jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Just one of the reasons I no longer shoot film.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

And that my friend is why I no longer consider film an option. You have to wait to get them developed. When I travel to a site I will shoot once in a lifetime I want to get everything right the first time. I want instant results that my exposures are dead on. I am one of those folks that get it right in the camera and do not rely on post processing to save me. For me film is not an option, anymore.

whwiden

Older manual non ai converted and ai manual lenses and not a modern manual lens like a Voigtlander with a chip which allows changing the aperture with a dial or wheel on the camera. Sorry if the shorthand reference to film lens was confusing.

jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Right. With film you pay twice - to buy it and then to have it developed.

whwiden

Well said! I often like not worrying about menus or charging batteries, etc.

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

It is true that shooting film does make you think more before pushing the button. Even more when shooting sheet film with a view camera. When you have 6-8 film holders, (So 12-16 shots) and it takes some time to put them in the camera, you just don't expose them until you are really ready. That's why all the pros use film (not).

Slow is not better. The quarterback who is too slow gets sacked. The batter has to eyeball the incoming ball and make quick decisions. The trick is that they must be the right decisions. Rather than digital vs film, I think the Automatic and Programmed options should simply be filed off the knob. (Maybe everything but M, LOL)

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Great post but I am left wondering what film camera do you have? I am guessing a Nikon something.

Dennis

tturner Loc: Savannah Ga

The photo shown was taken with a Pentax K10D with a Tamron 75-300 at 300mm 3.5-5.6 ISO 100. My film camera is a Pentax ZXL.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I used film from the time my uncle gave me my first camera in 1960 at the age of 5, until 2005. I used film in SLRs and many other advanced cameras from 1968 until 2005. I worked in a pro portrait lab environment from 1979 to 2012, my first eight years as a multi-image AV producer doing training and promotional/motivational shows, the rest as a systems, project, or production manager of some sort. So I think I have a little perspective to offer.

I enjoyed film, when it was all there was. But when I got my first Mac in 1985, I could see that the future would be digital. Five years later, we had Photoshop and 1.2 MP cameras. The Kodak engineers came to our lab and showed us their experimental goodies (camera, Composite Machine, and dye-sublimation printers). A few years later, they showed us the first practical film scanners.

By 1995, we were off to the races, buying scanners, software, servers, and primitive digital printers. In 2002, we installed our first digital mini-lab. By 2007, we had 40 of them.

I said in '95, that film would be a hobby relic in 20 years.

Over the next 12 years, we ripped out all our old optical printers and recycled them, replacing them first with film scanners, software, networks, and mini-labs, then with digital cameras to feed the system.

In early 2005, we brought in a model and photographed her with film (split-70mm Kodak Portra 160NC in 6x4.5 cm format). Then we photographed her with a Canon EOS-20D. We scanned the film, color-corrected both the film and digital images, and printed both sets of images on a Noritsu MP-1600 mini-lab. We brought in all the managers and supervisors for a blind review of the prints.

62% of the staff liked the digital images better. That was good, because that Spring, our retail school portrait photographers began recycling over 400 long roll film cameras and replacing them with 20Ds.

In 2007, all the film processors came out. The film processor operators both had the same form of terminal cancer (35 and 25 year employees). We had to dig out several feet of earth under the concrete floor of the film processing room, to remove polluted soil. HR and legal counsel had a potential nightmare on their hands... But we got lucky. The operators had refused to wear their PPE (personal protective equipment) on multiple occasions.

By 2011, our entire workflow was 100% digital. No order paperwork, no film. Only data on DVD, or moved over the Internet. It was MUCH quicker, and FAR more accurate.

Here are some observations:

We can think just as much with digital cameras as we did with film cameras. In fact, we can think even more, if we like! The difference is, we can get where we want to be a lot faster. All it takes is the self-discipline to do it.

I think (or intuit) just as much about what I'm photographing now — or more — than I did when using film. The physics of light have not changed. The way digital tools react to light is a little different, but with knowledge and care and the right tools, we can get the same look, or something better. I haven't changed my thought process. But with digital tools, it is easier, faster, and more likely I will get exactly what I want.

I still start with a goal for my images. I still think, "Light character, contrast range, color temperature, intensity... Long view, medium view, close-up view... Bird's eye view, worm's eye view, vary the lens perspective... Pose, compose, expose... Anticipate, predict, follow, record... Color, line, form, weight... Balance, flow, negative and positive spaces..." ...But now I get to review and recalculate, on the spot.

If I want, I can "delay gratification" and just make exposures without looking at the OLED display. But why would I, since instant feedback allows immediate adjustment or correction? In FilmWorld, I had to worry about re-photographing (things I could re-photograph), or worry about missing a scene entirely. In DigiWorld, I review, adjust, and retake on the spot. If my idea didn't work, I change it. If my exposure was off, I adjust it.

JPEGs are like slides. With both JPEGs and slide films, to get ideal results, we must control ALL the variables BEFORE we press the shutter release. JPEGs are NOT meant to be edited. There is almost the same +1/2, –2/3 stop latitude. We must NAIL exposure and white balance in the camera if we want accurate subject rendition. Digital camera menu settings are *just like* the bag full of filters, different slide films, and meters I used to carry back in the early '80s. But they're far easier to use, once learned.

Raw files are like color negatives. With both raw files and color negative films, we have lots of exposure latitude (about +/– 2 full stops). We MUST process the images later, to get a usable file or print. WE are the lab, though. We can't send raw files to a lab... We must process them into JPEGs or TIFFs first. The good news is, we have more control over the outcome; the bad news is, we have to exercise that control. That means buying a decent computer, monitor, calibrator, software, and learning to use it all correctly.

I don't miss film. It served me well, but I've moved on. If YOU like it, that's great. Film photography makes a great hobby for those who like working with it. It makes an interesting art medium for those who still use it. But it isn't intrinsically "worse" or "better". It's just an older, different way to work.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Hi Dennis, I have a Nikon N80 and a Hasselbald 500cm.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Nothing wrong shooting film except for the inconveniences and not been able to have immediate feedback is one of them. Processing and printing film today is more expensive than ever.
The same discipline that you have with film you can have with digital. Digital sensors are more sensitive to light but having a color histogram guides you to exposure like no other exposure meter could do in the past.
The technology inside digital cameras is simple mind blowing compared to the film cameras. Having photographs that can be manipulated in the digital darkroom on a calibrated monitor guarantee that the colors you see in your monitor will be accurately reproduced. One of my issues with film has been that my negatives are subjected to the interpretation of a technician and many times I had to ask for color corrections or cropping that I easily do now with digital.
Tturner, I find nothing wrong using JPEG files but I know that there will be many here that will not agree with me. For them RAW is the only way to go and although I also shoot RAW many of my files are original JPEG images.
I do not believe God cares about RAW vs JPEG shooting but if He was talking to you He would be saying about your posted photograph "please fix that underexposed shot."

tturner Loc: Savannah Ga

Point taken.

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

I shoot film exclusively.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

"Slow is not better" is the reason that M isn't all we need. Sometimes, shooting action or changing light, shooting M instead of aperture or shutter priority would mean missing shots while changing your M settings.