When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
146

One Thing: How my first (and only) photography class made me fall in love with film

One of Burgett's first film photographs ever, captured in a cemetery on hand-spooled Tri-X 400, taken with a Canon AE-1 with a 50mm F1.8 lens.

Photo: Gannon Burgett

I started my photography career in the digital world. The first photo I ever won a prize for was taken with a Kodak EasyShare point-and-shoot in the mid-2000s and the first camera I ever picked up with the intent of shooting creative images with was a Canon Rebel xT (350D), given to me as a hand-me-down from a relative.

One Thing: Advice, tips and tricks from the DPReview editors

About this series:
Our team cuts through the noise to share the things that made the biggest impact on our work and what lessons you can bring into your own work.

Read the entire series here.


Everything I knew about photography for the first year or two of shooting was done with pixels and software, piles of zeroes and ones. It wasn’t until I took a film photography class in high school that I truly began to grasp the magic of photography and expand both my historical and technical knowledge of the art and science known as photography.

The class was taught by a Dvorak-using hippy named Mr. Woodard. At the time, I didn’t much enjoy the prescriptive nature of the class or the slow, methodical process of shooting, developing and printing film photographs. After all, I was accustomed to the instant satisfaction of seeing my images appear on the rear display of my Rebel xT and being able to cull through dozens of shots in an instant on my computer.

Recent Videos

In fact, I distinctly remember telling Mr. Woodard at the mid-point of the class that I would never again shoot film after the semester ended. But I was wrong. So very wrong.

As the semester went on, I started shooting more and more with the Nikon FG and Nikkor 50mm F1.4 AI lens I picked up at a local flea market, burning through a dozen or so hand-spooled rolls of Tri-X 400 film, bulk-loaded by Mr. Woodard in his dark, dingy loft-turned-classroom within the high school.

As with so many creative pursuits, I eventually found that the slow, methodical processes required by film were not a limitation, but a positive constraint to work within that forced me to better plan each shot, since we had an allowance of just one 24-exposure roll of film each week.

I would, of course, eventually return to digital photography, but I did so with a better respect for the process and even the desire to shoot digital as I would film, as I've come to genuinely appreciate the way the limits of the film photography workflow make me slow down and see things in a way my brain otherwise tries to skip over with digital photography.

Have you taken a photography course that's changed the way in which you view or approach your work? Let us know in the comments below so we can share fun anecdotes about our teachers, professors and mentors.

View Comments (146)

Comments

All (146)
Most popular (15)
Editors' picks (1)
DPR staff (0)
Oldest first
safford1977
safford1977

More than 10 years ago I started watching Youtube videos and got a digital education. My formal training was with film and geared around how to turn the skill into a profession - not art. Youtube and the digital age helped me to see more so the classroom is just life and how it changes and helps you find new directions.

8 months ago
Chris Noble
Chris Noble

If the only way you can be "slow and methodical" is to shoot film, that's something to discuss with your psychiatrist rather than with a camera salesperson.

10 months ago
Chris Noble
Chris Noble

OK, a bit snarky... but I am puzzled at this comment from photographers who have trouble taking things slowly and attribute it to their equipment. I hope the author can slow down his digital photography now that he has tried film.

10 months ago
John Gellings
John Gellings

I went to art school in the 90s for photography. Developed and printed my own B&W, color, cibachromes, van dyke brown and cyanotypes. I settled on mostly 35mm color and c-prints. It was great when you are learning and you have the schools´darkroom. Once I left school, I tried going back to use the darkroom at times, but with work etc it became harder. I used digital P&S cameras over the years but it didn't feel the same. I didn't do photography seriously for many years after that. Once I got the bug again, digital had matured and so did the printing and software. I love the fact I can do it all in small room in any house or apartment. For color, I prefer it.

That said, I can understand why people who grew up with digital are intrigued by film and why it could change their mentality on taking photos. I think if you like photography, you should try as many methods as you can until you find your thing.

10 months ago*
mferencz

Film is organic and of this world in terms of comprehension. That I can appreciate. Having said that, digital is better in every other way. I would never watch an old tube tv for the experience, just as I would never shoot film. I collect antiques and appreciate history so my heart really looks for nostalgia, but electronics is not the place to dabble in that sort of thing. Just like people collecting old Atari cartridges. Worthless in my opinion.

10 months ago
Curtis80
Curtis80

@ mferencz Thank you for sharing your thoughts. In my opinion digital isn't better then film and film isn't better then digital. It's all about the feelings you have, looking at a pic. Digital or analogue.

10 months ago
mferencz

Thank you Curis80. Film looks nice, but it is not about the output. To me at least the digital film simulations are excellent and can mimic film to the point of not being able to tell. It's about the process. I suppose if you like to carry your water in buckets up the stairs rather than turn your faucet on for reasons outside of just getting in a warm bath than you have a point.

10 months ago
Curtis80
Curtis80

@mferencz It's all about the output. But you meant the process. Yes, the processes are different but I am touched by analogue and digital photos. Ok, whether I walk with buckets of hot water or turn on the hot tap, the outcome is the same; a warm bath. But taking a pic of the same subject with an analogue or a digital camera, the outcome will be 2 photos but they won't be the same.

10 months ago
mferencz

I can go with that. The process is special with analog. It's 20th century and romantic.

10 months ago
bolt2014
bolt2014

And so the beat goes on. :-)

10 months ago
biggercountry
biggercountry

It's interesting how all the things you say about film are things that nobody was saying when it was the only way to take a picture.

Digital media has done this across the board... in the recording studio, where I make my career, nobody was enamored with the sound of tape when it was the only way to make a record. We were relentlessly trying to get rid of that "tape sound" and make recordings sound more true to life.

