Why is film coming back

[HoppyUK]

Something tells me you're talking about the tangible measures like resolution and colour reproduction, how easy it is to use etc etc rather than the intangibles such as pleasure and enjoyment. In which case, for me and a few others, film wins easily.

For most people though it doesn't really have anything to do with it being that much better it's nostalgia and pleasure. It's the same as grown men playing with steam trains at the weekend instead of electric ones, the same as people who still choose wooden sailing dinghys and the assosiated headaches over GRP ones. I shoot film because I enjoy it, I love the feel of a half decent old film camera an OM10 is so much nicer too handle than my 30D. I like thinking about how to use my limited shots and the anticipation of waiting for the results. Film will almost certainly die out eventually the decline is obvious to see but I'll keep shooting to the end for pure pleasure.

Yes, and I guess I was being a bit provocative. Sorry I thought we were talking about photography.

Shooting film is a bit like listening to vinyl (not much to do with music) or owning a classic car. It's a wonderfully emotive idea. Saw a guy with a beautiful and rare Daimler Dart recently. He had the bonnet up at a service station and we had a good chat while I admired the little V8 under there. He admitted it was a labour of love, then got back to fettling his spark plugs or something, and fixing 'that rattle'.

I've also got my dad's old Rollei TLR and a lovely Minolta SRT101 from the 70s (my first good camera after that nasty Zenith ). They're for fiddling with in wistful moments, not taking pictures.

 

[gingerjon]

Yes, and I guess I was being a bit provocative. Sorry I thought we were talking about photography.

Shooting film is a bit like listening to vinyl (not much to do with music) or owning a classic car. It's a wonderfully emotive idea. Saw a guy with a beautiful and rare Daimler Dart recently. He had the bonnet up at a service station and we had a good chat while I admired the little V8 under there. He admitted it was a labour of love, then got back to fettling his spark plugs or something, and fixing 'that rattle'.

I've also got my dad's old Rollei TLR and a lovely Minolta SRT101 from the 70s (my first good camera after that nasty Zenith ). They're for fiddling with in wistful moments, not taking pictures.

I bet when you look in a mirror there's no reflection.

 

[joxby]

Hoppy......I don't believe I've met somebody so very very wrong as you before, except for maybe Diddy...

But its all about opinions, and everything will be fine as long as we don't start confusing opinion with fact.

 

[HoppyUK]

Hoppy......I don't believe I've met somebody so very very wrong as you before, except for maybe Diddy...

But its all about opinions, and everything will be fine as long as we don't start confusing opinion with fact.

You should get out more John

And on the facts and opinions, so long as they're kept separate, it's even possible that we actually agree on both

Edit: you mean our DiddyDave? Leave him alone! He talks sense. (Sometimes.)

 

[joxby]

You should put your micrometer away, and bench test/target shoot a big tin of prunes, get with the cravat dandys....:nuts:
"Thou dust protest too much" springs to mind when I read your arsey wind-ups.

Diddy is bonza, a Philistine but still bonza.

I think film has found its market level, B/W is having a bit of a renaissance in that it will sell more this year than last, sales have improved year on year.
It isn't ever gonna reach the levels of its golden years but demand is such that it will probably never just end in the way the wums suggest it might.

 

[Kev M]

Ain't it funny how the filmies tend to put some sort of mock camera in their profile but the digi boys like nothing more than a bit of willy waving. Camera bags? Handbags more like.

No where did I leave that tin of Brasso? My cane and monocle need polishing. (No David, that isn't a euphemism)

 

[HoppyUK]

You should put your micrometer away, and bench test/target shoot a big tin of prunes, get with the cravat dandys....:nuts:
"Thou dust protest too much" springs to mind when I read your arsey wind-ups.

Diddy is bonza, a Philistine but still bonza.

I think film has found its market level, B/W is having a bit of a renaissance in that it will sell more this year than last, sales have improved year on year.
It isn't ever gonna reach the levels of its golden years but demand is such that it will probably never just end in the way the wums suggest it might.

No arsey wind-up from me John. Not intentionally anyway. I apologise if I have caused any offense, none intended.

And I'm not doing any protesting. Just echoing the comments made by others.

