Film photographers

How long are you going to keep shooting film?

I haven't shot film over a year. The last time, I went out and shot 2 rolls...then spent all day developing and printing several pictures that were worthless.

Chemicals are obnoxious and rolling the film into the develop canister is getting harder.

Sure...black and white on medium format has the hint of nostalgia and the loud clunk of shutter actuation from Hassy has that sense of excitement... only to be left with impetous desire to hit the play button to see the picture.. but you can't. you have to wait and go through the ordeal in the darkroom only to be disappointed.

When will you say "that's it, no more film" and hang it up?

Your inability to get good results says a lot about your skill and not much about film.

As long as film is available…my full explanation in my link below. I will say that I scan film, and this allows me to exploit some of the benefits of digital post while avoiding much of the nasty chemicals. This said, I would still like to produce some prints in a traditional darkroom at some point.

Should anyone ask, "Why bother with film if you're just going to scan?" Again, see link below.

In any event, until a full frame digital rangefinder is released at a price tag of around US$1,500 or less, I won't even consider digital again…I started digital.

And really, I don't need the instant gratification: from what I heard, Winogrand would often wait a year to develop his film (if he ever got to it all). The reason; time helped remove some of the sentimental elements so that he could judge the shots more objectively.

I wouldn't go that far, myself, but nor do I need to have my photos at the ready just must moments after the shutter release.

sjones wrote in post #16097230
As long as film is available…my full explanation in my link below. I will say that I scan film, and this allows me to exploit some of the benefits of digital post while avoiding much of the nasty chemicals. This said, I would still like to produce some prints in a traditional darkroom at some point.

Should anyone ask, "Why bother with film if you're just going to scan?" Again, see link below.

In any event, until a full frame digital rangefinder is released at a price tag of around US$1,500 or less, I won't even consider digital again…I started digital.

And really, I don't need the instant gratification: from what I heard, Winogrand would often wait a year to develop his film (if he ever got to it all). The reason; time helped remove some of the sentimental elements so that he could judge the shots more objectively.

I wouldn't go that far, myself, but nor do I need to have my photos at the ready just must moments after the shutter release.

Not sure if you like writing better than photography.. I'm neither film-**** nor digital-****. The dynamic range of black and white photos from film seems wider and darker than digital b&w yet I love the convenience and impetuous learning opportunities from digital.

It just seems the ROI on time spent on film photography is questionable when I can shoot a load of digital and post process more efficiently.

And I'm not sure I can dump these chemicals into our septic tank !!!

rxjohn wrote in post #16097189
only to be left with impetous desire to hit the play button to see the picture.. but you can't. you have to wait and go through the ordeal in the darkroom only to be disappointed.

That's more of a personal issue, isn't it?

I'll commit to digital when they create a sensor that has the aesthetic, and most importantly highlight range of negative film.

"It just seems the ROI on time spent on film photography is questionable when I can shoot a load of digital and post process more efficiently."

True, but for some, the effort you have to put into is one of the things that make it rewarding. And in this respect the "ROI" is well worth it.

krb wrote in post #16097216
Your inability to get good results says a lot about your skill and not much about film.

Och, that hurts..Hahahah..


For the OP, do you understand the Zone System? If not, your knowledge of film photography isn't all that....thorough. NOTHING beats the tonal range of a BW film photograph. Again, nothing.

Some of my recent works that I like.

rxjohn wrote in post #16097262


Not sure if you like writing better than photography.. I'm neither film-**** nor digital-****. The dynamic range of black and white photos from film seems wider and darker than digital b&w yet I love the convenience and impetuous learning opportunities from digital.

It just seems the ROI on time spent on film photography is questionable when I can shoot a load of digital and post process more efficiently.

And I'm not sure I can dump these chemicals into our septic tank !!!

Actually, I wrote the admittedly verbose stuff below because I found myself far too often repeating it on this site…so yeah, I do like writing, and writing, and writing, but redundancy can eventually get in the way.

While I do prefer the "look" of B&W film over digital (in general, there's excellent digital work out there), it's largely the whole process; and some of the things that I like about film are things that other folks, actually, most folks, don't like, and that's fine. It's a personal thing, and all I can do is hope that choice remains for all.

To each their own. I still have my darkroom and enjoy going in there every now and then. I do shoot film virtually every summer month mostly in medium format, in color, black and white and transparencies. If I didn't enjoy the darkroom work I wouldn't do it. Why would someone want to put themselves through that if they didn't enjoy it. I do have to agree with others that if you are that disappointed in the results that you need to look inwards for the answer. Film will be around for the foreseeable future in the professional ranks, imo. It is on life support in the amateur ranks because digital is so easy and forgiving, your mistakes can easily be fixed wth software. I'm not about to hang up my film shooting. I have a large amount of medium format gear that still gives excellent quality and I find it rewarding to use.

The Negative is one of my fav books. Was Just reading it yesterday.

TooManyShots wrote in post #16097363
Och, that hurts..Hahahah..


For the OP, do you understand the Zone System? If not, your knowledge of film photography isn't all that....thorough. NOTHING beats the tonal range of a BW film photograph. Again, nothing.

Some of my recent works that I like.

I think my message is mis-conveyed.

It's not the lack of quality photos rather not enjoying the time spent in the darkroom messing around with chemicals.

This isn't about film vs. Digital or I suck therefore I must quit topic. I have a darkroom I haven't used in a year....

ssim wrote in post #16097367
To each their own. I still have my darkroom and enjoy going in there every now and then. I do shoot film virtually every summer month mostly in medium format, in color, black and white and transparencies. If I didn't enjoy the darkroom work I wouldn't do it. Why would someone want to put themselves through that if they didn't enjoy it. I do have to agree with others that if you are that disappointed in the results that you need to look inwards for the answer. Film will be around for the foreseeable future in the professional ranks, imo. It is on life support in the amateur ranks because digital is so easy and forgiving, your mistakes can easily be fixed wth software. I'm not about to hang up my film shooting. I have a large amount of medium format gear that still gives excellent quality and I find it rewarding to use.

As long as film is available, I guess.

krb wrote in post #16097216
Your inability to get good results says a lot about your skill and not much about film.

Harsh, but might be true.

rxjohn wrote in post #16097189
...spent all day developing and printing several pictures that were worthless.

...go through the ordeal in the darkroom only to be disappointed.

rxjohn wrote in post #16097400
I think my message is mis-conveyed.

It's not the lack of quality photos rather not enjoying the time spent in the darkroom messing around with chemicals.

Whatever...


If you don't enjoy it then don't do it. Film has advantages but those advantages are not enough to make it worth shooting if you don't enjoy the process.

krb wrote in post #16097511
Whatever...


If you don't enjoy it then don't do it. Film has advantages but those advantages are not enough to make it worth shooting if you don't enjoy the process.

Obviously ad hominem excites you but obvious lack of comprehension finally arrives you at my obvious conclusion. Bravo, that's correct I don't enjoy darkroom work. You finally get it. Good job.

I have about 20 rolls of film left. When they're gone, I'll probably stop. For me, shooting film is 'for fun'. and to play with some old cameras (Contaflex, Canonet, Minolta 7s II). At the rate I shoot film though, I'll probably be shooting for another 20 years....