3x to 10x as many digital images to "organize".  Not sure which I would learn faster with over time... but do believe I would dis-enchanted by the number of digital pics that would be shot willy-nilly.  While I'd like to own one, am still glad I do not.


----------



## Sbuxo

Digital will never have the true 'film' feel. Your digital photography can be easily plagiarized with Photoshop and other photo-editing softwares, and film photographers are more respected (imo). Another thing is not only shooting film, but printing, the enlarger is basically your own "photoshop", with the exception of changing colors, cloning, and other things, but printing (especially if you do it on your own) is a great experience and is much more accomplishing than just printing it out of a printer. 

:love: film!


----------



## Sangetsu

I've been shooting digital for more than a decade, but I have to admit I am more attracted to film. The amount of joy you get from something is equal to the amount of time and effort you put into it, and I find that though I have taken any number of good digital shots, I get more pleasure from film.


----------



## mom2eight

Jerry Avenaim said:


> I was asked in another thread to post a link to my recent article here. I hope I'm not breaking the rules. :meh:
> 
> I just wrote an article on the subject of the title below. Your thoughts and comments are always appreciated on the blog - Photography and the Art of Discipline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Halle Berry Copyright ©Jerry Avenaim Photography, Inc. 2009​
> Jerry Avenaim
> Web Site
> Blog Site



I think its very relevant since Jerry uses the same process as was used in the beginning of photography.  It shows the beauty of film.  Would love to learn one day, but for now im gonna have to stick to shoot, delete, shoot delete. lol.


----------



## lleclmg

Hello All, I am very interested in your responses to this thread.


 I am a graphic design student that also enjoys photography. I am in my final year of study and am working on my dissertation titled "Is there a place for conventional methods of photography in the modern world", I can see from looking around the group that collectively you have many years experience in photography.
 If any of you have 10 minutes to spare, your opinions would greatly help my studies. The survey is hosted by an online survey service and you simply need to click the link below. I'll understand if you are too busy to contribute on this occasion.

Is there a place for conventional methods of photography in the modern world Survey

If you have anyone else you think may be willing to help, please forward this post to them.
 Happy snapping
 Matt Godfrey
York College
UK


----------



## j8kkb

Hi ..as regards why I suppose it depends on personal choice...as a matter of cost ....I recently had to produce a series of images for a portfolio at a college I am attending ...between 7 and 10 ..the brief was to use film....the initial outlay for me was cost of camera which I already had a Yashica Mat at £100 a box of 16x12 paper 10 in a box £20 and film and chemicals 3 rolls I used £6...and £10 on specific chemicals round it up to £140 say....when in the darkroom I use a print map ..log all the stages and exposures times etc. for dodging and burning...initial outlay would seem pricey ....but the difference comes when reproducing the images I can go back into the darkroom and produce 12x12 inch prints for £2 a go to get this size printed proffesionally on digital I would imagine costs a lot more ...but I still cannot make my mind up whether to go analog or digital ..:lmao:    trust this has confused you even more

jk


----------



## matfoster

if you want to globally communicate with photographic images.. it all becomes digital ultimately.


----------



## Proteus617

I'm reading this thread in one window.  In another I'm manually scanning a roll of Tri-x from my '38 Argus.  Tonight I'll PP some, tomorrow I'll print others in the darkroom.  Contact printing from digital negatives is on my do-list for the summer.  One process can inform the other, different as they may be.


----------



## Big

But why shoot film if we can just "add grain" in Photoshop! :lmao:


----------



## matseski

I shoot 99% digital, only having used film for one photography course in high school.  

To me the important differences, as already stated, are feedback, intent, postprocessing, and distribution.  

With digital the instant feedback can compensate for lacking technique in critical situations.  No matter who you are or what system you shoot with, you will take X% quality images where X<100.  With digital, you will realize that the image you just took did not turn out a fraction of a second after you took it, with film it may be weeks later.  While this is not super critical in a studio environment where reshoots are possible, when documenting live events on film, your ability to maximize X is absolutely a necessity.  Still important on digital, but then again you can snap 3,000 pictures a night and even if your X is low you can still end up with the same number of usable shots as a film photographer with a high X.  

The intent of a photographer must also be more heavily solidified when working with film than on digital.  Lets face it, for most of us, this is an expensive hobby and shooting with film provides a constant reminder of that fact.  Each shot can easily cost over $.25 by the time you buy the film, develop it, and make contacts; this only gives you 1" pictures too.  With digital, once you have your equipment (albiet no small expense) each shot only costs a small fraction of a cent.  As mentioned before the complexity of the cameras also plays a roll here.  With a manual film camera you only have 3 or 4 buttons, each with only 1 function; with a digital body you have dozens of buttons each with several submenus depending on what other buttons you push first. It is very easy for an inexperienced user to get lost in the options.  Combining the complexity of the digital bodies with the low cost of each shot, it is very easy to go into a shot with only the vaguest intentions: "I want to take a picture of a marble".  30 minutes, 10 background revisions, and 75 shots later, you come away with a respectable image.  On film, you just would have blown 2-3 rolls of film.  Maybe thats not an issue to you, but to many if you keep up that X, you will not be in photography much longer if you like to eat.  

I think the largest difference between film and digital is in postprocessing/development.  With digital you can make infinite revisions without quality loss and you can make them quickly.  You can adjust a slider back and forth until you get just the right look.  The next day you wake up and decide that the mountains in the background should be a little darker--no big deal, 2 minutes later they are.  I cannot think of anything that can be done with film that cannot be done with digital, but the other way that is just not as true.  (I stress AS TRUE as opposed to an  absolute)  With film, the combination of various media is quite different than scanning in all of the other formats or printing then manipulating.  You can work with them all at once.  It is a physical process and mistakes can easily be devastating both to time and your image.  There is no undo button, but as a result you can make original one of a kind pieces, a feat very difficult to achieve in the digital world.  Printing is also very different.  With digital photographs most people send there images to some calibrated printer which will give them exactly the same results each time.  Want 1, want 1,000 no big deal, pick the paper and hit the print button and go get a coffee.  With film, again, depending on the individual, printing can be an artistic venture all on its own.  Each print unique.  

While postprocessing offers the most differences, distribution is by far the most important.  As mentioned earlier, if working in the global community, your work, digital or film, will almost invariably end up digital for mass distribution.  Unless you do not care to cater to anyone who cannot travel to see your physical prints digital distribution channels are your only real option.  With this said, it depends entirely on you need for instantaneous results.  If you are in news, film is NOT an option, by the time your film is developed, the competing news company has already had their images circling the globe for over an hour.  Also, quality film scanners are expensive and drastically cut into the equipment savings that you can achieve by going film.  

Another thing to keep in mind is repairs.  I can and have repaired mechanical film cameras without any prior training or knowledge.  It is mechanical and if you know what is supposed to happen, most technical people should have no trouble diagnosing and repairing minor problems.  With a digital camera, there is no chance in hell that the average, technically knowledgeable person could perform most repairs.  While the is not critical in most situations, the understanding of how you camera works and how that duct tape keeps it functioning gives you a connection to your equipment.  

Medium and more so large format film photography offer many benefits over most modern digital options.  Sure you have your $30+k Hassy bodies that can match medium format film in printing size, but there is nothing commercially available to my knowledge that can match large format.  If I was to print wall size prints that people would view from a few feet, I would not think twice about using a large format film camera.  There are no substitutes.  

The other nice thing about film is the ability to try various system with reasonable quality cameras for cheap.  You can go pick up a decent enough rangefinder for under $100, try a different slr for about the same.  Quality glass can be had for a fraction of the cost of modern lenses with similar optics.  If you are on a tight budget and want control over your images, film is the only way to go if you actually want to print your images larger than an index card.  You can go buy a film slr at goodwill for calling out loud.  

