Why Would a Film Photographer Shoot Color?

Is there any reason a film photographer would shoot color today?

I'm not talking about "re-entry photographers," i.e., those of us who shot film back when it was the only option and for whatever reason want to return to it. I'm talking about newcomers to film photography, people who grew up with digital and have turned to film for the first time relatively recently.

Anybody can do whatever they want to with their own photography as far as I'm concerned, as long as they're not hurting anyone. What they do is up to them. So this is only my opinion. But to me it makes no sense whatsoever to shoot color with a film camera in 2024. Color film is a purely technical process, with very little room for expressive variation; all the good color films are gone, Kodachrome being at the top of that list; and color film has the dual disadvantages of high cost along with limited control. As Carl Weese once said, digital was the coming-of-age of color, whereas B&W was already perfect. Digital color soars way, way past film color, whereas digital B&W eternally struggles to come up to the highest standards of film B&W and usually falls short*.

I can think of only two reasons why people new to film photography might want to shoot color film. The first is that some serious big-city art galleries are still very attracted to large-format (mainly 4x5") color negative film as a medium, so if you're trying to impress that sort of gallery you might work in that medium. The second concerns young people who are into film cameras mainly or entirely for style, as fashion accessories, basically, but who aren't really into shooting. They might be happier sending a roll of film to a lab occasionally and not being overly bothered by the craft aspect of it.

Other than those two exceptions (three, really, because people who used to shoot film might have their own reasons to go back to it), I just can't think of any reasons why it would make sense to shoot color film today. I would say, if you're going to shoot film at all, shoot black-and-white film, and embrace the process.

I have other opinions about film photography c. 2024, but I'll leave other ones to other posts.

Mike

*Note that I say that as a digital B&W shooter myself.

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

John Shriver: "One reason is the whole world of expired color film, cross-processing, red-scale (expose through the base). Sure, those can be simulated in post with digital. Although color grain/noise may be hard to simulate (just because nobody writes the filter). But digital post doesn't give the unpredictability—although that restricts your creative control. Double-exposure is another cool thing that can be done with real film. Again, you can do it in post, but it somehow seems like cheating. My daughter did some very interesting work using these techniques."

Steve C: "The main thing I think about this, Mike, is that whatever is rare or out of fashion has its own caché and attraction, and that can be enough to be exciting. When I see people who are excited about colour film, they're excited about the colours it gives out of the box, the process of learning how different films respond to different light, and giving themselves over to the process (i.e. the opposite of the ease, control and vividness you get from digital).

"As an allegory to this—a friend of mine has kids who have grown up knowing nothing but on-demand streaming TV. He found them in the back room watching broadcast shows on an old TV one weekend and said 'What are you guys doing?' 'Dad!' they said, 'This TV chooses shows all by itself!'"

BG (partial comment): "Some photographers want to use color film. They like the results. That is all that matters."

Mike replies: You're right. I did say that, though. Third paragraph, first three sentences.

Craig Stocks: "I also don’t understand the hybrid workflow of shooting film, but then scanning the negative for processing in Photoshop. I’m not saying it’s wrong, I just don’t understand why you wouldn’t prefer either a full digital or full traditional workflow. "

James Bullard: "I totally agree. I initially took up digital despite low resolution solely because it gave me the kind of control over color that I enjoyed with B&W. There is no way I would go back to color films. I suppose I could scan than, as I do with my archive from back when, but what would be the point? A lot more post-exposure adjustment and expense."

Albert Smith: "Let's see, its expensive, inconvenient, limiting and not easily shareable. You can't shoot and process film today for anything close to what I use to with my Kodachrome and Fujifilm slide emulsions back in the day, and that was pretty expensive. When each frame cost near a dollar, you have to factor that cost in to your voluntary use of this medium. Locating any specific film is not easy for those that don't live in the vicinity of a major metropolitan city and getting the exposed film processed is just as hard if you don't have a local lab. With only 36 exposures per roll, really working a scene gets into your mindset and your vision may have to be curtailed for the practicality of your limited number of frames. More rolls?... see points one and two above. And if you do get something amazing, how can you show it? I know, make it digital by scanning. If only there was some way to just shoot it directly to a digital format...oh wait. Yeah, I can't think of any logical reason to shoot color film. And just me, any film."

John: "I’ve wondered the same myself and thus only use my film cameras for black-and-white photography. "

David B.: "While I enjoy looking at others' black-and-white photos—Cartier-Bresson's, Mike Abrahams', Monsieur Lartigue's, David Bailey's—I get no pleasure from taking B&W pictures. It'd be like tone-deaf singing. Taking photos without colour is, for me, like cutting off people's heads or shooting with the lens cap on. There's so much missing. I'd miss the shapes of colour which I want: a chunk of yellow, a slice of blue. Why record music with a tinny mic which can't hear bass?...it's like driving with a flat tyre; it's like writing prose and every second word's crossed out. If I went back to film—but I doubt that I would: it doesn't have the ISO of modern cameras—I'd shoot only in colour...because the colours, and shapes of colour, are what I want. How many painters paint only in shades of grey...and why is that?"

Mike replies: Well, I don't mean to be argumentative, but people use paint because they want to work in color. How many artists use monochrome-only media, you ought to have said—and there are many of those and have been throughout the history of art. But I'm not a bigot against color in any event. Just because I like B&W better doesn't mean I don't also like, shoot, and appreciate color work. 

John Bennett: "Exactly! I have often wondered the same thing. I shoot Kodak TMax and Kodak Tri-X almost exclusively. When I do want color, I use my ironically named Fujifilm X-T2, which renders all sorts of nice 'simulations' using digital technology."

