So, am I crazy or what?

OK, I have pretty good digital equipment that I use a lot. I do a

little bit of everything from billboards for hospitals to weddings

to books on how to do crafts, and most of this I shoot with

digital. I have a 1D, 20D, 17-40, 70-200, 400, and a 100 2.0 all

being L lenses except for the 100. My love is nature photography,

however. But here is the thing, I don't like to shoot digital

nature. And its not that the prints look better, they really are

pretty close, its just I like having that little piece of 645 real

estate with an image on it. Digital pictures just don't have any

feeling to them, its like they only exist in a cold cyber world

somewhere. I know you say you can print them, but its just not the

same. I was just getting ready to order several hundred dollars

worth of film when I just asked myself "why am I doing this"? Does

anyone else have this unhealthy emotional attachment to fim? Is

there any hope for me?

I have 35 rolls of black and white film on hand at any one time, of all speeds and varieties. For most commercial applications I'm happy to use digital, but for my 'art', I much prefer working in black and white film and processing those photographs myself in the darkroom.

 

You're right though, nothing in digital photography has given me the excitment of watching a print appear from nothing in the developer.

 

I'm quite happy to still be shooting film for my own work, even if it does not give the instant gratifacation (or is that disappointment?) of working digitally.

 

Cheers.

Follow whatever road takes you to inspiration. If you're crazy, then I'm insane...I don't even own a digital camera (except a little point and shoot for Ebay purposes, and if that hadn't been a gift, I would even have that). There's an artistic freedom in not caring what anyone else is doing.

This has nothing at all to do with nature. It's a technical bias.

I must be crazy too give me film any day of the week. I shoot weddings and portraits and I want my film. I have had people ask me why don't you go digital and my reply is "If it ain't broke don't fix it" Keep on shooting, Always in focus Eleanor

I agree with you 100%. I like to be able to hold the finished piece in my hands, like a manuscript, a painting or sculpture. The tiny piece of film is, in fact, your art.

 

This is one of the biggest reasons I decided against getting a digital camera. Well, I did buy a mini digital video recorder for my upcoming trip, but for photographs that I intend to keep forever, I'm sticking with film, too.

If you are, count me in too. I also have the aforementioned unhealthy attachment to film. Not that I'm against digital either, I just like having the original piece of film I exposed to hold in my hand.

Sounds like a support group for film lovers...

 

>>It's a technical bias<< That seems a little simplistic: it's more

like an aesthetic choice. I have no particular dislike of digital and

I'm sure I'll switch in the future, but... Damn, I really do love the

way film looks. Nothing quite like film, projected or under a

loupe, no matter how ya slice it. For me, everything after that

(prints, scans, whatever) are always a little disappointing.

 

Eventually all the advantages of digital will sway me, but I'm

clinging for now. :>)

There is something about digital that adds distance, and not just in photography. As a writer, I find it difficult to write creatively when sitting at the computer, and so when last I worked on my (still-unfinished) novel a few years ago, I had to write by hand, then type into the computer, print it out for further revision by hand, and so forth. Only thing that worked for me. <p>

The computer added a distance from me to the creativity of words, and the same thing goes for digital photography. The tangible element of film has a comfort and reality to it - just like words on paper that you can hold in your hand - that digital simply lacks, knowing that the original image file only exists in the digital realm.<p>

<a href="http://www.hakonsoreide.com/Photos">www.hakonsoreide.com</a>

The other thing about the piece of film is that it has been physically there. Being there is something which matters when you are in beautiful natural places, not really when you are shooting in the city. I suppose when you start using digital cameras that clearly surpass your film camera, your intellect with end up prevailing over your emotions.

<a href = "http://www.terragalleria.com/">Terra Galleria Photography</a>.

I have to respectfully disagree with Gloria. The little piece of film is not my art. It is just a small step in the process of creating my art---which is the print. As such, it doesn't matter to me if this intermediate step is a piece of film or 1s and 0s in cyberspace. Beautiful, moving, printed images can come from either depending upon the skills of the artist.

 

My $0.02

You may be crazy, that's not necessarily relevant to the point at hand.

 

My girlfriend likes the term "Haz-Mat" (for hazardous materials) and is pleased when she sees it on signs. I like those hub odometers you see on the wheels of tractor trailer rigs

 

Some preferences are just so deep set, for some reason, that it doesn't make any difference, thy are THERE, and no getting around them.

 

Preferring actual pieces of film over digital capture (not the result) is taste, no arguments valid yea or nay, and it sure as hell doesn't hurt anyone.

 

Fire 'em up, and fondle 'em to your heart's content, I'm rooting for ya.

 

Digital Jack

"I like those hub odometers you see on the wheels of tractor trailer rigs"

 

HEY! ME TOO! I love those little things. Some day they'll be the death of my though...I should be concentrating on other things while I'm passing an 18 wheeler.