If you have the basic skills and a quality composition, both systems are equally capable of achieving almost anything.  If, however, you are one of those special people with some revolutionary idea, only you will know which format will allow you to achieve your vision.   For the rest of us mere mortals, dont worry about it, go shoot with whatever you can get your hands on; after all, no one else really cares anyway.


----------



## Kristov

Probably the best post I have ever seen regarding the issue. A+


----------



## wescobts

There are many very good post here, I hope I don't muddy the water. I have been shooting for about 12 years, not all that long as some others. I started in film, and shortly after, I switched to digital. I have taken a B&W course and worked in the darkroom a few times, to say I could presently develop film, the answer is no. I have just recently started shooting in film again, and I am going to re-take the B&W darkroom class. Digital is great, and I do mean that. But so is film, and to look at the two next to each other, there is a difference. Currently I live in Rochester, NY ; and as some may know, one of the most important cities when the discussion of photography is the topic. I have been fortunate to stand next to a seasoned photographer, shooting film, while I shot digital, and after every shot I would look at my LCD screen to make sure I did not botch it. My friend knew he did not, had his F2 in his hands for so long, did not second guess. There is a secured confidence when one does something for so long, with proven equipment, plus with the veil of waiting for processing. I see all it the time, great photographers with state of the art, top line digital gear look at every shot taken once the moment passes. Yes; instant gratification, but the loss of security, inserted doubt. I truly wish the our world in photography had not slanted so extreme, there is much to be gained with both medias. So why film ? because it still has so much to offer, a choice, a look, a feel. Shoot both, embrace both, there is plenty of room, there are many subjects in this world to explore with both forms.


----------



## skieur

djacobox372 said:


> I shoot film for these reasons:
> 
> 1) digital cannot match the quality of medium and large format film.
> 
> 2) film grain is more pleasant to look at then digital noise.
> 
> 3) digital photograhers spend a lot of time in photoshop trying to match the "style" of color slide film, I just go straight to the source.
> 
> 4) film gear is retro, cool and cheap.


 

1) How so?  I have not seen any lab tests that confirm this assertion.

2) Personal opinion, I think.  I don't like either.

3) As a former colour slide photographer, I don't spend any time at all trying to match the "style" of colour slide film.

4) True, but how many photographers really care about such things?

skieur


----------



## skieur

Minor comment on Mattseski's excellent post. Red One shoots large format digital and I believe that there is also a digital "back" for the Linhof.

skieur


----------



## Hamtastic

Asia said:


> Film enthusiasts claim that digital cameras kill the  art of photography.



Which is exactly what the dry plate photographers said about film, and  the collodion process photographers said about dry plate, and the  Daguerreotype photogs said about collodion....   



Asia said:


> I am looking for information about particular scenes  which you could capture only while using analog camera (or only with  digital one).



Film does not need electrical power to expose.  In any situation where  power supply could be an issue film has an obvious advantage.  

With very long exposures digital sensors heat up and get noisy.  It  depends a lot on the camera and personal taste where the limit is, but  IMO it's in the 10 - 20 min range.  Besides heat and noise there are  battery issues again.  I don't really know how long my batteries would  expose for, but I'll guess that all night star trails (in a single  exposure) are out.  

On the other hand digital doesn't have reciprocity failure problems like  film.  A 20 min digital exposure is 3 or 4 stops more exposure than a  20 min film exposure at the same ISO.

Think about what actually makes a compelling image.  So little of it has  anything to do with the tools or is truly limited to one process or  technology.  To the collodion and Daguerreotype photographers an old  Nikon F and a new Nikon D700 would seem very similar, and very, very  different from the cameras they were using.    

 Instant preview is nothing new.  Pros have been using Polaroid for a  long, long time.  I think there is little debate among visual artists  that being able to use your eyes when creating visual art is a good  thing.  It's just a new feature for the noobs and rubes.   

My walls are hung with 8"x10" to 20"x30" photos.  They are a mix of hand printed silver gelatin prints from medium format and 4x5 film, machine printed silver gelatin prints from files, hand printed chromogenic prints from 35mm and medium format film, and machine made chromogenic prints from both film and files.  Obviously the silver gelation can only be BW, but some of the c-prints from files are BW too.  All are framed and matted so you can't see the paper edges.  I've regularly asked pros and enthusiasts which are from which, and the answers are all over the place.  There is one photo that almost always gets picked as digital:  it's a hand printed, 13"x20"-ish c-print from 35mm Kodak Royal Gold 25.  I think it's the super fine grain and saturated colors that cause folks to think it's digital. 

_"Photography has not changed since its origin   except in its technical aspects, which for me are not important."_ -Henri Cartier  Bresson


----------



## maris

Here is a rather extended and somewhat abstract polemic on film photography:

What the pictures look like doesn't count in the long run. Digital picture making can, or soon will be able to, replicate the _surface appearance_ of any medium; film, paint, pencil, whatever.
If you want to look pictures that have the _same_ relationship to subject matter as film based pictures then nothing touched by digital technology is worth looking at.
A film based photograph happens when a physical sample of subject matter travels across space, penetrates the sensitive surface, and occasions picture forming marks where it penetrates. If you want this then don't bother with "digital". But why would you so want?
A film photograph is physically, necessarily, and materially bound to its subject in the same way as a graphite rubbing, a footprint, or a silicone rubber cast. There is no _virtual_ component. It is a straight line case of a substance direct on substance action. If this is what you want then you must use film. Don't bother with digital.

The film photograph is utterly powerless in depicting subjects that do not exist. The film photograph is a certificate for the existence of its subject matter. Physical subjects are a necessary prerequisite for the possibility of a film photograph. If you want pictures of unicorns then you have to go digital. Film won't help you.

Successful pictures in film photography require that the subject and the film have to be in each others presence simultaneously and that they have to be directly and physically connected at the same (relativistically adjusted!) moment. Thats why film photographs really do capture moments in time. Furthermore an actual film negative of the EiffelTower, say, cannot exist without the film itself having made a trip to Paris. If this is the kind of reality connection you want then don't bother even looking at digital. Remember, a digital picture of a dinosaur is possible without a trip back to the Jurassic.

Film photographs can do nothing about subjects which may have existed in the past. If you want scenes from ancient Rome or portraits of Jesus then digital can deliver them. But don't presume they are equivalent to film photographs. 

The future is similarly a closed book to film photographs. Photographs can only be _made_ in the implacable present moment. Try as you might you won't get the Star-ship Enterprise on film, it hasn't been built yet, but digital will deliver you a whole Star Trek movie through the wonders of CGI.

No film photography can go into landscapes of the imagination or into the topography of dreams. Digital does this easily. All one needs is a computer, a few image files, and some nice software for pushing pixels. Remember, hallucinations don't register on film.

Film photography cannot address subject matter which full well exists but is momentarily blocked from sight. If you want pictures of something you just missed then digital is your only recourse. Whether anyone would believe such a picture is a moot point. A digital picture offered under oath is a mighty suspicious thing except to the terminally naive. A film photograph requires no oath. It is true to subject although that in itself is no guarantee that a casual observer won't misidentify the subject

The sole source of energy for a film photograph is the subject and the internal chemical potential energy of the photographic materials. External energy sources, electricity for example, are not at all required. My film camera, film, and chemicals would work just as well in Shakespeare's day or the distant future when dark energy has long replaced electricity. 

Digital of course delivers "appearances" and that can be entertaining but if you dont want to live in a world where "seeming" is indistinguishable from "being", where looks like means same as, then film photography is what you must do.


----------



## SilverUser

Digital and film are not competitors.

D & F are different. 

One is not better then the other.

D & F have a look; their own look.

I shoot 95% film and 5% digital.

I love them both.

Both the digital snobs and the film snobs are wrong, closed minded and both use outright lies about the other to make their medium seem "better".

With D & F, you can make awesome first rate art.

They both have their pluses and minuses.