John Krumm: "As they say on social media, shots fired! I think if you ask people, it's the look they like. DPR did a comparison a while back between a Fuji film profile, with the actual Fuji film with the same name still sold. The contrast was much higher in the digital profile, so the overall look was much different. And it wasn't something easy to overcome in post processing. I follow a number of color film photographers on Flickr. Probably the most prolific is Patrick from Baltimore, who I think you have featured on TOP once. Patrick uses all kinds of film, including lots of expired stuff. I suspect ultimate image quality is not the aim. Color film is like using a time filter."

Steve Renwick: "Plenty of people probably just like using old cameras. It's not fashion or hipsterism (is that a real word?) but just a preference for fine mechanical objects. Similarly, one might prefer driving an old MGB instead of a Miata."

Mike replies: Gasp!

Paul: "I will preface my comment by saying that I mostly shoot black-and-white 35mm film and this is just a fun hobby when time allows. On a very rare occasion I might shoot a roll of 35mm color. Why? I hate digital and just about the entire 'process.' The cameras, the menus, the cards to be transferred to computer, the software required and the time in front of a screen. You can keep it. Not for me. The simplicity of an all-mechanical SLR or rangefinder is enough to keep me interested."

Terry Burnes: "Why color film? To shoot slide film (it must exist somewhere) on vacation, sort through the results, throw most out as irretrievably bad and then subject your family and friends to watching the rest using your old Kodak Carousel and a big Da-Lite screen, many slides loaded wrong (upside down being obvious to your audience, or backwards not so much until writing appears in a photo), with the accompanying moans and groans from the audience. That's an experience that digital simply can't reproduce. It was the essence of the photographic experience in my family when I was growing up. Except that my father, who cut his photographic teeth on Speed Graphics and similar, always ridiculed 35mm as not real photography, so his slides were 2 1/4 taken on various Rolleis and projected with Rollei projectors. Impressive when everything went right."

aaron c greenman: "Hmm, not sure I follow your line of reasoning Mike, or agree. I spent the first 20 years of the digital era processing digital to black and white (or eventually shooting with a monochrome sensor) and loving the results. I never really gelled with digital color, not sure why. More recently, I began shooting film and absolutely love Ektar 100 (shooting first with a Mamiya 6 and then a Rolliflex). There is something about the color and the aesthetic that I really enjoy and appreciate. Concurrently, I've shot some Tri-X and simply cannot get the level of satisfaction with the black-and-white tonality as I do with digital (this could simply be down to my lack of expertise shooting).

"So I've experienced the exact opposite—I only shoot color on Ektar film and only shoot black and white on digital Monochrom sensors...."

Comments

[Robert Roaldi]

I shot 2 rolls of XP2 last year and am tempted to shoot a few rolls of other B&W film. I could see the point of colour slides if you own a slide projector because sometimes that looks really neat.

[Speed]

The first is that some serious big-city art galleries are still very attracted to large-format (mainly 4x5") color negative film as a medium ...

Do you mean that they are attracted to the "look" of large-format color negative film or that they are attracted to images labeled as made using large-format color negative film? Are they buying and selling the product or the process?

I guess it could be a little of both.

[Dan Khong]

Your post resonates with me. I used B&W and Colour films in the past before digital came along.

Now I shoot colour only with digital. Films are expensive. Even if films are cheap, shooting colour on digital does the job better.

For B&W, since I also develop my own films and enjoy the analog play factor, I shoot 90% on digital and 10% on film. With 120 format, the contemplative, deliberate, and disciplined approach help achieve better compositions.

[anthony]

Kodak EPP can be pretty magical, especially in rendering blues and greens on cloudy days, says this digital color guy since 2006 or so. In fact, it pained me not to use a 120mm EPP image in an eBook I recently published, (Roaming the Land, available from KOBO and/or your local library) as it was simply too rich compared to the (minimally processed) digital captures I used in most of the book. It kinda looked like those velvet Elvis wall hangings, which the rest of the book didn’t need.

I suppose I could have found an EPPish filter for the other images, but I’d have lost the qualities of those digital captures, and really, how many Elvis wall hangings does one need?

[AN]

Some people like color, and some of those people also like film, and some of those people aren’t too worried about exerting maximum technical control over the color (and may even enjoy working with the limitations or serendipity of a film’s color response). Sometimes in art, the right constraints can be freeing.

I don’t see how it’s at all different from the choice to use a B&W converted digital camera. In both cases you could come up with a variety of modest technical justifications, e.g. a B&W sensor has less noise than color sensors! Large format color film has really high resolution! But nobody is actually so fed up with noisy color sensors that they are going to switch to a B&W converted sensor on those grounds alone. And nobody is so fed up with their low-res 50mp digital camera that they have no choice but to switch to 4x5 film.

On the other hand, why does anybody still make stone lithographs, or dry point prints? In all honesty, those self-flagellating hipsters make no sense to me.

[Kenneth Tanaka]

I understand and concur with your general assertion that color photography with film makes no sense today. But I boldly expand that claim by adding that film photography of -any- kind makes absolutely no operational, aesthetic, or economic sense today. None. Zero.

Still, if you’re a hobbyist and photograph for your own enjoyment rather than for commercial purposes I say “Bon appetit!” If you enjoy the crafty feeling of chemical photography and chemical printing you -should- be able to enjoy yourself without regard to financial or logical justification.

[Rob L.]

Many current day color film shooters, it seems, are shooting it because it's not perfect. I can appreciate the motivation I think, but it has no appeal to me. After developing a roll of TMAX-400 last year I realized how much I just don't like the result of 35mm film anymore, digital has spoiled me for dynamic range, resolution, a low light performance, so deliberately - in my head- sabotaging your results before you begin just seems exhausting.

[Bill Bresler]

I have to agree with you on color film. Digital color just looks better to me. Of course, when I began calling myself a photographer as a high school student in 1971, a 35mm Kodacolor negative wouldn't make a decent 5X7.
My color work is all digital.
I make B&W work with a 62 year old Rolleiflex TLR and a Mamiya RB67, developing B&W film in the laundry room and scanning the negs. But I've been working more with B&W conversions from digital raw files for a few years now and I'm starting to think that digital B&W is no longer the horrorshow that I once thought it was. I recently had a lab print a B&W 11X14 inkjet from an iPhone file, no less, and I had to admit that it was lacking nothing. I sold my 4X5 a few months ago. The RB may soon be up for sale. I'll keep the Rollei for sentimental reasons.
I don't miss the darkroom. I don't even miss printing my own inkjets since my beloved Epson R2400 died a few years ago.
I'm still a photographer.

[Sroyon]

OK I'm one of those who grew up with digital, but I've been regularly shooting film (alongside digital) for the last 12 years. In the last few years I've also had a small but steady income from writing about photography, print sales, and dance photography (the last almost exclusively on digital). All this just to say that I'm by no means a pro, but I'm not just a dabbler either.

My film photography is mostly BnW, which I develop and print at home. But I sometimes shoot colour negative film because I enjoy the limitations and delayed gratification. You cite "limited control" as a downside, but it can sometimes be an upside too. And colour film has a certain aesthetic, which can be replicated with digital in post, but I like how film colours look cool even in a standard scan, without much manipulation.

I also like shooting slide film, maybe a couple of rolls every year, because I can view them on my grandfather's projector.

I have several friends in their twenties who shoot film casually, maybe a couple of rolls a year. They predominantly shoot colour film, and I don't think they use cameras as fashion accessories. Rather, they enjoy the unpredictable nature of film, the "mistakes" (especially since many of them use cheap point-and-shoots) such as light leaks, accidental double exposure and flare, and the "film look". Many of them don't even have a digital camera, just use their phones. But they shoot film, mostly colour film at that.

[Jim]

I still have one box of original Polaroid SX70 film left. I always loved the colors it produced. Most importantly the fact that I was "working" to what I expected it to produce, and while there was "work" I had to do to get that effect ( choosing the right light, subject matter, etc.) one of the most important ingredients was the film itself.
While I use digital almost exclusively now, and if
I had the knowledge/ talent/ desire could probably produce the same results in digital, it just wouldnt be the same to me. I believe, for me, that one of the beauty's of film based photography was being able to create images with more limited means that still expressed your vision. Its not that I dont employ the new technologies offered by digital, just that for me, there are limits to what I feel comfortable in using to create photographs. I understand that this is Not a view that a majority of photographers would endorse today- but maybe an answer to why anyone would use color film over digital! As far as the film emulsions available today vs digital for color- I agree with you, so this is a long comment with no real point! I do still have that one box of Polaroid SX70 AND a few rolls of Kodachrome in the freezer though! :)

[Ilkka]

Two reasons. Colour transparency film and slide projection. Or just the simplicity of sending a roll of colour negative film for printing and processing and getting a set of prints and (lowish but okay quality) scanned files in a couple of days for a modest cost. Black and white developing and printing is a very involved process that is not easy to learn to do well.

[Mark]

Your color film photography question plays out in many other technologies. Why do people still buy vinyl records? Why do people still ride steel-framed bicycles, instead of lighter and cheaper carbon fiber frames? Why are fountain pens still made? Why do I continue to wear eyeglasses, when contacts or lasik are widely available? Maybe technological change is always bumpy, and only seems smooth and swift in hindsight. The futurist Alvin Toffler thought that people held on to bits of outmoded tech as an antidote from the stress of too much rapid change in other areas of their lives. Or maybe color film photographers appreciate something about the process that is lost in digital color photography. I’m strictly a b&w film photographer, and for me there’s a definite darkroom allure that’s not available on the digital side.

[DMac]

Because colour film looks very different to colour digital, many people value that look, and it’s still not possible to authentically mimic it with digital.

[Gerard Kingma]

"Color film is a purely technical process, with very little room for expressive variation; all the good color films are gone" - I beg to differ, my friend. Yes, it is a highly technical process, but no, I shoot Fuji Velvia medium format transparency film, which is readily available, if needs be on eBay, but granted, it's become very expensive. I shoot 6x7 Velvia on a Pentax 67ii. I have a 6x7 slide projector. Have you ever seen well-exposed landscapes on Velvia projected on a wall, 6 x 7 feet? I rest my case. There's nothing quite like it. As to creative expression, Velvia is not easy to work with, you have to play to its strengths. The main thing is: this is a creative in-camera process, out in the field. If you want to achieve similar results digitally, you can only do that behind your computer with a fair bit of finagling in Lightroom et al. Where's the fun in that? I'll let the pictures speak for themselves. I spent 20 days on Iceland last year with the Pentax and three lead-lined bags filled to the brim with 120 film. Please have a look at the results on my flickr page [https://www.flickr.com/photos/gerardkingma/] and my website [http://www.kingma.nu]. Thank you.

[Gerard! I have work to do. I spent like half an hour at your Flickr pages. Very enjoyable. --Mike]

[David Aiken]

I agree that film B&W is usually better than digital B&W at present and that digital colour has surpassed the standards capable of achievement with film colour.

Did you have to say that film B&W was "perfect" when digital came along? It wasn't, improvements were and are still possible. Did you have to say that digital B&W was involved in an "eternal struggle" to come up to the highest standards of film B&W.? It isn't and the final words of that statement, "and usually falls short" is an admission that is capable right now of reaching the highest standards of film B&W and occasionally does.

If you'd left those 2 words/terms out of those statements I'd be nodding my head in agreement with you but "perfect" and "eternal" are absolutes. Perfect can't be improved upon, eternal as you used it means that digital B&W can never reach the standards of film B&W but you then say that it currently can because you said that it "usually falls short".

