Why is film coming back

grey.squirrel said:
Cause kids today are obsessed with being retro, trying to cling onto an era that they were never even a part of anyway. So what cooler way to impress your iphone using friends by saying, "OMG I like totally use film because you get a warmer tone like with vinyl over MP3".

Grumpy old git rant over. You'd never guess I'm only 23 lol.
Click to expand...

So true though
 
Arkady said:
I have two criteria: best and acceptable.
Images that are not unfocussed, blurred, blinkies, badly composed, otherwise crap, etc. go into a 'working' folder.
From those 'acceptable' images are drawn the ones which I would send to clients or publish or hang on a wall - use whatever criteria suits you best here. Those making the 'final cut' are my 'keepers'.

If you take 100 images - you're not going to hang all 100 of them on the wall, even if they're all in focus, properly-exposed etc. nor would you send all 100 to a client unless they specifically asked for them. you'd send the best ones - those are the 'keepers'.
Click to expand...

I'd agree wholeheartedly with this for either work shots or my own photography for pleasure. Even shooting on film I don't have a huge rate of keepers I suppose. Couple of reasons for that ...

1) I'm crap at taking photo's
2) I do hedge my bets when I like the composition of a shot by bracketing - if it's worth a frame of film, it's worth 3
3) I'd rather take a shot and it not work, than get home and process the film and think "if only I'd have taken that other shot"

How many times have you seen old-style contact sheets marked up with a red chinagraph... half a dozen big X's through obvious missed shots, and maybe 2-3 with a circle round them. If you were printing your own shots it was highly unlikely you'd have the time / inclination / money to print every shot from a 36 exposure reel at 10x8. Much the same as these days you'd certainly not take the CF card from your camera and put it in the happysnaps slot at Boots and press print all....

Editing (as in discarding the crepe as opposed to manipulating the image) is an essential part of shooting, be it film or digital.

My only proviso with this is a simple one. If I take family snapshot type photos - be it family get-together or holiday snaps... they're pretty much all keepers. Unless they're so muffed that I delete in the camera for digital, or come out black on film, I keep them. Because I'm a big old sentimental yin... and when it comes to family and friends, aesthetic considerations are a long way down my priorities.
 
grey.squirrel said:
Cause kids today are obsessed with being retro, trying to cling onto an era that they were never even a part of anyway. So what cooler way to impress your iphone using friends by saying, "OMG I like totally use film because you get a warmer tone like with vinyl over MP3".

Grumpy old git rant over. You'd never guess I'm only 23 lol.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting rant. I would guess you're only 23 (or thereabouts) actually. I am a similar age to you and I have noticed this sentiment amongst my peers. See, we are part of that inbetween generation, we had cassette tapes and CDs before MP3s took off. Our parents have lots of vinyl. We had computers before the Internet and remember Windows 3.1 and monochrome Apple Macs. We used film cameras on our school trips as kids and saw the first digital cameras that wrote to 3.5" floppy disks. We have every right to use the "vintage" stuff and not be moaned about because we DID live in that era and it IS a part of our nostalgia.

Those 90's kids who are running around with Lomos like they discovered all things retro? We don't think they deserve a bit of our fun, because they never experienced it at a time when it was the done thing. It's all a part of that teenage desire to "be an individual" and set themselves apart from the crowd. Whatever the motivations, it's hard to knock them unless we decide that anyone who takes up a hobby or profession that is in a "retro" field is like them... like knitting, or watercolour painting or shooting large format film or driving classic cars or you name it.

Few old things ever go away once they have become popular and people will always be fascinated with things from the past. They make us study history at school, I'm pretty sure it's compulsory. We are surrounded by the past and we think there are those with no right to try and experience it? Even if the motivation is only to stand out and be different, is that so bad? We all did it one way or another when we were young - it is only how we did it that got us whatever popular label kids got at that time or not.
 
Kev M said:
Perhaps it's not that people feel the film images are better than the digital ones. If you were to take two side by side and evaluate them critically you might argue the digital is better. Perhaps the perception that it is better is nothing more than an emotional response because of the extra investment made in taking that photo on film (time, consideration, money).

Alternatively it's because film makes you more attractive to the opposite sex.
Click to expand...

Orrrr maybe......we have to invest more of everything into our film shoots, thus it is perceived to be a more difficult a discipline, thus we cut our film shots some slack compared with digital shots because there is no excuse for sloppy digital, its put there on a plate for us, there is no conceivable reason with the levels of manipulation available to us, and the simplicity of use, why any digital image should not be perfect on every level.




Digital is just inanely boring to me, film is a challenge and infinitely more interesting a discipline and product.
Film comes back > it goes away > it comes back, its because it isn't digital that there will always be plenty of peeps that want to use it, that's gonna annoy the philistines that have spent shedloads on their digital gear or worked so hard to make the jump from film to digital, only to find film coming back into vogue.:lol:
I don't feel a mercenary attitude helps to develop a balanced view on the merits of both mediums.



then again it could simply be that wimminz just like shagging filmy's....who knows....:)
 
artona said:
What has film got that digital fails?
stew
Click to expand...

old photographers and a history of having taken some of the most famous shots on film

roy rogers rode a horse...now its cars..:razz:
 
Undercrank said:
In my 30+ years at the SLR thing you're the 1st person I've come across to claim such a thing. Almost 100%?

I've pushed myself to limits technically and physically. Looking back I doubt if even a mere 3-5% of my images were really worthwhile. Maybe there's something lacking somewhere...
Click to expand...

I went out today and took 18 photos. I didn't delete any on the camera - in fact I hardly used the review screen, just to check a histogram once or twice.

I deleted one of the images afterwards - the rest are being processed and filed as I speak.

I don't want absolute technical perfection in my pictures, because that'd take the fun out of it for me. I'm not a pro, and I'm not trying to be. As long as it's in focus and is serving its purpose (either as a documentary shot or an arty shot) it gets kept. If it doesn't have a purpose in the first place, the shutter button doesn't get fired - it's that simple. My keeper rate has increased since I got the 1Ds because the AF is exceptional - if the focus locks, I can 100% guarantee the image is focussed, whereas there was some doubt with my previous body in poor light. even with my previous camera I was getting very high keeper rates.

One of the reasons I don't go firing off the shutter left right and centre is that I am a bit paranoid of the shutter mechanism dying; I want the camera to last as long as possible... the positive side effect is it has improved my photography no end.
 
mgrowcoot said:
film to digital is quite simply evolution
Click to expand...

Insightful response :lol:

joxby said:
then again it could simply be that wimminz just like shagging filmy's....who knows....:)
Click to expand...

Mrs M agrees. We have more more sex since I got the Bronica.

Waist level finders=special privileges. You don't get them with digi.;)

Not to mention that shooting film entitles you to hang out in the F&C section. Undoubtedly the friendliest, coolest section of TP.



Now where did I leave my cravat:thinking:
 
Kev M said:
Now where did I leave my cravat:thinking:
Click to expand...

:lol:

that's just sooooo.....Cecil Beaton......


c26883-b.jpg



The Randy Dandy of Photography & Fashion

as shot by Litchfield.
 
I shoot film simply because of the fact that i enjoy it more than digital. I dont know why. I used to shoot digital for work and it was necessary due to the nature of what I did, so I have plenty experience of both. If I was shooting commercially again, I would go back to digital without hesitation.

There are plus points to shooting large format too;

The upside down/back to front image on the gg helps abstract the image, so you tend to look at shapes and structure in a different way.

The movements are very handy for architecture.

The resolution is great (100MP+ images)

Only having 12 shots in the bag really makes you think twice about taking the shot.

Its a great conversation starter with people in the street.

The quality of the output far outweighs anything from digital on a cost basis. My £500 camea and £200 lens will out resolve and is sharper than any digital SLR :)

Its not so great for action photography though lol.
 
Gandhi said:
Its not so great for action photography though lol.
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol::lol:That has to be the understatement of the year!:lol:

I can't wait to get back to the UK next week to see just how unsuitable medium format is for photographing things like yachts and wake boarders out of the back of a small boat. Hopefully Peak will have worked their magic by then and I can see just what a colossal wast of film it was.

Fun though, and the wimmin loved it.;)
 
Gandhi said:
I shoot film simply because of the fact that i enjoy it more than digital. I dont know why. I used to shoot digital for work and it was necessary due to the nature of what I did, so I have plenty experience of both. If I was shooting commercially again, I would go back to digital without hesitation.

There are plus points to shooting large format too;

The upside down/back to front image on the gg helps abstract the image, so you tend to look at shapes and structure in a different way.

The movements are very handy for architecture.

The resolution is great (100MP+ images)



Only having 12 shots in the bag really makes you think twice about taking the shot.

Its a great conversation starter with people in the street.

The quality of the output far outweighs anything from digital on a cost basis. My £500 camea and £200 lens will out resolve and is sharper than any digital SLR :)

Its not so great for action photography though lol.
Click to expand...

what camera are you using Spencer?

stew
 
I would like to see a picture of said camera/lens!
 
Looks lovely. I had great time owning a Sinar P2 once. A 5x4 neg / tranny is something else.

stew
 
As usual i'm a bit late on this thread.

I started with film and said i would never go digital. As at the time i saw it as cheating and the quality would never be as good. My favourites were Kodachrome 64 or Fuji velvia People-Landscapes. I think slide film really made sure you got it right first time.
I still apply the same priciples to my DSLR's and find compared to most my shutter actuations are a lot less.

I now shoot only in digital and really miss film. This thread has given me the motivation to dust off my film camera and give it an airing. I wonder if shooting didital for a few years has made me a worse photographer?
 
what about the grain issue with film
fine grain with any decent camera

digital
loads of noise with the mega Mp compacts

leica rf versus coolpix
 
What about the grain issues ??
If you except the limitations then there are no issues.
Actually grain really isn't an issue anyway, except under the most demanding of situations/conditions.
 
I find that shooting film takes you away from rapid fire grab and forget digital imaging, where you can see your results instantly and take 1000+ photos without thinking, with film every frame means time in the darkroom, money on film etc. I found that when i went back to shooting with my DSLR that i took fewer shots, thoughts about the shots i took and generally had a better success rate.

also did i mention that my 20D is broken and i cant afford a replacement!?
 
I reckon we should all get a very small memory card that only allows us 36 shots and go out to shoot with it
 
grey.squirrel said:
Haha, but I love the smell of steam trains (reminds me of Christmas :cuckoo:) and I really do believe that veg grown yourself tastes better, even if it is just the sweet taste of success. :D
Click to expand...

Agreed again...steam engine smoke, or that oily smoke smell is a brilliant one...reminds me of childhood (no, i don't know why either).

My homegrown veg does taste better than store bought (salad last night of home-grown lettuce, rocket and radishes - the last two are a LOT stronger than supermarket guff - was excellent).

Finally, film never went away...it was still here for everyone to use...it's just becoming more popular again. Just like the resurgence of the Megadrive a couple of years ago so that everyone could play their retro games.
 
I bought a copy of that once, never really got round to reading it though.
 
For personal work, landscapes etc I like to use film sometimes, yes you can apply a preset to make a digital image look like it was taken on velvia, but there is no substitute for having an actual slide in your hand/looking at it on a light table.

Also if you want to shoot fulll frame (or medium format) film cameras are significantly cheaper than digital.
 
grey.squirrel said:
Cause kids today are obsessed with being retro, trying to cling onto an era that they were never even a part of anyway. So what cooler way to impress your iphone using friends by saying, "OMG I like totally use film because you get a warmer tone like with vinyl over MP3".

Grumpy old git rant over. You'd never guess I'm only 23 lol.
Click to expand...

Apologies for not reading the whole thread, but I just loved this comment from a guy who's 23.

Spot on!

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.

I have used every kind of camera known to man, every film, every developing and printing process, over very many years. It was my job. Digital beats it in every way.

I can kind of see the appeal of large format film, ie 5x4in and 10x8in, but even that's debatable. Anything else, no contest. I hope I never have to expose another frame of film, ever.

Why colleges still insist on teaching film to new students is an utter nonsense. More to do with dated ideas, old fashioned prejudice, vested interests and budgets than learning about photography.
 
