Thoughts on film…
Thoughts on the film photography...
Hello.
Welcome to another musing from this strange landscape that NathanPhoto’s thinking. As the street photography blog got a little traction, will push this one on socials in the aim to get some traction/recognition for what I do, that’s a big ask isn’t it? Apparently to get ahead you have to promote so here I am. The topic is this week is film photography but I guess the more precise question would be why are you using film to make images in 2026? I will take the recent words from a great philosopher as my guide:
Which is a fantastic way to question this. I will attempt an answer, but as ever this is my stream of conscious thinking, (try and replicate that ai, I dare you) this may lead us somewhere else, let us see where. Again I am hoping this will form part of the NathanPhotoLearning site when it gets established, in saying it here, it makes it feel real as the mountains of self-promotion, self-publicity and presenting online are really rather huge. Sadly but it seems that if you want to get ahead, this it seems, is the only way. You need that profile to get the work.
Why are you using film then?
I grew up on film, making and then having to wait on the images seems inconsiderable now. Imagine making an image and waiting, waiting any length of time, hours, days, weeks?
I’m not sure we should go back to that?
I also wonder if we had a different sort of visual literacy which was based must less on the hit of instant gratification. It put some space between us and the image. I’m not sure how to explain the stories of people having one roll of film (36 exposures.) That started with Christmas of one year, then Easter, summer holidays then finishing with the Christmas the year after. While these stories are very true. I have no idea how to explain that to modern audiences who have no concept of waiting, film, image making, expenses, the list goes on.
For my journey, I will start somewhere near the beginning, back in the 80’s. At that point film was all, so once I’d discovered photography, I started to learn about film, which progressed into my own darkroom, then developed in various ways including colour which was a massive pain back then. Interestingly or strangely that’s not the part of the process I enjoy. I like the making pictures; I like the viewing of the pictures but the bit in-between I wasn’t so keen on. I would rather leave the developing to those professionals. That is changing somewhat now.
Although when I see this online it seems that others sharing their journey take a different viewpoint. I see so many people concentrating on the process, developing their own. It seems they are praising process over development. Maybe they didn’t grow up with it like what I did.
Perhaps this process needs to be examine further.
Indeed when I worked in education, a lot of the senior lecturers used to suggest to students that the use of film would progress their practice. Many did not see it and if honest not many took to it, many reasons for that, not least because of cost, but the fact of no instantaneous results and it is not the easiest thing to regulate. That irregularity of results is a difficult cross to bear. The balancing of the thinking of what you believe you’re going to be getting, into something that you don’t get. Film can be very unforgiving.
I don’t always like talking about the technical, as so many others do this, which can get quite boring but for this, I think its pertinent.
My current film setup is a little unpredictable. I have a rangefinder film camera, always wanted one and was lucky enough to get one a couple of years ago. It has been great but I did buy, without fully checking out the gripes some people had with it. Reading some complaints about things makes me question people outlook on life. So I step away. I thought, no I love this camera, what it does and what I want it to do for the price so all was good. Then lo and behold after travelling for a while with various bumps and stuff I noticed the focus in the viewfinder slightly off, it had slipped.
Internet research led me to identifying this as being a common problem with this make/model. If I had read this before buying, would I have got it? Yes, I would.
Then my cackhanded attempt at fixing it, with a small screw not easily accessible, that’s the camera not me. I now have the viewfinder out by a couple of millimetres, which doesn’t sound like much but it does effect close up work. But I live with it by using my eye and the distance scale on the lens and the f-stop to control depth of field to get the desired result. For me this adds to the process, some of this irregularity has stood me in good stead for getting unexpected images one of which I’ll show later.
While we are on with tech, another thing I have noticed in all of this is that the film stock is very different. Well NSS, of course it will be, the original ways of making film stock were carcinogenic for people and the planet so once the profit went then they had to change. Yes, I do realise that but they haven’t been able to make this new stock work in the same way, why would they? The ‘mistakes’ are now part of the USP. The way the image comes out is different, maybe it’s the film stock I’m using. I have used have had some of the new Phoenix by Harman colour and the Fuji. I never use that yellow boxed stuff. Never liked it then, too many over egg its qualities. I never saw what the fuss was about.
It what way different I Hera you dear reader. well its the ‘feel’ mainly, the way it works via the digitisation and recording, the grain and the colour balance, the structure mainly. It may be the way I’m shooting, or the way I’m digitising it, as I rephotograph the negatives on a lightbox with the airfryer camera, then tweak the raw files. The cast are something wild. Of course that may be my quirk or my technique.
To explore this a bit further I thought I’d talk about recent results. I recently discovered 20 odd rolls of negative film that I must have had since the 90’s or early 00’s. l went digital in 2002, can’t have been past that. They are Fuji press rolls which I think I may have been given for work, so they’re at least 26 years old.
I thought I’d see what they are like so exposed a few of those rolls. But I knew they hadn’t come out great when the developer (Advanced Cameras off st Anns Square, highly recommend), said to me
Now they are a bit thick, this could be because of age, fogging or just the degradation of time. But the results aren’t too bad, as said earlier I captured some interesting ones.
Good to start with ones that didn’t work. Here’s a couple of my regular subjects but on film
Not sure what these add, film needs its own subject matter to shine. And the image on the left I made a much better one on digital, which is on my Instagram. Yet there is something here I do love the effect of a quality that film gives. It would be hard to replicate that, even if you knew exactly what you wanted it to look like.
Film just gives you something.
As I mentioned earlier the focusing issue, Here are 2 images on that point, one I’ve nailed and the other is off just enough, the subject matter is a little more in my apparent scholarly practice but good to show results here.
Of course the questioning of why I use film starts to become more pertinent, as the crispness of digital works with the image in this scenario. Again film needs its own subject matter to shine. Speaking of subjects, these show my obsession with discarded things.
An irony that shows things I photograph, hasn’t drifted that much in 40+ years. The first image on the left is from the late 1990’s and this image on the right is from 2026. Moving on to more contemporary themes, I feel the juxtaposition of the new Manchester skyline and the way it has been caught on out-of-date film certainly adds something into the mix?
And to finish with the images, like a good editorial I’m referencing what has gone before, this one is tapping into the theme of:
This is an example of how changing your practice by taking your time with film, getting the focus right etc leads to better shots. I was constructing the shot of the sodden Gregg’s sausage roll, it started to take a while (definitely not because of the 2 glasses of champagne I’d just enjoyed…) But while I was faffing these set of legs appeared in frame in what can only be described as cannodling. If I had attempted to make this on digital, I would have made it already and moved on so this shot is solely down to the use of film in this situation while I was aiming to get the focus right.
and there’s the shot.
These images are just from my most recent rolls; I do have more from this year but I am conscious of how much time you wonderful readers have spent already. This blog going on too long. The images here are also unedited so they will be polished up for publication:
For a conclusion I will answer the original question:
Well it is for a few reasons, it’s fun, it sharpens my skills, reminds me of love for the medium, it’s great to step out of the comfort zone that digital provides you with, unknowingly most times, so it’s good to check that privilege. There is an added irony of the thought that these negatives might outlast digital files made at the same time but incorrectly stored is ironic and iconic at the same time.
I did have the worry of added pollution but I trust my reading that it’s not as polluting as it once was, I hope that it is true it less polluting.
The last part asks who are you doing it for?
I hope I am doing it for me but if photography isn’t shared, recognised or appreciated then does it actually mean anything?
And who is best to do that me or you?
Now that is definitely for another blog.
Thanks for reading.