# Why Film?



## 8x10nomore (Dec 27, 2008)

I have been a commercial photographer since 1977 and I have been all digital since 2003.  My favorite format was 4x5 and my studio ran all its own film.  Besides seeing things larger in large format and those lovely film accidents that would lead me to discovering new techniques, I do not miss film at all.

I do not want to start an emotional argument by this thread, but to have some meaningful conversations about the pros and cons to film and digital.

I greatly appreciate your perspectives and look forward to some great conversations.

Thanks-


----------



## benhasajeep (Dec 27, 2008)

I still enjoy working with film.  I don't mind getting out the chemicals and mixing it.  Dont mind the occasional snag loading reels.

One thing about digital is I have yet to get some of my best slides to transfer over to the coputer yet.  I will admit I have not gone to place with a very high quality scanner.  I did just buy a Nikon Coolscan 5000.  Hoping it will put out better results than I have achieved in the past.  I do photography truely as a hobby.  It's for enjoyment, so sometimes the long road is not such a bad way. 

I am going digital more often though.


----------



## compur (Dec 27, 2008)

Digital and film are two different mediums. It's just a matter of preference
which medium one likes to work with. 

For example, film photography is easier and "sharper" than painting but that
doesn't mean film photography is better than painting. Some people just
prefer creating and hanging a painting on their wall instead of a photo.

I like B&W film photography, working with different film/developer combinations, 
and using older equipment.  I just enjoy it.  It's not a matter of "pros 
& cons" for me.

I use digital photography too in my business but I take no great pleasure in
it.  For pleasure I use film.


----------



## 8x10nomore (Dec 27, 2008)

benhasajeep said:


> I still enjoy working with film.  I don't mind getting out the chemicals and mixing it.  Dont mind the occasional snag loading reels.
> 
> One thing about digital is I have yet to get some of my best slides to transfer over to the coputer yet.  I will admit I have not gone to place with a very high quality scanner.  I did just buy a Nikon Coolscan 5000.  Hoping it will put out better results than I have achieved in the past.  I do photography truely as a hobby.  It's for enjoyment, so sometimes the long road is not such a bad way.
> 
> I am going digital more often though.



Best of luck with the scanner.  I have only sent my slides out for drum scanning and have had very good results.
Best regards-


----------



## 8x10nomore (Dec 27, 2008)

compur said:


> Digital and film are two different mediums. It's just a matter of preference
> which medium one likes to work with.
> 
> For example, film photography is easier and "sharper" than painting but that
> ...



I do miss the tactile nature of film.  I don't miss the chemicals though.  It is also better exercise since I sit in front of a computer so much as it is.  When I first started using PhotoShop, I hated it.  I was so used to making masks and dodging and burning by hand that digital production was awkward.  Now, I love the control.

I did love shooting inferred B&W and color film and TMAX 3200 as well as Velvia.

Best regards-


----------



## benhasajeep (Dec 28, 2008)

8x10nomore said:


> Best of luck with the scanner. I have only sent my slides out for drum scanning and have had very good results.
> Best regards-


 
I have considered doing that.  The Nikon is probably my last attempt at doing it myself.  The whole reason is I want to keep shooting some slide.  And don't want to have to keep sending them out for scanning.  Will see, it should be delivered just as I am getting home from a trip.


----------



## 8x10nomore (Dec 28, 2008)

benhasajeep said:


> I have considered doing that.  The Nikon is probably my last attempt at doing it myself.  The whole reason is I want to keep shooting some slide.  And don't want to have to keep sending them out for scanning.  Will see, it should be delivered just as I am getting home from a trip.



Please let me know how it works out quality-wise. I still have many old slides that I need to digitize.
Best regards-


----------



## henkelphoto (Dec 29, 2008)

Hi Guys!

Well, I used to work for AP (photo editor) so I've been working with digital since about 94-95. I've seen it go from having to deal with wildfires with purple flames to incredible exposure and color control. Digitally, I just purchased a Nikon D300 for my freelance use. I also recently purchased an F3hp to use along with my F100 for personal use. 

I like the constraints that film puts on me. I have to figure out which film to use, which iso, whether to use color or b/w. The idea that I have to work with what speed film is in the camera instead of just spinning the iso dial intrigues me. Twenty-four or 36 frames makes me think about what I'm really doing instead of just snapping off a 100 frames. I hate "chimping" and using a film camera has helped me to not constantly look down at the lcd screen when I'm shooting digital. 

