In this sweeping digital era, are there any "purists" out there who still prefer film? Although there are definite advantages to using digital, I still think good old-fashioned "film": slides or negative,
have better look.
Based on what I see, hear, and read, it looks like I'm riding this ship all alone.
Anyone agree?
Posted by John W. Wall on July 31, 2007 at 6:15 PM
Purist #1 checking in! I love film much more than digital. I unfortunately have relocated to Denver and my entire darkroom in now packed away until I buy my new house, Well, maybe not all my darkroom stuff, I did just dig out enough stuff to develop some B&W.
not only do I still prefer film, I shoot most of it in old folders and rangefinders, that is my joy.
If you have not found it yet there is a website devoted to film use, www.apug.org
Posted by Mark Stahlke on July 31, 2007 at 6:28 PM
Yes, it looks like you're riding that ship all alone.
I prefer the look of film if the piece of film is big enough. A nice 4x5 slide on a lightbox has a certain magic to it that digital lacks. That said, I shoot more digital than film. I don't see any reason to shoot one to the exclusion of the other. I guess I'm not a "purist".
I much prefer 4x5 film to digital (I shoot both). It is more a love of the 4x5 process than a love of film. If I only shot 35mm, I would only shoot digital.
Posted by Richard Wong on July 31, 2007 at 8:14 PM
I prefer the control over color and dynamic range on digital better, but 4x5 sure as heck looks more impressive.
Like Harley, if it's 4x5 film, I'm there. For 35mm, it's digital for me. I miss my F100 - great camera - but I sure don't miss scanning all those slides.
Posted by Robert Helms on July 31, 2007 at 9:16 PM
Count me in on the love to shoot 4x5 film, but that is the only film that I shoot. I doubt that I will ever expose another roll of 35mm. I also shoot digital as well, and I shoot it more than 4x5, but if the scene allows me the choice I try to always use the 4x5.
The turning point for us was our lab's switch from wet chemistry prints from MF negatives to scans and digital prints. Probably reflective of their scans, quality suffered. In side by side tests with the same model and lighting setup we got better results on big prints from a 6mp Fuji S2 than they could with the lab's MF scans. Since our studio pricing is ala carte and the bigger the print, the more we make, it was a nobrainer to switch to digital for day to day operations. While we previously had been shooting an average of 3000 rolls of MF C41 a year and about an equal number of combined E6 and C41 35mm, our film consumption dropped to less than 100 rolls the next year. I've never converted the current numbers of digital exposures to comparable rolls of film, but we'r quite a bit higher than that now.
We still shoot LF for certain applications, mostly when really big prints are at stake or especially when we need the LF movements for specific types of shots. That number has held fairly constant at around 200 exposures a year. Our stable of MF gear has not been out of the safe in close to 5 years.
I'd never go back to C41 film if scanning was part of the workflow. But if print production directly from the negatives was included in the workflow it would be hard to resist. Our 3-station BW darkroom is currently dismantled and I miss it. But if I restored it now it would be strictly a hobby or fine art pursuit rather than an element in our business structure.
Film is dandy, but I'm not a convert to scanning and digital printing with anything short of large chromes, a drum scanner and a very high end printer. Note: Results with our current D2X bodies so surpass those of the Fuji S2 and of course MF scans that a return to film is even less likely.
I still like film. But it is getting harder to find labs to process the film. Even though I still like it better.
Posted by Dan Baumbach on August 1, 2007 at 9:39 AM
I shoot 4x5 so for the time being, I shoot film. I love my view camera and the constraints it puts on my photography. I'm not wedded to film, however. If in my lifetime there's an affordable and field usable digital back for 4x5, I'd buy it in a minute.
