These days, there aren't many people that are still shooting with film. For some people who used to shoot professionally with film, the idea of going back is simply unbearable — the chemicals, missed shots, and the hassle to finally produce an image that takes all but a simple click on a digital camera. Have we gotten to a point where film is finally dead?
In his latest video, Matt Granger discusses his thoughts on film photography. In order to illustrate his points more effectively, Granger also performs an extensive shootout, comparing several digital cameras along with a film camera. Shooting with nothing but Leica M series cameras, Granger levels the playing field in order to see if 35mm film offers anything significant over its digital counterparts
For many people, the most compelling argument is the cost of entry. Buying a film camera and lens costs significantly less than most "equivalent" digital cameras. For less than $100, you can purchase a film camera and lens here in the UK. The cost of individual film rolls are not much either, and this is what many people use as a way to justify the system.
Granger does discuss the cost of being a professional film photographer. Although the entry costs may be lower in comparison, long-term running costs could catch up pretty quickly. In my own experience, other points about aesthetics and the process could be used to discuss why film is still relevant; however, for many people in the industry, film might truly be dead.
Do you agree or do you think film is making a comeback?
Usman Dawood asked,
"Have we gotten to a point where film is finally dead?"
That depends upon how one defines the term "dead".
I work in a photo lab, we do 100s of films a day, it's not dead at all.
I think the main problem is the rising film/developing cost. There has been a substantial increase in the last year or so. Film photography certainly could carve out a nice niche but if the prices keep rising it just gets really unattractive sadly. Its especially problematic because it's a high barrier of entry for many young people.
Hey look! Another article and/ or video about film being dead! Original idea! What next? A 'I switched to ______' article/ video? Or, how about a 'DSLR's are dead' article/ video. Have not seen one of those in a couple of days.
The energy that some people spend justifying any technology is inverse proportional to the amount of users.
I shoot film too.
Paragraphs are a useful tool for readability. Punctuation is important too. Multiple dots are confusing.
Answer to title's clickbaity question : No.
Look at Platon's work - film.
Leica's MP is on backorder almost permanently.
Wrong question.
The answer to your qeary is....no...nay...nah...uh uh...nyet...mai...nein...meiyou....etc..etc.
I'm using too much of it for that to happen. Oh, and so are many of you.
I recently refurbished three ot my old film cameras -- a Yashica Mat 6x6 from the 1960s, a Miranda Sensorex from the 1970's and the workhorse Nikon F4 from the 1980's. With their great age, just as I have, they have become somewhat balky, but I have made some wonderful images with them. The most important reason to go back to film, at least once it a while, it makes you think about every click of the shutter. As Ansel Adams taught, every piece of film is precious and you have to think about the image before you use that film. In my case, living on a remote island, I have to send my film to a processor several hundred miles away. She does brilliant work -- but with the mails and her pretty full book, it takes about three weeks before I know whether the images are what I hoped for when I clicked the shutters. It makes you work harder before that click -- but the reward is that much greater.
Large format is simply incredible.
I have to concur with Sam David. Shooting film makes me slow down, visualize the image, and anticipate the results. Shooting black & white film again has taken me back to my roots in 35mm photography, including developing my own negatives just like I did in the 1970’s. Now, instead of spending days in the darkroom, I can scan the negatives and use software to process my images. Still waiting on replacement light seals for my vintage OM-1 and OM-4T to complete my personal project- shooting a roll of film thru each of my vintage cameras...
It's dead for people who have really fast turnarounds, thats about it...
I have returned From digital photography to using film photography!, I find that the resulting photographs are much more organic and unique in comparison to digital pictures which are too perfect and look artificial, especially the skin tones. I think that the new generations of people who are used to look at digital pictures develop a sensitivity and a like for these digital photographs. The big problem for film photography is the ability to show all of the nuances of the hues produced by a well developed photograph to be viewed directly by the human eye without having to go through the optics of a scanned (therefore digitized) print to be showed in a digital album. When one looks at film photograph it is through the optic of a digital screen and therefore not a true analogue picture. It is like learning about master painters through the optic of a digital screen and not seeing the real painting!. My wedding pictures in the 1990 were taken with a film camera and the resulting photographs were quite amazing and cannot be duplicated with photoshopped digital pictures. In conclusion when one makes a comparison between a digital and Film print, the comparison should be made by looking at the print and not looking at a digital representation of a film print viewed with a screen. David
Thank you. Exactly whi I never did give up on film. Most all my serious work is in film. You are very correct about digitizing them. Yes, I also digitize them, but the true and organic,as you say, image is still retained via the slide/negative.
