Why is Film photography bouncing back?

The young like vinyl not because of quality but because it is retro. We all know sound quality is not perfect with vinyl. But also, image quality is not perfect with film,....and yet, is digital almost TOO perfect, thus making it look fake? Same with sound quality...too perfect with digital compared to vinyl?

So do I ....I love that first look as I pull out the film and see that wow, I have images!.... Christmas it is. Makes the entire photographic process more organic, more real. Sure, I know....I will 'scan' and then place onto my screen (digital) but at least I have forgone some of the digital to some degree by shooting film.

I feel the experience of shooting film far outweighs the same process of shooting in digital. I shot film last night on a walk where everyone else (except my wife) had digital Canons and Fuji etc... Just not the same as I saw them 'chip' away.... I went thru 20 images and I bet they had each a 100 or so. Not worth it...yes, they could have shot only 20 too but it just doesn't play out that way. I will continue to shoot film...load the film, advance the film....look at the frame counter go by....perfect! The experience counts.

AMEN. This is a pet peeve of mine, something the youngsters say (like responding to "I'm sorry" with "You're good" -- yes I know I'm good, in fact I'm fantastic, I am merely apologizing for accidentally elbowing you in the groin, and would prefer your acceptance of my apology to your judgement on my entire character which you know nothing about, stranger). Anything that isn't digital MUST be analog. I don't know for sure if this is the case; I understand analog in the audio sense as being a continuously-varying signal rather than a definitive value (0 or 1).

Granted the distribution of silver halide crystals is random, but with said molecules either being reduced to silver and left on the base (1) or not reduced and washed away by the fixer (0), does that not make film a digital medium?

Aaron

That is kind to say, thank you.

Lovely photo. And not to belabor the point -- and as someone who also viewed darkroom work as drudgery (maybe going back will change my mind) -- I'll say it's about the journey, not the destination. I took two similar photos of Grand Central Terminal in NYC, one on film and one on digital, as part of a forum discussion. I think the digital photo is technically a little better, though the composition on film is a bit stronger (relatively speaking; neither of these snapshots will set the art world on fire). But for me it's more about the process. The film photo was more of a challenge (esp. since it was shot on 100-speed film) and the process was more interesting.

Generally speaking I'd rather be out shooting with film. But, again, were I looking to make a great photo in GCT in that same vein, I might well choose digital, since it's easier to execute the final vision I have in mind.

Aaron

Yes, I think the answer is to have an interesting "process" .

I have always been interested in Architectural photography and I eventually bought a 5x4, which I loved using, and still would produce output that is superior to most digital. I enjoyed faffing around with the movements. But feeding the beast was horrendously expensive and my darkroom could not handle the format. I have put together a collection of Nikon PC lenses, ancient and modern. I enjoy the process of levelling the camera with my geared head and getting the perspective to my liking. This slower form of photography takes me back to pre digital in some ways.

I think a lot of the problem in the past was the "Digital vs Film" arguments. Some people had to defend film at all costs and others had to shove it into its grave and shovel on dirt. Being prone to a little argumentative vitriol myself, I always suggested an inferiority complex on behalf of the digitographers who felt they needed to poop all over film. People took the two mediums so personally!

Happily I don't see those much any more. I think there are a lot of photographers like me who value both their film and digital cameras.

I do still rail against some false ideas of film -- like the idea that it has to be expensive. (I wrote about this for PopPhoto... right before color print film got scarce and prices went up. Doh! Though I still maintain that for hobbyists who replace digital cameras ever 2-3 years, film can be just as affordable if not cheaper.) Or that you have to buy an expensive film camera like a Nikon F3 to take good pictures, or that the K1000 is the best mechanical film camera to buy (it isn't, the Pentax KX is). The idea, and I don't know if I'm doing it correctly, is to counter the arguments that might scare people away from trying film -- but not to paint such a rosy picture that people will get frustrated right away.

The goal of the photography industry, I have always said, is to narrow the gap between a person's skill level and the quality of results they can produce. Film opens up the gap a bit, and I think that's what makes it fun.

