# Why Film?



## urufan56 (Nov 6, 2008)

Hey! I was just wondering why you guys use film. I have nothing against it! I was just wondering if there is anything about film that is keeping it alive. For instance, Walmart and other stores still sell film and develop it and many people say it is a dead medium. I've used film before and I like it (But don't know why...lol). Just wanting your input! Thanks!


----------



## bhop (Nov 6, 2008)

I like the dynamic range and the fact that it usually doesn't look "perfect" like digital seems to.  Plus I just like to use my old cameras and you have to put film in them or they won't make pictures.


----------



## Helen B (Nov 6, 2008)

I suspect that a lot of it is because of personal preference and circumstance. People can argue endlessly (and pointlessly) about the supposed advantages of one medium over the other in various respects but what is a valid reason for one person in one situation may not be valid for another person in the same situation, or the same person in another situation. More simply: We do what we feel is right for us, and hopefully we let others do what is right for them.

One of the reasons I still use a lot of film is that there is a wide variety of film cameras available, and I can use the camera that is most appropriate for the job. There is no digital equivalent of a TLR like the Rolleiflex, or of a folding medium format camera like the Plaubel Makina W67, to give two examples.

I do find that I can get better resolution and dynamic range from 35 mm film than I can from my Nikon D3 at low ISOs, but the D3 outperforms film at ISO/EI 1600 and above (it's a very close race at ISO 800, not least because modern ISO 800 film has remarkably low graininess and enormous dynamic range).

Best,
Helen


----------



## Paul Ron (Nov 6, 2008)

Why oil paint? WHy water color? Why sculpt? Why does any artist choose the medium they love to use? 

I just like the chemicals n playing in the dark, man!


----------



## djacobox372 (Nov 6, 2008)

Because I like the smell of fixer 

Also because film makes up for my lack of exposure ability.


----------



## compur (Nov 6, 2008)

Because - 

- the simpler tools of traditional photography allow me to get more involved
with the art and craft of making photographs.

- I prefer photographic prints made of silver and other precious metals.

- I enjoy making photos with vintage cameras, in some cases costing very
little, that challenge my knowledge and skill as a photographer.

- And, I enjoy the art and craft of darkroom work.


----------



## urufan56 (Nov 7, 2008)

Thanks guys!  You all have good points! Anyone else have a comment?

Thanks again!


----------



## Steph (Nov 7, 2008)

When I shoot negative film, I am excited when I get the prints from the lab. I get even more excited when I get MF slides and look at them on a lightbox. I don't get the same excitement when I look at the screen on the back of a dSLR or when I download pictures to a computer. Instant gratification does not to it for me.


----------



## christopher walrath (Nov 7, 2008)

Basically because when I started it was all there was.  Then because it was all I had.  Then because I could afford it.  Then it kinda grows on you.  I have devoted more than twenty years to film photography so far and I think a little of my soul would print out well on RC paper.  But my favorite answer by far . . .

Because it's there . . .


----------



## SilverGlow (Nov 7, 2008)

I prefer black & white film over digital.  I like to develop the film myself, and master it in the darkroom, print it, and I embrace the fruit from my work.  I like the flexability of the wet darkroom in regard to B&W.  The smell of the chemicals is part of the experience too ;-)

As to color, I prefer digital, as I think digital color is better, but this is subjective of course.


----------



## RebelTasha (Nov 7, 2008)

I've recently gone back to film at least to use once every month or two because digital images can be gone in a flash, even when I have most all mine printed out you still loose the originals if you loose your hard drive or your CD's let you down.
Negatives will be with you forever, you can still scan them, print them store them just like digital but you still have the negative which you can do SO much with.
JMO


----------



## SilverGlow (Nov 7, 2008)

RebelTasha said:


> I've recently gone back to film at least to use once every month or two because digital images can be gone in a flash, even when I have most all mine printed out you still loose the originals if you loose your hard drive or your CD's let you down.
> Negatives will be with you forever, you can still scan them, print them store them just like digital but you still have the negative which you can do SO much with.
> JMO


 
Losing digital images doesn't have to be a foregone conclusion, as you seem to suggest. 

