# Why do you love film? opinions needed for article



## RedStarRevels (Dec 3, 2007)

Hi everyone,

I'm writing an article on the future of film photography, and I need some opinions! If you love film, tell me why. What are the benifits? What aspects are unique? Does film have a long term future? All (constructive) comments are welcome.

Thanks.

RSR


----------



## Sideburns (Dec 3, 2007)

I shoot digital, but I don't see film going anywhere yet.  It will always have its purposes until we can build digital sensors with the kind of latitude that C41 has.

Also, it's hard to reproduce true black and white film with digital...

It's gonna be around for a few years (I am even planning on buying a film body some times)...but I can imagine that in the professional world, it will be getting more like (I do the film as a hobby, but work with digital).  It's hard working for National Geographic and processing 600+ rolls or film...nevermind just carrying that many...


----------



## Sideburns (Dec 3, 2007)

please try not to double post.  thank you.


----------



## Alpha (Dec 3, 2007)

From a post of mine some time ago:



> I'm not sure what will happen with color reversal film, but Fuji will make slide film forever. Consider that Fuji produces a once-a-year batch of 30,000 rolls of Fortia, which is specifically designed for photographing cherry blossoms (lol). If they were really worried about their broader market share, they wouldn't bother. Furthermore, so long as they can make enough money off the digital revolution, as they do and will continue to do, they'll have the extra cash to fund film production.
> 
> On the black and white side of things, Fuji certainly must have anticipated the digital revolution around the time that they were developing Acros. Additionally, there has been an enormous explosion in recent years of black and white film sales outside the three large houses, mainly due to Fotokemika (which produces the films that become rebranded as Efke/Adox/Maco/Rollei). There has also been a surge in sales of the films produced by Bergger and Foma (French and Czeck, respectively IIRC). Fotokemika reportedly bought the rights to some of Agfa's emulsions as it was dying, which certainly may have cut down on some of their R&D costs. Most notably, the costs of the Fotokemika films are generally lower than those produced by the big three. Ilford will have a large impact in the future, as they have insisted that they are in it for the long haul. But financially speaking, even if film production goes down from the big three, that leaves a greater market share to Fotokemika. While this might put them in a position to be able to raise film prices, it doesn't necessarily provide an impetus to do so.



Additionally, the word on the street is that Kodak has plans to narrow their film line to 5 films, but keep producing those for the foreseeable future. In my humble opinion, I believe that they will be Tri-X 400, TMAX, BW400CN, Portra (probably NC), and E100 (Who knows whether it will be Plus, G, or VS).


----------



## LaFoto (Dec 3, 2007)

Threads merged.


----------



## domromer (Dec 3, 2007)

I love slides because you either got it or you didn't. I didn't spend so much  time in photoshop trying  to fix or tweak.

Plus I love the rich warm hues of E100vs.

That being said unless someone else was paying for film and development I would never go back. I shoot way too much now to have to pay for film.


----------



## ann (Dec 3, 2007)

i love the look , the feel , and the whole process of developng the film to making prints ; it comes down too, does one want to make home made bread, or use a bread machine.

there is a certain joy and pleasure that comes from the process that is hard to describe.


----------



## Helen B (Dec 3, 2007)

I shoot both film and digital, choosing whichever is most appropriate for the particular job. In general I prefer to use film - that is just a personal preference. The heart has reasons that reason does not know. I use about $10,000 to $12,000 worth of film per year at the moment - significantly less than I used to use.

I find large format film to be more convenient and cost effective for most of the sort of large format work I do. The same applies with medium format. For the ultimate in quality I use large format or medium format film. Negative film also has a greater dynamic range than digital, though you don't always need it. This is not a cut-and-dried issue that can be addressed in a few words.

My use of colour reversal film has fallen the most. I only use it on rare occasions, mostly when projectable slides are required. I'm very happy that the tyrrany of the light box has ended. High-end E-6 processing is also getting rarer than it was, but it still exists, and will do for some time.

For B&W work I still prefer to use silver-image B&W film, but it needs appropriate development and good, high resolution scanning to get the graininess looking right if finishing digitally. It is extremely versatile, and I have over thirty years experience of getting it to look exactly how I want it to look. Dye-image B&W is more scanner-friendly, but there is little, if any, point in shooting it if you are going to scan it - I prefer to use converted colour negative film. Most of the film I use is colour negative, for finishing in colour.

One of the reasons I use film is that there are certain camera types that I wish to use that do not exist in digital versions, or the digital version hasn't quite reached the functionality I want - so I still use my film Leicas for reportage because the M8 doesn't quite do what I want it to do. Similarly, there is no digital camera that matches the quality of medium format rangefinders in such a compact size and low weight. There is no digital TLR available. Camera form and process do influence the relationship between the photographer and the subject.

