Why do you still do film?

**Tonytee** · 10-16-2014, 03:41 PM

I am truly grateful for this site. It is very helpful as to what to buy, why buy it and how to use it. It is a tremendous joy to be associated with so many talented and gifted individuals. All I can say is, "Most Impressive." I continue to use film because for me it is always a challenge having to calculate exposures. I enjoy working with colors, light, bokeh and of course, composition. The down side of course is having to wait sometimes 7 to 10 days to see what my photos look like. This time of the year it is slow for most film labs. During the season from April through the second week in October, I get my photos back in as little as two days. Also, I simply like the results I get from using film. The reasons I have not gone over to digital: The price of digital equipment. I cannot believe a Nikon D7000 sells for $6,500.00 body only, and on sale. I can imagine another $1,000.00 to $1,500.00 for a new lens. (Also on sale). Yes, of course there are other famous brands that sell for less, much less, however, it still remains a huge outlay of funds. So much so, that I cannot see how it would ever be cost effective. Then again the service and maintenance costs are astronomical. I am aware that there are many sensors inside a digital camera, and eventually they will all need tuning up. So for at least another ten years (if film is still available) I will continue to enjoy my Pentax ME Super, SF-10 and ZX-30. Incidentally all of these cameras seem to produce best results using Kodak Ultramax ISO 400 Color Print Film. Thanks for reading.

Regards,

Tony

LesDMess · 10-16-2014, 04:41 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by ivanvernon

Why?
Several of my cameras just do not work without film.

Yeah I also have a few mouths to feed . . .

**gofour3** · 10-17-2014, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by LesDMess

Yeah I also have a few mouths to feed . . .

Wow, that's an impressive collection!

Phil.

LesDMess · 10-17-2014, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by gofour3

Wow, that's an impressive collection!

Phil.

It is all part of the total immersion plan since I was very late to the party . . .

carrrlangas · 10-17-2014, 09:20 AM

I am about to make a lon, low budget journey and don`t want to lag the DSLR with lenses, be distracted by it, look like a tourist, intimidate others, be worried of loosing or have it stolen, etc.. So I am looking to buy an AF film camera (looking for an *ist if anyone has one) stuck the DA40 XS and lots of film. Some cheating... I am also taking the MX-1

Roguephotographer · 10-17-2014, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by Jamey777

I was looking at what it would cost to jump into a nikon full frame or the fuji x systems to replace what I have in pentax glass / film cameras. The reason I did that was after home developing 9 rolls of c-41 I was wondering if it was worth it. (the answer of course is, yes, for me as proven by the photos of my family which is the only reason I do this)

In any case, that got me to thinking, why do I do film?

It boils down to this for me....

1) I shoot almost everything I can wide open. I am sick to death of iphone depth of field for 98% of the photos I see of families, kids etc. Full frame FA77 is a completely different look than my F 50 1.7 on aps-c.

2) I hate post-production. I just want it scanned, and other than tweaking the brightness because the scanner guessed wrong, or editing out huge dust specs I don't do anything to the film. It looks phenomenal. (scanning on a pakon) Film gives me the contrast and punchiness I always tried to get on digital by screwing around in post.

3) Real optical huge viewfinder. I have an LX and MZ-S and love it. I worry about the future with all these EVFs.

4) Tri-X. Even if I change how I do things, I will always have at least an LX and a 50mm :-)

At the end of the day I am getting the shots I want now, and am very happy. I have to do home dev to keep costs down but that is fine. I figure I can do this at least a few more years before I get too ansy or sick of doing home dev.

Jamey

the work/reward formula is it worth the work. i love making meter readings and setting my own exposure. i think auto focus is an ingenius solution to a non existant problem. i dislike spending 10 minutes flipping through menus when i can set a manual camera to do what i want in 10 seconds. that said a digital can shoot till the cows come home, with a big enough memory card. lastly cds and memory cards are earier to store safely as i found out when flooding destroyed 25 years worth of photos, slides, and negatives.

**Davep** · 10-17-2014, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Roguephotographer

the work/reward formula is it worth the work. i love making meter readings and setting my own exposure. i think auto focus is an ingenius solution to a non existant problem. i dislike spending 10 minutes flipping through menus when i can set a manual camera to do what i want in 10 seconds. that said a digital can shoot till the cows come home, with a big enough memory card. lastly cds and memory cards are earier to store safely as i found out when flooding destroyed 25 years worth of photos, slides, and negatives.