----------



## xjken99

A lot of great post here that I can add very little to except why I shoot film.  Twenty plus years ago I got into photography and ended up with a decent collection of 35mm stuff.  Life went on and that equipment got pushed to the back of the closet, replaced by various point and shoot film cameras and finally with a point and shoot digital.  This past December I retired and dug the film slr's back out.  I am using that equipment almost exclusively because I think it forces me to think a lot more about what I am doing.  My old school stuff also has full manual settings which alows me to experiment a lot more.  When I go out to shoot a roll of film I usually take along my point and shoot digital and take the same picture so I can compare the two mediums.  In all honesty, it's the digital point and shoot that got my juices flowing again to get the slr's out.  Personally I like both mediums and I do plan on investing in a digital slr within the next year.  Even then I am still planning on using my film cameras.


----------



## PentaxGuy

I prefer the soul of film to the sterility of digital. It just seems to have a different feel for me; when I look at the pictures I've taken with digital cameras, they seem completely different from something I took with a film camera.

Plus, there's the satisfaction of knowing you created a picture from start to finish all by yourself; with my film SLR, I set the shutter speed and aperture, manually focussed it, took the shot, and then developed the film and prints completely by myself. It's much more satisfying than having a tool do all the work, then having a computer do all the work editing it.


----------



## Breaux

Until recently, I stuck with medium-format film because it was obviously better quality.  Now that the quality of digital can match film (for most people's needs), I have to admit that I'm just a Luddite.

One thing I've noticed is that, when shooting digital, I don't put in as much time and effort.  It's too easy to just shoot everything you see.  With film, every shot costs, so make it count!


----------



## robitussin217

Advantages and disadvantages, preference and nostalgia...

I think film is still so loved that it's permanent which is good.

I study music so I'd like to think a bit about art. Art is dumb by itself. Art can be terrible and still art. What's more it can be almost nothing. John Cage bracketed off a piece of time, called the piece of "music" 4 minutes and 33 seconds and called it aleatoric. Photography is still a young art, I would LOVE to see someone do something artfully effective with digital photography and just unleash some awesomeness like Debussy did with impressionistic music, ignoring rules that didn't sound good to him and creating beautiful dissonances that catapulted musical creativity into new areas. If I was a genius I would do it. 

Plus, a separation between digital and film would separate the mediums and secure film's future even more.  

I just recently shot my first roll of film. It is a different experience. It satisfies my introspection more, get's me to slow down, makes me pick my shots...I find that digital makes photography as a hobby more frequent, but film, for me, makes it more enjoyable. As an art...?


----------



## asmi18

Nature photographer Kelly Paal gives sage advice for those wishing to jump into photography... film photography that is!


----------



## Sbuxo

skieur said:


> djacobox372 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I shoot film for these reasons:
> 4) film gear is retro, cool and cheap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4) True, but how many photographers really care about such things?
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


when you're low on funds, you'll know.:lmao:


----------



## Petraio Prime

Asia said:


> Hello everyone
> 
> I have read this forum for a couple of weeks and trying to find an answer to my question:
> 
> What makes film photography irreplaceable by digital one? Why so many people admit that digital photos are not that good?
> 
> I hope that there are enthusiasts of photography who could share their opinion and convince me that traditional photo do have soul
> 
> I would appreciate your help!  I am writing a project on the film photography phenomenon and I would be glad to support it with your opinion.
> 
> Thank you in advance



Because 'digital' photography is the biggest fraud perpetrated on man since...well in history. Film _holds _much more detail....


----------



## guitstik

If I am just taking pictures of the family get together or our vacation I use a digital for the ease and convenience of it, no toting a lot of film canisters around.

When it comes to taking pictures for the intrinsic or artistic value I use film. There are just so many different variables to take into account when using film be it color or b&w. 
Lenses are not all created equal, some are better than others and can give a whole different feel to a picture. Whereas with a digital camera you are limited to the manufacture of the body for the same in lenses. With film you can get adapters to swap around and experiment with different manufacturers lenses.
With digital, when using the same lens for different pictures you are assured that the quality will be consistent. With film you will need a high awareness of the different types of film that you are using be it 25, 100, 125 or 400 film speeds for grain or brightness for the look that you are trying to achieve. Experience with the different manufacturers of film is also a good idea when shooting film. Kodak 400 is different from Fuji 400. 

There is just so much uncertainty when shooting film as opposed to digital that it is much more an art form in and unto it's self. Some  of the best photos that I have taken over the years have been as much the result of accident as experience that I could never duplicate if I tried. With a digital camera if you don't, at first, like the result of the shoot you can delete and re-shoot but if you change your mind you can not un-delete. Thus the "accidental" gem can, in theory, never be taken.

This is all just my humble oppinion.


----------



## Mike_E

Since photography is addictive I think that this analogy might be in order..

Film is to digital photography as single malt is to Scotch.

It may be an acquired taste, but worth it!


----------



## guitstik

Mike_E said:


> Since photography is addictive I think that this analogy might be in order..
> 
> Film is to digital photography as single malt is to Scotch.
> 
> It may be an acquired taste, but worth it!


I like both but never mixed. Personally I prefer Tequila


----------



## PJL

I've recently delved into late 70s-early 80s film cameras, in addition to my Elan 7 and a digital Canon P&S. My AE-1 Program has turned into my go-to camera. It's pure joy to shoot. I don't shoot a lot a lot of action or moving targets where the technological advancements of a modern SLR would be much more convenient, so I find shooting film and having a manual focus camera makes me much more thoughtful of composition. I also just love the asthetic of using film. I think of loading my manual cameras with film as I do putting on my riding suit and helmet before taking out my motorcycle for a long ride down some twisty roads -- there's a certain pleasure in the process for me. And, yes, there's a certain aspect of Luddism to it. The exclusivity of it also appeals to me, and the fact that I'm using a timeless medium, rather than worrying about how long before I have to upgrade to the latest and greatest DSLR body or making sure I have the best post-processing software because I need to manually manipulate the colors and white balance in my photos just to get them to look like something.  And it's funny because I'm not at all a technophobe, there's just something about shooting film that feels more artistic to me.


----------



## djacobox372

skieur said:


> djacobox372 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I shoot film for these reasons:
> 
> 1) digital cannot match the quality of medium and large format film.
> 
> 2) film grain is more pleasant to look at then digital noise.
> 
> 3) digital photograhers spend a lot of time in photoshop trying to match the "style" of color slide film, I just go straight to the source.
> 
> 4) film gear is retro, cool and cheap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) How so?  I have not seen any lab tests that confirm this assertion.
> 
> 2) Personal opinion, I think.  I don't like either.
> 
> 3) As a former colour slide photographer, I don't spend any time at all trying to match the "style" of colour slide film.
> 
> 4) True, but how many photographers really care about such things?
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


1) Resolution and tonal quality of 6x7 medium format or lager film surpasses any of their digital counterparts--not including scanning backs which are completely impractical. Color representation is likely better with digital, but it depends on what your "lab" is measuring--I for one don't pay attention to lab results and instead trust my own eyes. 

2) Film grain is analog, making it far closer to the "noise" produced by our eyes and brains, hence it's more natural to look at. That isn't a matter of opinion; however, preference is. 

3) If you haven't seen digital photos trying to match the colors of kodachrome and velvia film, then you haven't been paying attention to modern trends in photography.  

4) Nearly everybody cares about price, and there's a growing backlash from young people against modern "throw away" consumerism and 'planned obsolenence' which makes older equipment that was built to last more desirable and "cool."


----------



## guitstik

PJL said:


> I don't shoot a lot a lot of action or moving targets where the technological advancements of a modern SLR would be much more convenient, so I find shooting film and having a manual focus camera makes me much more thoughtful of composition. I also just love the asthetic of using film. I think of loading my manual cameras with film as I do putting on my riding suit and helmet before taking out my motorcycle for a long ride down some twisty roads -- there's a certain pleasure in the process for me. And, yes, there's a certain aspect of Luddism to it. The exclusivity of it also appeals to me, and the fact that I'm using a timeless medium, rather than worrying about how long before I have to upgrade to the latest and greatest DSLR body or making sure I have the best post-processing software because I need to manually manipulate the colors and white balance in my photos just to get them to look like something.  And it's funny because I'm not at all a technophobe, there's just something about shooting film that feels more artistic to me.



