[Nesster]

1) Spots on film, not the sensor
2) I have to put down the TLR, the rangefinder, the box camera, and the folder sometime: therefore the SLR.
3) Medium format is affordable with film

While I enjoy automation, my true enjoyment comes from going as manual as manual gets, and developing my sense of light for exposure, and of distance for focus. I love the sense of operating excellent mechanical machinery - a well CLA'd, well used mechanical camera feels smooth in the hand, like it has adapted to humans over its lifetime...

What I don't enjoy about shooting film - film can have problems, sometimes inertia makes me delay development, and scanning can be a royal pain. Oh, and there's fewer choices with color film, plus getting that developed sometimes is just beyond my feeble will

A mechanical SLR is a thing of beauty and I feel more a participant than an operator. An electronic SLR can also be a thing of beauty, something that still amazes me that the thing works so well.

4) at some point film will be scarce and very expensive. Until then... Whereas the latest electronic camera is likely to have the electronics go bad, or the batteries become unobtainable well before I start to dodder. Those mechanical cameras will still be going strong.

[newpentaxman]

I love my Pentax K20D. I will never get rid of my film cameras. With the DSLR It's mostly in control. With a film camera,you and the camera are one. I'm not sure if that makes sense.

[k5astro]

I think the beauty of the SLR is the simplicity. Imagine before auto-exposure and auto-focus. A photographer with a little experience could look at the light and say "ah, should be about f8 1/60th" and be right enough for a well exposed negative. Just focus and click. Everything that was right or wrong or close enough was ones own doing. Now its "the AF is too slow, "the AF focuses short", "not enough dynamic range", "it only shoots 10 frames per second", etc. etc. Oh for the days when we took responsibility for our actions.

[henkvanzuylen]

For me?

Just because it can :-)

[Nuff]

I like the look of film and I simply love how I can overexpose photos crazy amounts and come back with great photos.

[dubiousone]

1) Spots on film, not the sensor
2) I have to put down the TLR, the rangefinder, the box camera, and the folder sometime: therefore the SLR.
3) Medium format is affordable with film

While I enjoy automation, my true enjoyment comes from going as manual as manual gets, and developing my sense of light for exposure, and of distance for focus. I love the sense of operating excellent mechanical machinery - a well CLA'd, well used mechanical camera feels smooth in the hand, like it has adapted to humans over its lifetime...

What I don't enjoy about shooting film - film can have problems, sometimes inertia makes me delay development, and scanning can be a royal pain. Oh, and there's fewer choices with color film, plus getting that developed sometimes is just beyond my feeble will

A mechanical SLR is a thing of beauty and I feel more a participant than an operator. An electronic SLR can also be a thing of beauty, something that still amazes me that the thing works so well.

4) at some point film will be scarce and very expensive. Until then... Whereas the latest electronic camera is likely to have the electronics go bad, or the batteries become unobtainable well before I start to dodder. Those mechanical cameras will still be going strong.

Nicely said!

I recently took my well worn Spotmatic in to see if the meter can be fixed. I was asked by my friend why I was bothering, as the cost could be a lot more than I paid for the thing. My answer was simple; I had a 1985 Ford, my first new vehicle all those years ago and recently traded so the wife would have something new to drive. (Yes, I miss that old truck!) Over it's life I spent a lot more than the original cost of that truck to fix it so why would a forty year old camera be different?

We live in a disposable society it seems; when something breaks simply replace it. In fact, it occurs to me that many items are not built as 'robustly' as they once were simply due to this phenomenon. (Or maybe its a marketing ploy) Here in the west there seems to be no love for the old; buildings not even fifty years old with no structural problems are demolished to make way for the 'new'. Perhaps this is because the people who build make more money this way. Or perhaps they do not appreciate old architecture. I think that's a shame.

Whilst at the camera shop on the phone with the tech he suggested removing the bottom plate to check the battery connections. Alas, the problem was something deeper but one look at the beautifully crafted inner workings of my Spotmatic simply reinforced my desire to repair this beautiful old camera and make it right.

Since my return to photography I have taken to dragging my camera bag just about everywhere. Inside rests my Pentax K100DS and whichever film camera I have at the time, currently a somewhat cranky Mamiya 1000DTL I picked up recently along with a very nice Sears 28mm. I just finished the roll yesterday and dropped it off so that Mamiya will take a rest in the camera drawer for a little while and something else will take its place. Might be the Mamiya 500DTL I bought for the lens, a Mamiya 50/2.0 and haven't tried yet or perhaps my K1000 or the ME. I haven't decided if I want to shoot the next roll of color or try the roll of B&W Kodak 400TX. I normally wouldn't shoot 400 but I wanted to try it.

