Printable View
A very well written article about why film is still relevant. I found it interesting and those just getting into photography and never shot film may understand why some of us still crave the ability to shoot film. I have been considering a film camera and I am now certain I will be getting one again. Going to look around and see what format I want to go with.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/why-we-love-film.htm
Thanks for that A.L. - I couldn't agree more with that article (at this point in time anyway)
Even though I too only shoot digital now...I crave film. It was better, sharper, faster than digital and has way more dynamic range.
For me - and for the purposes on running a photogrtaphy website, digital does kick film's butt as a learning tool because of the instant feedback it provides. That said, the results are inferior when compared side by side.
Ken is right - artistically film is the way to go. The problem is that many favourite films have become or are becoming extinct.
I also think and agree with Ken that much of this is marketing driven - we are getting used to inferior products that are easier to share. (MP3's are easy to share but they SUCK when you compare them to the audio quality of 15 years ago). Since most people cannot tell the difference, it passes as good.
Thanks for sharing A.L. - provocative as always.
Serendipity. A good friend of mine just offered me his complete dark room (that includes 3 enlargers!) FOR FREE!!!!!!! Back in the 80's, I spent a lot of time with him in that dark room. With digital being what it is and the fact that neither he nor myself has used a dark room for over 10 years, it was hard to decide if I wanted to devote the space to it. THEN, this thread came up and helped me with the decision, so thank you, AL! Any one one come play in my new dark room? :D
Oh I'm envious.....but good for you! :highfive:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomorrowstreasures
nice article!!!!
That was inspiring!
I have to step in and be the Devil's Advocate on this -- I hope I don't have to dodge too many fireballs.
One, on the second picture with the trees he blew up the image on the digital camera so it would break down the image. This is a very, very biased post. With digital camera's today, you can take a picture that is massive in size, like 3 feet wide -- at 100% in RAW format.
I like digital more but I used to develop my own film and digital is better. The only real difference is dynamic range. The colors that film can get is a little better... that is the only difference with digitals today.
I am just going to skip down to his numbered section and contest his points:
1. He says film has better colors. This is right. The film does have better colors. I think this is the only point I really have to agree on. Well, it doesn't have better colors, per say, it has more colors.
2. He says film just looks better. He is comparing a slide to a monitor. Of course the slide on the light table will be brighter. If they tried to make monitors that bright we couldn't look at them long. Later he will comment on cost, he will never figure in all the peripherals that are needed for film production.
3. He says film doesn't have noise reduction. In his image sample, the one with noise is literally the same because the grain messes up the quality of the image so you can't see details.. the noise reduction does the same thing. It is a matter of opinion here. Ok. When I shoot a RAW image that is three feet wide and reduce it to an 11x17, it looks great. As you enlarge with film you still get some break down of the image.. larger grain etc. Noise reduction can be controlled at every step though, you can use it or not... you have the instant choice with a raw file. You can go either way, keep the noise or sharpen it. Choices.
Starting at Logistical Superiority
1. He says you don't spend time looking at your window after every shot. Ok. I don't do this with my digital camera. I might for the first shot, then I start shooting and I don't look at that window. This is an individual basis. I have friends that shoot professionally... they do the same thing. If film was so much better why the hell are all the big professionals using digital.
2. No computer required... ever. Why would I not want to use my computer to show my image to people? He says pros use light tables many feet wide... um, ok. The pros that I know use digital photo management software. I don't really know too many pros that use film in their career, only as a hobby and many sometimes say "Man, I wish I had a RAW of that."
3. He says with film "You don't have motel shenanigans." Well, on my vacations I don't either. I drop my camera into a usb and click transfer and go outside or to bed... there is no 'shenanigan' it takes seconds of my time but handles a thousand images while I shower and go to sleep. Oh yeah, you can't take a thousand shots with film... you can't even have these shenanigans if you wanted to. Also, I don't look at my images on vacation or even on a daily outing. We like to go back and watch them on a slide show at home a few days later or on the following weekend. Again, these shenanigans are based on your personal choice.
