I seem to shoot differently with film. Do you?

[KCS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've noticed recently that I shoot differently with film. I'm not even sure how or why, but with film I'm more likely to really capture a moment vs just get a shot. Obviously I shoot less, but I don't consciously think I'm 'waiting' for the right moment. Maybe being forced to slow down means that I don't take all the random shots between the really good ones? :-) I'm curious to know if anyone else finds they approach things differently--but not on a conscious level-- just curious to get others' thoughts on this.

 

Karen

[Allen in Montreal]

It is not just a question of slowing down to use less film, rather than filling a 4 million gig card. Most newspaper and wire service shooters have an expression (not a very nice expression) for people who are trigger happy and can't wait and think before shooting and then spend half the day looking down at their screen as life passes them by!

 

Film gives you the freedom of not wanting to race through the picture taking to look at your screen.

 

Your digital work will improve now that you have noticed this and don't fall into the digi trap of machine gun fire then looking down and most often, missing the picture.

[MPJMP]

Film enforces shutter discipline.

[alun]

Karen, I don't have or use a digital camera, so I can't compare, but I have always felt that -- as another poster said -- film does impose a kind of economy.

 

BUt I think it's more to do with concentrating on what is happening rather than on the LCD on the back of the camera.

 

I also find that the invariable delay while I stockpile film to take to the lab introduces a useful distance between me and the photographs... Weeks, sometimes, and when I look at them I look at them in a different light.

 

Actually, my dad, an 80-something convert to digital photography said just the other day that he would never ever go back to film but that he did understand the attraction of _waiting_ to see the pictures one has taken. 'I look at them after I have taken them, and then again if I repeat the shot, and then probably again while I'm sitting waiting for the kettle to boil, and by the time I load them into the laptop I'm already bored by them,' he said.

[Vicente]

Switching from a DSLR to an M2 a month ago, I definitely feel more meticulous and aware of life around me It has definitely invigorated my passion for photography

[KCS]

I was thinking about this more, and realized that there *are* times when I fill the buffer on my M9 and have to stop for an agonizing few seconds during which I miss moments-- with film I would have been forced to wait and may have taken the 'better' shot because I didn't rush to take a bunch early. Maybe the forced slowdown to cock the shutter does make me wait and think more, even if I'm not doing it intentionally (but forced to due to the camera). It is certainly something I'll continue to explore... This is great motivation to shoot more film.

 

 

Karen

[cheewai_m6]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

i definintely slow down with film. i'd even say i take better photos when shooting film. i don't have 2913031 photos when i do use the dslr, cause i think before i shoot.

[hamey]

For me, If I shoot with my Digi cam I don't really care because I can always delete that image if I don't like it, but with film it's different, I want to keep it, so I compose or frame the image more wisely.

 

Ken.

[nhabedi]

I gave my M8.2 back about a year ago and got an M7 instead in addition to my M4-P. I know that I was never totally happy with my digital photos, but I can't really say what exactly the reason was.

 

It certainly wasn't the camera. One thing probably was that my black-and-white results never looked like I wanted them to look. That can probably be resolved with enough expertise in digital post-processing, but I tend to think I already spent a good amount of time and energy on this. Another reason is that, yes, I shot more when I used the M8.2 and had less keepers.

 

I also kind of like the fact that you can't chimp when you're shooting film and that there is some time between when you pressed the shutter and when you finally see the results. But you could of course have the same in digital if you were disciplined enough.

 

Finally, mechanical film cameras for me have a certain beauty and "dignity" that digital cameras don't have. Some might want to counter that this shouldn't matter, but how you feel when you're using a tool isn't irrelevant IMHO.

 

Anyway, all of the above are personal reasons and I fully understand if someone else doesn't share them or has opposing views. Also, I pretty often curse at problems you only have in the analog world, like issues with development, dust or scratches on negatives, the efforts needed to get a good scan, etc. I'm sure I'll try digital again some time in the future, if only for the convenience, and I might have a different take then.

[Xmas]

Hi Karen

 

I only shoot film, but I find I miss opportunities. while I wind on, rewind or reload.

But I miss as many failing to anticipate.

 

Noel

[tomasis7]

Add external light meter, it makes you more aware of light, surrounding. It is total freedom, I feel so.

 

Paradoxically, it might be most difficult at beginning but later after practice, it is like extension of eye, lol without making brain to work.

[bill]

I just want to pick up some interesting key words in the previous posts:

 

freedom, discipline, distance, economy, concentrating, invigorated, passion, motivation, meticulous, beauty, dignity, aware.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Jaybob]

I've actually looked down at the back of my M2 after making an exposure.

 

It made me quickly aware of what I had set my film speed at, and how much I miss the old days.

 

Jay

[tobey bilek]

Think, think some more, set exposure, focus, recheck all, push button. Same for digital.

I see no difference.

[250swb]

I'm not going to say there is anything mystical about film as a device, or anything special about the images produced, they are nearly equal to digital in many ways. But there is a difference in the way the camera is used, the speed, the thought, the calmer moments, all dictated by 36 exposures. Film can be meditative or furious, you can feel relaxed or worn out because there are only so many chances to make the image before you need to stop. And that makes a difference to the photographers approach, gung ho courage or zen like transcendence.

 

But its only potty training for the real thing, being able to take any camera and make a great image without burdening yourself with 'psychology'.

 

All this should be easy for anybody who has gone from years of film to digital, you know your craft, know you 'speed', when to fire and when not, and even if you do make more images it doesn't mean more are 'throw away' images just because its digital. Less easy would be going from digital to film, where you've been swayed that digital is throw away, fast, hasn't as much worth, can't match the soul etc. All of a sudden film looks like the serious option, it slows you down, makes you think deeper, you feel warmer. But all you are doing is a back to basic's course in human nature. But thats good, because once its in the system you don't forget it, and when you pick up a digital camera again those lessons are still applicable. The enlightenment arrives when you see in simple terms that there are some things film can do for an image that digital can't, and visa versa, and just damned well choose the tool for the job instead of building a pedestal for it.

 

 

Steve

[Nick De Marco]

I find I shoot more deliberately with film.

 

It doesn't necessarily slow me down - sometimes I find a 35mm camera a lot quicker than a digital camera, as the temptation with digital is to always check the back and look at the photo after it has been taken, which means waiting for the software to write. It doesn't even, always, mean I take less photos. As I use medium format a lot, whenever I pick up a 35mm rangefinder I suddenly feel free to shoot faster and more than usual.

 

But it is more deliberate. Generally you waste less shots. Experiment only when there is something worth experimenting, and not just because you can. And as you have a particular film loaded, whether colour or black and white, slide or negative, fast or slow, you tend to think of what works with that particular medium and then shoot things which have a unity with each other - whereas digital tend to lead to so much freedom it is anarchy - shoot what you want when you want, make it black and white after if you feel like it etc., that the results of a day's digital shoot tend to be more eclectic, less deliberate.

 

Unless, of course, you artificially impose on yourself the same discipline with digital as film ('today I shall shoot only 400 iso, only for converting in black and white, and I shall not waste shots') - in which case you lose one of the actual advantages of film over digital.

[tomasis7]

 

Unless, of course, you artificially impose on yourself the same discipline with digital as film ('today I shall shoot only 400 iso, only for converting in black and white, and I shall not waste shots') - in which case you lose one of the actual advantages of film over digital.

 

I dont think it is so. Artificially impose limits is much more difficult to do than to say. Rather work with limits so your temptation disappears.

 

Why waste time to get discipline over me when Im doing other things.

 

Less is more

[Xmas]

'today I shall shoot only 400 iso, only for converting in black and white, and I shall not waste shots') - in which case you lose one of the actual advantages of film over digital.

 

If you are starting I'd recommend a brick of Ilford XP2 at 400 ASA meter at beginning of day, if you have steel gears (e.g. a M6) hammer the wind on lever for next shot, rewind and reload as fast as you can.- I use several bodies...

 

The XP2 should tolerate all but the most contrasty of days, although the (your) scanner may have difficulties.

 

As above keep checking that the speed , aperture and focus is preset to where you think it should be, try and anticipate more, ride the 1st pressure on the shutter if you can.

 

The only caution is be deliberate with the rewind lever, as you approach the end of the rewnd if you slip you will lose time...

 

Noel.

[lincoln_m]

Totally agree with the thoughts here. Although I only have a digital compact Canon G10 with not so good optical view finder (70% of image) and AF makes mistakes only on the shots that would have been great if the focus was as intended. The badly timed shots have perfect focus. I'd be better if I honed my manual focus skills on my M7.

 

I can imagine (and seen others) would fill a 2G card with 500 JPEGs in a day when I shoot only 30 shots.

 

The M10 digital (10 is 2 in digital numbers) should have mechanical shutter / wind-on perhaps like the M7 and a battery just for the sensor with the option of turning on the display at the back to review the images if needed. So most of the time your monitor would be off and the power is only used for exposure and reporting how many shots you've taken or have left. For best results use a 1G card so you get no more than 50 shots and only view them on the computer when you have finished. In fact scrap the monitor altogether and only have the usual ISO dials and manual shutter, wind-on. Then you'll have a similar experience to film, limited shots and having to wait before you see the images. That would have more appeal than the M9 titanium at a lot less money.

 

Regards, Lincoln

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[NZDavid]

I can only agree with all the points already made. Slower, more deliberate, and less can be more. Example, I just used my X1 at a country fete and shot off a couple of hundred exposures, instead of one or two films. I ended up ditching quite a few (partly due to tricky autofocus). Judged purely by results, film (especially, for me, slide film) still satisfies, despite the extra effort.