If you want the look of film, use FILM! (Loctite #STFU applied.)

<i>And yes, you do bash film</i><P>Show me the posts. Go ahead, show me. You just keep making unfounded statements. Show me the posts. Until then, you're just making wild accusations. "Give you some time"? If it's so obvious, it shouldn't take time. Please, show me all the bashing posts.

"But I can tell you most people who use digital cameras are taking lame snapshots for MySpace. Blurry, pixelated,

horrible snapshots. And they think that's normal."

 

If you do some research into the history of photography, you will find that amateur photography has always been

plagued by lousy photography. Meniscus lensed Brownies, plastic lensed 126 and 110 instamatics and... (its hard

to even type these words)...Disc cameras all helped produce images that would give your lousy MySpace snapshots a

run for their money.

 

BUT, I've seen wonderful photographs taken by these lousy cameras. They show the everyday moments of ordinary

lives in much the same way MySpace does. I've seen countless photographs that were produced to take advantage of

the technical flaws of the cameras. This can be seen in the interest in toy cameras, the above mentioned vintage

cameras and petzval lenses pushed beyond their intended capabilities.

 

The difference between the film snapshots and the digital ones you are complaining about isn't the capture

medium, it is the presentation/distribution medium. The old bad photographs were either shoved in a shoebox only

to be seen by close family members a couple times in their lives or were shown to a few annointed friends and

family in the ill-fated and dreaded "Slideshow". Now we have MySpace, Flickr, and even the photo.net gallery.

With the ease of uploading images to these and countless other sites, people aren't going through the process of

EDITING! Maybe this should be your vendetta.

 

"Also, you're still under the assumption that most people who use digital are using top of the line SLR's."

 

I don't think that anyone thinks this. Extremely few people have even held a TOL slr. Even if you are lumping all

dslr's into this category, I would think that most people know that compact digital cameras are vastly more

popular than dslr's. Also, some of the worse photographs I've ever seen are taken with film slr's and dslr,

medium format and large format cameras. Equipment and medium do not determine quality of image.

 

I love to look at photographs. I don't care how they are shot. I don't care how much work the person did to make

the image. As a viewer, I'd much rather look at an interesting image that didn't take much effort than a mediocre

one that took a lot of effort from the photographer.

 

To paraphrase Miracle Max: "Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that film here is only

MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive."

If there is anger it might be because film has become hard to get and very expensive. I just paid $419. for 100 sheets of 8x10 Tri-X at B&H. I consider myself lucky that it is still manufactured.

I'm always amused at the attempts to give a retro look to new technology. I have several hundred audio CDs recorded in the digital era, a half dozen or so of which have a track with digital pops and clicks edited into the recordings. Likewise, I've seen video made to look like scratchy home movies, although I've never been able to figure out if they're standard 8mm or Super 8 ;) I agree if you want the "look" of film, nothing beats film like film!

<i><b>Moderator's note:</b> Well done, folks, well done. I changed my mind. I'm not going to delete this thread. Instead, it'll be preserved as an example of why these debates are seldom constructive. That way I won't have to keep explaining why these threads are usually deleted. When it's all done I'll highlight the unique or insightful quotes. Both of 'em.</i>

Oh please pick mine!

Hmmm, incredibly long posts and no justification of this statement:<p><i>And yes, you do bash film</i><P>It looks like it's easier to make accusations than actually have any proof of what one says. Attack people, then write long posts without responding. Great. Generates a lot of credibility.

Lex, I would love to see a category devoted exclusively to thread on the film vs. digital discussion. How about it?

 

I actually like to read some of the comments in these debates, even though some of them are over the top.

Perhaps it should be the Tiresome Topics forum. Perfect for the multitude of "film vs. digital," "5D or 40D," "digital isn't really photography," "security guard said I can't take pictures," and, of course, "anonymous ratings suck" threads.

I know of no better argument for using film than the recent post by the poor schmuck who deleted more than half of his wedding shots by switching memory cards.

Yeah yeah. Film can get ruined too. BFD.

 

And since we're all being mean, I can think of nothing I hate more than digital photography other than wedding photography. Ugh. People pass that banal junk off as "creative".

Not on the B&W forums, Alan. I'm making an exception this week for these two specific threads, which will be archived intact.