 

[joxby]

Statistically film is not coming back at all. In the few third world countries where it still clings on, it is falling to digital.

A few romantic retro nerds who wax lyrical on internet forums (there's an irony) does not constitute a come back.

Yes, and I guess I was being a bit provocative. Sorry I thought we were talking about photography.

Provocative is an understated description, and I'm not offended by wind-up which this definitely is, no apology necessary, it comes with the territory if you have anything remotely positive to say about film in a heavily digital biased forum, unfortunately..

 

[jamesb84]

No where did I leave that tin of Brasso? My cane and monocle need polishing. (No David, that isn't a euphemism)

With the moustache wax in the bureaux.

 

[a1ex2001]

Shooting film is a bit like listening to vinyl (not much to do with music) or owning a classic car. It's a wonderfully emotive idea. Saw a guy with a beautiful and rare Daimler Dart recently. He had the bonnet up at a service station and we had a good chat while I admired the little V8 under there. He admitted it was a labour of love, then got back to fettling his spark plugs or something, and fixing 'that rattle'.

So what your really saying is because you don't understand or see value in something then it must be wrong? You clearly don't understand why some people listen to Vinyl, own classic cars or like to pop out with a film camera on the weekend and for some reason your unwilling to accept that they might do it just because they want to?

I totally see your reasoning as far as 99% of comercial photography digital is the best way to go, but in the hobbiest arena there are a myriad of reasons for choosing different mediums plenty of which go far beyond which approach will give me the easiest result.

 

[artona]

The best handicap I have had in golf was 5. If you do not play golf this put me within a hairs breath of being eligible to turn pro. But I did not know why I could play to 5. I can't play to 5 now but having studied practised and experimented I now know why I got to that level.

I think its the same with photography. Film and the process developing and printing film is slow and demanding. Its a great way to learn.

Digital cameras are so far more advanced than a basic film camera. If I was to set up a course the first thing I would do is give the student a nikon FM camera and a light meter

stew

 

[DiddyDave]

If I was to set up a course the first thing I would do is give the student a nikon FM camera and a light meter

stew

Bonza is back

And what a complete waste of time that would be for your new students who wouldn't have a clue what film was or why you were bothering to teach it when they all have digital cameras :shake:

Digi is THE way to learn - and will beat the chalkboard any day of the week

DD

 

[artona]

Bonza is back

And what a complete waste of time that would be for your new students who wouldn't have a clue what film was or why you were bothering to teach it when they all have digital cameras :shake:

Digi is THE way to learn - and will beat the chalkboard any day of the week

DD

My teaching Dave is based on the karate kid........wax on, wax off

Seriously..the photo world is full of very poor teaching imho. Photography comes down to a few important elements

How much light there is and what you are going to do with it.

When you are teaching a class of students, of whom will be of mixed ability to hit them with the digital world and its complexities from day one would possibly lead them into missing out on what photography is all about i.e

How much light there is and what you are going to do with it

I went through the same thing when I went out for the first day at Press Photography college....the instructor was there with his 5x4 camera. I now realise he was taking us back to basics, its the only place to start.

stew

 

[david1701]

Ain't it funny how the filmies tend to put some sort of mock camera in their profile but the digi boys like nothing more than a bit of willy waving. Camera bags? Handbags more like.

No where did I leave that tin of Brasso? My cane and monocle need polishing. (No David, that isn't a euphemism)

oh yes it is

 

[DiddyDave]

My teaching Dave is based on the karate kid........wax on, wax off

Seriously..the photo world is full of very poor teaching imho. Photography comes down to a few important elements

How much light there is and what you are going to do with it.

When you are teaching a class of students, of whom will be of mixed ability to hit them with the digital world and its complexities from day one would possibly lead them into missing out on what photography is all about i.e

How much light there is and what you are going to do with it

I went through the same thing when I went out for the first day at Press Photography college....the instructor was there with his 5x4 camera. I now realise he was taking us back to basics, its the only place to start.

stew

You should attend some of my teaching sessions mate - I always ask people to bring their own polishing materials

I do teach newbies, and I do teach the basics - which I honestly feel is a hell of a lot easier with a digital camera as (if for no other reason) the student can immediately see the effects of varying settings - and if they don't print them themselves the labs are great at recovering a print from a **** neg, which means they hide your faults too - hence no good to learn from

This is still the same premise whether digi or film - How much light there is and what you are going to do with it - only those paint boys have total freedom over reality

DD

 

[Kaouthia]

My teaching Dave is based on the karate kid........wax on, wax off

But even good old Karate Kid is changing his attitude now...

