The F-Stop wrote:
I'll shoot at least 4 or 5 rolls at every shoot I've done.

Love film!

+1

Mark Reeder Photography wrote:
Working in digital yes, it's works, it's fast, it's convenient and works great for when you make a living shooting. Headshots, commercial, weddings, fashion, whatever. It's hard to compete these days if you're not shooting digital. But for more creative work or  "art" work:  why not shoot film? No i don't mean that headshots or commercial work, etc, isn't or can't be creative. I'm just talking about those times where speed isn't essential. Those times where you can take a breath and just go make something cool. Who's got some film shots they want to share? I don't care if it's art, commercial, or whatever. Let's see some film.

All my landscapes are done with pushed black and white film, see that as more creative and more of an art than digital.

www.andrewthomasevans.me <- updating soon with new work as soon as I can find time.

Trying to find someone to help with large format screen printing for prints.









Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Peter House wrote:
Honestly, I just prefer digital. I find people hang on to this notion that film is somehow more "artistic". As if shooting film adds to your credibility. You can slow down with digital as well and use a small memory card if you feel you need the handicap to "stimulate" your creativity.

"You can slow down with digital as well and use a small memory card if you feel you need the handicap to "stimulate" your creativity"

It's not the same thing at all. It's not just speed, it's the whole unique and tangible method of creating an image. It's like magic and real at the same time. Digital just doesn't do that. It's surprising to see so many "meh, film, who cares..." kind of responses.

Mark Reeder Photography wrote:
"You can slow down with digital as well and use a small memory card if you feel you need the handicap to "stimulate" your creativity"

It's not the same thing at all. It's not just speed, it's the whole unique and tangible method of creating an image. It's like magic and real at the same time. Digital just doesn't do that. It's surprising to see so many "meh, film, who cares..." kind of responses.

Well I would totally love to shoot film as I love what it does in the shadows and how it does with colors. Problem is the workflow and clients - just wouldn't be worth the extra effort and time with the clients I have and where I'm going with business.

Maybe there are some higher end clients out there who want family portraits shot on 4x5, but that's about the only application I can see for film. Or the guy walking around shooting instant film at the block party I went to.

So again, it's not that none of us really don't like it, it's just that film doesn't serve a need that clients have.



Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Raoul Isidro Images wrote:
It is like an old software were support has dwindled to a trickle.

Photography is willing, but the supply is weak.

Reminds me of my ribbon supply for my Olivetti Lettera 32.

.

I used to be an Olivetti repairman back when I had to give up shooting film because I lost the ability to see well enough to focus. It was a job shooting film, nothing magic about it. Times change, no more typewriters anymore either.

Modern autofocus gave me the ability to shoot again. No desire to shoot film although mechanical Nikons do have a really nice feel in  my hands.

Randy Henderson Images wrote:
Then off to the darkroom.  When running the prints through the bath, I hated tongs - they make marks in the prints - and I hated rubber gloves, so like a lot of others, I dipped my hands in the baths.  I ended up with dark yellow half-moons on my fingernails which someday will probably give me finger cancer or something.

I've printed probably hundreds of photos and never gotten marks on them front tongs so.

AJScalzitti wrote:
There is absolutly no reason you can't shoot digital the same way you shoot film.  I have done plenty of shoots where I have shot no more than 2 "rolls" when shooting digital.  Spray and pray is for hacks and just because you can do it doesn't mean you should.

Hmmm....

Looking through the viewfinder of my Pentax 6x7, I disagree with you.

Looking at the ground glass of a 4x5 view camera, I disagree with you.

What you see when you are in "the zone" is important. A great viewfinder is very valuable, especially for those of us who are visually impaired (I am very much so).

The visual connection I get through the Pentax is very different in ways I prefer to the view through any digital camera I can afford or would consider buying. I love Live View more than most viewfinders, they are crappy when compared to the ones that were made when manual focus was the only option.

