Question for those who shot film before digital

[Phil A Martin]

You are right, it's not a matter of "better" or "worse", film and digital are two very different experiences and looks. When I say looks I mean the entire film production chain that includes traditional darkroom hand printing from film, which I still do alongside my pro digital work. I've been shooting film and doing my own development and traditional silver gelatin and color printing since I started at age 12 over 50 years ago. Yes, the look IS different based on combinations of film and paper stocks that is all but impossible to fake with software when one includes traditional darkroom printing. There's a look, tonality range, and depth with fiber-based silver gelatin B&W prints that the digital printing process cannot duplicate or beat, regardless of how much post-processing skills and software one has - the difference is in the physical materials. I can tell a darkroom Type C print any day apart from a digital print. Both B&W and color darkroom prints have a continuous tonality and structure that is unique to the analog process. I was in San Francisco one day and approached a kiosk of a guy selling his prints. I said, "I love your RA-4 prints" and he was floored I could tell instantly that they were hand-printed darkroom prints from film.

I still do the full film-to-print (6x7 and 4x5) production chain because I enjoy the experience and the craft of the full end-to-end process. To me, shooting film and scanning it is a waste of time (other than for proofing); doing so sacrifices the end product and one might just as well go all digital.

I was an early adopter of 35mm format digital in the late 90's - it was a godsend then and a quantum leap in speed, cost, flexibility, ease, and quality then and more so now, which is why I shoot only digital for paid/production work.

I understand those that "would never go back" - it was costly, time-consuming, demands far more patience, and is far more difficult to master than digital, and still is other than the cost at low volume. Film and darkroom gear and materials are still relatively cheap compared to modern multi-thousand-dollar bodies and lenses that quickly become obsolete. I've spent exponentially more on digital where my entire darkroom cost me less than one high-end DSLR body and doesn't get obsolete.

Nevertheless, some of us enjoy the experience and the end product. Who says you can't enjoy both if one has the patience and desire?

Mike

I totally agree, especially with regards to your comments about black and white prints.

--
The one thing everyone can agree on is that film photography has its negatives. It even has its positives and internegatives.

 

[Lucignano]

In other words, when people wax poetic about the film era, do any of you who shot seriously during the pre-digital era just roll your eyes at all the nostalgia? Are today's incredibly clean and sharp digital photos something you would have loved, say, thirty years ago?

Yes. And while I was just an eager amateur, my father who was a professional photographer for many years says the same.

It all depends on the kind of photography you are doing, the subjects, the style and what you want to achieve. For many people the “film look” may be great, but not for all. For people shooting products in the studio (as my father did the most time) or for architecture and landscape (as he did and still does and as I do) the “film look” is not advantageous. We enjoy the freedom the clean digital images give use – we can always apply some effects in post, if we really want, e.g. some “film look”, but we could not get rid of all the characteristics of the film when we were really shooting on film.

 

[tbcass]

So many people -- especially, but not exclusively, newer and younger photographers -- get caught up in the latest YouTube reviews of the absolute latest gear (which the reviewer has likely been using for less than a week), splitting hairs to try and differentiate one piece of great modern camera gear from another.

That happens with film, too -- the punch line being that with film, unlike digital, the camera body (assuming it's a halfway-decent one) has very little effect on image quality. Actually, that's one of the things I like about film: Given the same lens and film stock, my $17 Sears KS Auto can make photos equal in quality to a $300 Pentax LX. Film is the great equalizer!

Yes that was one if the advantages of the film era. A student or poorer photographer could buy an older, even slightly beat up camera and using the same film stock and paper as a pro, coax the camera into producing images of the same quality as a pro.

Aaron

Actually today’s sensors are so uniformly good the same can be said for digital. Just like with film size sensor size is the main difference.

--
Tom

 

[yardcoyote]

As do mine. There are so many things that Pentax does well.

 

[Mackiesback]

I came across a comment I found interesting in today's DPR article about Silver Efex Pro 3. In response to the software's ability to recreate a "film look," the commenter said this: "Imagine what pros back in the film era would have paid to rid their prints of the 'film look.'"