Digital cameras, recorders, etc. have gotten us to the promised land of effectively non-existent distortion and high fidelity to the source, en masse, in an affordable way, and I think our fascination with analog and all of its attendant headaches says more about human nature than which format is actually superior (which is, by nearly every objective measure, digital). We don't appreciate what is abundant... and we seek after the uncommon, the rarefied. (Digital media used to be this when it first came out. Remember that brief time when CD players were a status symbol?)

10 months ago
nextSibling

Stinking chemistry, blackout failures, film stuck half-way through loading a reel, stirring for days waiting for that last bit of powder developer to dissolve, drying marks, never being able to get that last bit of stubborn dust from the film carrier, paper that never laid perfectly flat, never getting exactly the final print exposure you wanted, despite practicing your dodge and burn technique for hours, never being able to reproduce the one time you got it right, burning your paper budget on test strips, deciding to try larger formats, realizing what it's going to cost to replace almost every bit of kit and abandoning the idea.

Those were the days.

10 months ago
Chris Gibbs
Chris Gibbs

If you're not wet printing, in a tiny home built darkroom, using smelly chemistry-- then you're not experiencing the proper thrill of photography and seeing that latent image magically appear before your very eyes!

10 months ago
Papa48
Papa48

That's exactly what I did, from 1969-1998. Digital is far more magical to me. No contest.

10 months ago
Chris Gibbs
Chris Gibbs

Digital, absolutely! These hybrid shooters are kinda waisting their efforts by not wet printing, at this point, I have to ask, "what's the point of shooting film when the beauty of film is only really seen in a Bromide print."

10 months ago
Kiwisnap

I was shooting film and developing my own at school aged 14 in 1982.

Digital was a godsend. Never again will I mess about with film.

10 months ago
Bing Chow

I understand the rationale behind slowing down, contemplating every shot, and making every frame count. But you can exercise shot discipline with digital too. Turn off the LCD display, disable WYSIWYG (if ML), manual meter, and just bring a 1 or 2 GB card out for the day. In software, you can batch process with a film emulation and resist the temptation to over-process. You can set as many constraints as you like.

10 months ago
Newton Bryce

@ Bing Chow: Excactly! This is not about the gear, but how you use it. This is about your mindset when planning and/or practicing your photography.

Many would have a lot to learn from digging into photography as a medium, as a visual language. Photography is way more than a technique. This should be rewarding, no matter if the process or the published final work is the goal.

10 months ago*
Kiwisnap

Buy a Leica M10-D that has no rear LCD at all...!

10 months ago
Chris Gibbs
Chris Gibbs

Just ignore the LCD and stop chimping. You get a similar thrill when seeing the images populate the image browser. Important part is PRINTING said images, seeing a nice B&W roll off the printer on a quality Hahnemühle paper will give one a similar buzz.

10 months ago
Curtis80
Curtis80

Shooting with film and shooting with a digital camera. These two ways of taking a pic have only one thing in common; taking a pic. No more, no less. It's like comparing a combustion engine with a wind mill.

10 months ago
Overrank
Overrank

Just shows how times have changed, 30 years ago there would have been an obvious ordering - windmill (old tech) and combustion engine (new tech), but in 2023 that’s turned on it’s head, and a windmill is a decidedly new tech growth area, against the very old tech internal combustion engine which is on its way out,

10 months ago
John Gellings
John Gellings

Well, content and framing are the most important things in photography, so they (film and digital) have a huge piece of the puzzle in common.

10 months ago
Curtis80
Curtis80

Yep. I do agree with what you're writing. And I guess time will go on changing. But my point is that you can't compare analogue cameras with digital cameras. Okay, there's one more commonality; they're both boxes with a lens. 🙃

10 months ago
Curtis80
Curtis80

@John. But still you can't compare analogue cameras with digital cameras. For instance, a digital camera can deliver a piece of art in a split second. Ready for watching, sending and printing. Also creating a pic can become an effort with less attention because with a digital cam you can make thousands of pics in a short time.

10 months ago
John Gellings
John Gellings

Analog had 250 exposure backs and one hour photo development. There have always been people who have no
patience.

10 months ago
Curtis80
Curtis80

@John I have lots of patience. 250 pics, developed and printed in hour? Is/was that possible? A JPEG is an edited picture, ready to send and print. A negative is the second step, after exposing and developping, of becoming an edited, ready to send and ready to print picture. I do understand your replies but in my opinion analogue and digital still are two different worlds and don't have much in common.

10 months ago
Curtis80
Curtis80

@John I have lots of patience. 250 pics, developed and printed in hour? Is/was that possible? A JPEG is an edited picture, ready to send and print. A negative is the second step, after exposing and developping, of becoming an edited, ready to send and ready to print picture. I do understand your replies but in my opinion analogue and digital still are two different worlds and don't have much in common.

10 months ago
Curtis80
Curtis80

@John I have lots of patience. 250 pics, developed and printed in hour? Is/was that possible? A JPEG is an edited picture, ready to send and print. A negative is the second step, after exposing and developping, of becoming an edited, ready to send and ready to print picture. I do understand your replies but in my opinion analogue and digital still are two different worlds and don't have much in common.

10 months ago
Michael Firstlight

I love making a large, well-crafted 16x20 or larger print from 6x7 and 4x5 film in my analog darkroom. While I use My Nikon Z9 for professional work, there's a special satisfaction I get from making optical, fiber-based silver bromide - and even chromogenic prints for myself. I don't really care who'd "never go back to film" - no one is making you, so don't, and why tell us? I operate ecologically sound neutralization with silver recovery, but making a master print under an enlarger from large format film is a very special craft that few can master; such prints are a rare commodity. Few really know the joy of viewing a well-crafted large silver-based fiber print in person; they have a subtle, ethereal life that jumps off the silver, very different from even metal prints. If I'm shooting film, I'm going all the way to analog silver print. To me, going from film to digital is fine for proofing, but the final product isn't anywhere like viewing a fiber-based silver bromide masterpiece.

