I am not photographer by any means, but exploring has definitely sparked an interest. I have to ask, why would anyone use film in this age? I by no means am being critical or mocking, I just want to understand.

Isn't a good digital camera a high enough resolution that our eye/brain can't tell (I was once told humans can't tell the difference past 10mp, no clue if there is any truth to that)?

Isn't digital easier to manipulate in editing software?

Finally, for those of you that shoot with both, how are you deciding which shot would be better on film?

Over 10 years ago digital cams exceeded film in every way including bit depth.
Since most cams are now as good or better than most scanners it's rather pointless except for artist driven reasons.
The worst part about film is it degrades if not digitalised.

Good question! I don't shoot with film as often as some other members, but I'll give it a shot.

The cost of film + processing does add up, and scans tend to be less dynamic than raw digital files. That being said, I find that shooting with my ancient K1000 (and having a limited number of exposures to work with) forces me to focus very carefully on each shot I take, and metering/composing the shot well. While I'm not always in love with the final result, the process can be very rewarding, and I feel that it's helped me grow as a photographer by making me focus on the basics.

As for the last question, it really depends on the lighting and location. Admittedly though, I usually default to bringing my digital camera with me out of convenience.

Literally because


Random thoughts:
Also, if everyone is using X to shoot Z, it can stop feeling creative anymore. Same as wanting to see a place that no one has seen yet instead instead of shooting the same concrete diving board surrounded by shit.

Some people shoot film for more control, the way I shoot is for less control (and it slows me down).

Different films and cameras can have different color results, character, oddities, grains, textures, etc, instead of just Lightrooming filtering everything and tagging it #vsco.

I enjoy exploring other ways of doing things and seeing what works and doesn't for myself.

Many people have other reasons. Mine is because I are spshl creative type.

Also, check out the some real UE film pros and other experimenters here: http://www.uer.ca/...=1&threadid=128428

Thanks all so far! I am gathering consensus is: artistic/photag personal preference....

Posted by skatchkins Many people have other reasons. Mine is because I are spshl creative type.

As a firmware engineer that collects TONS of performance data from controllers and drives, I live by graphs, arrays, and histograms. As a result, my lab is filled with comical graphjams. Yours not only made me laugh, but also makes some real sense! Thanks!

PS - I consider you one of the most artistic of the UER bunch - glad you responded!

Even in the age of digital, theres is a lot to learn as a photographer from shooting film. it rewards you for being selective. anyone with digital can "spray and pray" while capturing photos. I also find that film photos often don't need any post processing if you have the correct exposure.

the creative freedom you get from film is pretty much limitless. there are so many ways to manipulate film with push/pull processing, there are large, medium and small formats. black and white, color negative, color positive, instant films etc. All without a computer.

And if you have dark room access it's a blast to watch photos develop before your eyes, crop with an enlarger and create test prints and learn the chemistry.

the only real drawbacks are accessibility, price, and time. which i understand will be deal breakers for many.

man.. i'm really missing shooting film right about now..

Posted by FilthCity And if you have dark room access it's a blast to watch photos develop before your eyes, crop with an enlarger and create test prints and learn the chemistry.

I can DEFINATELY see the satisfaction in developing your own film. I was too young to remember clearly, but my old man developed his own B&Ws. He had 2 photo enlargers as well. My most cherished photos are those that he took...

Posted by FilthCity Even in the age of digital, theres is a lot to learn as a photographer from shooting film. it rewards you for being selective. anyone with digital can "spray and pray" while capturing photos. I also find that film photos often don't need any post processing if you have the correct exposure. the creative freedom you get from film is pretty much limitless. there are so many ways to manipulate film with push/pull processing, there are large, medium and small formats. black and white, color negative, color positive, instant films etc. All without a computer. And if you have dark room access it's a blast to watch photos develop before your eyes, crop with an enlarger and create test prints and learn the chemistry. the only real drawbacks are accessibility, price, and time. which i understand will be deal breakers for many. man.. i'm really missing shooting film right about now..