I've had 3-4 hard disk crashes over the years, and have never lost even one image. It's about backing up, making several copies, storing in different locations, and these strategies can be done fast and very cheaply.

When archived properly, digital files can be saved centuries after the best kept negatives have deteriorated.

As to making prints for purposes of archival...this is a great way to present pictures, and is perhaps the worse way to archive pictures. Scanning can degrade the image quality of the original. Ever see a scan of a scan of a scan? Why trust your picture to one original copy? Digital means the 1 millionth copy of a file is exactly the same as the original, so in effect you can have several top quality "originals".

But I do share you love for film...I just don't want anyone to think that digital files are a matter of when they'll get lost, because they don't ever have to get lost.


----------



## RebelTasha (Nov 7, 2008)

I have 3 hard drives, CD's and various online places and real photo albums I just don't like it though I'm not comfortable and quite honestly I feel panic attacks coming on just thinking about it.. 
I don't have any of those feelings with negatives.. 
I am a bit strange though so maybe that's why.. haha!


----------



## christopher walrath (Nov 7, 2008)

Not strange, just eccentric.  Prerequisite to film photography, ya know.


----------



## urufan56 (Nov 7, 2008)

I haven't been into photography for very long (only a year or two.) but I still think film is cool. I've got another question about film: Is it a serious problem to use film because of its cost? What do you guys (and girls...I'm sure!) think about this. BTW I don't want to start a digital vs. film battle! Thanks!

Also thanks for the comments!


----------



## christopher walrath (Nov 7, 2008)

I got started developing my own B&W film with zero gear and chems before my purchase and I also picked enough film to last the year (starting to get low now) for $375.00.  So if you're paying $7.00 a 24 neg roll your paying around $.30 per neg and print.  My 36 exposure rolls I am processing for around $.16 per neg.  You do the math.  And it's fun and the learning curve is real short.  Besides, you get to hide in the half bath downstairs for hours at a time in a dark room, huffing chems, rapping and agitating to your hearts content . . .  Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


----------



## urufan56 (Nov 7, 2008)

Wow...I didn't know you could get it that cheap...anyone else have anything?

BTW



> I got started developing my own B&W film with zero gear and chems before my purchase and I also picked enough film to last the year (starting to get low now) for $375.00.


What kind of film did you buy? Pro. or a cheap brand?


----------



## christopher walrath (Nov 8, 2008)

Kodak TMY 35mm and 120, some Efke 25 for my matchbox pinholes and aritsa.edu from Freestyle 4x5 sheets, 100ISO.


----------



## willard3 (Nov 8, 2008)

I use both film and digital.

I can get a 20 meg film scan and I can't get a 20 meg digital file.

I use film in low light because, at higher ISO, film makes  better images.

I use digital in lots of light because the camera is lighter and easier to carry.

Film has more exposure latitude than digital.


----------



## urufan56 (Nov 8, 2008)

Cool! Yeah, thats what I've heard about film in the low-light conditions! Has anyone used the new Ektar 100 film yet? I've been wondering about how well it works! So does anyone else have anything to say?



> Kodak TMY 35mm and 120, some Efke 25 for my matchbox pinholes and aritsa.edu from Freestyle 4x5 sheets, 100ISO.


Where did you buy this film? Do you have to order it over the web or can you get it at Walmart? Is it expensive? Is it Pro. film?

Thanks!