10 months ago*
Chris Gibbs
Chris Gibbs

Agreed, been there done that for many years, but photography never was ecologically sound, Ilford & Kodak kept their own herds of cows just for the gelatin way back when. It's kinda funny to run across one of those vegan kids when they're packing those '80's film cameras. 🤯🤔

10 months ago
Michael Firstlight

Just to bring sanity to the subject, the pollution of what remains generally inert residue after neutralization is a fraction of the pollution produced by the disposal of electronic gear. Film cameras remain usable for many decades. Digital cameras far less.

10 months ago*
Chris Gibbs
Chris Gibbs

Best not talk Cibachrome printing then.

10 months ago
Michael Firstlight

Now that's a fact! I do miss it (long discontinued), but there was no way to neutralize it near enough - the P3 and P30 chem was downright caustic.

10 months ago
Muskokaphotog

I had some family portrait shots to take recently with a Sony a7riva. Fortunately, the subjects were individual so face detection worked. For fun I just pointed the camera at the subject without even looking through the viewfinder. Perfect focus at what 10- 12 shots per second. Versus, decades ago using my Linhof 23, with a 105 ApoLanthar to photograph our new kitten in morning dewy grass. Ten shots on the roll. Rangefinder focus, Gossen Lunasix Pro light meter. Timeless B&W memories. Skill, patience and determination. Digital can never replace it. Here's the kitten.. https://www.duvernetphotography.com/pusskitten

10 months ago
Hans J
Hans J

Still use my Pentax 645 professionally along with a FF digital of the day.
The Digital camera is updated with every new model; but my Pentax 645nii keeps going strong.

10 months ago
turvyT

A good photographer is a good phtographer with film, digital, a phone, or even without a camera; the same applies for a bad photographer. Film is good to learn, if you are willing to learn, but you can also learn with digital, if you want to learn. Shoot with whatever you can or want. Or don't shoot and enjoy with your eyes and register in your memory.

10 months ago
Muskokaphotog

I think the editorial on film is highlighting that without a sincere degree of discipline, success with film is harder to achieve than with modern digital. Sure, in skilled hands, both can achieve success. But the world of digital can make a coloured shot suddenly B&W and then with a tweak of software, give a photo the Ansel Adams look. It took years for A.A. to perfect the use of filters and processing to get the broad tonal range without losing intensity. In digital, a few clicks and you're there. In film, if you want to create a flattering portrait, you have only the lens, filters and light to work with. No "post" blurring or tweaking. The most "post" you can do in silver printing is some dodging and burning, maybe softening filters, but you have to know your craft to make it work.

10 months ago
BobHo

A wonderfully romantic article. I shot film for 30 years before switching to digital in 2004. Toward the end, I was having the color print film processed at the local WalMart, the one down the street from RIT, then scanning the negatives. I don't miss film at all.

10 months ago*
capanikon
capanikon

Same. As a kid in the 1980s I had a a Kodak 110 format point-and-shoot -- the iPhone of it's day. Had no clue how cameras worked, and with the Kodak you didn't have to. Just point and click. Later I became a photographer for the college student newspaper and used 35mm film SLRs. I took photography classes and read books. Developed hundreds or thousands of rolls of film in the campus darkroom. Made prints. I was quite happy with film. It is true that shooting film forces you to plan ahead and be more thoughtful, which is a good thing. But digital cameras are so much more convenient and fast.

10 months ago
Muskokaphotog

I miss film. I miss the demand for craft. I miss the flexibility of leaf shutters and the connectedness to the history of the art and science. My medium format and large format cameras are timeless. There is no fleeting wizardry in software to correct lens aberrations. I learned to feel and sense film. Ilford FP4, developed in Perceptual.... Printed on Gallery paper. The original ApoLanthar, the original Planar, the original Zenotar, App Simmer, etc. Timeless.

10 months ago
Michael B 66

I keep my FD lenses, an F-1 new and my Rolleicord for maybe ... doing film again, but if, only B/W using my development tank again.
On the other hand: I really like the directness of digital photography which is very good now in terms of fidelity/quality.
I started with film and it was expensive/my budget restricted. I learned to look twice to the viewfinder. With digital I am glad that I have learned photography that way and I try to decide as much as possible BEFORE I make the photo - on the other hand in some situation it is great to make several shots for safety.

10 months ago
keepreal
keepreal

Nice to encounter a discerning photographer.

I used film for 65 years before I switched to digital. Compared with most people using film, I always took very few shots, restricting myself to what would work and more often than not judging it well. On top of that I threw away most of my negatives, only interested in keeping the best.

When I turned entirely to digital in 2009 I continued the practice. Why accumulate loads of trash? The only time I will do so momentarily is when I am not quite sure of myself, so shoot extra and immediately discard all but the most successful. That does not often happen because i abhor success by accident rather than design.

Anthony Armstrong Jones took some very famous photos but he took thousands for every one that was successful. That is not talent, just luck. Get chimpanzees to play the piano, sooner or later they will play all the keyboard works by JS Bach. [Not actually sooner, but maybe in a few billion light years.]

Dec 16, 2022
four under

I agree wholeheartedly. I shoot the same way with digital that I did with film.

