Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Thoughts about shooting film in a digital world
Page 1 of 8 next> last>>
May 21, 2017 21:50:29   #
JD750 Loc: SoCal
 
Some thoughts about recent events. I shoot digital and I also shoot film. I get the question 'why' a lot.

Yesterday I went to the beach with my son and grandkids. I took my M43 camera, got some shots I was happy with. However before they left, I took some film pics and my 2.5 yr old granddaughter said "grampaw can I see the picture?" How to explain this? So she is growing up and her understanding of a camera is it is something that you take a picture and you get to see it right away. Not seeing the picture was completely out of her comprehension. I explained that we had to wait to get the film developed, she just gave me a blank stare.

Today I decided, would be a film day, went for a hike with friends, took my film camera with 24-120 F4 lens attached and a couple rolls of film. The thing that struck me was how light that was. The lens was most of the weight. The film camera body is small and light. Much lighter than my D750 but not quite as light as my M43 kit. But still very light for full frame.

The last thought is regarding why do I shoot film anyway? I like the fact that it makes me think more before I press the shutter. I think more about the composition, the exposure, the story. It slows things down. Which is not all bad. And there is something to be said for delayed gratification.

Of course I don't have any images to attach. I will have to wait to get them developed to see them.

Reply
May 21, 2017 22:05:58   #
JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco
 
I can see shooting film because you like the look of it, especially if you make darkroom prints. But I just can't see this "it makes me think more" thing. I had 30 years of shooting film and doing my own B&W film development and printing, and I really don't believe I think any less now shooting digital about what and how I shoot than I did when I shot film. I do take more shots now that I can with no additional cost, for subjects that it is an advantage - people, action, etc. but I feel I still do it in a thoughtful way. If anything, I think more about exposure with digital, as with film I could get away with more exposure error and pull it out in the darkroom.

Reply
May 21, 2017 22:10:51   #
Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA
 
JD750 wrote:
Some thoughts about recent events. I shoot digital and I also shoot film. I get the question 'why' a lot.

Yesterday I went to the beach with my son and grandkids. I took my M43 camera, got some shots I was happy with. However before they left, I took some film pics and my 2.5 yr old granddaughter said "grampaw can I see the picture?" How to explain this? So she is growing up and her understanding of a camera is it is something that you take a picture and you get to see it right away. Not seeing the picture was completely out of her comprehension. I explained that we had to wait to get the film developed, she just gave me a blank stare.

Today I decided, would be a film day, went for a hike with friends, took my film camera with 24-120 F4 lens attached and a couple rolls of film. The thing that struck me was how light that was. The lens was most of the weight. The film camera body is small and light. Much lighter than my D750 but not quite as light as my M43 kit. But still very light for full frame.

The last thought is regarding why do I shoot film anyway? I like the fact that it makes me think more before I press the shutter. I think more about the composition, the exposure, the story. It slows things down. Which is not all bad. And there is something to be said for delayed gratification.

Of course I don't have any images to attach. I will have to wait to get them developed to see them.
Some thoughts about recent events. I shoot digital... (show quote)


I spent almost 50 years shooting film from 35mm to 4x5. I didn't usually "get them developed." I usually developed them myself, both black and white and color. When ALL my work was "lost" by workers clearing my house in Mexico, I made the decision to move entirely to digital. This decision was buttressed by learning of the burden borne by the environment from the chemicals and leached silver of my photography. It was also supported by the ease of creating backup sets that might have protected me from the loss of many thousands of prints, slides and negatives.

As to having to wait to develop the images, I do exactly that when I shoot RAW and have only RAW data until I develop the images in Photoshop, (or more recently Affinity Photo). I do not succumb to the ease of jpeg because my images are almost always superior when I develop them.

There is no reason any longer to shoot film. The quality of the image is no longer better. Indeed it is no longer even discernably different.

Of course, there are antiquarians who choose to use some process like Daguerreotype, Talbot's Process, or Ambrotype. But there will never be enough of those to be problematic.

Reply
 
 
May 21, 2017 22:11:35   #
PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago
 
JD750 wrote:
Some thoughts about recent events. I shoot digital and I also shoot film. I get the question 'why' a lot.

Yesterday I went to the beach with my son and grandkids. I took my M43 camera, got some shots I was happy with. However before they left, I took some film pics and my 2.5 yr old granddaughter said "grampaw can I see the picture?" How to explain this? So she is growing up and her understanding of a camera is it is something that you take a picture and you get to see it right away. Not seeing the picture was completely out of her comprehension. I explained that we had to wait to get the film developed, she just gave me a blank stare.