 

Alan

I really like the responses that this is getting. I do have to agree with Gloria on the issue of owning an original piece of art. I think its kind of like owning an original painting. Lets face it, most any talented artist can reproduce the old masters works and it takes an expert to tell the difference. Are they worth much? Nope. I get the same feeling with a chrome. Sure you can scan it, print it, publish it, manipulate it to your sick of looking at it, but the original is still the chrome. With digital there is no original so to speak. You can make a million exact copies and no one will know where it actually started. It?s just cold. If someone took a picture of Ansel Adams ?Moonrise Over Half Dome? and printed it with amazing detail as good as the original, would anyone really care? I know its not exactly the same, with digital you are creating the work, but it just has that kind of feel to it, there is just no emotional attachment for me. I just don?t really get too excited about my digital pictures, its like my job, with film it?s still my art. Don?t really care to even go back and look at what I shot digitally, its just work for hire. Part of it may be that you tend to shoot so much with digital. Its nothing to crank out 500 pictures in a couple of hours at a wedding because hey, you can! I have shot 50,000 digital pictures in the past year, and before I went digital I may have shot 1/10th of that in a good year.

Phillip: I'm not so sure about that with the digital darkroom these days. I think that back in Ansel Adams' time when the work was done in the darkroom that was absolutely true. Maybe you could share your thoughts.

 

With those prints created as a result of photoshop manipulation, isn't the resulting digital file the art? Sure the print may be stunning and beyond duplication, but isn't the object of true value the digitally manipulated file? I think that was one of the points of Kenny's post and definitely the point of mine.

 

I could be totally wrong, are there folks who make one print and that's it? I know that limited edition prints are made, but if someone makes one print and throws away the film, I could see how the print then becomes the art. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

Ken, you're not crazy at all. You're <I>supposed</I> to have an emotional attachment to to your art! If you don't have that emotional involvement it isn't going to work, no matter what the technical merits of the medium. If 645 is what works for you that's what you should use.<P>For the same reason, Phillip and Gloria, you are both right... Phillip, you wrote <I>"The little piece of film is not my art"</I>. That is indisputable - because it's subjective. But you're not disagreeing with Gloria unless you say <I>"The little piece of film is not Gloria's art"</I>.<P>Karl Lehmann <a href="http://www.lostworldarts.com/new_page_3.htm">Lost World Arts</a>

When shooting digital, I realize that there is much less information recorded of my images than was seen by the lens. To capture equivalent definition on a digital record, the true linear resolution should be about 1.5X better than a film camera/lens system.

 

I think that Gloria has made her point well, in that the photographic image is more tangible than that stored on magnetic media and displayed on a CRT. I feel that a well exposed slide viewed on a light table with a good loupe is unsurpassed!

Forget the "art" part

 

That piece of film is something tangible that was THERE WITH YOU when you made the resulting pic. It's like Proust's madeleine, it can bring back all the memories: the smells, the wind, the sun on your back, whatever, in a way that a CF card just can't do

 

You already puzzled it out, if you don't even know: "that little piece of 645 REAL estate"

I agree completely with you Ken. Other than fiddling with my wife's little digital camera, I must say that I will never give up my Velvia. When I pass on that hard copy will still be right there for my grand children to pull out and view. The proof that I was here, no pun intended! Ron Pullen

"As for me, I am very pleased to rid my life of everything related to film. I like no longer storing film in my freezer. I like no longer taking an ice chest with me on photo-adventures to be sure my film doesn't get baked. "

 

Why is its such a big deal to store it in the freezer? Dosent take up much space at all, and I have never had any go bad from the heat on a trip, and unless you order a few years supply of film, the fridge is just fine

 

"I like getting through airport security without trying to convince TSA workers to hand- inspect my film instead of running it through x-rays."

 

That has never been a problem, and sometimes they see it in the plastic bag and offer before I can ask, and I would say there is magnetic risks all around that are just as dangerious for cards

 

"I like never having a scratch from a grain of sand across my entire roll of film."

 

Thats never happened to me in 1000's of rolls

 

"I like not wasting time threading my film onto the sprockets when I reload."

 

It takes about as much time to do that as to change a lens.

 

"I like not paying 30-50 cents per shot for good film and good developing."

 

I will give you that

 

"I like not labeling which rolls of film are to be pushed/pulled (and not paying extra for the service). I like not waiting to get my developed pictures back. I like not having to go to a photo lab to drop my film off, and not having to go back to pick my film up."

Well, I have a JObo ALT 1000 processor, so that don't really apply to me

 

"I like being able to store hundreds of pictures on a compact flash card about the size and weight of a silver dollar a lot more than storing hundreds of pictures on a half-dozen or more rolls of film."

Can you say all your eggs in one basket?