----------



## christopher walrath (Nov 8, 2008)

I got 30 rolls of Kodak TMY 120 roll film, 10 rolls of TMY 135 film, 4 rolls of Efke 25 135 film from B&H along with all of the gear and chemistry.  Here's a link to my starting list a rundown of my process.

https://home.comcast.net/~flash19901/articles_BP_c14_process.htm

I recently picked up the arista 4x5 sheets from Freestyle.  The TMax is a professional film and has good contrast on a well controlled negative IMHO.  The Efke is not pro, per se, but the slow speed allows me to make pinhole images of brighter subjects without having to raise and lower the cover on my matchbox pinholes for an eighth of a second or whatever.  It's well worth the investment and as I said, easy to learn.

(I think we just got another one to join the dark side, guys)


----------



## urufan56 (Nov 8, 2008)

Thanks a lot! (Dunno what else to say...lol)


----------



## Helen B (Nov 9, 2008)

urufan56 said:


> Has anyone used the new Ektar 100 film yet? I've been wondering about how well it works!



I bought 10 rolls to try, but haven't had time to scan the first tests I've made yet. The results I've seen from other photographers look very good for both colour and resolution.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Paul Ron (Nov 9, 2008)

They say a picture is worth a thousand words... since digital a picture is now worth about a thousand bucks. 

So why would you be so concerned about the cost of the film at that reasale value?


----------



## urufan56 (Nov 9, 2008)

> They say a picture is worth a thousand words... since digital a picture is now worth about a thousand bucks.
> 
> So why would you be so concerned about the cost of the film at that reasale value?


If I understand your point correctly, then I would have to say that I'm sure that every film user is concered about how much he/she will have to pay to buy film. But you do make a good point. Also keep in mind that I'm poor and try to get the best bang for my buck.


----------



## KD5NRH (Nov 9, 2008)

Since I do most of my film work in B&W, the film prices can vary, but mostly pretty cheap.  For 35mm, I've been using more Ilford Delta Pro ISO100 and 400, $3.59-3.79/24exp roll at Adorama.  A few cents more at Freestyle, and B&H is $.09 cheaper on 100, but $.16 more for 400.

(Interesting side note; as far as I can remember, just now was the first time I've ever gone to B&H's site without getting the "we're closed" or "we're going to be closed" popup.)


----------



## urufan56 (Nov 9, 2008)

O ok...that pretty cheap!


----------



## Battou (Nov 9, 2008)

urufan56 said:


> If I understand your point correctly, then I would have to say that I'm sure that every film user is concered about how much he/she will have to pay to buy film.



On the contrary, he is saying that overhead to produce digital photos is higher than that of film and not to over freat on the cost of film.

As a film Photographer I am not concerned in the least about what I pay for film, and I too am broke, in fact I spent my last five dollars on cigeretts last week broke.


----------



## urufan56 (Nov 9, 2008)

Your right, you make a good pont, I'll just not try to think about it! 



> On the contrary, he is saying that overhead to produce digital photos is higher than that of film and not to over freat on the cost of film.



Your right, but isn't it true that digital costs more in the beginning but for film you have to constantly keep paying for film? jw


----------



## Battou (Nov 9, 2008)

urufan56 said:


> Your right, you make a good pont, I'll just not try to think about it!
> 
> 
> 
> Your right, but isn't it true that digital costs more in the beginning but for film you have to constantly keep paying for film? jw



In a sence, but think of it this way. We are spreading out our expence over a duration of time with affordable increments. 

Additionally, Like anyone else we can spend our money when we have it, correct? Well...I have a over thousand dollars worth of lenses, My lens inventory is well in excess of thirty lenses, including but not limited to two 400mm primes on different mounts. However digital users will break the thousand dollar marker on a couple two maybe three lenses. For a user of modern equipment to build and maintain in inventory as vast as mine they would be spending nearly a million dollars if not more, especially considering the modern equivalent to some of my lenses can run upwards of a grand. My Vivitar 400mm tele (Canon mount) cost me $100 USD (the most expencive lens in my collection) and I reasently saw one on E-bay with a buy it now of $78 USD. Since I can't find an exact third party equivalent on the modern Canon mount I have to go with the two closest, They are the Sigma 300mm f/2.8 APO valued at $2,699.00 and the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 APO valued at $4,699.00 at Adoroma. That is one hell of an impact on the wallet that we are avoiding to produce imagery. When I need a lens I can buy it and have it then with out blowing the budget, I don't need to wait and save money for the most part (there are exceptions to this but). I used the Canon mount specifically as I see you are shooting an AE-1 that uses the same FD mount lenses I use on my EF. Nikon and other manufacturers are different but I know Canon.

