When is film no longer film?

Southdowns

Southdowns

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,820
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
This is a question that's bothered me since I started using film again last year.

My process with film (now) is to shoot it, have it developed or develop it myself if it's B&W, then scan and import into Lightroom. I then almost invariably at least tweak the shots a bit, and often do quite a lot more than that. Most of the photo's in this thread are examples of shots that are NOT what came out of the scanner. I think that approach is fairly common in this section of the forum, but I may be wrong? Dare I say it, but if it's not, sometimes I think maybe it should be, as I reasonably often see film shots and think they could do with this or that digital enhancement.

Obviously in the "olden days", unless you printed yourself, the results would not be tweaked at all beyond generic stuff the lab did. If you did print yourself, you could manipulate the results, but never to the extent you can with digital today.

So my question is, hasn't film in a way just become an alternative type of digital sensor? And if so, can we honestly say we achieve results any different to/better than from a digital camera? Should I feel bad about not accepting/presenting what comes out of the camera when shooting film?

My own opinion is that the film based digital sensors that my film cameras have become, have characteristics that inspire different results to my truly digital shots. I could probably achieve almost identical results with my Sony A65 and some PP, but probably wouldn't do because the starting point is different. Add to that the fact that I can change the sensor (film), the fact that shooting film slows the whole process down and forces me to think, the fact that it feels like I'm crafting something when shooting film (even if the results don't always support that), and the fact that the kit is to die for, and I love film in a way that I never will digital. But, pragmatically, is it really that much different?

This isn't about PP vs no PP BTW, more about whether or not what we do in this section really is old school photography at all. I regard photography as the process of producing a communicative image starting with a camera shot, regardless of how the end result is achieved, and think PP is just one essential part of that.
 
Last edited:
I think we've already discussed this topic to death (e.g., http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/when-does-film-cease-to-be-film.518282/). Fact is that people have been manipulating photographs since photography began and it's no different today.

Shoot whatever makes you happy—whether it's about the results, the process, etc.—and don't get too caught up in trying to categorise your own photography or the photography of others. Odds are people will use a multitude of methods, especially those of us that frequent this area of the forum.
 
Last edited:
Film remains film as it ever was. Digitisation confers a hybrid workflow. When I scan, I use the scanning software essentially to reproduce what's on the film, mainly just setting black and white points and tweaking curves to extract as much as possible - this produces an archive file. Any further Photoshop work could be said to equate to what would've been the darkroom stage of things.
 
99% of manipulation you do to a scanned negative on a computer was being done in darkrooms. Don't worry about it. The image is what counts!
 
Depends on needs. My photographs are usually intended to be shared online rather than via a gallery or club audience. Therefore I have no need for the expense and space of a dark room. I share digital images, not prints. It wouldn't be justified. I digitalise at the film stage after drying, using a V500 scanner. I'm happy with that work flow, and often describe my images as hybrid photography. I capture using great film cameras, but share digitally online.

I use the supplied Epson scanner software for now. I leave it on auto levels/curves etc. However, all other controls including sharpening are off. I scan pretty large res and minimum compression to make digital masters. I then tweak selected images with Gimp - a bit of dust healing, resize/crop, levels, and that is it. I don't like over-the-top pp. HDR is the imagery of the devil. Horses for courses though.

I guess that is it - personal taste and style. I like my hybrid photograpy to look like it started life in a film camera, so I only optimise, and I don't mess too much with it. Film photographs shared online as digital representations.
 
Thanks everyone. That all makes sense, and fits with how I see it, but it begs another question, probably the one I should have posted originally:

Given that digital is indisputably easier, cheaper once you have the kit, and more flexible than film, and given that both are likely to end up digitally modified, what is the point of shooting film? I gave some of my reasons in my OP, but I wonder what other people think?
 
because i prefer the workflow and i get more of sense of creating an image and having more control over that creation.

*edit* and the fact that film and digital images do look different to me.

*edit*edit* :) I did some flower shots today with both medium format and digital (D800). The medium format took time, i had to manually meter things, set it all up , get the focus right (wont find that out till i develop though) and took a series of exposures. It took time and i was greatly involved in the process. On the D800 i sat the auto focus point on a part on the image and had it focused in a millionth of a second or whatever it was, i slid the shutter speed dial until the mark on the light meter graph got to a point and then pressed a button.