Today I decided, would be a film day, went for a hike with friends, took my film camera with 24-120 F4 lens attached and a couple rolls of film. The thing that struck me was how light that was. The lens was most of the weight. The film camera body is small and light. Much lighter than my D750 but not quite as light as my M43 kit. But still very light for full frame.

The last thought is regarding why do I shoot film anyway? I like the fact that it makes me think more before I press the shutter. I think more about the composition, the exposure, the story. It slows things down. Which is not all bad. And there is something to be said for delayed gratification.

Of course I don't have any images to attach. I will have to wait to get them developed to see them.
Some thoughts about recent events. I shoot digital... (show quote)


i agree with you in that my film days it also made me.'The last thought is regarding why do I shoot film anyway? I like the fact that it makes me think more before I press the shutter. I think more about the composition, the exposure, the story. It slows things down. Which is not all bad. And there is something to be said for delayed gratification.'

But I gave up on film when I could no longer get my favorite Black and White, film, Enlarging paper anc chemicals.Also Kodachrome went bye bye. however my slow process of creating an image has stuck w

Reply
May 21, 2017 22:47:10   #
blackest Loc: Ireland
 
JD750 wrote:
Some thoughts about recent events. I shoot digital and I also shoot film. I get the question 'why' a lot.

Yesterday I went to the beach with my son and grandkids. I took my M43 camera, got some shots I was happy with. However before they left, I took some film pics and my 2.5 yr old granddaughter said "grampaw can I see the picture?" How to explain this? So she is growing up and her understanding of a camera is it is something that you take a picture and you get to see it right away. Not seeing the picture was completely out of her comprehension. I explained that we had to wait to get the film developed, she just gave me a blank stare.

Today I decided, would be a film day, went for a hike with friends, took my film camera with 24-120 F4 lens attached and a couple rolls of film. The thing that struck me was how light that was. The lens was most of the weight. The film camera body is small and light. Much lighter than my D750 but not quite as light as my M43 kit. But still very light for full frame.

The last thought is regarding why do I shoot film anyway? I like the fact that it makes me think more before I press the shutter. I think more about the composition, the exposure, the story. It slows things down. Which is not all bad. And there is something to be said for delayed gratification.

Of course I don't have any images to attach. I will have to wait to get them developed to see them.
Some thoughts about recent events. I shoot digital... (show quote)


That LCD screen is both a reason for so many good photo's and the reason for so many bad ones too. I guess because its in our nature to be somewhat lazy, you can sit and figure things out or you can take a shot and adjust if it isn't right. In automatic modes the camera even tries to do what it can to keep the shutter speed up and get a good exposure.

Actually even with an ME Super film camera it tries. You pick the aperture and if it can hit a shutter speed of 1/60th or faster it lights a green led or slower than that a yellow one. At which point you may be choosing a faster aperture or getting the tripod out. I found it quite relaxing with my k1000 there is more of a battle to adjust film speed and aperture to get the needle in the middle. For backlit subjects it's a bit harder.

Even though film isn't expensive to develop only having 24 or 36 shots on a roll you tend to want to make them count with film being relatively unforgiving (slide is a harder medium to master) You need to think about what you are doing I think that helps develop skill and confidence.

Some won't agree but personally I think if you can nail a shot with film you certainly can do so with a DSLR.

Reply
May 21, 2017 22:59:25   #
JD750 Loc: SoCal
 
blackest wrote:
That LCD screen is both a reason for so many good photo's and the reason for so many bad ones too. I guess because its in our nature to be somewhat lazy, you can sit and figure things out or you can take a shot and adjust if it isn't right. In automatic modes the camera even tries to do what it can to keep the shutter speed up and get a good exposure.

Actually even with an ME Super film camera it tries. You pick the aperture and if it can hit a shutter speed of 1/60th or faster it lights a green led or slower than that a yellow one. At which point you may be choosing a faster aperture or getting the tripod out. I found it quite relaxing with my k1000 there is more of a battle to adjust film speed and aperture to get the needle in the middle. For backlit subjects it's a bit harder.

Even though film isn't expensive to develop only having 24 or 36 shots on a roll you tend to want to make them count with film being relatively unforgiving (slide is a harder medium to master) You need to think about what you are doing I think that helps develop skill and confidence.

Some won't agree but personally I think if you can nail a shot with film you certainly can do so with a DSLR.
That LCD screen is both a reason for so many good ... (show quote)



Reply
May 22, 2017 00:00:23   #
whwiden
 
I use my Nikon D750 to shoot my film lenses sometimes. I have taken out that camera with my F2S photomic and shot both in fact. Given the manual focus process, the digital is about as slow as the film. Slower if I examine the shots taken. I find digital much better for sports but that may be a function of auto focus which I have never used with film. I shoot dramatically more action shots with digital which I never could or would do with film.

