Why is Film photography bouncing back?

Although the average quality of most LP pressings may have been low (I know this because I was listening to 15 ips master tapes every day), in my experience, at its best, the LP sounds superb. I have several CD versions of the Decca/Solti/Culshaw Ring and the first act of Siegfried sounds much better on the early 1960s LPs that I have. However, I am always disappointed in the quality when I look at the 35mm slides made with my analog Canon EOS cameras. My R6 gives much better results.

That said, I have no problems with the sound quality of the 24-bit system that I use to make and edit audio recordings today.

David

I question if film is bouncing back in any significant way. but I'm glad it's still available to those who choose this path. Yes, we currently see something of a resurgence, but its resiliency remains to be seen.

I like that digital provides me with the opportunity to (selectively) spray and pray when the situation warrants it. For example the <5% when I'm shooting an action event seeking a peak moment, or the <1% when, so lacking in ideas, I resort to shooting BIF. Just to have something to point my camera at. (This isn't intended as a slight towards those who enjoy or specialize in BIF — I have the utmost respect for your patience and skills, and I appreciate your photographs. It's just not my jam.) The format doesn't force me to be any less contemplative about my images, but it does take the sting out of experimentation. So yes, I do make more exposures using digital than I did when using film — but generally in a good way.

Unlike Timothy Leary, I remember the 60s, and returning a third of the records that I bought at Tower Records in SF because of clicks, pops, and skis.

The edges really dig in. Very damaging to the stylus. ;)

Yes quite right. I can experiment as much as I like. I can explore a subject, and not worry about how much film I have used. Certainly "free" film has been a liberation for me.

For my architectural photography I have techniques like HDR to stretch DR even further than what the sensor can record. I can correct the small leveling errors at a click of the mouse. I am limited only by time when I shoot different angles.

For travel I can correct keystoning in post. No more buildings falling over in my travel shots. Yes, I can photograph everything I want.

Digital photography really has been a liberation believe.

Yes, I remember returning four copies of a certain LP before I gave up and lived with the thin warped crackly offering Virgin records were foisting on us.

I will add I always dreaded lending LPs to friends with maybe worn needles, and some records that had been played in the record shop were sometimes damaged when I got them home.

As someone said previously this has been done to death on other forums. But as it’s all new here I’ll share my thoughts…

I was born in the age when digital photography had not been invented so my first camera and many others afterwards were film cameras. BTW let’s stop calling them analog or even analogue as that was never what they were called and I see no reason to reinvent their name now.

I am no luddite so have embraced all that digital technology, including digital photography, can offer. But that doesn’t mean I have to use just digital and relegate film to the dustbin of destiny.

There are many different reasons why one might wish to shoot with film. All of them tend to be personal reasons and so open to debate which will lead nowhere as we all perceive things differently. I can only offer my personal opinions.

I don’t shoot film on the pretext that it “slows me down” in taking the shot. I can select full manual on any of digital cameras and take as long as I like to frame a shot with the optimum exposure.

But I admit to a certain nostalgia in shooting with cameras that I once owned or even lusted after when I was younger and had less disposable income. The use of dedicated dials for shutter, aperture and ISO which Fuji and the Pana LX100 use for example are attractive to me as they emulate what I grew up with. Although I accept the software driven menus of my current digitals.

I like the alternative “look” of film versus digital for some shots and never want to enter into a debate of what’s better or what’s more “natural.” If one can appreciate the old masters then one can appreciate when clinical realism may be trounced by skilled interpretation.

I admit to a technical obsession with film cameras and have over 150 to date, many of which I have resurrected from a possible trip to land-fill. That’s part of my rejection of our throw-away society. I appreciate the complex mechanical nature of these cameras when today it seems as if anything can be done in software. I can write code but I am in awe of some of the mechanical design engineers of the past.

I accept that there are those who like the true “from start to finish” process of film photography ie compose-shoot-develop-process-print. I admit to not being one of those purists, even though I admire them. My personal reasoning is that I love to use film cameras but I believe there are others who can process my negatives better than I can and with less of a cost to the environment in the disposal of the many toxic chemicals involved. But with the resultant negative I scan them myself for best quality.

Some years ago I realised that most of the slides, negatives, and prints that I has amassed were languishing in the attic and rarely seen. It was much the same as when I had vinyl, cassettes, MiniDisc, RDat and CDs. Now all that music is on my server in lossless format and available around my house on music clients. In a similar way all my “photography” is now on the server with the huge added advantage that I can search for and view whatever I want with a few mouse clicks and print or share whatever I feel worthy.

There is of course the elephant in the room and that is cost. But I think it works both ways. My Fuji GSW690iii can be picked up for far less than a Fuji GFX100 (which isn’t anything like 6x9.) So, capable film cameras can be picked up for small change nor do they suffer the deprecation that digital does. But…and it’s a big but…the cost of film, and especially 135, has risen dramatically recently as have processing charges. Plus even the availability of 135 stock at none-ridiculous prices is a current worry.