10 months ago
Muskokaphotog

Trouble is, the increasing dependence on software to make a camera function. Especially the EVF. While it might be WSIWYG in a digital sense, there was craft in being able to look through the actual lens, not some reformulated pixelated generation. Especially cameras that had no prism. When using a 500cm with the WLF, you just learned that left was right and right was left. Soon the camera became part of you. The simplicity meant there are no "modes" to set or fuss over. Sunny day.. 1/250 f8 - 11, Flash fill at 1/500th. BTW, those old leaf shutters have faster flash synch than nearly all modern digitals.

10 months ago
2Oceans

Film shooting really did and does force me to think about light and time. I would spot meter everything with an SLR and expose for highlights. High speed film was relatively grainy ISO 400 fujichrome. Otherwise the tightest grain was Provia and Velvia. I know that while limiting me it also made things more simpler and I could focus more on tight compositions. I think digital has advantages and disadvantages. When I was in college 50 years ago the nerds I knew who did alot of photography would sell plasma at the local plasma alliance and use the 20 bucks for film, and processing. Young folks can now shoot all day long without spending a penny for film. But with film I had to think alot more. Getting my processed chrome back in the mail was always like Christmas. I miss that aspect.

Dec 10, 2022
Chen_Calvin

For prints only, yes, we can just shoot films. (Now the printing process is also digitalized.) While when we share the photos on the web, we still need to digitalize the pictures first. If we want, we may use the digital camera like a film camera, but not vise versa. The photography is nothing to do with the gear we use as long as the gear is "appropriate". Just wonder if we spend much more time in post processing than taking pictures, are we photographers or editors?

Dec 10, 2022
Ken Seals
Ken Seals

Editing and post processing well is the job of the photographer on film or digital.

10 months ago
3Percent
3Percent

Wonderful post Gannon. I too, like you, really started getting interested in photography as a result of a high school photography class. My first photo was a black and white photograph taken with a pin-hole camera we all had to build ourselves before our teacher would let us make a photo. We started in the darkroom developing film he provided. By the time we were able to finally take our first photograph we were itching too so badly, and we were all hooked afterwards. I'll never forget that experience or my teacher and have been thankful for that class since. Thank you for sharing!

Edit: btw, the "fork in the road" shot, very clever ;). Love it.

Dec 10, 2022*
TwoMetreBill

Another polluter. Just what the world needs. Thank you.

Dec 9, 2022
3Percent
3Percent

Oh get off your high horse already.

Dec 10, 2022
capanikon
capanikon

I'm sure digital cameras generate lots of pollution as well. Think of all the mining required for digital camera materials. All the smokestacks at the digital camera factories. The pipes from factories dumping chemicals into rivers. The carbon emissions. And then the camera finally winding up in a landfill, leeching more chemicals into the groundwater.

10 months ago
3Percent
3Percent

Yep the hypocrisy is running off my screen like the raspberry jelly in Spaceballs the Movie.

10 months ago
John Gellings
John Gellings

Yeah, that one roll of 24exp film a week is making a huge impact!

10 months ago
Gannon Burgett

3percenter: LONESTAR!

8 months ago
Papa48
Papa48

I’m just as enamored with my present Fuji digital kit and film simulations as ever with the old film hardware and processes. It’s a slow and deliberate state of mind, after all.

Dec 9, 2022
jackspra
jackspra

Have to get the AE1 serviced.The last roll was pretty messy and a family member wants to shoot film.I would say film is a fabulous medium for people that like it.

Dec 7, 2022
nex7user

Dvorak - that's a keyboard right? Googled it but not entirely sure.

Dec 6, 2022
Gannon Burgett

@nex7user: a keyboard layout, such as the common QWERTY layout.

Dec 7, 2022
dmanthree
dmanthree

Love seeing how some people like going retro. Like the current obsession with vinyl records, something else I'll never go back to. And film? Been there done that. Never again. No interest in smelling those chemicals again.

Dec 6, 2022
MediumFormatLover
MediumFormatLover

And you came by a film topic, and decided to post how you don’t like film. Well done, you! Any other off topic tidbits for us?

Dec 6, 2022
dmanthree
dmanthree

Yes, I'm still puzzled by people who question someone for posting their opinion in a public forum. FWIW, I never said I didn't like film, just that I'm not going back to it. Same for vinyl and some other obsolete tech. So there. Now you have more to whine about.

Dec 6, 2022
Ulrik Christiansen
Ulrik Christiansen

Love seeing how some people like dumping useless comments in these film articles.

Yes, I am still puzzled by the their will to waste time and keystrokes, when no one gives a .... about their personal non-interest in film - whining about obsolete tech and exhibiting a lack of understanding of how people enjoy photography.

Dec 6, 2022
rawdinal

@dmanthree
You came to a thread and wrote something about smell. You can have your rolls developed if you don't like the smell. That's not neutral, that's tr0lling. That's why we "whine" about it....

Dec 6, 2022*
dmanthree
dmanthree

And yet, here you all are, wasting time and keystrokes whining about me. THAT I don't understand. Enjoy.

Dec 6, 2022
Ulrik Christiansen
Ulrik Christiansen

@dmanthree
We are simply reacting to a troll. I know you don't understand that as well.

Dec 6, 2022
dmanthree
dmanthree

Sorry, been here too damned long to be labeled like that. Sure looks like YOU are trying to troll me! Anyway, I'm done here. c ya...

Dec 6, 2022
Ulrik Christiansen
Ulrik Christiansen

@dmanthree Thank you.

Dec 6, 2022
rawdinal

@dm...
....and please don't come back. I know you'll read this :)

Dec 8, 2022*
marc petzold
marc petzold

@dmanthree - Just for the record, you've never heard possibly, how a Linn LP-12 Sondek with basic Akito/AT-OC9, carefully adjusted and balanced would sound like, with a matching, good phone pre-amp...i had it until the end of 90's... nowadays, i am collecting LPs since some years again. Why? Because a gatefold cover and limited (color) LP edition is so much better, than a plastic case with a shiny piece of polycabonate (CD) inside...and i also buy (limited editions) of CD Albums...and i've had my 1st CD player bought into early 1987, with remote control.