Please don't destroy a perfectly good assessment by turning valid generalisations into obvious falsehoods by sticking an absolute term in them. The photographer in me is in agreement with you, the graduate with two thirds of his degree in philosophy with a fair part of that in logic is shaking his head and saying those statements are simply false because you stuck the word "perfect" into one of them and "eternal" into the other. Take those 2 words out and you've got a pair of generalisations that ythe photographer in me agrees with and the logician in me has no problem. Put them in as you did and the logician in me takes over, says those claims are patently false, and the photographer in me sadly nods his head in agreement with the logician and says you should have left those words out because everything was fine until you put them in.

[Patrick Medd]

I agree that the argument for shooting 35mm colour film is very weak, you can shoot almost any lens ever made for 35mm on an exactly equivalent size digital sensor and obtain a far superior, cheaper and more malleable image instantly.

I mostly shoot black and white film but I do still shoot colour in medium and large format, the main reason being that there is no equivalent size sensor to give me a 6x6 colour image from a Zeiss 80mm Planar on my Hasselblad for instance. Although digital backs are available, they don’t give you the same image area as the film back, they aren’t square and they are very expensive so the ‘cheaper’ argument breaks down when shooting small amounts of colour on a medium format camera.

Lastly I sometimes shoot an image in black and white on a medium or large format camera and then decide to shoot the same or a similar image in colour, in which case switching to a back or dark slide loaded with colour film of the same size is a straightforward matter. It also saves carrying a second digital camera around for occasional colour work.

[Lars Jansen]

For me personally it is the fun of filmcamera's that I can then use, as well as the process. There are no fullframe backs available for Hasselblad's x-pan and 6x6, or large format 4x5, so if you want to use those you are stuck with film anyway. The positives and negatives can then be scanned and further processed digitally for final printing at home. And at some point I may want to experiment with at home analog printing, but that would be mostly for the technical challenge.

I do have a stack of folders somewhere of all the Kodak films you could get in the mid 90's. It's a pity these are not available anymore, although quite understandable as those where already low volume in those days. Most of the films these days I find uninteresting; mostly going for the analog imperfection look, while film can look really very good. Kodak Portra and the Fuji slidefilms and Pro negative films can still really shine and have very decent resolution.

[Jordi P.]

Why not? I will cheat my way in as, despite being under 30, am a re-entry photographer who has been a hobbyist in both mediums since 2008.

TBH I don't know if my cohort, the sample target of this question, lurks around here. New people are much more on other Social media (YT, IG, Reddit or even TikTok)

I am actually pondering the same question. And others; such as phone vs digital camera for snapshots but am noticing that TL:DR as of January 2024 I am just picking everything and cycling/rotating through it.

2 years ago (!) January 2022, Kodak made a significant price increase so I bought to freeze some Portra 400 120. I thought, this will be just in case as now I am a B&W film photographer. The freezer had some Provia, Portra and Ektar that should last a long time. Infact, I still have that 11-2020 Batch of RDPIII.

Come 2023, I get a couple lingering rolls of Ektar and Portra Exposed. Loved the color. On my local photo club I hang a couple (hybrid) prints shot on Kodak that got really good feedback and impression --yes, you guess, a lot of red.-- Somehow I feel a pull to do more color
On top of this, I am preparing to do a month long photo trip to Asia. Think colorful tropical landscapes.
Of course, got to add in Color film and somehow I could stock up at "older" prices in BW and both Color negative and Slide.
Breaking news, Fujichrome is supposedly still produced despite Fuji's MIA films, and got myself a 2025 exp batch on top of my frozen one.
In the Dante's inferno level of things, consider Slide as an additional layer of "WTF" to answer here. It's pretty and we are photographers chasing that innit?

And that is a personal impulse. Then consider the puzzling support and emergence of new C41 films such as the "Reverse engineered Agfa" Orwo NC500, Ilford Ilfocorlor, Lomo Metropolis and Lomo 92 (Produced in Germany) and Harman Phoenix (By the until now only B&W Ilford Harman UK!)

Back to the core of the question, I mostly moved to just shooting medium format and it optically renders differently.

I would like to bring up the topic (of which I don't know so much) of Bayer interpolation in all but Foveon sensors compared to the random dye based nature of Chromogenic films. There might be an edge there.
I am glad to be one of the few in my cohort that shot some Kodachrome, beautiful film results but perhaps not the best film stock if you ponder opinions and even Photo Engineers mentioned Ektachrome as technically superior.

In all honesty, if it were me, the best camera for my use is a phone. Always available and almost invisible to the public. I have internalized the film logistics. Buying it, loading/reloading, exposing sans matrix meters, avoiding CT scanners (to do) and finally processing it/getting it processed.

A photo friend who has all top-of the line things (GFX100) also loves film. We agreed that on the technical-rational scale, digital is it; but that perfection also detracts and is not the same tradition. Digital is the "bleh" default, and lately I have seen quite a few movies and some look just so bland and digitally perfect.
At the end of the day, film is as good as it has been and can be since 2010 and you might just get an extra fun of scaring pigeons with the Pentax 6x7's mirror slap.

PS: Bill Manning of @studio.c41 has been running a survey. I DM'ed him mentioning your post. Quite some interesting data there.

[Nikhil Ramkarran]

When I was trying film, I shot colour mainly for the variety. I had (still have, but the fridge I kept them in went defunct and I never checked back) lots of fun just trying out different stuff.

I found the process of developing colour film to be quite fun. Hated the scanning, but loved the developing.

Also colour slide film, what a blast! 😂

[Nikojorj]

Many people seem to be drawn towards the imperfections of color negative films : see the trend for cross-processing or funky colors in films (google 'Lomochrome Turquoise' if you're brave enough).
That puzzles me too, btw.

