I hate digital

[CrazedFandango]

I got into film photography in 2010 after shooting digital for so long. I've a stack of old film bodies and lenses that I play with from time to time and process my own black and white films (time consuming but fun).

It's changed the way I take photos; even when shooting digital, I only press the shutter once and then only when I'm sure it's a keeper. I often scowl and the machine gun approach of digital photographers.

 

[Ferrum]

I got into film photography in 2010 after shooting digital for so long. I've a stack of old film bodies and lenses that I play with from time to time and process my own black and white films (time consuming but fun).

It's changed the way I take photos; even when shooting digital, I only press the shutter once and then only when I'm sure it's a keeper. I often scowl and the machine gun approach of digital photographers.

With you all the way on that. I used film cameras and processed and printed all my own films (transparencies, colour included) for years, and I had my first camera at the end of the 1950s. The big attraction of digital was, for me, the absence of the rocketing costs of film and consumables, together with a massive decline in the range and choice available. Many of my favourite 35mm films just disappeared.

I think that those of us who have an analogue background of some long duration have retained the disciplines of shooting with film (framing, composition, "get it right first time" mentality, plus a view on financial economy), and personally, I always look and think before I take a photograph. That said, there are sometimes occasions when taking a lot of photographs rapidly with a digital camera can be great; for example, when I photograph my grandsons, who seem to be still for only nanoseconds.

My wife of more than 50 years died recently, and this prompted me to go through thousands of prints, slides, contacts and negs, and in doing so, it struck me that a large proportion of them (taken mostly with Nikon F series F2AS,F2SB,F3) look better to me than a lot of my later digital stuff.

When I sold my film Nikons (but keeping a couple of favourite lenses), I also parted with all my darkroom gear. Nowadays, I could probably set most of it up again, with second-hand equipment, at a fraction of what it cost me back then, but the cost and scarcity of film and consumables nowadays makes it a no-no.

 

[slapo]

With you all the way on that. I used film cameras and processed and printed all my own films (transparencies, colour included) for years, and I had my first camera at the end of the 1950s. The big attraction of digital was, for me, the absence of the rocketing costs of film and consumables, together with a massive decline in the range and choice available. Many of my favourite 35mm films just disappeared.

I think that those of us who have an analogue background of some long duration have retained the disciplines of shooting with film (framing, composition, "get it right first time" mentality, plus a view on financial economy), and personally, I always look and think before I take a photograph. That said, there are sometimes occasions when taking a lot of photographs rapidly with a digital camera can be great; for example, when I photograph my grandsons, who seem to be still for only nanoseconds.

My wife of more than 50 years died recently, and this prompted me to go through thousands of prints, slides, contacts and negs, and in doing so, it struck me that a large proportion of them (taken mostly with Nikon F series F2AS,F2SB,F3) look better to me than a lot of my later digital stuff.

When I sold my film Nikons (but keeping a couple of favourite lenses), I also parted with all my darkroom gear. Nowadays, I could probably set most of it up again, with second-hand equipment, at a fraction of what it cost me back then, but the cost and scarcity of film and consumables nowadays makes it a no-no.

I'm sorry for your loss.

 

[Ferrum]

I'm sorry for your loss.

Many thanks.

 

[NotTheStig]

With you all the way on that. I used film cameras and processed and printed all my own films (transparencies, colour included) for years, and I had my first camera at the end of the 1950s. The big attraction of digital was, for me, the absence of the rocketing costs of film and consumables, together with a massive decline in the range and choice available. Many of my favourite 35mm films just disappeared.

I think that those of us who have an analogue background of some long duration have retained the disciplines of shooting with film (framing, composition, "get it right first time" mentality, plus a view on financial economy), and personally, I always look and think before I take a photograph. That said, there are sometimes occasions when taking a lot of photographs rapidly with a digital camera can be great; for example, when I photograph my grandsons, who seem to be still for only nanoseconds.

My wife of more than 50 years died recently, and this prompted me to go through thousands of prints, slides, contacts and negs, and in doing so, it struck me that a large proportion of them (taken mostly with Nikon F series F2AS,F2SB,F3) look better to me than a lot of my later digital stuff.

When I sold my film Nikons (but keeping a couple of favourite lenses), I also parted with all my darkroom gear. Nowadays, I could probably set most of it up again, with second-hand equipment, at a fraction of what it cost me back then, but the cost and scarcity of film and consumables nowadays makes it a no-no.

Very sorry to hear that.
Glad you have all those memories recorded.

