Film vs. Digital

[snberk103]

... Film will never see the heyday it once did and that is OK, because I doubt anyone aspires to be like everyone else, ordinary...

Film is alternative process, it is niche and it is nice to have an alternative to the world of digital everything if you are deeply rooted in your being as an artist.

I'm also going to address this snippet. I agree wholeheartedly with this, but I think we need to distinguish between the types of films...BW, Slide, and Colour negative. And please take all of the post below as a personal opinion.

BW film is here to stay, imho, for the foreseeable future for all of the reasons so eloquently stated by Macshroomer. The big factor though is going to be the supply of used film cameras available as they aren't making high-end 35mm or MF film cameras anymore (with perhaps a couple of exceptions?). Though I haven't seen sales figures, my impression is that large format film cameras may actually be seeing a resurgence. Can anyone confirm this?

Colour negative film is destined for the rubbish bin, imo. For 99% of those who shoot colour, digital cameras give photographers way more control over their images than they ever had when they used film. Once-upon-a-time I operated a photo gallery at the time that photographers in my community were moving from film to digital. At the time I opened the doors, when you filled the gallery with photographers the BW shooters could (and did!) talk all night about their chemistry choices, and dilutions, and temperatures, and paper choices, and enlarger lenses, and ... and ... and... in often mind-numbing detail. In other words they had an infinite array of processing and enlarging options to create their images. I'd have to start flashing the lights on/off to get them to leave sometimes. The photographers working in colour would talk about the dozen or so film choices, and then the half dozen paper choices, and some wisdom was passed about about pushing and pulling, and then they'd move to local politics or whatever.

However, when the colour photographers started moving to digital cameras... they could (and would!) talk all-night about curves, and ICC profiles, and paper choices, and ... and .... In other words.... Colour shooters also now had an infinite array of ways to process their images because of the tools that a digital workflow opened up for them.

At that point I closed the gallery (photographers are really nice, generous, and talkative people - but I needed more customers and fewer photographers in the rooms to pay the rent).

But I did make the move from film to digital at that point because I saw the possibilities of a colour digital workflow.

As for colour slide film... I don't know. But I think is that it too is going to be discontinued shortly, for various reasons.

My sense is that we are seeing the start of a major resurgence in traditional BW photography. People are looking for 'art' that has the fingerprints of the creator all over it.... as it were. Which is too bad because I'm on a septic field, so the challenge of setting up my darkroom again is considerable.

Anyway, too long a post ... sorry about that. But this a topic I am fairly passionate about.

 

[Macshroomer]

Color film going away? Absolutely! I have a little bit of color neg and slide for some niche long term projects, I will be ok for processing because I can do it my self. But for all the reasons cited above, it is black and white that I can truly showcase my talents with.

I would give color neg a fair bit longer than slide, but how much depends on the motion picture film industry's dumping it in the next few years...

But man o man, black and white just rooooocks the house called art and I am so happy to be using it.

 

[kingalexthe1st]

But man o man, black and white just rooooocks the house called art and I am so happy to be using it.

Got any images or a website to visit? I'm interested in what you make...

Alex

 

[leighonigar]

The colour negative films that are out there now are really really good. Admittedly they're as good as they'll get now movies are too a digital artwork but it would be a real mistake to call them dead without trying them. Slide films are really a bit expensive for me to shoot these days.

Any of you digital full frame shooters: Grab a neat compact like the Olympus trip or something from the xa series for a few bucks/pounds, batteries for peanuts, a roll of ektar and put it in your pocket (or bag if you went for an original trip!). Wait. See what happens.

 

[jodelli]

Does anyone here use film?

I do sometimes, but unless you process your own film it's not any better than digital, generally speaking. Like others here have pointed out with film I tend to be more deliberate about shooting.

The two here are one of each, from near the same spot about a year apart.

 

[ChrisA]

I'm also going to address this snippet. I agree wholeheartedly with this, but I think we need to distinguish between the types of films...BW, Slide, and Colour negative. And please take all of the post below as a personal opinion....

