Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, I shoot film because I can. It really is that simple. It is a lifestyle choice, just like being a vegetarian or a smoker. I have had the opportunity to shoot the very finest digital has to offer, and it was great. But those cameras are not really suited for what I do. For my work I like to take time... I like to take time shooting and I like to take time crafting my images afterwards. I don’t want to fiddle around with white balance, file formats or focus peaking (whatever that is).

 

I’m sure that the biggest problem with photography, today, is mediocrity. Digital cameras have made it easy to take thousands of thoughtless pictures, hoping that maybe one will be decent, with no care whatsoever for the process of what makes a good photo. Real talent is being diluted by an overwhelming amount of garbage loaded with post-processing gimmicks and little or no substance. I believe, instead, that simpler will always be better, so I use a film camera not to be bothered by the countless features of an alphanumeric monster. Once I set the shutter speed and aperture based on light and the look I want to achieve, my mind is free to concentrate on painting a scene, composing… There are no distractions and I will not miss the moment. Besides, taking fewer photos makes me remember the situations and thoughts behind each shot and my images become encapsulated in stories… I have, therefore, fully given up on digital as it just doesn’t fit in my plans. My analog instrument is all I need. Small, great, quick, and most of all simple! There are no settings to forget and I just take the picture. Priceless.

 

From a commercial perspective there is nothing like digital, and the market demands it. But I don’t work as a commercial photographer; I don’t have the pressure to supply images or anything like that. I am able to shoot what I want, when I want and with what I want.

 

One of the big things about film, for me, is the very fact that it is ‘outdated’. We live in a society that documents every move we make. That covets our information on a scale not ever seen before, and we willingly give it. We go on Facebook, on Instagram, on Twitter; tell people what we are eating and take a picture... We tell them where we are going; and take a picture... I am not immune to this and I have done it too. But I don’t want my photography to become that. I don’t want my life to be consumed by that.

 

It is funny, really, that I rely on the internet to bring this information to you. I need Facebook to stay in touch with my friends and colleagues, but I find the whole Facebook culture to be rather unpleasant. So for me film is also that little bit of escape from this frenetic hyper life that we are all becoming addicted to.

 

I don’t think film is for everyone. Someone called me a ‘film evangelist’ the other day, but I don’t think that is correct. That would imply that I coerce and push people to like or follow something, with unwavering belief. I don’t force others to like film, this is their decision.

And I am not going to sit here and tell you that film is better: It is up to you to work out what is better for you. And I am not going to tell you either that your medium is shallow, stale, soulless etc.

 

And this is something that I just don’t get: The majority of film users I have met are pretty easy going fellas. They all own a digital camera too and they like film for a myriad of reasons, the main being the feeling of shooting something tactile and with constrictions that hone your abilities. But the digital users that I hear from seem to be a very angry bunch: I have been called a retarded dinosaur and I was also suggested something involving inserting my camera in a place I don’t think it will fit. I believe it is daft to attack a medium that someone else uses just because you don’t. We are not children! Take pictures with whatever you want, as long as it is what suits you. But don’t tell other people what they should be shooting with.

 

What about you? Why do you shoot film, and if you don’t, why not?

Edited by maurometallo
  • Like 15
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Mr. B

Here, here I couldn't agree with you more. I too still love to create my photographs using film. I still develop and print my film in my darkroom just I have been doing for over fory years. I do use digital in fact I probably expose far more digital frames than I do expose on film. It is just that there is something special about using film that digital just doesn't provide for me. I teach digital photography in high school and many people would be surprised at the number of my students that have purchased an old 35mm film camera over the past few years. To a few of the young students film seems very intriguing and they want to use it more. I realize that digital imaging is here to stay until something comes along and replaces it, but using film is very special and will remain so for those of us who remain sensitive to its subilities. I toast to all those photographers who remain loyal to traditional photography without which digital imaging would not even exist.

Regards

Mr. B

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the black & whites pictures that I get from my MF cameras and Leica Ms.

I regret that I didn't learn how to develop and process films....maybe I would one day.

 

I love digital for low light and sports/action. I am not a Prof Photographer so I shoot with whatever medium I want.

 

Just bought me a mint Nikon 9000ED scanner:D. I'll see if I can devote some time and scan.

 

No, I am not into Facebook or Twitter but love YouTube. I love shooting with vintage lenses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all let it be understood that I use film (for aesthetic reasons) and have been since I was 14-years old. I have a freezer full of film in all flavors and sizes. But I will also use digital. It all depends on the project and what I intend to do with the images.

