In case you’re wondering why people are still shooting film, check out Ken Rockwell’s post on why digital is dying. While I don’t agree that digital is dying, I wholly agree that digital still has major shortcomings in comparison with film. Film offers more range, better color, and more exposure latitude. A scanned transparency yields a greater digital image.
Well, a Hasselblad H3DII, which costs $30,000, can be used to disprove that general statement, but yet a drum-scanned 6×6 medium format exposure from a 40-year-old TLR will shame the H3DII. Quality digital costs a whole lot.
Then there’s the kit problem. My father got an Olympus OM-1 with 50mm and 35mm lenses. For him, that was enough. He didn’t buy another camera for nearly 30 years. That sweet Canon G9 you bought last summer is stupid now that the new G10 is rolling out. I cannot imagine in the year 2038 finding an amateur photographer using a Canon G9.
And to hit on another point from above, exposure latitude is really key for me. Digital SLRs are not forgiving if you over or under exposure by half a stop, let alone a full one. Good old negative film will let you shoot sloppy. A stop or two up, a stop or two down, it’s no big deal. Highlights won’t be washed out, shadows will still have depth.
I also liked that Ken mention wives and girlfriends love film. So true. But not for the reason Ken mentions, which is time spent distracted by sorting through the plethora of photos a digital camera can yield in a short time. Skin tones and rich detail from Kodak Portra 160NC are flattering.
Before you call me a Luddite, let me acknowledge that digital photography is the future. Film will have its place. With all the equipment and enthusiasts out there, I believe it will remain in one form or another. In the meantime, though, I suggest digging around your father’s or uncle’s closet for his old 35mm. I promise with a little practice, you won’t be disappointed with the results.
17 Comments
Film is cheaper than it otherwise would be, because of digital
Having digital reduces a demand for film.
Well, I think both digital and film have their benefits. I love the flexibility of digital, and the quality of film. With a digital camera, I have an exposure meter, a color meter, instant polaroids, instant reward (or deception). The immediate feedback allows me to improve my pictures as it makes easier for me to experiment.
However, nothing can replace yet (for me, at least) the quality of a positive slide proyected in a big screen.
I tend to agree. Film has a different look I’m still trying to achieve with digital. The Sigma cameras with Foveon chip brings me closer. It behaves a lot more like film. The bad reviews are due to people treating it like any other DSLR, which you shouldn’t. With Sigma, I overexpose 0.7 stop when shooting, and pull it back when developing, just like in the film days. On other DSLR brands, with bayer chips, one rather underexpose a bit, in order to protect the highlights as otherwise they might suffer / burn out. Shooting that way with a Sigma gives very poor results.
Oops I’m off topic. Sorry. Yes, film is cool. I miss my Pentax 67 system;-(
@Hardeep: Let’s just hope it gets cheaper still. The problem will be when digital overtakes film and relegates it to being a novelty hobby, when the only chocie is mail order developing from some guy in Kansas. (Kodachrome anyone?)
@Guillermo: Digital definitely lets users practice the art of composition. Even though I’m using an SLRs, I am constantly surprised at my ability to actual image the exposed composition. I love digital for that.
@Oliver: Ah, digital sensors. You’re right about certain sensors overexposing, others under. It’s sort of like shooting positives, when you bought slide film in batches to know its EV +/-. I constantly see digitals clipping white and losing black. Handling dynamic light range seems next obstacle for digital to overcome.
You know, film users talk a lot more about lenses than digital. You could say that sensors are, actually, the new film. It’s too bad you can’t swap them in and out like film—yet.
Medium format vs. digital vs. 135 is yet another topic. Most film users will admit that you couldn’t compare 120 with 135. So why compare film with digital? So far, there’s limited overlap in application.
a friend of mine, professional photographer, finally bought his first digital camera… Nikon, professional class. He still shoots black and white film and charges well for this nostalgic medium.
I still prefer the large format aerial photography film over digital, mostly because I have yet to see aerial imagery which is as efficient in covering large areas with less images at extremely high resolutions.
I believe there could be a return to a re-usable film which has the ability to reset the crystal matrix.
the trick is to interface with the vastly dense matrix of crystals.
perhaps, once technology for computing moves from electrical signals to light based signals, we could then expect an interface to a film like crystal emulsion.
Film is amazing for it’s ability to store and retrieve data. sensor technology is already simulating film, but storing and retrieving emf wave lengths or light into a crystal seems more advanced to me than measuring the intensity of emf hitting a sensor.
It seems we are taking a step backwards to improve technology in other areas before revisiting film…
You guys just keep shooting film. Nikon stopped making film cameras about 5 years ago. Film is there for the same kind of people as vinyl record lovers and antique car fanatics. I shoot digital because I can create much better colour rendition than crappy film. I make 12 x 18 prints that look fabulous compared to my film prints. No chemicals, no labs required. Just a few quick minutes on the computer to pp. Film in the early days took decades to get perfected while digital is almost there in less than one serious decade.