Damn, that's tough. I don't know how I would react should I loose 25 years of photos. I've been shooting since the early seventies, and all of those images are precious to me.

Digital does have its place when it comes to saving backups.

tuco · 10-17-2014, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Roguephotographer

...
i think auto focus is an ingenius solution to a non existant problem. ... i found out when flooding destroyed 25 years worth of photos, slides, and negatives.

Well, you thought wrong about auto focus. Perhaps because you don't take pictures of fast moving things where AF is an ideal solution that doesn't mean other people don't benefit from that technology.

Sorry to hear about your flooding and loss. But negatives can be washed and dried again with no problem. Couldn't you wash the mud and junk off them and save some?

stevebrot · 10-17-2014, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by tuco

Perhaps because you don't take pictures of fast moving things where AF is an ideal solution that doesn't mean other people don't benefit from that technology.

You have been spending too much time with your Nikon dSLRs. Accurate AF of fast moving objects is an impossible point of convergence with most vintage film camera AF systems.

Steve

DarCam · 10-17-2014, 03:20 PM

I shoot film because for the price of a full frame digital camera plus lens (around the $2500 combined in conservative estimates) I can buy a $25 Pentax ME Super, $100 for a 50mm f1.4 SMC-M lens and $2000 worth of rolls of Kodak Ektar 100 film and processing and be happy as a hamster in a wheel. For less than $200 I can shoot "full frame" and rack up some great images due to the "bang for your buck" nature that you try to maintain with film. Every shot is worth its weight in gold so I tend to be cautious how I shoot each frame.

I can understand the need for a digital 35mm equivalent. Full frame cameras have their use and I understand the professional need for such devices, but as a way to get joy out of photography, the organic feeling of winding that lever, pushing a button and repeating the process endlessly is therapy for the soul. I don't know what it is, or why I prefer film over digital, be it its look or the anticipation of something not known to you at an instant, but I do know it's addicting.

Yeah, it has it's disadvantages. And yes, if you ever plan to buy a full frame camera the developing and film can be pricy over time. However, I feel that film photography has something else altogether that 95% of the time you aren't trying to get with full frame digital camera. It's almost apples and oranges at this point.

tuco · 10-17-2014, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

You have been spending too much time with your Nikon dSLRs. Accurate AF of fast moving objects is an impossible point of convergence with most vintage film camera AF systems.

Steve

Vintage being cameras before 1950? In the year 2000 you could buy a respectable auto focus film camera, no?

Cuthbert · 10-17-2014, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by tuco

Vintage being cameras before 1950? In the year 2000 you could buy a respectable auto focus film camera, no?

Autofocus is for sissies! The REAL photographer uses manual camera, exploits the DOF of the lens shooting hyperfocal!

**Rondec** · 10-18-2014, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by carrrlangas

I am about to make a lon, low budget journey and don`t want to lag the DSLR with lenses, be distracted by it, look like a tourist, intimidate others, be worried of loosing or have it stolen, etc.. So I am looking to buy an AF film camera (looking for an *ist if anyone has one) stuck the DA40 XS and lots of film. Some cheating... I am also taking the MX-1

Did you post anything in the marketplace? That would be the place to start for me. They are also sometimes available on ebay, although the buy it now prices tend to be exorbitant.

carrrlangas · 10-18-2014, 08:07 AM

Yes, I put a wanted thread. Theres only one on ebay for US250.
I am sensing you hsve one and probably should sell it?

I choose the ist because of smalll size and low weight. Paired with the DA40 XS, and loaded it comes srround 400gr

wombat2go · 10-18-2014, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by carrrlangas

I choose the ist because of smalll size and low weight.

I looked at an ist some time ago, but it has problems with -M lenses ( I don't recall all the details) , that were fixed later with the ist d - series.
So that put me off buying an ist .