[mani]

I've been shooting (only color) film on-and-off for about 10 or 12 years now. Believe me, because of the cost I'd rather stick to digital. I've been through a lot of digital cameras: a Leica M8, then an M9, followed after a film-only intermission with a Hasselblad X1D (sold at the biggest loss I've ever experienced with any camera gear), and now a Leica M10.

I was working in advertising before switching to programming, and this gave me a lot of experience with color-grading and photo-retouching, so that's no hinder to my use of digital: I can make a digital color image look almost any way I want. And usually I'm pretty happy with the result - so long as I don't see the same scene shot side-by-side with (for instance) Kodak Portra.

There's something luminous and magical in the color film images that's always still missing in digital. Impossible to say exactly what - just a glow and an ineffable harmony in the color and texture.

Black-and-white is a mannerism nowadays. I'm always extremely suspicious of digital black-and-white conversions. If it's a war-correspondent shooting like this, then I feel I'm being manipulated: are they trying to evoke Robert Capa or gritty memories of Vietnam? Otherwise it feels like the equivalent of oil-painting a vase filled with flowers and some fruit standing beside: a quaint and outdated affectation.

Believe me, kids are not just posing with their film cameras - that phase would've disappeared years ago, if it was just a fashion accessory. They see something you're missing, looking through eyes jaded by years of film-use which for you are now just in the past.

[Howard Sandler]

Them's fighting words Mike!

Seriously, I can't argue with your individual points. In fact, another disincentive to shoot color negative film in particular is there is less satisfaction just seeing the negatives. They don't look like much, compared to well-exposed black and white negatives, not to even mentioln color transparencies. But another reason, and the reason I like to shoot color negative film, is the satisfaction of using vintage cameras for as many photographic situations as possible. For some of us, it's not making the best possible shot, but making a good-enough shot using the process we like. I'll look at a photo I've done and remember what camera and film I used and get some satisfaction from that.

Gratuitous color film photo, because after all, this is a photo blog. (Kodak Retina IIc, Kodak Gold 200).

[JOHN B GILLOOLY]

I would qualify as one of those re-entry photographers shooting some film. When I started back into film a couple years back I assumed I would only shoot black & white for the reasons you mentioned. But I think the entire idea of shooting film in 2023/2024 is that I don't intend on any perfection. I don't intend on any post-production at all - outside of quick exposure adjustments, dodge, burn in Lightroom. So choosing a color film stock bakes in one particular "look" and you are done. Photographically, it is what it is......and that is very liberating. With digital, you have limitless options to make every image anything you want, and that is a huge burden.

[Zyni]

# Colour
A disclaimer: I am not a photographer (well, I do some work based on photographs of clusters of galaxies, but this is different), but I have a friend who is and I asked. Another disclaimer: he is not a new film photographer, he just did not stop using film.

He said two things which I think is interesting about reversal film (I had to ask: this is slide film as you will know but I did not!).

First thing: slides are physically beautiful objects. I (this is now me not him) think this is absolutely true: 35mm slides are like tiny bright jewels where, if you will hold them to the light, you can perhaps half glimpse but never really see some sort of faerie world which is much better than ours. Bigger slides (he has some from his wooden camera) are like little stained-glass pictures: not so mysterious but equally entrancing to see. And these are physical objects, not some useless virtual thing on a screen which nobody needs to stare at more. You open the box and it is full of these beautiful, tiny, wonders. It is magical.

Second thing he said is that when you look at a slide which is not faded and has been well-processed, what you see is *what the film saw*. This is not the same as what was *there* but it is as close as you can get. This is never true for negative film or digital sensors: you can only ever see what the sensor saw through a long chain of interpretation, while with a slide you can look at the sensor itself. This means that if you make a print you can look at the red and say, 'well, this is too cool, I want it to look warm like the slide which I can look at, so I must adjust things'. Or I think the other way around: you want the print to be different so you compare. But always you *can* compare.

And he said two more things which are perhaps relevant: no point in colour negative that he can see, and slide film & processing is now so absurdly expensive that it is probably dead for him.

There, I hope my reporting of this is correct (apparently it is).

[Alan Whiting]

There's the attraction of the retro look: the slightly (or more-than-slightly) weird colors, like some print from the long-ago 1980s. It's turning what used to be a flaw in the process into a feature, like simulating film grain in digital shooting.

[Doug Anderson]

I agree that for representative photography digital beats color film hands down. But there are special effects color films and tricks like cross processing, reversing the film to shoot through the orange mask, etc. Admittedly, the same effects can probably be reproduced when post processing digital images, but that loses the element of surprise.

[Rick in CO]

Isn't the issue with scanning and then printing B&W negatives that inkjet prints do not faithfully resemble traditional b&W photographs made from darkroom prints? Scanning B&W negatives is also somewhat of an acquired art. Perhaps if everything is done by a professional lab that specializes in B&W scanning and printing then maybe the results can be exemplary (referring to the previous statement that a 4x5 B&W negative "properly scanned"). For the rest of us it is just fun!
Love the shot with the Retina IIc - lens?

[Rob L.]

All of my previous comments aside, Gerald is 100% correct - there is deep magic in a light table covered w/ 120 Velvia. But I was a weirdo that shot weddings on Velvia (cheap Southern backyard last-minute weddings in the spring look like NatGeo spreads with 6x6 or 6x7 Velvia). Ran into a bride I had shot over 20 years ago, she bought a 'magic lantern' 6x6 project just to show the three shots that she's kept - 'I left the guy, lost the house, but God I look -gorgeous- in that dress so I pop it on the wall when I'm sad'

Bit more magical than showing it on your TV:)

[Benjamin]

Where’s this coming from, did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed? There’s no less reason to shoot color film than there is to shoot black and white film: you like the process and you like the results. I think one could just as easily argue the opposite, that it’s black and white film that is rather pointless. And they’d be missing the point too.

