bob417

The reason why I shoot film is simple economical. It would cost me $5,000 to replace my film camera and my lenses to go digital. I would want to go full frame and have the same type of coverage that my current lenses now give me. At this point in time I might break even after 20 years but there's no guarantee that I'll make it for another 20 years.

BebuLamar

Now that I don't know. Back in those days I was always hoping for better audio format than vinyl. They are so fragile. Play them a few times and you would have pop and ticks. I used mostly tapes, reel to reel and cassette. I still use the cassette today.
Back in those days, I would make a tape copy of the vinyl. Being a copy they don't sound as good as the original but they sound the same for a much longer time.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

One thing it does is slow one down from just pressing the shutter button and shooting just a bunch of shots. One only has 12, 24, or 36 shots. Then one is done unless one has another roll. One is much more careful about exposure, composition, and whether or not to take the shot at all.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Those of us who wanted to preserve the quality of our vinyl recordings did that.
When DVD technology came out I knew it would take over quickly. Good riddance I said to vinyl recording technology!

But I don’t think music, LP vs DVD is a good analogy for photography, film vs digital.

Artists and hobbyists still shoot film. Commercial photographers, sports photographers, other professional phographers, shoot digital because time is money for them.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

You need a new digital camera.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Which I always saw as a major disadvantage of film.

Weddingguy Loc: British Columbia - Canada

The same reason some people still ride horses.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

It can be a disadvantage if your are in a hurry. Professionals are always in a hurry as time is money.

It can be an advantage if you are, not in a hurry, and you are interested in the process for improving the quality of each snap.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Sometimes after I've been shooting film exclusively for a longer period, then switch to digital photography, it feels like I'm suddenly not doing real photography anymore, but rather a digital simulation thereof. I have a similar experience whenever I switch from traditional painting, -using physical canvas, paint and brushes- to digital painting with digital tablet, pen and software.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I am a very practical kinda photographer. I don't have any nostalgic feelings towards my equipment or methods- they are just tools and materials which are subject to change and progress.

I suppose that some folks continue with film photography strictly because they prefer it for a multitude of logical reasons- they lile the "look" better, they still have fully equipped darkrooms, they have a large inventory of equipment that requires film, and there are no reasons for them to transition into digital photography. Some of us will do both. Why not? Some artists paint in watercolor, oils, do etchings and graphics and do photography as well. Why not diversify?

As a professional photographer I transitioned into digital very early in the game because of client demands and many practical reasons. Supplies of traditional films, papers, and prepared chemistry began to dwindle. Frankly, much of my favorite material eventually disappeared. I found I could replicate many of the "looks" effects and products that I routinely produced with film technology in digital methodologies. Some may disagree but they are certainly entitled to their opinions and preferred working methods.

I still use film for a few purposes. I have some favorite soft-focus portrait lenses that cannot be adapted to any kind of digital equipment. Their focal lengths are just too long for even a converted medium format system. The zonal aberrations that enable the effect kinda lives on the outer edges of the field and the center of the lens is just too sharp when the sensor does not "see" the outskirts of the field of coverage. I have one client in Europe that still wants 8x10 transparencies for examination, authentication, and evaluation of artwork and paintings. As long as I can still access outsourced processing for these materials, E-6 and C-41, I will continue to offer these services.

I have sold off much of my other large format gear. It was going unused, the shutters were beginning to go atrophy, so I had them repaired and found new home for them where they will go to good use.

As far as MUSIC and AUDIO are concerned. I am a long-time music lover- all kinds! I consider myself an AUDIOPHILE!- much to the chagrin of my lovely wife. If I hadn't gone into photography, I would have become a musician- it runs in my family- it's in my DNA- all that was lacking was the talent and the patience. My music teacher gave up! My grandfather and one of my brothers were classical musicians. My dad was an electronic technician and an amateur musician and my home, as a kid, was always packed with decent audio equipment of the era. I traded off with Grandpa- He took me to baseball games at Yankee Stadium and in return I had to accompany him to classical concerts and the opera house. He told me that some of the operas (the stories) were kinda "R" rated (by today's standards) but I never got it because I didn't understand Italian or German! I did enjoy them!

There are pretty decent audio systems in my studio and my home. I have lots of CDs in the collection but I still make sure to have a few operating turntables, a and even a few cassette players around only because I still have many tapes, and LPs, Direct-To-Disk, and even a few 8 track recordings that were never re-released in current formats. Obviously, there are differences in the sound reproduction formats all the various medium. Even the latest CDs and vinyl recordings can vary in quality. Like in photography there are differentials in the frequency range, and that also has to do with the equipment in use- the amps, players, and of course the speakers. As in photography, many audiophiles go nuts with some of these technical issues. Perhaps they become so preoccupied with the electronic specification they forget to sit down and enjoy the music- sound familiar? You can't enjoy a performance on an oscilloscope likewise, you may not be able to enjoy a photograph on a histographic readout.