Ditto, ditto, ditto and uhm ditto vrrrooommmm 1100 v twin to boot.

Not that technology doesn't have its place in photography, I do use it when it is advantageous to my needs but there is an ephemeral quality to film that is renewed every time I pick up one of those "heavy metal" cameras that I don't get with a PLAST-A-DIGI camera. I shoot film for the "Art" of it nothing else. I do it for ME. I do not make a living with it, if I did, then it might be a different story. The word that might best describe it is either organic or orgasmic You decide but for me, I am in a space of my own that I control to a certain extent and that feeling is not a "Quickie" as with a digital because now I have to go home and process and develop and then I get to live that moment over again. With a digital the process is view, focus, listen to the whir and clicks, push a button and then check the display for the results, huh, kinda anti-climatic cause now I get to go home and play on the computer (not porn). 
I prefer film, that's just me though.


----------



## compur

Petraio Prime said:


> Because 'digital' photography is the biggest fraud perpetrated on man since...well in history. Film _holds _much more detail....



I find this an interesting and intriguing statement. I also happen to agree. 

I also suspect you have much more info on this topic. Could you elaborate?


----------



## Petraio Prime

compur said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because 'digital' photography is the biggest fraud perpetrated on man since...well in history. Film _holds _much more detail....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find this an interesting and intriguing statement. I also happen to agree.
> 
> I also suspect you have much more info on this topic. Could you elaborate?
Click to expand...


Well just look at the size of film grains vs the size of 4 sensor cells in digital cameras. There is some 'sharpness' but no fine  detail. Skin looks like vinyl. If you blow up a digital image beyond a certain point it simply breaks up. Film doesn't do that, at least not "all of a sudden".

Here is a nice analysis:

Spur Nano Edge, two


----------



## compur

^ Great reference -- thanks.


----------



## ifi

Asia said:


> I totally agree! It seems that digital pictures are not that well thought out cause there is always time to make them better and better.


This is generalization.

We must not blame the technology for lack of planning on a person's part.


----------



## magkelly

Well, I can't say I have any bias towards using either. I like both and use both. #4 is important to met though. I hate waste and I definitely can't afford $500 worth of digital SLR and $1000 worth of good lenses, yet. I'm learning on a budget so old often means "possible" when it comes to gear.


----------



## guitstik

My daughter really, really wanted to get into photography so I bought her an inexpensive Minolta X-370 with a couple of good lenses. I explained to her that if she could learn what it takes to make a good photograph with film and all the mechanics that go with it we would move her onto a digital camera. My thinking is that film is a bit more involved as to what it takes to make a good picture. If she can master film and all that entails then she can do digital. I also didn't want to spend a lot of money on a digital only to have her lose it or lose interest all together. As it is, I have about $100 invested in her camera and developing has not been to bad since we don't get any pictures, we have all of it put on a CD that we can play with on the computer.


----------



## Orrin

In the various discussions of flim vs digital, I don't believe anyone 
has mentioned the archival characteristics of the two methods.

Glass plates and film negatives from over a hundred years ago are
still usable and many of these collections have been donated to the 
Library of Congress and various historical groups. Where will todays 
digital images be a hundred years from now?

For example, I am in the process of putting together a presentation 
for the local photo club, using images from my days in the British West 
Indies while serving in the Navy. The images were made in the mid 
1950's on B&W, Kodachrome, and some other color films.  The 
B&W negatives and Kodachromes are still in good shape, but the off-brand 
films did not fair well colorwize, although the image itself was still usable 
as a monochrome in the presentation. If the images had been digital, 
they probably would have been lost by now.

How are the digital photographers archiving their images... what format? 
what media? Will future generations be able to view them? The formats 
and media may be quite different then. As an example, how may of you 
can read the information from an eight-inch floppy, or even a 5 1/4 inch 
floppy. They were both popular storage media in the 1980's.

Film originals, regardless of type or size, can be viewed without any 
special equipment other than maybe a mgnifying glass.


----------



## compur

ifi said:


> Asia said:
> 
> 
> 
> I totally agree! It seems that digital pictures are not that well thought out cause there is always time to make them better and better.
> 
> 
> 
> This is generalization.
> 
> We must not blame the technology for lack of planning on a person's part.
Click to expand...


No one is blaming any technology.  Film photography is a technology too.
The fault is the do-everything-automatically mentality of digital photography 
which encourages laziness and discourages involvement in the craft. 

Yes, many digital SLRs _can_ be used manually but few owners of such gear
use them that way.  In fact few owners _know how_ to use them that
way and don't bother to learn because the temptation to simply push
a button and have the camera do it all is too great.  The result of all this 
automation that I am seeing with the "digital revolution" is simply more 
people taking lousy photos and fewer people understanding the craft of 
photography.


----------



## ifi

compur said:


> ifi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asia said:
> 
> 
> 
> I totally agree! It seems that digital pictures are not that well thought out cause there is always time to make them better and better.
> 
> 
> 
> This is generalization.
> 
> We must not blame the technology for lack of planning on a person's part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is blaming any technology.  Film photography is a technology too.
> The fault is the do-everything-automatically mentality of digital photography
> which encourages laziness and discourages involvement in the craft.
> 
> Yes, many digital SLRs _can_ be used manually but few owners of such gear
> use them that way.  In fact few owners _know how_ to use them that
> way and don't bother to learn because the temptation to simply push
> a button and have the camera do it all is too great.  The result of all this
> automation that I am seeing with the "digital revolution" is simply more
> people taking lousy photos and fewer people understanding the craft of
> photography.
Click to expand...


And there are no automatic film cameras? 

We are debating film vs digital not manual vs automatic.


----------



## compur

ifi said:


> And there are no automatic film cameras?



Of course there are but few compare with the automation of digital SLRs 
and there are many, many film cameras that are completely manual. 

And, despite the automation of the the last breed of film cameras, they 
still encouraged more involvement with the craft of photography than do
digital SLRs.

The major difference: With film one envisions a photograph in one's mind
before photographing it.  This fosters skill in the craft.  With digital one
is encouraged to just shoot with no pre-visualization.  This fosters laziness
and "let the camera do it all" mentality.

BTW, I'm not saying that digital technology is bad.  I own and use several 
digital cameras.  I just believe that the end result of the "digital revolution"
is simply lots of people taking photos without understanding the craft of 
photography.




> We are debating film vs digital not manual vs automatic.


My comment on automation was directly in regards to your post about
"blaming the technology" (of digital cameras).


----------



## ifi

compur said:


> ifi said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there are no automatic film cameras?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there are but few compare with the automation of digital SLRs
> and there are many, many film cameras that are completely manual.
> 
> And, despite the automation of the the last breed of film cameras, they
> still encouraged more involvement with the craft of photography than do
> digital SLRs.
> 
> The major difference: With film one envisions a photograph in one's mind
> before photographing it.  This fosters skill in the craft.  With digital one
> is encouraged to just shoot with no pre-visualization.  This fosters laziness
> and "let the camera do it all" mentality.
> 
> BTW, I'm not saying that digital technology is bad.  I own and use several
> digital cameras.  I just believe that the end result of the "digital revolution"
> is simply lots of people taking photos without understanding the craft of
> photography.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are debating film vs digital not manual vs automatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My comment on automation was directly in regards to your post about
> "blaming the technology" (of digital cameras).
Click to expand...


The issue of affordability has nothing to do with film vs digital sensor based photography. I had many film based P&S and some Polaroids. The main reason most people think twice before taking a film photo is the cost. If film photography was as inexpensive as digital is today you would have found more people going crazy with it. 