Even a Nikon F3HP totally kicks butt over nearly anything available today in this simple but important feature.

I love both media, this is my main knock on digital. Give me a better viewfinder and I will have little to complain about.

OK, film images. There are some other 18+ images in my port that were shot on film.

Michael DBA Expressions wrote:
I choose not to shoot film if I can help it because it is more expensive, involves a bunch of nasty chemicals, is potentially hazardous to the environment as well as the practitioner, and does not produce images that are in any way superior (just different).

Folks who want to shoot film are welcome to do so. I'll pass, thank you. Been there, done that, don't wanna do it again.

Oh, come on now.  If you want to talk about environmental harm, let's talk about NiCad and Lithium batteries and designed obsolescence that has DSLRs and printers chucked in the dump every other year for an upgrade.  I shoot both film and digital, and I don't advocate either as being "superior," but the environmental hazard argument for digital is bunk.

Michael DBA Expressions wrote:
potentially hazardous to the environment as well as the practitioner

With the exception of used fixer (which extracts silver then get recycled), none of the chemicals are harmful to the environment. At all. They're only hazardous to people if you drink them or get them in open wounds, or dip your hands in them on a daily basis for years.

Mark Reeder Photography wrote:
Working in digital yes, it's works, it's fast, it's convenient and works great for when you make a living shooting. Headshots, commercial, weddings, fashion, whatever. It's hard to compete these days if you're not shooting digital. But for more creative work or  "art" work:  why not shoot film? No i don't mean that headshots or commercial work, etc, isn't or can't be creative. I'm just talking about those times where speed isn't essential. Those times where you can take a breath and just go make something cool. Who's got some film shots they want to share? I don't care if it's art, commercial, or whatever. Let's see some film.

OP: I am going to play devils advocate for you for a moment to answer your question.

1. Just because we as photographers may shoot film, does not always mean that it is art. Art is defined as any form of creation technically no matter the medium.

2. I understand your thought behind it being more "creative/artistic" to shoot film in a process related orientation, but again, it is just a different way of making an image. Yes, there is some nostalgia behind the process of doing something by hand in today's modern "have it now" world, but still again the process does not define it as art or being creative. There are thousands of folks out there who have shot film for both artistic and non-artistic means.

That being said though, as much as I personally love shooting film still, I am going to agree with a couple of the points mentioned that you can slow down with any medium no matter if it is film or digital. You can slow down with other artistic mediums that are labeled as "art" also. Speed has nothing to do with the medium, and it has everything to do with the artist. Hence forth if you associate a slower process as making art in your definition, you can do it no matter the medium that you use.

Also, there are processes that most digital photographers do not always realize possible. What you can do in the old film days simply had a look based on the type of film that you were using. Now days, it is very easy to replicate most of the old films out there with a little bit of elbow grease in post with digital images. Is it the same? The truth be told, no one outside of the individual that creates the image, and perhaps a few hard core purists out there will know the difference sadly. Most people look at images online, in museums, or in print for less than 30 seconds psychologically. Most often it is even going to be quicker with the way that everyone's mind is conditioned with the image saturation craze of social media.

So, in reality, by technical standards, yes the process will in the essence of time that you spend on physically creating an image with film vs. time spent on creating an image with digital (with no manipulations on either the film or digital) be longer just as a process. However, one could argue that the process for digital could be just as long if not longer sometimes when taking an image into post. That is technically creating something by hand in a sense too if you look at it from a different perspective. Back in the day with film, machines were used to print, and physical equipment was used to hand develop..etc.. Today, we still use machines to develop and print our images. They just look differently.

Another argument that you will often see is the quality difference between film and digital. Digital has technically never been able to replicate what film does "exactly". Why, because it is a different medium. Aside from those that are classically trained, 99.9% of people out there can not see the difference, and are not going to care what you shot with as long as they can somehow subject their own views onto the image, and relate to it by some means. The funny part is that some of the photographers that are experienced with film can pull out the film camera, and there will be a whole line up of folks that want to shoot with them all of a sudden that have either never experienced film before, or that put some form of worth/stock into the fact that they are willing to invest so much time and resources into making an image in an old process like that.