I'm just curious, does this reflect how a lot of film shooters felt, or would have felt, prior to the digital revolution? In other words, when people wax poetic about the film era, do any of you who shot seriously during the pre-digital era just roll your eyes at all the nostalgia? Are today's incredibly clean and sharp digital photos something you would have loved, say, thirty years ago?

Or, conversely, have today's photos lost something for all their technical perfection? Personally, I love modern technology for my own work, but I'm also a huge fan of Michael Kenna's work, for example. I don't think it's a matter of "better" or "worse," it's just different. But then again, I didn't shoot seriously when film was the only option (I shot cheap film cameras when I was younger -- but I only got seriously interested in photography several years ago).

Anyway, just curious to hear the opinions of those who shot film before it was a choice.

It seems with advances in technology in many areas, once it becomes too "perfected" for lack of another term, people start waxing nostalgic about the old technology. You see it with LPs, heck some people even miss tape hiss. You see old crude video games make a comeback. I am sure there are other examples I am not aware of.

I think this might fit into the same category. For years I tried to get away from "film look" and I never plan on going back. I love what the new tech brings, and kind of chuckle at all the film simulations in various forms of PP software these days.

 

[tbcass]

Many old video games had better and simpler game play so that is why people still like them. They had to because the graphics were so crude.

 

[The Ghost of Caravaggio]

For me, the only advantage with using film is the experience of using minimalistic film cameras.

With absolutely no joy I accept that prints with film aesthetics can be made using raw files, contemporary computers and sufficient post-production rendering software. Producing prints that achieve the film aesthetic is also possible (but expensive). Even images with transparency film aesthetic can be viewed via projection if one is willing to spend the money to do so.

 

[Richard Frederick]

Good post, but film can and does clip highlights. Positive (slide) film was very sensitive to clipping, while negative film was much more tolerant.

Perhaps a more important point is how easy it is today to suppress highlights to bring up detail without affecting the rest of the image. In ancient times there was a neat material called Cibachrome. One difficulty in using that print material was Cibachrome's excessive contrast. Cibachrome's suggested solution? Use a silver mask. Don't ask.

Now, all we have to do is move a slider.

 

[Skylane]

I tell you what we wanted: We wanted the clarity and lack of grain of medium format, but in the 35 mm form factor. This is a generalization, of course; some people always liked the Tri-X grain and tones.

I came across a comment I found interesting in today's DPR article about Silver Efex Pro 3. In response to the software's ability to recreate a "film look," the commenter said this: "Imagine what pros back in the film era would have paid to rid their prints of the 'film look.'"

Many of those people went to medium format.

Pro's used medium format. That was relatively heavy and expensive equipment. Most people with a day job (butcher, baker, candle stick maker) were using 120 or 220 roll film. 35mm was considered to small, until the SLR came along. They were smaller then medium format, gave you 36 shots (vs 12 for the roll films), what you saw is what you got, AND you could easily change lenses! That is when 35mm became the standard.

I get a chuckle when I read the Full Frame vs DX (APS-C) debates. In my teens the debate was 120 vs 35mm. You could even make pocket photos with contact printing (no enlarger needed) using 120 film but 35mm was just to small.

 

[tbcass]

Actual film grain does have advantages. If you enlarge a film print beyond the limits of its resolution, it still looks cool. If you try doing that with a digital print, you end up seeing pixels, which looks quite unappealing IMHO.

Actually, that is easily avoided by resizing the digital photo to a higher resolution. In the early days of digital, it was common practice.

 

[Vernon D Rainwater]

For me, the only advantage with using film is the experience of using minimalistic film cameras.

With absolutely no joy I accept that prints with film aesthetics can be made using raw files, contemporary computers and sufficient post-production rendering software. Producing prints that achieve the film aesthetic is also possible (but expensive). Even images with transparency film aesthetic can be viewed via projection if one is willing to spend the money to do so.

I keep reading the comment (terminology) "FILM LOOK"

I used many different types and sizes of cameras along with Various film types for over 40 years. I am not sure I understand what is a proper definition of " Film Look"

Whether the results were negatives or slides, (for me) the important thing was quality of the final results. Certainly different type film has different tonal range and effects of Grain but I fail to see what this has to do with Film Look.