 

Of course I get the gist of what you are implying, but you are generalizing here and without any historicity. So let's maybe look at this as if digital never existed and the choice of media was still only film based.....

 

I don’t want to fiddle around with white balance, file formats or focus peaking (whatever that is).

 

We've always had to "fiddle around with white balance." Color film is always tricky and we spend countless hours gelling the lights and using a Macbeth to get color balance correct. With C-41 there is leeway but with E-6 film there is none. Even ambient lighting sometimes needs correction (with reflectors) despite that daylight film is 5,000 degree Kelvin temp film. We all know that daylight color temp will shift depending on time of day (or in shade, etc..) They used to make tungsten balanced and daylight balanced films that certainly helped, but color correction can always be difficult (and with artificial lighting there is always the issue of bulb differences and the light temp output, etc.)

 

File formats? Depending on final print output and/or use of the image, we need to make decisions on film size and crop needs. Do I use 4x5 or can I get away with some fine grained Tech Pan and use a more convenient 35mm format? Or should I use 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, or 6x9? Or maybe my project requires contact printing from 8x10 and 11x14 negatives?

 

Focus peaking? The only way I can be absolutely certain of DOF and focus when using expensive sheet film is to always test with a Polaroid back and check the image (i.e., 'analog focus peaking.')

 

I’m sure that the biggest problem with photography, today, is mediocrity. Digital cameras have made it easy to take thousands of thoughtless pictures, hoping that maybe one will be decent, with no care whatsoever for the process of what makes a good photo.

 

The "biggest problem with photography" has always been "mediocrity." Nothing has changed in that arena. Inexpensive 35mm roll film in 24-36 exposure lengths made it "easy to take thousands of thoughtless pictures." There are landfills filled with millions of drugstore photographs from decades and decades of "thoughtless" photography and with a few "decent" ones stuffed away in closets all over the planet.

 

I realize what you are suggesting and I am somewhat of a kindred spirit. But it's a generalization and also one that was being said from the very beginnings of photography. Nothing has really changed. Yes, the medium itself has seen changes but it has always been in flux.

 

There will be good images and bad images and good photographers and bad photographers, that will never change. And many photographers who use digital (and also those who use both film and digital and hybrid workflows) are highly skilled and conscientious about their image making.

 

I believe, instead, that simpler will always be better, so I use a film camera not to be bothered by the countless features of an alphanumeric monster.

 

For most of the populace, digital cameras are simpler and that is why they have become so popular and ubiquitous. Photography is a universal and "middle class" art form to a certain degree, and making images is commonplace throughout the world (the late French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu's book, Photography: A Middle-Brow Art, is an excellent read and it predates digital photography.) And many photographers (amateur, hobbyists, artists, or commercial) might argue that "modern" controls like aperture priority have allowed them to concentrate more on what's inside the frame (which one might argue is all that matters in the end.)

 

Besides, taking fewer photos makes me remember the situations and thoughts behind each shot and my images become encapsulated in stories…

 

Of course, one can do this with any medium. And with digital photography, all it takes is either some discipline or simply a different approach to image making. Those who grew up on film may indeed already have this discipline ingrained. But it's more of a mind-set than having to do with digital image making tools.

 

And this is something that I just don’t get: The majority of film users I have met are pretty easy going fellas. They all own a digital camera too and they like film for a myriad of reasons, the main being the feeling of shooting something tactile and with constrictions that hone your abilities. But the digital users that I hear from seem to be a very angry bunch: I have been called a retarded dinosaur and I was also suggested something involving inserting my camera in a place I don’t think it will fit. I believe it is daft to attack a medium that someone else uses just because you don’t. We are not children! Take pictures with whatever you want, as long as it is what suits you. But don’t tell other people what they should be shooting with.

 

The same people existed back in the film days. You weren't considered worthy unless you used Pyro or Amidol. Only sheet film users knew what they were doing and 35mm roll film users were the unwashed masses. Look up "Fred Picker." Unless you exposed, developed and used the best materials, you were not part of the club. Nothing has changed because people haven't changed.