[Robert Roaldi]

Another thing. Colour slides are much easier to "digi-scan" than colour negative film. By digi-scan, I mean taking photos of slides/negatives with a digital camera, as opposed to using scanners. I don't know if digi-scan is a commonly used term or not.

[Bob Rosinsky]

I shoot a fair amount of black and white film. I haven't shot a roll of color since 2001, and I doubt the urge will ever hit me.

Once upon a time, I enjoyed shooting chromes for making Cibachrome prints. My Cibachromes form the 1970s still look great!

[Geoffrey Wittig]

The only reason to continue with color film that I can think of is because your photography workflow, processing, and printing are so tightly dialed in, you're getting exactly the artistic result you want. I'm thinking of the gorgeous Ilfochrome prints produced by Christopher Burkett, who has shot color transparency film for decades and has his workflow refined to the last degree. I can't imagine how digital capture would improve his work.

[Dave_lumb]

Maybe for the same reason/s that people shoot anything in black and white in 2024.They think there's a 'look' to it that digital can't provide.

As if a 'look' is more important than pictures...

[Jean-Pierre Koenig]

Interesting. I decided a few years back that I prefer the look of B&W film (developed, scanned and printed digitally) but that I didn't like the look of color film (never did, even when there was only film). So, I shoot B&W on film (almost exclusively) and color on digital. And one of the things I like about Leica Ms (not their price!) is that I can use the same lenses for both kinds of media. I am glad I am not the only one :).

[Daniel Speyer]

-- And why shoot B&W film?
-- And for that matter why shoot w/ B&W sensor when in post you can apply filters? (I don't do it/don't shoot B&W but this would seem to be a real advantage.)

More fundamentally (for me anyway) being creative is actually easier, when there are limitations I must deal with. And for that matter (again for me) the technically perfect image is generally uninteresting.

I shoot theater photographs and there I want more technically "perfect" images. Although there a photo of a scene with movement seems odd to me w/o motion blur in the resulting image (does that constitute a less perfect image?).

For my non-theatre non-film photography often my camera of choice is a Pentax Q with one of their "toy" lenses--and assosciated often lots of digital noise. Those images are more interesting. And since every perfect image I can take can be related to one of the prior masters results, why would I want to be derivative?

[Dave]

Put another way; Why Would an Audiophile Still Listen to Vinyl? :>)

[Well, I just recently ran down all the reasons why I do. And note that I didn't say there aren't reasons why someone would shoot color film. I am just wondering whether it is sensible advice for newcomers. Come to that, I wouldn't recommend vinyl for newcomers to the audio hobby. --Mike]

[Andrew Kochanowski]

Late to the party as usual.

Shooting color negative film today can be a beautiful thing. I can think of several reasons--

1. The process forces you to shoot carefully, hone your timing, pre-visualize, understand what your result will be given the film speed, type of film, and light. It's one thing to spray and pray with a sensor capable of 25,000 ISO or more. It's another to shoot when there is a photo in front of you. Instead of 1 out of 500 keepers you will start to get 1 in 20.

2. The hybrid process is easy to use and gives you the advantage of both worlds. There are still many labs that use a Fuji processor. I get negs back in an hour or two. Once digitized, the results require virtually no post processing.

3. There is plenty of film out there. Yes Kodachrome is gone (I said color neg anyways) but Portra, Ektar and good old Kodak Gold, not to mention a number of specialty films. You have a color "profile" for lots of situations.

4. Don't mean to quibble (much) but the results look good out of the box IF you get your exposure and speeds right. So learn to get them right instead of depending on your camera to do the work and your shake prevention gizmos from blurring.

5. Some people, me for instance, just don't like black and white photography.

Best

Andy

[hugh crawford]

The main appeal of film over digital for me is that film crushes the highlights instead of blowing out.
Digital's linearity is kind of unattractive to my eye.
Also of course you can use film cameras.

That said, Fuji Instax has a lovely look, I might shoot that if the current Instax cameras weren't so bulky.

Kodak sold 120 Kodacolor 400 color negative film that was advertised as "high speed" in around 1978. It had some interesting characteristics in mixed light and the top of the curve was really nice and compressed with very open shadows. The Kodak rep said that it had a lot of cross-color errors that the tech side of the company hated but marketing insisted on selling it. I think the Type G movie film was a similar cross-color error situation for extra speed and was also beautiful. Apparently, the Kodak Disk film research effort figured out that if they changed the recommended processing to vastly increase the agitation with a few tweaks to the emulsion they could double the ASA so Kodacolor 400 was ditched for Kodacolor VR which didn't have the same look at all.

I'd love to shoot some 120 Kodacolor 400 again.

I'd also love to have some peel-apart instant film for my RB Graflex

Does anyone remember when Kodak was selling 120 Kodachrome in NYC? That was fun, and I'd shoot that.

In other exciting film news, the Indian airforce is selling off some 70mm aerial photography film. Well it's exciting to me.

[Dave]

Fair enough, Mike.

I had copied my dad's old Kodachromes (and some other badly-discolored Ektachromes) to distribute to younger family members.

I used digital with a macro lens and relied on the color correction of the digital camera to get rid of most of the discoloration of the "E-chromes".

Much easier, but the transparencies are still kind of neat. Very expensive, though. Something for the new film photographers to try once, at least, as long as the newer Ektachromes hold their color better than the older ones!

[MikeK]

I think that for people who are dedicated film shooters (as opposed to hipsters or curious dabblers), the process is as important as the results - otherwise they would just shoot digital.

I follow a couple of film photographers on youtube - Ben Horne, who does 8x10 nature photography in places like Zion and Death Valley, primarily in colour, gets very nice results.

Nick Carver, who uses a variety of cameras and formats, but is probably most notable for his 6x17 work, also does primarily colour. His day job is as an architectural photographer, but his 'art' work is all film. He's talked about almost giving up photography until he went back to film and fell in love with it again. Sometimes you've got to enjoy the struggle.

