• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

4 Reasons To Consider Moving Back To Analog SLRs.

I haven't shot a roll of color film professionally in nearly 10 years. I'm absolutely fine with that. I love digital photography. DSLR's, particularly full frame cameras are capable of producing stunning images.

I do think shooting film as a learning tool is a great idea though. I'll tell you why. It's expensive. You are almost have to learn and quickly or it will put a dent in your wallet... in a hurry.

Is film dead? Not yet, but it is pretty sick. I don't care about color film but black and white is a different matter. I still shoot 4x5, medium format and 35mm black and white film. I don't do this for my job of course but for my personal work. I shoot black and white for my "art". I mainly shoot Kodak Tri-X and occasionally Illford. I hand process and make prints in my home lab. Good lab technique is an art form and the look of a digital print, as good as it is, cannot, IMO compete with traditional silver based prints.

How long will black and white film be around? I have no idea. I would be willing to bet it will be decades. The price will continue to go up. The number of manufactures will continue to drop. When I find out Tri-X is being discontinued I'll buy enough to fill a freezer. I'm old enough it might last the rest of my life.
 
Last edited:
Wigwam Jones said:
1) Film is very ill, if not entirely dead. Kodak is in bankruptcy and that leaves only Fuji. Film is going up in price and it is becoming harder to find place that will process it. This trend will only continue.

2) You can learn exposure on any good digital camera with manual controls, and you get the results instantly instead of having to wait for the film to be processed.

3) If you fly a lot and take a lot of photos out of plane windows, then yes. I'm guessing that the percentage of the population that does that is very low.

4) Camera in the car is always a good idea. I've got a cell phone that's always with me and it takes photos too.

Film is great, I love film, but it doesn't matter. It's over. Learn to use the new technology.
Click to expand...

I love the feel of the old film cameras but the days of poisoning myself in a color wet darkroom and taking 8 hours or more and $200- $300 worth of materials for one exhibition quality print have zero attraction for me now.
 
They have regular home scanners now with attachments to even scan a film negative into photoshop on Your computer.
(a person can always scan a print)...and enhance it all Ya want too.
I've done it with old printed wedding shots for folks...Soften the image, Add a creative border.
Lotsa stuff.
Almost as much fun as recording music on cassette tapes on a quiet evening.
 
Digital is by no means the end all in photography. 5 seconds in the photography wing of the Chicago Art Institute will shatter that notion.

While some have no interest in film others create their own developer using coffee. There is Lomo photography. There are pinhole cameras. Some are about the process. They work slow and methodically. Some are about getting the final image to the client. Regardless, film will teach a photographer a bit about the history of the medium and instill a bit of respect for the medium. Guess that's why I just gave a friend's kid an SLR for her High School Photography class. She might learn something. Find her voice. Maybe then, when she sees Stiegletz's "Hand of Man" in person, she might appreciate it a bit more.
 
HandyHamlet said:
Digital is by no means the end all in photography. 5 seconds in the photography wing of the Chicago Art Institute will shatter that notion.

While some have no interest in film others create their own developer using coffee. There is Lomo photography. There are pinhole cameras. Some are about the process. They work slow and methodically. Some are about getting the final image to the client. Regardless, film will teach a photographer a bit about the history of the medium and instill a bit of respect for the medium. Guess that's why I just gave a friend's kid an SLR for her High School Photography class. She might learn something. Find her voice. Maybe then, when she sees Stiegletz's "Hand of Man" in person, she might appreciate it a bit more.
Click to expand...

And film is dying. Doesn't matter what is 'better', it only matters what is available. When film is gone, it's gone. Period, end of story.
 
Dude111 said:
An excellent list but you forgot on buddy!

5: Analogue is better so the result will be BETTER WORK :)
Click to expand...

Not at all. My DSLR is a Cannon 20D. An older camera with 8 mp resolution. The limit to resolution without showing grain was @ 17"x14" if I shot at 100 ISO. Some grain was evident at that resolution but it was slight and didn't appear 'digital'. With an 8x10 print, you couldn't distinguish my shots from film prints without a magnifying glass and a good understanding of film grain.

While in photography class I brought in a couple prints I had produced at the 17x14 size to compare them with another photographer's prints. She was working medium format in color and printing about the same size I was. For class I was shooting 35mm B&W. My print compared very favorably to the medium format print. To the point that the other photog was a bit angry.

DSLR resolutions have better than doubled since then. To be honest, Digital is better than analog these days when it comes to photography. And that isn't even getting into the ISO flexibility that DSLR's offer.
 
I would love to use my Asahi Pentax again. The best photos I ever took were with that camera (and the light meter doesn't even work!).
 