 

Over the years I've read countless debates on this subject, here and elsewhere on the web. They always say the same thing and nothing is ever resolved. In most cases the discussions deteriorate into bickering. And they never offer anything of substance that should concern the photographer who enjoys b&w film photography and darkroom work.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: b&w film photography and darkroom work is about the process and personal aesthetics. Either you enjoy it or you don't. Basing ones preference on claims of technical superiority is as silly as artists debating the technical superiority of oil vs. acrylics vs. watercolor vs. egg tempera. Choose the medium of expression based on how much you enjoy the process, not for reasons that cannot and will not be proven or resolved.

I never get tired of this type of debate. Because with technology always changing, the details in the broad scope change

with it.

 

So if someone wants to use Alien Skin or what ever emulation software to get the effect they want, so what? Do I think it

is lame...for me, yes. When a pro friend of mine asked me why shoot film instead of doing the faux grain thing, I simply

told him that I see more value in doing the actual process and do not want my reputation in the fine art market attached

to the fake stuff.

 

But that is me, I find certain things better than others and that makes them right for me.

 

Photography is not a one size fits all pursuit. And since the digital hype era is just about over, it is becoming easy to see

that film use has tremendous potential as a fantastic niche. So what if film is no longer mainstream and you can get the

"effect" of it in digital? I sure as heck don't want to be mainstream, life is too short to be a digital lemming.

 

And I can already see after 33 years of shooting that digital in it's current incarnation will be gone long before black and

white film will, so let folks play with what they will, I am in this for the long term.

 

Photography has always had hype in product marketing, the plug for Alien Skin in Popular Photography is no exception.

True artists march to the beat of their own drum and really don't care that much either way.

John, I think you still don't see what I mean. Pictuers were NEVER this bad. Yeah, there have always been lousy

snapshots. Sure. But what I'm saying is that a lot of people who use a digital point and shoot camera don't even

know how to use a camera. Especially kids or other young people who have never used a film camera before. They

don't have a reference. They don't understand that you need to have enough light, and that you have to at least hold

the camera steady. They really do think that blurry, pixelated pictures are just normal and that everyone

just "Photoshops" their pictures to make them good. Or that you have to have a really expensive camera just to get

clear pictures.

 

I'll give you an example. THIS is typical of what most people take with a digital camera. I swear to you, that I was

taking much better pictures than this with a 110 film camera when I was 7 years old. Someone posted a link to

these pictures on MySpace and Flicker, asking "how is my photography?" (Yeah, she actually called THIS

photography). So everyone is saying that "oh, there were always lousy pictures." Well, take another look.

 

Welcome to the future of photograpy:

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/haleylovesyou/2705751836/

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/haleylovesyou/2693414153/

 

And I swear to you, this is typical. Blurry, pixelated pictures taken in front of a mirror with the camera tilted. Look

anywhere online, and you'll find a thousand more just like it. I took better pictures than this with my friends with a

disposable camera when I was little kid. If you don't believe me, I can always scan and post them. My point is that

with all these "Digital VS Film" debates, I really hope you understand how the average person uses a digital camera.

If film ever really disappears, then just look at those pictures again, and realize that will be the future of photography.

I'm telling this because maybe Marshall and I do have a different perspective. Professional photographers tend to

stay in forums where they only see pictures taken by other photographers. Of course, if you're seeing good pictures

taken by experienced photographers and decent digital cameras, then yeah you're going to think that digital is

probalby always better than film. But I'm saying that at the consumer level, pictures are becoming much worse

because a lot people don't even know how to use a camera and assume that a computer can just "fix" anything.

 

Hang around MySpace and Flicker for a while and see what people are REALLY taking. If you really love

photography, you'll be worried. And if anyone does professional photography, some of them might be your future

customers. You better get used to editing your pictures and turning them orange with "pretty" colors, and turning up

the exposure and gamma so that they're completely blown out. Or shake your camera, so that the pictures are nice

and blurry.

 

There is nothing wrong with digital cameras...it's the mentality that most people have when they use them. And

again, I'm talking about the average person.

 

Heck...let's just make a program that simulates cell phone camera pictures.

Chris, I understand the point you're trying to make. But it's a perfect example of why these debates do not belong on this forum. It has absolutely nothing to do with b&w film and processing or printing.

 

But carry on. This will help in the future when I have to explain why these threads are usually deleted from this forum.