I really like the time it takes to develop my own b/w film. I get the same old anticipation of seeing what came up that I used to get when I started working with cameras in the 70's.

Lastly, I have negatives that my mother shot almost 70 years ago. These are still printable. I've heard of photographers who have lost digital images after only 15 years on cd so I'm not sure the medium is nearly as stable as film. How would we as a community react if the photos of Ansel Adams, Cartier-Bresson and Edward Steichen were all corrputed and couldn't be recovered?

For business, on the other hand, it's digital all the way. Not that I wouldn't like to use film, but the market has changed (editoral) and no longer supports the time needed for film. 

Jerry


----------



## 8x10nomore (Dec 29, 2008)

henkelphoto said:


> Hi Guys!
> 
> Well, I used to work for AP (photo editor) so I've been working with digital since about 94-95. I've seen it go from having to deal with wildfires with purple flames to incredible exposure and color control. Digitally, I just purchased a Nikon D300 for my freelance use. I also recently purchased an F3hp to use along with my F100 for personal use. I remember those Frankenstein things manufacturers were pushing for $30k.  Some were lent to my studio on the hopes of a sale.  I remember files just vanishing from camera hard drives.  It has come a long way.
> 
> ...



Hi Jerry.  Thanks for your reponse.  You make some very good points here.
Best regards,
Bruce


----------



## epp_b (Dec 29, 2008)

1. Because it's fun
2. Because I can't afford full-frame digital, so 35mm will have to do for now


----------



## 8x10nomore (Dec 29, 2008)

epp_b said:


> 1. Because it's fun
> 2. Because I can't afford full-frame digital, so 35mm will have to do for now



I got ya.  Thanks for your answer.  Enjoy it!


----------



## bhop (Dec 29, 2008)

I like the way film looks without any photoshop filters to make it look like film.  I like the physical feel of classic film cameras in my hand, the weight, the way the wind levers feel when you wind it, the sounds the shutters make on my FE and K1000 and F100, the silence of the ones on my rangefinders.  I like the smell of film when I put the camera up to my face.. that's weird I guess...  I like that my wide lenses are actually wide and not cropped.  I like developing my own b&w and the smells that go along with it.  I like the prices of film cameras these days.  I like how people look at you either like you're crazy, or like you're awesome when they see you shooting with an old film camera.. that's kinda cool too.


----------



## 8x10nomore (Dec 29, 2008)

bhop said:


> I like the way film looks without any photoshop filters to make it look like film.  I like the physical feel of classic film cameras in my hand, the weight, the way the wind levers feel when you wind it, the sounds the shutters make on my FE and K1000 and F100, the silence of the ones on my rangefinders.  I like the smell of film when I put the camera up to my face.. that's weird I guess...  I like that my wide lenses are actually wide and not cropped.  I like developing my own b&w and the smells that go along with it.  I like the prices of film cameras these days.  I like how people look at you either like you're crazy, or like you're awesome when they see you shooting with an old film camera.. that's kinda cool too.


Your response really makes me miss the good old days.  The analogue world had so much going for it!  Now I am wearing out my keyboard!  A good friend of mine who owns an ad agency once said, "One day we'll all be just a bunch of button-pushing monkeys.  I laughed, but....


----------



## Dutchboy (Dec 29, 2008)

bhop said:


> I like the way film looks without any photoshop filters to make it look like film.  I like the physical feel of classic film cameras in my hand, the weight, the way the wind levers feel when you wind it, the sounds the shutters make on my FE and K1000 and F100, the silence of the ones on my rangefinders.  I like the smell of film when I put the camera up to my face.. that's weird I guess...  I like that my wide lenses are actually wide and not cropped.  I like developing my own b&w and the smells that go along with it.  I like the prices of film cameras these days.  I like how people look at you either like you're crazy, or like you're awesome when they see you shooting with an old film camera.. that's kinda cool too.



Sounds like love to me!

One reason I still shoot film on occasion: Asahi Pentax!!


----------



## epp_b (Dec 29, 2008)

> ...the sounds the shutters make on my FE and K1000 and F100...


Yeah, there's definitely something about the metal "clunk" from the FM


----------



## Alpha (Dec 29, 2008)

Why not film?


----------



## Battou (Dec 29, 2008)

Alpha said:


> Why not film?



