Ten Reasons Why I Still Shoot Film

I shot this 15 years ago on Venice beach in Los Angeles. I was doing a review of a Leica RE 35mm SLR for a photography magazine. My "sensor" of choice at the time was Fujichrome Velvia. This is pretty much how the original transparency looked. I didn't even lay a finger on the Photoshop saturation slider.

Even though I own and use a digital camera I still shoot film; not as much as I used to, but often enough that I keep a supply of film on hand. I'll even go a step further to state outright that I prefer film for my personal work--the stuff I shoot purely for my own personal satisfaction. Here are ten reasons why, numbered only for the sake of numbering and not in any special order.

1. It's still available. Let's face it, if film were no longer available there wouldn't be any point in going any further, right?
2. I enjoy the feeling of handling film cameras. Depending on the camera and the control, the feeling is smooth, precise, crisp and responsive. I get the impression of owning a much more expensive camera than it actually is.
3. The 35mm film cameras I use most are small and light yet sturdy. I can carry a body and two lenses in the same space it takes to carry a single DSLR with a zoom.
4. I can use top-quality lenses that are just as small, light and sturdy as the bodies. My older 35mm film cameras all use manual focus lenses. Because they're manual focus they don't need motors, can be made of metal instead of plastic, and can be a lot smaller. When is the last time you used a lens with a 49mm filter thread on your DSLR?
5. The viewfinder is large, clear and bright. I can actually see with my eyes whether the image is in focus or not. That's a good thing too, because there's no autofocus. I have to focus by eye, yet after all these years I still do a consistently good job of it.
6. I'm not dependent on batteries. If the battery dies only the meter dies, not the whole camera. Better yet, the batteries will last for months, not days or weeks.
7. I like the way negative films handle highlights. The highlights compress rather than clip, which means I don't have to obsess about avoiding overexposure. In fact, I can intentionally overexpose to add shadow detail and I still won't blow out the highlights.
8. With "only" 36 exposures per roll I tend to shoot with more forethought. There's less of a tendency to take a picture of something just because I can.
9. Film manufacturers are still producing better films. Film processing at minilabs with Fuji Frontier or Noritsu machines is amazingly good. Pro labs are harder to find, but the better ones are still in business and able to do things you could only dream of doing with your home scanner and printer.
10. This is major for me: Less reliance on a computer for processing and printing. I write on a computer practically all day. Why would I want to spend even more time on the computer messing around with digital files? I'll do it if I have to, but any chance I get to have someone else develop my film, scan it at high resolution, save the results onto a CD, and make a dated index print, I'll go for it.

So that's my list. Did I miss anything?

Comments

[iPetrov]

Well, I currently own a Pentax P30n and shoot with an M 50/1.7 and a SMC Takumar 28/3.5 because this was close to inexpensive. I really like the feeling of manual focus, the aperture ring, the simplicity of the camera, the 2 lr44 batteries i pop into the camera once in a long while, etc.

But, the thing is, I live in Portugal and a roll of 36 Fuji Reala + processing + prints gets close to 20Eur (30Eur if I want a CD with medium res files of the photos). So a single set of 36 photos with a CD eats 1.5% of my family monthly income.

So, despite the fun in shooting film, I'm curious for how long I will be abble keep this up.

[Chris Klug]

This is great. Late last week on my blog I also posted a top ten reasons, many of which were the same as yours. Which, Gordon, is not surprising because your encouragement about shooting color film brought me back there. I have my wonderful Canon FD equipment, but until those posts of yours I hadn't put a roll of color negative film through it in years. Black&White film, yes, Color slide film, yes. But color neg? Not so much. After your posts I bought some Ektar and was astounded by it. My wife, a die-hard digital photographer, was taken aback by the quality, contrast, color, etc.

Thank you!

[James B.]

Even though I only picked up a camera recently, I've found myself making a transition to film for a lot of the reasons you listed here. However, the biggest one for me would be number ten. As a designer, I spend my whole day fiddling with images on a computer. Why would I want to do the same thing in my spare time?

[Gordon Lewis]

"...on my blog I also posted a top ten reasons, many of which were the same as yours."