4. No shooting delays. Ok, all cameras have shutter delay. Digital ones are little longer and that is technology that has advanced quite a bit. Also, shutter delay is starting to become negligible. But I will agree that there is a delay, unlike my Argus or other vintage cameras which will pop off instantly. But... then I run into the fact that I can't just hold my finger down on a track runner and grab two dozen shots in a few seconds. There are film cameras that do this but I believe they are still expensive.
5. Wives and girlfriends love film. What? Ok. I have several film cameras... My wife loves the digital ones. If my wife is in a hotel room on vacation, I am not in the corner on the computer. What fool is? Again, personal choice. This has nothing to do with film. Almost all his points have nothing to do with film.
6. No batteries and no battery chargers. No, but you have film. I can take 750 shots in raw with one battery and have some left over juice. How many rolls of film does that take you? I know I would have to have a whole backpack for film. Ok. Sure, if I am out in the Congo, I will take something with me, a backup camera... oh, yeah. If I was going to some remote place I think I would take a lot of batteries. Maybe 4-5. I mean that is enough for thousands of images. I think as far as space permits (which is more important when trotting around the globe to remote places) I would rather have 5 batteries in my camera case then have what... a hundred rolls of film.
7. He says film costs much less. Umm.. no. Lenses are the primary investment in cameras., which are needed for both film and digtal. I try and buy used ones from a decade ago that fit my camera today and they are still expensive. I don't throw my camera away every couple of years... that's insane. Although, I am going to go pick up an N90 now that he mentions it. Film is fun, it has been reduced to a hobby due to the flexibility and quality of digital cameras.
Okay. There are my arguments. I believe that when he said the Canon 1Ds Mk III is a throw away... he lost me. I like both film and digital. Digital is the way to go though. You can do so much with digitals now and the human eye cannot really see the difference. The only thing the film really has on digital is color. So, as far as landscapes go, if that is what I did, I would shoot with the 4x5... but I like all kinds of photography.
Nice devils advocate position, but sorry I agree film is just a better format. I have worked with both and my personal tastes is still film gives better results, not every one will agree such as yourself lol, but there is something about film that digital lacks, its not the same. I am getting a film camera, I miss it too much.
I agree with marko, I am somewhat an audiophile, I still listen to Vinyl and Reel to Reel, digital recordings just lack something, I feel the same about digital photography. Just because the masses accept it, does not mean its on par. I do almost exclusively digital recording now, I miss analog. I think a master tape is a far superior format to digital masters, all the pros use digital, doesn't mean its better, just means its more convenient and the quality is acceptable. Now if you want to lend me one of these, I might be converted lol .. http://www.phaseone.com/Camera/
I hated the sound of vinyl, hated cassettes, hated VHS tapes, and as a kid hated buying film, threading my old film camera, and having to pay and wait to get it developed.
I'm a thoroughly digital type of guy. If there were no digital cameras, I would not be taking pictures, simple as that. I guess I'm exactly the sort of photographer that "real" photographers feel are devaluing their art. In much the same way as musicians feel that kids doing "beats" in Garageband devalued the process of making a studio album and modern music in general.
Photography for me is about the images, and about the process, and about developing my visual creativity.. I don't really care whether any particular image could look slightly different on film vs bytes, or 5% better, or whatever. I just want to do the best I can with the tools I know.
There is *absolutely* a place for "boutique" gear, and/or techniques. There will, at least for the forseeable future, be things where a digital process can come close to but completely equal some other analog process, but the differences are small, and getting smaller every year that passes.
For me, and many people, the strengths of digital vastly outweigh the downsides. I'd rather be outshooting, than messing around with chemicals in a darkroom - that side of it really doesn't interest me at all...
It a personal preference, I agree people like digital but film does have its place, people still shoot on glass plates and other antiquated methods. I know someone who collects 78's. Its all about preference, I like both, I see the plus about all of it, that said I have certain preferences as others do that are just old school. New is not bad, just does not make old bad either. Like art, what one likes one may not. Neither is bad, just preference as I have said. I liked to article and I enjoyed your reply, both have pros and cons, I still think film gives a better final product.