NSFW : Wax On, F*** Off

 

[artona]

Hey Dave if you can't keep your own house clean mate don't expect me to give it a polish

 

[artona]

NSFW : Wax On, F*** Off

but his early training will shine through, in the end

 

[HoppyUK]

So what your really saying is because you don't understand or see value in something then it must be wrong? You clearly don't understand why some people listen to Vinyl, own classic cars or like to pop out with a film camera on the weekend and for some reason your unwilling to accept that they might do it just because they want to?

I totally see your reasoning as far as 99% of comercial photography digital is the best way to go, but in the hobbiest arena there are a myriad of reasons for choosing different mediums plenty of which go far beyond which approach will give me the easiest result.

"So what your really saying is because you don't understand or see value in something then it must be wrong?" Sorry for the emphasis but I want to be clear and the somewhat provocative style of my previous post has maybe clouded that.

Absolutely not! I didn't say that at all! I don't believe it to be true either. I do understand classic cars, and steam trains, I have a vinyl turntable myself, and also an automatic watch that I love dearly even if it doesn't keep very good time.

What I actually said, was that those people who like to shoot film do it for more than purely photographic recording-of-images reasons. It's the process, the mechanical functions, the chemicals, the darkroom, the skill, the history, all sorts of wonderfully emotive stuff. That is entirely right and proper. But when they try and justify it on technical grounds, claiming that the image quality from film is in some way superior, they're just kidding themselves, and I think missing the whole point of it. (And I know that is not what you are claiming.)

In technical terms, full frame digital is now as good as 645 film. That seems to be about the right level, and is pretty remarkable in a few short years. I think it's generally accepted, but you cannot measure these things easily - it's not just about pixels vs grain or some other simplistic comparison based on resolution or whatever. You have to compare prints, real images, look at them closely and in the round, and make a judgement. Medium format digital is now getting on for matching large format 5x4in film, though it's not there yet and of course there are other reasons for shooting large format which is why I think it is still used for some commercial purposes. Long may that continue.

My mistake seems to be pitching things in the way I did, following on from a previous poster (coming as that did from a 23 year-old I thought it was a very interesting post). As a result of that, I got completely misunderstood and accused of protesting too much and of "arsey wind-ups" which was unnecessary. It was not intended as a wind-up at all, though it seems to have been taken as one. I'll not make that mistake again on such a delicate subject

 

[a1ex2001]

It was not intended as a wind-up at all, though it seems to have been taken as one. I'll not make that mistake again on such a delicate subject

Having seen this post where your much clearer and explain yourself in far less provocative terms it would seem we actually agree pretty much.

Got to say I agree with Diddy Dave as well, digital is the only way to learn these days and film should only be used by those that want to.

 

[CT]

I love to see Hoppy kissin' ass!

 

[HoppyUK]

I love to see Hoppy kissin' ass!

Phew! Must add 'film' to my list of tread-carefully topics!

The list is getting longer... Copyright anyone?

 

[david1701]

I love to see Hoppy kissin' ass!

we need a brown nosed smily



*waves*

 

[artona]

Phew! Must add 'film' to my list of tread-carefully topics!

The list is getting longer... Copyright anyone?

yep, much easier to control copyright with film

 

[HoppyUK]

we need a brown nosed smily



*waves*

Not kissin yours college boy

 

[CT]

Actually, I pretty much agree with Hoppy. I shoot film out of nostalgia, sheer love of using the equipment, and the fact that it's just more of a preparation job than banging away with digital, and a greater sense of achievement when you get it right.

Messing about in the darkroom lost it's attraction for me years ago, so I probably woiuln't be messing with film at all if it wasn't for the fact that I can now scan the negs, which is a big attraction for me. I'm happy to develop E6 slide film in the kitchen sink, but as for printing - no thanks!

Would I debase my film bodies with a digital back if I could begin to afford one? Like a shot!

