Film era is smaller and now growing, due in large part to companies like Kodak and Fuji returning to film production. Film's not dead and never died.
It has been kept alive by those who learned how to photograph and use the darkroom. Those who've just learned with digital cameras have little knowledge or understanding of what aperture, focus, depth of field, ISO or film speed, etc. Their lack of knowledge on framing and pre-visualizing is evident in the work produced. Many of the fashion photographers have returned to the use of film.
https://www.businessoffashion.com/.../fashion-film-photographers-hawkesworth-weir-... They shooting film to differentiate their work, regain control over their craft and find a more human pace.
Also, younger photo fans are going back into the darkroom: "Back to the darkroom: young fans reject digital to revive classic film camera"
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/28/does-reflex-slr-camera-herald-35mm-film-renaissance.
So...now you know...Film is Not Dead.
Agreed. My bottom line is to use either film or digital depending on the project. For my portrait series...I use B&W film almost exclusively...Ilord HP5 indoor film. For my outdoor work I still use film Ilford HP4 predominately. There is a certain quality in the image that I don't find in my digital images captured at the same time...even with post processing. I use digital while traveling. I chose the tool that will do the best job.
Out of the 7 rolls of 36 exposures in 2007 did you actually use from that wedding?
How many out of the 287 digital frames in 2018 did you actually use?
It's a question of quality vs quantity.
However, when the card is over-written a number of time...the quality of image capture drops off considerably.
With the advantage of easier, faster, more immediate of the digital mode comes a lack of actually looking and thinking about what one is shooting. Taking thousand of digital images of a subject does not insure actually visualizing your intent. One has to stop and think, make adjustments and shoot. Film tends to slow the photographer down enough to think about why they are shooting and visualize what they want to capture. This is how artists use photography. Just capturing an image is what anyone can do.
In my humble opinion, I think that film has not only the better quality of image capture, but also longevity. I've used both over 15 years now and can attest to the quality I find in the film I've been using in my portraiture. Shooting black and white film both indoors and out, I'm very satisfied and pleased with the quality I find in my images, compared to the digital ones. If you've ever used film for any length of time, you will be able to see the difference between the image quality of film and digital. If you take a 4x5 black and white negative that has been exposed properly, you can actually see the areas (looking at the negative on a slant) of dense build up of the silver in spaces exposed to more intense light.
As for longevity, film does outlast digital, if cared for properly. You can have your film negs scanned to a disk...that will degrade over time. If you keep your digital images on a memory card...they too will last not much longer. You will find film images, both negatives and the original prints, in museums that are older than 100 years.
I see people using iphones, smart phones and now even with new lens attachments to take photos of everyday life...and even nature. Perhaps, this is because they can instantaneously post their images on Facebook and Instagram. Instagram even has rudimentary tools to improve bad images...or, even alter their original look.
Any thoughts on this?
Thanks,
Jen
As an artist who uses photography in my work, I would tend to agree with you. To me the camera is just another tool...just like my paint brushes. I chose to use the tool most appropriate for the project. How many hairs or what kind of hair or fiber in my paint brushes have is not important to me...just how they react on paper or canvas. The same can be said for my cameras. My older film camera is wonderful for some shots, while my digital camera is essential for another. I chose to use my field camera and its lenses for portraiture because I understand enough to get the effects that I like. The same goes for my other "tools".
To me...the most important thing is composition and content. Why am I drawn to photograph one thing over another? It's a constant question I ask myself...not what pixels do, etc.
Be like street photographer Vivian Maier...become discovered on film.
On film. Writing digital photos to film and properly preserving those images already on film; photo books, etc.