# Why did you choose film?



## LauraPlank (Jul 12, 2007)

Hi, I know there have been various topics on here about the good old film vs digital debate but I wanted to start a new one based souly on everyones personal experiences with film and digital and why they ended up choosing film.


Based on your work I mean, why did traditional photography fit your own needs for a certain picture better?

Also, if anyone is interested in doing an online web interview about their work then can you PM me? I will just ask you about your favourite pieces and equipment you used and personal opinions. 

This will all be used in my research and perhaps a presentation for a film vs digital essay. 

Any help would be gratefully appreciated. 


Laura


----------



## Alex_B (Jul 12, 2007)

dynamic range on film is better. very contrasty shots / complicated ambient light gives digital sensors a hard time due to their limited dynamical range...

i live in both worlds.


----------



## sabbath999 (Jul 12, 2007)

I still shoot film when I shoot medium format because it offers an image quality that digital simply can not duplicate.


----------



## deanimator (Jul 12, 2007)

I only shoot digital if I need the speed...or if the shot isn´t really very important.


----------



## blackdoglab (Jul 12, 2007)

I shoot filme because i like the process of shooting and developing.  When I shoot color, I often shoot with expired film in hopes of finding ahappy accident on the part of the film and the light.


----------



## ann (Jul 12, 2007)

i love film, the look, the process.  After almost 60 years of doing darkroom work ; the magic of watching a print appear like magic still makes my heart sing.

I rather make bread from scatch rather than use a machine.

I do on occasion use digital and for somethings it is a great tool.  However, i have no emotional connection.

It is amazing that all this comes about from 1's and 0"s, but since i can't touch the files,etc. it leaves me in a vacum.

I am rather tried of a debate, both have value, pick the right tool for the vision.


----------



## Chas (Jul 12, 2007)

blackdoglab said:


> When I shoot color, I often shoot with expired film in hopes of finding ahappy accident on the part of the film and the light.


Wow. The stochastic theory of esthetics in photography. I like it. That is very cool - and I mean that sincerely. Many of the great discoveries in science have been made along similar lines. It's Popperian, even .... 

Now it may not be _efficient_, but often _efficiency_ is the enemy of _discovery_. Anyway it's the result that counts (and whether or not it stands careful scrutiny by one's peers), not how you got the blasted thing - which is K. Popper in a nutshell if I have him right.


----------



## terri (Jul 12, 2007)

Certain photographic processes that I do require a film transparency, positive or negative. Bromoil prints, Polaroid emulsion lifts, hand coloring, toning, etc. There are many more out there I've yet to try. 

And that is only referring to the stage following film development - which in and of itself is very satisfying, as well as inexpensive. 

Even without thinking of additional processes available to work on a silver gelatin print, simply being in the darkroom and making my own prints is quite a joyous activity.

Digital photography is quite sterile to me by comparison, though it was very handy to have when I needed snaps of my cameras for my website. It made a rather tedious type of photography quick, fast and painless.


----------



## blackdoglab (Jul 12, 2007)

I'm convinced that there are distinct personality types that are lead inevitably to film or digital.


----------



## Chas (Jul 12, 2007)

terri said:


> Even without thinking of additional processes available to work on a silver gelatin print, simply being in the darkroom and making my own prints is quite a joyous activity.


Reading this makes me feel a bit nostalgic and a bit sad .... I gave all my darkroom stuff to the local school a couple years ago, after moving to a part of the country (long before that) where noone has a basement for Pete's sake ........ Also, when I had my own fairly loaded basement darkroom I was a bachelor with the time and means to fully indulge myself - life has changed in many ways, which I don't otherwise regret. 

No, I shall be strong and stride forth bravely into the crisp, slightly chill and thin air that characterizes the Digital Age, without noticing when a gentle whiff of thio passes on the breeze. How I loved the _smell_ of the place downstairs, but then I am an organic chemist/biochemist by training .........

*sigh*

Charles.


----------



## nealjpage (Jul 12, 2007)

I shoot film because of the economics of it:  I couldn't afford a good digital camera, so I got a cheap used K1000.  And I was hooked.  I still can't afford a good digital camera, so I bought a cheap MF.  And now i'm hooked on that.


----------



## Orrin (Jul 12, 2007)

LauraPlank said:


> Hi, I know there have been various topics on here about the good old film vs digital debate but I wanted to start a new one based souly on everyones personal experiences with film and digital and why they ended up choosing film.



The main reason I chose film is that when I started in Photography (late 1940's),
that was all there was. The main decision then was 'what format'. In those days
35mm was not considered a 'serious' format because the negative was to small
to be usefull.

These days I still use film and have the negatives scanned to a CD.

