lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

I have shot a lot of film, Kodak Instimatic to 8x10". And I still have several 35mm and 4x5" cameras. But I have not shot film since 2014, having bought my first digital PnS around 1996. I now have 6 digital cameras plus a SmartPhone. No way would I go back to full time film shooting.

I love using Photoshop. As a few of you may know I have been scanning my old films. And I just bought a new Epson V850 Pro scanner to supplement my V500 Photo scanner. Now I can scan those 8x10" negatives! But I have found from over a period of years of scanning that given a good, clean, well shot piece of film I can produce and process to make a digitized image equal or superior to one of my similar digitally shot images. The difference is my hit ratio. Looking through my negatives and wet chemistry prints I find very few that are up to my current digital skill level. Most of my early film shots are horrible. I find entire 20, 24, 36 exposure rolls of nothing worthwhile, and I mean usually with only a few bracketed negatives of the same scene. I still shoot digital slowly and methodically - never a fan of spray and pray - and get a lot more good images, perhaps 1 in 10, as opposed to 1 in 30 with film. More experience, sure. The only time I shoot bursts is for action which I rarely shoot.

I have a few younger photographer friends and they are really intrigued with shooting different sorts of film and film cameras. I have even given a couple of them, who actually are a couple in the other meaning of the word photo equipment and literative I no longer want. I gave this young lady a Polaroid SX-70 camera to play with the massively over priced film for it. She also shoots plastic toy cameras. And for serious work she has a Fuji X-T2. Her boyfriend who shoots commercial and other photo assignments professionally shots a number of Sony MILCs for still and video. He also shoots amazing drone flights! He dabbles with film too, mostly 4.5x6 cm format.

GreenReaper

I too was hesitant at first. Then I found out all the things that I wanted to do with film but couldn’t, lack of knowledge,money, specialized equipment, you pick it, I could do in the digital world. I never went back.

bleirer

Wait, are you from Brooklyn?

PhotogHobbyist Loc: Bradford, PA

bleirer

I was with you but I'm changing my tune lately. Bursts are the way to go for handheld is the thing I try to remind myself now.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Many people do not recognize humor when they hear or see it.
They simply jump to the defense.

He could have said "<insert city of choice>", but takes away from the quip and requires more thinking on the reader's part. So he picked one. He could have picked Toledo.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

They should make camera sound like a machine gun when in burst.

PhotogHobbyist Loc: Bradford, PA

CHG Canon wrote:

"The only people shooting film in 2021 are fossils, the idle rich and hipsters from Brooklyn."

And later wrote:

"I only shoot film because my EOS 1v uses all my EF lenses, especially the IS-enabled models. The 45 AF points in the 1v body from 2000 are only slightly less than the 61 in my EOS 5DIII. I sold off all my manual-focus bodies when I recognized I was not able to obtain the same sharply focused results in film as I could easily obtain in digital."

So what is your preference? It seems contradictory to state criticism of film users in one comment and later state you are using film. Which category are you, fossil, idle rich, or a hipster from brooklyn (transplanted to Chicago) and being contradictory or hypocritical?

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

Vinyl records are also making a big comeback. But my vinyl collection continues to play in my garage every summer when I am back in Pennsylvania.
The thing I like about digital is that I have finally escaped the smelly, dangerous fumes darkroom.
I can to a 100 times more in Photoshop than I could even dream about with film. Film may always have a nitch following but I for one will never go back.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Many people do not recognize humor when they hear or see it.
They simply jump to the defense.

He could have said "<insert city of choice>", but takes away from the quip and requires more thinking on the reader's part. So he picked one. He could have picked Toledo.
(Now people from Illinois will be on me.)

Earnest Botello Loc: Hockley, Texas

And yet you still shot film, Paul, which one are you?

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

Now days the only film I have is on my teeth.

Peteso Loc: Blacks Hills

I started in photography in 1964, shooting 35mm and 2-1/4” formats, primarily as a black-and- white photographer. While I do not plan on going back, I can certainly understand why some photographers might want to continue using film, at least part of the time. It has a beautiful look and I miss the darkroom experience. Also, if ISO is an issue, Hasselblad had interchangeable backs.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

It certainly has opened a lot of doors not only digitally but on the analog side as well. One of the more interesting developments has been the return of alternative and historical processes. Digital has been a driving factor in this not only because it has created a desire for a more haptic experience of image making but also has provided an easier method of making large alt process images.

Digital negatives can be produced on inkjet printers at a large scale, 16x20 for instance, which is easier and more affordable than using a 16x20 camera. One then coats their paper for whichever process and contact prints the negative and processes the print as normal.

Cyanotype has become very popular in the art community among photographers and printmakers because of its easy and inexpensive chemistry. Full color gum-dichromate printing has become easier as well because it requires 4 negatives for different colors. The separation can be done in photoshop and then printed as inkjet negatives fo each channel.

bradkg Loc: englishtown nj

Oh, I fully got the humor and if your read my response I think that would be obvious. Brooklyn was just my entry into the convo. I happen to agree fully with the sentiment. I shot thousands of rolls of film from the 70's all the way through the early 90's and then switched over to digital in 1999, dismantled my wet dark room, changed it over to a digital room and have bought and sold digital cameras over the last 20 years as the science improved. I now have loads of glass, digital Nikons 800 series, mirrorless Fuji's, digital Leica (whoda thunk it) and a myriad of other smaller pocket size Sony's and of course the iPhone. You cannot go back, and I really do not even have the desire but I still really miss using the Nikon F2 if only because of the solid metal indestructible construction that the contemporary ones cannot match, through no fault of their own. I do not care what anybody says, though, I still supplement my music listening with a turntable and vinyl, and nothing compares to my early Gibson Les Paul's. Sorry Chicago.