35mm Anyone?
When I studied my AS in Photography around 5/6 years ago, we used 35mm cameras, and ever since I've just loved shooting on them because of their manual nature. It wasn't until the start of this year I bought myself a Praktica BCA, which I kid you not, is as old as I am!

Thing is when I get my photos developed it takes around a week, and when I get them back they're on CD, which is kinda cheating - because I miss not being able to develop the negatives and photos personally.
(Factorandvibration, Thu 4 Nov 2010, 16:37, 14 replies)

I still teach all that 35 mm stuff
with darkrooms and the lot

FILM IS NOT DEAD!
( Citizen Cavy Admires your passion for conformity, Thu 4 Nov 2010, 17:24, closed)

Why isn't film dead?
You guys are clearly still using film, but can I ask why? What does film still have that modern DSLR's don't? I walked away from film a decade ago and can honestly say I've never looked back.
(Booce, Thu 4 Nov 2010, 17:40, closed)

there is something very special about being able to handle the media one uses
and while you can apply effects in photoshop and the like, there is nothing like the randomness and the unpredictability involved in darkroom work. Don't get me wrong, I love my DSLR, but I still love the smell of the darkroom!
( Citizen Cavy Admires your passion for conformity, Fri 5 Nov 2010, 21:30, closed)

Film will be about long after digital.
the life span of the ink used if awful. keep it going.
(waxdart hello., Thu 4 Nov 2010, 17:40, closed)

this is true
it's getting better - it's the same as colour prints used to be.
( Citizen Cavy Admires your passion for conformity, Fri 5 Nov 2010, 21:31, closed)

I don't understand.
If you are now getting your film developed to a JPEG of a scanned slide (unless they expose onto CDs) then how is that better than a decent digital SLR with the same lenses?
As for the ink mentioned above -- how many photographs do people really keep anyhow? Plus, for proper prints you would use dye-sub at home, wax or laser for bigger and archival quality huge inkjets for posters -- so if you want a piece of paper you can have it.
(Me, I'm not... in any way intoxicated, Thu 4 Nov 2010, 17:47, closed)

film
I really like using film as you really have to take the time to actually carefully compose your shots. Think about it for a minute, can a slight change of angle, focus, zoom, height, etc create a dramatically better photo?

Digital has made it so easy for us to shoot our little hearts away until our finger is numb but in return we aren't producing as high quality photos. When you shot with film it cost you for every shot you took, so for most, more time and care i think is put into each shot.

I am not saying this is the same for everyone but there are a lot of articles, posts, etc out there with the same kind of thought process. I think about my shot a lot more before I pulled the trigger because film is expensive and I didn't have the time to waste developing crap.
(Bermuda_import Beach party this weekend, Thu 4 Nov 2010, 18:55, closed)

True but there's the other side to that.
If you want to try three different exposures or ISO settings etc. Then you can on digital -- so the picture can be the best you can get. Plus, the framing is of the same importance regardless of media.
That said, if you find the constraints artistically helpful then "Go for it!" I say.
(Me, I'm not... in any way intoxicated, Fri 5 Nov 2010, 17:29, closed)

Developing a roll of B&W
Film takes less than an hour and can be done with equipment you can pick up on fleabay for £30-40.
Equipment: Developing tank and changing bag
Chemicals: bottle of developer, stop and fixer. Wash aid optional but makes drying marks a thing of the past.

As for "Why film? Bleat bleat bleat!"
You can pick up interesting equipment for cheap prices, its very flexible, resolution as good if not better than digital at 35mm. You get into medium format,resolution will blow a DSLR into the weeds. A digital back to do that will cost 20K+ and its archival.
I've printed negatives from the 1950's, no problems, other people I know have printed off pictures off negs from before the first world war with little difficulty.
How much of digital will be around in 10 years, let alone the next century?
(Sir Tainley Barking Ezekiel 23:20, Thu 4 Nov 2010, 19:03, closed)

So film is cheap then
So your arguments are that film takes less than an hour to develop and that it is cheap. Well, digital takes under a second to see if the shot is any good, digital cameras are cheap too and don't require you to have the space for developing in. I have a DSLR that can take old minolta lenses and I can pick those up dirt cheap on ebay too.

I don't remember bleating, I remember asking why it was felt that film was better. I didn't diss film or say it was a waste of time. Kudos to you if that's the direction your hobby takes you, but for me I prefer to spend my time mastering compostion and lighting, not learning which chemical formula yeilds the most accurate rendition.

Obviously a medium format film camera will blow away a DSLR. That's hardly like for like though is it? And really how many of us are going to go for a medium format film camera because a dslr is too expensive?

As to how much digital will be around in ten years, I can tell you every one of my 20,000+ images will be, as several thousand of those are over a decade old already. I back my photos up in several places and my children will each take a copy when I die. My digital images will be around in a hundred years' time. The shots I took on film when I left school 20 years ago are long gone, lost in a house move somewhere along the line.
(Booce, Fri 5 Nov 2010, 15:49, closed)

I use digital mostly but still have film cameras
I liken the appeal to that of vinyl records compared to digital music formats.
I wouldn't describe film as "better" so much as "different". There is, especially with slide film, a quality to the image that is somehow different to digital.
And, as others have said, the requirement to "think" about your pictures before you take them, in my opinion, makes me a better photographer.
( Snappyuk gets BIGGER with free sample., Thu 4 Nov 2010, 19:13, closed)

Ok
That makes sense to me, I can see that there may well be a different look between film and digital. Personally, I hate wading through thousands of crappy snaps when I'm post processing digital, so although I had happy snapper finger when digital first arrived, I now take my time with composition and spend time thinking before shooting so that advantage for film is gone for me.
(Booce, Fri 5 Nov 2010, 15:56, closed)

Why?
Because however much money I have spent on my digital gear - bodies, lenses, computer and software, etc... None of it compares in feel an quality to my 30 year old Nikon FM...

The controls are simple (aperture, shutter and focus), all the dials and settings either glide perfectly into place or move with a nice click, and I have a compact and beautifully solid camera.
Compare that to a modern d-SLR which has thousands of menu's, horrible dials and reliance on automation and knowing how to work a computer.

Sure I use digital 90% of the time, but honestly there is just something nice about going out with a basic manual film camera, a 50mm 1.8 lens and a couple rolls of film.

I wish I could afford to buy myself something like an old Leica M3 - I do have a IIIc here, but will admit that however solid and beautifully built it is, it seems to be a step one too far back before the technology matured into user friendliness (tiny viewfinders, separate focus, etc...)
(442, Fri 5 Nov 2010, 13:07, closed)

Designers
Remember if you do not make your products easy and intuitive to use for the intended user without having to read the manual, (except for finding the least used features) You have failed.
A camera that you have to operate menus and multiple switches to take a picture is a fail. I have the same issues with cheap TV remote controls, and Dyson Vacuum cleaners.

Arrrrghhh! And Relax
(Sir Tainley Barking Ezekiel 23:20, Fri 5 Nov 2010, 13:42, closed)