Ok,this is not a debate on film-digital. I just wonder that most of the answer i receive when i ask why people still use film is that they prefer b&w film. THen i want to ask, anybody use film because they like colour film , please leave slide out for the moment, leave larger format than 35mm out for the moment, since they stand in different group
Question on "why film?"
- Thread starter bahibo
- Start date
- Status
u mean negative film? Yeah I still use it...
I use Kodak Gold 200 and Ultramax 400, it's a consumer film but I like the way the colours turn out thru my bessa. There's a strange "analog" feel to the colours. Also the grain is quite obvious... so it looks even more "authentic" in a sense.
Only big problem I have with neg film is scanning it. I can never seem to get the colours right. I usually send them in to the lab to get them scanned so that I won't need to worry too much about it.
Strangely I never liked the "pro" films, colours don't look quite as right for the type of photographs I shoot with my bessa. But those are quite specific in their usage (like porta for portraits, etc).
I use Kodak Gold 200 and Ultramax 400, it's a consumer film but I like the way the colours turn out thru my bessa. There's a strange "analog" feel to the colours. Also the grain is quite obvious... so it looks even more "authentic" in a sense.
Only big problem I have with neg film is scanning it. I can never seem to get the colours right. I usually send them in to the lab to get them scanned so that I won't need to worry too much about it.
Strangely I never liked the "pro" films, colours don't look quite as right for the type of photographs I shoot with my bessa. But those are quite specific in their usage (like porta for portraits, etc).
Personally, I feel colour film gives a very unique feel that digital can't really achieve easily. If you take an expired film, expose it, though the colour is a little off, yet to some people, like me, it's pretty interesting feel.
Take a colour negative that was exposed a few years ago, scan it, you will also find that the colours are off a little, and yet yield pretty interesting result too.
Digital is good for vivid colour reproduction & superior in some areas to film. In most cases, people looking for "sharpness" of the lenses, closeness to the actual colour representation, film is less convenient to achieve (and hence more expensive) than digital. That's why for professional work, digital has evolved and many businesses/professionals have switch to digital on cost perspective.
However, there are still some things that digital still can't match. The nano-second differences in shutter lag, the time taken for the circuitry to send signal to the CF/SD card, makes digital slightly slower than a normal film camera. To many people who don't realise this, it's not a big deal. But to some people who want to capture the exact moment on the street, the emotion shown on the face, it makes a hell of a difference.
Personally, I like colours and grain on the film as it's closer to my heart than an image produced by a sensor. But I believe over time, sensor technology will catch on and be as close as film without the need for sitting in front of the desktop adjusting the levels, colour balance... etc.. etc. I think M8 is close to that. But at S$7+ price tag, not many salaried workers can afford. But for professional use, M8 is a cheaper tool compared to the DSLR full frames or the medium format digital.
Take a colour negative that was exposed a few years ago, scan it, you will also find that the colours are off a little, and yet yield pretty interesting result too.
Digital is good for vivid colour reproduction & superior in some areas to film. In most cases, people looking for "sharpness" of the lenses, closeness to the actual colour representation, film is less convenient to achieve (and hence more expensive) than digital. That's why for professional work, digital has evolved and many businesses/professionals have switch to digital on cost perspective.
However, there are still some things that digital still can't match. The nano-second differences in shutter lag, the time taken for the circuitry to send signal to the CF/SD card, makes digital slightly slower than a normal film camera. To many people who don't realise this, it's not a big deal. But to some people who want to capture the exact moment on the street, the emotion shown on the face, it makes a hell of a difference.
Personally, I like colours and grain on the film as it's closer to my heart than an image produced by a sensor. But I believe over time, sensor technology will catch on and be as close as film without the need for sitting in front of the desktop adjusting the levels, colour balance... etc.. etc. I think M8 is close to that. But at S$7+ price tag, not many salaried workers can afford. But for professional use, M8 is a cheaper tool compared to the DSLR full frames or the medium format digital.
alternatve
Senior Member
Ditto on the look of film pictures as compared to digital stuff.
I hate the constant need to upgrade too. I have to upgrade my camera, computer, flash cards and software instead of upgrading my scanner once in a while or sending my cameras for a service every 5 years.
Since many of us now scan in our pictures, we get a free digital camera everytime we get another film camera, as our film are converted digitally at home. Plus, when new technology arrives, I only need to upgrade my scanner, and all of my cameras have the same benefit.
This is of course assuming companies still produce film and the scanners to scan them in. When there is suppy there will be demand, so start shooting more often today!
Samuel
I hate the constant need to upgrade too. I have to upgrade my camera, computer, flash cards and software instead of upgrading my scanner once in a while or sending my cameras for a service every 5 years.
Since many of us now scan in our pictures, we get a free digital camera everytime we get another film camera, as our film are converted digitally at home. Plus, when new technology arrives, I only need to upgrade my scanner, and all of my cameras have the same benefit.
This is of course assuming companies still produce film and the scanners to scan them in. When there is suppy there will be demand, so start shooting more often today!
Samuel
1. You can't leave slide film out. It's one of the great reasons to shoot film. Things like Velvia.
2. Many other reasons to prefer film. Better dynamic range than digital, exposure lattitude (for negs), archival quality (esp. for B&W), cost effective (sans scanning), able to match film to situation (eg low contrast film, vivid film, etc), convenient (drop off the roll and get the prints in 1 hour, give the neg to the lab and get them to do the printing and colour correction while you go for a coffee).
