For one thing it's fun.
Another is that film genuinely has features digital cameras can't match. For example, if you overexpose most film you aren't left with massive pure white patches - there's still differentiation in those areas. This is particularly the case in colour negative film, other formats are more sensative. A lot of people prefer films grain to digital sensors noise and artifacts.
A huge (literally) benefit of film are the extra formats. Medium format film photography is accessible, but digital medium format cameras are mind-blowingly expensive. Even then, it's not the resolution. Larger formats require longer focal lengths, which means narrow depths of field are possible at long range. See David Burnetts superb portfolio from London 2012 - shot on 4x5 (inch) film. https://www.davidburnett.com/gallery.html?gallery=London%202....
You've also got all sorts of other odd formats, such as the 6x16 (cm) panoramic medium format (not cheap though).
But really, it's just a lot of fun. Nailing exposure using a light meter, rather than just trying again until you get it right. Not missing photos because you were looking at the screen. Watching b/w prints form. The long and tense process for turning b/w negative film into positive slides.
I just bought a Rolleicord TLR camera, which shoots 6 cm square negatives. It cost me $250 on eBay. If shot with good quality low grain film, and scanned with a professional grade negative scanner, the equivalent resolution I get from it should be on the order of 100 megapixels, and possibly more in good lighting conditions.
Even regular 35 mm film shot in a decent SLR will give you 30+ megapixels. You can buy good used 35 mm cameras all day long for less than $100. You can buy a Hasselblad 500C, the very same camera the Apollo astronauts went to the moon with and that Ansel Adams used for shooting his iconic photographs of Yosemite, which uses the same 6 cm film as my Rollei, for less than $1000.
Buying a 100 megapixel digital camera would cost me ten thousand dollars minimum.
See: https://petapixel.com/2014/12/18/comparing-image-quality-fil...
Hasselblad makes some nice ones.
(I know, I know, only $3-5k, what a deal. Better than the "cash payment for a pretty nice car" range though.)
In the past, stuff on film meant you could rescan the originals and remaster them in 4K, which you can't do with 1080p digital recordings (like Star Wars ep1 .. they used other digital techniques to upscale them). But there are limits to that. Trying to rescan old film at 8K often results in a lot of noise, and you don't gain much even after trying to clean it up .. so there are limits to the resolution of the analogue medium that we are just now surpassing with digital sensors.
That's why Nolan still screens his films with 70mm IMAX projectors. He might use digital for effects, but I believe he preserves the analog film in the final prints instead of using a digital intermediate.
I guess the real reason why Nolan and Tarantino still use 70 mm is not quality, but personal preference and a bit of self-marketing.
Old masters of large format film photography have a workflow and thought process that’s vastly different from modern digicam shooting. When you have just one or two potential exposures and maybe only 15 minutes of perfect light to pull it off, you must research and plan and conceptualize deeply.
Ansel Adams is the grandmaster here. He has three books on exposure, shooting, and development which read like alien artifacts to someone who’s used to digital. They also convey amazing conceptual clarity.
Picking up an old film camera is a good way to get a little bit in touch with that ethos.
That forces you to think your composition through, take an extra second or two to ensure the exposure is good - it basically enforces self discipline.
(Which reminds me I've got a few rolls to develop after my latest outing with the Texas Leica - a Fuji G690BL; the 6*9 format gives me eight exposures on a roll of 120 film.
Besides the enforced self discipline, I spend all of my working time in front of a computer, so I find it a bonus to have a hobby which does not (necessarily) involve one; I do shoot digital, too, though - I just mostly prefer the analog workflow for recreation.
It's the paralysis of choice. Less is literally more, and I personally don't find an evening of spending a couple hours paralyzed by choice and analyzing minute details to be enjoyable. At all.
And yes, film makes you think a concept through fully and optimize everything before you press the shutter. My 'hit' rate is much higher with film than digital.
I have so many cameras I don't have time to use them all, but my Fuji cameras and LF lenses are definitely among my favorites as well. Very underrated, Fuji didn't do a good job of advertising in the west at all. My general purpose camera is a Pentax 67 though. Looking forward to trying a new Polaroid rangefinder that was converted to 4x5 as well. Just bought some Velvia for a cool $2 per frame.
The Pentax 67 is a beast, though - I had one for a couple of years and loved it to bits, but in the end it lost out to the 690 as I find myself preferring rangefinders more and more. Wonderful camera and optics, though.