If im in a rush i know what i prefer, if i have time i also know what i prefer.
 
Last edited:
  • I prefer the look and feel of old cameras. (If I could have a good digital sensor in a Rolleiflex box, with proper TLR focussing, I'd love that too)
  • I like the physicality of holding and storing negatives.
  • Processing film gives me a sense of satisfaction that digital can't compete with.
  • I like being a contrarian/special snowflake.
  • I can afford relatively better film cameras/lenses than I can digital. Once you factor this in, digital's supposed cheapness is a lot less of a factor. If I buy what was £2,000 of camera for £200, then I can afford a hell of a lot of film.
 
Southdowns said:
Thanks everyone. That all makes sense, and fits with how I see it, but it begs another question, probably the one I should have posted originally:

Given that digital is indisputably easier, cheaper once you have the kit, and more flexible than film, and given that both are likely to end up digitally modified, what is the point of shooting film?
Click to expand...
Fondness for a particular camera or film stock can be a valid reason.
 
abdoujaparov said:
(If I could have a good digital sensor in a Rolleiflex box, with proper TLR focussing, I'd love that too)
Click to expand...
You may be in luck there, if you have an old Hasselblad ... the back's only about ten grand.
 
Film is always film and as has been mentioned we all come to it in different ways, I am by no means a purist, I like film as my capture medium and I tweak away in Lightroom until I have the image I want. I love Lightroom because it lets me replicate some of the things I did at the enlarger, without all the mess and time that took. I guess that makes me a hybrid photographer. I like both the journey and the final result!

Also there is long history of image manipulation even when pixels were only a distant glimmer in someones eye!

Take a look at this , it makes the point neatly I think:

http://theliteratelens.com/2012/02/17/magnum-and-the-dying-art-of-darkroom-printing/
 
Southdowns said:
Thanks everyone. That all makes sense, and fits with how I see it, but it begs another question, probably the one I should have posted originally:

Given that digital is indisputably easier, cheaper once you have the kit, and more flexible than film, and given that both are likely to end up digitally modified, what is the point of shooting film? I gave some of my reasons in my OP, but I wonder what other people think?
Click to expand...
  • Digital is easier, but as an amateur enthusiast, I don't always want easy. I enjoy the work flow. The more that I put into the image, the more value it has to me. Shooting a manual film camera, setting focus and exposure myself, processing the film, and scanning it - these aren't chores, but rewarding enjoyment.
  • Cheaper? Go upstairs to the digital forums and take a look at the competitive market-driven, one upmanship upgrade culture. Look at how much those photographers splash out on the latest must-have-this-years-model gear. It way outstrips the cost of my film and chems. I get to use premier professional ex-studio medium format film cameras for a fraction of their costs. Beautiful cameras. Back in the 90s, I couldn't even afford an AE1. Now I shoot with an SQ-A.
Ok, so what attracts me?
  • As I just said, work flow and the beautiful gear. The cameras themselves are a joy to use.
  • The media of film - every type has its own personality
  • Negatives. I like having hard master copies rather than just binary data.
  • Sure, the results. I've been searching for a style. I'm starting to find one at last with home developed b/w film. My photostream is no longer just like all of the others. It is different. Film does offer better grain and tones to b/w. If it has a bit of hair or dust - so what? It's real.
I still own a couple of old DSLR cameras - and sometimes use them when I require a fast image. When I push that shutter button though - and shoot off half a dozen binaries to the memory card, it doesn't feel right. It is too easy. I don't feel the same kick when I fire that shutter onto some Ilford.
 
XA2inmypocket said:
.
  • Cheaper? Go upstairs to the digital forums and take a look at the competitive market-driven, one upmanship upgrade culture. Look at how much those photographers splash out on the latest must-have-this-years-model gear. It way outstrips the cost of my film and chems. I get to use premier professional ex-studio medium format film cameras for a fraction of their costs. Beautiful cameras. Back in the 90s, I couldn't even afford an AE1. Now I shoot with an SQ-A.
Click to expand...
Well I did say "once you have the gear" ;). Yes digital kit is more expensive, as is the glass to go with it, but you don't HAVE to buy into the upgrade culture; I shoot digital, and I don't spend spend spend.

All your other points I agree with 100% :)
 
Southdowns said:
Thanks everyone. That all makes sense, and fits with how I see it, but it begs another question, probably the one I should have posted originally:

Given that digital is indisputably easier, cheaper once you have the kit, and more flexible than film, and given that both are likely to end up digitally modified, what is the point of shooting film? I gave some of my reasons in my OP, but I wonder what other people think?
Click to expand...

... That excited buzzy feeling when using them and the waiting for them to be developed.......plus the feel and look of the old cameras are just lush...
 
Southdowns said:
Given that digital is indisputably easier, cheaper once you have the kit, and more flexible than film, and given that both are likely to end up digitally modified, what is the point of shooting film? I gave some of my reasons in my OP, but I wonder what other people think?
Click to expand...

I'm not willing to concede that digital is easier than film.

How easy is it to shoot backlit portraits with digital without blowing highlights? How easy is it to avoid using computers or even just restricting the use of computers with digital photography? How easy is it to charge your digital camera when you travel to remote destinations? How easy is it to find a digital camera that doesn't shoot 3:2 aspect ratio or doesn't require turning for portraits?

I also don't agree that digital cameras are inherently more flexible either. I have a whole range of Bronica SQ accessories that allow me to change the way that I use the camera (e.g., different backs, hand grips, viewfinders, focusing screens, etc.) that just aren't options in the digital realm. Digital offers flexibility with regard to high ISO and the like, but those are things in which I don't place much value.

Digital cameras are often simply more convenient when it comes to viewing your photographs, but they are not more convenient for achieving the look I want for my own photographs, so I have no interest in using them.

From my own perspective, I cannot find a reason to use digital cameras, but I appreciate others have different objectives/ways of working/etc.
 
Last edited:
Southdowns said:
Well I did say "once you have the gear" ;). Yes digital kit is more expensive, as is the glass to go with it, but you don't HAVE to buy into the upgrade culture; I shoot digital, and I don't spend spend spend.

All your other points I agree with 100% :)
Click to expand...
That is true. Before I switched to film, I used a six megapixel Pentax K110D fitted with an old Pentax-M mf lens for a long time. The glass gave great results on that digital camera. However, there is this awful must-have-the-latest-upgrade-have-you-seen-the-benchmark-review culture present on any sort of social forums. It's generated by the equally awful digital photography media/magazines, who receive sponsorship from the manufacturers and distributors. I'm not saying that anything is wrong with this - or that it was ever different during the great age of film. However, I like to try and be a rebel against that sort of spoon fed consumerism. Down here, we know that the ability of the photographer is far more important than having a wifi enabled GPS positioning latest duplex quadruple core FULL FRAME sensor-ed Mk 8000 III DX C HD Video capable camera with a swingy viewy screen thing. A camera is just a box with a hole in it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jao
XA2inmypocket said:
Down here, we know that the ability of the photographer is far more important than having a wifi enabled GPS positioning latest duplex quadruple core FULL FRAME sensor-ed Mk 8000 III DX C HD Video capable camera with a swingy viewy screen thing.
Click to expand...

Aaarrrgghhhh, WANT!!!

Oh hang on, does it shoot tethered? Can't be doing without tethered, these days!
 
PMN said:
Digital is infinitely less forgiving as a medium than negative film. Why some people say digital is so easy completely puzzles me, it's much more difficult to absolutely technically nail stuff on digital than most people realise.
Click to expand...

I agree with that,how many photographers even read there manual very few,just straight on the AUTO.

Marketing of digital from its inception was that photography was no longer a challenge,anyone could just point and shoot and billions of people have(even the top end DSLR,s have AUTO :) ). That is why it has been successful and without doubt it has and that is very good indeed. Film is film the essence of our past and we use film because we love it,all the modern technology of the computer just helps in the aftermath of the deliberations of taking that ONE shot.
 
but you can just point and shoot on many film cameras as well . most people have computers anyway ,so with a digital camera ,as long as most of them can see a picture on the screen they are happy ,they're not really interested in having the image printed ,so its as good as free photography ,,,film costs money before you get to see the picture ,,,,
 
but people spend money on cinemas, unnecessary clothes, pubs, restaurants, poser cars etc so why not spend money on a hobby of using film......................................................................
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top