The number of people who could afford a descent SLR 10 years ago is way less then the number of people who can afford a digital today.


----------



## compur

ifi said:


> The issue of affordability has nothing to do with film vs digital sensor based photography. I had many film based P&S and some Polaroids. The main reason most people think twice before taking a film photo is the cost. If film photography was as inexpensive as digital is today you would have found more people going crazy with it.
> 
> The number of people who could afford a descent SLR 10 years ago is way less then the number of people who can afford a digital today.



The issue of affordability???? Your comment seems unrelated to mine as I said 
nothing about affordability so I don't know why you included a quote 
of my post in your reply. As a matter of fact I don't understand your train
of thought at all or what it has to do with what came before.

But, thank you for sharing your views, whatever they may be.


----------



## ifi

compur said:


> The issue of affordability???? Your comment seems unrelated to mine as I said
> nothing about affordability so I don't know why you included a quote
> of my post in your reply. As a matter of fact I don't understand your train
> of thought at all or what it has to do with what came before.
> 
> But, thank you for sharing your views, whatever they may be.



I believe it is related to yours and some of other posts in this thread. I am just trying to add the missing component to your and other posts in this thread. People are stating the problem but ignoring the cause.
Anyways, you are welcome


----------



## compur

ifi said:


> compur said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are stating the problem but ignoring the cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What problem do you mean and what do you feel is its cause?
Click to expand...


----------



## epatsellis

Petraio Prime said:


> Asia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello everyone
> 
> I have read this forum for a couple of weeks and trying to find an answer to my question:
> 
> What makes film photography irreplaceable by digital one? Why so many people admit that digital photos are not that good?
> 
> I hope that there are enthusiasts of photography who could share their opinion and convince me that traditional photo do have soul
> 
> I would appreciate your help!  I am writing a project on the film photography phenomenon and I would be glad to support it with your opinion.
> 
> Thank you in advance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because 'digital' photography is the biggest fraud perpetrated on man since...well in history. Film _holds _much more detail....
Click to expand...


So, just any film? How about we shoot some product, your Leicaflex against my Sinar with a Betterlight 6K back. You can shoot the film of your choice. Care to wager which will have more detail, less noise and literally blow the other out of the water?


----------



## epatsellis

Petraio Prime said:


> compur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because 'digital' photography is the biggest fraud perpetrated on man since...well in history. Film _holds _much more detail....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find this an interesting and intriguing statement. I also happen to agree.
> 
> I also suspect you have much more info on this topic. Could you elaborate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well just look at the size of film grains vs the size of 4 sensor cells in digital cameras. There is some 'sharpness' but no fine  detail. Skin looks like vinyl. If you blow up a digital image beyond a certain point it simply breaks up. Film doesn't do that, at least not "all of a sudden".
> 
> Here is a nice analysis:
> 
> Spur Nano Edge, two
Click to expand...


the referenced article clearly ignores non Bayer Pattern Sensors, believe it or not, there are other options besides DSLR's for digital imaging. You may want to take a look around the betterlight site (specifically see http://www.betterlight.com/rest_of_the_picture.html) for some real world comparisions between dslr's, scanbacks and film before taking everything written in this article as gospel. 

I personally prefer film, but digital imaging has matured to the point (at least at the higher end) where it competes favorably with film, and in may ways (noise, detail ) surpasses it.


----------



## j-dogg

I recently made the jump to 35mm to sharpen my skills in the digital world. 35's can be had on the cheap comparitively and pawn shops are a haven for good 35mm stuff.


----------



## ifi

Obviously the OP's choice of words is biased, and OP is just looking for support to justify her ideology. OP does not bring anything to the table beside some questions and hoping for others to do her homework for her.

:addpics:


----------



## guitstik

epatsellis said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> compur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find this an interesting and intriguing statement. I also happen to agree.
> 
> I also suspect you have much more info on this topic. Could you elaborate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well just look at the size of film grains vs the size of 4 sensor cells in digital cameras. There is some 'sharpness' but no fine  detail. Skin looks like vinyl. If you blow up a digital image beyond a certain point it simply breaks up. Film doesn't do that, at least not "all of a sudden".
> 
> Here is a nice analysis:
> 
> Spur Nano Edge, two
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the referenced article clearly ignores non Bayer Pattern Sensors, believe it or not, there are other options besides DSLR's for digital imaging. You may want to take a look around the betterlight site (specifically see The Rest of the Picture) for some real world comparisions between dslr's, scanbacks and film before taking everything written in this article as gospel.
> 
> I personally prefer film, but digital imaging has matured to the point (at least at the higher end) where it competes favorably with film, and in may ways (noise, detail ) surpasses it.
Click to expand...


There in lies the point when you say "at the higher end", equate that to mean "more expensive".


----------



## epatsellis

surprisingly not as expensive as some of the outfits you see around here, what's a 1DSmkIII cost with a few L lenses, or a D3X with a few ED lenses??? $10K+??? it's not inconceivable to walk around with $25K in a camera bag these days between two bodies and a handful of L lenses. 

While a Betterlight 6k isn't cheap @ ~$15k, there are alternatives, the earlier version, the Dicomed Field Pro, gives you 90% of the performance for under (usually well under) $1k, as an example.


----------



## Petraio Prime

epatsellis said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> compur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find this an interesting and intriguing statement. I also happen to agree.
> 
> I also suspect you have much more info on this topic. Could you elaborate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well just look at the size of film grains vs the size of 4 sensor cells in digital cameras. There is some 'sharpness' but no fine  detail. Skin looks like vinyl. If you blow up a digital image beyond a certain point it simply breaks up. Film doesn't do that, at least not "all of a sudden".
> 
> Here is a nice analysis:
> 
> Spur Nano Edge, two
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the referenced article clearly ignores non Bayer Pattern Sensors, believe it or not, there are other options besides DSLR's for digital imaging. You may want to take a look around the betterlight site (specifically see The Rest of the Picture) for some real world comparisions between dslr's, scanbacks and film before taking everything written in this article as gospel.
> 
> I personally prefer film, but digital imaging has matured to the point (at least at the higher end) where it competes favorably with film, and in may ways (noise, detail ) surpasses it.
Click to expand...


It seems it's a large-format system that's the one being touted here. No surprises at all.


----------



## Mike_E

epatsellis said:


> surprisingly not as expensive as some of the outfits you see around here, what's a 1DSmkIII cost with a few L lenses, or a D3X with a few ED lenses??? $10K+??? it's not inconceivable to walk around with $25K in a camera bag these days between two bodies and a handful of L lenses.
> 
> While a Betterlight 6k isn't cheap @ ~$15k, there are alternatives, the earlier version, the Dicomed Field Pro, gives you 90% of the performance for under (usually well under) $1k, as an example.



