I got interested in doing video on a DSLR, but realized I could not afford one. In researching lenses for such, I found that some amazing old film cameras could be had for peanuts! I stumbled into a cheap MF agfa folder and some expired film and was amazed at the results. I can shoot film WAY cheaper than digital considering the equipment available to me. FD lenses, cameras, and old cheap MF stuff.
I like the suspense of film.
I like the variation I can get from scanning (sorry Apug)
I enjoy learning about the process.
"If its not broken, I can't afford it."
Because film makes my heart sing...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
To quote Don Konkey from the short lived TV show "Dirt", who said, "I use film because film doesn't lie".
As for me personally, I like film because I can see it, touch it, smell it, shoot even taste it if I want, and I know that properly stored, it will last a long, long time. My father who passed away over 13 years ago, when he was 90 years old, taught me that much, and I'm still looking at pictures both he and his father took. I was lucky enough to inherit both his, his fathers, and even my mothers negatives that I can still print and enjoy.
I use film 'cause compact flash cards don't work in my enlarger.
no they don't but your iphone will. I won't link to it but search "ENFOJER"
Originally Posted by DWThomas
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I started with my first dSLR (7D) to replace my digital P&S a few years ago (although I had fond memories of my mum letting me even touch her spotmatic when I was a kid). Boredom at work led me to discover the ability to mount Pentacon Six lenses to my eos with a tilt/shift adapter. Then I started researching the rest of the P6-family, then buying (GAS attack to the max).
The final straw for me was when the 5D mk3 got released, a camera I was sure I'd buy on-release as an upgrade to my 7D. Then I saw the price, and the fact that they'd prioritised high-iso over more-MP and low-iso performance didn't help.
Then I discovered Velvia, and after much researching I reckoned I could scan/print Velvia to about the same size as a 5D3 (at least for landscapes, give or take a bit depending on quality). Did some calculations, and for the price of a 5D3 I bought an EOS 3 with $3000 left to put towards film over the years (2 years later, I'm probably a few hundred dollars through that, including my very-full freezer).
Then, seeing as I already had the P6 lenses, I bought into some cameras too (more GAS). I thought at the time, if I can get 5D3-quality out of 35mm velvia, I should easily get better with MF, which I can scan to higher-res, and still at a fraction of the (initial) cost.
So initially it was all about the quality, and especially the quality/price ratio, that neverending quest for more-MP (scanned or digital). But I realised a while ago, and it hammered home again today, that I don't actually print billboards. I've got a 13" printer but haven't done much above A4 (yet, I will one day).
Today it hammered-home because I've bought a 480mm enlarger lens with no shutter, and I'm going to have to a) hack it onto a shutter, probably a packard; b) hack said shutter onto my Tovoview somehow; c) extend the bellows and tubes far enough to get it to focus; d) mount it somehow that it doesn't just tip my whole tripod over in the wind; e) work out some flash/lighting rig with short enough duration to deal with a potentially slow shutter; f) convince someone to sit in front of it for a few minutes while I focus the damn thing and calculate exposures and all that.
And there's where I get my fun (if you can't tell, I'm an engineer for a reason), the thing gathering light at the other end doesn't matter, it's just that film is a buttload cheaper than a 4x5 digital sensor (which only exist as scanning backs afaik, and definitely not in my price range). And if I get a good photo out of it that's a bonus.
An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.
f/64 and be there.
Film satisfies my latent OCD tendencies. I can count the minutes off while the film develops, saying Hail Mary's and hitting the same floor tile with each inversion, neatly file the negatives chronologically, obsessively spot the prints and perform liquid alchemy at least twice a week. The rest of the time I can slob out with a digital camera.
I must be the most conflicted APUG member. I dont hate digital, in fact I like it quite a lot. Yet I still am drawn to film even though I have some immense difficulties with film, particularly color film. My film shots dont look as good as my digitals on the computer screen, which is sadly how I view them here in China. I cannot find any place that prints and I cannot do so in my home. But yet I still shoot film because I enjoy the film cameras I have, a Fuji GA645 and Nikon FM2. I enjoy the limitations that film imposes on me. Very few shots available, so I have to make them count. I LOVE the archival nature of film compared to the digital computer files that can disappear in a blink.
One day i hope I can see prints of my film shots. I dont know if that will ever happen.
I use film because of the process and science. When I set up for a shot, some of the things I think about are: how thick will the emulsion be in that highlight? How thin will the emulsion be in that shadow? How do I manipulate the camera to get the focus I want? What compromises do I have to resolve? How do I develop the film? How do I make the print? Do I make a print? AGAIN, what compromises do I make? How do I display the print? Do I throw the print away?
For me, film is a means to a journey that I enjoy.
Perhaps this explains it best: a negative provides a visual, tangible image that most assuredly is 'there'. A digital capture provides a theoretical image that will not manifest until the software confirms this (and, hopefully, at that).
As analogy, take traveling: you have two distinct ways to take money. Either a debit/credit card or travelers cheques. Now the Travelers Cheques are: cumbersome, lower exchange rate, lines to wait in, etc, BUT...their denomination is readily ascertainable and if lost, can be replaced MUCH more readily than a card can (usually, as AMEX might have immediate replacement, I do not know). The fact remains is this: do you want convenience over avoidance of disaster? I like the more conservative approach: I do not wish to be stranded, so travelers cheques seem to be more in line with reality, cumbersome as they are. - David Lyga