I have some final printed Photos from both film and color negatives that are excellent. Likewise, I have the same now while using Digital. If an image is good (or excellent) for me it has nothing to do with whether Film or Digital. The primary difference is the processing difference between the two -- and has Nothing to do with "Film LooK"

 

[Overrank]

For me, the only advantage with using film is the experience of using minimalistic film cameras.

With absolutely no joy I accept that prints with film aesthetics can be made using raw files, contemporary computers and sufficient post-production rendering software. Producing prints that achieve the film aesthetic is also possible (but expensive). Even images with transparency film aesthetic can be viewed via projection if one is willing to spend the money to do so.

I keep reading the comment (terminology) "FILM LOOK"

I used many different types and sizes of cameras along with Various film types for over 40 years. I am not sure I understand what is a proper definition of " Film Look"

Whether the results were negatives or slides, (for me) the important thing was quality of the final results. Certainly different type film has different tonal range and effects of Grain but I fail to see what this has to do with Film Look.

I have some final printed Photos from both film and color negatives that are excellent. Likewise, I have the same now while using Digital. If an image is good (or excellent) for me it has nothing to do with whether Film or Digital. The primary difference is the processing difference between the two -- and has Nothing to do with "Film LooK"

Kodak, Fuji etc spent thousands of millions of dollars (equivalent) ensuring that their films gave a faithful representation of reality, subject to the design intent for the particular film (high speed, low grain, copying film, false colour etc).



I see the “film look” meaning two things (1) shot on film, or (2) an idea of how faded 1970s lab prints might look now. I think the meaning might depend on your audience.

 

[Sue Anne Rush]

Yes before digital cameras - I shot photographs with my Canon AE- 1 program camera.

I came across a comment I found interesting in today's DPR article about Silver Efex Pro 3. In response to the software's ability to recreate a "film look," the commenter said this: "Imagine what pros back in the film era would have paid to rid their prints of the 'film look.'"

I'm just curious, does this reflect how a lot of film shooters felt, or would have felt, prior to the digital revolution? In other words, when people wax poetic about the film era, do any of you who shot seriously during the pre-digital era just roll your eyes at all the nostalgia? Are today's incredibly clean and sharp digital photos something you would have loved, say, thirty years ago?

Or, conversely, have today's photos lost something for all their technical perfection? Personally, I love modern technology for my own work, but I'm also a huge fan of Michael Kenna's work, for example. I don't think it's a matter of "better" or "worse," it's just different. But then again, I didn't shoot seriously when film was the only option (I shot cheap film cameras when I was younger -- but I only got seriously interested in photography several years ago).

Anyway, just curious to hear the opinions of those who shot film before it was a choice.

 

[Phil A Martin]

For me, the only advantage with using film is the experience of using minimalistic film cameras.

With absolutely no joy I accept that prints with film aesthetics can be made using raw files, contemporary computers and sufficient post-production rendering software. Producing prints that achieve the film aesthetic is also possible (but expensive). Even images with transparency film aesthetic can be viewed via projection if one is willing to spend the money to do so.

I keep reading the comment (terminology) "FILM LOOK"

I used many different types and sizes of cameras along with Various film types for over 40 years. I am not sure I understand what is a proper definition of " Film Look"

Whether the results were negatives or slides, (for me) the important thing was quality of the final results. Certainly different type film has different tonal range and effects of Grain but I fail to see what this has to do with Film Look.

I have some final printed Photos from both film and color negatives that are excellent. Likewise, I have the same now while using Digital. If an image is good (or excellent) for me it has nothing to do with whether Film or Digital. The primary difference is the processing difference between the two -- and has Nothing to do with "Film LooK"

Kodak, Fuji etc spent thousands of millions of dollars (equivalent) ensuring that their films gave a faithful representation of reality, subject to the design intent for the particular film (high speed, low grain, copying film, false colour etc).

So which was more accurate, Reala or Velvia?

I see the “film look” meaning two things (1) shot on film, or (2) an idea of how faded 1970s lab prints might look now. I think the meaning might depend on your audience.