Embracing Film

/

It sure looks like a lot of photographers are including film photography as part of their engagement. For those of us who started in film, this is very interesting, at least it is for me. Let’s look at some of the pros and cons of shooting film in the third decade of the 21st century.

Pros

  • If one acts with discipline, it is still possible to buy a used film camera and assorted lenses without going into deep debt. This was admittedly near free five years ago, but with increased demand, comes increased cost

  • Companies are making film again, so you are not dependent on old stale dated film

  • Companies are offering developing of film again, although this is still not widely spread. There are also numerous recipes for developing at home on YouTube

  • Shooting film is a more mental process than shooting digital, that I will spend more time upon later in this article

  • Shooting film is much more get it right in camera, and is more limited to fixing bad work after the fact. This can also be seen as a con, depending upon where you stand. Odds are good, if you are shooting film, you are standing here beside me

  • You can develop many film types at home. Black and white is easy. Colour print is more demanding as is colour transparency

Cons

  • Film is more expensive to purchase on a per shot basis than digital

  • Film has to be developed to be usable

  • Film once processed needs to be scanned on a properly equipped scanner if you wish to store a digital backup and if you want to do edits and or make prints from your computer and printer

  • While there are Companies now developing film, serious printing is still limited although you may be able to get contact sheets or 4x6 proofs from your film processor

  • Film has significantly less dynamic range than a digital sensor, so you have to be much more cognizant of your exposure decisions. There’s significantly less latitude to correct for mistakes

  • A roll of film limits the number of shots you can take without rewinding and loading another roll. While this is a con for some, for myself this is pro

  • Most film cameras do not have motor wind options, and when they exist they are limited in terms of wind speed. However, you can still burn through a 36 exposure roll in under 10 seconds with most film cameras that take a motor winder. Again, while some see this as a con, I see it as a pro

The Artistic and Creative Benefits of Film

I say up front that I have a bias here. As useful as digital is, it is not the same as shooting film from a mental perspective. Digital is much more forgiving and the effect zero cost of shooting once the gear is acquired allows for picture taking ad infinitum. Sadly this reality has resulted in billions of truly awful pictures, and i don’t mean awful the way that 110 film or the execrable Disc film produced from plastic lenses and no focus or real exposure control. I mean lazy, poorly composed pictures by the hundreds and thousands that no film shooter would ever have wasted a frame on. Quantity does not imply quality and to a large extent it is well proven that quantity is inversely proportional to quality. Spray and pray is a real thing and just about as useless in picture taking as it is in war, likely more.

When you go to shoot film, you value each frame because they are limited. Rolls of film are finite, and unless you are supplied with bags of film and all the processing is paid for, it can get costly. The National Geographic doesn’t hire photographers as they once did. Neither does anyone else. Consequently, more thought is applied prior to the squeezing of the shutter.

Because film has such limited dynamic range, the serious photographer spends more time determining the best possible exposure for the subject. The photographer is more likely to previsualize the outcome before the shutter squeeze. As there is no EXIF information, the photographer wanting to improve will take notes about each image, to provide a reference point for review. Interestingly while digital makes this a non-issue, most digital photographers never look at the EXIF if something did not turn out and even then rarely do analysis to identify what went wrong such is the disposable nature of digital photography

The film photographer pays more attention to angle of view, potential perspective exaggerations and depth of field because with film it is more requisite to get the shot right in camera. While you can certainly scan negatives and then process the scanned negative in Photoshop or wherever, you have a lot less data to play with. Thus the diligent film photographer is more likely to get a more satisfying image straight out of camera.

Film artistically feels more real. More like painting or sculpture because if the core does not work, all the post processing lipstick in the world does not alter the reality of the pig.

Does This Mean That Digital is Bad?

Digital is magical. It lowers the entry point to anyone who can point the lens in the right direction and allows them to take pictures without any understanding of photography. This is a great boon to those who want quick and easy snapshots, and in that way is just like the old 110, Disc, 126 and even 127 film cameras. However, because digital is so easy, it is a slippery slope for even the diligent photographer to take a substantial amount of crap photos because the ease of use abrogates the thought process of photography. Consider digital photographers that you may admire. I will offer up Steve McCurry, Dave Black, Joe McNally as a very short list of respected digital photographers. Guess where they all started? With film, and in many cases with that most demanding of films, Kodachrome. Now to some, like me, Kodachrome is synonymous with photography. In fact different film types identified a photography type. While consumers would shoot Kodacolor or Fujicolor for anything, only varying the ISO at time of purchase to allow for different lighting levels, professionals would choose a film based on the outcome.

Uniqueness of Film Stock

When I was a wedding, engagement and beauty photographer where larger prints were to be the outcome, there was only one film to use Kodak Vericolor II and later Vericolor III. Vericolor had a completely different contrast response, far more suitable to the whites and pastels. For punchy fashion, where I had control of the light, I would shoot Kodachrome 64 or Fujichrome 100 depending on the primary colour palette of the fashion itself. If lighting was going to be a challenge, it would be Fujicolor 400, or Fujichrome 400 or Ektachrome 400. I shot a lot more transparency than I every shot negative film, other than weddings and the like. If I had all kinds of time for a landscape and a tripod, Kodachrome 25 was the answer. For documentary stuff it was Kodak Tri-X black and white, rated at ASA (ISO) 400 and pushed a stop or two stops in camera and compensated for in development to deliver low light performance. Yes it was grainy but as has been proven over and over, no one sees the grain if the image is compelling, hence my continued amusement/bafflement with the amount of freaking out over digital noise.

Fine grained black and white was the province of Pan-X. Mid ASA black and white was Ilford FP4 and when I wanted finer grain ISO 400 there was Ilford HP5 and their later colour processing requiring ASA 400 black and white film called XP-2. The point I make is that the film selection was an integral part of the whole photographic process and serious photographers thought about this all the time. Present day film photographers do not have these options as I write this, and I hope that they get more choice, although the probability of ever seeing Kodachrome again is infinitesimal.

There are digital post processing plugins designed specifically to emulate film stock. At one time Nik Analog Efex specified film stock but now it does only “looks”. However, the company that makes Nik these days is DXO and their DXO Filmpack is a killer film emulation for digital processing. And you don’t have to shoot film to get the look. Thus if you are curious about film look, download the free trial from dxo.com before buying a film camera. However, if you want to become a better photographer by building discipline and managing your creative workflow, a film camera is an excellent option.

In Summary

I never stopped shooting film. I’ve only done black and white for the last ten to twelve years, because it is easy to process at home, easy to scan for printing and there is no digital option to replace my Mamiya RZ67 6cm x 7cm negatives, or my Sinar 4” x 5” negatives. You don’t have to go that far as you can still find a simple 35mm film camera if you shop carefully. Pentax K1000s are available but getting pricey. You can also look to Minolta SRT-201s or Nikon FM or FM2 models for excellent fully manual film cameras. I still have Minolta and Nikon 35mm film cameras that work as well today as they did 25 + years ago.

Please consider clicking subscribe for articles and podcast episodes so you get a notification whenever something new is released. Thank you for reading and until next time, peace.