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

These romantic lyrical posts appear quite regularly in online fora and I always find them inspiring to read, though I only partly see film photography in the same rosy-coloured glow. I, for one, have missed plenty of moments using rangefinders. Still I don't mind because their benefits outweight their drawbacks for my type of photography. There's a lot of talk about being able to anticipate the next decisive moment since one can see outside the framelines etc. What is much more important to me, though, is that the viewfinder doesn't black out when I press the shutter. I remember selling the rather cool EOS RT back in the day with its pellicle mirror, which gave that camera the same effect. Unfortunately, as a teenager I didn't have the money for it and stuck with the 650, which, as EOS cameras go, had the basic functions - what else do you need when only shooting aperture priority? That said, I have never had any problem at all to keep track of or manipulate all the buttons and switches on digital cameras. I can understand that some find many buttons annoying, much like TV remotes which is one area where theories of simplicity have yet to make a decisive impact, but I don't have that problem.

 

I don't mean to quote CalArts as such but only to use the below for structure, which I hope is ok.

They used to make

How I miss the masses of different film we used to have in the photo and camera shop where I used to work as a teenager. I didn't realise it then of course, because film was the only thing there was, but thinking back what a wonderful sight, these looooong shelves at a slight angle with multi-coloured boxes of every film under the sun. Sigh.

"mediocrity"

I believe talent dilutes far sooner than one thinks; it has always been so, even in the "film days". So digital has done nothing more but to further expand the vast space in which already minuscule bits of talent float about. Anyway, this reminds me of the thread a while ago about Eggleston and his snaps. He's certainly not the only example of a famous photographer whose pre- and post-fame snaps suddenly are elevated to "art".

 

To paraphrase, and pretty badly corrupt, a popular statement from public international law, most people most of the time take mostly bad pictures. Seems one has to be(come) famous for bad pictures to become good.

ubiquitous

This "democratisation" of technology interests me. It happens in every field, it seems. Cars were once items of luxury and are now common place in all countries and even most/all social groups. Proper surround sound, once for über geeks or the really rich who had their own home cinemas, is now available to all. Advanced medicines and medical treatment also spread (thankfully) across the globe (though not fast, and cheaply, enough, sadly). Digital photography improves as well, with each sensor generation improving upon the previous, something which I experienced with the rather mundane C-Lux 1 and 2, the latter of which had about a stop+ of improved noise performance. And digital photography becomes more and more available, too, due to all the smartphones.

discipline

I owned a Digilux 2 last year and what I did occasionally was to use small SD cards. I noticed when I began using large cards (iIrc 2GB was the largest one could use) that I didn't take more pictures. Oddly, with my 5D2 I tended to shoot 100-200 a day which was a real problem upon returning from holidays. I still don't know what made me shoot significantly more photos with the Canon than the Digilux. It could be that the Digilux is a much slower camera, esp. when one shoots RAW due to the insufficient buffer, but also due to the slower focus. But if that's the case, it doesn't explain why I shoot equally slow with my film cameras, which in terms of frames per second easily outperform the Digilux 2 in RAW mode. Hmm.

You weren't considered worthy

Respect needs to be earned. It's a general rule of the world, it seems. At least that's what I was told at uni and in boot camp.

 

Philip

 

PS. I know Leica calls it focus peaking but, surely, that must be an error. It must be peeking, no?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

... and if you don’t, why not?

I don't because with digital I get better results.

 

 

I know Leica calls it focus peaking but, surely, that must be an error. It must be peeking, no?

As a matter of fact, it must be focus picking :D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I did type up a lengthy response to this thread but the pc decided it didn't want to post it for me and I lost it!

 

The executive summary - I always say that film and digital are two different mediums. Photography only had one medium for over 150 years and it seems many people find it hard to accept that there is now an additional medium for creating photographic images, rather than a replacement for film (artists don't consider acrylic paints a replacement for other mediums for instance).

 

I still use film because I prefer the final images I get, I like using film for the whole process of it, and I really like my film cameras. I like the fact that film cameras like my Leica M2 or lllf, or Nikon F2 are ready for use at all times - I don't have to plan ahead and charge batteries up.

 

I do shoot digitally too - I'm doing a wedding later this year and will use digital for it, mainly due to cost. I would prefer to shoot film, but the customer doesn't want it (not that they want digital, it's just that they want a record of the day and for a certain budget). I also use hybrid processing (scanning, printing digitally).

 

So, each medium has advantages and disadvantages. Film is still my medium of first choice. I think the majority of those who have moved to digital have done so mainly for convenience, if they are really honest. Some of them now speak of film as if it is as relevant as a steam engine for a car and mock the luddites who persist in using it.