I may be broke, but I am not in debt. My car is paid for, my home is paid for, my camera is paid for, my lenses are paid for and no credit card bills. How many people with modern 300, 400 and 500mm primes can say that? Not many I would assume, This modern era with credit and all allows people to span these exspendatures out over time as well, so they too are constantly paying out for their glass untill such time that it is paid off, it just goes to the credit card people. All in all the "in the beginning" as you put it, is not as short a period of time as many would like you to believe.

Ten bucks for a few rolls of film every week or two and/or fifty to a hundred bucks for a lens on the rare occation when I find the need for one I lack, I'll take that anyday over a few hundred dollars a week in credit card payments


----------



## danjchau (Nov 10, 2008)

-------------


----------



## MrsMoo (Nov 10, 2008)

I love film tbh
but with all this digital stuff thats out, it's kinda ruining photography a bit


----------



## Patm1313 (Nov 10, 2008)

There's a lot of different reasons, one of which that it produces a different effect than digital. Another reason is that when working with limited shots you must get the best photos, which in turn produces the highest quality shot ratio as compared to digital.


----------



## pete_6109 (Nov 10, 2008)

I still shoot film because I enjoy the challenge of it all. I usually shoot digital for the web or for parties, etc., but I love using film cameras to force myself to slow down and really understand what is happening when I capture an image. I love old cameras with no auto anything where I have to use a light meter to select an appropriate aperture and shutter speed to try to successfully capture on film what I am seeing with my eyes. I also hate autofocus!!!! However, I do think digital cameras can be used to an advantage when shooting film. Especially when I shoot large format. I like to take a digital picture of a scene before I commit it to film. I set my digital camera on manual and use the same settings I get from my meter to take a digital picture of the scene. Then I can judge the exposure I've selected and make any needed adjustments in real time before I commit the photo to film.
This attached image of the Fire island Lighthouse was scanned from a 4x5 contact print so please excuse the quality. It was taken with a 1946 Speed Graphic using a 165mm Ilex Paragon lens on Kodak Tri-X 4x5 black and white sheet film. This was the first picture I took with this camera and it got me hooked on shooting with old large format cameras. If you could see the 11x14 print of this image the clarity would amaze you. You can actually count the individual shingles on the roof of the building. Simply amazing!!!!!


----------



## urufan56 (Nov 10, 2008)

> In a sence, but think of it this way. We are spreading out our expence over a duration of time with affordable increments.
> 
> Additionally, Like anyone else we can spend our money when we have it, correct? Well...I have a over thousand dollars worth of lenses, My lens inventory is well in excess of thirty lenses, including but not limited to two 400mm primes on different mounts. However digital users will break the thousand dollar marker on a couple two maybe three lenses. For a user of modern equipment to build and maintain in inventory as vast as mine they would be spending nearly a million dollars if not more, especially considering the modern equivalent to some of my lenses can run upwards of a grand. My Vivitar 400mm tele (Canon mount) cost me $100 USD (the most expencive lens in my collection) and I reasently saw one on E-bay with a buy it now of $78 USD. Since I can't find an exact third party equivalent on the modern Canon mount I have to go with the two closest, They are the Sigma 300mm f/2.8 APO valued at $2,699.00 and the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 APO valued at $4,699.00 at Adoroma. That is one hell of an impact on the wallet that we are avoiding to produce imagery. When I need a lens I can buy it and have it then with out blowing the budget, I don't need to wait and save money for the most part (there are exceptions to this but). I used the Canon mount specifically as I see you are shooting an AE-1 that uses the same FD mount lenses I use on my EF. Nikon and other manufacturers are different but I know Canon.
> 
> ...