No, you're right Lex. Thanks for understanding. I've said what I wanted to say and I'll drop it.

I like to rant now and then, but I want it to be in the right forum. I have to agree with Lex here that this particular rant

does not apply to this forum.

 

And I hate to tell you Chris, but this kind of lame blurry experimentation has been going on for a long, long time. You just

see it more now because of the internet. Do you honestly think this person is striving for anything other than attention?

 

Photography is fine Chris. If you want to quell your worries about where photography is going, change venues, read PDN

or go to the Lightstalkers forum. Either way, surround your self with what you want to see, because it is out there and it

is not going anywhere...people still care.

 

Here is a quote from a young person on another forum:

 

"I'm 16, and pretty much all I get is respect for using film (from friends and family and whatnot). A friend of mine uses

digital, because he sees film as too expensive. A friend of his family actually gave him a Nikkormat FT, so he wants to

get better at photography with his digital camera, so that he can waste as little film as possible. He has a great respect

for film and digital, and so do I.

 

I think most of the film bashers are people going through a mid life crisis. In the audiophile world, the people who waste

the most money, are the most militant, and experience the most denile are the 40-50 year olds whose hearing is starting

to go. I assume that the people who bash film to no end do so because their eyesight is going (the average person's

eyesight peaks during their mid-thirties, then starts declining)."

 

It's all hype man, there is a real world out there filled with people who don't post on pbase or flicker and are really

passionate about photography.

 

If you go down to Skid Row, you have to expect to see drug addicts. If you don't want to see them, change your

surroundings.

Marshall: Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I too find it an interesting development, as an indicator of what the software manufacturer thinks some people are prepared to pay for - for better or worse.

 

Lex: By all means, archive this sad, sad thread for posterity. A few days ago a poster on the Leica/rangefinder group brought up a link to an old 'My lens is better than your lens'-type thread. I didn't read it through to the end - it was too depressing - but it served as a salutary reminder of how inane things can sometimes get on this otherwise helpful and (usually) interesting site.

Chris, you may be right that people may take some bad pictures, but i can not judge as photography as an art is subjective, just like any other art.

 

So, back to the original subject; my response to "If you want the look of film, use FILM", OK, then scan it, print it and email it and post it, and if you want to then manipulate it to make it look different. But most importantly, do not let others tell you that how you express yourself is wrong.

 

One thing i must say is that it is our job to teach and encourage others to express themselves and what better way than through an inexpensive camera that you can simply plug in to your computer and presto, you can share your expressions around the world in an instant! Just like the girl that you linked us to from flikr as an example of how "bad" photography has become... Well, i think she might be 14 at the oldest and most likely has no means to start film photography. So in your world, what you are saying is that she and others like her should never pick up a camera ever because she doesnt do it right, she might say the same about you and since opinions are subjective, just like art then everyone is right and wrong all at the same time, so do what you like doing and surround yourself with the things that make you happy and inspire you, don't fall into the bashing trap...

Marshall, whats wrong if someone wants to simulate a specific film stock? Your post seems so angry and elitist to me. Maybe some people don't want to shoot film. I began my photography about 6 years ago with a Nikon FM2n, slide film, and black and white film. I won't admit I was a pro at film processing, but I knew how to develop my own black and white film. I used that camera side by side with a Canon Powershot G2.

 

Then in 2004 I switched to digital with my 300D. Yes, full blown switch. I don't hate film, but I just can't bother with all its hassles. Results are all that matters to me in the end, and why bash someone or frown at them because they have a prefered workflow? Would you like it if I scoffed at you because you like old, crappy cameras? (Being sarcastic here, if you want to use old cameras all the more power to you, you found the tools you like).

 

Chris, remember we live in a digital age where terabytes of data get transfered everyday over the internet. Obviously there is going to be alot of bad photography mixed in with it. Before the internet and digital cameras existed, people took bad photos and no one got to see them. Hell, when I first got my FM2 some of my photos were so bad they warranted being burned. Sadly six years hasn't changed much for me! I chose not to immortalize them on the internet. Bad film photographers exist just like bad digital ones.

QUOTE: Sheldon Nalos , Aug 25, 2008; 10:35 p.m. -----

"Sometimes I wonder if film hates me.