Or an RB67 with some Ektar 100?  <$350

I still vote that either is OK it's just a matter of what you feel like using.  I have a car with an automatic transmission and I have one with a 4 speed.  Sometimes I like to run one through the gears.  (down-shifting through a Chicane is tough to replicate with an automatic though )


----------



## guitstik

I have probably less than $500 in all the cameras and lenses that I have purchased lately. Granted, when I purchased my first good camera back in the early 80,s (suddenly old) it was at least that much but a decent digital can run into the thousands. The point being, is that film is much less expensive than digital to get into but tends to add up when you start getting into developing. As I said before they both have there uses and everyone is going to have a different opinion so lets all just get along and play nice:hug::


----------



## ifi

guitstik said:


> I have probably less than $500 in all the cameras and lenses that I have purchased lately. Granted, when I purchased my first good camera back in the early 80,s (suddenly old) it was at least that much but a decent digital can run into the thousands. The point being, is that film is much less expensive than digital to get into but tends to add up when you start getting into developing. As I said before they both have there uses and everyone is going to have a different opinion so lets all just get along and play nice:hug::



 In 2009, * $500.00 * from 1980 is worth:

*  $1,300.00 * using the   Consumer Price Index 
* $1,150.00 *  using the   GDP deflator 
* $1,290.00 *  using the   unskilled wage 
* $1,430.00 *  using the   Production Worker Compensation 
*  $1,890.00 * using the   nominal GDP per capita 
* $2,560.00 *  using the   relative share of GDP 

Measuring Worth - Relative Value of US Dollars


----------



## guitstik

ifi said:


> guitstik said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have probably less than $500 in all the cameras and lenses that I have purchased lately. Granted, when I purchased my first good camera back in the early 80,s (suddenly old) it was at least that much but a decent digital can run into the thousands. The point being, is that film is much less expensive than digital to get into but tends to add up when you start getting into developing. As I said before they both have there uses and everyone is going to have a different opinion so lets all just get along and play nice:hug::
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2009, * $500.00 * from 1980 is worth:
> 
> *  $1,300.00 * using the   Consumer Price Index
> * $1,150.00 *  using the   GDP deflator
> * $1,290.00 *  using the   unskilled wage
> * $1,430.00 *  using the   Production Worker Compensation
> *  $1,890.00 * using the   nominal GDP per capita
> * $2,560.00 *  using the   relative share of GDP
> 
> Measuring Worth - Relative Value of US Dollars
Click to expand...


You can buy a run of the mill, low end user digital camera from Wal-Mart for about $400-$500.00 and that camera will not meet or exceed what can be taken with a film camera. It isn't until you get up into the 2-3K range that digital starts to overtake film. FYI, in 1983 I bought my first good high quality camera with about five different lenses (memory fails me) bags, filters and two tripods for a little over $500.00. Try doing that today with ANY camera.


----------



## christopher walrath

Well here's my story.  And there are three chapters.

Chapter I - What I was given

As a child in the early eighties, I was given a film camera, an old brownie.  It took 620.  There were the completely unskilled exposures of my brother and my grandmother in our modest front yard on the side of the Ohio Valley.  Our cat crossing the street.  I later used a Kodak disc camera.  Shot my 15th birthday party with that.  Used a point and shoot on a missions trip to Mexico.  Used my mother's X700 to shoot for the yearbook as a senior in high school under her basic instuction.  Was given a XG-M (MY FIRST REAL CAMERA).  And I used it sporadically.  I went on holiday with my father in North Carolina and made an accidental exposure of the Bodie Light south of Nags Head that opened my eyes to what I could really accomplish with photography.

Chapter II - What I could afford

OK.  You don't get rich selling spark plugs.  But I kept a'shooting.  I burned about 1,000 exposures in 2002.  My most productive year.  And I had about 25% keepers as I was just learning the nits and bolts of photography, beyond basic reciprocity education.  I yearned for a dream digital setup.  Back in 203 it would have set me back about $9,000 USD (could probably be had now for under 2).  But I could never afford the jump the way I wanted to.  In the meantime I continued to teach myself, partially through the mundane teachings of the NYIP and later through the writings of Ansel Adams and Galen Rowell.

Chapter III - 

What I would never give up.

I have shot film for so long that it has absolutely grown on me and I into it.  I moved through medium format into large format and seldom even pick up the 35mm anymore.  I taught myself to develop my own film with a little beginning help from friends elsewhere and then on to printing my own enlargements and contact printing of 4x5 negatives.  Over the last thirty years, I have become a film photographer.  And as I am not concerned with speed or profitability I have absolutely no need to even consider a change any further.

Epilogue

I gave my wife a Rebel xti for Christmas a couple of years ago.  I decided to fiddle with it one day.  I was able to make exposures in M mode, and others of course, kinda almost fool prrof, automatic modes.  But beyond exposure, it's a completely different ball game.  I would have to spend as much serious time as I have in film photography in order to acheive the same facility in digital photography.  So, I beleive that digital is not a lesser form of photography, no more than analog photography is a lesser art form than painting.  But I wouldn't change a thing.  Not for the world.  I would like a bigger darkroom, though.  ;p


----------



## stephen.2308

Asia said:


> Thank you for response
> 
> Till know I found out that opinions are divided. Film enthusiasts claim that digital cameras kill the art of photography. On the other hand, people whose job is connected with cameras admit that the digital cameras facilitate their work (e.g. taking a lot of photos and then working and retouching them).
> 
> I am looking for information about particular scenes which you could capture only while using analog camera (or only with digital one).



I don't necessarily agree that digital kills the art of photography, it is instead its own style of art. there are some people who prefer to work with film due to the fact that it is just more pleasing for them to work with (i would be one of them, i love feeling the project that im working on) and also some that just suck with digital editing and such.
personally, i prefer film, simply due to the fact that i haven't had the means to get a digital camera and play with it and really have a good experience.
also, having a thread like this may be like lighting a powder keg, in that you will find MASSES of people who want to make you feel the way that they feel about photography.


----------



## alexrock23

Personally I believe and hope that film will never die... There are far too many things you can do with film, that cannot  be reproduced with digital Like the grayscale, grain, various development processes, .. and on and on and on... As much as i enjoy the ease of digital photography, it simply is still not as beautiful as film produced images.


----------



## compur

Even if film dies we will still be able to create analog photos 
using the methods that existed before film was invented.


----------



## guitstik

If you were to run a poll of people on this forum that got started in photography by jumping into it with a DSLR and asked them if they felt a need to go to film you would find a large majority of them do. The reason being that digital is fine for taking pictures and you do need to know some of the basics but there is something missing and they know it instinctively. You find that those who are successful with digital have that foundation in film.


----------



## ifi

guitstik said:


> The reason being that digital is fine for taking pictures and you do need to know some of the basics but there is something missing and they know it instinctively.


What is missing? Please en light us. 



guitstik said:


> You find that those who are successful with digital have that foundation in film.



Are you suggesting that 10 years down the road there will not be any successful photographers?


----------



## Josh66

compur said:


> Even if film dies we will still be able to create analog photos
> using the methods that existed before film was invented.


LOL, I hope it never comes to that...




I don't think film will ever completely die, but it _will_ get scarce and expensive.

You can still buy new music on vinyl ... what does that tell you?


----------



## guitstik

ifi said:


> guitstik said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason being that digital is fine for taking pictures and you do need to know some of the basics but there is something missing and they know it instinctively.
> 
> 
> 
> What is missing? Please en light us.
Click to expand...


I shall "enlighten" you then. With digital, there is the comfort level of knowing that a mistake is just a matter of either deleting the picture or fixing it in PS. Film requires planning and a lot of thought concerning such things as lighting, shadow, contrast and so on. There is a whole litany of considerations in all photograph but digital is more "forgiving" than film.



ifi said:


> guitstik said:
> 
> 
> 
> You find that those who are successful with digital have that foundation in film.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that 10 years down the road there will not be any successful photographers?
Click to expand...


No. There will always be those who study and perfect their craft. There has been noted, of late, a resurgence in the study and use of film photography, film is on the ascendancy and will always be a viable alternative in the art of photography. There are many who would like to minimize films roll (pun intended) in photography because they want to see digital take the lead in photography but to do so minimizes all of photography.

Both digital and film have their place in the world and I am not saying that one is better than the other, heck, I use both.


----------



## Petraio Prime

guitstik said:


> If you were to run a poll of people on this forum that got started in photography by jumping into it with a DSLR and asked them if they felt a need to go to film you would find a large majority of them do. The reason being that digital is fine for taking pictures and you do need to know some of the basics but there is something missing and they know it instinctively. You find that those who are successful with digital have that foundation in film.



In the future, though, that wont be as true.


----------



## guitstik

Petraio Prime said:


> guitstik said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you were to run a poll of people on this forum that got started in photography by jumping into it with a DSLR and asked them if they felt a need to go to film you would find a large majority of them do. The reason being that digital is fine for taking pictures and you do need to know some of the basics but there is something missing and they know it instinctively. You find that those who are successful with digital have that foundation in film.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the future, though, that wont be as true.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, you're correct. There is a little M&P photography store that I go to most often just to talk and pick the proprietors brain about different things. Yesterday we were discussing time laps/star trail photography and the best equipment and FILM for it. My fear is that when he does finally close his doors for the last time all of that history and experience will just disappear.


