The intensity of film.

[Justinr]

I was never ecstatic about switching to digital, yes the world keeps turning and it had to happen but somehow I felt we were losing something, maybe it was the soul of photography for it was never quite the same with a digi, perhaps it just too easy or too perfect, I'm done with arguing over it. But the hankering lingered and so it was that I eschewed the electron and packed only my trusty old Pentax ESII and meter on this years trip to France. I had four rolls of film left over from 10 years ago so I just went with that and settled into the old habits and boy did it ever feel good! I wasn't worried about anything actually coming out, if I got some images then it was a bonus especially as the chemicals were of a similar age, yet the magic still worked and here are four I pulled out from what I have scanned so far -

[N80]

Great stuff. I love digital photography. I don't buy for a second that anything is sacrificed in digital photography. The image is what we make of it. I believe things like "soul", "heart", "essence" and other such intangibles come from the photographer, not the gear.

And yet, I just bought another batch of chemicals after not processing my own film for 6 or 7 years. Why? Nostalgia is part of it. Also, I like the process. I also like my film cameras and hate to see them collecting dust. I've bought some TMax and some Ilford Pan F Plus and some Neopan Acros. Looking forward to messing around with film again.

Like you, I will probably be using film in low pressure situations. If I get a shot, great; if not, no big deal. I expect my success rate per shutter click to be quite low and the expense per keeper to be quite high. I doubt any keepers I get will rival any of my digital keepers. But I still like it. No justification required.

If I get results as good as yours I will be thrilled!

[Justinr]

Great stuff. I love digital photography. I don't buy for a second that anything is sacrificed in digital photography. The image is what we make of it. I believe things like "soul", "heart", "essence" and other such intangibles come from the photographer, not the gear.

And yet, I just bought another batch of chemicals after not processing my own film for 6 or 7 years. Why? Nostalgia is part of it. Also, I like the process. I also like my film cameras and hate to see them collecting dust. I've bought some TMax and some Ilford Pan F Plus and some Neopan Acros. Looking forward to messing around with film again.

Like you, I will probably be using film in low pressure situations. If I get a shot, great; if not, no big deal. I expect my success rate per shutter click to be quite low and the expense per keeper to be quite high. I doubt any keepers I get will rival any of my digital keepers. But I still like it. No justification required.

If I get results as good as yours I will be thrilled!

Many thanks for the comments, it's appreciated and it's good to now that there are others who still value the approach that using film requires and the rewards it can bring. We are, I rather like to think, experiencing something of a new appreciation of film for I have heard whispering from various people in the media that it possesses qualities that digital does not, it's imperfections probably being a major one. Interestingly our daughter was working at a US summer camp where they teach photography to the youngsters and it's all done on film.

I rather feel that the percentage of keepers will rise considerably because less photos will be taken and more thought put into each one. I have another 14 of the band that I have placed in a gallery from about 25 taken, although I can't put the link up just yet.

I have added a few more from the trip. The group enjoying a picnic have chosen the top of the U-Boat pens at St Nazaire as the ideal spot and given its function and history of construction by forced/slave labour I'm not at all sure whether this should be considered bizzare  or not.

[N80]

I rather feel that the percentage of keepers will rise considerably because less photos will be taken and more thought put into each one.

This is only true when you have plenty of time. 

[Alan Klein]

I really like the 4th one from the first batch - the skateboarder.  Nothing wrong with nostalgia.  I switch between medium format film for contemplative landscapes and P&S digital for travel, vacations, get togethers and make slide shows for HDTV's.  Both work and I enjoy both processes.  Diversity is good.

[Justinr]

This is only true when you have plenty of time. 

Isn't that what holidays are about?

This was one of the reasons for switching back to film for the trip, I was going to have the time to start absorbing and reflecting rather than be under pressure to produce a result in a given time frame (as you pointed out earlier) which is where digital and its instant playback can be such an advantage.

The other reason being that I really couldn't be bothered to hump a digital and batteries and charger and spare cards and carrying case and lenses and so on about with me! One SLR with a 50mm lens, a meter (I confess, that bit was digital) and a few rolls of film fitted very nicely into a small carrying case and was a fraction of the weight and bulk I would normally carry around with me which is handy when you are on a bike.

 

[Justinr]

I really like the 4th one from the first batch - the skateboarder.  Nothing wrong with nostalgia.  I switch between medium format film for contemplative landscapes and P&S digital for travel, vacations, get togethers and make slide shows for HDTV's.  Both work and I enjoy both processes.  Diversity is good.

Quite so, and stepping out of the box and looking back can so often refresh the interest and identify the ruts into which you might have fallen.