 

[david1701]

Not kissin yours college boy

kinky, not that I asked you to pucker

 

[Kaouthia]

You guys have inspired me to pick up a couple of rolls of 120 Ilford FP4 today to run through my old Voigtlander Brilliant.

Now I've got an excuse to buy some darkroom gear!

 

[G2EWS]

Hi Stew,

A good thread with some really interesting replies!

I was developing film at the end of the 60's. It was fun because it was all we had. I don't think I was a photographer, just a snapper at a boarding school that had it's own dark room.

When I started taking digital pics and slowly learning about manual settings I read somewhere that you take hundreds if not thousands of pictures and then you are sure to get some good ones. I did take thousands and soon became bored of looking through pictures that had no value to my eyes whatsoever. So I sort of gave up.

Then about 18 months later I started again and slowly over the last few years I have learnt that less is more. I only take a picture when I have studied the subject which more often than not is a landscape so it's not going anywhere! The only exception to this is school sports day or for example my recent trip to the Appleby Horse Fair were you only get one chance so I took lots of shots.

When I used to take my dog for a walk in the morning with camera in hand I could come back with 100 - 150 photos. Now I may come back with 2 or 3.

The great thing about this, is I enjoy looking at what I have taken and get great pleasure out of going through them.

So would I use a film camera now? No, I personally would get no extra pleasure from it and even though I often don't have the time to look at my pictures for 2 or 3 weeks, it would annoy me waiting for them to be developed.

Is film better than digital? I have no idea but my full frame Nikon's produce pictures of superb quality so I cannot see myself needing to get more. Well that is until the next wizzy camera comes out of the Nikon factory

Oh and I love technology and am a fully paid up gadget man!

Best regards

Chris

 

[Musicman]

Actually, I pretty much agree with Hoppy. I shoot film out of nostalgia, sheer love of using the equipment

I'm not sure I'd go with the nostalgia bit, but I do enjoy using film cameras. It's definitely a different experience.

I went out and shot a roll of FP4 with my A-1 on my way home this evening. It's got a bigger, brighter viewfinder than my 5D, even though that's full frame, so I find composing an image a lot easier. No AF means that I take a little more time over focusing, but that does somehow involve me more in what's going on in the frame. A little patience goes a long way.

I do rather enjoy the mechanical 'clunk' of the shutter rather more than the 5D's electrically assisted one (and indeed that on my EOS 3).

I may concede an element of nostalgia with the A-1 in particular as it's the camera I wanted when I was fifteen, but couldn't afford, so I ended up with an AV-1 for many years.

At the end of the day, it's a very nicely made camera. I have an appreciation for well-made things. I like using them.

Probably what attracts me to continue shooting film is that all that adds up to a different experience to, say, using my 5D; a different way of making a photograph, a different way of seeing. There obviously qualitative differences in the results, but it's the process of getting there that interests me as much.

As they've been in development for over 150 years, film cameras offer a wide variety of those experiences. I have a Yashica 124G for when I want the TLR experience (slower, more considered still than 35mm) a couple of 1960s fixed lens rangefinders when I want that (a Mamiya and a Canon). I haven't got on so well with the FED 5B I bought, I will admit.

Moreover, at the moment they offer a relatively cheap entry point compared to some of the other digital options - I'm keen to try out an m4/3 camera like the GF1 or EP2, but budget doesn't allow it, so film it is.

 

[CT]

The A1 has to be one the best looking SLRs ever made, and I agree the screen in my A1 is big and bright and not a speck of dust in sight.

 

[artona]

http://www.london-photographic-association.com/site/pages.php?fid=0,359,507

new film camera is launched

 

[david1701]

FnC knows this already

 

[Musicman]

http://www.london-photographic-association.com/site/pages.php?fid=0,359,507

new film camera is launched

It cheered me up to see that Fujifilm are launching a new medium format film camera this spring. We are not sure when it will sell in the UK as yet.

It's available in the UK today as the Voigtländer Bessa III for £1650 from Robert White. Curiously, the LPA chose to that as an illustration of the Fuji

AFAIK it's never going to be officially marketed in the UK with the Fuji name. The GF670 is for the Japanese market only. It's sold as a Bessa in the rest of the world.

 

[Gandhi]

I really don't like the tendency of a lot of people in this thread to class film users as a bunch of cardigan wearing, trainspotting nostalgia freaks!

There are those of us who shoot film simply because we prefer to work this way. There are pros and cons to both systems.

I can see why film is taught before digital at colleges. They are teaching you to take photographs, rather than become a machine operator. The study is all about composition, light and translating your own personal creative vision onto the media. To this end, you wont learn anything if you can shoot, chimp, rinse and repeat and then go away and fix any errors, crop, recompose, remove objects convert to black and add a lomo effect etc. You wont be able to translate your vision into a photograph at the point of capture.

This forum, I hate to say it, is riddled with photographs (and I have been an offender here in the past) that have failed from the initial conception of the image and then the digital process has been used to try and 'save' a poorly shot image.

This is the major failing of digital. People dont have any vision any more, they rely on the ease of editing and variations at the point of capture. We've all been sold a lie. Its not any easier to create great images on digital than it was film. That needs the ability to see, not to operate a computer.

 

[dizidav]

I really don't like the tendency of a lot of people in this thread to class film users as a bunch of cardigan wearing, trainspotting nostalgia freaks!

There are those of us who shoot film simply because we prefer to work this way. There are pros and cons to both systems.

I can see why film is taught before digital at colleges. They are teaching you to take photographs, rather than become a machine operator. The study is all about composition, light and translating your own personal creative vision onto the media. To this end, you wont learn anything if you can shoot, chimp, rinse and repeat and then go away and fix any errors, crop, recompose, remove objects convert to black and add a lomo effect etc. You wont be able to translate your vision into a photograph at the point of capture.

This forum, I hate to say it, is riddled with photographs (and I have been an offender here in the past) that have failed from the initial conception of the image and then the digital process has been used to try and 'save' a poorly shot image.

This is the major failing of digital. People dont have any vision any more, they rely on the ease of editing and variations at the point of capture. We've all been sold a lie. Its not any easier to create great images on digital than it was film. That needs the ability to see, not to operate a computer.

All of the above, plus I have photos taken in the 60s, & 70s, that are still as good as they were when taken, I also have an early Digital camera, that I cant use because the software wont run on modern computer systems, and Nikon no longer do software support for cameras this old (Coolpix range), I wonder how many of todays Digital shots will still be accessable after 50 years of 'Progress'.

Dave.

 

[G2EWS]

Hi Gandhi,

Well I for one do not knock those who choose to use film. We each make a choice for whatever reason and a label should not be attached to anyone for their choices.

I do whoever think you might be over generalising when you talk about the major failing of digital. As I explained previously digital gives us the ability to take lots of photos and then find the one that is good. Fine when you start I suppose but if like me you want to learn more you soon find out that this is not the way to take a photo.

In this respect I don't think it is any different from owning a film or digital camera. It is just that film makes/made you concentrate a little more because of the cost. But it did not make you a better photographer. Witness the thousands of photos I have found when an Aunt past away. I have not found one decent photo so far, just lots of snapshots of various locations. This is also typical of my photographs when I used to just press the button at what looked nice. I have a large box full of my early attempts at photography using a film camera!

It is only when you start to learn the art of photography that you become a better photographer be it film or digital.

I am still an amateur but by putting my early digital efforts on a forum such as this I was given advice and pointed in the direction that would improve my work. I would like to think that the advice has paid off

Best regards

Chris

 

[DiddyDave]

I really don't like the tendency of a lot of people in this thread to class film users as a bunch of cardigan wearing, trainspotting nostalgia freaks!

There are those of us who shoot film simply because we prefer to work this way. There are pros and cons to both systems.

I can see why film is taught before digital at colleges. They are teaching you to take photographs, rather than become a machine operator. The study is all about composition, light and translating your own personal creative vision onto the media. To this end, you wont learn anything if you can shoot, chimp, rinse and repeat and then go away and fix any errors, crop, recompose, remove objects convert to black and add a lomo effect etc. You wont be able to translate your vision into a photograph at the point of capture.

This forum, I hate to say it, is riddled with photographs (and I have been an offender here in the past) that have failed from the initial conception of the image and then the digital process has been used to try and 'save' a poorly shot image.