In my opinion, digital cameras are changing too fast for an old coot like me
to be able to keep up. 

Longivity is also a problem with digital. I still have usable negatives from the 
1940's and 1950's. I can look at them and print them optically. Thirty years
from now, how are you going to view the digital work you took last week? 
Will there be a reader that can still read your 'old' CD?  

Already some museums are discovering that things stored a few years ago are 
not readable because of the lack a reader for the media, or it's stored in a 
format that is no longer supported.

The only way I see to preserve todays digital images, is to 'write' them onto film.
For archival storage, color images should be copied to silver based separation negatives!


----------



## RacePhoto (Jul 13, 2007)

Orrin said:


> The main reason I chose film is that when I started in Photography (late 1940's),
> that was all there was. The main decision then was 'what format'. In those days
> 35mm was not considered a 'serious' format because the negative was to small
> to be usefull.
> ...



Great stuff Orrin. I have my answer... for anyone who is considering film or digital, it depends on what you want to shoot and what you want to do with it. There's no easy answer.

Now about some of your points. I am scanning my old photos and negatives, to digital to preserve and restore them, so that street goes both ways. :mrgreen:

If the museums had a brain, they would know that they have to convert the old media to newer and better digital storage. Kind of like when old films are digitally remastered and saved, because they would someday become not viewable, lose image, brittle, and be lost.

I'm with you on the speed of technology and the changes. Every year there's some new wizz-bang better digital device, and new storage systems. I have a couple of nice 10-Ds, and mostly L lenses, and they work fine for my purposes.

I also remember the days when 35mm was unacceptable for serious photo work and also the days when digital was in the same category. Now digital has advanced to the standard and film has been relegated to special purpose.

But the question of archival digital has often been tossed about, including some irresponsible claims that CDs and DVDs only last a year or two, as a reason for hard photos.

Having lost my entire collection of slides (at least the good ones ) and a whole file cabinet of negatives, in a flood, I wish I had them backed up on digital media. Then there's fire and oxidation and age, which digital doesn't suffer if backed up properly.

What I'm getting at is, there are some pluses and minuses for either choice, and reasons that both have advantages over the other. Neither is the ultimate one "perfect" answer.

30 years from now I probably won't be viewing anything, and it would be presumptuous to think anyone else would care about my thousands and thousands or photos, or have time to sort through them. That doesn't stop me from making them, cataloging them and hoping that they will someday be of interest, but I don't have any delusions about the importance of my work for the past 50 years. Only hope that something I saved, will someday be useful or bring joy to someone else.

Bottom line I agree with you, except the archiving part, which seems to be coming from the doom and gloom crowd. :thumbup: With digital, anyone can make multiple durable backups, in multiple locations, for the price of a few electrons. :mrgreen:


----------



## Mitica100 (Jul 13, 2007)

All great answers! I just find that digital is not ready yet to yield such quality coming from a MF or a LF camera. I know there are digital backs for MF and even LF but they cost an arm and a leg. Why bother when you can simply shoot film and then scan it? Have both worlds melt into one. Shoot film, save digitally and you have the negative preserved for many, many years as well.


----------



## Orrin (Jul 13, 2007)

RacePhoto said:


> If the museums had a brain, they would know that they have to convert the old media to newer and better digital storage. Kind of like when old films are digitally remastered and saved, because they would someday become not viewable, lose image, brittle, and be lost.



As I recall, the problem the museums had was not that the could not read the
media, but that the files were in an older non-supported format, e.g., older
versions of Word/Excel file are not readable by newer versions of the programs
and of course being Microsoft, they are closed format!

I ran into the same problem, in that some files I have on floppy were made with
DOS versions of software that no longer exists, and from companies that also
no longer exist! Fortunately, they were not really important files.


----------



## terri (Jul 13, 2007)

Chas said:


> Reading this makes me feel a bit nostalgic and a bit sad .... I gave all my darkroom stuff to the local school a couple years ago, after moving to a part of the country (long before that) *where noone has a basement for Pete's sake *........ Also, when I had my own fairly loaded basement darkroom I was a bachelor with the time and means to fully indulge myself - life has changed in many ways, which I don't otherwise regret.
> 
> No, I shall be strong and stride forth bravely into the crisp, slightly chill and thin air that characterizes the Digital Age, without noticing when a gentle whiff of thio passes on the breeze. How I loved the _smell_ of the place downstairs, but then I am an organic chemist/biochemist by training .........
> 
> ...