Perhaps, you're too lazy for film...i don't know...but a roll of Ektar, Pro Image, Fomapan, Tri-X, Acros or HP5+, XP2 Super with your fave 35mm SLR, lens combo gives so much more fun & joy, than simply a digital RAW file floating onto a memory card...into that term - horses for courses.

Good light.

Dec 8, 2022
Papa48
Papa48

I can appreciate their journey through it, though.

Dec 9, 2022
JTSV

My Ilford chemicals were hypo-allergenic, vanilla scented. Back in 1986 or so.

Dec 19, 2022
rawdinal

You can drink a coffee alongside and use it for developing afterwards :)

Dec 19, 2022
Dennis from Florida
Dennis from Florida

I once shot a roll of T-Max on my 645 and mistakenly developed in T-Max developer.

Who in the world would think that's a problem? Well, it turns out T-Max developer does not work with T-Max roll film. It ruins it.

Dec 6, 2022
rawdinal

Read the specs before developing. SD cards don't work on memory slots either.

Dec 6, 2022
Onadir

That is simply false information. I have developed dozens of rolls of Tmax 400 and 100 in Tmax developer with great results. Some people prefer other results from other film/developer combos, but to say that it doesn’t work is manifestly false.

Dec 6, 2022
MediumFormatLover
MediumFormatLover

TMax developer works fine with the roll film.

Dec 7, 2022
Dennis from Florida
Dennis from Florida

My bad. If was my large format sheet film that wasn't compatible with T-max developer. I called Kodak (this was a while ago) and the guy who told his colleagues this was bound to happen answered the help line.

Dec 7, 2022
RGBCMYK
RGBCMYK

T-Max RS just reduces the chance of forming dichroic fog on sheet film during the solvent action of the developer during processing plus it is much more economical because it is designed to be replenished vs. one shot and using large tanks with sheets can become expensive. The developer will work and even if you get dichroic fog which while it can present printing problems doesn't render the processed negative completely useless. I have seen no issues when used with a jobo processor and fresh developer, stop and fixer too when used by mistake but it was used.

Dec 8, 2022
marc petzold
marc petzold

I've had a 110 Film camera as kid, and some years later, over a 35mm Point & Shoot, a 35mm SLR, my Pentax MX, like often said all through the years. 1st i had 24 exposures on 110, later a whopping 36 frames via 135 film. I've had only one lens - the SMC A 50/1.7 for my MX, and never became warm with that focal length (Oh, hi Chris! :-)

About 2 years later, i came to Minolta & Yashica bodies, and that suited me much better, even i always have a spot for Pentax, the SLRs from these brands suited me much better, also my 1st 35/2.8 lens, and that focal length was perfect for shooting it all..and still is, it's for a reason, so many 35's are onto the market.

I shot digital since 96 with a simple Olympus PnS cam, but the quality was never the same, for sure. it then followed various Canon PowerShot (with RAW) and Sony P&S gear, until i've had my 1st DSLR, Nikon D100 - and EOS 10D...since 2014, i only buy used gear, much more economically, tech gets old way fast.

Good Light.

Dec 6, 2022
hfolkertsma

I use my A7 mirrorless gear for detailed results, but my film cameras are just for my soul.

Dec 6, 2022
hfolkertsma

I actually started shooting on film, back in 2008. While I didn’t have the money to buy a ‘professional’ DSLR, I wás handed down a used Canon T70 with a few primes instead. I took it and the FDn50/1.4 and FDn28/2.8 with me EVERYWHERE. I appreciate that I started learning photography on film.

Dec 6, 2022
Alan2dpreview

I shoot digital for parties and trips but at home when I contemplate my work, it's medium format film photography. During the Covid I got the urge, so bought a 4x5 large format film camera.. Both digital and film formats have right time and place and advantages. You really get to slow down when it takes 20 minutes to set up the first shot with a large format camera, tripod, etc.

Dec 6, 2022
Mateus1

My expierience too but with Horseman VH 6x9... it's masterpiece.

Dec 6, 2022
rawdinal

Fuji gx680 here. :)

Dec 6, 2022
Steven Barall

I was working in the photo news business and 9-11 was the end of film for us. A lot of photographers had digital cameras already, usually whatever the big Nikon was, maybe the D1 and they were able to move photos to us via email from Brooklyn or wherever in NYC during that week.

We had a staff photographer still shooting film so on 9-12 they sent me out to buy several bricks of color negative film and also two Nikon digital cameras and lenses. I got one camera from Calumet and one from Alkit. That photographer learned how to use the new digital cameras and the film sat there and that was it for film. Never again.

My point is that photography is a product of the industrial revolution and like all technology the new replaces the old. I dragged a Large format camera for decades and I can say that Large format photography is a completely different thing however and the benefits of the large format process can not be equaled with digital photography. Happy shooting everyone.

Dec 6, 2022
Jagganatha
Jagganatha

Well, my experience was as a student like you years ago when all film emulsions were available. It was OK but condemned you to too much D&P time, out of the sun, with smelly chemicals. It was aklso far less exact.
I lost heart after Kodak ruined work from a 5 week landscape trip in Scotland. The slide film returned from Switzerland as the UK operation had closed down...
To re-enthuse me you would have to make all emulsions available everywhere as they were in the 70s, and you would have to produce far more accurate in-camera metering than we had then, because checking everything with a Lunasix is a drag.
But in view of the fact that IMHO these pictures with the article are so weak, I dont think you will convert any digital photographer to film, do you?

