The Death of Film

HappySnapper90 wrote in post #14962345
What's the point of taking the picture if it looks normal and ordinary?

To record an event as it happened and preserve a memory as it really was?

Lots of reasons to take photos. Personally I'm really looking forward to playing with wet plate photography, not because it is remotely practical, but because the process itself is an interesting challenge that produces a 'print' style that would be very hard to produce with a digital camera.

Luckless wrote in post #14962355
To record an event as it happened and preserve a memory as it really was?

Hmm, record a video then? If you want to "record an event as it happened", you want to take photos that tell a story not sterile photos that shows people in a room and which color the walls are and the weather conditions.

HappySnapper90 wrote in post #14962345
...
With digital you can easily increase the ISO to help ensure you'll not have camera shake or at times even no subject motion.
,,,

You can increase ISO with film as well.

I love the advantages of digital. But it is true that there are some qualities to film that digital lacks. The most critical is the way that digital clips at the bright end of things. It's just easier to preserve texture in the highlights with film. Every once in a while if I'm going to be shooting some really high-key stuff, I'll throw a roll of film into the Elan (with the Eye Control AF!) and shoot it. When I do, there is some nostalgia along with it.

As for the chemicals, I don't know about others, but I rather liked the smell. lol

I use my old film RFs and FSU primes as often as DSLRs.
Do my own b/w. It is still better compare to my 5D and Zeiss prime in some aspects of IQ.
And in simplicity of using.
I'm member of several film groups on Flickr, because I like b/w more from film RFs compare to even M9, which is "freaking medical macro" for me.
I looked at high ISO from fake RFs like FujiFilms and from 5D III, it is unnatural for me.
If it is dark it is no colors and 1/15 with ISO 400 will provide much more natural looking result compare to digital 12800 ISO at 1/50.
Colors, yes, they are different and more unique on film, this is why were are digital plug-ins to fake color film. But color film is more difficult to process at home.
Still, It feels so liberating with Zorki made in 1957, which is completely fixable by DIY and much more forgiving on wrong exposure compare to DSLR. It is nice compare to ugly DSLR, which is nothing but tool box. And it is real RF, not like FujiFilm replicas without RF.
I'm also don't feel like a fool who starts to dink at every new camera and spend money for endless upgrades, while still unknown how to take good picture.
Yes, my first DSLR has 70K on it since 2009 and it helps me a lot to learn. I was taking pictures every day with it.
This is why 24-36 frames on film is enough for me now. Not so long time ago, I learned with DSLR how to take only few good pictures instead of spray shot and with film I'm even more consistent.
And I never have 16GB card from beginning. I was always looking first to take picture, not taking spray shots and looking what I've got after.
Film is not dead for me. It is fun. And digital is more like a tool.

joedlh wrote in post #14962078
From where I'm sitting, film is supported by photographers my age for whom it is part of their self-identity, making it an emotional not an objective issue, and hipsters for which it is a passing fad. Once old-timers like me pass on and the hipsters move on the next hip thing, that will be the end of it, except for some specialized labs that will keep a then quite expensive medium going on a minor scale.

I shot film for some 30 years. I don't miss it.

old timers and hipsters!
yes, the passing of film does seem to be an emotional issue with some people.

watt100 wrote in post #14963047
old timers and hipsters!
yes, the passing of film does seem to be an emotional issue with some people.

Apparently even for those who don't use it. Why is that?

watt100 wrote in post #14963047
old timers and hipsters!
yes, the passing of film does seem to be an emotional issue with some people.

But it aint passed and it aint dead. I haven't shot film in almost 7 years. Not one roll or one sheet but I know a lot of people that still do though most are shooting medium and large format but theres a guy tuna and sjones that post here that shoot 135 format and do better street work than 95% of the others seen on POTN and they do it with film.

moose10101 wrote in post #14963345
Apparently even for those who don't use it. Why is that?

I think because certain people in the world like to argue for the sake of arguing. That or just as much as some people are in love with film, others are in love with digital and each side would defend itself to the end of time while citing non-peer reviewed internet articles and famous dead people. The real question is: Would Ansel Adam's have used a DLSR if given the opportunity? The digital community needs more famous people to fight the war of Digital v.s. Film

Nature Nut wrote in post #14963719
I think because certain people in the world like to argue for the sake of arguing. That or just as much as some people are in love with film, others are in love with digital and each side would defend itself to the end of time while citing non-peer reviewed internet articles and famous dead people. The real question is: Would Ansel Adam's have used a DLSR if given the opportunity? The digital community needs more famous people to fight the war of Digital v.s. Film

Well you can certainly read their philosophies about photography. I'm sure Adams would have gone digital but I'm sure from what I've read and his approach to the medium he would be still be shooting large format digital and he would have probably come up with a very practical zone system for digital by now. I love both film and digital!!!!

airfrogusmc wrote in post #14963752
Well you can certainly read their philosophies about photography. I'm sure Adams would have gone digital but I'm sure from what I've read and his approach to the medium he would be still be shooting large format digital and he would have probably come up with a very practical zone system for digital by now. I love both film and digital!!!!

I miss my Polaroid Instamatic, that was my first camera as a kid. Then later I found a video camera at a garage sale that recorded to VCR tapes and was the size of those professional reporter cameras.

Nature Nut wrote in post #14963794
I miss my Polaroid Instamatic, that was my first camera as a kid. Then later I found a video camera at a garage sale that recorded to VCR tapes and was the size of those professional reporter cameras.

There are some artists that have worked in 20 X 24 polaroid and have done some fascinating polaroid transfers.

irishman wrote in post #14956190
No, I don't miss film, any more than I miss the death of the abacus, horse and buggy or drive-in movies. It's just nostalgia.

Film still wins with:

1. Dynamic range (by an order of magnitude with B&W films)
2. Exposure latitude
3. Ability to increase tonal range in a low contrast scene
4. Resolution (with the right camera)

Working with this camera is a pain in the @$$:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/digi-film/6215030181/

Tony-S wrote in post #14963869
Film still wins with:

1. Dynamic range (by an order of magnitude with B&W films)
2. Exposure latitude
3. Ability to increase tonal range in a low contrast scene
4. Resolution (with the right camera)

Working with this camera is a pain in the @$$:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/digi-film/6215030181/
Korona 4x5 view camera

But the images it's capable of producing are far superior to my 5D mark II.

The reasons to shoot film are few, but there are some. Like everything, you need the right tool for the job.

Great post killer camera....

A wooden view camera on a carbon fiber tripod.
I dunno. Something about that just seems wrong.