Why shoot Film?

[Aryan]

Although not much, but I have used and shot using films long time back. But, ofcourse majority of my time is spent handling digital equipments (digital camera, D-SLR, etc.)

What I wanted to know is why shoot films? Is it because of the supposed better quality of the image, or that better "feel" or is it because of the cost factor? Are films cheaper than digital, although shooting rolls after rolls and developing those would be an expensive affair, I am pretty sure. :confused:

I know I am not making any sense here, but since I have not shot extensively on films, I would love to know from all those who actually have, why do (or why did) they shoot pictures using film cameras? Also, if possible, I would perhaps like to know the reason why they shifted to the digital realms when they loved (even now they LOVE) film? Is it simply because of the cost factor involved in that one can click as much as he/ she likes when it comes to digital and also gets to see the results instantly, or some other factor is also a reason behind this shift?

A detailed discussion would, I am sure, help someone like me and others who are probably newbie in the field of film photography understand the finer nuances of the format.

-Aryan

[KrishnenduKes]

Discussion Approved

Great topic initiated Aryan. Let me think about it. I will try to give an answer in a while.

In the meanwhile, you can try and evaluate YOUR experience with digital. I mean the way you conceive a photograph with digital. That might put things in perspective for someone like me, who shoots like I was shooting film...

[Aryan]

In the meanwhile, you can try and evaluate YOUR experience with digital. I mean the way you conceive a photograph with digital. That might put things in perspective for someone like me, who shoots like I was shooting film...
My experience with digital has been really good and satisfying, although this view could very well be biased as I haven't really used films extensively; never got the chance to do so really.

When we shoot digital, we can actually go ahead and shoot as much as we want, that is a plus point. But, the very same 'plus point' can also be a negative point as shooting loads of pictures takes out the 'thinking' ability of yours. I mean, when you have the options of clicking thousands of pictures at one go, where is the chance to think? I feel this is one area where films are and will ALWAYS be better because we knew that the shots are limited and one needed to THINK before he/ she released that shutter to take the particular picture.

Moreover, shooting is film in widely believed to be tougher than shooting in digital. I agree. One can review the images shot in digital instantly, but until the roll/ film is developed, one can only anticipate and hope that the exposures have come out the way he/ she perceived it at the time of shooting.

The third point that I could think of is the usage of ISOs. Low light sensitivity can be changed instantly in the digital camera/ D-SLRs by the flick of a button, whereas films had fixed ISOs. If you want higher (or lower) ISO settings, you would need to change the film (well, I think that is the case)!

Some people, however, do like the 'grain' or 'noise' that a film produces, although I am not quite into that category. May be because I have no idea about films, hence, I fail to understand or appreciate these finer nuances. But, I have majorly shot digital and that's what I like, personally.

Also, I would like to know is there any possibility of PP on a photograph shot on film? I mean ofcourse one can get it scanned and work his heart out on Photoshop, but what about the quality of the resultant product? Won't it be affected? In digital, it's so simple - shoot in RAW, transfter the picture(s) onto the PC/ Mac, and start editing in Photoshop or any compatible software without any worry of losing quality! Now, that's what I love.

But, I am pretty sure that shooting in film has it's own charm. It's just that I fail to see it as of now.

EDIT:
One more point that I could think of is the time factor involved in both these formats. In digital format, you shoot and instantly get the results, while in film, you need to wait till the time the roll gets developed. Till that time you can hope that the exposures have come out the right way!

[powerslave]

Shooting film-

For:

- Nice Dynamic range.
- Each print holds some weight. It's ONE exposure. Get your digital photos printed, you'll see what I mean.
- Awesome DOF. Although, technically I could be wrong, I think film produces some great bokeh. I dunno, maybe it just looks good.
- Super cheap equipment.

Cons:

- Too expensive.
- Learning curve is inhibitive. You gotta wait till you develop your film to know your mistakes.
- Cumbersome postprocessing unless you have a lot of money.
- Did I mention too expensive?
- You risk losing the moment, assuming the shot went fine, but it could be a little messed up.


I look at film as a novelty, I would love to shoot film again, but I cannot see myself keeping it as my main choice.