This is the major failing of digital. People dont have any vision any more, they rely on the ease of editing and variations at the point of capture. We've all been sold a lie. Its not any easier to create great images on digital than it was film. That needs the ability to see, not to operate a computer.

Sorry Ghandi but that's complete tosh IMO

Hi Gandhi,

Well I for one do not knock those who choose to use film. We each make a choice for whatever reason and a label should not be attached to anyone for their choices.

I do whoever think you might be over generalising when you talk about the major failing of digital. As I explained previously digital gives us the ability to take lots of photos and then find the one that is good. Fine when you start I suppose but if like me you want to learn more you soon find out that this is not the way to take a photo.

In this respect I don't think it is any different from owning a film or digital camera. It is just that film makes/made you concentrate a little more because of the cost. But it did not make you a better photographer. Witness the thousands of photos I have found when an Aunt past away. I have not found one decent photo so far, just lots of snapshots of various locations. This is also typical of my photographs when I used to just press the button at what looked nice. I have a large box full of my early attempts at photography using a film camera!

It is only when you start to learn the art of photography that you become a better photographer be it film or digital.

I am still an amateur but by putting my early digital efforts on a forum such as this I was given advice and pointed in the direction that would improve my work. I would like to think that the advice has paid off

Best regards

Chris

And that's complete sense

Learning the techniques & art of photography does NOT mean you have to do everything slowly. The 'Learn & Meet' days organised by a couple of TP members have really helped people & quickly as they can discuss (same as film) but then shoot & review for constructive comment immediately - not some days later

And has been said before - unless you also process your own film images you cannot earn much about exposure/colour as the lab tries its hardest to produce a good print for you no matter what crap you send them

DD

 

[artona]

Its not tosh Dave, you simply cannot see it

Personally I would not go back to film. After twenty years of shooting on average 20 rolls per week for the press and doing all the d&ping I switched to digital possibly before anyone else on this forum and I love it............but a digital camera thrust into the hands of a beginner could easily lead them to miss out on some elimentary stuff.

stew

 

[TheBigYin]

Witness the thousands of photos I have found when an Aunt passed away. I have not found one decent photo so far, just lots of snapshots of various locations. This is also typical of my photographs when I used to just press the button at what looked nice. I have a large box full of my early attempts at photography using a film camera!

It is only when you start to learn the art of photography that you become a better photographer be it film or digital.

Chris - the problem with this statement is confusing the media with the intent of the photograph. It's quite right that you become a better photographer when you start to learn the art of photography.

However, the thousands of photo's you have just found, were snapshots. Nothing more, nothing less, and none the worse for that. The fact is that the general populace don't want, need or even try to take what we'd call good photographs. They want a shot of Aunt Alice and Uncle Robert sat on the bench in Peasholme Park, Scarborough - they want a shot that triggers a memory of a day, a time, or a feeling. That makes them powerful stuff to the people involved, or people who know the people on the photo. Sadly (and I know this from my own experience of having to go through 4 shoeboxes of the same last year) a few generations down the line, they can mean little or nothing.

Fast forward a few generations and there will be people doing the same thing with boxes of images shot on point and shoot cameras. Whilst I was in the supermarket yesterday, a Young family were collecting their holiday snaps - 4 envelopes of 'em - they'd literally just taken the memory card out of the camera and said "print all of these, please" This pleased me immensely, as I like the idea of photographs as being something tangible and on paper, not a disk that you view on your television (and won't be able to view in a few years time when the format's have progressed and the dye's in the CD-R have degraded.

Just because there was a box of shots on film that didn't fill your artistic expectations doesn't mean film is bad, it just means that the person who shot the photographs on film didn't care if they were artistically valid. And the same could well be said of 90% of the people who take snaps. It doesn't mean that they're bad - it just means that we, as photographers, expect more of ourselves - that shouldn't mean that we expect more of everyone, not everyone will like our shots either... I remember back when I was working in an office, I'd go away for a fortnights hill-walking, come back with half a dozen rolls of film shot, take 'em in for processing and when back in the office, the only comments i'd get would be "they're nice, but there's nobody in them... were you on your own all the time?"