a return to film!

<p>Been a while since I posted (or even lurked) on this forum...but just thought I'd make a quick note about my planned return back to film. It took me quite a while to "buy into" going digital - I had a good understanding of my system and process and am generally slow to jump into new technologies (still no facebook page, iPhone etc.) But several years back took the jump with the Pentax K100D. I like it, but I've realized I just don't seem to be enjoying it as much as I did with film - the challenge"of figuring out how to best handle a given composition or lighting situation. I also found that while I was taking a zillion pictures, I was sharing fewer and fewer of them with friends and family. Secondary processing (i.e. Photoshop) became such a tedious, dragging process that I'd put it off for months, yet continue taking pictures. So it got to a point where I had such a backlog of unprocessed digital files that the thought of sitting down to take care of them was disheartening. And since I had such a huge backlog, I stopped taking photos all together - every time I thought about it, I realized that the photos would probably just sit on an SD card forever.</p>

<p>I tried getting my act together and putting things online, but in the end, I just couldn't keep it going (my best effort was probably the "Summer 2007" series still online - <a href="http://jimlemire.com/albums/">http://jimlemire.com/albums/</a> - and it is telling that those photos are 3 years old). My kids are now 9 and 6. The last nice <em>print </em>I have is probably 4 years old. I have lots of SD cards though. Somewhere on those cards are countless birthday parties, sporting events, and vacation memories. At this point, I can't remember the last time I picked up my camera. And that is just sad. So, I've dusted off my old film cameras and ordered myself a pack of Fujifilm 160S. I'm actually excited again about picking up the camera and paying full attention to the light, composition, and exposure, and even at NOT being able to see the photo immediately (there's something quite exciting about having to wait until the film is developed to see how good - or not - things came out).</p>

<p>Now, if I could only remember how to properly meter a scene (actually, I hope I can still properly load film!)</p>

<p>There are countless film vs. digital threads all over here and other photo forums, so hopefully this will not get into another one. But yeah, you have fallen into one of the traps of digital. Because you have the ability to take practically unlimited quantities of photos, it becomes a hard temptation to resist, and soon you are faced with the issues you now have.<br>

Better to have one roll full of shots that were made with thought and skill rather than wading through 500 digital photos on a computer to end up only keeping a select few, or filling up hard drives and CDs and memory cards with stuff you likely will never bother to view again. Ask me how I know about this... lol.<br>

Yes, waiting for film and photos to come back from the lab is one of life's little pleasures, something totally lost with digital. One suggestion, get some scans done of your film at time of processing. You then have ready to go digital files you can upload to photo sharing sites and for email.<br>

Welcome back!</p>

<p>Jim, welcome back.<br>

After seeing "Jack on Skates" I enjoy the fact you have the Digital White Balance so bang on. Good for you.<br>

Enjoy the return. If you want, take an accredited class in Film photography next Sept in a community college just for fun!!!<br>

Best....</p>

<p>Steve - I agree - I do not want this to become a digital vs film thread. It's funny to realize that those debates are still going on - I remember seeing many of those threads years ago. Using the digital camera certainly increased the number of pictures taken (I've probably taken more digital photos in the past 4 years than all my film shots combined over the past 15), but FOR ME 100% digital is not working. I don't plan on abandoning digital altogether - there are certainly situations where it will be preferred - but I need to pull back some.</p>

<p>Tom - thanks for the compliment about the white balance. Here is a situation where the digital camera really comes in handy. I've never been able to shoot film inside an ice rink as well as I've been able to shoot digital - the combination of low lighting, weird white balance, speed, and high contrast is perfect for both in-camera and post-camera digital processing. Good idea too about the photography course - I'll have to look into that</p>

<p>Simliar situation for me. Around 8 weeks ago & after months of umming & aaring & went out & got a Nikon D3000. Main reason was so that I could share photos with my girlfriend more easily and the reasoning for going so basic in the Nikon digital camera range was that I am happiest when shooting with an old Nikon MF body in manual or AP and it would do all that I need.<br>

This it does & I have absolutely no complaints about the camera & how it performs, but do find the way that it handles lacking. Part of photograpy for me is tactile response & what I get back from using the gear. I find my old MF Nikon gear gives me so much more back in use. So far, I have had most fun when I stick a MF nikkor prime onto it, lose the metering & treat it like my Nikon F eyelevel. OK, so I am strange, I won't argue lol.<br>