Portability is really the problem with the P67. I find myself drawn to cameras that pack a big punch in a small package and the P67 just is a physically very large camera. I like my Fuji GS645 folder for travelling and would like a GF670, I snagged a 120-converted Kodak Medalist (heliar-type lens), and I have been trying to get set up with a compact 4x5 setup. I just got that Polaroid and I have some Grafmatics for it, maybe someday I'll grab a Pocket Gowland to go with it.
I wouldn't mind a G690, but the lenses are fairly scarce and expensive. It is also a surprisingly big camera (assuming it's like the fixed-lens versions). Like, it doesn't look that big in pictures, until you realize that the camera body is about a 50% larger diagonal than your iphone plus. It is actually comical in person, not much smaller than a P67 at all. But, much lighter than a P67, which helps.
Leica is too expensive for my blood although I do have a Nicca body and a Nikkor 28/3.5 LTM for it. I particularly liked that lens on the Nikonos and wanted a copy that didn't have the underwater mounting/scale focus. For really low light shooting I like the Yashica Lynx 14E and the Olympus XA with film pushed to 1600. The 14E is the fastest lens on a fixed-lens RF ever and has a leaf shutter to reduce vibrations, while the XA has a wide lens, a piezo release, and a leaf shutter. Both do well with handholdability at slow speeds. The Olympus XA can be modified to support 1600 by spinning the paper disc over the meter one stop further so that all speeds read one stop faster, the 14E is full manual.
I mostly don't do 35mm SLRs anymore. Digital does that stuff better, so I do digital for that (I can adapt old lenses to my NEX camera) and MF/LF for fun. Easier to scan too, 35mm really needs a pretty decent scanner to get full quality, or wet printing. Trying to get set up for a basement darkroom, too many projects too little money.
I don't mind GAS. I admit I like the collecting too, it's a hobby. And I don't mind having "special purpose" lenses or cameras that do one niche thing for me. It's nice to have the right tool for the job.
Yeah, the late 2000s were a wild time for cameras. All the pros were dumping their film gear for digital, the financial crisis caused people to dump grandpa's old camera junk for a song and meant little competition, and hipsters hadn't latched onto film gear yet. I picked up my first 6x7 (non-MLU) for $300... with a meter prism and three lenses. That stuff has roughly tripled in value since those days, I think.
The Negative is absolutely indispensable and should be read by every shooter, film or digital. The Zone System conceptually works the same for everything, whether B+W or color, film or digital. It's a generalized system for placing an exposure level onto the sensor's available range.
I suspect The Print is probably not entirely relevant anymore to most people who are doing hybrid-digital workflows (scanning their negatives), but may be of interest if you want to do wet printing. Which you should, it's super fun and rewarding and I can more easily deliver a better print than I can digitally.
One thing it doesn't cover is split-grade printing, which is very easy to produce high-quality results, but requires "modern" variable-contrast emulsions which didn't exist in his day.
Consumer, Commercial, and Industrial.
For consumers it is mostly about nostalgia and a process that is enjoyable to use.
For commercial (I am including high level hobbyists, still professionals, cinema, etc) there are technical advantages such as the size of the image produced (film area vs digital sensor area) and other factors which have a meaningful impact on the final product.
For industrial (I am including things like research) there is no (cost effective) digital equivalent. I remember reading about an experiment where they would fill a chamber with large blocks of film, and then track particle paths through the film.
You can go super deep in each area to find the technical differences that people in each one care about.
Once you start watching on streaming though, you're losing so much to compression. Even with 4K HDR blu-ray, you're only getting 10 bits of color compared to 12 bits with DCP (digital projection).
Also, you only get 24 or so shots per roll, so it forces you to be more thoughtful about each shot. It's not for everybody, but neither are vinyl records, and that business is thriving.
Here's a pretty lengthy breakdown comparison[1] of digital and film from a few years back if you wanted a read.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvia
[1] https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-v...
As someone who shoots film, there are a number of reasons, one being the asthetic you get from film that you can't (even with x hours in Photoshop) get from digital. I shoot large format and there are no (within my budget, at the very least) 8" x 10" digital sensors.
Film also more or less forces you to make prints. I would hazard a guess that a small percentage of digital photos ever make it to print and half of a photograph for me is a tactile thing you can hold in your hands and give to someone else.
Lastly, it's the process. That's something I can't explain.
That analogy breaks down a bit because in the former case, there are very many circumstances where the small unpowered tool is the best fit for a job (touching up an area, finishing off a mortise, trimming off something by hand where a power tool would not be able to give the proper feedback).
In photography, the preference is a lot more subjective, at least when it comes to 35mm formats.
Most carpenters will carry hand saws and chisels with them even if they have all the top of the line power tools because they remain relevant and immensely useful.
You can make a scanner back out of a normal CCD film scanner. It comes with a lot of downsides since you have a giant "rolling shutter" that works on the scale of 10s+ but it does give you an image.
I suspect the cost was in the millions of dollars for the one-of-a-kind sensor, but I bet you could get a great deal on a second one since they've already done the R&D!
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_C._Rubin_Observatory#Came...
https://petapixel.com/2018/04/17/largesense-unveils-worlds-f...
I must admit 12MP is lower than I expected. It seems the intent was to use large pixels to get huge tonal range rather than small pixels for resolution.
Bigger sensors tend to have shallower depth of field for a given aperture, which requires stopping down the lens further or using lens movements to compensate to keep the subject in focus. But that can be desirable where you want to isolate a subject or otherwise create an effect.
However, stopping down further also tends to cause an increase in diffraction as the Airy discs become larger and start to engage each other in constructive/destructive wave interference which reduces the theoretical resolution of the system. This particularly affects smaller sensors but since you stop a larger lens down farther it also affects them as well.
And in contrast - smaller sensors need wider apertures for a given amount of subject isolation, but they are also subject to diffraction at much wider apertures. This means you need a lens that can deliver maximum resolution at very wide apertures. This is why your cellphone camera has a f/2 or f/1.8 lens, the sensor is tiny and it needs a very wide aperture or diffraction will rob the image of all sharpness. It's also why, for the most part, cellphone cameras haven't gone much above the 10-12mp range.
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-phot...
(I've always suspected there is probably some asymptotic limit to the amount of resolution that can be extracted for a given amount of depth of field, even with an infinitely large film/sensor size. as you increase the sensor size you have to stop down further and the diffraction becomes stronger and limits the lp/mm)
Note some people use large format negatives for ultra-sharp small prints, in that case you might be looking for 1000 dpi or higher to match the fidelity of a large negative.
As far as not understanding, there are things about film that are different than digital. It's may not necessarily be a technical discussion any more (though others may disagree with me), but artistic choices such as the choice to use film are still valid.
Because you're being pedantic i.e, if there's one person left shooting with film, then "people" are. Look past the literal words and understand the sentiment "What advantages do people see with film over digital?"
> there are things [...] not necessarily be a technical discussion [...] others may disagree [...] artistic choices
Things like what? Artistic choices such as?
I don't think this is a genuine answer. Certainly there must be good reasons people shoot film. But nobody can disagree with you here because in so many words, you said nothing to answer the question.
edit:
It's frustrating to see gp's question downmodded because we reserve that for "Doesn't add to the discussion". It was not impolite and it allowed many of you to surface your passions about shooting with film. How was it unhelpful? Don't interpret gp's inquiry as a dig on your choices; no one need be insecure about sentimentality.
Kodak Alaris != Kodak (ie. the original Eastman Kodak)
The later went into bankruptcy in 2012, selling off most of its remaining assets (though I think it still makes film for movie production). The reason for the bankruptcy is that the market for film died off in the 2000's. That, incidentally, had a huge impact on Kodak's (and my) home town of Rochester, NY. So yeah, I can see why people would be quite surprised that there's still this much interest in using film in 2020.
Its an awkward split, and one I often see re-explained whenever one or the other makes a press announcement.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine.
"Please don't post shallow dismissals..."
etc.
I bought a d3400 to get into photography, never really liked it. One day I visited my parents and my dad showed me an old Nikon FE, the one he used to take my childhood pics with. Slapped two batteries in and it worked just as good as 30 years ago, I haven't shot digital since then.
Good luck shooting medium format digital if you don't have $15k+ to burn. I got a bronica SQ + two lenses for less than what you'd pay for a good aps-c digital camera. If you dev and scan yourself it's good fun and not too expensive, you can experiment with different film stocks, different developers, different techniques. I personally find it much more rewarding, you can't spray n pray, you can't fix a 2 stops under exposure in post prod, you just have to know what you're doing and get it right. It's more of a creative process in a way.
There are also many quirks that you can't really replicate :
Infrared photography isn't really easy on digital: https://fstoppers.com/film/humanitarian-conflict-beautifully...
You can't shoot xpan panos on digital: https://i.redd.it/5184siubabv11.jpg & https://i.redd.it/ajrj8o38a1t21.jpg & https://i.redd.it/m7z6wm2idiw01.jpg
You can't shoot cinestill 800t either: https://i.redd.it/dnh3vi4u4s841.jpg & https://i.redd.it/x852qq3h43c41.jpg
etc. https://i.redd.it/5h74tuzocva41.jpg
[0] although you can get some pretty high res stocks these days, here is a 35mm frame: http://www.adox.de/Media/cms20test.jpg
Of course to get better resolution, you need to go up to medium format. (where those niceties become harder to come by)
Uninteresting for most photograhic fields, because of the big and hefty equipment to a APS-C/FF system, but it could make sense for someone doing landscape or architecture. Those bigger lenses have less of a problem to keep the "resolution" high before it hits the sensor/film, that gives small things in big pictures more detail.
By "MF", I take it you mean medium format.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_format
That a very excellent point that emphasizes how technology is often about trade-offs, not linear advancement. With film, it's far cheaper to increase the sensor size because the sensor is literally a consumable item. With digital, the sensor is an sophisticated electronic component that it's much harder and expensive to fabricate the larger you make them.
2. Medium and large format film still look as good or better than digital 35mm, and are still affordable for hobbyists
3. The look of BW film can’t be replicated by current color digital cameras without an expensive (in time or money) modification to the sensor
edit: I seem to have responded to the wrong comment here, but it's too late to delete.
They don't let you carry anything through the walk-through scanners.
(While I shoot negative much more often, it doesn't have the same visceral impact as positives.)
Lossless audio formats still have a sample rate and a bit depth that limits the maximum fidelity, while vinyl is always improving, or I should say record players are still improving. For instance, records made in the e.g. 1940s sound much better on modern equipment than they did when they were new, and in the future might sound even better. On the other hand, digital formats (audio and visual) have a fixed resolution and will never supply more detail than they do now.
So, it's not "for its own sake," but because it does actually sound different. Sure there's a little bit of "for its own sake" in the acts of handling a record and operating the equipment, which I think is what connects with NES: sometimes you just want to sit on a couch with a little controller. But at the same time, there are games that don't exist outside of NES, or are emulated in distasteful way, or something else that makes playing the actual device the best way to enjoy a game. Vinyl has this also, there is lots and lots and lots of music that has not been digitized, neither for CD nor File, and having a turntable is the only way to experience it.
Megapixels are unimportant, there is a look to film you can’t reproduce no matter how many VSCO plugins you use :)
Film protection bags are to protect against fogging from radiation at higher altitudes, not the scanners.
Yes, at some scale, if you put it in the jet of a black hole the radiation is going to destroy the image from physically blasting it off. That's not a reasonable concern to raise about film stability. Having your developed negatives x-rayed will not harm them, full stop.
The exception is that you shouldn't project slides for days and days on end, because the color couplers aren't as stable as grandpa's black and white negatives and do fade out eventually. Early color negative films had some problems too and would fade out over time regardless of radiation. But still, flying with a developed slide is not a problem, we are talking about the difference between a few mw of energy and sticking it right next to a 200W projector bulb.
It is incorrect to say that radiation has no effect. The effect is just greatly reduced.
Film's initial cost may be cheaper than digital, but after 10-20 rolls of film, digital comes out to be cheaper when accounting for film + development costs.
A used Canon 5D MkII kit can be had for under $800 these days.
As other comments have alluded, film still is very good for things. Even the best digital camera sensors can't match the dynamic range of film. Digital photography is so much more than just megapixels
Perhaps very high-end digital cameras are good. But if you need a good dynamic range for cheap: use film.
Consider, too, with CCD and the lens systems, there are shifts toward certain hues, and further post-processing (e.g. photoshop) is used to distort the color balance.
Of course they probably said the same about Kodachrome's vibrant, but unnatural colors "back when..."
But why? It's done, because we can. And it's noticeably different. And it's sometimes not a matter of being better, just different, since in a saturated world of media (no pun intended) differentiating one's work from the millions of others is often enough of a deciding factor to trigger a choice. Which brings me to the topic of the fashion industry...
EDIT: added “why” at beginning