Yes 35mm film is going away.

But medium and large format digital is so expensive few can afford it. That is the best reason to use film today, because you need quality a 35mm size camera can't deliver. I mean newer "full frame" SLRs are good but they will never compete with medium and large formats.

 

[Macshroomer]

I have used Ektar and Portra in 120 / medium format a fair bit and it is spectacular. I have 100 sheets of Ektar in 4x5 I am looking forward to trying at some point, but will need a good three month block of time to engage in the project I got it for.

You never know, if the new helmsman at Kodak Alaris can even slightly increase demand by employing a clever new marketing strategy, color neg films could stick around for another ten years, certainly enough time to buy a good initial supply, use up part, replace with new stock semi-annually and keep up the cycle for a number of years.

This is essentially what most professional fine art shooters and serious amateurs have done, created a foundation of several to 5 years of stock to be safe and rotating in fresh film as the older stuff gets used. Color and high ISO black and white films are little more tricky in this regard even when frozen but all in all, if stored right, the stuff does keep. I am working away on films that are no longer like Infrared and Techpan and since they were frozen since new, they are flawless...

Fuji is really the only game in town for slide film and it has gone up in price a fair bit, especially in large format. I think E6 stocks have 5 years at most at this point, color neg has a much stronger following and could be good for awhile.

In terms of wanting to see my work, I pulled any public site down during the recession and will not have a new one up until later this Fall. It's been wonderful to not be a part of the whole Internet mess, no chasing down copyright infringements....I'm very protective of how I earn my living. Since I have posted a few times on this thread, it will be easy to locate and provide a link once it is up if I feel like that is ok.

 

[ChrisA]

Does anyone here use film?

... unless you process your own film it's not any better than digital, generally speaking. ..

This is true for 35mm color film.

It is not so true if you remove either of the two qualifiers - "35mm" or "color"

 

[acearchie]

Does anyone here use film?

I do sometimes, but unless you process your own film it's not any better than digital, generally speaking. Like others here have pointed out with film I tend to be more deliberate about shooting.

The two here are one of each, from near the same spot about a year apart.

I still shoot a lot of film. In fact I was hoping to shoot a roll today but unfortunately it was too dark for 100 speed film!

From your shots I'm going to guess the top is digital and the bottom film?

 

[snberk103]

Yes 35mm film is going away.

But medium and large format digital is so expensive few can afford it. That is the best reason to use film today, because you need quality a 35mm size camera can't deliver. I mean newer "full frame" SLRs are good but they will never compete with medium and large formats.

It's not just quality. I agree that a piece of 4x5 film captures way way more information than a 35mm digital sensor (I'm going to leave out medium format simply because some of the very high end 35mm DSLRs can come close to matching some of the low end MF film cameras... though there are other features of a MF system that make their images 'different' - but that is post for another day)... anyway... the economics of making film mean that to sell MF and LF film at anything close to a reasonable cost, you need to also sell 35mm film. There are lots and lots more 35mm cameras out there than there are MF and LF systems... and LF shooters tend to shoot very little film compared to a 35mm photographer. MF and LF photographers need the 35mm systems to help with the economies of scale for making film. ... imho only, of course ...

...
Fuji is really the only game in town for slide film and it has gone up in price a fair bit, especially in large format. ....

Notwithstanding what I said above... I believe Fuji understands their market much better than Polaroid did, and perhaps even Kodak. For some films, there is a core group of photographers who are (relatively) price insensitive. They will buy that particular film because they need that film.... Velvia for instance. So, instead of dropping the price to compete against digital Fuji seems to have raised the price to compensate for the decline in sales... and at least so far... seems to have found that balance of revenue and income.

Polaroid probably should have done the same for SX70 film - simply raised the prices until they balanced revenue and expenses. There were a bunch of us who would have paid much more for our boxes of SX70 film if we had had to. SX70, for us, was not in competition with digital... and therefore we were relatively price insensitive. Look at the Impossible Project. More money for a still not quite perfect product, and they can't make the stuff fast enough.