----------



## scmindseye

Big said:


> But why shoot film if we can just "add grain" in Photoshop! :lmao:





Because in Adobe Photoshop (Or any other piece of computer software), EVERYTHING (including adding grain) is done by a series of scientific properties and mathematical algorithms, computations, and intricate lines of coding to represent a single editing action in the software.

In a darkroom, you are working with tangible chemicals, you are actually dodging and burning your own photographs with a machine by hand, not with mathematical computations that (although are good as in they are close to what the real deal is) are mathematical computations at best. It's the same situation as presented in the story of John Henry and the steam engine. John Henry beat that steam engine (albeit he did it and lost his life none the less he did it...) and proved that mankind will always be able to outsmart machines. The moment that man kind itself is creative enough to create something smarter/more powerful than it is the day we have a lot more problems/preferences to choose/deal with than film/digital lol.


I won't lie digital has it's place in the industry. It's quick, it's instantaneously global, etc, etc. But digital photography simply will never have the same substance and vitality as developing a tangible roll of unexposed silver gelatin negatives and enlarging them and then exposing the print versus using a wet ink/dry ink heat/laser application to print an image. It's just not the same.


----------



## dxqcanada

There's nothing like the smell of fixer in the morning !!


----------



## Josh66

scmindseye said:


> EVERYTHING (including adding grain) is done by a series of scientific properties and mathematical algorithms, computations, and intricate lines of coding to represent a single editing action in the software.
> 
> In a darkroom, you are working with tangible chemicals, you are actually dodging and burning your own photographs with a machine by hand, not with mathematical computations that (although are good as in they are close to what the real deal is) are mathematical computations at best.


Is that not science/math too?  I mean, just the fact that it is possible to write a program to do it (almost as good, lol) tells me that it is mathematical in nature...  It's not like it happens by magic or something...

Somebody had to figure the **** out, somebody designed the chems in a lab ...  I see it as different processes to get to (almost) the same result...

...and that coming from 'a film guy', lol.


----------



## Sw1tchFX

Three things sum up film for me: dynamic range, color, and tangibility. 

The new Portra 400 has almost 20 stops of dynamic range!! That means you can expose for the shadows and let your highlights do whatever without worry. Digital at best without going MF has about 12.

Fuji 400h, Velvia 50, any of the Portra's, Provia 100F, the color is just out of this world. just check out www.josevillablog.com, all this guy shoots with is 400h.

When we were all young, we shared memories with prints around the couch or table, when we all get old, how are we going to show our pictures from the past? What happens when we die? What is a digital picture? it's not even tangible, it's just 1's and 0's. Film is real, film is tangible.


Digital has its place for sure. when speed, turn-around time, absolutely accurate color, instant feedback, and absolutely no grain is wanted, digital is there. But for when you want something that's organic, digital is just cheap imitation.


----------



## thomas30

Hi, there. Changing is the nature. In my View, within few years there will be no name of film photography. Although film photography has some advantages. But, when we compare it with digital photography then we find digital photography is better than it.

*Advantages of Digital photography:*

1.Digital camera is equipped with memory card which can store more than 2TB information
2.It facilitates us to transfer our photos on computer and use the same memory from scratch
3.Digital camera helps you to edit your picture as you want.
4.Digital Photography is very cheap in comparison to film photography etc.


----------



## Josh66

thomas30 said:


> Hi, there. Changing is the nature. In my View, within few years there will be no name of film photography. Although film photography has some advantages. But, when we compare it with digital photography then we find digital photography is better than it.
> 
> *Advantages of Digital photography:*
> 
> 1.Digital camera is equipped with memory card which can store more than 2TB information
> 2.It facilitates us to transfer our photos on computer and use the same memory from scratch
> 3.Digital camera helps you to edit your picture as you want.
> 4.Digital Photography is very cheap in comparison to film photography etc.






edit
OK...

Strike 3 & 4 from the list, to start.  Film can be edited too, and I would not say that it costs more.  Digital bodies are much more expensive than their 35mm counterparts, and they don't last as long either - so it will need replaced sooner.  When you factor in the cost of memory cards, external drives for storage/back-up, etc - the digital costs start adding up.

#1 & 2 - Getting film onto the computer is not hard to do, if you wish to do so.  And being able to take thousands of pictures in one day is not an advantage to me.


Personal opinion, of course.

One of the most cited reasons why 'digital is better' is that you can mindlessly snap away, filling multiple memory cards in one outing.  Hopefully it's not just me, but that doesn't seem like something to strive for.


----------



## 1holegrouper

I have recently returned to film as my main technology. I still have and use digital but not for work I intend to sell. I really think what happens with your work is what is happening in the head of you the photographer and your mindset behind it- be it digital or film. For me, I take more careful thought when composing a film photograph and have more pride in my completed work done without software. In the galleries I visit and/or place pictures it seems that the highest dollar sales are mostly those taken by film.

So my theory is that the nostalgia and somewhat the more direct technology of film capture seems to draw higher interest to the main group of buyers of fine art photography, there are always exceptions. I'm sure that will change in the future but that is what I see for now. If I was an event photographer I would probably mainly use digital but I'm not.


----------



## compur

A digital image (whether taken with a digital camera or digitized from film) consists of a grid of evenly spaced 
dots of identical size, each having a tone/color value chosen from a finite set of tones/values.

The world around us is not made up of such a grid but rather by randomly sized, positioned, toned and colored 
things of infinite variety and "random-ness."

So, a digital image is a sort of counterfeit -- it is a fabricated approximation which hides its false nature via 
miniaturization from the "naked eye." But, the mind sees more than the naked eye and is not fooled.  This is why 
digital images are said to have "no soul."  They are simply a grid of dots that resemble the scene if viewed from a 
great enough distance. 

A film photograph (one that has not been digitized) is a counterfeit too but less so than the digital image (my opinion). 
A film photo is made via random particles of infinite variety of size, position, tone and color.  A film photograph therefore 
more accurately represents the random nature of real life scenes. Even when enlarged to the point that its grain 
is visible, a film photograph is a more accurate representation of a real life scene than a digital image for that reason.

Contrary to common belief there are no film photographs on the internet.  Many people today think they are looking 
at film photographs when they look at "old school images" posted on the net but all images on the internet are digitized 
images, even those that began as film images.  They had to be digitized to be stored for view on the internet and they 
are being viewed by a digitizing computer & monitor. They couldn't be posted otherwise.  Many people today have never 
actually seen real, quality film photographs or have only seen poorly made amateur snapshot prints.  Also, film photos 
that have been scanned from negatives or slides and then printed via computer printer are not the same as images made 
entirely within the technology of film photography and printed on silver-based (or other photosensitive metal-based) paper.

To be clear, I'm not saying there is anything wrong or bad about digital photography -- i use it myself for certain purposes.
I'm just saying that digital and film photography are not the same medium and should not be compared as if they were.


----------



## thomas30

O|||||||O said:


> thomas30 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, there. Changing is the nature. In my View, within few years there will be no name of film photography. Although film photography has some advantages. But, when we compare it with digital photography then we find digital photography is better than it.
> 
> *Advantages of Digital photography:*
> 
> 1.Digital camera is equipped with memory card which can store more than 2TB information
> 2.It facilitates us to transfer our photos on computer and use the same memory from scratch
> 3.Digital camera helps you to edit your picture as you want.
> 4.Digital Photography is very cheap in comparison to film photography etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edit
> OK...
> 
> Strike 3 & 4 from the list, to start.  Film can be edited too, and I would not say that it costs more.  Digital bodies are much more expensive than their 35mm counterparts, and they don't last as long either - so it will need replaced sooner.  When you factor in the cost of memory cards, external drives for storage/back-up, etc - the digital costs start adding up.
> 
> #1 & 2 - Getting film onto the computer is not hard to do, if you wish to do so.  And being able to take thousands of pictures in one day is not an advantage to me.
> 
> 
> Personal opinion, of course.
> 
> One of the most cited reasons why 'digital is better' is that you can mindlessly snap away, filling multiple memory cards in one outing.  Hopefully it's not just me, but that doesn't seem like something to strive for.
Click to expand...


buddy thanks for enhancing my post. really appreciate your opinion.