:sweat: i want to leave slide film out cause slide , larger than 35mm format is seem to be different group w 35mm neg.
I ask this question cause in RFF some said that there is no point to shoot colour w film since colour in digital seem better, but then i prefer colour to b&w for some reason hence the question.
It really depends on individuals. Colour to different people mean different things. Some like vibrant colours, some like pale pastel colours. Look at John Clang's picture and some may wonder... what kind of &%^$%(#@$ colours are those? And yet he is one of the most successful local photographers and a very successful celebrity photographers in the international scene.... and he is a self profess colour blind.
Well, no one can dispute the technology put into colour reproduction in the digital sensor. Whether it's better... it's really up to the individual's definition.
I would say "different" rather than "better".
But, do you know that the whole phenomenon of chromatic abberrations, diagonal jaggies, etc. happens only in digital, not on film?
Wai Leong
===
But, do you know that the whole phenomenon of chromatic abberrations, diagonal jaggies, etc. happens only in digital, not on film?
Wai Leong
===
for film, i pretty much shoot exclusively slides or b&w only, usual travel-type photography.
i find that slides and b&w film still render a certain extra to photo that i like and cannot find replicated in digital... maybe after mastering some digital enhancement workflow. but even then, it usually still falls a little short...
as for "normal" colour film, i find that the difference is less of an issue as it can more easily be replicated with a short digital workflow. but depending on the film and ccd / cmos that you're comparing with, the film / digital version might come out "nicer"... but as chiif said, "nicer" is subjective.
i find that slides and b&w film still render a certain extra to photo that i like and cannot find replicated in digital... maybe after mastering some digital enhancement workflow. but even then, it usually still falls a little short...
as for "normal" colour film, i find that the difference is less of an issue as it can more easily be replicated with a short digital workflow. but depending on the film and ccd / cmos that you're comparing with, the film / digital version might come out "nicer"... but as chiif said, "nicer" is subjective.
Hey Bahibo,
In case you're interested, I did a pretty long interview with Kodak on why I still shoot their film and the interview can be read here
Even though I was talking about the Kodak 400CN black and white film, all the same reasons apply for me when I am shooting color negatives as well.
In summary, color film just has a certain look and color that is really hard to replicate with digital. Not impossible but very time consuming. Also color film allows me to use certain cameras, ie my leica MP, which really has no digital equivalent.
In case you're interested, I did a pretty long interview with Kodak on why I still shoot their film and the interview can be read here
Even though I was talking about the Kodak 400CN black and white film, all the same reasons apply for me when I am shooting color negatives as well.
In summary, color film just has a certain look and color that is really hard to replicate with digital. Not impossible but very time consuming. Also color film allows me to use certain cameras, ie my leica MP, which really has no digital equivalent.
gooseberry
Senior Member
Like many things, it has a lot to do with aesthetics - and aesthetics is a very personal thing. What you like can be very different from what someone else likes (and that is a good thing!)
Kuang,
I like the way you put this statement across.....
cf
And my amazing, amazing Voightlander 40mm Nokton
hahahah... Thought u preferred the Leitz & retired the CV 40mm and passed it to Eng Hong?And my amazing, amazing Voightlander 40mm Nokton
i also dont think you can leave out slides. for my film bodies and RF, if i shoot colour, then i will shoot slide film like astia etc, otherwise my default film would be tri-x.
why slides? because the colour and look of slide film cannot really be matched yet. also, slide cross processing is also fun.
b&w, well, again, digital B&W stil falls a long way short. tonality, contrast, grain.. you just get this look with B&W that i cannot replicate with my dslr.
i also like the interpretation given by my RF lenses.
why slides? because the colour and look of slide film cannot really be matched yet. also, slide cross processing is also fun.
b&w, well, again, digital B&W stil falls a long way short. tonality, contrast, grain.. you just get this look with B&W that i cannot replicate with my dslr.
i also like the interpretation given by my RF lenses.
Because my cameras use film :cry:
tribal.snake
Senior Member
1. for the love of colors, tones and saturation
2. for the love of older lenses and bodies
3. for the love of NOT charging batteries
4. for the love of knowing that the camera wun break down
5. for the love of banging my cameras around while climbing a bldy mountain and knowing that it will survive
2. for the love of older lenses and bodies
3. for the love of NOT charging batteries
4. for the love of knowing that the camera wun break down
5. for the love of banging my cameras around while climbing a bldy mountain and knowing that it will survive
To me, the question is like asking:
"Why use Long Playing record albums when CD is better?"
( better spell out LP in full all becos' of that #@%! TW visit :bsmilie
It is not about lower THD, not about hi-tech, not about analog vs digital, not even about $$$$... it is about sweet music, something CD is not quite able to reproduce.
"Why use Long Playing record albums when CD is better?"
( better spell out LP in full all becos' of that #@%! TW visit :bsmilie
It is not about lower THD, not about hi-tech, not about analog vs digital, not even about $$$$... it is about sweet music, something CD is not quite able to reproduce.
- Status
Similar threads