I know right away that I'm way out of my league in this discussion but I want to point out that comparing apples to oranges is not a particularly sound approach. I've never used LF but I used 6x6 and 35mm for years before the digital invasion and I have found, in spite of the evidence presented by the "numbers crunchers", that even the modest resolution of a high quality digital body like the E1 surpasses 35mm when printing up to 20x24". The numbers say this is not possible but I have 16x20" Cibachrome prints from Kodachrome 25 which were printed on a Leica enlarger with a Rodenstock lens side by side with 16x20's from my 5mp E1 printed on a wide format HP @300dpi and the digital prints are better.
If 35mm and 6x whatever were the only film options open to me I'll definitely stay with digital.
Posted by Cliff Beittel on August 2, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Slides are kicking the sensors far away
Yes and no. Yes, slides offer superior color in good light. But no, the sharpness and resolution of a 16.7-MP file is better than 35mm film even when the film is drum scanned, especially in low-light or other adverse conditions.
Posted by David Senesac on August 5, 2007 at 7:19 PM
Most importantly the majority of photographers are not inclined to care whether film or digital processes are better but rather are happy to use either process, or combinations of those processes that results in enjoyable output. In other words its the resulting output images and not the equipment or media that matters.
If one only considers opinions of serious photographers whether those in business or amateurs, attitudes about the pros and cons of digital camera use versus traditional film cameras took a radical turn a few years ago when readily available image sensors reached the 4mp to 6mp level. That for a couple years caused considerable debate that raged in both magazines and on Internet forums. Of course from mainstream consumer camera equipment and film manufacturer's, and the enormous numbers of small format 35mm SLR film user's perspectives that was all a huge revolution in the making. As megapixel devices and camera firmware continued to beat against the boundaries of what was possible, those debates changed and focused to the more subtle natures of film. So today one doesn't see any of the former number nit picking debates of why so and so digital camera doesn't stand up beside some old 35mm SLR camera buff's Leica 50mm lens. Thus there really hasn't been a continual film versus digital debate but rather one that has narrowly evolved to what today is about qualities of film that digital image sensors still don't duplicate whether or not one is actually technically superior. And if one considers the segment of those more serious photographers that made prints, the real debates were a decade before the general public became involved in that discussion. While most people were still smiling at their little 3x5 color snapshots from drugstore print machines, in the mid 90s with Kodak photo CDs, drum scanning, Photoshop, Evercolor prints, Lightjet 5000, and Durst Lambda print machines, most serious film photographers had already begun to embrace digital processes that tended to push optical film enlargement purists into silence. Any 35mm film users that saw good sized Evercolor prints made in 1995 were quick to smile about what was then possible without resorting to pricy larger format systems. There was little serious debate between those users and optical process printers because the results were all too apparent.
There are of course still film purists that enjoy and prefer the film process more while not debating its comparable merits. Forums for darkroom enthusiasts still have an enthusiastic following. There are many reasons to continue to use film especially with medium and larger formats. View camera enthusiasts also tend to highly value the process involved since it can put one much closer to the essential elements of photography. Many people are relatively new to computers and the internet thus may not have much more than rudimentary command over it use. If say an older photographer already has considerable film skills, ability to make nice prints through that process, and modest computer skills, why do they need to bother to switch to digital? Only when costs rise and readily available lab services and film choices diminish may such a person decide to make a change to new technology. So yes one will find purists who prefer film to digital though most of them are not versed in both camps but rather conveniently satisfied at continuing to move along in the film artform just as they have in the past without adding new complications. However there are few that have command over computers and digital photography equipment that would claim to just be film purists. Many would certainly admit to being digital purists now because there are huge numbers of new users that never had more than point and shoot snapshot command over film cameras that moved right into serious photography with their first digital cameras and never looked back.
Discussion
19 replieshave better look.
Based on what I see, hear, and read, it looks like I'm riding this ship all alone.
Anyone agree?
not only do I still prefer film, I shoot most of it in old folders and rangefinders, that is my joy.
If you have not found it yet there is a website devoted to film use, www.apug.org
I prefer the look of film if the piece of film is big enough. A nice 4x5 slide on a lightbox has a certain magic to it that digital lacks. That said, I shoot more digital than film. I don't see any reason to shoot one to the exclusion of the other. I guess I'm not a "purist".
Cheers,
We still shoot LF for certain applications, mostly when really big prints are at stake or especially when we need the LF movements for specific types of shots. That number has held fairly constant at around 200 exposures a year. Our stable of MF gear has not been out of the safe in close to 5 years.
I'd never go back to C41 film if scanning was part of the workflow. But if print production directly from the negatives was included in the workflow it would be hard to resist. Our 3-station BW darkroom is currently dismantled and I miss it. But if I restored it now it would be strictly a hobby or fine art pursuit rather than an element in our business structure.
Film is dandy, but I'm not a convert to scanning and digital printing with anything short of large chromes, a drum scanner and a very high end printer. Note: Results with our current D2X bodies so surpass those of the Fuji S2 and of course MF scans that a return to film is even less likely.
- Dan.
If 35mm and 6x whatever were the only film options open to me I'll definitely stay with digital.
Bob
I use Both
Pentax 67 & Canon 5D , 1D Mark II N
Slides are kicking the sensors far away
Yes and no. Yes, slides offer superior color in good light. But no, the sharpness and resolution of a 16.7-MP file is better than 35mm film even when the film is drum scanned, especially in low-light or other adverse conditions.
Guy
If one only considers opinions of serious photographers whether those in business or amateurs, attitudes about the pros and cons of digital camera use versus traditional film cameras took a radical turn a few years ago when readily available image sensors reached the 4mp to 6mp level. That for a couple years caused considerable debate that raged in both magazines and on Internet forums. Of course from mainstream consumer camera equipment and film manufacturer's, and the enormous numbers of small format 35mm SLR film user's perspectives that was all a huge revolution in the making. As megapixel devices and camera firmware continued to beat against the boundaries of what was possible, those debates changed and focused to the more subtle natures of film. So today one doesn't see any of the former number nit picking debates of why so and so digital camera doesn't stand up beside some old 35mm SLR camera buff's Leica 50mm lens. Thus there really hasn't been a continual film versus digital debate but rather one that has narrowly evolved to what today is about qualities of film that digital image sensors still don't duplicate whether or not one is actually technically superior. And if one considers the segment of those more serious photographers that made prints, the real debates were a decade before the general public became involved in that discussion. While most people were still smiling at their little 3x5 color snapshots from drugstore print machines, in the mid 90s with Kodak photo CDs, drum scanning, Photoshop, Evercolor prints, Lightjet 5000, and Durst Lambda print machines, most serious film photographers had already begun to embrace digital processes that tended to push optical film enlargement purists into silence. Any 35mm film users that saw good sized Evercolor prints made in 1995 were quick to smile about what was then possible without resorting to pricy larger format systems. There was little serious debate between those users and optical process printers because the results were all too apparent.
There are of course still film purists that enjoy and prefer the film process more while not debating its comparable merits. Forums for darkroom enthusiasts still have an enthusiastic following. There are many reasons to continue to use film especially with medium and larger formats. View camera enthusiasts also tend to highly value the process involved since it can put one much closer to the essential elements of photography. Many people are relatively new to computers and the internet thus may not have much more than rudimentary command over it use. If say an older photographer already has considerable film skills, ability to make nice prints through that process, and modest computer skills, why do they need to bother to switch to digital? Only when costs rise and readily available lab services and film choices diminish may such a person decide to make a change to new technology. So yes one will find purists who prefer film to digital though most of them are not versed in both camps but rather conveniently satisfied at continuing to move along in the film artform just as they have in the past without adding new complications. However there are few that have command over computers and digital photography equipment that would claim to just be film purists. Many would certainly admit to being digital purists now because there are huge numbers of new users that never had more than point and shoot snapshot command over film cameras that moved right into serious photography with their first digital cameras and never looked back.
...David