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Why Do YOU Still Use Film SLR's?	dubiousone	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	68	10-22-2013 04:51 PM
Film roll - What do you do ?	Bandaid55	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	13	06-21-2013 12:54 PM
What lenses/gear do you still have from when you started?	ChooseAName	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	54	05-27-2013 08:51 AM
"Why do you still use M lenses?!"	jboyde	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	64	03-05-2011 02:57 AM
Do you scan your film? What do you use?	filmamigo	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	11	09-03-2008 07:58 PM

10-16-2014, 03:41 PM	#166
Tonytee Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 21,457	I am truly grateful for this site. It is very helpful as to what to buy, why buy it and how to use it. It is a tremendous joy to be associated with so many talented and gifted individuals. All I can say is, "Most Impressive." I continue to use film because for me it is always a challenge having to calculate exposures. I enjoy working with colors, light, bokeh and of course, composition. The down side of course is having to wait sometimes 7 to 10 days to see what my photos look like. This time of the year it is slow for most film labs. During the season from April through the second week in October, I get my photos back in as little as two days. Also, I simply like the results I get from using film. The reasons I have not gone over to digital: The price of digital equipment. I cannot believe a Nikon D7000 sells for $6,500.00 body only, and on sale. I can imagine another $1,000.00 to $1,500.00 for a new lens. (Also on sale). Yes, of course there are other famous brands that sell for less, much less, however, it still remains a huge outlay of funds. So much so, that I cannot see how it would ever be cost effective. Then again the service and maintenance costs are astronomical. I am aware that there are many sensors inside a digital camera, and eventually they will all need tuning up. So for at least another ten years (if film is still available) I will continue to enjoy my Pentax ME Super, SF-10 and ZX-30. Incidentally all of these cameras seem to produce best results using Kodak Ultramax ISO 400 Color Print Film. Thanks for reading. Regards, Tony

10-16-2014, 04:41 PM - 2 Likes	#167
LesDMess Pentaxian Join Date: May 2011 Location: Santa Cruz, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,235	Originally posted by ivanvernon Why? Several of my cameras just do not work without film. Yeah I also have a few mouths to feed . . .

10-17-2014, 07:07 AM	#168
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,090	Originally posted by LesDMess Yeah I also have a few mouths to feed . . . Wow, that's an impressive collection! Phil.

10-17-2014, 09:11 AM	#169
LesDMess Pentaxian Join Date: May 2011 Location: Santa Cruz, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,235	Originally posted by gofour3 Wow, that's an impressive collection! Phil. It is all part of the total immersion plan since I was very late to the party . . .

10-17-2014, 09:20 AM	#170
carrrlangas Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Joensuu (Finland) Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,761	I am about to make a lon, low budget journey and don`t want to lag the DSLR with lenses, be distracted by it, look like a tourist, intimidate others, be worried of loosing or have it stolen, etc.. So I am looking to buy an AF film camera (looking for an *ist if anyone has one) stuck the DA40 XS and lots of film. Some cheating... I am also taking the MX-1

10-17-2014, 12:21 PM	#171
Roguephotographer New Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 15	Originally posted by Jamey777 I was looking at what it would cost to jump into a nikon full frame or the fuji x systems to replace what I have in pentax glass / film cameras. The reason I did that was after home developing 9 rolls of c-41 I was wondering if it was worth it. (the answer of course is, yes, for me as proven by the photos of my family which is the only reason I do this) In any case, that got me to thinking, why do I do film? It boils down to this for me.... 1) I shoot almost everything I can wide open. I am sick to death of iphone depth of field for 98% of the photos I see of families, kids etc. Full frame FA77 is a completely different look than my F 50 1.7 on aps-c. 2) I hate post-production. I just want it scanned, and other than tweaking the brightness because the scanner guessed wrong, or editing out huge dust specs I don't do anything to the film. It looks phenomenal. (scanning on a pakon) Film gives me the contrast and punchiness I always tried to get on digital by screwing around in post. 3) Real optical huge viewfinder. I have an LX and MZ-S and love it. I worry about the future with all these EVFs. 4) Tri-X. Even if I change how I do things, I will always have at least an LX and a 50mm :-) At the end of the day I am getting the shots I want now, and am very happy. I have to do home dev to keep costs down but that is fine. I figure I can do this at least a few more years before I get too ansy or sick of doing home dev. Jamey the work/reward formula is it worth the work. i love making meter readings and setting my own exposure. i think auto focus is an ingenius solution to a non existant problem. i dislike spending 10 minutes flipping through menus when i can set a manual camera to do what i want in 10 seconds. that said a digital can shoot till the cows come home, with a big enough memory card. lastly cds and memory cards are earier to store safely as i found out when flooding destroyed 25 years worth of photos, slides, and negatives.