I find myself shooting for shooting's sake at times, most of which are not keepers & get deleted. But it allows me to take photos for pretty much absolutely nothing, which is fun in itself. Yes, I still prefer film & my old MF gear, but I do think that the DSLR has given me something.</p>

<p>I loved film, especially Kodachrome II.</p>

<p>But if there were a digital adapter that would fit into the film channel of my old, beloved film cameras, I might never shoot film again.</p>

<p>What you find tedious, I found liberating. I used to have to fool around with a Repronar and filters, etc. to redo slides in terms of composition, exposure, etc.</p>

<p>Now, scan and Photoshop, you are my god now.</p>

<p>By the way, there is actually no law that says you have to shoot more than 36 or so exposures at a time on a digital camera. :)</p>

<p>Jim, I see your plight a bit differently. You might be hung up with the medium. Film, digital. That is all insignificant. What really matters is the pictures. And if it is the pictures that matter, you will take loving care of the keepers you capture, regardless of the medium, film or digital.</p>

<p>In other words, the fact that you have zillions of pictures on SD cards unprocessed means you're not in love with the picture. Switching mediums will not change anything. Your problem is not that you shot digital. Your problem is that you were never in love with the pictures, because if you were, you'd find post processing a labor of love, excitement, and anticipation. Digital shooting didn't cause you to neglict pictures of your children, family, friends, outings, etc. There are too many digital shooters that print, archive, and post all the keepers they shot.</p>

<p>I've seen film shooters too, that have zillions of unprocessed rolls of film, unprinted negatives, and who loath wet post processing as much as you might loath PhotoShop. I've know film shooters that collect rolls of exposed film, so you see your plight is not just for the digital set.</p>

<p>You can change mediums, idealize and romanticize film all you want, but until you fall in love with the picture, the prime directive, the only reason we use our cameras, switching to film is not going to change much in the long run. Sure at first the wow factor will be there, but soon the novelty will where off, and you might find yourself disillusioned in the same way that cause you to leave digital to film.</p>

<p>I don't suggest switching to film is a bad thing, and in fact I too have done the same. My two DSLR's sit in a bag unused for going on nearly a year. However I didn't leave digital for the same reasons you did. I switched to film for it's look, it's wider dynamic range. Before, during and after this switch I was in love with the picture.</p>

<p>Film and digital are both fantastic mediums, and I really don't see one better or worse (in balance) then the other. I hate film vs digital threads. I will not jab either, nor will I demonize either.</p>

<p>Those that idealized one, and jab the other are lost, and have forgot the reason they use a camera.</p>

<p>I love both because they allow us to make awesome pictures.</p>

<p>All the power to your future film shooting endeavors.</p>

<p>I understand. Sometimes I have to spend hours sorting, tagging and rating digital photos and a lot end up getting deleted anyway.</p>

<p>Don't worry about idealizing, just shoot your film and get it printed and get a nice box to keep the prints in :)</p>

<p>I get what you are saying about not loving the photos - but there are photos that I love in there - it's a personality flaw that keeps me from going "out of order" with the processing. I know it is a personal thing - 100% me - nothing intrinsically wrong with digital (I never meant to imply there was) - just doesn't fit with the way I like to do things. Like I said, it's me. Not digital media. Regardless, I have found my digital camera to be constraining and not liberating. Should I just "suck it up" and move forward with the new digital age? Probably. But since I don't have to (not at least until 35mm film disappears), I think I'll try moving back to what I know did once work for me. Just call me a Luddite.<br>

As for just shooting 36 "exposures" at a time - I like that angle - maybe have to give that a try at some point. Still, I think I'm going to enjoy my return to film first.</p>

<p>At the very least I would take my media cards to a place that would make prints from digital media.</p>

<p>There are places that do that just like they make prints from negatives. You can get the same service you get when you take your film there.</p>

<p>It would seem the best of both worlds. You have a way to get prints from no matter what camera, shooting style, or media you choose.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Welcome back Jim! Meter the camera at 100 iso or so for Fuji ProS 160. Great film!</p>

