Why don't you just switch to digital?

[AbbeyFoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

... I can be as romantic as any of things of the past and can rationalize and argue till the cows come home about the (huge) superiour sound of vinyl or the visceral feel of one of my old Porsche's in comparison to new iterations but none of it means anything in the end.

 

He with the most frames, miles or songs, wins. At least that's how I feel now.

 

Sorry to intrude into the film forum!

 

You sound depressed and trapped in some oppressive rat race. Is life all about winning? It certainly isn't for me.

[Peter H]

You sound depressed and trapped in some oppressive rat race. Is life all about winning? It certainly isn't for me.

 

I think its a bit mean to suggest he's trapped in an oppressive rat race just because he has a different way of enjoying his photography, and bothered to try to explain why. Don't you?

[PayPerView]

You sound depressed and trapped in some oppressive rat race. Is life all about winning? It certainly isn't for me.

 

Not sure where you are getting that from? In fact it's exactly the opposite of 'winning'..

 

Or more about (at least for me) how I have redefined what the purpose of collecting things is as opposed to using them.

 

It's an opinion piece and not meant for it to be interpreted as a 'right' or 'wrong' approach for anyone but myself.

 

Also, I relate to the OP, as I too have been a 'victim' of falling into beliefs or ideology that in the end served more to make me feel comfortable with a choice rather than to perhaps question my motivations for not using this or that device, be it a camera, a watch or a car. The OP might be well and happy and good with his choice to use film and to shun digital. I don't have a horse in the race but I did think that by sharing my own experience in similar debate years ago. I hope I am not being interpreted as being 'anti film' I think I've clearly explained that to me the camera is the least of the equation.

 

Depressed and winning? More like celebrating and acknowledging how lucky I (we) are to have such choices and 'problems'.

 

In the end, it's all about process and for each of us that is different. I too enjoy the quiet and solitude of working in a darkroom. I prefer that to sitting in a chair working digitally on photographs. But at the same time there is a built in inherent nature perhaps to wax (overly) poetic about things of the past.

 

There's no judgment though, I just wanted to share my own struggle with a belief system that speaks more to a way of life than about photography per se.

[myshkine]

Slow-photography becomes over and over, and most recently (to me) through James Bowey who proselytizes just that in his lectures, classes and public talks. Oh, and he is strictly a digital photographer. It can work in both worlds, as Toby suggested earlier.

.

 

I completely agree. It is not a question of film vs digital.It is rather a question of how you approach and use each of them.

I was not familiar with James Bowey. I will look more closely to his work.

[pico]

I completely agree. It is not a question of film vs digital.It is rather a question of how you approach and use each of them.

I was not familiar with James Bowey. I will look more closely to his work.

 

James is an interesting person, philosophic and intelligent, gentle, but he can also be fiery, athletic, and what I call a combat kind of photographer - and he was just that at one time. In his youth he was about to enter law school when he was swept up in journalism and photography. His decision to pursue the later has benefited all of us who know him and his work. He made a choice that not many would, considering the poor pay of photography and journalism, especially for a fellow with a family to support. I would work for the man any day, health permitting. (I'm allergic to bullet holes now, having experienced such three times.)

[!Nomad64]

How bigger the format how slower it goes.

 

Not necessarily. Get yourself a Barnack and the simple change of a lens, its shade and its separate viewfinder will slow you down enough. You try then changing a normal lens with a Visoflex mounted one and things may even worsen. It's no wonder that the great masters of the past excelled at and suggested themselves using one lens only. Changing a lens when one's in the middle of action might cost her the "decisive moment" so one had to get the best with the one she had mounted at the moment. Even if he wasn't a Leica user himself, Robert Capa's quote “If your photos aren't good enough, then you're not close enough” was probably a corollary to that.

And to me a Barnack camera matches quite well with the idea of slow photography with the extra bonus of the limited burden.

 

Cheers,

Bruno

[plasticman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

to wax (overly) poetic about things of the past.

 

Dude - where are you getting this idea? What's "things of the past" about film? Your film cameras don't take pictures anymore? The greatest film emulsions ever produced, with better color and light-rendition than any sensor yet produced, too 'retro' for you? Give your film cameras to one of the kids hungering for a decent film camera to shoot some great images, and enjoy yourself with your 'modern' digital.