10-17-2014, 02:16 PM	#172
Davep Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Ontario, Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 222	Originally posted by Roguephotographer the work/reward formula is it worth the work. i love making meter readings and setting my own exposure. i think auto focus is an ingenius solution to a non existant problem. i dislike spending 10 minutes flipping through menus when i can set a manual camera to do what i want in 10 seconds. that said a digital can shoot till the cows come home, with a big enough memory card. lastly cds and memory cards are earier to store safely as i found out when flooding destroyed 25 years worth of photos, slides, and negatives. Damn, that's tough. I don't know how I would react should I loose 25 years of photos. I've been shooting since the early seventies, and all of those images are precious to me. Digital does have its place when it comes to saving backups.

10-17-2014, 02:35 PM	#173
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,026	Originally posted by Roguephotographer ... i think auto focus is an ingenius solution to a non existant problem. ... i found out when flooding destroyed 25 years worth of photos, slides, and negatives. Well, you thought wrong about auto focus. Perhaps because you don't take pictures of fast moving things where AF is an ideal solution that doesn't mean other people don't benefit from that technology. Sorry to hear about your flooding and loss. But negatives can be washed and dried again with no problem. Couldn't you wash the mud and junk off them and save some?

10-17-2014, 03:00 PM	#174
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by tuco Perhaps because you don't take pictures of fast moving things where AF is an ideal solution that doesn't mean other people don't benefit from that technology. You have been spending too much time with your Nikon dSLRs. Accurate AF of fast moving objects is an impossible point of convergence with most vintage film camera AF systems. Steve

10-17-2014, 03:20 PM	#175
DarCam Junior Member Join Date: May 2014 Posts: 40	I shoot film because for the price of a full frame digital camera plus lens (around the $2500 combined in conservative estimates) I can buy a $25 Pentax ME Super, $100 for a 50mm f1.4 SMC-M lens and $2000 worth of rolls of Kodak Ektar 100 film and processing and be happy as a hamster in a wheel. For less than $200 I can shoot "full frame" and rack up some great images due to the "bang for your buck" nature that you try to maintain with film. Every shot is worth its weight in gold so I tend to be cautious how I shoot each frame. I can understand the need for a digital 35mm equivalent. Full frame cameras have their use and I understand the professional need for such devices, but as a way to get joy out of photography, the organic feeling of winding that lever, pushing a button and repeating the process endlessly is therapy for the soul. I don't know what it is, or why I prefer film over digital, be it its look or the anticipation of something not known to you at an instant, but I do know it's addicting. Yeah, it has it's disadvantages. And yes, if you ever plan to buy a full frame camera the developing and film can be pricy over time. However, I feel that film photography has something else altogether that 95% of the time you aren't trying to get with full frame digital camera. It's almost apples and oranges at this point.

10-17-2014, 03:58 PM	#176
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,026	Originally posted by stevebrot You have been spending too much time with your Nikon dSLRs. Accurate AF of fast moving objects is an impossible point of convergence with most vintage film camera AF systems. Steve Vintage being cameras before 1950? In the year 2000 you could buy a respectable auto focus film camera, no?

10-17-2014, 04:59 PM	#177
Cuthbert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,740	Originally posted by tuco Vintage being cameras before 1950? In the year 2000 you could buy a respectable auto focus film camera, no? Autofocus is for sissies! The REAL photographer uses manual camera, exploits the DOF of the lens shooting hyperfocal!

10-18-2014, 02:34 AM	#178
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,652	Originally posted by carrrlangas I am about to make a lon, low budget journey and don`t want to lag the DSLR with lenses, be distracted by it, look like a tourist, intimidate others, be worried of loosing or have it stolen, etc.. So I am looking to buy an AF film camera (looking for an *ist if anyone has one) stuck the DA40 XS and lots of film. Some cheating... I am also taking the MX-1 Did you post anything in the marketplace? That would be the place to start for me. They are also sometimes available on ebay, although the buy it now prices tend to be exorbitant.

10-18-2014, 08:07 AM	#179
carrrlangas Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Joensuu (Finland) Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,761	Yes, I put a wanted thread. Theres only one on ebay for US250. I am sensing you hsve one and probably should sell it? I choose the ist because of smalll size and low weight. Paired with the DA40 XS, and loaded it comes srround 400gr

10-18-2014, 08:24 AM	#180
wombat2go Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Michigan Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,207	Originally posted by carrrlangas I choose the ist because of smalll size and low weight. I looked at an ist some time ago, but it has problems with -M lenses ( I don't recall all the details) , that were fixed later with the ist d - series. So that put me off buying an ist .