Just my 'avoiding work' musings... probably better left ignored....

 

[Macshroomer]

If no one shot Ilford 35mm film but lots of 120 and sheet, including their amazing annual Ultra Large Format run, they would just keep right on trucking. In terms of Kodak, it would pretty much be the same as they can slit 120 film from the same base thickness of 35mm. Large format from either maker is another story, it's a different base thickness. Kodak also does Ultra Large Format in special order batches through KB Canham Cameras, a system that has worked really well.

Where Adorama, B&H and Freestyle see the most steady sales is indeed in medium and large format, especially in black and white. 35mm is still popular but sees more up and downs. I think it is the market as a whole that will dictate how any film does, Ilford undoubtedly being the last man standing for many years to come.

So we have less films to choose from than 10 years ago but a much better sense of where additional declines will be and how products like black and white have very solid footing.

Some interesting reading, a thread like this would never have been this positive ten years ago:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52176002

Kodak's take on what's in store:

http://www.filmsnotdead.com/2013/10/14/films-not-dead-in-conversation-with-kodak-alaris/

And a good opinion as to how the maturing of digital is affecting the whole of the photo world:

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2013/08/has-bubble-burst-is-that-why-camera.html?m=1

Page 164-165 of National Geographic October 2013, a two page spread of a reindeer running down a mountain road in Norway captured by Google Street View is "curated" by a Canadian "artist".

The caption writer finishes by saying, "The images now hang in galleries and raise the question: What is a photographer?"

The best way I figure I can answer that question is me shooting black and white film and hand crafting a real print from the negative...I see no future for me in using digital.

 

[jodelli]

I still shoot a lot of film. In fact I was hoping to shoot a roll today but unfortunately it was too dark for 100 speed film!

From your shots I'm going to guess the top is digital and the bottom film?

You're right.

----------

This is true for 35mm color film.

It is not so true if you remove either of the two qualifiers - "35mm" or "color"

Thanks for narrowing it down as that's what I had in mind at the time.

 

[Padaung]

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52176002

http://www.filmsnotdead.com/2013/10/14/films-not-dead-in-conversation-with-kodak-alaris/

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2013/08/has-bubble-burst-is-that-why-camera.html?m=1

Thanks for the links, I enjoyed the Visual Science Lab article (not read all the Kodak article yet, but will do later). I'm not a fan of the DPReview forum system (Macrumors displays the posts in a far better way imo), but I'll read through the thread a little this evening.

It was rather depressing to read that galleries are now displaying pictures from Google Streetview.

 

[MacCruiskeen]

I
Notwithstanding what I said above... I believe Fuji understands their market much better than Polaroid did, and perhaps even Kodak. For some films, there is a core group of photographers who are (relatively) price insensitive. They will buy that particular film because they need that film.... Velvia for instance. So, instead of dropping the price to compete against digital Fuji seems to have raised the price to compensate for the decline in sales... and at least so far... seems to have found that balance of revenue and income.

Polaroid might have also done better to avoid, I don't know, say, having their executives arrested for embezzling from the company. The management issues at the company after Land died went way deeper than pricing issues.

Actually, Fuji's pricing strategies are kind of annoying: in 35mm and 120, their prices are in line with Kodak and Ilford, but in 4x5 they're more expensive. Acros is a favorite film for small format, but unaffordable for 4x5. Ilford will even do special orders for odd and very large sizes. I think if you perused the forums at APUG or Largeformatphotography.info, you'd find that shooters are actually pretty price sensitive.

 

[Policar]

Fuji's 4x5 pricing is annoying. Forced me to switch mostly to 6X12. It matters.

 

[snberk103]

Polaroid might have also done better to avoid, I don't know, say, having their executives arrested for embezzling from the company. The management issues at the company after Land died went way deeper than pricing issues.

...

I'd forgotten about that aspect. Polaroid's demise was anything but inevitable, and it's sad to think what might have happened with a better management team, eh?