In reality though, it all comes down to a different look, and different tools. You can create "art" with any form of medium even outside of photography. However, being creative in general, or even creating good art are skills that are not something reliant on any particular medium. Those come with defining solid concepts and having the skills to execute them no matter how you choose to portray them. A good example of that is Barrett's book titled "Making art", which covers fundamentals of composition, psychology of art..etc. There are base skills to be "creative" that translate across many different mediums out there that people often classify as "art". Heck, I went to PS1 (a more contemporary extension of MOMA) last year, and someone cut a Barbie doll in half, super glued it to the floor, and called it "art". Just because a lot of time was not invested, does not always mean that it can not be creative or be called art.

Good art should first and foremost raise questions that are sought to be answered. The medium should then be chosen afterwards to best convey the concept. Good luck!

Mark Reeder Photography wrote:
"You can slow down with digital as well and use a small memory card

My primary memory card is an old 512mb
It's usually more than sufficient.

Of course more often than not I'm shooting Polaroid so the old digital is kind of an afterthought on a lot of days.

Neil Peters Fotografie wrote:
oh my
just so you know, Cosmopolitan magazine still uses film, for good reason
digital is still not up to par in color depth with film
and the visual depth is still not there
if you have never actually seen top notch film prints
it's very understandable  this makes no sense to you

in Tucson, Arizona/ is the Center for Creative Photography
inside the university of arizona
it is the finest collection of photographs in the world
(the Louve in Paris is the other)
from all the old masters and new,
who have donated their entire collections and life's work to the museum
it is the photography Hall of Fame
and it's free....
you can look up close and personal at the greatest creations ever made on paper
people have been flying to the CCP for decades,
from all over the world
just to look and learn and listen
the lecture series there is unrivaled ....

to see the finest film images and digital images side by side is breath-taking to say the least ....

you can easily see where film images are far superior
and you can see the obvious advantages and beauty of digital

but to compare the two against each other is simply lack of understanding
it would be like comparing different types of (visual) music
and trying to pick a winner ... stop trying to pick a winner....
you totally miss the point

in a poetic justice, you might say what they have in common
is looking through the exact same lens, and getting different results
like giving the same guitar to Segovia or Santana ...
but saying one is better than the other
is not even subjective, or objective, just different.

+1

Mark Reeder Photography wrote:
Working in digital yes, it's works, it's fast, it's convenient and works great for when you make a living shooting. Headshots, commercial, weddings, fashion, whatever. It's hard to compete these days if you're not shooting digital. But for more creative work or  "art" work:  why not shoot film? No i don't mean that headshots or commercial work, etc, isn't or can't be creative. I'm just talking about those times where speed isn't essential. Those times where you can take a breath and just go make something cool. Who's got some film shots they want to share? I don't care if it's art, commercial, or whatever. Let's see some film.

$$$$=TIME=$$$$

It just don't add up

Images by MR wrote:
Whats film?

It's that stuff digital photographers are always trying to emulate.

mophotoart wrote:
are you all going to go out and buy a vcr because it is better than blu ray and has some intrinsic quality?

Film doesn't have much on digital, but can still give greater dynamic range, exposure latitude and resolution.

Tony-S wrote:

Film doesn't have much on digital, but can still give greater dynamic range, exposure latitude and resolution.

