N Y Times article on film

[atournas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/technology/personaltech/film-photographys-revival-in-a-digital-world.html?_r=1&hp

 

Not for the serious amateur, of course.

 

Paul

[Michael Hiles]

:eek:Whot? No mention of the APO-Summicron 50 ASPH?

[philipus]

Thanks for posting. I wish there was a comment field on the article...

 

When is the last time you took a photo with an old-school camera — the kind that doesn’t have a wireless connection, needs to be loaded with finicky rolls of film and is too bulky to slide into a back pocket?

 

I know I'm preaching to the converted but Barnacks come to mind, and pretty much any film compact camera (Olympus mju anyone?).

 

And what's this nonsense about film photos "rarely [being] perfect"? Most digital photos have plenty of imperfections. She's of course right if one uses Lomo or other distortive equipment but it is a sweeping statement.

 

Lastly, moving to film today is, in terms of gear, cheaper than going digital if one wants the equivalent of a similar digital camera.

 

Forgot something -- the most important thing of the article, though, is correct: that film requires the photographer to think more and enables the photographer to be present in the moment (hurrah no chimping).

[AlanG]

Forgot something -- the most important thing of the article, though, is correct: that film requires the photographer to think more and enables the photographer to be present in the moment (hurrah no chimping).

 

Sorry but I think this is totally off base. I shoot tethered or study the image on the LCD to think more about getting my image exactly the way I want it. I used Polaroids for the same reason. Being "present in the moment" for me is knowing I got the image rather than finding out later that I didn't.

 

Considering the author wrote, "And when the prints show up, there can be wild variations in color and the sort of unpredictability that turns a photo into something that seems like a unique piece of art." I don't feel she is putting much thought into it. (Certainly not by my standards when shooting digital or film.) Those kinds of surprises are not acceptable to a commercial photographer.

 

Holga has a lens for digital cameras too and here's a retro case for the iPhone.

 

Four Corner Store : Your store for all things Toy Camera — Welcome

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!

[haroldp]

Considering the author wrote, "And when the prints show up, there can be wild variations in color and the sort of unpredictability that turns a photo into something that seems like a unique piece of art." I don't feel she is putting much thought into it. (Certainly not by my standards when shooting digital or film.) Those kinds of surprises are not acceptable to a commercial photographer.

 

Or any serious photographer.

 

Implying that users of one format or another are more skilled is ridiculous, even for a journalist.

 

I know many highly skilled craftsmen who shoot film, and many who shoot digital, and some like myself who shoot both depending on mood and circumstance.

 

 

Regards ... H

[SteveYork]

Thanks for posting. I wish there was a comment field on the article...

 

 

 

I know I'm preaching to the converted but Barnacks come to mind, and pretty much any film compact camera (Olympus mju anyone?).

 

And what's this nonsense about film photos "rarely [being] perfect"? Most digital photos have plenty of imperfections. She's of course right if one uses Lomo or other distortive equipment but it is a sweeping statement.

 

Lastly, moving to film today is, in terms of gear, cheaper than going digital if one wants the equivalent of a similar digital camera.

 

Forgot something -- the most important thing of the article, though, is correct: that film requires the photographer to think more and enables the photographer to be present in the moment (hurrah no chimping).

 

 

At least with a mechanical camera it does. The pinnacle of the electronic revolution has really made for dumb photographers, and poor pictures. Not everyone of course.

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

At least with a mechanical camera it does. The pinnacle of the electronic revolution has really made for dumb photographers, and poor pictures. Not everyone of course.

 

Did you do some kind of study or survey to determine this?

[SteveYork]

It's a truth too big to deny, despite the pedantic nature of your personality.

[CalArts 99]

 

Forgot something -- the most important thing of the article, though, is correct: that film requires the photographer to think more and enables the photographer to be present in the moment (hurrah no chimping).

 

I would probably argue that this all depends solely on the photographer themselves. I use my digital M exactly with the same mentality as I do my film Ms (and the preview display is always turned off on my M9.) I also 'think equally' (not more or less with either film and digital), and I am 'present in the moment' with both. The only difference for me is that at the end of the day one camera produces digital files and one produces analog film frames (and eventually they both are digital files since the film gets scanned.)