[KrishnenduKes]

Let us put it this way; as the title of the thread goes, there is no reason to shoot film today.

I learnt shooting on film when most of you guys weren’t even born. I had 100ASA film. I learnt to figure out the exposure settings, aperture, shutter speed etc… and did my first assignment and got myself a film SLR. That was a HUGE leap for me. Absolutely loved the clarity, interchangeable lenses, the variety of things possible. And as Aryan points out, one really had to measure one’s shots. You just could not go out in the 80s and shoot and shoot.

And it does not really take time. You find people in your network. You shoot one roll in the morning, and by 10 in the morning I had them developped and I was looking at them on the viewing board under a lens to choose the ones I would get printed. You also needed to know a good place who had a good printing projector with decent lenses. And also had to find out if those guys had good colours. How often did they make their developper. And finally one found decent places. In Calcutta, I used to go to Bourne and Shepherd. In Delhi I used to go to Mahatta or Delhi Photo or Profo Labs. And when my friends were around, I would just walk into AP to get my rolls developped.

These things are pretty quickly networked and found provided you wanted to do it.

I moved to digital SLR just 16 months ago. November 2007. It was another HUGE leap for me. Why this late? Two reasons: 1) I found digital investment to be too expensive. 2) I still had to have reason enough to believe that for someone like me, digital photography was better than film.

Today, digital photography gives a very wide range of possibilities.
1) It has largely democratised photography. The consumer cameras have come within the reach of the middle class.
2) There is INSTANT gratification. That is one BIG factor in consumerist society.
3) There is a rapid learning curve initially. But then again there is a flip side to it. Since on auto mode, the camera does everything for you, one tends to let the camera do everything and the photographer stops evolving. With film cameras, one really had to think every shot through. On auto mode on a digital camera, no matter what you do, you will get a picture which will not be totally lost. It is an advantage, true. But you will not get beyond that. Film shooting WILL make you think.
4) You can post process your photographs, provided you have the software and you know how to use it. Film can be post processed as well and one can get marvelous results… but one has to know the right places, or one has to learn to do it at home with a darkroom, which is a FANTASTIC experience, almost magical as you see the print come alive in the Hypo in your hands! While printing, you can dodge, burn etc with your hands blocking the light from the projector on the paper. That all is fine, but I guess Photoshop (if you can afford it) has become largely popular.
5) Fooling around with the White Balance is another very important feature. But then again, I liked the way people shot with film in the not-so-olden days in big stadia, football/cricket matches in the night, and we could see on print that night is actually night. The lights gave a nice tint to the picture. And the 400ASA film used gave a nice grainy texture.

Did someone say expensive? The price that you pay for a normal DSLR, you get a Top of the line Professional equipment for less than that. You get 180 shots for $8 inclusive of processing and buying the film. That is less than 400 INR for buying, shooting and developping 180 photographs. Then you print the ones that you like. Which is the same price, be it digital or film. What I am saying is you get a top of the line used film SLR for a little over US$100, under 6000 INR. Do not say that it is expensive. It is inconvenient in today’s world where our mantra is “Instant Gratification”!

When I go to shoot today, I think as if I am shooting film. I do not think that I am shooting digital. I do not shoot thinking that I am going to Post Process it later. I try to shoot with as low ISO settings as possible and try to maintain it as long as possible. I try to shoot with available light. And I do not shoot a hundred shots of the same subject. I shoot a lot, using different possibilities offered by digital. After seeing the effects, we all change our settings. These are things possible with digital, instantly. Else you would have to move around with a Polaroid which is what people often did in those days. Which is what “psycho” is doing now… using a digital p&s camera to see the settings and shooting with a film camera.

But I feel that the way I approach a subject is different from the way the "Digital Photographer" approaches his/her subject. There is an economy of motion, conception and execution. I guess this difference stems from the fact that I have shot film before. Though, I guess with time, that will evolve as well.


This is what I have to say about Film and digital as of now.

[Aryan]

^ Thanks for that insight into the topic. Really makes sense. Probably, if I were to start shooting pictures back in the days when digital cameras did not exist, I would have very well started with a film camera myself, and my opinion would not be the same as it is today.