 

[Macshroomer]

Fuji's 4x5 pricing is annoying. Forced me to switch mostly to 6X12. It matters.

Seriously annoying, 4x5 at $2.82 a shot or 6x12 at .76 a shot, not hard math to do. I bought a few hundred rolls of it in 120 when Adorama still had it at $2.60 a roll, now it is up to $4.60 a roll in just 18 months so even as I replace stock it is still a great average price.

If it were not for the amazing reciprocity ability of Acros, I would dump it in favor of using Tmax 100 for everything.

 

[thegreatdivorce]

Yes 35mm film is going away.

No it isn't.

Nice to see so many people who appreciate film in here! I shoot about half/half for work and play.

Someone mentioned the Olympus XA ... seriously everyone should have one. Like $30 on eBay for a pocketable 35/2.8 lens and a real rangefinder. I love that little thing.

 

[sim667]

I still shoot film, mainly black and white, in 35mm, 6x7 and I want to start shooting 5X4 again....

Im yet to be convinced that there is a digital camera on the market which is affordable and can compete with a 5x4 or a 10x8 E6 exposure in terms of image quality.

And no, H4D's are not affordable before anyone pipes up

 

[MacCruiskeen]

Someone mentioned the Olympus XA ... seriously everyone should have one. Like $30 on eBay for a pocketable 35/2.8 lens and a real rangefinder. I love that little thing.

Indeed, if you don't mind a fixed-lens camera, there are many very fine older RF's from Konica, Yashica, and Olympus that can be had for not quite nothing but quite close to it.

 

[leighonigar]

Indeed, if you don't mind a fixed-lens camera, there are many very fine older RF's from Konica, Yashica, and Olympus that can be had for not quite nothing but quite close to it.

One of the beauties of the XA is that it has a little sliding cover that protects the lens and focusing mechanism. Most of the other rangefinders that are out there have bulky lenses which make it difficult to put them in your bag or pocket and forget about them until the moment that you need a high quality camera. There are small cameras like this with zooms, of course, but they tend not to have such good lenses or rangefinder focusing (but neither do the XA2-4).

Another bonus for the XA series as compared to older fixed lens cameras is that they take alkaline batteries. Many of these are old enough to need a mercury replacement cell.

 

[MacCruiskeen]

Another bonus for the XA series as compared to older fixed lens cameras is that they take alkaline batteries. Many of these are old enough to need a mercury replacement cell.

That's true, but the battery is usually only for the meter. And of course, some of them don't even have that (like my Konica III). I'm not knocking the XA, which I understand is very nice. I just wanted to point out that there's an abundance of nice old RF's out there. I carry a Gossen hand-held meter, which I use with all of my cameras now, whether they have their own or not. I tried using battery adapters with my Nikons, but it wasn't worth it. If I don't have the meter with me, I can usually wing it with sunny-16.

 

[leighonigar]

That's true, but the battery is usually only for the meter. And of course, some of them don't even have that (like my Konica III). I'm not knocking the XA, which I understand is very nice. I just wanted to point out that there's an abundance of nice old RF's out there. I carry a Gossen hand-held meter, which I use with all of my cameras now, whether they have their own or not. I tried using battery adapters with my Nikons, but it wasn't worth it. If I don't have the meter with me, I can usually wing it with sunny-16.

Absolutely yes. I'd encourage people to try out and discover whatever falls to hand. I mentioned the xa originally because it can go anywhere with you in a pocket and because it has a nice lens and is 'full frame'. Once we go beyond the pocket the possibilities are endless.

 

[compuwar]

I used to shoot 5x7, 4x5, 6x7, 6x6, 645 and 35mm film. No longer. While I did all my own B&W and E6 processing, I'm perfectly happy not to be handling toxic chemicals or dumping them into the environment.

Furthermore, I do all my raw image processing with RPP, and the film curves for K64, V50 TP25 and A50 pretty-much cover most of the bases, I rarely use the other curves. More importantly, I can reprocess at will for different results.

Paul