 

I might agree that having used a film camera can sometimes instill a different type of approach that might not be in the psyche of a digital user. But in the end, methodology will always vary among individuals despite the medium. Many film users of the past were haphazard and erratic in their technique, and were never 'present in the moment.' I knew people who packed dozens of rolls of film and made multiple exposures just to 'be sure to get the shot.' They were also oblivious about their subject matter and instead were busy playing with their cameras and were far from being 'in the moment.'

 

And many film users of the past never set foot in a darkroom. A large majority used labs and had prints made for them. I suppose it could be argued that today's digital users are at least sitting down at the computer and processing their own work (aside whether or not it's garbage.) The ease and immediacy of posting images on the internet for the entire world to see (both garbage and good stuff) is the real obvious difference from the 'film days.' The sheer amount of imagery today is often overwhelming. But whether film based or digital, the 'garbage to good ratio' is not much different, it's just the overall volume that's increased.

 

Film or digital, there will still be good photographers and bad photographers.

[AlanG]

It's a truth too big to deny, despite the pedantic nature of your personality.

 

You are the sole arbitrator of this "truth?" You are welcome to your assumptions and opinions but I'm just pointing out that is what they are until you show some proof.

 

What if my idea of truth was that real photographers should know how to use a view camera and have experience making dye transfer prints? What if I thought that the ease of using 35mm cameras and taking film to labs made really dumb photographers? Well I certainly have known a wide enough variety of good photographers to not feel this way and can't see what is served by making sweeping generalities about what it means to be a smart or dumb photographer.

 

Consider that a lot of photographers who shoot primarily digital images today were film users for many years or decades. So are they now dumb? And many young digital photographers that I've met who have no film experience seem pretty bright. There have always been all kinds of photographers regardless of the process and there always will be. I think the overall quality of imagery has never been higher but of course it is hard to come up with new iconic images or concepts today as so much has been covered well in the past. And the market is much more segmented today.

 

Look through US Camera photo annuals from the 50's if you think it was so great in the past and then look at the Graphis photo annuals of today. Today's standards in the advertising, commercial, portrait, wedding, and editorial fields are quite high.

[SteveYork]

You are the sole arbitrator of this "truth?" You are welcome to your assumptions and opinions but I'm just pointing out that is what they are until you show some proof.

 

What if my idea of truth was that real photographers should know how to use a view camera and have experience making dye transfer prints? What if I thought that the ease of using 35mm cameras and taking film to labs made really dumb photographers? Well I certainly have known a wide enough variety of good photographers to not feel this way and can't see what is served by making sweeping generalities about what it means to be a smart or dumb photographer.

 

Consider that a lot of photographers who shoot primarily digital images today were film users for many years or decades. So are they now dumb? And many young digital photographers that I've met who have no film experience seem pretty bright. There have always been all kinds of photographers regardless of the process and there always will be. I think the overall quality of imagery has never been higher but of course it is hard to come up with new iconic images or concepts today as so much has been covered well in the past. And the market is much more segmented today.

 

Look through US Camera photo annuals from the 50's if you think it was so great in the past and then look at the Graphis photo annuals of today. Today's standards in the advertising, commercial, portrait, wedding, and editorial fields are quite high.

 

Using a mechanical camera requires a photographer to engage the mind more. There's nothing stronger then a properly developed human mind.

[giordano]

Using a mechanical camera requires a photographer to engage the mind more. There's nothing stronger then a properly developed human mind.

 

In my experience getting good results out of a DSLR with dozens of controls, hundreds of options and limited dynamic range needs rather more mental engagement than using negative film in a "mechanical camera". I'm not saying anything about the relative merits of film and digital, just suggesting that your statement is a silly generalisation.

[chrism]

By definition this is OT since it involves 120 film and a non-Leica camera, though still a rangefinder, but whilst deciding how many of your neurons to engage in operating your camera, you might like to know that I just had the experience of pointing out to my wife how lucky I was to hit on a combination of many variables to give me a set of rather nice looking negs hanging up to dry. Consider this, o thou DSLR users:

Choose a camera: Bessa III

Choose a lens: well, not in this case

Choose a film: HP5+

Choose a speed: 400

Choose an aperture: Yes, I did. Every time.