I have at least one example of every member of the Nikon professional F-series (except the F6, why spend a lot of money on one when I have an F5?) as well as a Nikon FM2, FE2 and Nikkormat FT2). My FTN's date from the late1960's and apart from 1 CLA, have never been in the shop and they still perform perfectly with the exception of the meter. I use an external incident or spot meter most of the time anyway so I really cannot justify the $150 cost to get the CdS cells replaced and the circuity modified to take newer batteries. All 31 of my Nikkors are non-AI/AI/AIS, again some dating to the 60's though most are from the 80's and a few from the 90's and they still produce superb images, including with my D500, D750 and D850. Top quality glass timeless and mechanically all of them are still perfect. Only a couple have every had to go to the shop to have some oil removed from the aperture blades. As yourself, how many of today's plastic, electronic lenses will still be around and used 50 years from now? And though I am 63, I too will doubt I will be around in 50 years but if I were I would probably still using my current Nikkors.
I would not say that film is dead, maybe not preferred where quick turnaround is desired. Between SLR’s and DSLR’s, both can exhibit dust on the film or sensor. The DSLR is more functionally obsolescent, the electronics age and it probably won’t last as long as a good fil camera. A DSLR will probably cost more to repair or replace than a film SLR.
I think film medium format will most likely be alive for a very long time, the digital medium format cameras are very expensive.
I’m late to this party, but I came across this article and decided to add my thoughts to the fold.
So I’m in my 40’s. I started doing indie avant-garde films in the 90’s into the 00’s (some on 8mm celluloid that I learned to shoot on and splice in the 80’s).
When I was young in the 80s and 90s, Spielberg was my inspiration. I knew about and adored the works of Fellini, Renoir, Demille, and Kurosawa at the time. But I wanted to do imaginative sci-fi/wonderment filled flicks.
Fast forward 25 years and I was blessed to work alongside Union members on films & shows, made my own series of documentaries and docuseries, and even worked on 2 full length indies. I’ve filmed all over the globe from Asia, South America, Europe, and all over the States from East to West. I even have a steady career managing Media and A/V at a big company.
Here’s the kicker though, I’m not doing what I originally intended - become a big budget director. Why? Because there’s TOO MUCH COMPETITION. And when I say TOO MUCH, I mean it.
Every kid with a DSLR and a YouTube or VIMEO account is a filmmaker. And now with cheaper Red Cameras on the market as well as BMPCC 4K, GH5/GH5S, and the A7SII & A7SIII (or even an iPhone 11 or 12), anyone can make a high quality 4K or 4K RAW footage film and distribute it themselves.
And while I will always be the first to encourage anyone (especially the younger generation) to follow their dreams and study the craft, it’s bound to cause an implosion. Too many options splits viewership and attention.
Name one original Blockbuster IP (not Adult Drama) outside of Stranger Things (which itself is just a ripoff/combined elements and shots from 80s films) that has really taken the Entertainment industry by storm? Not many if any. Hollywood is creatively bankrupt because they are hiring lazy writers and inexperienced filmmakers who don’t get the proper guidance.
Too much reliance on Green Screen (and now high resolution LCD sets) and not enough innovation. It’s just a factory in which they point to line staff, ask a worker if they know how to operate machinery, and put them on it to produce what they tell them and how they tell them.
There are so many copies of the same fast edit, shaky cam, lowered shutter angle action, adventure, suspense/horror, sci fi flick on any streaming platform or even the at the cinemas, that people are numb to them.
I switched my goals because I didn’t want to waste time or risk my future (or my family’s future) on a chance that gets slimmer with each passing day with all these new tools and outlets. Even studios are worried because too much is happening too fast.
My advice now would be to create for yourself and if the opportunity comes to you, take it - but stick true to who YOU are. Don’t let Hollywood turn you into a Michael Bay or JJ Abrahams. And study the old masters who let their shots simmer and cook instead of cutting every 2-3 seconds. Films are still art, not snacks. BE a filmmaker and not a puppet.
I hope I don’t sound like an old foggie.
Nope, you sound like someone with a lot of experience.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Film is HARDLY dead. For me at least, it has never "left", I still shoot A LOT of it, especially in Medium Format. My guess is the majority of the people who make the statement that film is dead are people I refer to as "Generation D (digital)" who have never shot it and are just parroting what they hear from other Gen D people like them with similar lack of experience with the medium. "Film is so OLD school!". Digital's plasticky images will NEVER replace the charm and character of an image taken on film nor will they replace the range of blacks to grays to whites that B&W film printed on top quality paper like Oriental Seagull (all I use today) can produce.
Film is for serious photographers, especially if they shoot medium or large format. In an age where there is no physical cost (unless you want to amortize the cost of your gear down to each digital image, good luck with that) to shooting, the school of "spray and pray" is alive and well. I just have to laugh at the people who shoot even static subjects on Ch and then complain about the number of images they have to sift through to find a good one. Nothing SCREAMS amateur hack to me louder than that. And don't get me started on the Gen D people who are mortified at the thought of seeing film grain in an image. "Why is there noise in that picture?"
People who shoot film realize that there actually IS a physical cost associated with pressing the shutter button and are more likely to slow down and take their time, visualize the shot and compose carefully before they take a shot and in the end, probably end up with a lot more excellent images.