The skateboarder was taken inside the U-boat pens on Ilford 3200 which didn't cope with its age quite as well as the Kodak TX400. Looking at the rest of the roll it seemed to have lost its sensitivity over time. 

[Paulo Bizarro]

Whatever rocks one's boat, as they say. I shot film for 20 years, slide film mostly. Thanks heavens for digital sensors, makes life a lot easier.

And I still enjoy photograph as much as I did with film. It helps that I have not changed my shooting habits; I still think before tripping the shutter.

[N80]

Digital photography helped improve my skills far faster than film. You shoot more. You find out what you did right or wrong quickly. This leads to faster learning, in my case anyway.

In any case, my film and chemicals are supposed to show up today if the tropical storm does not delay things. I'll get my Nikon FA loaded with Pan F and my N80 loaded with TMax 400.

Now all I need is something to shoot and the time to do it.............the real commodity in my photographic life.

[RSL]

I was never ecstatic about switching to digital, yes the world keeps turning and it had to happen but somehow I felt we were losing something. . .

Yes. We lost a lot. We lost having to spend hours and hours and hours in a darkroom working with recalcitrant equipment. We lost our perpetual faint smell of developer and acetic acid. We lost waiting hours for prints to wash, and hours for prints to dry. We also lost that fun rinsing and cleanup job after a printing session.

The alternative was to turn our work over to a "shop," like the one I used in Vietnam and which I suspect was using Dektol on my Tri-X. You then could sort through the stack of prints, which included all your screwups.

We also lost the thrill of pushing Tri-X or Ilford HP4 to ASA 1600 (that was before ISO, which is the same thing but is now "international"), and watching the delicate detail in the lows disappear. With digital you don't have to "push" any longer, and therefore you can't demonstrate how advanced you are as a photographer.

It's a sorry world without all that, but somehow I'm finding I can stand it.

[GrahamBy]

Here you go Russ.
I have to say I agree... but for some people, the constraints of film seem to inspire them in some way. Then again, they jump off the chemical train pretty soon: once the film is developed it's onto the scanner.

https://www.format.com/magazine/features/photography/film-photography-is-horrible

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I think that the chemical darkroom is a fascinating experience for young people who have grown up with digital photography.

For me, digital photography came as liberation and it really arrived once I have seen half a picture coming out an Epson Stylus Photo a friend has bought. I was not waiting for the other half, was already on the phone ordering my own Epson Stylus Photo EX.

Best regards
Erik

Yes. We lost a lot. We lost having to spend hours and hours and hours in a darkroom working with recalcitrant equipment. We lost our perpetual faint smell of developer and acetic acid. We lost waiting hours for prints to wash, and hours for prints to dry. We also lost that fun rinsing and cleanup job after a printing session.

The alternative was to turn our work over to a "shop," like the one I used in Vietnam and which I suspect was using Dektol on my Tri-X. You then could sort through the stack of prints, which included all your screwups.

We also lost the thrill of pushing Tri-X or Ilford HP4 to ASA 1600 (that was before ISO, which is the same thing but is now "international"), and watching the delicate detail in the lows disappear. With digital you don't have to "push" any longer, and therefore you can't demonstrate how advanced you are as a photographer.

It's a sorry world without all that, but somehow I'm finding I can stand it.

[Justinr]

Yes. We lost a lot. We lost having to spend hours and hours and hours in a darkroom working with recalcitrant equipment. We lost our perpetual faint smell of developer and acetic acid. We lost waiting hours for prints to wash, and hours for prints to dry. We also lost that fun rinsing and cleanup job after a printing session.

The alternative was to turn our work over to a "shop," like the one I used in Vietnam and which I suspect was using Dektol on my Tri-X. You then could sort through the stack of prints, which included all your screwups.

We also lost the thrill of pushing Tri-X or Ilford HP4 to ASA 1600 (that was before ISO, which is the same thing but is now "international"), and watching the delicate detail in the lows disappear. With digital you don't have to "push" any longer, and therefore you can't demonstrate how advanced you are as a photographer.

It's a sorry world without all that, but somehow I'm finding I can stand it.

I think you may have mistaken my OP as advocating a return to film for all purposes, far from it. I see it as an art form, to me it expresses where digital represents, but that's just me and probably a few others. I have in front of me a magazine for which I write  a regular column, in this issue it is headed by a photo of a John Deere that is far clearer, crisper and more colourful (richer) than anything I achieved with film and the process of obtaining and transmitting it to the editor was far simpler. Why would I want to change that?*

Sometimes though I do rather get the impression that the digi fanatics are terrified that film does actually contain qualities of expression that digital lacks and they'll queue up to make groundless accusations based on what they think is being said. Why so sensitive?