Keep dreaming about the renaissance of film. It’s over except in your minds.
Al, no one mentioned a “film renaissance.” It’s obviously losing popularity at a staggering rate. For the past, oh, five years or so, when giving camera suggestions to friends and family, I always suggest digital.
For me, I’ve only been pleased with results from full-framed DSLRs. And I’m refuse to take part in planned obsolescence. Take the Nikon D3 vs. D3x controversey.
But I doubt you’ve seen ‘perfection’ in digital photographic technology. Early digital cameras have come along way in the past decade. But high ISOs and a return to optical performance over sensor adequacies are imminent needs. Can I even get a DSLR-optimized prime with an f-stop of 1?
To each their own. Happy chimping.
interesting comment, regarding “planned obsolescence” I can relate, as it seems in order to buy real glasses, not plastic, one needs to make a special order.
I think perhaps, the red.com system is meeting the vision I have for a digital film quality.
“A scanned transparency yields a greater digital image.”
Some years ago I had the pleasure of scanning some century-old glass plate negatives and I can agree with this statement.
When you can meld microdot tech with that old analogue surface area/exposure you can get some magic happening.
@Al M.
Al wrote: “Film is there for the same kind of people as vinyl record lovers and antique car fanatics.”
You mean for people who know quality when they see it? Vinyl sounds better than CDs, and antique cars are sturdier than the modern lightweight crap cars you see today.
Al also wrote: “I shoot digital because I can create much better colour rendition than crappy film. ”
Are you sure it’s the film that’s crappy? Could it be something else perhaps (the lens, the camera, the photographer’s skill, etc.)?
I fail to see how Nikon film cameras are specifically relevant to this discussion - both Nikon and Canon currently make and sell film cameras - but even if they didn’t it wouldn’t matter. There are plenty of manual cameras still in use - enough to create a market for film. I would be more worried about compact flash cards - it seems camera manufacturers might be moving away from them (so if your camera uses one - you better hope CF cards don’t become obsolete!)
However I do agree that film will never be as prominent as it once was - it may very well become extinct within my lifetime and I’ll be forced to permanently retire my 35mm cameras (I hope I’m wrong, but I doubt it).
I also agree that digital IS the future, whether I like it or not. Quality-wise, digital is closing the gap between it and film. And I agree it has it’s benefits (you can learn to compose your pictures and practice exposure without wasting a lot of film). Though I prefer film, I’ve been very happy with the quality of digital photos I’ve been getting lately.
Unless you develop your own film, your ‘no chemical’ argument is useless. Also, printing out digital pictures on a home printer is not as good as getting them professionaly printed. That almost defeats the purpose of having a high quality sensor in your digital camera. But to each his own.
Nice comment. This discussion now needs to focus on display systems which might surpass the low tech paper products.
I have wonderfull content of soviet photos and creating a site using your blog.txt template for it. Will update shortly, i hope you will find some outstanding interesting retro-style photos there. Want to thank you for your template Scott!
I’d love to go back and try film. However, even though film is forgiving I’m such a sucky photographer I’d go broke buying film and getting it developed by someone that knows what the heck they are doing. And then they just snicker when they give me my prints
At least with digital I can shoot my 1000 pics and get 1 good one…lol! Great post Scott!
After taking the digital plunge about 5 years ago, I’ve come to the conclusion that there is just something lacking in digital landscape shots. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve made some very nice ones that I’ve been pleased with. But they still come out looking “digital” (don’t ask me to explain more than that…..it’s kind of like Gibbs’ gut feeling on NCIS).
With that in mind, I’ve just recently picked up a pristine Pentax 645N and a couple of lenses for a tiny fraction of what the digital equivalent would have cost. I’m looking forward to seeing what results I get from high-quality scans of Velvia 50 or 100.
However, for wildlife and the like I don’t see moving away from digital…..to fast and the longer lenses are critical (the digital crop factor helps there, too).
Cheers,
Mike
Well, if Al is going to make a comment like that, then I’ll say this…digital cameras are for soccer moms and people who don’t know anything about REAL photography. They’re people who just want “kewl pics” for their MySpace page. They are only interested in the cheapest, easiest way to get their snapshots. They don’t care about quality.
Film is REAL photography.
If we want to generalize.
Also, as to the comment that Nikon stopped making film cameras years ago, they nonetheless made a point of showcasing the F6 at PMA this spring. Also, Kaiser introduced a new enlarger. So the comment that film is not for the mainstream and is becoming the domain of artists and professionals may be correct, but that doesn’t mean the two genre won’t coexist for a very long time……or until someone makes an affordable 200 Mpixel (or better) medium format digital back.
Cheers,
Mike
Thanks guys. I’m a novice photographer who picked up a Minolta Dynax 8000i a few years ago on Ebay which I love. Some of the pictures I took with that camera are professional quality images. I bought a Sony Alpha 100 camera two years ago because it takes the same SLR lenses as my Minolta. I haven’t been able to reproduce the quality images I get with my 8000i.