Simply go full manual and shoot RAW.
Problem with digital is you need to be tech savvy to get optimum results.
Not just shooting skills and the cam optics, but sensor as well cam processor limitations, then post processing and storage.
It's a steep and evolving learning curve.

Film is dead except for... holograms.

As someone who shoots digital medium format and 4x5 film, for what I do unless I need volume, film is far, far superior to digital. It's not even close.

Posted by blackhawk Simply go full manual and shoot RAW. Problem with digital is you need to be tech savvy to get optimum results. Not just shooting skills and the cam optics, but sensor as well cam processor limitations, then post processing and storage. It's a steep and evolving learning curve. Film is dead except for... holograms.

Not so much related to this part exactly... But Blackhawk, you pretty much always give the some of the worst photography advise I've seen on this forum...

I have nothing to add to the conversation, but I've been wanting to switch to film for a while. I have an old Canon AE-1 that I've used a couple times. It's really a different feeling shooting film.

I'm trying to experiment with super 8 a bit right now, simply for the art aspect to it. I've watched videos and there are ways to edit digital into this format and other formats as well, but to me, its only a mask it seems, it lacks that true rawness that you would get with film. Just my opinion.

Posted by randomesquephoto Not so much related to this part exactly... But Blackhawk, you pretty much always give the some of the worst photography advise I've seen on this forum...

Specifics... or it never happened.

*giggle* I'll go first on film fail.
Reciprocity failure on low light level film shots.
Digital especially pro cams have/can evolve from it's short comings in low light levels; film can not, it's reached it's zenith.
https://en.m.wikip...eciprocity_failure

That's why astrophotography is almost all digital.
This was true over 10 years ago.
Sensors, sensitivity, noise floor levels and noise reduction is far superior now then a mere decade ago.

A middle line view from an expert:
http://www.clarkvi...tal.summary1.html/

For me it's mostly the look and feel of film, as well as the joy of using a medium format (or rarely a large format) camera. And, it might be a bit strange and very subjective, a photo shot with film has more worth for me than one shot with a digital camera.

I'm overwhelmingly a digital shooter these days, but I keep a few film bodies around to break myself out of spiraling up my own ass.

I transitioned from film to digital a bit less than a decade ago for the control, esp. in its development/post-processing. At some point in that, it became everything that I wanted it to be... but I found that sometimes this might be a bit too much for my own good.

Shooting film for me means relinquishing some control in the final output and being able to appreciate/criticize it with emphases on different merits than I would otherwise for my digital output. And sometimes I end up surprising myself to find completely unexpected things to love/hate about it. So therefore I shoot with film to remind myself that photography is not a one-track pursuit of manifesting intent and judging my success (which is what happens when that's the mental emphasis at the point-of-creation) at how well I achieved it... but that I don't know anything and there can still be magic.

Posted by blackhawk Specifics... or it never happened.

If all you care about is nerdy lines on a chart, cool man enjoy.

If you care about images, you know, what photography is actually about, then fucking lines on a chart don't mean fuck all. The process of making a photo and the resulting image is what matters. Do you even own a camera, man?

I mean c'mon man, really?

"Which is better, driving a car or riding a horse?"
"Well now, look at this table of statistics that I have googled for the answer, while also totally missing the point"

Posted by randomesquephoto Not so much related to this part exactly... But Blackhawk, you pretty much always give the some of the worst photography advise I've seen on this forum...

Can confirm

Posted by yokes Do you even own a camera, man?

A 20D, wanna fucking buy it dude?
I'll even throw in some magic; age destroyed negatives from 60 years ago.

That silly little graph is relative although even fine grain film slumps down around the ancient 5D's level.
Never mind that because though because we love that grainy limit to the resolution.
I'm glad I never invested much time in film.

Other than digital, watercolors or oil be a more rewarding media at this point.
If you truly strive to be an elite artist purist... unfortunately you need a lot more time and talent to paint than slam out a shot.

A cache of 120 roll film + a good scanner falling into my lap gave me something new to learn. I was already years into dabbling with various instant formats, and had a Polaroid 600SE which I easily modified to shoot 6x9. I enjoy the results and have pressed on with it. Having no batteries to go dead mid-explore is nice, too.