Does anyone still use film to take photos nowadays?

[Cartman2000]

U know it's very very difficult to actually imagine what ur saying. Of course it's impossible to describe in words the differences IF THERE ARE ANY.


U see when one reads an article he needs to discern the differences. U say a vinyl player projects WARMTH while a cd player does not.


I would have no idea and i do now know what u say is true.

Why don't you try it for yourself?

 

[night86mare]

i like both film and digital.

i spend more time photographing instead of wondering whether one is better or not.

 

[Royale With Cheese]

I agree on that.
Film or digital, end of the day is still the shot that counts. Its up to you on how you bring out the pictures.

But I am an outright film person, film diet, film junkie (no money buy FF digital, budget option) haha. ;p Dont get me wrong, I still do use digital, use them to take pictures of my figurines at home.

There is no which is better, both digital parties & film parties could debate till the cows come home.

Than again, learning dark room techniques is a dying art, which one would be proud to do.

You can view my flickr below, all film shots only.

 

[iNotion]

I still shoot film becos i love what film produce.

 

[harvardsch]

I like using film

it's the experience to enjoy the traditional way of developing photos :heart:

 

[reconn]

I'm sure it is still alive n kicking. Guys doing commercial work, editorial magazine stuff like that requires oversize prints. Might never know right. Film slr still practice in today's photography. Full frame Dslr not cheap. So shoot film slr, for it's class.

 

[merelyok]

Film all the way. There's just something about analog.

Perhaps its the whole process of photographing in film that is enticing. BTW, i collect vinyl records as well.

 

[SLA98]

Newbee, here, i still use film, bring it it photo lab scan it at 16base tiff or jpg. Still my heart beats fast to see the result. I also use digital crop sensor and use a full frame lenses so i can still use it w my film camera. Started in film and still got the discipline of a compose and shoot.

Cheers.

 

[LBL2009]

You are saying vinyl records cannot beat CDs? Are you very very sure? :think:
Then, let me put the following to you: Even till this day, for people who are into extremely high end hi-fi equipment, they will only listen to vinyl records when it comes to opera and classical music and not CD. Have you ever thought of why?

The reason, these people say, is in the warmth that the record provides. CDs tend to be very "dry" though techincally superior and clearer. But vinyl records projects warmth and has more character. When listening to a CD, it sounds bland. For people preferring film to digital, it is for the similar reasons. This is in addition to the other little joys and surprises film brings to you.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: Agree with you.

I have digital hi fi system but when I listened to vinyl records on my friend's system, I understand why he went 'backward'. Only thing is noise from the old vinyl record if you can tolerate it.

As for film and digital, I don't have enough hands-on experience to make any comment but recently I went to Tan Lip Seng's photographic exhibition titled "Painting with Light & Shadow'. His works include film, color transparency and digital. I prefer his earlier works on film, color transparency to digital. Check this out http://lipsengtan.elcreations.org/. There seem to be something special about film and color transparency and you don't get it from digital but I don't know how to describe it. I am new to photography by the way.

 

[pinholecam]

Takes out flaming thrower to use against the troll. :flame: :lol:

Why pose a question when you already have the answers or an entrenched position?

To each his own, be if film/digital, Cd/LP, herbal-tea/coka-cola.

 

[LBL2009]

I think it is ok for TS to post this thread, if we are open to different opinion and experience, we learn and gain.

 

[just1ed]

A-Ha...that's where you're wrong

Here's an interesting link. Not the most reliable of sources but he does make a very good point, imho



Furthermore, I definitely agree with what J-Chan mentioned. In digital, i can easily waste away 100s of shots in just one outing. I'm still painfully newbie at film but i'll be hard-pressed to shot anymore than 1-2 rolls of film in one outing, haha. Which forces me to focus more on what i'm shooting and value the limited resources i have. Sure, digital gives me more frames to snap, but photography is about capturing impactful visual images, not about how many 100s of shots your camera is capable of firing :think:

Do an internet search and you'll know that site contains errors, and some of the stuff are obvious hoaxes. The author of the site said so himself. That noted, I've never blown up stuff to that degree to know if film exceeds digital, but yup, just so people don't think that site's a pure technical site.