It may not be a logical choice, but who said art should be logical? If artists were most interested in logic then they would have become mathematicians.

I do hear what you're saying though - I've not shot a roll of film in over 15 years, and when I've looked back through old photos they do look pretty bad (though that's not all to do with the film...).

[Robert Pillow]

Maybe anticipation generates more dopamine than immediate gratification.

By the way, I'm just tickled with the results from my digital monochrome sensor. Prints from its files remind of those I made long ago when I underexposed beneath the enlarger and overdeveloped in the tray.

[xfmj]

i could see liking the stability of the “sensor” when using lots of different cameras. e.g. you know well and understand the look and capture qualities of Portra 160, but you like using lots of different cameras.

and how about not needing much, or any, battery to shoot and also preferring color? i guess if i ever backcountry backpacked or went back to making multi-day bike tours, i’d go back to film, and it would be color

[Sig. D.]

In general, I don't like the look of digital pictures: too plastic, too harsh. Film looks more beautiful, after all it's not formed from a precise 2D array of sensors nor has it gone through a Bayer filter.

Going through a Bayer filter means that 2/3rds of the information in a digital picture is generated (guessed) by an algorithm. Maybe over time this harsh plastic look can be solved with other digital technologies, but for now, for my work, no thanks.

[David L.]

Making prints is why film exists. The elephant in the room is that physical prints, hold in your hand, hang on the wall objects, are no longer favored with ubiquitous phones storing thousands of images. I have a collection of my large format film photos displayed as fine art prints in frames. Five years ago I couldn’t give them away

[Dennis Ng]

Sometimes limit especially limit you (want to) know eg 1 lens 1 … is where art is.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Some people like to NOT be in control of their art, I think. No idea why, or if they even think of it as art.

[Bill Duncan]

> Steve Renwick:
> ...
> Similarly, one might prefer driving an old MGB
> instead of a Miata."

I often describe my Miata as something like a "British Sports Car that works".. :)

Cheers!

[Bruce Polin]

I guess one reason to shoot color film is to avoid the drudgery (and heartache) of editing hundreds, or even thousands, of lame digital pictures to *maybe* find three interesting ones. With film, you might still get just three decent shots, but with a comparatively small fraction of images to contend with overall. My hit rate with medium format or 8x10 film trounces any portrait session I do with digital. It's just how it is. That said, I have been shooting mostly digitally since the pandemic. The convenience and cost savings* of not having to deal with film is too seductive to avoid. With digital, I do make an effort to work slowly and with intent, so I tend not to shoot nearly as much as the next guy. Even so, I end up with a large percentage of files destined for the trash.

*The cost effectiveness of digital as opposed to film is probably more psychological than based in reality. My digital camera, a Hasselblad, cost me a fortune. It will take quite a bit of time for me to see actual savings from working digitally, but not buying film weekly makes me feel like I'm saving money right now. I try not to look too closely at the actual numbers, as I am sure to be disillusioned.

[hugh crawford]

an addendum to my comment:
I found this wonderful page https://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Colour_Darkroom/Early_Kodak_CameraFilm.html#anchorKVR

For two years Kodak made CG 120 and art photographers were in love with it. Then Kodak "improved" it and there was much sadness.

[Mark Sampson]

I photographed with 4x5 color negative film (as well as b/w) from 1982-2010. I gave that up when I lost access to print those color negs myself (a long and irrelevant story). I simply decided to do my 'serious' work in b/w, which is still the case.
I also bought a DSLR (for professional work) and put away my 35mm cameras. So any color work I've done since then has been digital, and viewed on-screen. I should buy a good inkjet printer so I can make color prints, but that hasn't happened yet. Of course my iPhone has sufficed for happy snaps...
I don't regret leaving color processing chemistry and machinery behind (29 years of that was more than enough), nor do I miss the inherent limitations of color film and paper. Not to mention the Carousel projector!
But that's been my decision. If people want to shoot color film, more power to them! Often creativity can be enhanced by the limitations of the medium.
Maybe this year will be the year that I buy a printer (and a scanner) and go back to color. And maybe this post isn't too long!

[psu]

> Second thing he said is that when you look at a slide which is not faded and has been well-processed, what you see is *what the film saw*.

Film enthusiasts are always going on about this but it's never been true.

What you see is what the film "saw" after trillions of little atomic reactions made the latent image and then trillions more happened while the little pieces of plastic floated in various chemical baths of various sorts to reconstruct a simulation of the original light pattern in a collection of dyes embedded in gelatin.

All digital cameras do is capture some voltages as numbers and run some relatively simple algorithms to create a similar simulation of the patterns of light and color that hit it at the time. This is a comparatively simple process, or at least no less complicated and distancing from the "original" scene.

To then say that somehow scanned film photographs maintain that "film glow" but that digital cameras could not have captured it in the first place at the original scene is just so much more nonsense.

Photography is an inherently indirect and industrially driven process and art. The argument that film photography is less so has never been correct. If people like the look they should just say they like the look rather than trying to conjure up borderline mystical arguments to make them feel better about what they like. Just do what you like. It doesn't have to make sense.

Of course, as grumpy as I get about this ... I will never deny anyone the pleasure of looking at a slide on a light table. It's magic.

My iPhone vacation pictures on a giant OLED TV are also magic. But different.

[David L Keenan]

Only one reason really makes sense: Digital ICE.

[Christoph Hammann]

I shoot and develop C41 color negative film 3-5 times more than black and white because it is easier to scan and IR dust speck removal works only with this film stock on my Nikon scanner.

[Gert-Jan]

I see older analog cameras as liberating. Less options, less settings, no second-guessing of all kinds of automated stuff.
Makes it easier to focus on the picture itself.

That holds both for B&W and color of course (although I only shoot B&W).