Because people are under illutions that Digi is easier and cheaper. :lmao:

As for why I shoot film....I has a digital grudge, me no likey....J/k Actually it is just cheaper to shoot, especially at the volume I shoot. When I do get the oppertunity to put in a dark room it'll get even cheaper yet. I mean seriously, Professional level SLR body, $200, 400mm, lens $100 four rolls of film at the drug store and processing 24 exposure roll of film $16.94, getting a pair wild of Bald Eagles mid hunt ...Priceless.


----------



## ThornleyGroves (Dec 30, 2008)

with film i use B&W, i just love how manual it is, and being able to spend my own time in the darkroom, i find that the more time you spend getting the photo, ultimately the more it can mean to you. I use digital too now (Nikon D90) however most of my projects are done on film. Also i think that the texture of your photos off the film is alot nicer!


----------



## dinodan (Dec 30, 2008)

8x10nomore said:


> Please let me know how it works out quality-wise. I still have many old slides that I need to digitize.
> Best regards-


 
I love shooting film, and I love my Nikon Coolscan V ED.  This is a scan of an Ektachrome slide.


----------



## 8x10nomore (Dec 30, 2008)

Dutchboy said:


> Sounds like love to me!
> 
> One reason I still shoot film on occasion: Asahi Pentax!!



AH!  My first camera was a Pentax SP500.  Anyone remember it?


----------



## 8x10nomore (Dec 30, 2008)

Battou said:


> Because people are under illutions that Digi is easier and cheaper. :lmao:
> 
> As for why I shoot film....I has a digital grudge, me no likey....J/k Actually it is just cheaper to shoot, especially at the volume I shoot. When I do get the oppertunity to put in a dark room it'll get even cheaper yet. I mean seriously, Professional level SLR body, $200, 400mm, lens $100 four rolls of film at the drug store and processing 24 exposure roll of film $16.94, getting a pair wild of Bald Eagles mid hunt ...Priceless.



Sounds like once you get that darkroom up, you will have total control.  Nice!


----------



## epatsellis (Jan 3, 2009)

Bruce,
I may be atypical, but for me its a mix of film and digital. There are some things that are just plain easier with film, and while I have a scan back for the 4x5, I find that most of my pack shots are still done on 4x5 C41 film and scanned. (processing done in house, scanned in house) 

I don't feel that a fixed lens camera (as opposed to a view camera) gives you the versatility or control that is really needed to accurately portray most products, or the creative controls to bring my vision to fruition. 

One of my clients had to replace a wrap on a trailer they use for trade shows and the like due to a product line change (they make lawn and garden tractor accessories), the file they previously used was from a 1DSmkIII.

I shot the new products on 8x10, scanned and delived a file that, in the customers words "popped out" of the trailer, and was magnitudes better than the previous one they used. 

To me, it seems silly to spend several hours lighting and dressing a set (outdoors, no less) then 10 secs of capture and hope/pray that it will work as needed. I shot 10 sheets of 8x10 C41 film, as well as some TMX100, and knew that I had exactly what we needed, at a quality level that would be commensurate with "professsional" standards.


----------



## 8x10nomore (Jan 3, 2009)

epatsellis said:


> Bruce,
> I may be atypical, but for me its a mix of film and digital. There are some things that are just plain easier with film, and while I have a scan back for the 4x5, I find that most of my pack shots are still done on 4x5 C41 film and scanned. (processing done in house, scanned in house) I agree with you.  I used to do a lot of light painting but that doesn't work dig.  I hear that negative scanning is really good these days which it wasn't when I was still working with film.
> 
> I don't feel that a fixed lens camera (as opposed to a view camera) gives you the versatility or control that is really needed to accurately portray most products, or the creative controls to bring my vision to fruition. I thought that at first but then found that I can swing and tilt more accurately in PS.
> ...


 I am not sure that I understand your final point, but I think it is great that you are using the best tool for the job.  I sold my film processors in 2000 and don't have that luxury any more.  I commend your efforts.

Best,
Bruce


----------



## epatsellis (Jan 3, 2009)

8x10nomore said:


> I am not sure that I understand your final point, but I think it is great that you are using the best tool for the job.  I sold my film processors in 2000 and don't have that luxury any more.  I commend your efforts.
> 
> Best,
> Bruce



Bruce, 
The final point is specific to this project, the need for a 7'x12' image at 100 dpi. Most photographers today would either use genuine fractals or other upsampling techniques to get the final image size, which in this case would be quite visible, unless herculean efforts were taken. Were this an indoor shoot, I'd of likely used the Phase One scan back, the lack of an AA filter results in images that are eerily sharp, without post capture sharpening, and allow 4x upsampling while still maintaining image quality, though some sharpening and tweaking are still needed.