 

To the OP - as a digital user (and worker) pretty much all my life, I've loved discovering film, (just wish I'd done it earlier) and your blog-post really resonated with me.

[philipus]

I certainly agree with what you are saying, which I understand to be that whatever equipment one has it should be used rather than collected. True, this does involve a choice, but I don't think this was the type of choice that Sean's original post and article are about (Sean, welcome to the forum btw). Rather, the choice he describes concerns one format over another, film over digital. I see this as different to what you describe.

 

I began using film as a teenager in the later 80s then chose digital in 2009 only to re-choose film last year when I move to Leica. I haven't regretted going back to film one second.

 

For me this choice has nothing to do with the equipment. I could just as well use my old A-1 or 1N or any other film camera. It's all about the look I get. The result.

 

 

 

I don't often post and I think I accidentally clicked on the thread topic but as Freud might have said, "sometimes there are no accidents",

 

I also consider myself at my core to be more of an 'analogue' personality. I much prefer turntables, older manual shifting cars, my favorite being a 1972 Orange 911 Porsche Targa and film cameras.

 

The camera is the least of the process in a way. I don't remember or care to remember which body, lense or settings I may have made capturing a frame. It means nothing in the end.

 

When I got my first digital camera, on day one after a nice outing in Central Park, I noticed I had taken exactly 36 exposures. Some habits don't go away I guess.

 

For years, I would be overly sentimental about film and even turntables (which are undoubtably better sounding than digital to me) but as I've gotten older, it's not about the quality of this or that device but the amount of enjoyment I get out of it. I collect cars and the combined mileage of them last year was probably less than 2000 miles driven.

 

I had always rationalized that as it was worth it to me, that the visceral enjoyment I would get from just looking at them had value.

 

Yet I recently was fortunate to be able to store one in Los Angeles and drive a car that was born in LA and put on 1500 miles in less than a week. And truly my take on ownership of cars is more of the 'he with the most miles wins' more than who has the cleanest 'garage queen'.

 

Many of us might be attracted to many of the same things. Watches, cars and camera's to name a few. I collect watches as well and for years I was too lazy to often switch which one I 'd be wearing. Now I often change my watch and always feel great looking at them and picking out the one I want to wear, it's cheaper than buying a new one too!

 

The common 'thread' for me at least is that there is 'collecting' and appreciating objects for different reasons for different people at different times and I have wasted too much time collecting and not enough time in using and there is no joy with owning dream cars that are never driven or camera's that might get 36 exposures a month.

 

This is not a judgment of the OP and I'm not to say what he 'should' do but at the same time, I behoove everyone to question their ideas and thoughts from time to time and especially with camera's that are so linked to capturing 'moments', it seems a shame not to be using them more.

 

Lastly I had an interesting conversation with a long time photographer who is from the school of film and was shocked and amused when she (probably jokingly) said, "Film sucks."

 

I can be as romantic as any of things of the past and can rationalize and argue till the cows come home about the (huge) superiour sound of vinyl or the visceral feel of one of my old Porsche's in comparison to new iterations but none of it means anything in the end.

 

He with the most frames, miles or songs, wins. At least that's how I feel now.

 

Sorry to intrude into the film forum!

[PayPerView]

Dude - where are you getting this idea? What's "things of the past" about film? Your film cameras don't take pictures anymore? The greatest film emulsions ever produced, with better color and light-rendition than any sensor yet produced, too 'retro' for you? Give your film cameras to one of the kids hungering for a decent film camera to shoot some great images, and enjoy yourself with your 'modern' digital.

 

To the OP - as a digital user (and worker) pretty much all my life, I've loved discovering film, (just wish I'd done it earlier) and your blog-post really resonated with me.

 

The old pull quote technique to really serve to misconstrue what my post was about primarily.

 

If it wasn't already abundantly clear, to me the message and not the media or gear is what photograhpy is about. That's not to suggest that other chiices are not valid. It's a personal process and choice.

 

I thought i was careful to frame my post as seen through perhaps a different lense than the OP.

 

Seems sensitivity runs high over here in the film forum.

 

I didn't post to be a troll here but thought perhaps my experience and opinion might be interesting (to some). Apparantaly not to all. Lol.

 

Thanks "dude", you actually are correct! My m6 is working just fine but my M9 suddenly stopped when hearing that a MM is coming to replace it.

[StS]

Well, it appears we all agree here, that it is the result, which counts, and that it is good, that there is a choice.

 

Some months ago, I was at a friend's wedding. There was a professional photographer assigned to it, who delivered very good results. Lots of guest had their point-and-shoots, the bridal couple had distributed some throwaway film cameras for more shots.

 

So, in the end, the couple got a full collection of professional images, in EOS1-look, a set of much more personal images*, in Portra-look, lots of spontaneous snapshots and some Lomo-style images through a plastic lens. It couldn't be better. It was a brilliant party, by the way.

 

I wouldn't worry too much about the future of film, there are too much emotionally attached users keeping it running. The worst has already happened to film, we are still alive, can relax and enjoy it. That is, speaking for myself, if I'm not in the mood for some digital imaging.

 

Stefan

 

 

*Some of the guests know me since decades, they know, I will not show an image, where they don't look good.

[plasticman]

I can be as romantic as any of things of the past...

 

...wax (overly) poetic about things of the past.

 

The old pull quote technique to really serve to misconstrue what my post was about primarily.

 

The reason I pulled you up on this particular phrase wasn't simply because you repeated it in each of your posts, but because I've become increasingly tired of the way discussions concerning the different advantages of film and digital are framed in these 'straw man' terms.

 

Preferring the aesthetics - and for some, the process - of film is almost always termed 'nostalgic' or 'Luddite'. But for me these preferences have absolutely nothing to do with sentimentalism: I find my film cameras are generally more reliable than their digital equivalents, they function as state-of-the-art image capture instruments, and the result is easily transferred to a digital post-process. Most interesting to me is that the result is most often (not necessarily always) better than the digital equivalent.

 

In any case, I read the OP's blog-post in a totally different way. To me, his decisions have nothing to do with a nostalgic attachment to equipment - he simply found that his choice of medium concentrated and improved his methodology. I definitely experience the same thing: the tens of thousands of meaningless images that I used to take with my digital cameras have been condensed to tens or hundreds of compelling (to me, anyway) pictures on real film instead.

 

This discipline has indeed carried over to my digital shooting nowadays - but never to the same degree. The concentration of the unique moment that capturing an image with irreplaceable chemistry can never be psychologically equalled by the writing and erasing of a pre-processed digital algorithm on a chip (imo).

 

Anyway, "sensitivity" doesn't necessarily "run high" on the film forum - it's all about framing your discussion in terms that don't caricature what film adherents are really saying.

[andym911]

I prefer to receive a handwritten letter than an email..I also prefer to send a handwritten letter than an email....

 

sometimes time can be a constraint...but it is the only constraint for me, a compromise.

 

best

andy

[Peter H]

I prefer to receive a handwritten letter than an email..I also prefer to send a handwritten letter than an email....

 

sometimes time can be a constraint...but it is the only constraint for me, a compromise.

 

best

andy

 

That's fine because, as you say, its just your preference.

 

Where it goes wrong is where one of us tries to argue that one form, colour or B&W, film or digital, is actually better than another.

[andym911]

Peter

 

am with you on this....just preference...nothing more or less.

 

andy

[PayPerView]

Film is Caravaggio. Digital is Norman Rockwell.

 

 

(I had NO idea what I was stepping into. I feel like I lit up a cigarette in a 3 pack a day former smokers house)

[andym911]

Film is Caravaggio. Digital is Norman Rockwell.

 

 

(I had NO idea what I was stepping into. I feel like I lit up a cigarette in a 3 pack a day former smokers house)

 

LOL:D:D:D

[azzo]

 

 

Film is Caravaggio. ....

 

 

 

 

Agreed! ...

[andym911]

kodak 1a

 

hazy lens...sticky shutter..but still makes an image...crap quality only in the eyes of the beholder

 

andy

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[LucisPictor]

Welcome!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[too old to care]

kodak 1a

 

hazy lens...sticky shutter..but still makes an image...crap quality only in the eyes of the beholder

 

andy

 

Not my eyes. Looks great.

 

On another point, yesterday I had friends over that are moving. They wanted a photo of where they became engaged over 40 years ago, a rock cliff several hundred feet high. They asked me to take it. After looking a some of my photos, both digital and film, they said they wanted it shot with B&W film because it reminds them of the photos they had back then. I'm going to shoot with my 501C on TriX.