Film Lives!

<p>I still have film cameras, 16 different Canon SLRs, but they're now collectibles and not users. I also have 6 digital cameras, use two all of the time.</p>

<p>When I was shooting film, I'd maybe shoot 2-3 rolls a month on casual subjects - flowers, sunsets, etc., more at family events. Now with digital, knowing each time I press the shutter it isn't going to cost me money (directly), I shoot a whole lot more. </p>

<p>Just came in from shooting a dozen photos of one of my wife's flowers. Shot 8-10 this morning of spider webs with the rising sun behind them. If I had been shooting film, I may have taken 3-4 shots. I enjoy the act of photography, shooting different variations on something. Digital has freed me to be able to do this. Sure a lot of my photos might be discarded, but since they didn't cost anything and I'm having fun shooting, its OK with me. Film is dead to me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Digital, if you think about it, reveals a lot about the people who use it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

It reveals that they have a camera. That's it. Everything else, like the other statement telling us about "people", has no basis in anything. It's nonsense.</p>

<i>Digital, if you think about it, reveals a lot about the people who use it. People who don't want to admit mistakes or imperfection (deletes "ruined" photos). People who have an impatience complex (shoot them now, print them now).</i><P>

When I shot only film, I didn't make proofs of the obviously bad shots or enlargements of the weak shots (though I did freely admit that I wasn't showing those shots because they weren't any good). Now with digital, it's usually months before I make any prints from the shots--the only stuff that gets printed relatively quickly are things that are published.

<blockquote>

<p><<<<em>it behooves all of us -- especially those who have grown up with digital -- to slow down and to take a series of pictures uninterrupted by a feed of digital information and the glow of an LCD. Remember what it's like to make pictures when there's nothing in the world but you, a quietly receptive machine, and your subject.</em>>>><br>

This is TOO funny.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah it actually sounds like someone who doesn't use film making up a reason to use film. Film for me has a few advantages. It is higher resolution, doesn't suffer from digital artifacts like posterization, and of course has it's own "look." The first two things will of course be eventually solved for the most part by technology. The last thing... will be lost to time when film finally disappears. B&W film is probably going to be around forever but decent color may have a limited future.</p>

<p>Been awhile since we had a good film versus digital post, I was beginning to miss them. </p>

<p>The half finished roll of Provia in my N90S is still sitting on the same frame as it was the morning I received my 5D2 from Fedex.<br>

That said, I miss the ease of doing very long night exposures on film.. no stacking (or whatever) to put together a zillion 30 sec digital shots to do the same.</p>

<p>Very Interesting views. I just restarted withfilm, for me its brings a different experience. I still shoot digitalandwould not give it up. I actually like the process of film, the developing, the uncertanty, the ritual and the result. I find film gives a quality of i have not been able to fully replicate using digital. Dont get me wrong, I also love digital for all of the reasonsmentioned above. I guessi am getting the best of both worlds. forme there is no absolute "it must be one or the other" besides to each there own. </p>

<p>For me, it isn't the convenience of digital, but the cost advantages. Not that I'm against convenience. And another thing: digital allows the photographer 100% control. There is no middle man.</p>

<p>But film is a beautiful medium to work with. No doubt about that. I do think that people changed to digital too early - those early cameras were awful and could not match film in any way at all (despite those idiots who believed that a 6Mpx DSLR can out-resolve a MF negative, and I think I fell for it). Now, though, it's a different story!</p>

<p>I use both formats because I like to and want to..that is it..simple.</p>

<p>Jon, such a reasonable post. +1</p>

<p>I would like to read the article but I do not have the magazine around. It's kind of far to just go buy one. However I don't care what people shoot or why they shoot it. It's just taking pictures of stuff.. But given that I have a DSLR that I do not use often but I am not selling it. I also have a couple 35mm that I usually use. I wish I had a Hassy but I don't want to spend anything on film rigs these day's even on the super cheap. With Kodak bailing on film who knows what's next. To me it's a bad time to buy film stuff. I suppose others think it's a good time and that is the way the world turns. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>However I don't care what people shoot or why they shoot it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Well that's a good attitude. I wish it was shared by everyone. As this thread shows, there are some people (and here, it is obvious that they exist rather than being a wild slag at the general public) who think it is their job to try to show that something is wrong with people who shoot with digital.</p>

<p >I use a DSLR because I only care about the ease of use. I care nothing for results and my portfolio bears witness to that. There is no thought, meaning, style or quality to any of my images. Especially no quality. But that doesn't really bother me because I don't know what I am doing or why. I only use a DSLR because it's comfortable and trendy. My predeliction for digital reveals a lot about me. I don't want to admit to mistakes or imperfection, and I am possessed of a terrible impatience complex.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Sounds pretty damned silly when you put it all together, eh? Hard to believe that someone could seriously posit any of that to someone merely because they used a digital, rather than a film, camera. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Show me the image! I could care less what you took it with. </p>

<p>Does anyone know when the long established "I couldn't care less" turned, magically and illogically, into "I could care less"?</p>

<p>Mukul, you ask a good question, to which there's actually a good answer. Think a combination of sarcasm and a Yiddish based inflection, as in "I should be so lucky!"</p>