So...regarding my musical tastes and equipment budgets, I had to find peace. So I adopted a philosophy that I learned as a kid while playing hooky from school one afternoon. Every now and again, I would take an unauthorized day off and go downtown to browse my favorite cameras stores- Peerless and Willoughbys in Manhattan. One fine afternoon I stopped off at Grand Central Station to enjoy an audio demonstration given by A-R, that was the Acoustic-Research Company. The "Guru" there was Henry Kloss, a pioneer in fine audio gear who believed in simplicity and good sound reproduction. His advice in selecting a good
Hi-Fi/Stereo system was to firstly, try to attend some live performances- Rock, Jazz, Classical, Opera, Military Music, vocal, instrumental- whatever suits your tastes and try to retain the sound, the atmosphere, the presence of the sound in your mind. Then when you go to the store to get a demo, forget about the statistics and the sale pitches and LISTEN. Is the sound too thin...is it too booming, are the high notes exaggerated or squeaky? When the whole band or orchestra is playing, can you pick out some of the instruments or sections or does it sound like a mishmash? The negatives here are indications of exaggerated bass or treble to impress you but after a while, that will cause listener fatigue and theses are also signs of harmonic distortion. Does the sound seem to eminent form both sides and the middle or does it kind of "ping-pong" back and forth? The latter is a sign of poor stereo imaging. If there is too much "echo", reverberation or delay, that is also a fooler. Does it still sound present when played at low volume or do you need to drive it up to get any oomph! If you LISTEN, you won't be fooled. Careful attention to setting up your gear, placing and phasing the speakers and operating you amp properly will make the difference- just like in photography- well kinda!

Theoretically, if the specification state that your sound system can reproduce frequencies that only your cat or an elephant will hear- that supposed to mean that the stuff you can hear will be better. It is not a bad idea to bone up on the technology but oftentimes a properly set up mid-priced system will outperform a higher-end system that is not set up properly. It's like buying a $10,000 Speedatron lighting system and not knowing where to place the lights. A skilled photographer may do better with a Speedlight or two and a reflector.

So...I know my sound system is in order. I am not a fan of surface noise but I still enjoy my older LPs. Some of my CDs may sound a bit too pure or sterile but I can live with them. Folks laugh at the 8 track unit, that I had to find in a junkyard and adapt it to my system, but the sound is darn good and I have not seen updated versions of those recordings. Most of my recordings are fine and if I can sit back, close my eyes and experience the ambiance of a concert hall, jazz club or other venues- I am a happy camper!

Elmerviking

There is not a single digital camera today that is comparable to an old high quality film camera. I shoot my vintage Nikon F because I enjoy the feeling of quality. That camera is built to last a lifetime, which you cannot say about DSLR. They just don’t make cameras like that any more!
Like others said, it also slows you down and make you compose more carefully.

SwarmDoctor

Try Ektar 25 in an F3 with a 20 mm F2.8 or a 85 mm F1.4, and you will see the beauty of real film. But I normally use a D7200 which is fantastic.

Leeo Loc: Oregon

Returning to the darkroom after 40+ years. Having developed and printed color before, I accept the challenge again. I do not know how far I will get, but I am looking forward to it. I have digital Nikon and a Nikon F2. I can shoot the pic with the digital and if I like the pic, I will go with film. I use to load up 100ft of 35 mm in my cassetts and spend 40hrs
a week in the drkrm. Now hope to cut that down. And I want big prints at least 16x20.

Carusoswi

I totally agree with your reply.

Caruso

therwol Loc: USA

I still have my Nikon FTn. I used it into the 90s. I could still use it. The problem for me is precisely that it uses film. I'm in the process of scanning thousands of old negatives and slides. If I produce new ones, I'll be scanning those.

I share a lot of pictures. I'm archiving family pictures for my children. They won't want anything else, but they'll want those. Everything for me now has to be digital going forward and even going backward. And yes, I have a complete darkroom packed up except for the 4x5 enlarger that I have my Nikon D810 attached to in order to make a rigged up copy stand. I photograph negatives and slides when I want more detail than I can get out of my flatbed scanner.

I'm only speaking about my own needs. I can see in this post that many get a great deal of satisfaction and pleasure from using film, and that's always a good thing.