I've think you've convinced me! Therefore there is only one word to say. Brilliant.

BTW: Pete, that is a beautiful photograph!


----------



## djacobox372 (Nov 10, 2008)

christopher walrath said:


> I got started developing my own B&W film with zero gear and chems before my purchase and I also picked enough film to last the year (starting to get low now) for $375.00.  So if you're paying $7.00 a 24 neg roll your paying around $.30 per neg and print.  My 36 exposure rolls I am processing for around $.16 per neg.  You do the math.  And it's fun and the learning curve is real short.  Besides, you get to hide in the half bath downstairs for hours at a time in a dark room, huffing chems, rapping and agitating to your hearts content . . .  Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh



16 cents per negative? B&W processing shouldn't be that expensive.  My processing costs are just over 1 cent per negative for the chemicals.


----------



## Helen B (Nov 10, 2008)

djacobox372 said:


> 16 cents per negative? B&W processing shouldn't be that expensive.  My processing costs are just over 1 cent per negative for the chemicals.



Indeed. Even 10 cents per negative is fairly expensive. If you wanted to, you could probably get costs under 1 cent per negative while still using good quality developer and fixer - but you do need to use the fixer efficiently.

Best,
Helen


----------



## randerson07 (Nov 11, 2008)

djacobox372 said:


> 16 cents per negative? B&W processing shouldn't be that expensive.  My processing costs are just over 1 cent per negative for the chemicals.



I believe that includes prints.


----------



## Helen B (Nov 11, 2008)

randerson07 said:


> I believe that includes prints.



It would sound a lot more reasonable, but Chris has said a number of times that he is a comparative newcomer to this game and hasn't started printing yet: recent example post.

Best,
Helen


----------



## christopher walrath (Nov 11, 2008)

And as usual SHE's there to point it out.  Get off it.


----------



## djacobox372 (Nov 12, 2008)

christopher walrath said:


> And as usual SHE's there to point it out. Get off it.


 
Just trying to help you out buddy.... sorry if you were offended.


----------



## Helen B (Nov 12, 2008)

christopher walrath said:


> And as usual SHE's there to point it out.  Get off it.



Chris,

Why do you post to forums if you do not wish to engage in rational discussion of simple technical issues? Why do you think that it is a personal issue?

Best,
Helen


----------



## SilverGlow (Nov 12, 2008)

Helen B said:


> Chris,
> 
> Why do you post to forums if you do not wish to engage in rational discussion of simple technical issues? Why do you think that it is a personal issue?
> 
> ...


 
In a word, Helen, the reason is "youth".  My 20 year old daughter comes to me for advise.  I calmly nicely give it, but it is not what she wants to hear, so now I am "rude", "negative", and "you just don't understand".  These are her knee-jerk reactions when I give the "wrong answer".  ;-) lol

And if you have one or more Teens, well you know.....If I had a chance to do it all over again, I would.....ah.....nevermind....


----------



## mrsifuentes (Apr 10, 2009)

for me its the tangibility of film. examining a negative with my own finger tips. hearing the film roll finish. the attention to detail.


----------



## zandman (Apr 11, 2009)

MrsMoo said:


> but with all this digital stuff thats out, it's kinda ruining photography a bit


 
agree, everybody who owns a dslr is a photographer now.
"o0oh, check me out with my cool camera, i'll take a picture of a flower, no, i've taken a photograph, i'll bring it to walgreens and get it enlarge and put it in my living room so my friends would see that i'm a photographer". hehe. good stuff.