PS: your copyright message still refers to 2023; waiting for the chinese New Year? :-)

[Alex G.]

I started my photo hobby in 2003 with digital and only started shooting 35mm film about 6 years ago after high-res lab scanning had become relatively affordable. I am a Kodak Colour guy. I like the look of Ektar, Ultramax, Gold and (my favourite!) Vision 3 created by people with deep knowledge and artistic taste. It's a pleasure to get beautiful 30 MP scans from the lab that don't require any post-processing apart from slight exposure adjustments and cropping. I have zero interest in cross-processing, expired films, purple/turquoise films and other perversions like that. My limited experience with black and white films wasn't very satisfying. Ironically, I prefer B&W images converted from digital.

Unfortunately, two things happened last year that made my colour film hobby prohibitively expensive: massive price hike by Kodak and significant drop in my income. Now that colour films are out of question, I will only shoot B&W films with my antique Flexaret TLR for the vintage look that can't be replicated by digital.

[David Drake]

This is an interesting and timely post. I've shot mostly b&w for the last 30 years, since going to photography school. In the last few years I've been getting more into medium format colour negative and then large format colour neg. I love the detail and immersive look of large format. Then the pro lab I was using stopped processing film. And I have also moved to another city and from the facility which had a Imacon scanner. So, out of necessity, I am moving to digital for colour work. I've purchased a Fujifilm GFX50Sii large format camera. It was a decent price and I went for it. So my decision to move away from colour film was out of necessity. I just can afford to have my film sent to a lab in another city and then have then scan it. In the end, film has to be scanned anyway to make prints. But if you have ever seen a 4x5 colour transparency- they are magical!

[Mark Hobson]

As a long time picture maker-c.1979-1987-with the use of an 8x10 view camera together with 8x10 color negative sheet film, I believe I am qualified to answer that question….

…in a nutshell, the answer is short and sweet: it is an aesthetic consideration. That is, an aesthetic based upon the look and subsequent “feel “ of prints made with large format color negative film.

To wit, photographs made with large format color negative film are characterized by prints which exhibit soft, subtle tonal transitions, easy on the eye contrast, a “creamy” highlight and shadow presentation, and a very pleasing amount of sharpness and detail. Characteristics which, taken all altogether, yield up, to my eye and sensibilities, what I think of a as very “liquid” visual sensation. For those who are sensitive to such things, this look and feel offers a very attractive alternative to the all too common “hardness / coolness” of most digital-produced work - excessive eye-bleeding sharpness and comparatively rather too-vibrant color properties.

But, here’s the thing…unless you have viewed (I am willing to bet that very few youngins have) as an example, a Meyerowitz print on a gallery wall, my attempt to explain this aesthetic might read as a bit far fetched. Nevertheless, it is a real thing.

And, writing of Meyerowitz, I had a one-on-one conversation with him where we both spent a significant amount of time waxing poetic about our experience with the scanning of our respective 8x10 color negatives and subsequent making of digital prints. The scanning of those original color negatives revealed a significant amount of subtle color, highlight / shadow detail, and resolution that was “hidden” in the enlarger / C print world but was revealed in the digital print making world. That written, the work still exhibited the “classic” look and feel of a C print made from and large format color negative. Meyerowitz exclaimed that he felt as if he was experiencing his work in a somewhat dramatically different manner.

All that written, while I would love to return to making photographs with 8x10 color negative film, it ain’t gonna happen inasmuch as a single sheet of KODAK 8x10 color negative film costs $30US. Add in processing with a 1200dpi scan at $24US a pop and it becomes a very expensive undertaking. Maybe I can apply for a grant.

[Charles Katz]

As someone who has been shooting film for about 40 years and a mix of film and digital for the last 15 years or so, I still find plenty of reason to shoot color film.
For me film has a more three dimensional and organic look than digital capture, as well as more beautiful transition between light and dark, between nuances of color and between in-focus and out of focus areas.

Most importantly to me, human skin rendered on Kodak Portra, especially in medium format, looks better and more natural than any portraiture I have ever seen captured digitally. To me, human skin looks synthetic in digital capture, and some people with a lot more computer skill than I can make it look close for sure… but not quite as good.

Having a tangible piece of original art, i.e. negatives or slides, that you can hold in your hand is very appealing to me as well.

Certainly digital color capture has its advantages; low light, mixed lighting, very large prints, producing large number of images at virtually no cost and so on. However when I look back at the images that really resonate with me, they are almost always film images.

In addition , if I am out and about all day with a camera around my neck, I am far more comfortable with my Nikon FE or FA than my full frame Nikon DSLR. And don’t get me started on how much I dislike EVFs!

It is not accurate to state that “ all” the good color films are gone. It is true that many are, (and man do I miss Fuji Reala!), but a lot of excellent ones remain and sell very well. Fuji Velvia, Provia, and Kodak Ektachrome, Ektar, and three speeds of Portra are all readily available.

Now what I don’t understand is people spending outrageous sums of money on old plastic P&S cameras and shooting Gold 200 when their phones are more capable image makers, but that’s a rabbit hole for another day.

May we all have good light, good health, and enjoy shooting whatever brings us joy.

[Sylvain G.]

Just like people choose some brands over other for their fabled "color science", one might appreciate a specific finetuning of ektar, portra... Etc

An overlooked answer, at least for me: because you get to shoot cameras that are actually fun to use? Small, minimalist, cleverly designed, tightly built, durable... The equivalent to your miata vs a tesla I guess?
Frankly half the fun. Then based on that, you don't have to sacrifice your colours over this.

[David Comdico]

Because color film is beautiful.

[almostinfamous]

adding on to Patrick Medd above. I shoot colour in 120 because i cannot afford digital medium format cameras and systems, even at their reduced used rates.

I have largely given up on 35mm colour, as i do not find the expense nor the end product particularly satisfying.