<p>Have fun with film. Make good pictures. Enjoy.</p>

<p>Interesting. I have to say I find sorting and ordering my E6 films quite as tedious and mechanical as anything digital. In fact I am bang up to date with digital whereas I am about 4 years behind on my slide sorting and ordering. I print out a lot of my digital images. I suggest you need a better digital workflow. I can see that for some it is easier to give it to a third party, but then you can do that with digital too. I don't really see the connection of digital with not printing anything - why not get a printer?</p>

<p><em>"Your problem is not that you shot digital. Your problem is that you were never in love with the pictures, because if you were, you'd find post processing a labor of love, excitement, and anticipation"</em><br>

I disagree with this. Digital encourages a "Shoot everything" mentality. Sitting down and editing countless images on a computer is bad for you. It encourages sitting on your butt at a computer rather than being out shooting. I do agree that sorting through countless 35mm images is a pain as well. But digital multiples that many times over. When I moved to shooting medium and large format, my photography improved. I now tend to edit before I shoot, thinking whether a banal shot is really worth the effort. That discipline is tough to maintain with digital<em>.<br /></em></p>

<p>Jim, prefacing what I say here by saying that I read this forum because I love using film. However, that you are held back from using digital because you have a processing backlog sounds a bit hollow to me, I am sorry to say. You can fix that quite easily by either setting picture controls on your camera and taking JPGs, or by shooting raw and using presets on your raw converter. Just like film, then, you have to do zero or minimal processing to get an usable image. Of course, just like film if you chose to alter your image during printing, you can also do the same in postprocessing, but the point is you do not have to postprocess unless you want to, nothing inherently forces you to do it. Not to argue that digital preset will look just like film, but then, no two films look alike anyway, and with digital it is yet another unique look (exposure latitude is a different story). Finally, to the point of "digital forces us to take a lot of shots", trust me, the power is entirely within us to control our trigger-happiness and we can be just as thoughful and deliberative as we are with film before taking a small number of carefully planned images.</p>

<p>Mr. Lemire....<br>

<br>

No problem about the film vs. digital debate on your behalf. This is the film sub-group, where we discuss film. Many, like yourself, have gone to digital and have gone back to film and have found it more enjoyable to use. Of course, Josh Root would be the ultimate authority, but I would think the film group would be a perfectly proper place to discuss the differences that film makes in both positive and negative terms, according to the perception of the poster. <br>

<br>

Thank you for your original post and the active participation of follow up posts. Input from various points of view is what makes photonet's interest groups worth reading. <br>

<br>

A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Jim,<br>

Well done & good luck. I have just joined you.</p>

<p>improper re-post</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Russ wrote response to Da's: ""Your problem is not that you shot digital. Your problem is that you were never in love with the pictures, because if you were, you'd find post processing a labor of love, excitement, and anticipation"<br>

I disagree with this. Digital encourages a "Shoot everything" mentality. Sitting down and editing countless images on a computer is bad for you. It encourages sitting on your butt at a computer rather than being out shooting. I do agree that sorting through countless 35mm images is a pain as well. But digital multiples that many times over. When I moved to shooting medium and large format, my photography improved. I now tend to edit before I shoot, thinking whether a banal shot is really worth the effort. That discipline is tough to maintain with digital."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Russ, digital may allow one to give a bit less thought to releasing the shutter, but it does not necessarily mean parking one's butt in front of a computer for hours. If one shoots JPG, one does not have to do post processing. And in the same way one can shoot film and let the lab or drug store print the pictures out. Those that spend hours dealing with their images in front of a computer are probably ignorant of proper post processing.</p>

<p>Or one can shoot film and park their butt in a wet dark room for hours. Same for digital, except the darkroom is dry.</p>

<p>In other words, if one is not motivated by their pictures, one can collect exposed and unprocessed rolls of film in the same way one can collect SD cards filled with images. </p>

<p>Since shooting nearly 100% film, I "waste" a heck of a lot more time dealing with my film, processing, printing, etc then I did dealing with digital photos, and this seems to negate what you wrote.</p>

<p>I really don't think this issue is tied to a particular medium....if a guy has tons of SD cards awaiting processing, switching to film will often mean he'll have tons of exposed rolls awaiting processing.</p>