One more doubt that I have is this - people often say (you have mentioned it in your post too), "used film cameras....." Why "used"? Don't we get to buy new film cameras these days, like we get new, top of the line D-SLRs?

I have to agree on one point though, looking at a print of a film gives the photograph a different feel altogether. It looks, how should I put it, more natural. :)

[powerslave]

Ken : How thoughtfully you go about shooting a picture depends on an individual. But yes, it would be more natural for someone who's worked with film to formulate a shot.

I myself am addicted to the Manual Mode, and have only recently discovered the perks that PP offers. In no way do I look at it as a crutch. Its a magic wand.

I agree with the instant gratification point, but why is it a bad thing?

About the cost, I've shot approx 15000 photos with my A570IS and my XTi each, that's 30,000 photos in 18months (18 for 570IS, and 12months for the XTi).

In no WAY can I imagine I would have shot 1/10th that much on film. Even if we filter out the keepers, I cannot imagine the sheer number of photos I get with digital.

Moreover, due to the pick and go nature of digital, I tend to shoot more, I know I would have foregone shooting on many an occasion on film, saving it only for those special times.

I still maintain shooting film is like riding a hotrod. Lots of character and great fun, but too expensive and impractical with a lot of effort needed. You will be suitably rewarded no doubt, but you can't keep riding it everywhere. Unless you're one of those nuts who actually do. Rich nuts.

[Old Fox]

Nice one there Aryan. And you've actually done most of the work by putting up a pretty comprehensive comparo between the digital and film format.

The two major differences between film and digital media are in the required skill levels and the need for real time knowledge. I'll elaborate a bit on these.

Skill levels: You really need to understand the relationship between the trio of photography i.e. aperture, shutter speed and film ISO. With film you do not have the luxury of trial shots. You need to get it 'right first time' and the only way of being sure of having got a good shot is to have an in-depth knowledge of what your manipulation of the three elements mentioned above shall have on the final result. There is precious little you can do during processing and printing. Even that has to be planned for while shooting. For example if you need to shoot 'life' in warm colours, say on Kodak 100 ASA, you shoot one stop under and get the film pushed by half stop during processing. (though I do wonder if we have vary many film technicians left these days who actually understand and do proper push-pull processing).

Real time knowledge: This again deals with knowing what results you can get by shooting at certain settings in the given light conditions. With digitals, you can bracket your shots with gay abandon and choose the ones that turn out the best, with or without PP later on. Film needs a conservative hand and so a thorough applicable knowledge of the myriad techniques of photography need to be within you in real time i.e. at the time you are taking the picture, to ensure a good resultant shoot. Meaning there is little scope for 'post-shooting' corrections.

@powerslave: Agree with the amazing 'tangible' value of a print made from film. It does feel good. And also about the great dynamic range. just check out the detail in 'white' that you could get on film compared to the struggle it is with most digitals.

DOF though is the same as in digitals though you do have the advantage of more 'pixels' available in film or transparency (a 35mm TP has the equivalent pixel density of an almost 20 megapixel shot) when shot well and processed right. Bad processing with inaccurate timing and used chemicals can reduce the available tonal range from say 42 values of blue to merely 10 or 15. So that beautifully graded blue sky appears flat and washed out.

Equipment for film shooting is/was as expensive as digitals. The Leicas and Mamia's esp in medium or large format were prohibitively expensive. Even professional level 35mm format cameras were in the 1.5 lakh bracket some 7-8 years ago.

[Aryan]

@OF: Great to have you pitch in! Thank you for sharing that extensive information with us, here. Shooting in films IS a tough job, I have always known this; your post reiterates this fact. :D I would, somehow, love to give it a try someday.

One query - when one does shift from film to digital, how easy/ tough it is for him/ her to pick up?? :confused:

[KrishnenduKes]

^ Thanks for that insight into the topic. Really makes sense. Probably, if I were to start shooting pictures back in the days when digital cameras did not exist, I would have very well started with a film camera myself, and my opinion would not be the same as it is today.

One more doubt that I have is this - people often say (you have mentioned it in your post too), "used film cameras....." Why "used"? Don't we get to buy new film cameras these days, like we get new, top of the line D-SLRs?