Dec 6, 2022
Overrank
Overrank

The metering in late (post 1990s) film cameras (think specifically Nikon, but I’m sure others are the same) is as good as what’s in digital cameras - in some cases they are the same. Tbh I didn’t have a problem with metering in the 1980s using the averaging meter in my Praktica and slide film.

Dec 6, 2022
marc petzold
marc petzold

Ah, the Praktica ! Despite using a battery for the internal meter needle, it still does get the job done ! One of my most inconspicuous M42 SLRs - because it simply always does its job reliably, without failures, for decades ! I use it mostly with a 35/3.4 or 35/2.8...rarely 50/1.8 M42 lens...

Good Light.

Dec 6, 2022
Photoman
Photoman

Film still is the only true way of archiving images. Every other medium past/present/future is just a fad.

Dec 5, 2022
Eric Hensel
Eric Hensel

I suggest that there is an obvious gulf, between those who learned photography in the pre-digital age (3 years of classes, for me in the 60s), and those like Gannon, who have never shot Kodachrome. There is no way I can see analog photography the way Gannon does -or vice-versa. And that's fine, although it can get noisy :)

Dec 5, 2022
Overrank
Overrank

Possible heresy but I shot a lot of Kodachrome, and I find that I prefer the new Ektachrome E100.

Dec 6, 2022
Arek Halusko

I switched from film to digital in 2003 and never looked back still have my post here (under different nickname) when I got my Canon D30, being unshackled from cost of film and developing not including wasting time scanning was awesome.

Use to shoot lots of Superia 1600 in nightclubs, my uncle still has my Pentax MZ 3 that I have him after I got my Canon D30 and still have my Canon AL-1 that I got in 2001.

Not dumping on their article and the writers experience but for me switching to digital was a one way door and no desire to go back.

Dec 5, 2022
Sordes Pilosus

most who use film today use it after digital, preoritising image quality/character above convinience.

Dec 6, 2022
rawdinal

Film photography gives me the possibility to work with medium format and large format cameras. And indeed, it slows down. Slowing down has nothing to do with a ret4rded working process. It's like playing chess, but not against the clock. It's about thinking before you make the next move. Yes, you could do that with digital, too. But do you?

It's so much more than specs. My kids recently discovered my C64 and they had so much more fun playing the old PacMan from 1983 or moon patrol that they don't use their Wii anymore. It the old slow Commodore better? Or Is he just tr4sh? Or does he simply got the fun to the point? My kids decided to play C64 on and on...

Anyway. If you don't want to shoot film, just go along, use your 8k@120 fps and grab the good frame in post. If there is any. I'm in the kitchen developing TriX in homebrew Calbe A49. ;)

Dec 5, 2022
Mr Bolton

Started out with VIC=20 and ended with Cyberstorm PowerPC accelerated Amiga 3000T. I think that really my best years of gaming happened on the Commodore CDTV-essentially a CDROM based 1meg Amiga 500 with an S video output and black accessories. Because you could play it on the big screen TV in the living room.

Dec 6, 2022
marc petzold
marc petzold

Started out with the Atari 2600 VCS system, C-64 also, and had my 1st PC into the form of an 286-12 MHz AT with AMD processor. Build my rigs all by myself since my 386-DX40 (AMD), still...my current setup from 2013 is almost 10 years old, upgraded it twice ever since, with 2x Samsung 860 EVO SSDs, instead of my 1TB 10k/min WD Velociraptors, 16GB DDR3-1600 right from the start (Corsair XMS), Quadcore Xeon 1225 E3. 2023, being replaced by an AMD Ryzen setup, DDR4 is still good enough for the next 4-7+ years for myself. Ryzen 7000 series with DDR5 too expensive, also -boards.

Just upgraded my old Zenbook with 20GB of DDR3 (8GB before) and would get 2x500GB SSDs, too. The Commodore CDTV was an instant flop, besides the C-64 hit, and especially the Amiga 500, back into it's heyday.

I have worlds more fun shooting my XD7/35 2.8 MD III, same goes analog to Contax/Yashica, instead of shooting digital. No soul. Even my F80, F100's with AF gives me so much more joy, than digital.

Good Light.

Dec 6, 2022
Mr Bolton

A flop the CDTV may have been.. but it was the first commercially available computer that could boot natively from a compact disc. My copy of the unit, (the one I got here versus the one I had back in SLC) has a sub-100 serial number and a 1991 Microsoft property tag. Funny how DOS learned to boot from a CD (sort of) after the CDTV, huh..?

As an aside, Stereo Review tested the CDTV as an audio component and it was found to be the highest audio quality of compact disc player that they'd ever tested up to that time. That was back when home CD players were still going for real money in Hi-Fi shops.

Dec 6, 2022
marc petzold
marc petzold

"... Stereo Review tested the CDTV as an audio component and it was found to be the highest audio quality of compact disc player that they'd ever tested up to that time." Well, as somebody who had HiFi as hobby before photography, was reading german audio, stereo, stereoplay & HiFi vision monthy, all of them, besides the c't magazine, i can tell you this isn't real.

I do know, what a real HiFi CD player costs. I have the CDP-X559 ES with Mod. But no longer my Marantz Amp, or my Linn LP12/Akito/AT OC-9 from the heyday, same goes for my CT-959, 939 Mk II. But TC-K 750 ES, DTC-57 ES. Simply CD Rom drive via CDTV, plastic gear, no brushless motors, no stable platform, ringcore or R-core audio transformer, shock absorber feet, HiFi audio semiconductors and resistors, etc, etc, etc...the CDTV was an experiment for Commodore, but never "HiFi" after all. I thought it'll fail, because it was years ahead. The game that pushed really the CD Rom drive sales for x86 was 1993 "Rebell Assault".