<p>Some people love the process more then the results. They've lost the prime directive.</p>

<p>It should be about the pictures more then anything.</p>

<p>Nah. Not the same. Sorry!<br>

If you've ever printed in a wet darkroom, you'd know your butt is not planted. One is constantly moving from Enlarger to tray to light table or processor. I ran my butt off as a Pro color printer back in the day. My eyes sure were squinty though!<br>

It's pretty easy to drop off rolls of film to a pro Lab or drugstore to get printed. Try dropping off an SD card for processing! You'll get a dirty look or charged an arm and a leg. <br>

Prime Directive? Dude, you're watching too much Star Trek reruns! Prime Directive is enjoy yourself out there photographing. I know a lot of people who love to shoot both film and digital. Pre-Visualizing what you want out of that frame is the biggest goal. Too many Digi Shooters are looking at the LCD to see what they already shot instead of being in the moment to look for the next shot. Just my IMHO. </p>

<p>"the "prime directive" is none interference so don't."</p>

<p>What is "none interference"?</p>

<p>From Wikipedia;<br>

"The Prime Directive dictates that there can be no interference with the internal development of pre-warp civilizations, consistent with the historical <a title="Real life" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_life">real world</a> concept of <a title="Westphalian sovereignty" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty">Westphalian sovereignty"</a></p>

<p>Are you saying that Jim is pre-warped?<br>

.</p>

<p>Russ, sure one stands and moves around in the darkroom, but you missed my point. The point I made was that regardless of wet or dry, one can burn up a lot of time in either, processing pictures.</p>

<p>Russ, one can drop off an SD card at most drugstores and get prints just as easily as dropping off film so I don't know what you mean. Also doing so does not cost one an "arm and a leg". Try like 10 to 20 cents a print.</p>

<p>The prime directive, the reason why we have cameras, is the print, the picture. There's nothing space-aged about that.</p>

<p>All this fuss about equipment, cameras, lenses, mediums, so much so that one can forget the point of it all.</p>

<p>Digicam shooters spending too much time gawking at the LCD? Maybe, but lacking an LCD on a film camera still doesn't prevent one from shooting crud.</p>

<p>This has moved far beyond the intentions of my original post. Not that that is a bad thing - open discussion of ideas is always generally a good thing - just not what I expected!</p>

<p>In some ways I agree that the print - or at least the captured image - is the desired end product, thus my bemoaning over my lack of physical prints. However, there is also something to the <em>process </em>of taking photographs that is gratifying. Perhaps it is the post processing that I do not find gratifying and I only have noticed it recently since I only have ever spent time in the digital darkroom. I have all my film processed at a professional lab so I have never had to deal with that aspect of it. I have had prints made from digital files, but only after I have processed them in Photoshop. The few times I have not done so, I have been disappointed with the <em>quality</em> of the final image (color, sharpness, contrast, etc.) - clearly a consequence of post-processing (or lack thereof). I have never been disappointed with the processing of film prints (once I started using a pro lab). So, I disagree that dropping off an SD card is the equivalent of dropping of a roll of film. Different end results. And I personally prefer the end results I get with film. I have gotten some excellent prints from digital files that I have edited in Photoshop, but I really dislike the process (should it be 97% on Unsharp Mask? or maybe 102%? ) and it takes me a tremendous amount of time to get the image like I want it, especially given the fact that I have 100s of images to look through and tweak. Could I spend as much time and feel as much angst if I developed and processed my own film? Probably. But I am blissfully ignorant of those procedures.</p>

<p>I can't separate the image from the process and because of that I love my film images more than my digital images (at least at this time).</p>

<p> For most of us photography is a hobby or pastime. I figure since it's a hobby you can do it anyway you wish to. If you want to shoot film then just shoot film and have a good time. It might be about the print and it might just be about putting some distance between yourself and the stress of your life, job or whatever.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>From Wikipedia;<br /> "The Prime Directive dictates that there can be no interference with the internal development of pre-warp civilizations, consistent with the historical <a title="Real life" rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_life" target="_blank">real world</a> concept of <a title="Westphalian sovereignty" rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty" target="_blank">Westphalian sovereignty"</a></p>

<br /></blockquote>

<blockquote>That about sums it up for me <br /></blockquote>