HoppyUK said:
I have used every kind of camera known to man, every film, every developing and printing process, over very many years. It was my job. Digital beats it in every way.
Click to expand...

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.
 
HoppyUK said:
Apologies for not reading the whole thread, but I just loved this comment from a guy who's 23.

Spot on!

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.

I have used every kind of camera known to man, every film, every developing and printing process, over very many years. It was my job. Digital beats it in every way.

I can kind of see the appeal of large format film, ie 5x4in and 10x8in, but even that's debatable. Anything else, no contest. I hope I never have to expose another frame of film, ever.

Why colleges still insist on teaching film to new students is an utter nonsense. More to do with dated ideas, old fashioned prejudice, vested interests and budgets than learning about photography.
Click to expand...

Well, I'll carry on earning money with film and digitlal and you carry on with digital. It's 2 sides of a coin, but each to their own.
 
HoppyUK said:
snip......
Click to expand...

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.
 
a1ex2001 said:
I love the feel of a half decent old film camera an OM10 is so much nicer to handle than my 30D.
Click to expand...

This is it for me - I like the feel of an older camera. There's nothing in the digital world that can feel like this to operate:

3245919804_e895ee369e.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dvf-woz/sets/72157612973898110/

And I've never had people rush up to me and ask me about my digital cameras but I frequently do when I'm using a TLR.
BUT, if I could have some way of producing a digital image from my Rollei's or my OM collection, I'd jump at it like a shot! I personally think we've got to the stage where digital is so good that it's the lenses that are making the difference and what people are seeing as a 'film' look is in fact a result of the older lenses on these cameras.

And I don't agree that film helps you learn quicker. It might help you learn if you're an extremely good record keeper, but to be honest I can't be arsed to write down the aperture, speed etc for every picture I take on film, so when I develop the prints I've no idea exactly why one picture didn't work when another one did. With digital I can look at the exif and SEE what went wrong.

Incidentally, my first film camera was a Zenit E, which I had with me when I was 8 years old up a mountain in Africa. I WISH it had been digital because then my dad could have deleted the 36 pictures I'd taken of the SAME DONKEY when I walked up to him and asked him for another film (which he didn't have) :bonk:
 
Woz! said:
BUT, if I could have some way of producing a digital image from my Rollei's or my OM collection, I'd jump at it like a shot! I personally think we've got to the stage where digital is so good that it's the lenses that are making the difference and what people are seeing as a 'film' look is in fact a result of the older lenses on these cameras.
Click to expand...

This is a really good point, in the digital world we have come to expect all shots to be absolutelt pin sharp and perfectly exposed. In days gone by we got away with things being slightly soft or missing the perfect exposure becuase that was a limitation of the equipment and each camera/lens/film had it's own quirks. I dread to think of some of the comments an unknown ansel adams shot would get on this site as they are often far from perfect by todays digital standards but have that certain something that makes them desirable!
 
a1ex2001 said:
snip... I dread to think of some of the comments an unknown ansel adams shot would get on this site ...
Click to expand...

Well - if it was B&W, I'd guarantee someone would want to see the colour version, or "maybe with Half Dome colour popped" :shake:
 
There's an extremely funny thread on flickr where someone posted an unattributed Cartier-Bresson picture and got loads of critique/stick for it.

Was this pic FWIW: http://www.lacasapark.com/la/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/cartier-bresson-hyeres1.jpg

The thing with film is that even now, people accept the little flaws and marks on the neg and look at the aesthetics of the whole picture. With digital people are SO keen on pixel peeping that they can't see the wood for the trees.
 
Woz! said:
There's an extremely funny thread on flickr where someone posted an unattributed Cartier-Bresson picture and got loads of critique/stick for it.

Was this pic FWIW: http://www.lacasapark.com/la/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/cartier-bresson-hyeres1.jpg

The thing with film is that even now, people accept the little flaws and marks on the neg and look at the aesthetics of the whole picture. With digital people are SO keen on pixel peeping that they can't see the wood for the trees.
Click to expand...

Now that has surprised me - thought Flickr critique extended to "Nice Shot" and an invite to half a dozen mutual backslapping groups!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top