Though I enjoy the whole film processing thing I look on that as being separate from my purpose as a photographer. I enjoy printing in the darkroom, but I am happy to put significant effort and resources into producing inkjet and hybrid prints that meet my standards.

The fact that Kodak have recently improved one of their best films, and that they are planning to make a second B&W emulsion available in 220 (they are the only manufacturer supplying B&W film in 220) gives me hope that they have not abandoned us just yet.





MaxBloom said:


> From a post of mine some time ago:
> 
> 
> 
> Additionally, the word on the street is that Kodak has plans to narrow their film line to 5 films, but keep producing those for the foreseeable future. In my humble opinion, I believe that they will be Tri-X 400, TMAX, BW400CN, Portra (probably NC), and E100 (Who knows whether it will be Plus, G, or VS).



That's an unfounded rumour. Why spread it?

Best,
Helen

PS Agfa-Gevaert makes some of the film sold by Maco/Rollei.


----------



## JIP (Dec 3, 2007)

Shoot what you like.


----------



## Mitica100 (Dec 3, 2007)

I shoot 99% film (LF and MF), it allows me to think more before taking the first shot.


----------



## JC1220 (Dec 3, 2007)

Helen B said:


> That's an unfounded rumour. Why spread it?


 
He may not be far off, for years Kodak would eliminate the bottom 4% of their products, regardless if they were making a profit from any of them. I am sure some of these films are getting near that mark. However, they made the decision to stop all black and white paper production even though several of them were not in the bottom 4% so it is possible they could all be cut at some point without warning.


----------



## Helen B (Dec 3, 2007)

Anything is possible in the future, with or without warning, but I'm specifically referring to a rumour that Kodak have that plan in existence now, and asking Max why he is spreading it. I don't dispute the idea that there will be further reductions in the range of films that Kodak offer, but they do offer more types of film than any other manufacturer. The '5 film' rumour has been around for a while, in different forms. The first I heard was that it referred to the number of reversal films. That could be about right.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Alpha (Dec 3, 2007)

Helen B said:


> That's an unfounded rumour. Why spread it?



I bet you said the same thing when the HIE discontinuance rumors first starting spreading.

I'll spread what I like, thank you. You can take your complaints over the APUG Product Availability forum.


----------



## Helen B (Dec 3, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> I bet you said the same thing when the HIE discontinuance rumors first starting spreading.
> 
> I'll spread what I like, thank you. You can take your complaints over the APUG Product Availability forum.



Yes Max, you are free to spread whatever baseless rumour you read on the internet, just as I am free to comment, and to ask you why you wish to spread it.

For the record, you are completely wrong in your assumption about my reaction to the story on the discontinuance of HIE. Here is my contribution to the thread on APUG. I entitled my post _HIE not not discontinued._ I didn't base the title on rumour however, I based it on a conversation I had with a reliable source at Kodak. I thought that Martin Reed was not the sort of person who would spread rumours, and I knew who had told Martin, so I decided to fish around a bit.

Best,
Helen


----------



## McManniss (Dec 3, 2007)

People seem to forget these days how much you can actually do with film and with everything that has been done in the past up until digital came into the world. You can push film, pull film, you can cross process it, you can flash it, you can mix lighting sources, you can double expose it...the list goes on and on. There are so many applications and different things you can do to it, there's a reason its been around so long. 
Not to mention that each film has its own characteristics and curves and responds differently. Plus that fact that most films have a wider exposure latitude that digital. 
That is why film is great.


----------



## doobs (Dec 3, 2007)

I've already invested so much money into film, I can't buy a digital camera of equal quality. (If one exists at all) Film is just fun, I guess. I enjoy working in the darkroom and stuff too.


----------



## Alpha (Dec 3, 2007)

Well I also firmly believe that Kodak will stop making Kodachrome 64, if they haven't already. Guess I'm not supposed to spread that either? 

It seems obvious that Kodak is going to continue to pare down their film line. I'm sorry if that plays into the imaginary "5 films" figure. Maybe it's 3...maybe it's 8. I don't know. What, to you, differentiates speculation from rumor? Either one can be well or poorly grounded in empirical reality. There's no doubt in my mind that Kodak's continued discontinuance of film products is an inevitability, not a possibility. The only thing that makes my comment a rumor is the fact that it hasn't happened yet.


----------



## skieur (Dec 3, 2007)

Among the advantages of film is the equivalent of 42 bit colour versus 12, 14, or even 16 bit colour from digital which means a greater colour range, greater dynamic and contrast range, and more detail in highlight and dark areas.

Digital however is closing the gap.  Dynamic range is improving and selective and expert postprocessing is making the difference between film and digital almost invisible.