While you can correct geometry in PS, you can't determine the plane of focus, or control focus like you can in camera. I've been a long time Sinar user and the two point calculator (assymetric tilts and swings) makes movements fast and quick. My preference is still to get bluelines of the layout, reduce onto acetate on a copier and shoot to fit, something that's hard to do with a small format camera. (it usually helps to deal with designers that have been around a while, it seems that the younger ones can't fathom the concept readily) 

I prefer to get it right, and exactly the image that's needed, in camera, my post typically consists of verifying levels and color (using either a Color Checker or Kodak Q13) and final resolution adjustments, that's it. I still use old Broncolor strobes (the ole 304/404 standby that was in every studio 20 years ago), as I've yet to find anything that is as consistent or color accurate, at least at a price that mere humans can afford. 

My partner at the studio has a "typcial digital" workflow and can't fathom how I get color and exposure dead on consistently, I prefer to spend as little time as possible in front of the computer, there's a hundred other things I'd rather be doing, honestly.

BTW, I bought my W-L Pro 6 from a photographer getting out of film for $150, takes up hardly any room and gives me wonderful consistency and control.


----------



## Orrin (Jan 3, 2009)

8x10nomore said:


> Hi Jerry.  Thanks for your reponse.  You make some very good points here.
> 
> I'm a little worried, but I archive on those Matsui cds that are supposed to last for hundreds of years-no marker-no printing-floating archival cases-stored in the dark-the best I can do.



This is assuming that in the future there will be equipment that can READ those
CD's. The computer industry makes things obsolete very quickly. Some new
recording tecnique will eventually replace CD/DVD technology and readers
for CD/DVD's will disappear.

I am old enough to have used 8 & 5 1/4 inch floppies, and anything that was
on them is now not readable on current equipment. I recently read that some
goverenment agency has records stored on computer tape that is now obsolete
and there is no existing equipment that can read or decode it,

Properly stored film old film and even glass plates, can still be used today.
Even if it won't 'fit' into an existing enlarger, it still can be viewed with the eye!


----------



## 8x10nomore (Jan 5, 2009)

epatsellis said:


> Bruce,
> The final point is specific to this project, the need for a 7'x12' image at 100 dpi. Most photographers today would either use genuine fractals or other upsampling techniques to get the final image size, which in this case would be quite visible, unless herculean efforts were taken. Were this an indoor shoot, I'd of likely used the Phase One scan back, the lack of an AA filter results in images that are eerily sharp, without post capture sharpening, and allow 4x upsampling while still maintaining image quality, though some sharpening and tweaking are still needed. Point well taken.  Thanks-
> 
> While you can correct geometry in PS, you can't determine the plane of focus, or control focus like you can in camera. I've been a long time Sinar user and the two point calculator (assymetric tilts and swings) makes movements fast and quick. My preference is still to get bluelines of the layout, reduce onto acetate on a copier and shoot to fit, something that's hard to do with a small format camera. (it usually helps to deal with designers that have been around a while, it seems that the younger ones can't fathom the concept readily) I still miss my old LUCY.  I even used to make them for my medium format cameras on occaision.
> ...


-What is a W-L Pro 6?

Thanks


----------



## 8x10nomore (Jan 5, 2009)

epatsellis said:


> Bruce,
> The final point is specific to this project, the need for a 7'x12' image at 100 dpi. Most photographers today would either use genuine fractals or other upsampling techniques to get the final image size, which in this case would be quite visible, unless herculean efforts were taken. Were this an indoor shoot, I'd of likely used the Phase One scan back, the lack of an AA filter results in images that are eerily sharp, without post capture sharpening, and allow 4x upsampling while still maintaining image quality, though some sharpening and tweaking are still needed.
> 
> While you can correct geometry in PS, you can't determine the plane of focus, or control focus like you can in camera. I've been a long time Sinar user and the two point calculator (assymetric tilts and swings) makes movements fast and quick. My preference is still to get bluelines of the layout, reduce onto acetate on a copier and shoot to fit, something that's hard to do with a small format camera. (it usually helps to deal with designers that have been around a while, it seems that the younger ones can't fathom the concept readily)
> ...


