Revisiting this thread, I thought of another reason. The main reason I shoot film. Tradition. Not the tradition of just the technology, although that is important, but rather the tradition of the practitioners. The exact thing that makes APUG special.
Our technology isn't changing and obsolescing every three days. Generations of technique, visual and technical that can be learned and built on by the practitioner. When there is something new, and good, it is measured, tested, learned, and if worthy, adopted into the process.
New things don't invalidate and pander down to the previous method, instead all is enriched, and everything ads to the whole.
I use the same basic tools the legends of photography had at their disposal. I can't blame the gear if I am consistently falling short. I can't look to the next update, release, gizmo or chip, and pretend that that it is going to elevate me.
Want to make pictures like Adams, the Westons, or any other you desire, admire, or to follow your own unique vision?
I dare to say its not in a box of bytes, or collection of circuits. The technical ability to produce compelling images was in place long ago. Digital has no tradition. It changes too fast. It has to eat its own yesterday every day to continue.
We have only ourselves to look to.
The rest is just hype. Especially the d****** stuff.
That's just, like, my opinion, man...
Originally Posted by Satinsnow
You misunderstood my reply. I mean IF for no other reason you should want to have a hard copy. I shoot only film so why would I not consider film not to be of high value?
I guess I may have read your reply wrong..sorry, interpetation on the net is 100% inacurate, and in this case, I guess I read it wrong.
Originally Posted by darr
I photographed a band at a club the other night without using a flash. I used Delta 3200 film and I was getting readings like f4 at 1/60 sec. You can't do that with digital.
Why not just buy a really nice Nikon film scanner for $600? You'll never need a digital camera because the files I get off that scanner blow away most prosumer digital SLRs in terms of quality and file size. We're talking 300ppi at 13"x19" with the dynamic range of film. Then you can save the rest of your money and buy a nice Nikon manual camera and some lenses and still have money left over for film. Also remember, memory cards aren't cheap and they aren't foolproof either as we are led to believe. So you don't get to see your photos in the LCD right after you shoot them, big freakin deal.
People have been making incredible images since the dawn of photography without digital cameras. What makes you think your images will be better if you have a DSLR? Unless you're a pro and your clients demand you to use a digital camera, then I don't see a point to it.
Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
Ara, good point! I have a Minolta film scanner, which goes to 5400dpi and will do 16x multi-sampling. It creates some really nice files.
Originally Posted by Ara Ghajanian
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Film is cheap. Mass processing in German drugstores is cheap (as little as 5 EUROcents a print and under 1 EURO for developing). Cameras can be cheap. Results are excellent.
Originally Posted by scottwesterman
If I want special prints I can handle them in my darkroom. I don't have a light jet or any other equivalent technology in my toolchest---- and outsourcing is quite expensive.
If I want to do b&W (which I often do) there is NO other option than film. The total cost for film and chemicals is a wee bit higher than for C-41 but still a tiny fraction of the real cost just a few years ago. Its quick and comfortable and using microfilms I can get resolution significantly higher than one can with ANY equivalently sized digital camera.
Its also about fun and style. I like old mechanical cameras. I like their feel and I find I can get more reliable pictures from them than from any of the auto-thingee..
I don't care much for digital cameras. Its not that I'm digital-phobic.. can hardly be as I think I was among the pioneers of digital capture--- back to the days of E&S machines. Its not that I don't have the hardware either.. OK no light jets but enough hardware to render a film for Pixar :-) But... I don't have the need.
Why would I want to bother with a digital camera?
Kodachrome...... see you saved the best for last!!!! (putting on flame suit, running and hiding now!)
Originally Posted by JBrunner
It kind of begs the question: Why would anyone ask this on a film photography website?
Originally Posted by scottwesterman
Seems to be an intent to incite folks.....
I don't know. It gets people to really think about the decisions they have made.
Originally Posted by copake_ham
i would just like to point out i did not intend to incite anyone , i am very new to photography and wished to have a different opinion because lots of other site and magazines (af for example) are so digital biased that you cannot get a fair comparison in views , i understand that this website is film biased but that gives me both sides of the story !
i never meant to offend or upset anyone !
thanks for all your replys