Choose a shutter speed: ditto

Focus the camera: check!

Take the picture: I did, twelve times. Phew!

Choose a developer: Rodinal

And a dilution: 1 in 50

And a temperature: 20ºC, thank goodness for hot taps

And a time: 11 minutes

And an agitation schedule: 3 times at first, then once a minute thereafter

Stop bath: yes, guessed time and agitations

HypoClear: ditto

Fixer: doubled the nominal time as it has done half the number of films it should before exhaustion

Wash: usual Ilford desert schedule

PhotoFlo: of course

Drying: simply hanging up right now, as the silica gel of my KleeDri is in the oven having been abused by drying out a tub of Trumper shaving cream to turn it into a soap.

 

And the negatives look wonderful. The photographs might stink, and probably will, but the fun I had in the process was marvellous, and next time I use some HP5+ I will have a head start on how to develop. Perhaps I should pull a 35mm HP5+ out of the freezer and load it in a Leica?

 

Now I have nothing against DSLRs - I'm currently enjoying a very different set of discoveries in using an OM-D and figuring out how to work my way through the various menus and how to post-process the raw files, but as much as I might make some pictures that please me, it seems a bit like cheating compared to using film and chemicals. Ah, well, I'll go the way of the other dinosaurs one day soon! The upshot of it all is that both are respectable activities, but they are different and there is little point in saying one is 'better' or 'harder' than the other; they are simply different. I'm lucky in that I enjoy both. The end result is the print and what the viewers say about it. I do find it simpler to make a print people praise from a digital image, so the times I manage to garner the same from a film camera are rather more satisfying. In the end though, I'm not doing it for the praise of others, but only my own satisfaction. I'll carry on with both film and digital to that end.

 

Chris

[philipus]

Sorry but I think this is totally off base. I shoot tethered or study the image on the LCD to think more about getting my image exactly the way I want it. I used Polaroids for the same reason. Being "present in the moment" for me is knowing I got the image rather than finding out later that I didn't.

 

Considering the author wrote, "And when the prints show up, there can be wild variations in color and the sort of unpredictability that turns a photo into something that seems like a unique piece of art." I don't feel she is putting much thought into it. (Certainly not by my standards when shooting digital or film.) Those kinds of surprises are not acceptable to a commercial photographer.

 

For commercial photographers - I take it you are one, Alan - yes it may be "off base". Let's discuss apples today and then we can discuss oranges some other day. I say this because the article is evidently not aimed at commercial photographers. It is aimed at photographers who were brought up on digital and are now contemplating moving to film-based photography.

 

The average photographer today uses a digital camera. The vast majority of these photographer uses mobile phones. These photographers chimp*and take lots and lots of photos. I am not suggesting there's a difference in kind here, I am suggesting there is a difference in degree.

 

Virtually every time I go somewhere I see photographers who repeatedly raise their cameras, snap of several shots and move on. They don't even think before pressing the shutter/tapping the screen. Most photographers today don't take pictures because they want a certain photo. They don't chimp because hey, oops that didn't turn out as I had pre-visualised it. They take lots and lots of photos because photography for them is a stream-of-consciousness behaviour the result of which will end up on Facebook or the like. They believe that having lots of pictures on an SD card is the equivalent of having been there, of having been present in the moment.

 

They are wrong (imho). But whatever works for them.

 

I am convinced that if such a photographer were to move to film he or she would not take as many photos as he or she did with a digital camera. Using film would require such a photographer to think before shooting to a much greater extent than they did shooting digital.

 

That is the point I was making and as plain as it was from my first post when read with the equally plain purpose of the article, I am happy to explain it as I just did.

 

Philip

[AlanG]

Using a mechanical camera requires a photographer to engage the mind more. There's nothing stronger then a properly developed human mind.

 

If you want to use the process of photography mostly to stimulate your mind, rather than to make photos, either film or digital can be a method.

 

Digital cameras are still pretty mechanical but I don't see what difference that makes. IS and AF were in film cameras first and are mechanical devices. It isn't as if being a good camera operator makes one a good photographer. And many users don't strengthen their mind by loading film, advancing it, rewinding it and taking it to a lab. Most of my lenses are manual focus.

 

I shot and processed film from the time I was 12. Through repetition, it all became a pretty mindless automatic process that let me concentrate on the image not the camera. When I started scanning film about 18 years ago I found it very challenging to my mind. I also found switching to digital to be very challenging because there was a lot of new stuff to learn and a wide world of possibilities at my finger tips. Once I got up to speed the process of shooting digitally became automatic enough that I could concentrate on the results just as I did with a film camera.

 

I think a lot of digital photographers are more immersed in various aspects of the process of photography today because they personally take more control over their images in terms of raw conversions, adjustments, merging, retouching, virtual tours, and in-house digital printing.

 

Digital photography or film photography can be done via a range of involvement from fairly mindless to pretty much no limit. Most of what goes into making a good photo has little to do with the choice of cameras.

[AlanG]

I am convinced that if such a photographer were to move to film he or she would not take as many photos as he or she did with a digital camera. Using film would require such a photographer to think before shooting to a much greater extent than they did shooting digital.

 

Philip

 

The thing I find funny about "And when the prints show up, there can be wild variations in color and the sort of unpredictability that turns a photo into something that seems like a unique piece of art." is the implication that by reducing the process to something you have no control over you are making something that some will think "seems like a unique piece of art." Can it get any more pretentious and phoney than this? Let's not bother to learn anything, just throw it all up against a wall and see what sticks.

 

I think if you look through vast collections of family snapshots made on film cameras you will see few shots where there was any greater level of thought than is used with cell phones today. The shared experience we all have of suffering through a dreadful slideshow travelog of tiny people posed in front of monuments is very common. A big difference today is a lot of these images get posted without any thought or editing.

 

At least if they shoot a bunch of images they have a chance of getting something better just by increasing the law of averages. Even many famous street photographers did this. If you look at their contact sheets you'll question why they pressed the shutter a lot of times. But they knew hot to edit.

 

I always recommended to people to work the subject and shoot as many images and ways of composing those images as they can... whether this was with film or digital. You never know what you will discover. A digital camera (even a cell phone) gives a person a chance to study the subject on a larger screen, either before or after the exposure. They can review it, learn from it and often can try again right on the spot. Whether they use the camera this way is up to them to learn to do.

[philipus]

The thing I find funny about "And when the prints show up, there can be wild variations in color and the sort of unpredictability that turns a photo into something that seems like a unique piece of art." is the implication that by reducing the process to something you have no control over you are making something that some will think "seems like a unique piece of art." Can it get any more pretentious and phoney than this? Let's not bother to learn anything, just throw it all up against a wall and see what sticks.

 

I think if you look through vast collections of family snapshots made on film cameras you will see few shots where there was any greater level of thought than is used with cell phones today. The shared experience we all have of suffering through a dreadful slideshow travelog of tiny people posed in front of monuments is very common. A big difference today is a lot of these images get posted without any thought or editing.

 

At least if they shoot a bunch of images they have a chance of getting something better just by increasing the law of averages. Even many famous street photographers did this. If you look at their contact sheets you'll question why they pressed the shutter a lot of times. But they knew hot to edit.

 

I always recommended to people to work the subject and shoot as many images and ways of composing those images as they can... whether this was with film or digital. You never know what you will discover. A digital camera (even a cell phone) gives a person a chance to study the subject on a larger screen, either before or after the exposure. They can review it, learn from it and often can try again right on the spot. Whether they use the camera this way is up to them to learn to do.

 

Yes, finally we're ad idem. Editing is a vastly under-valued skill.

[pico]

At least with a mechanical camera it does. The pinnacle of the electronic revolution has really made for dumb photographers, and poor pictures. Not everyone of course.

 

Almost anyone can take an post a picture today, just as anyone can post an opinion instead of relying upon old-world publication technology. There is plenty of room for banality of both kinds.

[jaapv]

Those kinds of surprises are not acceptable to a commercial photographer.

 

You can leave out the word "commercial" as far as I'm concerned

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[plasticman]

We're all agreed - it's a crap article and the author is pretty clueless. Do we care? No. More people using film is the end result, and that's the important thing.