*It was one of these but only click on this link if you are either a John Deere fan or have absolutely nothing else to do! -
http://www.inkplusimages.com/JDslideshow/index.html

[Telecaster]

Re. printing: for me, getting my hands on a proper photo-quality printer (the same Epson Erik mentions) was a far bigger deal than getting my first electronic camera. With that printer and a relatively inexpensive Kodak film scanner I dove head-first into color processing & printing. The camera, along with its many successors, was and largely still is just a means of skipping the film developing & scanning stages.

I've mentioned before here that æsthetically, for me, nothing beats a well-exposed color transparency or b&w negative. So I do use film from time to time. But getting it from the camera into quantized form is a PITA I can only endure after mostly forgetting what the process is like. 

-Dave-

[Justinr]

Hi,

I think that the chemical darkroom is a fascinating experience for young people who have grown up with digital photography.

For me, digital photography came as liberation and it really arrived once I have seen half a picture coming out an Epson Stylus Photo a friend has bought. I was not waiting for the other half, was already on the phone ordering my own Epson Stylus Photo EX.

Best regards
Erik

Not just young people, I actually enjoy the process which as far as I can gather makes me a bit of a weirdo, but I'm cool with that.

[Justinr]

Here you go Russ.
I have to say I agree... but for some people, the constraints of film seem to inspire them in some way. Then again, they jump off the chemical train pretty soon: once the film is developed it's onto the scanner.

https://www.format.com/magazine/features/photography/film-photography-is-horrible

The greater part of the difference between the two  lies in the capture of the image by film. Sure, I scanned those negatives and they'd be different pictures altogether if I wet printed them, but the start of the journey had been made on a random crystalline structure not a strict array of pixels.

[RSL]

In the early days of digital (the 2.74 mpx Nikon D1) the random grain structure in film made it by far the superior method of capturing images. But now we have enough pixels that randomness makes little, if any, difference.

In spite of what I wrote earlier, Justin, I enjoyed working in my darkroom -- except for the necessary cleanup. I didn't even mind smelling like stop bath. But once we got past the D2X I became a 100% digital enthusiast. With the most recent equipment I have the ability to capture and print images I could only imagine capturing with film.

[pegelli]

I learned photography the old school. Bought 15 meter film reels and filled my own cassettes, developed the film and printed in a darkroom.
Made all the mistakes there are to make and learned too little from them to become good at it.
But I think it provided a very good foundation that I still benefit from today while shooting digital.

The two thing that got me hooked on digital are immediate feedback (so immediate possibilities to correct a mistake) and consistency (even two back-to-back produced prints still looked slightly different after drying, I never managed to get two prints produced on different days to really look the same).

But you are right, neither digital nor film are better, they're just different media with different strength and weaknesses. I still run a film through my old cameras once in a while and develop them myself. But after that it's scanning and digital workflow to finish it off since I no longer have a darkroom and enlarger. I don't think I'll ever build my own darkroom again, it was a great experience but today I would probably find it too much work for too little benefit, even though seeing the print emerge in the developer is a unique experience.

[Justinr]

In the early days of digital (the 2.74 mpx Nikon D1) the random grain structure in film made it by far the superior method of capturing images. But now we have enough pixels that randomness makes little, if any, difference.

In spite of what I wrote earlier, Justin, I enjoyed working in my darkroom -- except for the necessary cleanup. I didn't even mind smelling like stop bath. But once we got past the D2X I became a 100% digital enthusiast. With the most recent equipment I have the ability to capture and print images I could only imagine capturing with film.

It is the randomness which infers that quality of expression in my view, and this is the first I have heard of randomness granting film a superior ability to capture images I must admit.

Film lost the battle when Canon bought out their first 5m pixel camera according to BJP way back in 2004/5(?). I remember the comparison they did with the finest Fuji slide film of the time and regretfully declared digital the new master. To me the epiphany came when I saw up close the results from the Kodak 14N which were mind blowing at the time but precision is not always the sole criterion in judging an image.

[RSL]

Actually, serious digital started with the Casio 3000QV, in 2000. Here's a shot from my Casio in that year. The thing had 3.34 mpx, and it was enough unless you were after wall-sized photos. At the time it came out it was a revelation. It blew away everything else in the digital world. I do have a couple 16 x 20's from the Casio hanging on my walls. This is one of them. At this point film still could beat the pants off of digital. But if you were after color, film was a difficult operation unless you were satisfied with transparencies.