<p>Anyway, it's a far more interesting subject than some of the downright stupid and misanthropic statements made in this thread, so read this link, and you'll learn as much as you ever wanted to know about <a href="http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ico1.htm">"I COULD CARE LESS."</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Show me the image! I could care less what you took it with.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah! That's what photography is about!</p>

<p><img src="http://spirer.com/images/oceanbeach1.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Does anyone know when the long established "I couldn't care less" turned, magically and illogically, into "I could care less"?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Both are correct:</p>

<ul>

<li>On the Give-A-Damn scale, 1 being the lowest and 10 the highest, "Film vs Digital" arguments get a 2. I <em>could</em> care less. But it would require more energy than I care to muster to care less.</li>

<li>Arguments over which is correct - "I couldn't care less" or "I could care less" - get a 1 on my Give-A-Damn scale. I couldn't care less. The scale doesn't go any lower.</li>

</ul>

<p>How many different ways can a thread be hijacked?</p>

<p>From the end of the article that Fred linked to: (oops, I mean, <em>to which Fred linked...)</em></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>But it is still regarded as slangy, and also has some social class stigma attached. And because it is hard to be sarcastic in writing, it loses its force when put on paper and just ends up looking stupid. In such cases, the older form, while still rather colloquial, at least will communicate your meaning — at least to those who really could care less.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh well. What do you expect from a digital photographer? </p>

<p>Nice beach vista there, Jeff. Yes, that IS what photography is all about.</p>

 

<p>I've always thought that when using film, it's like expensive bullets at the firing range. You take a little extra time aiming, because you know , in the back of your head, how much each one costs. I just feel there is more of a "take your time and get it right" through process with film and more of a , " Shoot away. We can find the best ones in post production. " mind set with digital. Now , obviously, that is a generalization, any many Pros may take the same amount of time with each shot, but below the pro level, I would not be shocked to find a high percentage of digital shooters think along those lines.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You're probably right, John. I took a different approach, though. Even when I worked professionally with film, I was stingy in my use of it. When I started in digital, I consciously did not make many exposures because I did not want to change my habits enough to make me waste film, which I continue to use. The key is to press the release only when one knows that the result will be acceptable. No "Let's take a chance -- it's only digital".</p>

<i> I just feel there is more of a "take your time and get it right" through process with film and more of a , " Shoot away. We can find the best ones in post production. " mind set with digital.</i><P>

Ah, "getting it right in the camera" versus "shoot a lot and find the good ones later." Funny thing about that dichotomy is that professionals are the ones who commonly shoot a ton of photos (and their editors choose what's best for publication)--this has been true since long before digital became mainstream. Ironically, digital makes it more affordable for amateurs to take a more "professional approach."<P>

 

 

<i>The key is to press the release only when one knows that the result will be acceptable. No "Let's take a chance -- it's only digital".</i><P>

That's not the philosophy I've ever followed. My goal isn't to make sure every shot is "acceptable." I don't get better by playing it safe all the time. Taking chances is how I've grown and improved. Yes, I take a lot of unacceptable photos. No one cares about those, including me.

<p>Being reasonably confident of the quality of one's exposures should not, always and necessarily, be called "playing it safe". A great deal of progress is not revolutionary but incremental. There are calculated risks and there is gambling.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>at least to those who really could care less.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or <strong>couldn't</strong> care less.</p>

The thing that moved people (yes, Jeff, i speak for very many people: enough to make film almost extinct. Even if that does not include you. Or me, for that matter.) away from film towards digtal is a very big "BUT I DO CARE!".<br><br>People already liked Eastman's adagio "you push the button, we do the rest" very much. Hence the ubiquitous auto-everything machines we have known already in the days when fim was still the thing. Digital added instant gratification. No waiting for someone to "do the rest" anymore.<br><br>And that appeal was strong enough, not just for 'consumers', but also for people like Bob, who tossed his film camera even though the digital machine he got then was by no means capable of delivering the same quality.<br><br>And this is important for people who like to engage in those digital vs film debates: image quality was not important, not a factor in the move away from film. Why, even professionals bought those 2 and 3 MP digital cameras available then, and actually used them for full page and double page spread images. It's not as if we couldn't see the results. But that did not matter. It's was The Thing. so anyone who wanted to 'belong' jumped on the band wagon.<br>The arguments given by those early adopters never involved quality, but were about things like work flow, speed, lab costs, and such.<br><br>In short: there's a single word that describes the thingy that drove the digido very well: consumerism.

<p><<<<em>image quality</em>>>></p>

<p>By "image quality" you clearly limit yourself to some sort of technical specs, as you yourself say, numbers of megapixels. What often gets lost in these discussions is the somewhat significant fact that image quality has as much to do with vision as with specs. Film or digital, VISION as the key photographic factor is often missing not only from these inane discussions but from most photos, no matter which process is used. While many <em>film enthusiasts</em> were busy pixel peeping in the early days, many actual photographers were creatively using digital cameras to fulfill a vision. That's not to make light of the technical side of the equation, by an means, which can in many cases be very important. It's rather to put things into perspective, which is something else missing from both these pitiful discussions and a lot of both film and digital photos. There's a difference between a camera enthusiast, film or digital, and a photographer. Just as there's a difference between the guy who wants to take pics of his kid's birthday party and little league games, to whom "you push the button and we do the rest" is really all that matters, and other photographers to whom other things matter more, whether they use film or digital.</p>