I have found that shooting film reinforces the basics of exposure and composition. It is so darned easy to take a shot with my DSLR, then look at the screen to see if I got it right. With film, you get only that shot and you won't know if its right until it's developed. Since I prefer to have my film developed at a proper lab and not the nice girls at the local walgreens who are very sweet but efficient, film is developed almost the same day, I don't mind waiting a week or so to get my film back because I'd prefer it to be done right so it goes to the lab. Of course, B&W has to be sent out of state and takes a bit longer so maybe I'll wait until my last roll of Ilford comes back before I try that Kodak 400.

Looking through the viewfinder of either camera, film or DSLR I find that shooting film regularly helps me to remember the things I need to think about regarding exposure and such. Yes it is easier to let the camera do that work and if I let it my K100DS or Nikon D50 will easily do all that and take excellent photographs...but what fun is that?

At times in my work I am required to take photographs; there is no artistic...anything, simply documenting what is. The Canon Powershot my work give me for such things is perfectly adequate; 16 megapixels, zoom, flash, auto focus and so on. It tends to overexpose flash photos and underexpose without depending on the light; in short, its not NEARLY as good as my DSLR's. I used my Pentax the other day to take photos of a scene simply because I knew I could make better photographs. It was also simply enjoyable to use my Pentax and I gave the 'new to me' Quantaray 70-300 macro zoom a workout. (Hey, it was 80 bucks) The lighting was at the wrong angle, building contrasts played havoc with my exposure as did the shady areas in the wrong spots and while looking through the Pentax viewfinder I was reminding myself of these issues...because I shoot film.

[tuco]

...
With film, you get only that shot and you won't know if its right until it's developed.
...

The only thing seeing the picture after you take it on digital is pretty much the histogram and critical focus. You just looked at the composition with your eyes in the view finder when you took the picture so seeing it again is really no big deal (perhaps for some).

And you will know if your exposure is correct if you use a one-degree spot meter. It will tell you where your highlights and shadows will fall relative to your selected middle gray exposure. So, really, you can shoot film and know if the shot is good to a very high degree before you develop the film.

---

Last edited by tuco; 10-17-2013 at 10:05 AM.

[stevebrot]

For me?

Just because it can :-)

Indeed!!!

[Swift1]

Because I can't put Provia, Velvia, Ektar, Portra, TRI-X, TMAX, FP4, Acros, etc.. in any of my digital cameras

[gofour3]

Because I can't put Provia, Velvia, Ektar, Portra, TRI-X, TMAX, FP4, Acros, etc.. in any of my digital cameras

Well said!!

Phil.

[Nuff]

Because I can't put Provia, Velvia, Ektar, Portra, TRI-X, TMAX, FP4, Acros, etc.. in any of my digital cameras

This and I will make special mention of overexposing Pro 400H. I like the results a lot.
I use film way more than digital, since I like the final output a lot better, especially the whites! Since they don't blow.

[deus ursus]

Because I can't put Provia, Velvia, Ektar, Portra, TRI-X, TMAX, FP4, Acros, etc.. in any of my digital cameras

Aren't there some effects available in Photoshop or whatever software you're using that can simulate those films? Isn't the same fun, though. :-)

[Nuff]

Aren't there some effects available in Photoshop or whatever software you're using that can simulate those films? Isn't the same fun, though. :-)

Nope, digital and film look different, no matter what effects you apply to it.
I'm also not sure how you would simulate a MF or LF camera.
Also digital doesn't have the DR when it comes to highlights of negative film. For me that's the biggest difference since I tend to overexpose a lot, sometimes by 6 to 8 stops. It doesn't work on digital.

[dubiousone]

The only thing seeing the picture after you take it on digital is pretty much the histogram and critical focus. You just looked at the composition with your eyes in the view finder when you took the picture so seeing it again is really no big deal (perhaps for some).

And you will know if your exposure is correct if you use a one-degree spot meter. It will tell you where your highlights and shadows will fall relative to your selected middle gray exposure. So, really, you can shoot film and know if the shot is good to a very high degree before you develop the film.

I'm not that good! (But I'm using film to maybe BE there someday)

[stevebrot]

Aren't there some effects available in Photoshop or whatever software you're using that can simulate those films? Isn't the same fun, though. :-)

Not really.

Some times you can come close using available pre-sets with some films (usually the ones that are not too subtle), but for most, the answer is no, no, no.

That being said, I have had some luck with emulating the not so subtle Ferrania Solaris:

The real thing









The fake







The challenge is the grain and the channel-specific tonal transitions.


Steve