 


Orrin said:


> This is assuming that in the future there will be equipment that can READ those
> CD's. The computer industry makes things obsolete very quickly. Some new
> recording tecnique will eventually replace CD/DVD technology and readers
> for CD/DVD's will disappear.
> ...


 
Good pint Orrin.  As long as I can see it coming, I will transfer those disks to what ever the future holds for us.
Best regards-


----------



## epatsellis (Jan 5, 2009)

8x10nomore said:


> -What is a W-L Pro 6?
> 
> Thanks


Sorry, Wing Lynch Pro 6 processor.

The Pro 6 is pretty neat, unlike the older ones with the dams and such, this one was made by Thermophot, uses canisters and can process up to 8x10.

Key features:
Self contained, no water connection needed
Pressurized Nitrogen pumping
6 1 gal chemistry tanks
1 5 gal wash tank
All tanks temp controlled to .1F
Computer controlled (with the abilty to Push/Pull as desired)
Able to run on backup battery in case of power failure
Any or all solutions can be reclaimed/repelnished if desired (C41 bleach is the biggie for me, with regen and aeration, a gal or two lasts quite a long time, raw solution cost of bleach alone is astronomical `$35/gal )
Relatively small footprint (approx 34"w x 24"d x 18"h)

Pretty much everything you need for either E6 or C41/B&W processing in one nice small unit.


----------



## 8x10nomore (Jan 5, 2009)

epatsellis said:


> Sorry, Wing Lynch Pro 6 processor.
> 
> The Pro 6 is pretty neat, unlike the older ones with the dams and such, this one was made by Thermophot, uses canisters and can process up to 8x10.
> 
> ...


 
NICE.  I used to use the Jobo ATL-4 I believe-one shot-not good for the environment but beautiful quality and repeatability-


----------



## svl3b (Jan 5, 2009)

I just like to watch the picture magically appear on the paper...lol..not to mention darkroom time is quiet time


----------



## 8x10nomore (Jan 5, 2009)

svl3b said:


> I just like to watch the picture magically appear on the paper...lol..not to mention darkroom time is quiet time


 
AH!  The good old days.  Please enjoy!  I do miss it sometimes.


----------



## epatsellis (Jan 5, 2009)

8x10nomore said:


> NICE.  I used to use the Jobo ATL-4 I believe-one shot-not good for the environment but beautiful quality and repeatability-


Between the nitrogen in the tanks and reasonable care with control strips, I can be spot on every batch, that was one of the reasons I went to an automated processor, the other being turnaround, with the shorter canister, I can process 2 rolls of 120 or 4 sheets of 4x5 at a time, and swap out canisters every 25 mins til I'm done.


----------



## 8x10nomore (Jan 6, 2009)

epatsellis said:


> Between the nitrogen in the tanks and reasonable care with control strips, I can be spot on every batch, that was one of the reasons I went to an automated processor, the other being turnaround, with the shorter canister, I can process 2 rolls of 120 or 4 sheets of 4x5 at a time, and swap out canisters every 25 mins til I'm done.



Sounds like a nice set up!


----------



## Rem (Jan 12, 2009)

8x10nomore said:


> AH!  My first camera was a Pentax SP500.  Anyone remember it?



Mine was a Mamiya DTL 1000 i got used in '78. It's still a great camera and I have (for a little while) about 15 cameras to play with, some fancy "semi-modern AF's like a couple of N 90 Nikons, a real neat Canon A-1 with a batch of good lenses,a Minolta 700 with a Novoflex auto bellows and Novoflexar lens...and I STILL really enjoy that old Mamiya the most. I know it so well, it's like part of me.  I know that in 30+ years...it has never failed ot broken.
I got another....it's a bit cleaner..has a ding on the prism as if it had been dropped 20 ft onto a rock...a very noticable dent.  It however works just fine.  Probably would hold up to some further extreme abuse. I've had some point + shoot digitals,decent brands....so far  it's seemed that they live about 2-3 months of VERY gentle use..then die.  Batteries crap out in a couple weeks. The Maniya's little battery lasts about 3 yrs.  It shoots without it.

I upgraded my scanner.  When I can aford a K 10D Pentax maybe I'll get more into digital. Even then....I'm finding I don't even like autofocus much.
I Have a ZX-5 Pentax I like because it's got spotmeter and an old school shutter dial and built in diopter. I like the auto flash. I can slave my 283 bounce and not fuss with calculations. Used to avoid flash. I DO..however...use my manual lenses  found the AF lenses, annoying...and too plastic.


