Railfan Technology > Why shoot film?

http://petapixel.com/2015/04/24/12-reasons-photographers-still-choose-to-shoot-film-over-digital/

Sounds like a bunch of sour grapes supported by tenuous arguments.

After shooting tens of thousands of frames of film for many years, both as a hobby and commercially, I switched to digital way back in 1998. Even though the technology then was pretty weak, I haven't looked back.

If you like film, shoot film. But shoot it for that reason alone. Not for a bunch of weak arguments and faulty logic to make it seem like you are missing something with digital.

Photographers the world over have cast their votes. Digital won.

The current crop of digital SLRs have surpassed the resoultion of 35mm film, so there not many arguments left. The most solid one is you can look at 100 year old photograph, but will we be able to open a JPEG in 100 years?

Sure there are artists who jusl like playing with film and that is cool, but for most it is just a case of "change is hard".

I have not shot a roll of film since 1998 when I got my Kodak 1 Megapixel camera. Now I am enjoying my Nikon D7100.

Scott Schifer
Torrance, CA
TinyTrains Website

Something was not mentioned in the article and that has to do with uniqueness of each image you take with film (be it slides or negatives) Yes you can copy/print the image but there is one and only one original. Digital images can duplicated as much you choose and to all extents and purposes are equivalent to the original. So we have seemed to have lost the concept of a unique or singular original. I guess that is the reason that you can sell original slides on eBay for what seem like huge amounts of money.

I'm not saying this is an argument in favor of film but simply pointing out what I think is a relevant difference.

Neil

There are a couple of ways to make copy negatives from film so the original may not be as unique as you think.

The only reason I have found for some photographers to stay with film is to carry on a filing system which might already have tens of thousands of images. The problem is increasingly trying to find the film and processing you need to continue.

The software used to process digital images just gets better each time it evolves. If there is not a way to get the "film look" you want from a digital image now there will be one day. Putting Tri-X push into a B&W digital conversion is just a button push away.

Posted from Windows Phone OS 7

Very interesting topic. Some notes to support the idea of continuing to use film.
I have friends who still continue to use slide film. Note I said slide film not
film for prints be they colour or black and white. Different
area of discussion.

These friends of mine and yours truly as well) for the most part have
neither computers not the desire to own a computer. They are for
the most part between sixty and ninety years of age.
They have always used slide film, in some cases
Kodachrome II ASA 10,  then ASA 25 (which is when i started to use slide film)
which they used in the camera often handed down from their father.

There are other films used when I was using slide film on a regular basis,
Ansco being one as it was often lower in price to purchase
and also to process than the Kodak product. Also Perutz and
Agfa (which had over-saturated colours)and maybe other brands as well.

Why should we change from something familiar?
Somethng that works?. Something that they have scores of images
stored in Kodak branded Carousel trays (holding 80 or 140) slides or
in straight trays which usually hold 40 slides for use in Sawyer, Revere, or Ansco or
other slide projectors that use such trays. Or like myself in metal slide
trays which hold on average 600 slides each?

Why indeed?  Because it works, for them, and for me too.
Then too the above noted friends are retired and in most cases not entirely flush
with money.  Most are holding their own however at some point even their
photography shall have to end.

Reliable processing of any "film" unless done by one's own hand can be fraught
with problems. Sometime I'd get a roll back of Ansco film, the film had been poorly aligned on
the cogs that fed
processed slide film into a machine that mounted the slide in cardboard mounts. Each slide
was half of one image separated by a strip and half of the next
image, for the entire roll of film. In the early days half-frame cameras
were in vogue, you could also get 72 images on a roll of
36 image film and get them mounted, assuming they didn't have a problem
as noted above in the lab.

Kodachrome, the favourite film for many reasons is no longer available,
Fuji and a few others still manufacture colour slide film however at some point they too
may well stop manufacturing such film.  Suspect various forms of black and white
film in formats up to 4 inch by 5 inches shall always be available;
it will become a niche area for those who wish to
be so involved.

The really big problem these days is a company that will do reliable processing. 
Here in Canada there one or two labs that still process E-6 slide film.
One main lab has repeatedly and without apology processed
my slide film as print film process C-41; ruining the images.  No apology.
They told me to go digital. Told them I want to project the slides (the dimwit
bird behind the counter asks "what's project mean?")  Grrr. 

That's the other thing. My friends get together regularly to show slides; some from
trips to a foreign land to the south which date back to the mid-1960's. Just tell the
border security these days when going into the USA that you're got to shoot trains
and watch what happens.
We still enjoy our hobby in our own country as perilous as it has becomes thanks to the
gullibility of the general populace and the sad decline in home grown smarts.