Whilst I can get hold of film in its various formats and get it processed at not unreasonable prices I will continue to shoot film as well as digital. I know I am not alone. But these are, as I said, my own personal thoughts.

Then there's inner groove distortion.

And the bad pressings where the ghost of the music on the other side could be heard.

My musical consultant friend gave me a whole lot of other technical reasons why the LP should of remained in the technological dustbin.

Fortunately in my profession there is no nostalgia to resuscitate the slide rule.

Some good reasons and reasoning.

US pressings were always worse than what we had in Europe.

David

Thanks NCV, very kind.
As I said, these are just my personal ramblings.
It's good to have a choice.
Bit like forums I guess. 😁

Blu-Ray Audio discs are even better than ordinary CDs, but there are not many available.

Don

There is a lot of high precision, high bitrate content available from streaming services.

It may. I know for me it was definitely nostalgia. I was an avid photographer as a youth, then had to do it for a job and fell out of love with it. After pics were no longer part of my job, I started to fall back in love (particularly after a good photo walk on a trip to London). And then the urge hit: I wanted to get back to my roots with my Pentax KX, a 50mm lens and a roll of HP5. 130 or so rolls later most of my shooting is B&W film. (I develop at home but scan the negs, no room for a printing darkroom.)

I find I shoot digital a lot less, but when I do, I think my photos are better, or at least I like them better. I have more of an appreciation for what the medium can do.

What do I like? I think it's the process. To me digital is point-click-done. (I know about .RAW processing but I never was much for the darkroom either.) It's more of a means to an end. I like the process of film photography -- loading, futzing with camera controls, processing film, literally manipulating the stuff of which my photos are made with my hands. I like the challenge -- B&W helps this -- really having to think about what will make a good B&W photo. With digital you don't have to guess; take a photo, look at you know. Zzzz.

The disappointment of getting it wrong when the film is developed is never fun, but the thrill of getting it right is awesome. (Though I'd be lying if I said I didn't get the same thrill from some of the stuff I try in digital, like this.)

I thought it was the young'uns repopularizing film photography, but I was interested to learn from the Ilford surveys that the bulk of film photographers are people like me, who switched from film to digital and then went back.

For me it's less about the quality of the final image. I do think that B&W prints on matte paper are breathtaking, but I'm not printing. If I set out to take a photo with a given final product in mind, more often than not I'll shoot digital. Same reason I prefer a manual-trans car on the road and an automatic on the racetrack, it's about where your concentration lies. I think a shot like this is more practical to capture on digital, though I certainly have done it with film.

I don't know if it's the same nostalgia happening for vinyl; I'm not an audiophile, though I do like music, and while I can appreciate the sound of a record album, who wants to deal with that much of a pain in the butt? And in that way I suppose I'm like the professional photographers who have turned their back on film. Certainly, if I had to shoot photos for a living, I'd be happy to leave film behind. Digital speeds the workflow and lowers the risk factor significantly (and largely takes it out of others' hands). I work with professional photographers and can see that digital lets them get a LOT more done. (I still can't get used to it when we do one particular shot and 3 exposures later the photographer says "We got it, let's move on." In film we'd have to do three rolls!)

If I had to sum up the appeal, for me it's that digital just makes things too darn simple. This is a hobby, I want to dive into it, and for me there's more depth and interest in film. But that doesn't mean I'm done with digital. I still value my digital camera and consider it an important part of the hobby (and wish I could afford that A7C... but for that same money I can get a LOT of film!)

By the way, NCV, may I complement the tone of your message? So many pro photogs frame this as "I used to shoot film, now shoot digital, film is expensive and stupid and failure prone and I hate it and people who go back to film are idiots! Why not give up your car and walk everywhere?" Thank you for not doing that! :)

Aaron

Thanks for an interesting post. I am tying to understand the rise in popularity of film photography. I recently went to a talk and exhibition by Micheal Kenna, who still uses film for his splendid photography. I respect his and everybody else's choice. I did buy a F100 when they were dirt cheap, but I knew I was done with film photography.

I spent a lot of time in the darkroom preparing press handouts for our theatre. I enjoyed printing, especially when display or exhibition prints were being done. But much darkroom work like developing film and making enlarged contact strips was shear drudgery. I still have a mothballed darkroom upstairs under the roof with running water and heating. For me Capture One is very close to printing under the enlarger, with its excellent photo like dodging and burning tools.

I was able to dodge and burn this scan of difficult neg in C1 just as well if not better than I could do in the darkroom, without the huge waste of paper that I had when I did it wet.

The MASSES are on digital phone....and they for the most part are happy about it. But for photographers, it seems that there is always that particular camera, or setting or software photo editing feature that people are aiming for that will attain the "LOOK OF FILM"....so, I think many are just ditching the attempt at digital to look at film and going straight back to film.

I still remember how that blew me away. Been a few years. But I loved popping open the tank post-rinse (but pre-PhotoFlo) and unrolling a little bit of film and seeing that the process worked -- I still do it, I still have that nervousness (what if it didn't work??) and seeing a negative still thrills me. Every. Single. Time.

Aaron