 

Many have taken up photography and only know digital, but they are often drawn to film too at some point.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Digital is cheaper easier and faster. Sitting right now on a set shooting a TV pilot and it is all digital, no surprise. Point is professionally for commercial purposes it is a digital world and there is no heading back.

 

Personally I shoot both. Grew up and old with film. Been shooting digital m9 for a couple of years and find myself drifting back to film because I just like the way it looks. And I love using an m4. All manual nothing to see but frame lines and the metering I can see.

 

No right or wrong here just what you like and what helps you express the image you are trying to create. Professionally I think you have to be all digital from there it's your call

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have gone back to film big time not shot digital for about 6 months now, the big problem i see with digital is the throw away nature of it, in the future there is going to be a big hole is social documentation

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

i shoot more film than digital..I use Film when the situation is important to me.I use digital when its just casual snaps.

 

last week I went to Venice for a couple days vacation...took the M4 and 5 rolls of Portra 400, no light meter.

 

Will get the films back later this week from developing and am already excitied and curious as to what I have...if there are a couple of very good shots I will be very happy...even happier knowing I have them on a film medium that I can archive and revisit in years to come, hold in my hand and know it was me that created this image on acetate.

 

wonderful stuff film

 

andy

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

I shoot more film than digital. I use film when the situation is important to me. I use digital when its just casual snaps.

This was exactly my situation when the only digital camera I owned was a three-megapixel point-and-shoot. That was is 2004. In Spring 2005, I bought my first digital SLR camera and haven't loaded one single roll of film ever since, after having shot film for almost 30 years. Not looking back at all :cool:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

which is why it is good there are two markets still out there. the only right and wrong it what's right and wrong for you. from there, i just hope the market for film stays to support those who still enjoy it.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

...I’m sure that the biggest problem with photography, today, is mediocrity. Digital cameras have made it easy to take thousands of thoughtless pictures, hoping that maybe one will be decent, with no care whatsoever for the process of what makes a good photo. Real talent is being diluted by an overwhelming amount of garbage loaded with post-processing gimmicks and little or no substance. I believe, instead, that simpler will always be better, so I use a film camera not to be bothered by the countless features of an alphanumeric monster. Once I set the shutter speed and aperture based on light and the look I want to achieve, my mind is free to concentrate on painting a scene, composing… There are no distractions and I will not miss the moment. Besides, taking fewer photos makes me remember the situations and thoughts behind each shot and my images become encapsulated in stories… I have, therefore, fully given up on digital as it just doesn’t fit in my plans. My analog instrument is all I need. Small, great, quick, and most of all simple! There are no settings to forget and I just take the picture. Priceless.[/font]

 

 

Why couldn't you make this identical argument and conclude that shooting jpegs on a point and shoot camera set on auto with only a single small memory card or limited to one roll of film per outing is the best solution for you? It is obvious to any experienced photographer that one can take a simple or complex approach, limited only by one's imagination, knowledge, and effort, whether using film or digital.

 

What I have learned from about 40 years of shooting film and 15 years shooting digitally is that I have much more control over my digital images than my film images. And through digital photography I can better represent what I am trying to communicate than I am capable of doing with film. But this often leads me away from a simple approach either at the time of shooting or in post processing and printing.

Edited by AlanG
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why I shoot film.

 

M4 and Portra 400...quick scan and I still have the negative in 100 years.

taken in Venice 3 days ago at sunny 16.

 

best

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!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I shoot film because I can. It really is that simple. It is a lifestyle choice, just like being a vegetarian or a smoker.

 

Is this some kind of existential philosophy you've adopted? "I smoke cigarettes because I can."

Edited by AlanG
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's well known that you don't get the "journey not just the destination" aspect of modern film use, Alan, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't work for others. We are doing no harm, and are happy. If you cannot identify with the pleasure of using a film Leica - or indeed any Leica - we really don't mind.

 

Great shot, Andy :)

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Sent from another Galaxy

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks bill

 

not sure what the post before yours was all about :eek:

 

here one more just for fun....

BTW both with 35 cron V4

 

film rocks;)

 

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!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the colours of these shots Andy.

 

For my part, film rules (and rocks).

 

Digital can look nice, too, but I am wondering if its perceived simplicity doesn't often mean that the results are quite poor. Poorly exposed images, blown highlights, inadequate/inappropriate or incompetent post-processing which prevents bringing out all/most of what that medium can offer.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...