"Used" coz you do not get new film cameras save for some "Top of the line" film cameras. Maybe 3 odd cameras in the 35mm format.

Ken : How thoughtfully you go about shooting a picture depends on an individual.

Agreed.

I myself am addicted to the Manual Mode, and have only recently discovered the perks that PP offers. In no way do I look at it as a crutch. Its a magic wand.

Absolutely. It IS a magic wand. All I am saying is that I do not shoot thinking PP in my mind. I try to get the best possible shot on board before going into the bureau.

I agree with the instant gratification point, but why is it a bad thing?

I do not remember saying that it is a bad thing!

About the cost, I've shot approx 15000 photos with my A570IS and my XTi each, that's 30,000 photos in 18months (18 for 570IS, and 12months for the XTi).

In no WAY can I imagine I would have shot 1/10th that much on film. Even if we filter out the keepers, I cannot imagine the sheer number of photos I get with digital.

I know you shoot very well. Which means you are a serious photographer. For you those 30,000 photographs made a serious learning curve. Had you been born 15years earlier, you would have had the same learning curve, with far less number of photos. That is what I am trying to say.

And check out my first line of the article; I say, "there is no reason to shoot film today"! I think that sums it up. The methods have changed. But the goal remains the same. One has to adapt to changing methods.

For example, today you are shooting with 35mm format with a crop factor. If I am given an assignment with a Bronica/HB, I will be all at sea because the method is different. I would not know if 35mm is wide enough or if 100mm is a portrait lens or not. One has to adapt to newer methods. And we keep doing that constantly...

[powerslave]

I agree that the learning curve would have involved lesser number of photographs, but in the end I do have a truckload of keepers through digital.

All this talk about film is making me consider sending the FE for repair and start shooting.

[KrishnenduKes]

All this talk about film is making me consider sending the FE for repair and start shooting.

You mean your FE does not work!!!!!!! Thats a shame.

Your talk about convenience with digital is the same as mine. The same reason why in the past 16 months, my EOS5 has been languishing in the drawer though it can shoot faster and higher Megapixels than my DSLR.

On the other hand though... my friend who has not touched his EOS1 in the past 5years or so, does not hesitate to go out shooting with his Leica film camera with Ilford B/W 400 ASA. Beat that!!!

Thanks to Aryan... some thread!

[powerslave]

Shame indeed, its abandoned by dad though. So I won't take the blame for it :D

But it shouldn't take a lot to get it working. I'm thinking of doing it up.

[Aryan]

Also, are the lenses for the digital and film same? For example, will the 100mm macro fit on a film camera? :D Perhaps, I will have to use a Canon film camera for that, I presume?

[powerslave]

FD / EF / EF-S. Wikipedia!

[Vicky]

Great thread and some great discussion going on here!

My firs and only 'film' camera was an Olympus 35-170mm Zoom. Fully automatic and P&S type. Got this as a gift on my wedding and only shot about 2-3rolls on it in the past 7yrs or so.

At that time, I already had my first digital camera, a Samsung Digimax 1.3mp and was way more inclined to shoot with this primarily for the 'instant gratification' thing.

I feel, the three largest factors leading to the demise of film are:

1. Lack of that 'Instant Gratification'. This is the single largest factor that drove most people from film to digital.

2. Recurring Expenses. With film, first you have the costs of the Roll, then the developing and then the print. You don't have a photo until you print it... and each photo costs you around 10-12 bucks. With digital, there's no real 'need' to print a photo in order to see or show it. There are no recurring expenses. Typically, i take around 1k shots per month and end up keeping only around 300 from these and yet it costs me nothing. If i did the same on film, it'd cost me 5k (5x1000) in cost of film and developing and another 2k ( 7x300) in cost of print.. another 1k in cost of albums to store these! I cant imagine spending 8-10k each month and also keep making endless runs to the photo labs to give the rolls, then go again to check the developed rolls and then again to pick up the photos!

3. Lack of control in the final stage of the process as in "developing" of the rolls. I've heard of many pro photographers developing their own rolls to get by this... but it's no longer practical in today's fast paced world.