The advantage of digital at the moment is good noise control at high ISOs of 1600 or greater, the ease of selective postprocessing and greater control after the shot in the digital darkroom.

Film will become a specialty item as the economies of scale in terms of high quantity production will no longer apply.  It will therefore become more expensive to produce partly because of its relationship to petroleum products and silver.

Film will eventually disappear but not with any great speed until digital photography considerably improves in colour, contrast, dynamic range and resolution and computers and photo editing software become even more sophisticated and able to easily handle very large photo files quickly and efficiently.

skieur


----------



## Alpha (Dec 3, 2007)

Film will not eventually disappear. Mostly because it will never disappear, and partly because it ****ing rocks.


----------



## Steph (Dec 4, 2007)

Some of the reasons why I stick to film:

 - I am happy with the results I get (35mm and MF)
 - Going digital would be a huge investment (camera, lenses, new computer, porcessing software..) for very little improvement (if any) in the quality of my pictures.
 - I enjoy spending time in a darkroom but don't like spending hours editing pictures on a computer.


----------



## nealjpage (Dec 4, 2007)

I stick with film for the reasons mentioned above, but also because I find film to be _tangible_; that is, when I shoot an image and process the film, through the chemical process I get a physical image that can then be manipulated.  I don't find digital images to have the same philosophical attributes, then.


----------



## stubbsk (Dec 4, 2007)

Correct me if I'm wrong but the kind of control over colour in digital goes far beyond that of film. Digital has not surpassed film however as this ultimate control is still applicable to scanned negatives and slides. Many pro's still shoot 10x8 neg as more of the original detail gets translated into the final print.

I'm sure this sums up my skill as a photographer but I get much better results with digital then I do with film. It's nice however to have the option of film because like previous techniques it wont become redundant as it has it's own artistic value. Digital is constantly improving and in my case it's the better option because I'm physically, emotionally and biologically attached to my computer's as an 18 year old student.


----------



## nealjpage (Dec 5, 2007)

stubbsk said:


> I'm physically, emotionally and biologically attached to my computer's as an 18 year old student.



I'm a 29 year old super-student and I'm attached to mine, too!


----------



## Battou (Dec 5, 2007)

Personally I feel film is only true tangable photography media. Yes I do understand the memory cards and RAW files hold their weight in any copyright office, but they are duplicable and easily altered. That is not to say film can not be duplicated and or altered, but the practice of doing so is much more difficult than with digital media, for the most part not even worth trying. Also with Digital media there are several more factors that increase the odds of damage and/or total loss of original imagery. A hard drive fails one could loose hundrads or thousands of images, a memory card bites the shead and anything on that is toast. This is in addition to the things like excessive heat, fire, water and other sources of damage that can claim film.

The words "I have and can provide the negitives" should always mean more than "I have and can provide the original RAW and/or JPEG".

That is my opinion on the matter. Sadly this is another one of those debates that will not end untill one side or the other is completely destroyed.....and I see no true end to either side anywhere in the near future.


----------



## cigrainger (Dec 6, 2007)

A lot of why I use film has already been summed up in this thread... namely, I just prefer it. No matter how good digital gets, it will never look like film. Be it the grain, tonality, whatever. That's not saying one's superior, they're just different, and I prefer film personally.

I love the fact that a film negative is an actual physical piece of something that happened or was seen. The actual light from that scene affected the silver halide, and the negative (or slide) captured that moment in time in a tangible form.

I also prefer getting all excited with a roll of film to come home and develop it rather than instant feedback on the 2.5" screen on the back of my digital. I don't like instant feedback. While there have been a few times that I got excited about a roll of film only to ruin it like an idiot, I still prefer that.

Film also limits your exposures. Rather than just snapping away like an idiot, I think and compose with film, and unsurprisingly this shows up in my final result. I can go shoot all day with my digital, hundreds of shots, and come home with 20-30 good ones, whereas on a 35mm 36 exp roll I come home with 20+ quality shots pretty regularly and most of the other exposures were simply duplicates.


----------



## Helen B (Dec 6, 2007)

The films we have available to us now are, in general, the best there have ever been. Both Kodak and Fuji have continued to improve their emulsions over the past few years. More improvement is possible, but what matters is what is available for use now. The current version of Portra 800 is a remarkable film for its speed, for example.

We have lost some of the fringe films, most of which were made by Kodak. The writing has been on the wall for a number of films for some time, and the surprise has been how long they stayed in production. I used to use a lot of Ektachrome 320T (EPJ) and it was fairly obvious that its time was limited. Fuji made nothing like it - Kodak made tungsten E-6 film in three speeds, Fuji made it in one. But EPJ was good while it lasted, and when it faded away without much publicity I missed it, but just increased my use of Portra 800 and NPZ (now renamed Pro 800Z) as well as 500T movie film.