I've never been anything but nice to it, but it's still an ungrateful SOB. Makes me wait weeks to see if I nailed the exposure, costs me $4 per shot (4x5), and spites me when I try to scan it. ..."

 

ANS: Sheldon, are the 4x5 Sheets you use Negative or Reversal? It's much easier to get a shot with Negative. Reversal has great qualities, but it's a lot more fussy.

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

QUOTE: Bruce Cahn , Aug 25, 2008; 11:21 p.m. -----

"If there is anger it might be because film has become hard to get and very expensive. I just paid $419. for 100 sheets of 8x10 Tri-X at B&H. ..."

 

ANS: Bruce, have you ever looked into the price of buying directly from Kodak or a regional distributor? You might be able to get a better deal by buying a larger order.

 

Mr. Terry Mester ----- Film Info Website - - http://www.geocities.com/filmanddigitalinfo

I was going to post something to this debate since it is due to expire in 3 days, but never mind. It has already devolved far enough! I still miss RZ 25's look, but the stuff I have in the freezer isn't exactly being used up.

<i>I think most of the film bashers are people going through a mid life crisis. . . . I assume that the people

who bash film to no end do so because their eyesight is going (the average person's eyesight peaks during their

mid-thirties, then starts declining).</i><P>

I've been on photo.net for a ridiculously long time, and I can only recall a handful of times when I've seen

someone "bash" film. I've lost count of the number of times (easily in the hundreds) I've heard people complain

about the dreaded film bashers. On many dozens of occasions, I've seen people jump into threads about digital

questions, completely unrelated to any "film vs. digital" issues, in order to talk about how digital is no good

and they should use film instead. I've seen dozens of threads about how film is more "real" or more "pure" than

digital. On photo.net at least, it's the "film guys" who are far more evangelical and militant than people who

use digital.<P>

For what it's worth, I still use film (as well as digital), I still have a darkroom complete with 4x5 enlarger

and 16x20 trays, and I've developed and printed many thousands of photos. But somehow I've managed to escape the

horrible persecution that so many of you film users seem to think you're suffering.

I'm not sure what to say, since I shoot both film and digital. And, in a way, attempting to make digital look like film is flattery.

I never meant this to devolve into another stupid Film vs. Digital shouting match, and I apologize to the moderators for having to step in. I use both media and know that they both have their place. The part that gets me annoyed is that these people are using something that will give them a poor approximation, or something they didn't think of as a characteristic of that film, when most of the film stocks are still being made that this program simulates and you could go out and actually buy a roll of film and get the actual look and feel instead of an approximation.

 

I'd liken this to using tempera paint or watercolors that say on the tube "simulates the look of pastels!", why then don't you just use pastels if that was the look you wanted?

Just to add my own two cents.

 

While debating the "myspace = bad photos phenomenon" you should consider that what you're talking about is how Americans or Europeans consume cameras and produce pictures.

 

I currently live in Korea, and trust me, everyone has at least one fancy SLR in their possession. Believe me, there are places that you can go and EVERY other person has one. If you have a girlfriend a good way to spend a day is to walk around trendy places in Seoul and use your 1800 buck glass and 1500 buck body to take pictures of a moderately good looking girl. I mean some of the girls are honestly pretty but I keep asking myself, why, why, why can't they just use a point and shoot? I mean I don't think that cameras should be taken away but when a camera becomes more of a fashion item than a real tool, it makes me question.

 

So I think that it's entirely appropriate that people use bad cameras to take their blurry bathroom pictures. Plus, most of those pictures are taken by the self-conscious young - what better way to hide your flaws than caking on makeup an inch thick, bouncing your shot off a dirty mirror, tilting the lens 45 degrees and lowing the lights so the shutter slows down. Honestly, that's pretty darn smart picture taking if you ask me. I don't know about you guys but I don't use that many factors to get exactly the picture I want if I'm using a p and s or my beloved Pentax 67.

 

Anyways, this has little to do with the "why should you simulate film" question as this thread has now traveled completely off topic. I consider the whole thing irrelevant anyways as if someone honestly needs that look, and can't get it from a computer they probably will shoot tri-x.

 

This also assumes that people want grain. As you probably well know levels and curves can be adjusted infinitely in Photoshop. To me it's the curve of the film or paper, not the grain, that really distinguishes one film or paper from another. Grain is more a factor of over or under development (intentional or not) and print size relative to film size.