There are two sides. Financially, to buy a DSLR that was built to the same standard as a Canon F1 or a Nikon F2 would cost a fortune and I enjoy using well made objects. Socially, film was removed from public consciousness too quickly and left an authenticity gap where the processing, printing, lab side of photography used to be.
For professionals on a quick turnaround digital makes sense. For amateurs in the true sense of 'lover', film photography is still a marvellous craft skill like etching that's dependent on technique and vision, not technology.
I got my start on digital. I shot and shot and shot, wound up with thousands of JPEGs on my hard drive that I might occasionally go back into and look at or post online to share. I made a few (poor) inkjet prints, and that was it. Photography basically ended after I pressed the shutter and looked at the photo magically appear on the screen.
I've grown bored of that.
Now I'm doing mostly 4x5 and MF. Quality aside, I absolutely love the process. From first metering and composing a shot right through watching my print appear in the developer, its such a hands-on, manual, organic process.
Its not that digital isn't genuine photography - because it is, just with a different medium, but film just seems so much more "real," to me. I know that my photos are physical manifestations of what I captured with my camera, not just a bunch of zeros and ones sitting on a CF card.
It also brings up more challenges for me (I love challenges). The lack of instant gratification, the variables in film and developer, the different ways to go about making a print, etc., have given me a whole new world to explore and try to understand.
I just feel more connected, involved with, and passionate about film photography, and I think that the care I put into it shows in my film work over my digital work.
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
Shoot! All someone needs to do is to make a digital back for those cameras, and I will be first in line. I imagine that the Nikon F would be the easiest to convert, because of the design of its back door/bottom plate. The electronic guts could go underneath the camera in a motor drive-like assembly. All that would be needed would be a working sensor, as the camera already has all the "features" one needs. Being able to throw a D700 sensor onto the back of one of my Fs would get me shooting a good bit more digital.
Originally Posted by blockend
"Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."
- Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)
Welcome to the forum.
Having attended a photo event on the weekend, being partly commercial but also offering photo opportunities. I realized just how much has changed since I last attended such an event, for it was swamped (as to be expected by the DLSR) and I think I was the only film shooter or at the least one of the very few, treading with a small rangefinder. I did not feel out of the ordinary at all and thoroughly enjoyed myself. Indeed film is my home.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
"He took to writing poetry and visiting the elves: and though many shook their heads and touched their foreheads and said 'Poor old Baggins!' and though few believed any of his tales, he remained very happy till the end of his days, and those were extraordinarily long "- JRR Tolkien, ' The Hobbit '.
I bought my first 35mm in 1968 and have never been disappointed with film, I have taken a lot of terrible images over the years. No fault to camera or film.
Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase. - Percy W. Harris