Just to clarify, my darkroom is a converted _upstairs_ bedroom, with no running water. I have a solid desk I drilled holes into for the enlarger, and set up a couple of folding tables for my trays, paper cutter, and put up cheap shelves for my other supplies. I use a large plastic storage bin as a water holding bath; at the end of a printing session I carry the prints downstairs and use my print washer in the kitchen sink. Two small wall-mounted safelights hang over the table for my trays; my larger safelights hang from small chains looped from small wooden towel racks I mounted up by the ceiling. I have taped large black pastic garbage bags a few layers thick over my windows. It's a funny-looking place, all right, and I'm deliriously happy in there. :mrgreen: 

Digital just ain't where soul is, baby.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 13, 2007)

LauraPlank said:


> Why did you choose film?



I didn't. It chose me.


----------



## terri (Jul 13, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> I didn't. It chose me.


See, I _knew_ someone was going to eventually say that. Looks like you win the turkey, Max. 

aside: Send me a bottle of Chave, will ya?


----------



## montresor (Jul 13, 2007)

I just like it. Every photographer I've admired over the years has used some kind of film. Digital is for the generations that come after, not for me. My own age notwithstanding, I stand with the old timers on this one.


----------



## nealjpage (Jul 13, 2007)

blackdoglab said:


> I'm convinced that there are distinct personality types that are lead inevitably to film or digital.



I agree!:thumbup:


----------



## blackdoglab (Jul 13, 2007)

Now all i have to do is conduct a survey and create a quiz from it.  I'd like to do the same with cameras as well.


----------



## Chronicle (Jul 13, 2007)

Chemical photographers can make fun of digital photographers while telling the truth.  Digital photographers have to lie.  Just own it.  

Aside from these commentsd, I really have to agree with everyone else on this.


----------



## nealjpage (Jul 14, 2007)

Chronicle said:


> atavistic



Word of the day calender?


----------



## Alex_B (Jul 14, 2007)

Chronicle said:


> Chemical photographers can make fun of digital photographers while telling the truth.  Digital photographers have to lie.  Just own it.



I know both sides (shooting slide film and digital), and I do not understand that sentence at all. Sorry mate.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 14, 2007)

Even though I shoot predominantly digital nowadays, there's just some things that call out for film. Maybe a lovely little high-grain Kodak T-Max B&W portrait, or an infrared portrait with HIE, or some saturated Velvia colours. I have yet to find digital match the ... filmness (ok what was I thinking that is a bad descriptive word) of film.


----------



## montresor (Jul 14, 2007)

nealjpage said:


> Word of the day calender?



I think he means to use the word "avaricious." "Atavistic" refers to the quality of being a throwback to an earlier time.


----------



## dinodan (Jul 14, 2007)

I was reading my new copy of "Sound & Vision" (audio video magazine) in which there is a feature article on turntables. Remember vinyl LPs? In answer to the question "Why does vinyl endure?", one reader wrote the following, which I found interesting in light of the somewhat analogous film vs. digital question.

"In a word: analog. Records produce sound the way we hear it: as a wave. Digital music chops that wave up into tiny bits and tries to reproduce it. No matter how tiny the bit, you can never reproduce the wave perfectly. I think that's why people experience a certain 'warmth' or 'depth' on vinyl, which provides a better listening experience."

One of the following was shot on film. The other is digital. (They were taken on different days, and technically, they're both digital now.) In case you're wondering, these are lotus plants.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 14, 2007)

dinodan said:


> No matter how tiny the bit, you can never reproduce the wave perfectly. I think that's why people experience a certain 'warmth' or 'depth' on vinyl, which provides a better listening experience."



Of course the magazine will say that otherwise they alienate half of their clients. The fact is if you think of the tiniest nuance you could hear (a tiny blip at 20khz for someone who is young and still have perfect hearing) the Nyquest Theorm shows that providing you sample it at more than double the frequency of the tiniest detail (highest required frequency to be reproduced), then it can be reproduced perfectly. CDs actually meet this requirement, but not the dynamic range problem which is met by DVD-A or SACD anyway. The fact is the difference between formats comes from the way which each medium is mastered. In my experience some sound better on CD/DVD-A some better on vinyl.

It's interesting how this principle applies to photography as well. There's no point carrying a large format view camera if you will be taking a snapshot in the dark without a tripod or flash  

I actually only ran across a comparison between the Canon 1Ds MkII and 35mm film and 120 film yesterday (interestingly enough while looking for some specific info on Holgas). Detail wise digital had surpassed the 35mm format within the boundaries of the test, no question there, but for the 120film even though it did win in detail, the colour reproduction and shadow detail were the real selling points, that extra 1 or 2 stops of dynamic range.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 14, 2007)

I use vinyl because I scratch. I use film because I like silver prints and ciba. Enough said.


----------