Similarly with the tungsten negative films for still cameras: gone from the catalogues of both manufacturers. Kodak's version, being the only tungsten negative still film available in 35 mm, was once again the biggest loss.

I'm very surprised how long Kodak have kept Kodachrome in production (possibly not what I think Max thinks I think). Many of us expected it to be abandoned in the 90's, which was when the big switch to E-6 happened for most of us who had been using large quantities of Kodachrome. It's a great film, but it happens to be one that not many people want to use nowadays.

Movie film is a different matter. There is some remarkable stuff available now. There are some relics as well - though Fuji and Ilford abandoned the B&W movie film market, Kodak hung in there with both negative and reversal films. Super 8 almost died, but then revived. Now Kodak have promoted it to a professional format, and they have expanded the range of films available.

Scanning and digital post-processing have added to the potential uses of film, and freed it from some of its old constraints. For example, Kodak have produced two colour films that are unprintable by conventional means, but both remarkable for their time: Primetime in the 90's and HD Scan film now. Primetime was a bold move, and before its time - the idea of a film that was designed for scanning only was a bit radical. Fuji still haven't attempted it - I get the impression that they prefer safe bets.

Exciting times for film users, exciting times for digital users.

Best,
Helen


----------



## mysteryscribe (Dec 6, 2007)

I love film because it is what I grew up with.  I understand it and I have a ton of film cameras.  It is as much economics as it is anything else.  I can buy a lot of film for 2000 bucks every three  years.   

I have the cameras and even if I didn't a good camera used these days can be had for twenty bucks.  Good glass another thirty.  Film couple of bucks a roll.  7200 dpi scanner was two hundred bucks and will probably never need replacing.

When I shoot i don't shoot five hundred shots.  I don't think it would help me to do so.  So I have one thirty-six exposure roll to process. about three bucks.

But I'm so limited you say.  If there were only one way to do things in photography you would be right.  However most of the things you do digitally we did for years with film so I dont feel limited I feel challenged.


----------



## autumnlights (Dec 7, 2007)

I love film for most of the already-posted reasons. No matter the quality of a digital image, the colours and textures always just seem so much better with film. It's how I learned photography, and I'm sure that if I'd been given a DSLR I wouldn't have learned nearly as much because it's just so easy to take hundreds of pictures. With film, you're so much more involved; you have to set everything manually (on my camera, at least) and you need to be aware of the amount of pictures you've taken. Then you either have to take it to be developed or do it yourself. It's a lot more hands-on then digital is, and the effort that you put into it makes you want to work on taking better and better pictures to make it worth it.


----------



## indiephoto (Dec 11, 2007)

I'm new to photography and have only ever shot digital but when I get more expierience I have full intents on learning to shoot and develop film


----------



## nealjpage (Dec 11, 2007)

I wonder what's become of the OP.  Did he write his paper?


----------



## TheGenericusername (Dec 11, 2007)

i like film because its real, there isn't too much tweaking that can be done, what you see is what you get. Unlike digital where a crap photo can be a masterpiece because of photoshop, the same applies to the photographer.


----------



## Battou (Dec 11, 2007)

nealjpage said:


> I wonder what's become of the OP.  Did he write his paper?



It's entirely possible he/she may be/have:

1. Just sitting watching the replies and writing the paper

2. Forgot about us

3. Was just trying to stur something up and run

4. Waiting for the last minute to eright the paper and off doing other things.


----------



## Fate (Dec 28, 2007)

My reasons for: 

1.) I love film grain at high iso.
2.) I love being in the darkroom.

My reason (only one ) against:

1.) It just doesn't cut it for spot news photos. Digital is the way forward for press photography.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Dec 28, 2007)

I was one of those guys that went kicking and screaming into the digital age.

But I had to go digital, if I wanted to survive. I shoot a lot of PJ and event stuff, and to keep up, I had to switch to digital. And you know what? Once I did, I thought to myself, "Why was I making such a big fuss over this?"

I had a darkroom at home for over 30 years and I worked in several darkrooms at major metropolitan newspapers across the country, and to tell you the truth- I don't miss film that much at all, or even working in the darkroom. And that astounded me because I thought I really, really would miss all that.

The one thing I do miss is shooting film cameras, and in particular, rangefinders, but I really don't miss shooting film that much or working in my darkroom like I thought I would.

And now, just to keep up in my PJ work, I expect to be shooting a lot of stuff with high-end digital video cameras, this coming year. And that is just what I need- another system to learn.:x


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (Jan 2, 2008)

Film "sings."  Also, it dances the cancan *without pantaloons.*

I like the way film looks, but probably the biggest reason for me is that I love cameras, and out of necessity, have to use film in vintage, pinhole, and plastic cameras.


----------

