I went back to shooting film recently, and I couldn't believe how different the process was. It isn't just taking a photo without the live view screen, it really is a different world. A world that you should experience if you want to improve as a photographer.
Film photography has been around far longer than digital photography, that's kind of obvious. But it's not always about actual film, there's glass, metal, paper and more physical media which you can use to produce a photograph. However, I'll be using the term film as a catch-all word to denote analogue photography here.
Shooting film has had a vast improvement on my photography skills, many of which were unexpected until I started shooting with my film camera again, the Nikon F100
I started out shooting 35mm film when my dad first handed me a point-and-shoot when I was six years old. I was incredibly lucky to be in a position to take photos at such a young age, and despite nearly using the entire roll of film before we even got to our destination (the train station) I'd already started to learn some of the five reasons I think you should give film photography a go.
Whether you used to shoot film like I did, but have since moved to fully digital, or perhaps you've never shot film before, I encourage you to pick up a film camera and give it a go. I did this recently and was blown away by the amount of stuff I was missing shooting digital exclusively for so many years. Despite what anyone else says I find it is different from shooting digital and it can hone some very important photographic skills you'd otherwise underuse. So let me describe my five reasons why you should get back into film.
1. Discipline
Film photography forces me to become much more disciplined in my approach to shooting. I have to triple-check my exposure settings, perhaps use a light meter to analyze the scene, and before all that I have to make up my mind whether I'm shooting indoors or outdoors because the white balance of the film is preset — there's no switching part-way through. I can't even take a test shot first to see what my settings yield because I can't view it and I'd also be wasting a frame on my roll.
Because of the planning I have to put in place before I head out, I've found a higher degree of success. The permanence of film means there's less flexibility when it comes to editing, especially if you use a lab to develop your prints and don't do this part yourself.
2. No Do-Overs
The cost of film deters photographers from shooting too many frames in one go. With rolls of 35mm limited usually to just 36 exposures it makes sense that you'd pre-plan your photoshoot and camera settings before clicking the shutter release
Speaking of permanence, that's one thing that makes a huge difference to your approach to photography compared with the limitless nature of digital. Once you've taken the shot that's it, depending on how many rolls of film you have. Just like taking that trip of a lifetime to the place of your dreams, the image can't be taken again once you've run out of film. Because of this, I found myself being much more careful with my trigger finger. Only letting off frames when I'm completely happy with everything in front of me.
This isn't to say I have a cavalier, spray-and-pray approach to shooting when I have my digital camera, but because I have all the memory space I could want, it doesn't bother me if I have to delete a frame. Whereas, with film, I can feel each shot costing money and time to develop so I'm much more precious with my shooting.
3. Stay in the Moment
With the absence of any kind of live view rear screen, I found myself taking the shots, then putting the camera away and engaging with my surroundings again. Whether that's the incredible landscape I was standing in front of, or interacting with my dog when out on a walk. I didn't get time to "chimp" because there's nothing to look at, so because of this, I felt more connected with whatever I was shooting. In turn, this allowed me to see what I was really wanting to capture, the essence of what made my subject interesting to me. Therefore, I feel that I was able to be more authentic with my photography and able to capture more of what was of interest to me.
4. It's Inexpensive
Yes it's true a reputable, high-end SLR analogue film camera can set you back a lot of dough, and the Nikon F100 pictured here runs for around $200 secondhand, but there are plenty of cheaper alternatives that will be suitable for those just wanting the occasional film shoot
Sure, you can spend loads on high-end film cameras and top-quality film, but there are plenty of secondhand, cheap SLRs and compacts out there so that anyone can get started for just a few bucks. There are even some incredibly decent lenses out there for a fraction of the cost they were when new. Film isn't all that pricey either if you're not looking for the highest quality. I understand that some may say that it's expensive per shot, but if you're just dipping your toe in the film photography world it isn't that bad to get a few rolls and snap away. You could probably pick up an SLR, lens, and a roll of film for around $25 if you look in the right places. You could just about buy a memory card or a bag for that these days.
5. Infinite Resolution
Technically, there's no limit to the detail you can capture with film as you aren't beholden to pixel density, image resolution, or bit depth. That means ultra-realism and sharp edges that digital cameras just can't compare with. Technically, the resolution is infinite with film so no matter how much you "zoom" in there'll be no aliasing of edges. However, there are limitations in other respects, for example, film grain and dynamic range. Film types vary though, and getting the right one for the type of photography you want to do is crucial to improving your work.
So those are my top five reasons for why you should get back into shooting film, or if you haven't shot film before, why you might want to consider trying it. It's honestly not like digital, there are many more restrictions but because of those limits, you can turn yourself into a better photographer. One with a sharper eye, more connected to your subject, and more disciplined over every shot. Head back to digital afterward and you might just find your workflow has changed. I know it has for me, I now have to sift through far fewer photos when editing in Lightroom at the end of a long day, and that saves both time and money.
Lead image made in part with content by Evan Amos used under Creative Commons
As the saying goes, 'Stupid is, stupid does.'
I'm an old guy. I am not much of a photographer but I've loved the hobby and the craft for 50 years. I learned on film and I love the look of and the clarity film but all the reasons the author gives for using film are exactly the reason not to use film. I agree, it will probably improve one's photography learning on film but the advantages of digital and mirrorless are many and I can't imagine going back. Using film is fun and I suppose I could see myself breaking out my F100 for old times sake but if you have to make a living with photography I don't know.
I agree with you. Time is of essence...so I need to stop wasting my time reading these interesting comments and start doing my chores.
Nice article Jason. I love film, and shoot it professionally. Thanks for advocating that more people try it.
For me the "5 Reasons To Go Back to Film" are:
1. Look
2. Look
3. Look
4. Look
5. Look
Nothing else looks like film. Yes you can fiddle around with LUTs, Filters, Overlays, etc but nothing looks as good (or bad :-) as actual film.
Do you print in an optical darkroom?
Oh God how I wish I could but where I am now just getting things printed is a real challenge. I do miss both the process and the results.
Do you?
Then you are quasi digital. I shoot a roll here and there but the best I can say about it is that it’s nostalgic.
Do you not falsify your statements before you write them down? All of the five are perfectly reasonable arguments for any kind of photography, also digital. Even the fact, that reason 5 (infinite resolution) is completely wrong, does prove this. And such weak arguments as 3 do not really help.
Three remain. 1 is a matter of course for every photographer. 2 also helps with digital. You have to pick much less later. And 4 is just nonsense. You can also buy very cheap used digital cameras.
My tip: Maybe an old typewriter will help when it comes to good articles. You have to think about every sentence, every word, before you type it.
JH, you have won the internet for today! Great tip. I will be digging out the old Underwood typewriter soon.
That to me is THE arguement - films slows me down and makes every shot count. It gives a creative kick. It is the "maunal typewriter" of photographic creativity.
But when going out with a film camera - I look around me and see dozens of images that would look great with digital - but which just won't ever get taken with film !
I prefer my Smith Corona against your Underwood typewriter.
Sorry, but I got rid of my typewriter eons ago.
Meanwhile, I still have a couple rolls from my AE-1 and Elan II laying around years later, because the last place in town (Walgreens) that had a machine got rid of it, and mail-in processing is expensive. Doesn't exactly make me eager to load up a new roll.
Photography is strictly a hobby for me. About 18 months ago, I broke out my Ricoh KR-30SP (bought with my tax refund check circa 1984) and rekindled a friendship. I have two DSLR's and four 35mm film cameras. And I use and enjoy them all. So that's reason enough for me to shoot film.
Whatever turns on your sweet beebie. As the saying goes, 'JUST DO IT!'
Don't believe fun was one of the reasons he gave. That might be the only reason that makes sense. I don't do wedding gigs. I do commercial advertising and editorial. I use digital because I can produce better images with it.
Please note that some who have commented have a history with analog film just because they started taking pictures decades ago. It's not the comments that are boring, it's the article itself. Written by someone who obviously lacks experience, but is brave to offer advice.
I have an idea that we can all agree on! Shoot film or not.
"Because of the planning I have to put in place before I head out, I've found a higher degree of success."
Like Mike Tyson said, everyone has a plan until you get punched in the face.
When you write these articles do you change and add or delete words or paragraphs, switch them around...or do you plan the whole article in your head and then type it out without changing?
Having a limitless amount of frames available has been great, not having to buy hundreds of dollars in film and processing has also been great.
I find that if over plan, I have tunnel vision and only shoot to my plan, ignoring the unexpected serendipity, the "what else" shot is often better than the planned one.
But for those who never had a choice but to shoot film, the drudge and pain in the butt part of using film seems charming...
Mike Ditz, I totally agree with you.
"Because of the planning I have to put in place before I head out, I've found a higher degree of success."
Um, guess what, Jason .....
Even with digital, I still put a ton of planning and pre-visualization into my shoots. Digital doesn't somehow limit how much thought and attention to detail one can put into their photographic projects.
We don't need to be forced into things in order to do them. Many of us bust our butts like complete obsessive-compulsives, whether we have to or not, just because we care so damn much about the results we get.
We slow down and take our time even when we shoot digital, simply because we care so much about each frame.
We don't need film (limitations) to force us into good habits. We can, and do, have excellent photography habits, even though we use a medium that would let us get away with bad habits if we were so inclined.
Your remarks bring this to mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHash5takWU
You just made my point. And by the way, "Chill the fuck out, gosh!!"
Guess it's your point, because you made that comment originally besides calling all here "dumbasses". You are the example as to why annoying trolls make discussions like this useless. Thanks. No more Fstoppers for me. It worked.
You told us all to chill out when you are the most uptight, stressed out, angry, contrary person on these boards.
The only reason that I shoot film is because I enjoy the workflow. But my workflow is printing black and white using traditional methods. I shoot digital, too, for low light and for capturing sports images. Choose the right tool for the job.
No, Panda, no one here has any problem with the point that Robert made, because his point makes perfect sense and holds up from a logical standpoint. What we do have a problem with are the invalid reasons that Jason, the author, presented in the article.
Respect must be earned.
You are not fun or lighthearted ... you are angry and mean, and any attempts you make to appear funny are just passive-aggressive tricks.
It is an age old trick to say very offensive and contrary things to get someone all riled up and upset, and then say, "what are you all worked up for; I was just joking". But of course the antagonist wasn't joking at all. They were mean-spirited right from the start.
You enjoy the workflow. That is a great reason to shoot film!
If the author would have used that reason, then the article would be valid. But for some unknown reason, the author used a bunch or reasons that don't make sense, and that don't hold up to logic and reason.
Robert, I think you should have written the article instead of Jason.
One thing not mentioned here; projection. I still shoot slide film on big vacations. I give slide shows. So far I haven’t seen any digital solutions for projection that come anywhere close to what I can get with slides. Can someone tell me where I can get a projector that rivals slides? If so, I’d switch in a second.
There are excellent digital archival solutions. I have a ZFS NAS (TrueNAS) for my digital archive in a RAIDZ array. I can rebuild my storage array even if 2 drives fail, and I have a cloud backup - just in case.
I have a lot of 5-15 year old (maybe more) CDs DVDs, archival gold standard Kodak discs that are unreadable.. eve in my oldest disc drive, we were told they'd last forever.
But I do have family photos from the early 1900s that could make prints from.
and indeed some are storing precious digital images to film for precisely those reasons.
In the UK, First Call is one of the services that offer this that springs to mind. https://www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk/transfer-36-digital-images-back....
First Call make another point - "cost-saving is the most obvious advantage. Assuming a digital A3 inkjet print costs around £5 to print when you cost inks and paper and outsourcing printing on RA4 using a Fuji Frontier will cost about £6. Normal processing of a black and white 12 x 16 print costs you only about £0.90 (Kentmere paper and Fotospeed chemicals) so the COST SAVING IS THEREFORE AT LEAST 80% when compared to digital printing"
This is like vinyl versus CD's or cassette players versus MP3's. Retro trends through rose tinted glasses. I would never go back to film because it is slow, expensive and the camera's are clunky and heavy. With self discipline it is easy to slow down your photo taking technique
I have a Mamiya 645 super with the 80mm 1.9 lens, I love that lens, when I load roll of 120 film I have 15 opportunities to get good quality images which means I have to be careful and selective about what I choose as a subject. I also have a Pentax K20D with a 50mm 1.8 lens. The point I am trying to make is that I can apply the same philosophy to my digital as I do to my film camera. Just because you are using a digital camera doesn't mean you have to take a thousand photos in a day, I can only imagine the post processing nightmare. I can also make the argument that for the 2500 dollars spent on a new digital body I can shoot and process a lot of film with the camera I already have. In conclusion neither method is right or better, it's personal choice.
For people who never "had to" shoot film, this theory of I'll slow down and make every frame count because I only have a roll of 12 or 36 exposures or 4 sheets of film in my two holders" makes some sort of sense. But the generation who grew up making "every frame count" and getting it right in camera (using E6 not C41) has been there and done that. I am glad to see that in the rear view. I WANT to be able to shoot variations of my original planned shoot, that is how something cool happens, you can't plan magic.
While shooting film can be a distraction and just nostalgic fun, and I do enjoy it, it is really none of the above. Especially not infinite resolution, I’m scratching my head on that one, really.
I never would have thought this article would have brought out nasty comments as it did. To the editors and administrators of this site. I would think you would have more control. I am not sure i will return or add anything to what was said here or any other article on this site. It simply is not Worth my time or effort.
The majority of the photographs posted here are amazing to me but being nasty is not enjoyment to me.
John,
I do understand what you are saying.
But for me, the reason I spend time here on Fstoppers is because the comments are not censored or moderated. I, and others, feel free to say whatever we want, in whatever tone we want to say it in, without fear of our comments being removed, and without fear of being banned or put on suspension. If it wasn't that way, I would not participate here, and I would not visit this site.
Tom
Not that I want to continue to disagree but in this day of polarization we need to find a way of getting along with each other. I did not necessarily agree with the writer on this article but that because I am mixed about the topic.
I do feel that the old adage "if you can not say something nice about a person to not say anything at all." In this case if no one commented the author might understand he did not hit the mark right.
I do not mind people expressing their feeling about something but without PROFANITY please.
I wish I could filter out those nasty people and enjoy reading the articles and comments.
I feel digital is sooooooooooo much greener than film, both in production and processing.
I have learned a lot in the past few years and while I would like to upgrade I do not want to overspend on what seems to be decent equipment only to find out that it becomes obsolete before I need to replace the batteries!.
This summer I decided to try using my old Nikon F and Horizon 101. What a learning curve for me. I have forgotten more than I remember about these old cameras.
What I like about the digital is the weight, I am old and it is more difficult to lug that old Nikon along with the lenses. I also prefer the articulating screen with grid marks on the digitals versus tiny view finder on the Nikon F.
Once I get a roll developed I my be back with some results. One big thing I can say is I really did slow down in taking a shot with the 35mm film cameras which I enjoyed because I relaxed more and simply enjoyed the outdoors.
Have a great day and enjoy your flavor of photography.
Yes, John, I agree with you that it is better to get along with others than to reject and alienate them ... well, at least most of the time it is.
I think that the reason people are angry at the author is because the reasons he gave are not really viable when you look at them from the standpoint of logic and reason. This article, according to the title, was not just about going back to film. It was about the reasons to go back to film.
That title sets us up to expect some very well thought out, logical, sound reasons why we should switch back to film instead of shooting digital. And then we read the article and we are disappointed because the "reasons" aren't well thought out at all. It's like Jason, the author, was determined to give us 5 reasons whether 5 reasons actually exist or not.
I can understand why that makes some people angry - because he didn't put the work in that is required to produce a good solid article and seems to have just quickly drummed up some ideas off the top of his head. When I see someone trying to advise me (which gives the sense that the one giving advice is qualified to do so), and then the advice is just made up stuff, and not well researched and well thought out, that is an insult to my sense of logic and reason.
But yeah you're right that people shouldn't reply with profanity. I mean, even if we are offended by the lazy sloppy writing, we should still at least show a modicum of respect to the person who wrote it, simply because he is a human being and it is good to be respectful to other humans whether they have earned it or not.
First he writes he went "back to film" and then wrote an article that reads as if he shot film for the first time.
Instead of ranting about others' opinions and praising yourself and giving advice, it would be less embarrassing if you left it at your opinion of the article.
Mirror, mirror on the wall...
Jesus Christ you've got serious issues :)
And no i didn't read you comment but the length alone tells me that all your friends and family stopped listening, didn't they ? :)
hehe
Man you've got way to much time :)
You registered a few days ago, wrote a few comments and an essay worth hundreds of words that no one asked for, got downvoted each time and all to release a bit of passive aggression?
Don't take everything so serious man and grow up this is a random clickbait page not your life :)
"No matter if you are 16 or 60 using a manually process and taking more time over things and having restrictions will make you both a better photographer both technically and artistically , learning and then understanding the manual process and craft of photography is not something people should be dismissing"
That's just like your opinion man...
Having fewer restrictions by making it easier to learn and get direct feedback for what you do is a proven way of learning...
The idea that images made by pure film photographers on film are better artistically or technically is something that many film photographers like to believe.
---
ETA Large format work probably is better technically due to the nature of LF.
Seeing that you totally missed the Big Lebowski reference I'm just gonna say that I hope that you enjoy learning to print B&W.
Ok i think i got it, you are german right?
And your english is on a level that doesn't allow you to communicate in a way that doesn't offend you all the time.
Ok so you are on the "germans are their own race" point of history?
I just want to find out why you are so bitter, and i thought its probably because of a lack of english.
Sorry for trying to be empathic.