Not so much unless you are talking large format film. Camers like my Nikon D800 surpass the best scans from my Rollie and Hasselblad negs in both detail and tonal range. My 8x10 negs still kick it to the curb in both categories and adds the one thing I miss abut film..Tilts and swings. I also like the very shallow depth of field both the larger format and those tilts can give me. To answer the original question of why not shoot film...Just to mush $$ and the 8x10 rig is just to cumbersome at my age. I carried it for a couple years in my mid 20's and it kicked my ass dragging it around out in nature even back then. Any thing less is, well less. Good MF film cameras are certainly on a par with my current digital but not better..just different. And yes those caustic chemicals were a pain for both myself and the environment. I did have darkrooms with proper disposal systems (Not just down the drain) and that is an expensive monthly service I'm betting few analogue shooters use today. The tools are important but most important are the results they help you achieve. Digital is right for me. Use what ever is right for you.

Mark Reeder Photography wrote:

Well you know, I respect those who actually made a career shooting film. Shooting professionally after digital came on the scene, well that's just easy by comparison. In ten years pros will be using iphones to make a living.

Won't be 10 years!  First quarter 2014, I understand Chicago Sun Times laid off all their photo-journalists; advised them they could re-apply, however, they would be expected to use iphones, shooting much more hi-def digital, and transmitting immediately rather than having a production link sending the feed....

mophotoart wrote:
you are digitizing the film with a scanner....end of argument?

Only if you assume the web is the primary place one displays their imagery.  Many of my images never touch a scanner.  They go from camera to development to printing to framing to hanging.

mophotoart wrote:
agree with all the comments...just an opinion...film is not going to survive except for the artistic few that feel they get something special and creative from it...as that group diminishes, so goes film...economics...it is like the vinyl vrs cd argument...people still claim there is a difference...vinyl is making a comeback...I think a fad....marketing....are you all going to go out and buy a vcr because it is better than blu ray and has some intrinsic quality?

Did you know that there are some movies still being shot on film? Check out the Kodak website. Those movies shot on film will probably come out in Blue Ray.

Mark Reeder Photography wrote:
Working in digital yes, it's works, it's fast, it's convenient and works great for when you make a living shooting. Headshots, commercial, weddings, fashion, whatever. It's hard to compete these days if you're not shooting digital. But for more creative work or  "art" work:  why not shoot film? No i don't mean that headshots or commercial work, etc, isn't or can't be creative. I'm just talking about those times where speed isn't essential. Those times where you can take a breath and just go make something cool. Who's got some film shots they want to share? I don't care if it's art, commercial, or whatever. Let's see some film.

Sure, come over to my house and I'll show you some film stuff.

See, that's the irony of your post. You want to see film stuff, but you want to see it digitally, right?

dave phoenix wrote:
Sure, come over to my house and I'll show you some film stuff.

See, that's the irony of your post. You want to see film stuff, but you want to see it digitally, right?

Hey if I was in Arizona I would, and I bet it would look better than a digital print.

And yes I get your point.

mophotoart wrote:
yes, aware of that...but...it is over...get over it...loved film, darkroom, not any more...and movies will not be using film....I will argue that point.....again...economics, not art....sad but true...Mo

Seems like the one that needs to "get over it" is you. Film is still alive because of it's superiority to digital not because of nostalgia.

me voy wrote:

Seems like the one that needs to "get over it" is you. Film is still alive because of it's superiority to digital not because of nostalgia.

+1

me voy wrote:
Seems like the one that needs to "get over it" is you. Film is still alive because of it's superiority to digital not because of nostalgia.

That's just a goofy thing to say.

Do you have a film camera that produces results superior to this?
http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/h … d-50c.aspx

Superior in what way, exactly?

Mark Reeder Photography wrote:
If there was no real right and wrong to things...well then, I don't even know what to say about that. This is close to soap box right here...

Some people find it very easy: their way is the right way, and any way they don't personally like is wrong.

Fortunately, most people don't see the world in solely black or white; they see with shades of gray.

I don't have much desire to shoot with film. After 10+ years of living in a darkroom, I no longer have the attraction to it that I once did. Additionally, for what and how I shoot, film absolutely isn't better. Different, yes. Better, no.

I do have two film shots on MM, though. They're probably from the same camera as well.