I appreciate that many people enjoy film photography and I agree it's an experience every photographer should try once or twice. But in reality, 99% of people who like to take pictures would wonder why anyone would purposely use an obsolete, clunky, finicky, expensive, etc. etc. etc. method of capturing an image when DSLR makes the whole process so much easier.
 
Cruzah said:
I realize this post might be consider heresy on a digital photography website and yet, I type about moving away from all digital and incorporating some old-fashioned analog (film) cameras in your photo kit.
Click to expand...


All good points but likely moot considering the average age of posters in this thread and on the board in general, it's likely that most if not all started shooting using film cameras many years ago. I switched to digital in 1999 after thirty years of using film cameras, many of which are still owned. Most would be better served learning and improving the skills and workflow involved with digital photography.
 
Wigwam Jones said:
1) Film is very ill, if not entirely dead. Kodak is in bankruptcy and that leaves only Fuji. Film is going up in price and it is becoming harder to find place that will process it. This trend will only continue.
Click to expand...

:no:

Ilford, Efke, Adox, Foma, Rollei, etc.

There are a bunch of film companies out there and they are continuing to bring out new film emulsions. Just because Kodak doesn't have the first clue about how to effectively run a niche business doesn't mean that the entire industry is dead.

Just look at Photokina just a couple of weeks ago. Many companies announced new cameras. Rollei has new ones, Heck Lomography just announced a new 6x12 camera that may actually be decent.

Film will never be "mainstream" again but it is FAR from dead.
 
willyrover said:
I appreciate that many people enjoy film photography and I agree it's an experience every photographer should try once or twice. But in reality, 99% of people who like to take pictures would wonder why anyone would purposely use an obsolete, clunky, finicky, expensive, etc. etc. etc. method of capturing an image when DSLR makes the whole process so much easier.
Click to expand...

I appreciate that many people enjoy analog audio and I agree it's an experience every audiophile should try once or twice. But in reality, 99% of people who like to listen to music would wonder why anyone would purposely use an obsolete, clunky, finicky, expensive, etc. etc. etc. method of listening to a song when iTunes makes the whole process so much easier.

:D
 
I was thinking the same thing :)
And yes, it isn't dead yet so I am all for having fun while it's available. I really believe that at least Black and White film, paper and chemestry will be around for the 30 or so years I have left on the planet.
 
TebbieBear said:
:no:

Ilford, Efke, Adox, Foma, Rollei, etc.
Click to expand...

You're way out of touch. Ilford and Foma remain a going concern of the list you made above.

Efke is gone. Adox was gone decades ago. Rollei film is partially relabeled left-over Agfa film and partially traffic surveillance film.

There are a bunch of film companies out there and they are continuing to bring out new film emulsions. Just because Kodak doesn't have the first clue about how to effectively run a niche business doesn't mean that the entire industry is dead.
Click to expand...

No, there are not.

Just look at Photokina just a couple of weeks ago. Many companies announced new cameras. Rollei has new ones, Heck Lomography just announced a new 6x12 camera that may actually be decent.
Click to expand...

Rollei is bankrupt and has ceased to be. Several companies leased the rights to the name and sell cameras with their brand name on them, but that is not Rollei.

Film will never be "mainstream" again but it is FAR from dead.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's dead. Stick a fork in it.

CIPA stopped tracking film camera sales and silver emulsion film sales several years ago - they tracked 30% year-on-year drops in sales starting in the early 2000s, and that trend took film right off the end of the cliff. It does not exist for all intents and purposes in the commercial sense.

In the 'artistic' or 'niche' market sense, it lives, and it may thrive there for some time to come, as demand balances out with remaining suppliers. I am sure it is possible for a few very small players to remain in the market for quite awhile, serving the art and die-hard film using community. Eventually, that too will go.

But you said it yourself. It's not mainstream anymore. And it never will be again. That's 'dead' for all intents and purposes. If you like film and want to keep using it, that's super-cool. And it is still better than digital for a couple things, like large format, like architectural photography, and so on. No doubt.

But moving 'back' to an analog SLR is not going to get you anything that you don't already have with digital, and it's going to to be a bit of a pain in the butt. If that's your thing, groovy. It's definitely not mine anymore.

But hey, I hope that a few folks like yourself remain for awhile longer. I have got a ton of film cameras that I still need to sell, and the prices have already collapsed more than I'm happy with. Should have sold them two years ago.
 
The last time I was in wally world, I ventured into the camera dept. They had one vertical row of hook things that had 35mm film.
It was all one speed, so not much of a selection there.
I look for wally world and other discount chain stores to not even stock 35mm film anymore in the very near future. Probably in the near future the only way to buy 35mm film will be off the internet.
Like wiggy said, film is pretty much dead now. :sigh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom