I seem to shoot differently with film. Do you?

[abrewer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know I shoot differently

 

More thoughtfully, for sure

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[wildlightphoto]

Film doesn't force anyone to slow down. There were plenty of 'spray-and-pray' photographers before there were digital cameras; they moved on to digital cameras for the cost and processing speed advantages.

 

I'm also reading in a few of the responses in this thread some confusion about why a film camera is preferred. For example:

 

" ... 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."

 

Does this illustrate an advantage of film, or an advantage of good manual controls?

[colin_d]

There is something intangible about shooting with film. When I go out with my fully mechanical film camera hanging down front of me the wrong way I feel empowered by whatever that intangible emotion is.

 

I'm over comparing with digi shooters as they get a buzz too, but I can only get it with timeless film.

[Jaybob]

I do shoot differently with a D3 and and 17-35 or 70-200 lens than I do with a film rangefinder. However, if I use an F5, or another film Nikon of the same ilk, say an N90s or an F4, I shoot pretty much the same as the DSLR.

 

My newest acquisition is the Digilux 2, a camera whose 5 megapixel image quality I would put up against any 10 megapixel camera, at any time. The Digilux 2 on RAW is slower than just about any film camera that I've ever used. It has a six second per image "let me figure out what just happened" delay time as it writes to the card. It also has a 28 to 90 f2 to 2.5 ASPH lens that is SUBLIME. I shoot MUCH differently with that camera than I do with a D3, or a film M.

 

I think it's more about the understanding your equipment's capabilities and limitations and figuring out what you're comfortable doing, than it is about "shooting differently with film".

 

Rangefinder vs DSLR will always be different.

M9 against motorized M7, I bet you'd encounter no noticeable lag in shooting style or pace.

 

Jay

[Guest nafpie]

To make the technique of the camera responsible for the own way taking pictures ... sounds a little bit strange to me.

 

To shoot 2000 pics a day, 7 fps, watching to the cameras display all the time ... nothing of that is mandatory if you are using a digital camera.

 

With a digital Leica M camera, for example, you can work in the SAME way as with a film Leica. Try it ... it works.

 

Stefan

[ehegwer]

I sure do!

 

But to get that "old feeling" back, the one that's been mentioned so many times in the posts above, I simply put a tiny SD card in.

 

Go find a 128 megabyte SD card, or something that only holds a handful of digital images on it, and then go shooting knowing you only have a couple of dozen exposures. Your mindset will change.

[bill]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This thread is a classic example of left-brain, right-brain viewpoints. The left-brainers will never understand the right-brainers point that knowing the capture medium is film influences their behaviour. The right-brainers see a camera as a tool - the end result is the thing for them, whereas for the right-brainers the journey is equally important. I wouldn't mind betting that the split goes along MBTI lines too.

 

Left-brainers switch off here...

_____________________________________________________

 

There is a subset of the film/digital divide that certainly influences me and that is whether or not I have colour or black and white film loaded. If the latter, I "see" in monochrome, and shoot for tones. If colour, I shoot for hues. I know this to be the case because if I, as I did the other day, inadvertently shoot a colour roll thinking it is monochrome, the colours are all over the place. Conversely, I can't load up a colour roll and tell myself to treat it as monochrome, because deep down I still know it is colour.

 

_____________________________________________________

Left-brainers switch on again here...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Xmas]

Hi Bill

 

But if you are going to scan you can convert a color negative to a mono negative, and throw in a yellow filter for the clouds.

If you are wet printing things are more difficult... I've no panchromatic paper left...

 

Noel

[bill]

Hi Noel,

 

But if you are going to scan you can convert a color negative to a mono negative, and throw in a yellow filter for the clouds.

 

No, no, no, no, no, no, etc...

 

That's exactly my point. I CANNOT. If I know my camera has colour film in it my brain says "shoot colour". If I know my camera has monochrome film in it my brain says "shoot mono". It's that simple... or I am...!

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Guest nafpie]

There is a subset of the film/digital divide that certainly influences me and that is whether or not I have colour or black and white film loaded.

 

I know what you are trying to say.

 

Sometimes I imagine a Tri-X was loaded into my Leica M9. After a while, I am sure a Tri-X was loaded into my Leica M9.

 

At this point, there is virtually no difference to a Leica M6 loaded with Tri-X.

 

What I am trying to say: It is NOT about the camera, it's about your brain.

 

Stefan

[bill]

Spot-on, Stefan.

 

My M7 is always loaded with colour film, in the past my M2 and now my current MP live on monochrome. My brain therefore knows that if a Leica is black, it is colour, if it is chrome, it is mono(chrome).

 

...it is the way things are.

 

Where I come adrift is that a digital camera is inherently capable of colour, so is therefore incontrovertibly a colour capture machine in my head. Bizarrely, the only way I ever got around that was with my LC-1, when I would set it to monochrome, and shoot RAW. Then I was physically seeing the world in mono in the viewfinder, but my "negs" were still colour...

 

Perhaps it''s just me!

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Xmas]

Hi Noel,

 

 

 

No, no, no, no, no, no, etc...

 

That's exactly my point. I CANNOT. If I know my camera has colour film in it my brain says "shoot colour". If I know my camera has monochrome film in it my brain says "shoot mono". It's that simple... or I am...!

 

Regards,

 

Bill

Hi Bill

 

Suggest serious lack of beer is your problem

 

Noel

[giordano]

This thread is a classic example of left-brain, right-brain viewpoints. The left-brainers will never understand the right-brainers point that knowing the capture medium is film influences their behaviour.

 

Not at all. What left-brainers don't understand is how it is that right-brainers - who keep banging on about how creative and imaginative they are - don't actually have enough imagination to visualise in color or monochrome without material prompts such as one or other kind of film.

 

Or rather that would be the case if the whole left-brain/right-brain thing wasn't a myth based on a (right-brained:D) misundersanding of old neuroanatomy.

 

The right-brainers see a camera as a tool - the end result is the thing for them, whereas for the right-brainers the journey is equally important. [emphasis added]

 

It seems that at an unconscious level you agree that left brain and right brain are mostly interchangeable.

[Sailronin]

I find it ironic that the Leica film shooters have a similar attitude towards digital shooting (machine gunning, careless shots, shoot and pray) that I used to have towards 35mm users as I came from a sheet film background. It was not uncommon for me to take 10 film holders (4x5") out for a day of shooting and come back with two or three unused. Discipline, economy, thoughtful process and careful composition were standard when using sheet film while the 35mm user could blast through 36 exposures without stopping!

 

Now I find with the M8 I shoot many shots that I would not have considered. The freedom to experiment with blurred motion, abstracts and "silly shots" is much greater with digital.

[tomasis7]

i can understand that for some it doesnt make difference. Fine.

 

For me, something about film is it that I can never look at image how was it after short time. I usually wait 1-3 years before i develop films. I dont usually develop straight after shooting.

 

When I have fresh memories from photographing and I look at recent images, I have hard times to judge which are good instantly because I tell/feel from my memories at first, not as a stranger looking at images as he never seen them before.

 

I think shooting expensive films like 6x7, 4x5 sheets is great way to think/seeing more. The more poor I am, I work better. Funny isnt?

 

I find one thing quite amusing that some people believe that with unlimited choices, it is easier to do what they like. But hey, how one knows if it is really EASY to make a good picture if the technique is most comfortable. I really love paradoxes in the sweet life

 

Well, it is up everybody's experience, way to do things.

 

I'm out

 

/Right brainer

[Guest nafpie]

I usually wait 1-3 years before i develop films.

 

 

The more poor I am, I work better.

 

 

Funny isnt?

 

More or less.

 

Stefan

[wildlightphoto]

I find it ironic that the Leica film shooters have a similar attitude towards digital shooting (machine gunning, careless shots, shoot and pray) that I used to have towards 35mm users as I came from a sheet film background.

 

A quick browsing of apug.org suggests this film users' attitude toward digital isn't restricted to those using Leica film cameras.

[Sailronin]

Hi Doug,

I don't hang out at other 35mm film forums so I used the Leica as an example. I'm quite sure you're correct.

Using film required more thought as you don't (or at least I don't) have unlimited chances to get the shot.

I enjoy both digital (for the freedom to experiment and instant feedback) and film.

Dave

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[adan]

Don't confuse "slow/manual" with "film."

 

I actually don't shoot my M9 much differently than I did an M4 or M4-2 (and certainly very little differently than I did a motor-incorporated Konica RF). I imagine someone who used an EOS-1 film camera in 2000 and an EOS-1Ds today also notices very little difference between "then" and "now" - at least while shooting. With a digital back on it, my Hassy SWC would still be knob-wound, scale-focused and slow.

 

Certainly, in my film/SLR days, I much preferred using a Nikon F/F3/FM2 to an "auto-optimized" F4/F5/F100 - but "digital vs. film" was no part of that equation at all.

 

For better or worse, most cameras since 1985 have been motorized, AF, and occasionally biggish (except Leicas) - and therefore most digital cameras today are motorized, AF and occasionally biggish (except Leicas). But that has nothing to do with digital per se.

 

There was a stage director once who, if the script called for a gun in a drawer on-stage, insisted that the gun be in the drawer throughout the play - EVEN in the scenes where it was never actually visible. The play didn't seem "right" if he knew the gun wasn't there - even if no one else could see the difference. Whether that was just part of the journey, whether it was right-brained - or whether the guy was just a few frames short of a 36-exp roll - I'll leave to others.

 

With apologies to Lewis Carroll, "The question is, who is to be the master, you or the camera?" I'd submit that those who let their cameras (or what's inside them) do their thinking for them are not the masters of their medium.

[bill]

With apologies to Lewis Carroll, "The question is, who is to be the master, you or the camera?" I'd submit that those who let their cameras (or what's inside them) do their thinking for them are not the masters of their medium.

 

*sigh*

 

We have been here before.

 

I submit that those who have a tin ear for their medium will never master it. Insensitivity is a waste.

 

There is a world of difference between letting the tool do your thinking for you - over-sophisticated cameras, cars, computers etc spring to mind - and letting the tool realise its potential in your hands.

 

Putting it another way; a master carpenter knows to work with the grain of the wood, not against it. The wood is not his master, it is his partner in creating the finished product. He chooses the wood wisely, for its grain, its lustre, it's strength, its suitability, then he crafts his vision from the raw wood.

 

Regards,

 

Bill