----------



## iinanking

Digital has come a long way in quality, but there are certain effects digital cannot replace without it looking like a standard photo editor filter. FStoppers recently posted a documentary on Sally Mann's work. 

Her process, and the texture/dreamy feel it gives her work really can't be replaced by digital. She even at one point outright says that it's the mistakes she makes in her process that makes the photo so great at times. Great documentary. You should check it out. 

http://fstoppers.com/art-or-pornography-the-life-and-work-of-sally-mann


----------



## Professional

Well, at the end all what i found out is that whether digital or film if i can't use any to what it should be and enjoy it then none will do the job and none is the right tool for me, i started film last year to see if it has something different than digital, well, it has, but also digital has something different that film can't do as well, we have to accept the fact that photography started by people who noticed the light and then later invented the film to keep what they saw and then digital came after as revolution, who knows how will digital be after 10 years from now, before 10 years digital was not that all important as now, and i used film since last year and i feel it didn't make me any different than shooting with digital, and that issue of film will slow me done is not true, let's say it is not a matter for me because i was slowed down with digital even before i start film shooting.

the end of story is, digital will keep developing and move on, film is dying slowly unless the manufacturers not the photographers deciding to keep invention of film, imagine if all film manufacturers decided suddenly to stop producing film then what are you photographers can do? I just hope they don't stop producing film so i can keep shooting film since last year, otherwise i will feel regret i started film so late when i will end up to not using it due to discontinuity.


----------



## michaelphotobro

lately I've been missing film. I started out in film and cried when digital started picking up momentum. recently I rented a Nikon FM2, put some Fuji pro slide film in and started shooting. What I noticed most was that I immediately slowed down. I was careful and focused on every shoot. I was thinking! I spent more time composing and looking at the subject than I ever did with my DSLR. I plan to cross process the chrome scan and tweak in Light Room. I had so much fun shooting that I plan to purchase a film camera in coming months. I hope that film is not discontinued.


----------



## 1holegrouper

I think saying film will disappear as a medium is like saying painting will disappear in lieu of graphic art


----------



## sandersjessica

My uncle loves taking photographs and he tries to bring the same out of his two sons. First he gave them digital camera. He said that because in a digital camera, you don&#8217;t waste rolls so he gave them digital. Then he gave them film camera and lomography camera. Since then I haven&#8217;t seen the teenagers using digital camera even once. I guess there is something to film camera.


----------



## SunnyHours

c.cloudwalker said:


> Asia said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMO taking photos using digital camera is simple and you can see the efect right away (passing over the minimal cost of it). While using analog camera requires some knowledge and experience
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The skill set required is somewhat the same whether you shoot in digital or film. An image is properly composed, properly lit, properly exposed, etc in the same manner no matter what. As far as shooting is concerned a good digital photographer can be as good shooting film and vice versa.
> 
> The only thing that really changes is the PP. In one case it is done on a computer and, in the other, in a darkroom.
> 
> Ultimately, neither is better, it is mostly a question of preference. There is good and bad on both sides.
> 
> In a way it is the same debate as the vinyl vs CD one. Some people prefer one and some prefer the other. And then there's people like me who enjoy CDs because all of a sudden I can hear things that never came thru on the vinyl but I also enjoy the warmth of the sound on vinyl.
Click to expand...


I want to add that, I recently started shooting film...very recently and even if I haven't seen the results yet, I think it's an important part of photography and I believe it'll make me a better photographer. I pay much more attention to my settings, I choose more carefully my subjects and I usually take composition more into account with film than I would in Digital...

With Digital I tend to shoot first and ask questions later...which I don't think is the right way to do things...I'm almost thinking of going film only because of that...


----------



## Gromit801

A lot of good points.  Here's mine.

1.  I have dents in my old SRT-201 (still works fine) that would have destroyed a digital camera.
2.  If the battery in any of my three film bodies dies, I can still shoot photos.
3.  If my computer crashes, hard drives crash.... I have my film or prints right there to look at.  Priced out a data retrieval for a crashed drive?
4.  If my electricity goes out, I can still examine my prints (face it, most digital users do not make prints).
5.  Film, is an art form.


----------



## wwwphil

Just about sums it up.


----------



## doro

First of all, film photography limits you to 36 frames (in some cases in fewer), which forces you to think twice before pushing the shutter button. When taking photos with film cameras, everyone is starting to do what they most often forget, when they are shooting digital: to look at the frame and try to figure out what is the best way to photograph it.

When I take photos with my dslr, sometimes I take 10 or even 20 photos of the same object. I don't think which perspective and which settings are the best. I just use all the settings, having in mind that 20 pictures is better than one. This is absolutely wrong and film photography reminds me every time of it.

Second, as some have mentioned it above me, film photography gives a slightly different nuance to the colors. It makes everything somehow dreamy and I like the effect a lot.


----------



## Arpeggio9

Number one reason I like shooting film is the end result I get with it. To me, film photographs just look very pleasing and organic and it's well worth the effort and price involved with developing and buying film. In addition to that, I just enjoy the process of shooting which naturally tends to put me in a creative zone that I really like. I also like the fact that most of the time I really don't feel the need to change the photos in any way except to fix some of the scanner or camera dust blemishes that show up after scanning, and it's mostly a 3 minute deal for each photo. I have 70-200 zoom lens, 50 mm one, 84' Yashica fx3 super 2000 body, and I just feel content and at ease with what I have camera equipment wise. I wanna get the film scanner and learn how to develop my film, but till then, I just take the roll to a local photo lab and I'm all set.


----------



## PhotoWrangler

Asia said:


> What makes film photography irreplaceable by digital one? Why so many people admit that digital photos are not that good?





In my opinion, digital tools have taken all of the 'art' out of photography. Its no longer about craftsmanship, patience, surprise, skill, talent, and magic. Its about the new hazy filter, or vintage preset from the popular Photoshop Action design company.  You no longer have to think about it, because your camera and computer do so much thinking for you. All you have to do is look at a screen and click... click.... click... click. Add a Photoshop action here, or a Lightroom preset there, and just like that, your image looks just like the photo from the next guy. 

But when I set up my manual camera, and meter the light, and take the shot, and develop my film, and enlarge my print, and go through all the steps of chemistry - that photo is mine. There isn't a single photoshop action that will allow you to produce that exact same image. You might get close - you might produce something better, or worse - but that image was made with my hands, and its mine. 

I don't necessarily think that one genre is better than the other, but they are certainly different. It doesn't matter how fast the data transfer rate is on your memory card, or how many ways you can change an image with an action or preset, nothing will ever replace the feeling you get when you put the paper in the developer and watch that image appear. Its magic.


----------



## TMuhammad

Personally, I don't like how digital users can take a picture and photoshop it to perfection. Magazines TOTALLY overuse it. But I get it, you want to produce the very best photo possible.  But wouldn't it be easier to just take a good photo(which is the entire point of practicing photography). And besides, that shutter click and hand-wind sound like heaven to me.


----------



## orlovphoto

film is real - digital is 01010010111101010101010111010110100101101001101010010101010000011110101010101010 bull****


----------



## Crollo

Come on guys, can we seriously just post film pros instead of only posting digital cons? Jesus.
If all you're going to do is post digital cons you're going to have to post film cons too, otherwise you're just being biased and idiotic.


----------