Dec 6, 2022
Mr Bolton

It is real. I have a copy of the article somewhere in my collection, because the local Commodore dealer, Basic Fundamentals at the time and now www.oldsoftware.com, gave it to me when I bought my first CDTV from him.

The tray mount CD drive inside the CDTV was sturdy and all metal inside. It has a brushless motor and the transport mechanism for the pickup is all metal. They didn't cheap out on the drive itself. Probably why mine still works after all these years.

Dec 7, 2022*
Thin_Ice

My son discovered snake as a cool game on an old nokia when his iphone gave up. The nokia is still working, 2 iphone’s later

Dec 8, 2022
Mr Bolton

Those old Nokias were pretty durable, that's for sure.

Dec 8, 2022
Delph12

I worked on the team that brought CDTV to market. Funny, I haven't heard that product name in years. Amiga should have destroyed Apple and the Mac, but somehow got lost in the shuffle. CDTV was a way to expand Amiga's product line and preempt Philips CD-I which had a ton money and the movie studios behind it. Nice to see it mentioned again.

10 months ago
Tobyslave

Those of us who grew up with film still tend to shoot way to few frames. We forget there is no cost to exploring. When you had between 12 and 36 exposures on a roll which would at best cost 1 hour in a darkroom to develop and just contact print you do things differently.

Dec 5, 2022
35photo

Tell that to Garry Winogrand! lol

Dec 6, 2022
GRUBERND
GRUBERND

I beg to differ. We learned how to time a shot.

When I hear the digital natives hammer their 10-30 fps through their cameras I always ask myself who is going to look through all that cull?

Dec 6, 2022
marc petzold
marc petzold

Days ago, it was snowing here half the day. I was shooting like 8-10 exposures with my F80, and like 20-22 with my V1. That was much, and i kept walking into the snow for almost 4 hours...around my area. Why the "old" V1? Because, it does have a good pixel pitch (10 MP only on 1" Sensor format), AF is fast, i am used to it, it does have a still decent EVF, and the battery life is long lasting, plus that thing is way small, especially with the pancake-esque VR zoom lens, therefore. To my surprise, it could even AF into thick mist, whileas newer gear won't.

My Fuji gear would being better, or even FF setups, but 1) much bigger and 2) much heavier, and i've had already my 35mm SLR with me, so i like to travel light. This was the 1st digital use again since 2019...

I keep shooting (seldom) my digital gear like film - no more than 36 exposures during a day, -photowalk session. By limiting myself, the output is better, than various "fire at will" clicking away, never done it this way.

Dec 8, 2022
mmditter

Gannon Burgett, there were two cool things about it- one was that it was color film when most photos and movies and tv were b&w. And it was not just color, but it was really saturated colors.

But the main thing was that sometimes when you inhale the shop, you could get that “Kodachrome look” which not only had the colors, but also had an almost 3D effect.

It was hard to shoot with, very little dynamic range, so you had to nail exposure. It was slow, either 25 or 64, and was expensive to buy and to have processed. But man, when you put those slides into a projector and projected it onto a nice big screen, wow did they ever really pop.

Dec 5, 2022
Mr Bolton

Kodachrome
They give us those nice bright colors
They give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's
A sunny day, oh yeah
I got a Nikon camera
I love to take a photograph
So mama don't take my Kodachrome away

Dec 6, 2022
(unknown member)

As a professional photographer, about ½ a year ago I moved (partly) back from digital to a hybrid form of analogue photography. So I develop my films, I scan them and I print using ‘digital baryta’ paper + Epson printer.

Last week I showed some of those prints ,11.7 × 16.5 inches, to some colleagues. And they all said: ‘Wow, these prints are very nice with their typical analogue look and feel’.

They explained me in just a few words why occasionally I use my Nikon F2AS set instead of my Canon R6 set.

Dec 5, 2022
QuarryCat
QuarryCat

I had coures with Art Wolfe and Jim Brandenburg (even one pic a day) - that changed everything.
For b&w photography, I was 20 years loke a snail in the mountains with always to much snow (dust) on my pictures. Now for my squirrels, birds, butterflys even the fastest cameras with 30p/sec are to slow to catch more pricese moments... beeing fast and to know the camera and leses, is never a bad thing.

Dec 5, 2022*
Sordes Pilosus

My fitst serious camera was Rebel XT also. I tried film later, in 2008 and it was magic for me. Cheap small beautiful cameras with x0.95 viewinder, amazing film Dyn.range and colors, Xpan and 617 panoramic cameras...
About the article: narrative seems to be fine, but not the images.

Dec 5, 2022*
Gannon Burgett

@Sordes: The images are bad by design. They show the errors in settings, compositions, developing and scanning that come with being a new photographer (which this entire article is about) 😉

Dec 5, 2022
GRUBERND
GRUBERND

@Gannon .. interesting. I like all of those pictures.

They have this certain type of "Schmutz" that is hard to replicate in digital. But even more so, it would be totally pointless. Pictures like that would be the exact reason that would make me pick up a film camera again. Current hiatus: 14 years and counting.

Dec 8, 2022
PixelMakerPro

Are these photos supposed to be inspirational and make people start shooting film again?

Dec 5, 2022
Gannon Burgett

@Pixel: No. They're supposed to show some of the first film photos I ever captured, developed and scanned. They are, by the very nature of being a newbie, terrible across the board.

Dec 5, 2022
Mr Bolton

I dunno, I like the first one with the round pot.

Dec 6, 2022
jbuzzinco

Have you considered the environmental cost of your new found passion? Film and paper chemical processing are incredibly water intensive and release substantial pollutants into the wastewater stream.