----------



## Stogie (Jan 19, 2009)

Orrin said:


> This is assuming that in the future there will be equipment that can READ those
> CD's. The computer industry makes things obsolete very quickly. Some new
> recording tecnique will eventually replace CD/DVD technology and readers
> for CD/DVD's will disappear.
> ...




I couldn't have said it better.....
I'm still not to a point to where I trust the advertised life of inkjet prints.  I know black and white film has many years of life so thats what I use.  Another point, I know what the image is going to look like when I click the shutter, I don't need a screen to see if I got it right.  If I were doing this professionally, I would be digital all the way.  But for my purpose, film is the only way.


----------



## teneighty23 (Jan 22, 2009)

i completely agree with both of these statements. Digital is way too beautiful and easy to get things right, i love film grain and dark mood. also Velvias cool blue tone.



ThornleyGroves said:


> Also i think that the texture of your photos off the film is alot nicer!





epp_b said:


> 1. Because it's fun
> 2. Because I can't afford full-frame digital, so 35mm will have to do for now


----------



## BrandonS (Jan 22, 2009)

I've never shot film other than disposables and what would be considered a 35mm P&S before digital was w/in my range.  I have no idea if I'd even gain anything by trying, so I stick to digital.


----------



## A louie (Jan 25, 2009)

Shooting film is just pure badass.

When I use my friends DSLR, I get bored. And its all to digital for me


----------



## duncanp (Jan 26, 2009)

It is strange in my case. I started off digital, because i couldn't afford film / processing so saved up for a superzoom compact. A year later i bought a 30D and have expanded my collection of lenses for it since until i decided to buy an AE-1. What caused me to do so was starting AS photography at school and the access to a substantial darkroom. Now i find it much more rewarding shooting film, developing and printing it yourself. You get a much greater sense of pride and i feel that a good photo achieved on film is 100x better than one taken digitally. Purely because i can shoot digital all the time continously and you get lazy and lucky. 

For colour though, i do prefer digital as the film i shoot is almost exclusively black and white. The grain you get is visually pleasing unlike digital noise and the tones are richer than those achieved from black and white digital.

I suppose most of al;. its taking time for that photo, composing it, shooting it, and then the anticipation of getting to see it slowly on paper. ( preferably 16x12 )


----------



## blakejd (Feb 1, 2009)

First post here and fairly new to photography but heres my take and don't flame me too hard. If I could shoot anything it would be slides. I just enjoy them. I like not knowing what the shot will be and how much is required of me to think about what goes into that shot. I can't afford to process my own film...hell I can't afford to shoot film in any compacity so every shot counts. When it comes out good I know I produced something great and limited the number of factors that allow for error. Besides I like the hum of a slide projector and the little click that comes with the next slide. I will say that I recently bought my first digital SLR and I'm looking forward to using it as a no cost way to evaluate my technique.


----------



## ksmattfish (Feb 1, 2009)

Why film?  Freaky cameras!  

Fun with time and space.

widelux - Google Search


----------



## bighilt (Feb 2, 2009)

Hi, I am new here.
I shoot both film and digital but still consider myself a dyed-in-the wool film guy. 
I subscribe to most said above so would sum my reasons as follows:

1. It's tactile.
2. I know, barring some catastrophe my negs will still be around and useable in 50 years time.
3. Scanning equipment is always improving so my negs will always be at the cutting-edge. My lab has the problem of upgrading.
4. My 50-year old cameras are still as useable as the day they were made. I am, right now looking at the back cover, Canon advert of the May 1999 National Geographic magazine. They're advertising the "new Powershot Pro70 offering pro-level quality with features such as a 1.68 million pixel CCD sensor and 2.5x power zoom lens." Sure glad I didn't take any important pics with that back then.
5. I have worked as a photojournalist for over 30 years and can access all of my negs -- gotta be honest I have lost quite a few digital images along the way.
6. When traveling I like the fact I don't have to lug around a laptop, power supply, card-reader, batteries etc.
7. I like the fact that my cheap point-and-shoot Olympus Stylus Epic produces results equal to or better than those produced by a digital camera costing 10 to 20 times as much.
8. I love the anticipation of waiting to see the results on the film.
9. When using my Rolleiflex I enjoy the fact I have only twelve images on a roll. There's something satisfying about carefully setting up everything, taking a single image and saying "okay that's fine, got it."
 I have published a couple of articles about film on my blog if interested.


----------

