drmike99 Loc: Fairfield Connecticut

Yesterday (Saturday) I took my D7100 out for some pictures, taking with me the AF-S Nikkor 40mm Micro f/2.8 G (DX) and the AF-P Nikkor 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6 G (VR,DX). I shot mostly in Aperture Priority Mode with back button autofocus, took a bunch of shots, and had a pleasant time. Today I went out instead with my Bronica ETRSi and the 50mm f/2.8 (think moderate wide-angle) and the 200mm f/4.5 (think roughly 135mm) and my Minolta Spot Meter and Tri-X with 9 exposures left on the roll. I spent twice as much time, took 7 exposures, all of course manual exposure and manual focus. Film is expensive compared with digital so I was careful in composition, careful in metering, very cautious with my shutter speeds with the long lens, and had a significantly better and more rewarding time. I know what I got with the D7100 yesterday and won't know what I have until the film is finished, sent out to the lab (The Darkroom in San Clemente or Old School Photo in Dover, NH), and the scans uploaded to me. But the old school photography, the deliberateness of the exposures, and the whole nature of analog photography was just more rewarding. Of course, I could have put the D7100 in full manual mode and used manual focus and taken the same deliberate time in setting up and making the exposures, but it still would not have been the same thing. I won't discard the switch to digital, but I will never give up analog either, and will use my Bronica, Pentax 6x7 and Nikon FE at least as much as the digital D7100. Just food for thought.

Charlie'smom

I try to shoot a roll of film a month. I still have four film cameras (two Nikon FE2s, a Canon AE-1, and a Pentax K1000), but am planning on selling all but one as I just don’t shoot with them enough to justify keeping them all.

So I’m with you. I don’t plan on ever giving up on film.

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

I'm with you on the use of the film cameras, but continue the pleasure, by developing the films as well. The anticipation of opening the dev' tank is still magical.

Leicaflex Loc: Cymru

I am a predominately a film photographer (commercial) and shoot Black and White for greater definition.
My favourite film was the Kodachrome 25.

GAS496 Loc: Arizona

It’s the “process” of taking a photograph and all that goes with it that appeals to me using film up to and including printing the negatives. I have a digital camera but rarely use it.

Anyone interested in photography should watch a new movie out on Netflix. “Kodachrome” with Ed Harris. It is funny, sad and the scene where they discuss the analog vs. digital is priceless.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Indeed it is a great and rewarding experience shooting with old film gear. When we have to do all manually we have the feeling that we are indeed into photography. I for sure enjoy exposing with a hand held meter (spot) and changing shutter speeds and apertures at will to fit the exposure and my "artistic" needs.

We can have the same experience with digital if we take our time. It is very rewarding having instant feedback and a histogram to make sure we are nailing the right exposure for the subject. Using film we are extra cautious because we do not have the feedback or the histogram and we cannot see what we are doing but still the skillful photographer has the experience to know when his or her exposure will be in the ballpark. Visual design is exactly the same for both media.

Film has become very expensive.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

No, it's not the same at all. Doing that with a digital camera feels different, it's not the same experience. (at least for the folks I know who shoot film.)




Well...that depends on a lot of factors, I'll leave that comment alone for now. :)

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Sounds to me its analogous to riding in a house drawn carriage as opposed to an automobile. Each has a unique purpose and appeal.

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

Film is more expensive than an inferior built digital rig, a computer, the time and software to process it?

SonyA580 Loc: FL in the winter & MN in the summer

The enlarging and printing, washing and drying, was always the part that took so much time and space to accomplish. So why can't we combine the 2 technologies? Shoot and develop black and white film and then scan the negs into digital format for further processing.

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

Sounds good to me. 👍

TonyBot

C'mon DrMike - you only took *twice* the time? It was probably closer to seven to ten times the time - and maybe *that* is even a low estimate. You thought a while about the lens (changing it if necessary) or zooming *with your feet*. You thought about the format, and how to best utilize the (choose one: restrictive or liberating) square. You thought about that big mirror-slap, and making sure that that Behemoth Bronica was safely on a tripod that you had to move around to get the framing and steadiness you wanted. You thought also about the emulsion you were using, its properties, and how it was to be developed - *not* saying to yourself "I can fix this in Post". And, in the back of your mind, how you had only a few shots left on the film, not the dozens or some multiple thereof on the memory card, and probably agonized for a minute or two before you finally made the exposure.

Finally, you more than likely thought to yourself: "Y'know, I'd love to try this with something like a 4x5 ... "

EdJ0307 Loc: out west someplace

I've been into photography since the early 1960s. I was stationed at Hickam AFB in Hawaii while in the Air Force from 1963 to 1968. I have about a thousand slides of Hawaii from that time. If modern digital cameras were available back then I would have at least ten times as many photos if I didn't have to worry about the cost of film and processing every time I pressed the shutter release button. Not to mention my trips to San Francisco, Yosemite, Mount St. Helens, Burney State Park, Bodie, etc.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

One can as easily home-process color negative and black & white and color transparency film.

drmike99 Loc: Fairfield Connecticut

Pretty close, except that I wasn’t dealing with the enigmatic “square” — that’s my Rollei — the Bronica ETRSi is a 645 so I had a 4/3 aspect.