Dec 5, 2022
Gannon Burgett

@jbuzzinco: I have. I've done probably as much research as someone without extensive levels of data can do. While the film manufacturing and development process does produce harmful substances, so too does the production of digital cameras and the components required to make them. All of my film cameras were made more than 20 years ago, whereas most digital cameras have a 5-7 year life span before you have to upgrade. My film cameras also use hardly any questionably-sourced rare earth metals, barring my Contax 645, which is still primitive in nature compared to modern digital cameras. I understand the impact of my desire to shoot film and it weighs on me every time I purchase new film and send used film out to be developed. But unless you know something I don't, I don't believe it's quite possible to know definitively which one is less harmful to the environment and members of society involved in the supply chain.

Dec 5, 2022
jbuzzinco

Comparing the camera hardware is not an accurate measure of environmental impact. It may be true that producing a digital camera, memory card and battery incurs a heavier up front material cost versus a building a film camera. However, you must consider the ongoing cost and impact of producing the rolls of film and processing chemicals required over whatever the usable lifespan of that camera might be.

A digital camera can record an extraordinary number of images using only those 3 components. The memory card an battery are reused over and over. Limiting the comparison to your weekly roll of film, what's the material and environmental impact of producing and developing 364 rolls of film over 7 years?

Your 5-7 year lifespan estimate is too low. That may be accurate for ownership. But the usable lifespan is much longer. Just look at the secondary market of used cameras. 10-15 year old digital cameras are still being bought, sold and used.

Dec 5, 2022
Overrank
Overrank

Ah! That old canard. Whereas mining rare earths is one of the most environmentally friendly activities that we do. Even if it could be shown that producing and developing film had zero environmental impact, then it would be something else which would be objected to, it’s just par for the course with any film story.

Dec 5, 2022*
Alan2dpreview

Everything we do has an environmental impact. I don't think the relatively few people who still shoot film have much impact at all.

Dec 6, 2022
jonby

jbuzzinco, have you considered the environmental impact of everything you have ever done? Your post suggests you have not.

Dec 9, 2022
jaberg
jaberg

As someone who came of age during film’s heyday, I can safely say “never again.” No matter, I appreciate the narrative anyway. I wish you, and all other film fanatics, joy in their own photography.

Dec 5, 2022
joger
joger

I still own two large format cameras - a Plaubel 5x7“ an a Plaubel 8x10“

And a set of the best ever made Schneider-Kreuznach lenses including center filters and infinite tilt and shift capabilities.

My A7R IV smokes te 30x heavier equipment in every respect and adds slow photography aspects whenever I want - the sentiment is purely driven by intention.

I never used my super expensive gear ever since

Dec 5, 2022
rawdinal

Why didn't you sell it to get a new fancy Sonycam? The A7R V is surely soon to come. Expect 2 more fps. Minimum.

Dec 5, 2022
joger
joger

@rawdinal
Why should I sell my nice analog equipment?

It’s on display in my flat and everyone interested thinks I am a professional using Film Emilio’s in a traditional way. Makes me utterly hip and indicates that I am honoring tradition for whatsoever reason ;-)

Irony off - does not bring any income when selling such gear now and I like the idea of getting back to the basics whenever I might desire to do so.

I could not be less interested in fancy marketing bla bla and the A7R V can do nothing the A7R IV - from a pure quality perspective.

We should all concentrate more on image quality and slow photography. The A7R IV is probably the best tool for that provided you don’t feel the desire to go the small medium format route.

Relax - photography has always been a constant technology driven endeavour.

Dec 6, 2022
hetedik
hetedik

I started my photography career in the "film world".
And I don't have any nostalgia for the costly, cumbersome process, where finally I am going to scan the pictures anyway. When working, I appreciate the technology and speed, when enjoing making pictures over cities, landscapes, nature, macro, still-life ... I slow down, take time, love the flow. I can do these with the same equipment, although as a walking around tourist, I prefer my little camera.

If you are looking for a slow-down experience, try tethering with your laptop and go forward and back, change the scenario until you feel it's perfect.

Dec 5, 2022
Eric Hensel
Eric Hensel

Excellent suggestion.

Dec 5, 2022
ZilverHaylide

A fork in the road?
And you took the path less-travelled?!

Technically, your decision.
But the person who loses a tire to that fork will object!

Dec 5, 2022
Gannon Burgett

@Zilver: The fork was promptly removed (I actually found it laying on the side of the road, so it was a net positive for drivers and the environment).

Dec 5, 2022
ZilverHaylide

@Gannon

I figured you would have removed it after the shot.

Did you perchance return it to Robert Frost?
:-)

Dec 5, 2022
Dec 5, 2022
ZilverHaylide

A substantial fraction of that slowing can be achieved simply by using a tripod. And more with pixel-shift or focus bracketing (subject matter permitting) on cameras that have those capabilities.

Dec 5, 2022
Johannes Zander

@Horshack: You forgot an important point. The delete function should be disabled. And a WORM memory card that can be written only once.

Dec 6, 2022
klimbkat
klimbkat

Your experience mirrors that of most of us who came up on film (I hand rolled Tri-X in the 70s), specifically the finite/limited nature of film which, in turn, made us much more careful with each shot. I'm glad I retained at least some of that discipline but I much prefer the digital darkroom and sure don't miss travelling with 20-30 rolls . . .

Dec 5, 2022*
photo_rb

I had been working with film for such a long time that when I got my first digital camera that I felt could rival film (Canon 1Ds), I immediately shut down my darkroom. almost 20 years now. I still keep a few large format antiques just in case I ever get the urge to go back...not yet. :)

Dec 5, 2022
Total: 53, showing: 1 – 50
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »