HOME • THIS ISSUE • PREVIOUS ISSUES • WORKSHOPS • TPE ON FACEBOOK

Film Is Dead
Or At Least Half-Dead

Having exposed & developed my first rolls of film in 1972, And then again as recently as this spring I shot and processed several rolls of black & white film. Not that I wanted to shoot some film, but I had sold my mirrored camera and glass and had not acquired my mirror-less camera yet. As it turned out to be a several weeks before I actually had the new camera, I had the urge to shoot some images.

One of my previous related projects I published on here "Why Shoot Film" may also be of interest to those shooting film or thinking about shooting film.

I found myself loading my old Nikon FE with some six year outdated Tri-X film from my stash in the freezer. Since they were rolls of 36 exposure, it’s not like I could run out and shoot a dozen frames or so and then print or retouch the images in the computer. While yes, I could just shoot a dozen shots and develop the film, but the preparation involved in developing would be of a bit of waste which would directly relate to dollars.

Since The film was very old and the actual ASA Speed would be a guess, I shot a roll and processed it to see if the cameras meter and the exposure values were what I felt they should have been. After the first roll I realized I need to shoot the next roll at ASA 200 instead of 400 as it was when new.

Please note that the task of developing is not what I feel classifies me to feel Film Is Dead. I actually enjoy developing film and even making analog prints. Although the cost of film and chemistry is on a steady path upwards, plenty of film is still being exposed. Which has me wanting to quickly clarify that Film Is Dead for me but the reasons are purely from the quality of base image I can create with film.

The versatility in exposure is just not there like it is with a digital capture, and that is why I don’t really shoot film. Since that also is based on my method of image presentation which requires the ability to manipulate areas of the image beyond what was exposed. Even during this recent film session I produced some images in my current processing styles and was rather happy with the results. That is until I compared a similar image I captured with a digital camera.

I also exposed and developed a few rolls of E-6 Slide Film as well and felt the same about the results as I did the Black & White. The Image had nice tones and acceptable sharpness, but for my needs it is lacking the use of RAW Data from Digital Captures. A key component in my style of work.

A lot of whether or not Film Is Dead or not would also depend on the type of shooting you do. If your projects consists of only a few final images, film may be an acceptable choice. What I really cringe about is hearing or reading about pros that ditch their digital cameras to shoot with film because it’s sharper or some way better.

I can assure you, in today’s requirements for photography and professional use, there is not any aspect of film that makes it better. Although it is a fancy PR statement to say you switched back to film because of some reason or another that’s really not true if it's about image quality.

Things that some of those that boast about how great film is actually overshadowed by the facts of how film was constructed. Especially the fact that the image is not from a mathematical arrangement of dots on a flat plane. Compared to with film where the images is made of random shapes of light sensitive grains of silver or dyes. Key word there is “random” … as for in the digital image that is compromised of equally sized square pixels in rows and columns.

It simply is not possible to make a “sharper” image on film than in a digital capture. But if sharpness is not so critical, film does a great job of capturing very acceptable sharpness.

There will be groups of enthusiasts who will push the film agenda, but it will never become as popular or used in photography as in days past again. While it is sad to see it disappear, it’s just like gasoline powered automobiles that will fade away to the use of electric vehicles. There will be a day when film and gas cars are only in museums. Even the typical camera is in a fight to not get sidetracked by cell phone cameras.

I was fortunate enough to work at Shutterbug Magazine during the heyday of film and then the introduction of the digital camera. And yes… I did say back then that there is no way those little images can compare to film images. But now the technology has totally turned the tables and is capable of making very large images of extreme sharpness that 8x10 film would not be able to produce.

All of which leads to my primary reason that Film Is Dead, and that would be the printing of the images. If you shoot film but end up scanning the negative or slide and then printing them digitally… why shoot film. By scanning it, You turned it into a digital image and not layers of light sensitive silver or dyes and exposed onto light sensitive paper by projecting light through the image.

In that paragraph alone, you can see how ridiculous it is to shoot film and process and print digital but yet boast about shooting with film. All that softness and glow you had with a layered film images was just smooshed flat when you scanned it. Those random shapes of silver and every cool nuance about the film was just turned into exact same size square pixels.

If one is gonna be a purist, then be one completely so you can have credibility. Don't pick and choose what aspects of shooting with film you think is better but at the same time you are printing it digitally.

If you shoot film and boast that you do, then by all means, print analog as well. Since my images most often consist of multiple images used in one, even in my commercial work, I prefer and require digital manipulation and printing. Again, its all about the image control you have in RAW Data.

There is no right or wrong in photography. If you think the image shouldn’t be touched, then by all means, present your image the way the camera thought it should be. But don’t make your snide remarks to people that do any editing or compositing to their images. The camera is just the tool used to make an image, for even back in the day if I didn’t like the contrast of a image I could alter it with a different grade of photo paper or use a warmer than normal developer temperature.

Even the master Ansel Adams did not print his images as they came out of the camera, he used elaborate dodging and burning techniques to present the image how he wanted it to look. In fact there were many more variables that would dictate the outcome of a film capture, and not just the exposure value.

I actually get a chuckle out of those that boast about they don't need to retouch or edit their images because they shot it right in the camera... in JPEG of course. They basically present the image as the camera thought it should be. Which tells me that they think they are better at capturing images.

Shooting film is just a different medium, just like shooting with a cell phone is different than a digital camera. Since I don't have an enlarger and darkroom, Film Is Dead for me. But even if I had an enlarger, I would only be using it for fun, since what I can print on my large format digital printer far surpasses what could be printed analog.