 

" I like not having to squint through a loupe over a light table to properly see my picture."

 

I find it much easier and enjoyable to look at images on a light table, and so do most publishers. One of the magazines I worked for sent out a news letter about a year ago asking if we would really give up a light table review of our images for the ease of digital.

 

"I like fitting many thousands of stored pictures on a (physically) small hard disk much better than storing many thousands of pictures in slide sheets in a filing cabinet."

 

I find it a pleasure to go back looking for a slide and a chore to search out the digital file.

 

"I like taking a single exposure of my prized shot, instead of making multiple in- camera duplicates. I like sending my originals to publishers without worrying about their safety in the mail, or whether they will be handled gently by photo- editors, printers, etc. I like not having to wait months-to-years to get my originals back from publishers before I can submit them again. I like having my originals nice and safe in multiple locations simlutaneously."

 

If you shoot in camera dupes as I do, then you have the same benefits, right?

 

"I like changing ISO without changing film in my camera. I like only having to clean my originals once, then never having them get dusty or scratched."

 

I carry 2 backs usually, but the speed that you can get from digital is really nice, but who really needs that in nature? I shoot Velvia and 90% of the time the speed is fine. When I need more, I can pop some VS in there. You can always scan your original and clean it and save it for yourself, and the rest of the time the publisher cleans it, right?

 

Now, this is one pro for film that I am going to post. Digital never would have pulled off this exposure (close to an hour), it was my favoite shot of last year.<div></div>

Hi Gloria,

 

I guess in one sense I can accept that the manipulated digital file is "art". Afterall, I do spend a lot of time with each image trying to get it "just right" by using my experience and skill in the digital darkroom. The process of digitally manipulating a RAW file could be akin to painting or drawing but with digital tools instead of pencils, charcols, oils, brushes, knives, etc. It takes knowledge, experience, and skill to be able to coax the most out of a RAW file--to convert the raw data into something that better represents what I saw in the viewfinder.

 

However, painting and drawing is done upon some medium whether it be paper, canvas, glass, etc. When you are finished painting or drawing, you have a finished product that can be displayed for others to view and appreciate. When you are finished "tweaking" a RAW file, you still have a file--not something you can display as art. [Now don't jump the gun and say--"my point exactly!" ;-)] My 35mm, medium, and large format chromes are all sitting in a file cabinet. Is this art? My digital files are on CDs sitting on a shelf. Is this art? However, my PRINTS are on my walls and in art galleries. I have never seen chromes displayed on a light table in a gallery! I have also never seen a computer set up in a gallery for the purpose of displaying digital art! When I go into galleries, I see prints, paintings, drawings, sculptures, etc. Not 1s and 0s or pieces of film. How many of Galen Rowell's or Henri Cartier-Bresson's slides have you seen? How many of their prints have you seen? And, are they exactly the same?

 

I maintain that the chrome or digital file is mearly one intermediate step in the production of photographic art. Which, to me anyway, is the print. The digital sensor or piece of film merely records a "raw scene" that needs to be masterfully worked in the darkroom (digital or traditional) to produce a fine piece of art (a print). Do you not make prints from your slides and negatives? Do you not apply traditional darkroom techniques to improve your prints? Or do you proudly hold up that piece of film and pat yourself on the back for creating a fine piece of art?

 

Now the skill exercised during that initial capture of the raw scene can vary greatly! No question. I would liken this skill to the skill a painter has developed using one of his tools (a brush or knife for example). Is the way a painter uses a brush considered art? Or is it the final painting that is considered art? Is it some combination of both? Likewise, is the way a photographer uses his camera considered art? Is the piece of film or digital file considered art? Is it the final print that is considered art? Or is it some combination of tools, skill, and medium?

 

I'm just thinking out loud and am anxious to see further discussion on this topic. BTW, I currently shoot film and digital and I would be amazed if anyone could tell the difference in a print! ;-)

I don't think that anyone is questioning digital as art really. I think it is as 99% of the people out there do I am sure. I had another thought, if two people set out to paint their masterpiece (lets just suppose you could do that, lol), one painted on canvas and one on a wacom tablet on a mac, they were both masterpieces in every sense of the word as far as art, which would would draw more emotion?

Phillip: Many thanks for your lengthy response! You made some very good points about presentation, and I can see and understand your perspective. Digital photography/darkroom has really introduced some good mental sport on several aspects of art which hadn't occurred to me previously. These little cameras on cel phones, for example, have me all in a quandary...

 

Have a great day!

I just want to say that I will probably have a digital SLR fairly soon, but doubt that I will ever completely switch over. Why does it have to be either or? I like to shoot slides and that is how we compete (primarily with slides) in my local photo club. I like the idea of having the film to show for my efforts (not denying the many advantages of digital capture!) I plan on keeping a film body and doubt that film will be dead in my lifetime!