 And we have the projection equipment, paid for and we know how to operate the devices.
To me personally, digital is as to a phart in a windstorm, gone before it has time to settle.
Digital is also to me simply another form of print film,
useless unless rendered on to a piece of paper receptive
to receiving the image by however what means.

One other thing that should be noted.  At what point does one stop
doing your photography? Any photograph be it film or digital...

Another topic for another time perhaps?

 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/15 15:45 by Thumper.

The average pro-film photographer would have to be somewhat wealthy, or deep in debt, to keep shooting film like they used to.  Film and processing costs are now double, going on triple, what they were fifteen years ago.  Just for fun, I checked the price of Fuji Provia 100 and an E6 processing mailer.  The film sells for $9.95 a roll and the mailer costs $10.59 plus postage.  That's at least $23 for every 36 exposures.  Not that long ago I was paying $8 to 9 for everything. 

I used to know guys who averaged 500 rolls a year.  At today's prices, a high-end DSLR with lenses would pay for themselves in six months or less.
 

I was a wedding photographer and portrait photographer for over 20 years. I was very skeptical of digital photography when I first saw it. Once the quality improved, I could see the advantages. I switched completely to digital in 2004 and never looked back. I can't even find a store in my area that develops color print film, much less color slides or black & white.

Film photography is an outdated technology that lasted for over 150 years. Its time has come and gone, just like 78 rpm records, carbon paper and telegraphs. All very useful in their day but progress has made them obsolete.

Just my opinion.  
 

David.Curlee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The average pro-film photographer would have to be
> somewhat wealthy, or deep in debt, to keep
> shooting film like they used to.  Film and
> processing costs are now double, going on triple,
> what they were fifteen years ago.  Just for fun,
> I checked the price of Fuji Provia 100 and an E6
> processing mailer.  The film sells for $9.95 a
> roll and the mailer costs $10.59 plus postage. 
> That's at least $23 for every 36 exposures.  Not
> that long ago I was paying $8 to 9 for
> everything. 
>
> I used to know guys who averaged 500 rolls a
> year.  At today's prices, a high-end DSLR with
> lenses would pay for themselves in six months or
> less.
Actually here in Canada it is much worse. Try $18.00 for that roll of
Fuji Provia 100 plus here in Ontario our 13 percent sales tax.

On top of processing charges (when they don't crew up as in my example
noted previously) are $21.00 plus 13 percent tax.

One point not noted. My older friends, including myself simply do not do
much photography anymore. Not for the expense and  the
loss of  general interest, rather
 a dramatic loss of locations where photography is permissable
The local non-rail enthusiast has Little respect for authority in general;
which affects us all, sadly.


 

 I'm curious as to where you can't shoot pix of trains in Canada.  I'll be there come summer and favor not being in jail.

Thumper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually here in Canada it is much worse. Try
> $18.00 for that roll of
> Fuji Provia 100 plus here in Ontario our 13
> percent sales tax.
>
> On top of processing charges (when they don't crew
> up as in my example
> noted previously) are $21.00 plus 13 percent tax.

Yikes

Good article!  And proud to say I haven't jumped on the digital bandwagon yet.


K3HX Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://petapixel.com/2015/04/24/12-reasons-photogr
> aphers-still-choose-to-shoot-film-over-digital/

Kodachromedude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good article!  And proud to say I haven't jumped
> on the digital bandwagon yet.
>

Why would it make you "proud" one way or the other????? That's like saying that you're proud that you haven't jumped on the cell phone, computer, automatic transmission, color TV, microwave oven, jet airplane, etc. bandwagons. What other old fashioned technology makes you feel proud? If you post any scanned slides on the internet, you are "on the digital bandwagon".

Old Bob out in Lost Wages



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/15 09:57 by chuchubobnv.

Wonder what the costs add up to after backing up on numerous hard drives. And what does the future hold for older images?
I shot slides and digital at Spencer last year. The slides sure felt good to have. Maybe the tangible item in your hand is more reassuring......
Even for the higher cost involved up front. I have used the Slideprinter(Denver Digital Imaging now) in Denver since I started shooting slides. Never had a problem with them. Unlike Dwaynes.

You need lighten up dude.  I say it in part to get people like you stirred up.  Seems it worked.


chuchubobnv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kodachromedude Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Good article!  And proud to say I haven't
> jumped
> > on the digital bandwagon yet.
> >
>
> Why would it make you "proud" one way or the
> other????? That's like saying that you're proud
> that you haven't jumped on the cell phone,
> computer, automatic transmission, color TV,
> microwave oven, jet airplane, etc. bandwagons.
> What other old fashioned technology makes you feel
> proud? If you post any scanned slides on the
> internet, you are "on the digital bandwagon".
>
> Old Bob out in Lost Wages