I agree, that someone shooting film would have to think a lot more before pressing the trigger and hence would understand better...BUT the digital shooter will be a lot less hesitant and take 10times as many shots at different settings and different angles and by being able to see instantly what setting yield what results, not only will he be able to get a better understanding of photography, he is also more likely to get back from the assignment 'with' the shot he wanted:)

[KrishnenduKes]

Also, are the lenses for the digital and film same? For example, will the 100mm macro fit on a film camera? :D Perhaps, I will have to use a Canon film camera for that, I presume?

The EF lenses can be put on any Canon Camera; Digital or Film. The EF-S lenses fit Digital cameras ONLY!

Oh... and the 100mm f2.8 is one of the legendary lenses that Canon has. If I am not mistaken, I think it is nearly a decade old. I think it came in around the turn of the century.

[Psycho_McCrazy]

This thread has come up at a really opportune time for me, given that I am about to jump headlong into the world of 35mm film.

What I wanted to know is why shoot films? Is it because of the supposed better quality of the image, or that better "feel" or is it because of the cost factor? Are films cheaper than digital, although shooting rolls after rolls and developing those would be an expensive affair, I am pretty sure. :confused:

-Aryan
"Why shoot film" perhaps cannot have a straightforward answer. In my opinion, shooting film today has two good uses.

firstly, learning to shoot when you know that you cannot review the result immediately, and that you cannot take 50 shots just to get the exposure and WB right, will make you actually take stock of what is there inside the viewfinder, use all prior experience to judge the exposure compensation, and take the shot after carefully framing the shot. Getting it right the first time I guess take a lot, and it can come easier with film than with digital where you can take bracketed shots of every setting and then select the one that fits.

The other use is ofcourse getting those rich colors on velvia, without clipping the red channel of the sensor. :p

But, the very same 'plus point' can also be a negative point as shooting loads of pictures takes out the 'thinking' ability of yours. I mean, when you have the options of clicking thousands of pictures at one go, where is the chance to think? I feel this is one area where films are and will ALWAYS be better because we knew that the shots are limited and one needed to THINK before he/ she released that shutter to take the particular picture.

The third point that I could think of is the usage of ISOs. Low light sensitivity can be changed instantly in the digital camera/ D-SLRs by the flick of a button, whereas films had fixed ISOs. If you want higher (or lower) ISO settings, you would need to change the film (well, I think that is the case)!I exactly feel the same way - thinking well before pressing that shutter, and knowing that you only have one ISO setting (or a stop either side when pushing this way or that - can happen with self developing or developing by a lab that actually knows what pushing is) will make one learn much better.


- Awesome DOF. Although, technically I could be wrong, I think film produces some great bokeh. I dunno, maybe it just looks good. That is because of the shrunk sensor compact cams and the half frame DSLR'S prevaling. Take Ken Da's 5D for a roll someday and you'll get exactly the same DOF and bokeh as film.

Let us put it this way; as the title of the thread goes, there is no reason to shoot film today......

.....2) There is INSTANT gratification. That is one BIG factor in consumerist society.....

.....but one has to know the right places, or one has to learn to do it at home with a darkroom, which is a FANTASTIC experience, almost magical as you see the print come alive in the Hypo in your hands! While printing, you can dodge, burn etc with your hands blocking the light from the projector on the paper.......

.....Did someone say expensive? The price that you pay for a normal DSLR, you get a Top of the line Professional equipment for less than that. You get 180 shots for $8 inclusive of processing and buying the film. That is less than 400 INR for buying, shooting and developping 180 photographs. Then you print the ones that you like. Which is the same price, be it digital or film. What I am saying is you get a top of the line used film SLR for a little over US$100, under 6000 INR. Do not say that it is expensive. It is inconvenient in today’s world where our mantra is “Instant Gratification”!.....
For general photography, digital ofcourse makes a decent amount of sense. But then again, looking at slides through a loupe is a feeling that digital just cannot recreate. I had the opportunity at the photo expo I went to last weekend to look at some 35 mm and 6x7 velvia slides, was frigging AWESOME

Instant gratification may be the in thing today, but patience has its rewards (i know this sounds too corny)

As for the opportunity of having your own darkroom, that sure would be an experience of a lifetime.

As for cost, getting a worthy DSLR that can give results as good as the best film and has all the requisite functions/capabilities will make you rob a few banks.