Well, you know the old saying: Great minds think alike. (Or is it "Fools seldom differ?")

I'm glad to hear you're happy with Ektar though. I plan to try a roll or two this summer. It will have to be damned good to unseat Fuji Reala as my top dog among color print films. If you haven't tried Reala yet, trust me, you should.

[J]

Funny you should mention 49mm threads. I have two for my K10D which coincidentally spend time on my LX. I like all your reasons for film; it's just got soul.

[Chris Klug]

Actually, in my next Freestyle order I've got Reala on the list.

[Andrew Sanderson]

Reason 1. Film has magic, digital doesn't. The sense of satisfaction from working things out and mastering a craft (I shoot and print all my own black and white) is so different from the instant and fleeting pleasure digital gives.
Reason 2. I can still 'read files' (negs) that I shot in 1972 without an expensive upgrade.

[MarcelG]

"When is the last time you used a lens with a 49mm filter thread on your DSLR?"
Answer: yesterday on my K20D. I use two modern AF lenses (1 zoom, 1 prime) and a lot of M42 and old PK-mount M primes ranging from 28mm f/2.9 to 250mm f/4.5. All full manual, and all brilliant. :-)

I own 7 analog Pentax SLR's but I haven't bought a roll of film in 9 years. Same reason as iPetrov for that.

[george plummer]

Like many other readers I'm a Pentax user (digital K10D) and several of my lens are 49mm - including my favorite, the 77mm f/1.8. I confess that I use digital because it gives me better control of the final product. If I revert to film then I need to add a scan step to get the same personal control - otherwise, I have to delegate the printing to a lab or enter that other realm - the dark room. I love your 10 reasons, but do they really reflect the whole process from loading the camera to looking at the final print?

[Gordon Lewis]

"a single set of 36 photos with a CD eats 1.5% of my family monthly income"

There is definitely a cost to buying and processing film. For many this cost is prohibitive, especially if they shoot a lot. But digital photography isn't free either. Digital cameras, computers, monitors, printers, color calibrators, software--all cost money. There's also the cost of upgrading your equipment and software every few years.

Keep in mind that I too shoot more digital than film, so this is by no means an attack on digital photography. All I'm saying is that photography can be expensive no matter what media you prefer.

[Gordon Lewis]

"I love your 10 reasons, but do they really reflect the whole process from loading the camera to looking at the final print?"

In my mind, yes. My basic workflow for film is to develop and scan B&W film myself. On days when I'm feeling less ambitious I shoot color neg film and have it processed by a pro lab here in Philly that provides an index print and a CD with hi-res scans of every frame. If I ever need a bigger or better scan than the one on the CD, I do it myself.

It works for me. It may not work for you--but of course you're free to follow the beat of whatever drummer you like.

[Marcus Peddle]

I have just discovered your blog through Google Reader (it makes suggestions based on blogs to which I already subscribe) and I am glad that someone is still discussing film. Most of my film is shot in a Contax 645 but I sometimes use a Nikon F80 or FM3a.
Shooting 35mm film is still relatively cheap here in Korea. I don't know why that is, since everything else seems to be more expensive than in other countries. Getting a roll of Fuji Superia Reala developed, printed and saved to a CD takes up less than half a percent of my salary. That said, the lab I go to saves my photos digitally for free when I get prints because I am a regular customer. I drop off a CF card with the film so he doesn't have to use a CD.
Getting prints and digital copies of medium format film is a different story. Scanning has to be done manually one frame at a time so it's quite expensive.

[Miserere]

"So that's my list. Did I miss anything?"

11. Cos I'm a bad mutha...

I mean that in the best possible way :-)

[Amor]

Hi,

I believe you're right in this post. Digital camera more often than not will only result to digital garbage. I also believe that film should not be totally replace by digital photography. There's always an option to scan or save directly to CD as digital files those pictures taken from film cameras. I think noritsu can handle such task easily.

Great post!

[Dawn Penso]

One other reason: the pleasurable suspense of waiting to see if you've got anything on the film and the joy of finding that you have.