There are divides in film, though. Some people love automated cameras like the Nikon F4 or the Minolta Maxxum 5. Great cameras both (My M5 is the most advanced film camera I own and it cost me US$17 shipped w/ a lens) but to me that's like shooting film with a digital camera. Diff'rent strokes, I guess!

Aaron

Can is carrying a lot of weight there.

My Fujifilm FinePix S2 Pro - the first professional digital camera I owned - paid for itself in film and lab savings within a year. (Best part was I didn’t have to choose between film and beer on any given weekend). YMMV. ¯\(ツ)/¯.

Just for fun, I recently calculated the break-even point of a Leica M11 Monchrom for a discussion on DPR…

Besides digital, I shoot film because I think it is fun and I like what results I get. It is a conversation starter when shooting street portraits, at least with a TLR. The output is not better or worse than digital, it is something different, simple really.

It is not more expensive than many other hobbies, like soccer or hockey. Or going to the movies or a restaurant. I mean, you can shoot and home develop 2 rolls of 120 HP5 for a movie (+popcorn). Movie will be over in 1½ hours - not expensive in my world.

If there is one thing I will not miss from DReview, it is the self centered film haters who always trolled the film articles to tell others what is best for them.

Just my subjective opinion.

That's a US$9200 camera... 307 rolls... so you're talking $30 per roll for film, developing and processing? I hope that film comes in solid gold canisters! g

Even at those prices, 307 rolls at a roll per week (what I budget for, but in reality I'm closer to 35 rolls/year) makes that six years' worth of film. Will the M11 be obsolete in 6 years? Dunno.

My actual (not imagined) costs for B&W are just under $6 per roll (film, developing and scanning), and that's 25-28 frames of HP5 developed with D-76 in a single-reel tank, meaning the high end. I also use Kentmere 100, a two-reel tank and HC-110, so my average is probably closer to $5, but film has gone up a bit since I bought my last hundred-footers. Occasionally I buy pre-packaged film so that goes as high as $8. So let's go high and say $7, and put me at 52 rolls/year.

Right now a Z7 with a kit lens is on sale for $3,200. That's 457 rolls of film, enough for over eight and a half years of B&W film, processing and scanning. I would imagine that the typical avid digital photographer is going to replace his or her kit more often than 8 years. (My A6000 is getting up there and while I intend to keep it forever, stuff is starting to fall off.) So I would say I can make a reasonable argument that film photography is cheaper than digital. Even if one insisted on spending $30 per roll, and did a roll a week, that's still two years worth of film. Once you factor in the costs of digital lenses nowadays -- I think even at those outrageous film/developing prices, 35mm film can be cheaper than digital, even with hobby-grade kit.

The M11 Monochrome would keep me in film for 25 years. That's almost as long as I've been in the photography hobby! And if we use figures closer to what I'm actually shooting, the cost of the M11 would buy 40 years' worth of film. Statistically, that one camera is literally more expensive than shooting film for the rest of my life!

You take the M11 Monochrome. I'll stick with film, thanks! :)

Aaron

To me, there is no answer. Certainly, no one answer. As someone stated, it is an alternate process to what they know as native to their time. Everyone has always experimented with the "different". Unfortunately, for those like me, that grew up in the film-age, what remains in film choice is so deplorable from what we had to choose from, it's not worth my time. The quality, quantity and top choices for film have long gone and too few remain to attract me to the extra time and mess of home-processing. Likewise, more and more labs are closing and therefore choices for processing are making it less attractive, to me, as well.

That’s the off-the-cuff figure I got from multiple sources for 35mm film and processing. I have a local friend who shoots a “Texas Leica” (120 film) who exclaims there goes another two dollars every time he trips the shutter. This is in line with the costs I’m seeing now. Tri-X ($10/roll if purchased 5 rolls at a time) and $23 for processing by a local lab. E-36 film and processing even higher. (Can’t count that against a Monochrom though.) Plus more if they do the scanning. I don’t question that it could be done for less, particularly if I was interested in doing my own developing. I’m not. Ever again.

I’d use that more expensive film at a significantly higher rate than you do too - unless I was only shooting film part of the time. I think your weekly frame count is on the low side for most hobbyists, but I can’t prove that.

