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
Again: germans are not a race.
We are talking about a language, and it DOES matter because you seem to have some difficulties understanding english. It's clear when you talked to the other guy and it also seems to be the case when you get offended by what i said.
Its natural on the internet that you at some point ask yourself if its probably a language barrier.
The way you reacted when i asked you clearly shows that you have some problems understanding english, which is ok, but your childish answers don't make any sense.
no more indoor plumbing - let's go back to using wells or drawing from a stream
no more supermarkets - you want chicken for dinner, get out the axw
Film! As a Proff Fashion Photographer working for mail order catalogues and mags for 30+ years i burned thru thousands of them. Nowadays i have a real hard time finding someone or a lab that would devellop it, and thats in a major big city here in Europe. As Robin here states correctly it is the same in the US. Question is what are you going to do with the result of a film shooting or that great shot. No client will except it directly as a print so you will have to digitalise it by a drumscan anyway. They print it only after they scanned it digitally as there are no chemical processus left as even the environment aspect of that prohibits it most anywhere nowadays. All things adding additional cost. Talking about cost, i can give you a quote from research i did from 2 days ago here in Europe.A B/W Ilford film €12,90 / develllopment 1 week duration!! €18,00 / scan of the negs and digital contact sheet €7,50 / Note: and thats not even from a Proff Lab wich are virtually all out of business. So take into account than the freshness of the used chemicals if they want to make a buck at all in wherever you send it. Add the 3-4 car rides to the lab, the parking tickets you, ll catch and cost of gas... Come on man, what are we discussing here. No Retouching in Photoshop ( unless you want to do it with a brush on the print as in the old days) and print just yet on the horizon even.
So it, s nice to talk about the old analogue days romantically , but as always the old days are gone! Even with digital where do our shots out of that 40plus megasize sensor wind up... magazines rapidly declining, and budgets that hardly can buy you pizza. Well.. On social media or a website with a max 29-30 mb file Better on Instagram with some 19 y/o next in line promoting her Onlyfans page and pics of her T&A taken with an Iphone12. Photography is not dead but the market for us Proff Photographers almost completely is.
Jason that was a great article. Film does slow you down and make you think more of your approach to a subject. Judging the lighting, the background, colour or tone. Making you more involved with what you are photographing. For those who previously shot film, they may not be a agree with some of your five points but its fine to disagree. We all have our opinion and that's how we learn and grow as individuals. Developing your film and printing your negatives is even more rewarding and still affordable to do it yourself. Its an amazing experience hand processing film and so is printing.
From reading the comments below i felt I should also comment, so here goes
Film and digital are different in most respects, they not the same, yes they both produce a visual image but in completely none related methods. The sole purpose of film is to create a negative in order to produce a print. You don't have to scan the negative but project it onto you emulsified substrate, then process the substrate to get the final positive image. Digital is all bits and bites of computer code, without a computer, there is no image. That being said, You can process the binary code via a computer and software to tweak and style the image to what is your creative measure. You can print it via a ink jet or giclee printer or even on digital RC photo paper, the best final would be a light jet print. To make a hand printed silver gelatin print fro a digital file, you have to produce a digital negative that you then can project onto an emulsified substrate, then process the substrate to produce the final positive image. you can make amazing palladium or platinum prints with this method if your negative is 5x7 or larger and contact print. Expensive for sure but the market value is just as high for each each print. The same holds true with hand printed silver gelatin prints , they are also one of a kind and have a healthy market value as limited editions.
I also worked as a catalogue product photographer used 35mm,120mm, 4x5, 8x10 even 11x14 for some clients. the large format was all Kodak Ektachrome100 as it was a very neutral colour transparency E6 process film. those were the days and the only way to produce the work for print was shooting expensive E6 sheet film. Digital changed all that. Simplified the process, you now had a digital back on the back of the camera, no more film holders. We didn't have DSLRs in the early 90's but Scan backs on our 4X5 Sinar view camera rear standard. It was about 4MP but because it scanned like a copier does, the colour, detail and the image size was very good. The bad side, you couldn't use it on a moving subject only a static ones basically products.
Digital has come along way in the last 30 years. DSLR in studio sure but there is also Sinar P3 with a 30/45 digital back would be better as all the perspective corrections can be done in camera not in post. It is also colour neutral so colour matching is seamless. it saves the client time and money and frees your time to work on other jobs rather than hours in editing in post. Cambo also makes high end large format digital cameras. Phase one, Leaf are the more popular brands.
Has anyone scanned a 120mm slide or negative? say a 6X7cm at say 3000dpi? well the file size if scanned at 24bit true colour will be 1406.163MB! a little larger than a 45mp dslr raw file, actually A LOT bigger, do the math. that is only one negative or slide, negatives and slide hold way more detail. limited by computer hardware. Files that big need loads of resources to execute and money invested in state of the art tech.
Here are some questions....
in 50 years how will you digital assets hold up? Negatives will be around, we have proof of that but how are the images you captured 20 years ago holding up? tech changes rapidly, today you have to constantly update your back ups, by more cloud space and drives. here is a tip, print you best and safely store them. A physical copy can always be used even in the next 50 years.
How is the family photo album doing? Our family history is in cell phones and hard drives. images are to be printed not displayed on screens. Print your family and friends memories, you will have them with you later in your life and in theirs.
End of the day, use what works for you, there is no right and wrong. Try new methods to produce images, its limitless. Print your legacy and share what you produce. :)
For me film is still King of the photography/imaging castle. Hey but that's just me :)
I started with film, but over the course of 15 years using it, my work never improved very much.
As soon as I started shooting digital, my work improved rapidly, and continues to improve steadily due to autofocus advancements and lens innovations.
Some people may improve when there's pressure to get it right the first time. I happen to be the opposite - I improve the most when I'm free to make a lot of mistakes and learn from them.
I shoot my digital like I shot film from 1968-2008, carefully and planned. I don't fill my memory card with stuff I'll just delete. I keep editing to a minimum because I'm careful. I prefer to not crop an image. After I stopped shooting weddings, in 1994 I stopped using the 6x6 cameras. I miss those sometimes, but not much.