 

[riverrun]

The best camera for a particular shot is the one that you actually have with you.
You can go down the route of old-fashioned large-format cameras that make great pictures you develop yourself, but you won't always carry it with you.
If you see a great photo opportunity and all you have with you is your phone... and these days you always do... that's the camera of choice. And they are very capable cameras.

By all means, plan your artistic photos and use an old camera or shoot in RAW, but I believe that the likes of Henri Cartier-Bresson would have loved the latest iPhone (insert brand of choice here).

 

[Anthorn]

I have only recently last month (June 2024) moved to compact dighital and here's my "past meets the present" photo and as you can see my new digital compact is a Kodak. Looking back into the mists of time I started with a Zenit E, then moved to a Pentax Spotmatic F which I hated and then moved to Praktica where I stayed. That was backed up with a Zorki 4K 35mm rangefinder. I think I might make the move from cassette to CD shortly too

In the photo: Practica MTL50 35mm SLR with Vivitar 28-70mm macro zoom lens; Kodak WPZ2 zoom, waterproof, dust-proof, sand-proof, idiot-proof, program digital compact. Subtitled "Beauty and the Beast".

 

[Helveticum]

I use both. Problem solved.

 

[Mike Smart]

I also started life with a Zenith E & i still have it.
it’s been battered & bruised at many a rock concert but always work.
To be fair cameras have never been that easy unless your an avid photographer,
The majority of people just wanted to point & shoot.
Getting the exposure & shutter speed wasn’t for everyone but i really enjoyed it especially with the different lighting at the gigs.
As @Helveticum said use them both & you’ll be fine

 

[Anthorn]

The problem with film cameras is that services for processing the film is drying up. My local Snappy Snaps used to do film developing and negative scanning to SD card but doesn't do it anymore. Biut really my depth of field and focussing days are over and all I want to do is point and shoot which the Kodak Pixpro does very well.

 

[Helveticum]

The problem with film cameras is that services for processing the film is drying up. My local Snappy Snaps used to do film developing and negative scanning to SD card but doesn't do it anymore. Biut really my depth of field and focussing days are over and all I want to do is point and shoot which the Kodak Pixpro does very well.

You are fundamentally wrong. It's been on the rise for years now, and growing. Just put like 5 minutes of your time into some research.

 

[Anthorn]

You are fundamentally wrong. It's been on the rise for years now, and growing. Just put like 5 minutes of your time into some research.

For example Boots does photo processing but only at Boots Photo Stores amd its all digital where you connect your camera or mobile phone to a machine, add your photos and then order your prints and then 10 days later you get a message that your prints are ready. Yes there are services available for developing film and printing film but it's expensive.

Are you confused? I'm referring to a roll of film which is loaded into a camera which then produces negatives when exposed which are then developed and printed. Or alternatively a slide film which is only developed by a more lengthy process.

 

[Helveticum]

For example Boots does photo processing but only at Boots Photo Stores amd its all digital where you connect your camera or mobile phone to a machine, add your photos and then order your prints and then 10 days later you get a message that your prints are ready. Yes there are services available for developing film and printing film but it's expensive.

Are you confused? I'm referring to a roll of film which is loaded into a camera which then produces negatives when exposed which are then developed and printed. Or alternatively a slide film which is only developed by a more lengthy process.

Clearly you are the one confused here. You don't go to Boots with film, you go to an independent lab. So you still haven't found those 5 minutes to do some research, I take it.

 

[Zorro]

The problem with film cameras is that services for processing the film is drying up. My local Snappy Snaps used to do film developing and negative scanning to SD card but doesn't do it anymore. Biut really my depth of field and focussing days are over and all I want to do is point and shoot which the Kodak Pixpro does very well.

Film processing did start to go into a very sharp decline about 15 to 20 years back, when digital was rapidly coming to prominense, but it has rallied thanks to enthusiasts and there is now a restricted, but decent range of film stock and processing services available again, but they are not cheap.

You are correct that the mainstream high street flim finishing industry has pretty much gone forever. Film occupies a similar consumer segment to vinyl records.

 

[Anthorn]

Well yes, Amazon UK sells the film as do others. Some time ago Fujifilm came to the rescue with colour negative film which included processing. These days Fujifilm can still be bought but doesn't include processing and might be out of date. Incidentally, local collecges with photography courses might offer film processing relatively cheaply.

 

[ramonesman]

Being a photographic printer for 18 years

Any photograph can be destroyed by terrible printing be it colour, black and white or slides
At least with modern technology we have the ability to tweak our own pictures and enhance the quality

I see pluses for both sides of this subject
At the end of the day nothing is better it's all down to the person viewing it

Even bad pictures have captured that memory for someone