Why are some people still using film cameras instead of digital?
E.A. Boyd asked:
Are there any particular advantages to film over digital cameras.
I understand dancingirls comment about saving gas.
With digital there is no need to go out of your way to drop off films or prints or to pick them up.
I still like film.
because they don’t understand the benefits of digital like saving on gas, not having to buy film, not having to fumble with the film
my dad still uses film… it bugs the hell out of me
For the same reason some people like to listen to the old
78 r.p.m records on thier hi-fi player
Reasons I do:
Don’t want to buy a camera to only have the technology out of date in a 6-12 months.
Don’t want to deal with the lens multiplier factor of digital cameras (the change of the focal length due to the chip size.)
I love the film stocks I use (Velvia 50 and Tri-X) and don’t want to spend hours manipulating a digital file, trying to replicate the same look as these stocks.
I like the all manual feel of my range finder (Leica M4) and can’t afford the $5000 digital equivlilent.
It’s easier to keep my images physically organized over digital images which are in multiple areas or on DVD’s.
Pictures taken with film requires some skill level in order to catch the mood or moment. Digital can be altered to reflect what the person wants to see.
Bottom line, one is reality the other virtual reality.
film tends to capture the raw image…in the moment.
digital you sometimes have to miss the exact moment you want to take the picture (depending on the settings and type of camera).
film camera don’t have digital zoom…they have telephoto….which tends to make the pictures look so much better!
Users of film cameras will never lose all their precious memories because of a computer crash.
There are a couple of reasons.
One reason people still use 35mm film over digital is because the 21st century is still young. (We’re only in the 8th year) There are still people who grew up in the 1940’s and 50’s who don’t feel comfortable with new technology.
Another reason is because (as has been stated before I got here) 35mm cameras tend to take a more crisp and real looking picture than digital cameras. A 35mm camera sees what your eyes see. A digital camera is limited to its chipset.
If I were starting out in photography today, I’d probably go digi. However, since I started about 45 years ago, I’ve got a lot of very robust, capable film equipment that does what I need it to do. Advantages of film? It doesn’t suffer from the short and long-term built-in obsolescence problems of digital equipment and storage media. Using it teaches you the basics of photography more effectively than digital. Ultimately, film image quality is higher than digital. Black white printing is a craft I enjoy, more so than managing a computerised ‘workflow’. Actually, I’ve got some printing I need to do now………..
Dancinggirl….’saving on gas?’ You’ll have to explain that one.
One of the biggest reasons for me is that I was able to acquire an entire pro-grade manual focus SLR system with lenses from 20mm to 400mm, an 5 different camera bodies, for less than the cost of a new Canon 5D.
The same new digital-based system would have cost well over $15,000.
That’s a savings of $13,000, which buys one whole heck of a lot of film.
Plus, film camera bodies just keep going, with $100 worth of maintenance every few years. Three or four years down the road, a $2000 digital body will be hopelessly obsolete.
As if this isn’t enough, probably most importantly is that I just like film. I like the way it looks, and the predictable results that I get from it.
I’ve been using 35mm Minolta SLR cameras for 37 years. I look at a scene, try a few different compositions, make the exposure and I know I have it. I don’t need to look at the back of the camera.
I don’t need 20 different scene modes to take a picture. My eyes and brain are quite sufficient.
I know when a scene has a lot of contrast and what to do - and how to do it - to compensate.
I don’t have to take 100 pictures in the hope that a few will be worth keeping. No, I don’t claim to go 36 for 36 but I usually get close.
I know exactly what will happen when I’m shooting in Aperture Preferred and change the f-stop to f11 from f8 - my shutter speed will decrease. The camera doesn’t have to tell me.
I know that when I set my 21mm wide angle to f16 and focus at 6′ everything from 2′ 2 to infinity will be in focus. With my 24mm wide angle at f16 and focused to 6′ its everything from 2′ 5 to infiniy.
I simply cannot justify the incredible expense to replace my current arsenal of cameras and lenses.
Bottom line? I still use film because I like it.
I have and use both systems. Digital can be great with all its benefits, but…………the simple fact that we can delete, save, transform , add, play around with pics…….has made ( in my opinion ) photography lose its soul
When we look at something, whet er its a tree, a person or a ping-pong ball…we catch its essence in the first seconds, we cannot modify it. Digital transforms and erases peoples and things essences.
My best photos were taken with old fashioned cameras…and a film.
Maybe because it batteries for digital cameras are so expensive for mine they are around $12 each
You really didn’t mention what format you are talking about.
I agree, if you are shooting 645, 35mm or something smaller then digital is the way to go. Digital rivals film in those smaller formats.
However, if you are looking for gorgeous tonality, extreme acuity, and tons of data then you must shoot 6×7 or bigger film. Indeed, a 4×5 or 8×10 negative is still years ahead of digital in data recorded and printed sharpness
I think that excellent landscape photography still requires large format film.
For sports, journalism and wildlife photography, digital is a perfect match.