 

[kodkod32]

I just started in collecting some old film SLR bodies. quite a challenge and fun relearning the technical aspect. Use to be very trigger taking thousand shots each trip (recent trip to mongolia over 6000 shots) But should i be shooting film.... my heart proberly will slow down a little, think really hard....compose the picture....settings....making every shot count...and hey! I had more time to appreciate the scenery and doing other stuff, instead of snapping non stop.

Secondly, if i were to be inserted in areas or rural country for long duration without electricity. I would carry my trusty (not dusty ) nikon FM, zenit etc not worrying about power (apart from battery for metering). in windy,dusty condition, you don't have to worry about dust contaminating your sensor.

It once stop a bullet and save a photo journalist in vietnam war period (think hes using a nikon F. metal body)

sadly, the photoshop shop that develop film are getting fewer as digital age is catching up. when their machine broke down, they usually not get it repair or replaced.

We shall see.

 

[gohaj]

Film is not dead yet. Kodak still make brand new film (Ektar 100). I bought some and tried out. http://www.flickr.com/photos/singaporepictures/tags/ektar/

I do shoot film (B&W, E6/Slides, Colour Negative(e.g. Ektar)), http://www.flickr.com/photos/singaporepictures/tags/film/ . I also shoot digital. Both are fun!

 

[koole]

I still use B/W film. FWIW, no chimping, thinking more before hitting the shutter button and generally slowing down a little--pure Zen.

 

[Daedalus Trent]

Do an internet search and you'll know that site contains errors, and some of the stuff are obvious hoaxes. The author of the site said so himself. That noted, I've never blown up stuff to that degree to know if film exceeds digital, but yup, just so people don't think that site's a pure technical site.

yea, note the qualifier i added

 

[zoossh]

Is it true that the new digital cameras are as good or even better than photos produced on film?

no. on the basis that film can definitely contain more data (latitude) than digital camera - which until today cannot match film. if that is the short answer you are looking out for. though this is something that may change in far future, as it is more of a factor of technology and cost of production, whereas the physical restrictions of film may not change.

digital have much more versatility than film, becos it is not locked to the physical trait of the film in terms of ISO, film color characteristics etc. there are plenty of discussions on this, and generally it goes down to the familarity to their tools, just like one is used to speaking english and one is used to speaking chinese, their difficulty to learn the other language is not becos of the language itself is difficult. apart from that, digital photography has taken over film as the more convinient medium, with film being now a niche market for those who is after a certain feel or effect.

and another myth. while film photography can be less automated and more difficult to learn/use, they do not necessarily make better photographers or produce better photographs. it depends on the photographer, his resouces, his tools, the subjects/environment, the timing and pure luck. it is yet another myth that only the photographer matters, and not the other factors described earlier.

Able to preview the photos taken on a digi cam and then save them or discard them, with a film camera once u have taken the photo that's it. Unless u have a dark room to develop the photos u need to take them to some film store and get them developed and if they are no good well too bad.

Actually the above reason is good enough as to why digi cams are better than film cameras.

Second reason: Privacy of the photos. Suppose you do not want a 3rd party to view your photos. Again unless you have your own dark room, a person with a camera that uses film will need a store to develop them. A person with a digital cam does not need that.

the reason that digicam is better than film for you, may not be the most impt reason for other people, and not even "in general"
the same why some people want to lug a DSLR rather than a compact, is similar to why some ppl use film over digital. they are willing to go a futher effort for what they want but which may not be what i want.
as for the privacy thingy, most ppl have no problems of having their photos seen by people, and in fact would love to share them. of cos, if u do espionage, different story.

 

[shaoken]

I'm one who still uses films..
Slides films, Traditional B&W & Print (negative) films..

Use it while companies still manufactures films.

Don't believe, ask people who use polariod. When it stock manufacture, the prices rocket.
Now, films are not "chopping" people yet, so it is still not so expensive to shoot films YET.

 

[fuwen]

I am still using colour negatives. Digital only for equipment shots for my website or for some urgent and not so important requirements.

But then, one thing good about digital is, it will never fade .........

 

[adamadam]

I just finished my 50th roll today (50th roll since I got the camera).