----------



## zandman (Apr 11, 2009)

SilverGlow said:


> In a word, Helen, the reason is "youth". My 20 year old daughter comes to me for advise. I calmly nicely give it, but it is not what she wants to hear, so now I am "rude", "negative", and "you just don't understand". These are her knee-jerk reactions when I give the "wrong answer". ;-) lol
> 
> And if you have one or more Teens, well you know.....If I had a chance to do it all over again, I would.....ah.....nevermind....


 
ouch.. yea, true. but we all need to put ourselves into each other's shoe.


----------



## Chris Sandström (Apr 12, 2009)

Hi,
While some people keep using film, the market for it has still declined at a rapid pace. Most film manufacturers have gone out of business or suffered greatly.

Kodak:
Disruptive Innovation, Kodak and digital imaging

Ilford:
Ilford and the Death of Film

Agfa
Disruptive Innovation and AgfaPhoto

Polaroid
Disruptive Innovation And The Bankruptcy Of Polaroid


Best,

Chris


----------



## ann (Apr 12, 2009)

ilford is still alive and doing fine.

if film is dead what will the new folder camera being introduced this year use


----------



## Moonlighter (Apr 13, 2009)

film photography is exellent to begin with) it teaches attention, patience, accuracy - you think while you photograph, and that is hard for beginners with digicams. It is basics, in my opinion. 
and you know many are in this hobby, those who's even gone digital. 
when in a darkroom i develop my images i think - that is Art


----------



## planar (Apr 21, 2009)

urufan56 said:


> Hey! I was just wondering why you guys use film. I have nothing against it! I was just wondering if there is anything about film that is keeping it alive. For instance, Walmart and other stores still sell film and develop it and many people say it is a dead medium. I've used film before and I like it (But don't know why...lol). Just wanting your input! Thanks!



I don't want to start a war by saying that film is better. So I won't say film is better.


----------



## Tom Sawyer (Apr 21, 2009)

Happily, Ilford is, as said, alive and doing fine:



			
				ilfordphoto.com said:
			
		

> The demand for traditional monochrome films and papers remains strong. With Agfa no longer in the black and white photographic market, and Kodak pulling out of manufacturing black and white papers the future of ILFORD PHOTO products looks good for years to come.


----------



## blash (Apr 21, 2009)

My view is that Agfa made some really spectacular film - you can still buy Agfapan APX 400 from B&H (expiration date in 2011) and the grain is virtually impossible to see even under the grain focuser - and it's a 400 speed film! Absolutely amazing. Unfortunately it's a little expensive and as Agfa is no longer around... so I'll settle for Ilford HP5+, for which the grain may be visible to be sure but it's a wonderful structure with lots of character.

So long as there is B&W film to be bought, we will buy it. The B&W film process is easy, forgiving, and Ilford film produces some truly great images. Simple as that. Ilford is going pretty strong now that they've downsized to meet the (so far as I'm concerned), stable "new market" for B&W film.


----------



## KevinDks (Apr 22, 2009)

I love to project slides, and last year I bought a brand new slide projector (yes, they are still made, mine is a Braun from Germany), so we have family slide shows quite often. I was using Fuji E6 films, Velvia and Provia, but then I started buying vintage slides on eBay, like this one from 1963, which is how I discovered Kodachrome. As long as they are kept in the dark and not in high humidity the colours fade extremely slowly, more so than any other film. My oldest Kodachromes are 50 years old now and look as fresh as those I took myself last month.

Now around 95% of what I shoot is on Kodachrome, and it probably will be until Kodak stop selling it, or I die, whichever is sooner. My money is on Kodachrome going first, by around 40 years, in which case I'll go back to E6 films. For now I would urge anyone who has a 35mm camera to shoot at least one roll of Kodachrome while you still can. For those of us in the UK it is the cheapest process-paid slide film you can get, as long as you buy it from 7dayshop.com.

I have just started a personal project, in which I am going to attempt to re-shoot most of the 280 or so London photos taken on Kodachrome in 1960, '61 and '65 by Charles Cushman, whose archive of 14,500 images you can find on this website. Obviously I'll be doing it on Kodachrome too.

Kevin


----------