I do know that I took somewhere in the vicinity of 250 images today - touring buildings that usually aren’t open to the public. I did the same shot about 175 yesterday. (Different buildings.) Those were all considered shots. No bursts. When I was shooting film an average weekend was probably 2-3 rolls. More if I was shooting an event. My shots then were safer though. I was less willing to experiment.

FWIW, I generally keep my cameras much longer than you suggest. And no, I didn’t run out and get an M11. I was just curious about where the hypothetical break-even point would be. For me the theoretical pay-off happens sometime between years one and two. (Though to be honest, I probably wouldn't hit the magic number that quickly with a Monochrom — which wouldn't be the first M camera I hypothetically purchased anyhow.)

I’m happy you find economy and satisfaction in shooting film. The numbers don’t work out for me. Neither of us is doing it wrong. It’s all good.

This was a thought exercise considering the relative costs of ownership today had I kept my Leica M6, but was considering replacing it with a new M11. I chose the Monochrom because this came about during the usual article replies about the cost of that camera being unrealistic for hobbyists. It's admittedly a torture test for the concept. An extreme example which, surprisingly, pays off more quickly than I expected. If I was trying to make a case for the economy of digital relative to film I would do so using a much less expensive camera. I could cherry-pick a used camera, but let's dance with the one I brung to the party instead:

Fuji X100V @ US$1399 divided by $30 = 47 rolls (x36) = 1692 images.

So, a little more than a month before the Fuji pays off relative to using an M6…for me. That's not considering the original cost of the M6 of course — I'm assuming that was amortized long ago. I’m also not recovering any costs for scanning, time or equipment, in this example.

or, to use your numbers…

$1399/$8 = 175 rolls (x27) = 4,725 images. Divided by 52 we get 91 images a week.

I leave it to each reader to consider this number relative to their own photography practice.

I never said film couldn't be less expensive, I said can was carrying a lot of weight.

Not for a great reason, I would guess...

But many reasons we do things are not technical or practical. One reason for doing film may be that it does involve craftmanship. Wetroom prints will always have some variation.

I would also consider that shooting film and doing darkroom work may be very different from shooting film to scan and process in the digital light room.

Another reason may be that we may have film era gear, that we may feel needs some exercise.

And now this! Pentax are going to release a new film camera-

I still have my first camera a well used and well traveled Pentax Spotmatic, that still works as well as it did, back in 1974. Every so often I get the urge to run a film through it, but I just cant be bothered with the hassle of un-mothballing the darkroom to develop the film.

Totally off topic, I bought out of curiosity and I know I will be able to sell it on for a profit, an old Schneider PC 35mm Curtagon MC shift lens, unused in its box. This was the last version of this lens and dates from the early nineties. I bought it as a curiosity as the lens shift mechanism is a bit strange. The reviews say barrel distortion is a problem. I took some test shots, and boy does this lens have a certain character and in Capture 1 I removed the distortion and chromatic aberrations, I think this lens is going to get a lot of use.

I can see a lot of fun is to be had with old lenses adapted to our modern mirrorless cameras, some of them have an interesting rendering. If you are suffering from nostalgia, old lenses rather than film is a more interesting voyage.

I don’t think that film photography is “bouncing back” per se. There certainly is a current, on-trend, retro movement but like many “retro” movements, I believe that it will recede again back to its base of enthusiasts. Then some time will pass and it will again be a “thing” for a bit before receding again and the cycle will continue.

Ha ha ha. Yet the number of times I've had to head out on site, with nothing more than a pen and paper, stringline, level, tape measure and a piece of chalk, to get some sort of acceptable result which ends up bearing very little resemblance to what the drawings say. Couldn't be too much worse. Perhaps start with learning to read a tape measure, & shooting a level

Not only that – in the composition one shoulder is lower than the other dash - if slavishingly following "technicalities" it is no good.

This whole question is like asking why anyone would use oil paints over watercolours, or vice versa. They’re different, though related mediums, and they speak to people in different ways. The processes are different. It’s not a nostalgia thing (most of those picking up film now are brand new to it) it’s just a rediscovery of a different form of expression, the end.