One more doubt that I have is this - people often say (you have mentioned it in your post too), "used film cameras....." Why "used"? Don't we get to buy new film cameras these days, like we get new, top of the line D-SLRs?One can still get the top of the line film cameras new, but they are expensive. Getting used film cameras that were discarded because of the digital revolution is easy, and you can get solid equipment for cheap. Just like how I picked up my F5.

......Skill levels: You really need to understand the relationship between the trio of photography i.e. aperture, shutter speed and film ISO. With film you do not have the luxury of trial shots. You need to get it 'right first time' and the only way of being sure of having got a good shot is to have an in-depth knowledge of what your manipulation of the three elements mentioned above shall have on the final result. There is precious little you can do during processing and printing. Even that has to be planned for while shooting. For example if you need to shoot 'life' in warm colours, say on Kodak 100 ASA, you shoot one stop under and get the film pushed by half stop during processing. (though I do wonder if we have vary many film technicians left these days who actually understand and do proper push-pull processing).

Real time knowledge: This again deals with knowing what results you can get by shooting at certain settings in the given light conditions. With digitals, you can bracket your shots with gay abandon and choose the ones that turn out the best, with or without PP later on. Film needs a conservative hand and so a thorough applicable knowledge of the myriad techniques of photography need to be within you in real time i.e. at the time you are taking the picture, to ensure a good resultant shoot. Meaning there is little scope for 'post-shooting' corrections.....Exactly what would push you into being a good photographer by learning what setting yields what and what situation demands what compensation - and this is because you know that there are only 36 exposures and each one costs.....

I agree, that someone shooting film would have to think a lot more before pressing the trigger and hence would understand better...BUT the digital shooter will be a lot less hesitant and take 10times as many shots at different settings and different angles and by being able to see instantly what setting yield what results, not only will he be able to get a better understanding of photography, he is also more likely to get back from the assignment 'with' the shot he wanted:)Taking those hundreds of shots would IMO not result into learning, because you'll never take the effort to remember what setting worked, because the next time also, one will take those 100 shots and be happy with the 5 keepers... not what I want to do.....

And all this learning comes to the fore when you will be using transparency film like velvia, which is very forgiving for exposure errors. Not only you need to be right the first time, you need to be perfectly right every time.

/can't wait for the weekend to take my F5 out for a spin (with normal ISO100 print film - will move to transparencies later)

[powerslave]

That is because of the shrunk sensor compact cams and the half frame DSLR'S prevaling. Take Ken Da's 5D for a roll someday and you'll get exactly the same DOF and bokeh as film.



I was comparing the 35mm to the full frame sensors. And in that I'm wondering if the bokeh and DOF look better on film.

[anvancy-(macro analyst)]

advantages of film.

full frame man.
no mag.
dynamic range is next to human eye.
colors are more precise.
learning curve is immense.
batteries needed only for flash..LOL.
unlimited BULB mode.:p
i can make a pinhole camera too.

disadvantages.
you dont know your result till you post process it.
i have seen many processor people who just SPOIL your shot.so even if you have put effort,he spills the mud on your hardwork.
change rolls.36 in one.hmmm.
again no mag.

i still check my old albums clicked by that fuji which my dad brought from EGYPT.the color retention and quality is just top notch.fuji camera+fuji roll+fuji paper=awesome shots.




still today film is used.

anvancy.

[Aryan]

I am getting a whole new perspective on this subject now! Thank you guys for sharing so much of information here.

@Psycho: Good points made there. All the more reason why you got yourself a film camera, eh? ;)

If possible, I would LOVE to see some photographs off a film camera. All the better if the SAME shot could be shot using a digital as well as film! That would make the difference pretty clear.. :D

[powerslave]

Quick search: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

[Aryan]

Quick search: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
That is QUITE an article there, with some real deep technical jargons as well as charts. I could not make much of these charts anyway. :p

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.35mm-d.gif

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamic-range-tfcn-film-1-600.gif

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary/aiq.clark.a.gif

[KrishnenduKes]

Quick search: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

Thanks. There is quite a bit of stuff there. Good for academic interest actually... to know what is what. This in no way will change the way I shoot or the medium I use! :)