Reply
 
 
May 22, 2017 00:10:35   #
JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco
 
whwiden wrote:
I use my Nikon D750 to shoot my film lenses sometimes. I have taken out that camera with my F2S photomic and shot both in fact. Given the manual focus process, the digital is about as slow as the film. Slower if I examine the shots taken. I find digital much better for sports but that may be a function of auto focus which I have never used with film. I shoot dramatically more action shots with digital which I never could or would do with film.


There's no such thing as a "film lens". If you mean manual focus lenses, film cameras had autofocus before digital came along.

Reply
May 22, 2017 00:30:12   #
blackest Loc: Ireland
 
JohnSwanda wrote:
There's no such thing as a "film lens". If you mean manual focus lenses, film cameras had autofocus before digital came along.


Technically you may be right but certainly there were many lenses developed and sold before digital SLR's became available. Nearly all my lenses were designed for 35mm film camera's and it's only been with the launch of the Pentax K1 that they now can use the full image circle that they were designed to cover. Pentax DA lenses and Canon EF-S lenses were not designed to be used with 35mm film camera's although maybe there was an intention to use EF-S lenses with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_IX this camera...

I tend to think of my Pentax DA lenses as Digital lenses due to the lack of an aperture ring and not being able to cover the full 35mm negative. My other lenses were pretty much designed for film first even the AF lenses.

Reply
May 22, 2017 00:51:48   #
BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA
 
I guess I still shoot film for a different reason - nostalgia. To me, no camera ever felt better in my hands than my Leica M6; I'm sure I could pick up ten Leicas blindfolded and tell which one was the M6. The next best camera, not surprisingly, is my current IIIf; I don't shoot it a lot, but I often pick it up and just hold it............and reminisce.

Reply
May 22, 2017 03:35:44   #
rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA
 
I don't particularly enjoy working with camera menu systems, which is at the heart of all digital cameras. Also, using film cameras gives me a break from computer devices, which is what a digital camera essentially is - an image processing computer.

Reply
 
 
May 22, 2017 04:07:10   #
RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA
 
blackest wrote:
... I think if you can nail a shot with film you certainly can do so with a DSLR.

And vice versa!

Reply
May 22, 2017 05:49:20   #
bobsisk Loc: Chandler, Arizona
 
I'm curious. A fair number of commercial film developers used techniques with printing color film that didn't last but a few years. Of course, the reasoning was, it was fast and cheap. For instance, I have a number of older color prints that have gone reddish on me. I have kept them mostly in the dark, so light isn't the problem. Scanning and using Photoshop has helped to restore some of the colors, but now I'm wondering, what about the color prints from ink jet and laser printers? Does anyone have data to show whether these dyes morph over time?

Reply
May 22, 2017 06:23:48   #
blackest Loc: Ireland
 
bobsisk wrote:
I'm curious. A fair number of commercial film developers used techniques with printing color film that didn't last but a few years. Of course, the reasoning was, it was fast and cheap. For instance, I have a number of older color prints that have gone reddish on me. I have kept them mostly in the dark, so light isn't the problem. Scanning and using Photoshop has helped to restore some of the colors, but now I'm wondering, what about the color prints from ink jet and laser printers? Does anyone have data to show whether these dyes morph over time?
I'm curious. A fair number of commercial film deve... (show quote)


Some are supposed to be very stable others not so much sunlight and air seems to destabilize the dyes. A pigment based ink will probably out last dye based inks. Archival quality Inks should last and glass seems to help. I buy a lot of second hand pictures for the frames and fading of the printed images is very obvious. On the plus side being able to reprint from a digital file is less of a problem than printing from a color negative whose dyes have drifted over time. I've some inkjet prints that seem fairly stable and others severely degraded after just a couple of years...

Reply
May 22, 2017 06:27:52   #
tturner Loc: Savannah Ga
 
Here's something to think about: First of all I shoot exclusively jpeg photos, only because I don't want to spend the money on an image processing program that I have to "upgrade" constantly, the other reason is because for me, shooting jpeg is a digital equivalent to shooting slides on film. I read an article many years ago that stated "if you want to find out how good a photographer you really are, shoot slide film" the reason being is that unlike negatives, slides cannot be processed like a negative, slide film is far less forgiving. One question I am often asked is "how do you do your post processing" when I tell them it is a jpeg many do not believe me and I have had people argue that such an image is not possible in jpeg mode one such image is displayed here.. I guess they are talking about the back ground. But the greater point I want to make is that "at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. when you get to the end of your life and you are standing before GOD, it won't matter whether you shot jpeg or raw, film or digital. I will probably have people jumping all over me just for saying that but that's ok.



Reply
Page 1 of 8 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.