Why Shoot Film?

<p>Hisssss! Also vertical <em>projector</em> scratches and other film artifacts on HD video! Try and explain that to a grand kid who doesn't know what a negative or slide is all about.<br>

I can understand why the classic look and sound of things is referenced but having to explain it gets in the way . It requires a footnote or glossary.<br>

I'm an unashamed PS plug-iner but what do "Polaroid" edges mean? Are they just traveling down the memory lane of tertiary memes? I don't care - they just look cool is OK for some things. Digital TX is like wood-grain vinyl and <em>Corinthian</em> leather. It just looks cool man. :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You only have 24 hours in one day so use your time wisely, do what makes *you* happy, not what the Internet tells you is "better"...<br /><br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>^^^ That!</p>

<p>I think it's OK to say that film looks way better than digital if we're talking B&W. Actually the difference in IQ is huge, but not everyone is going to see it. Not everyone has a great eye, simple as that, or maybe some people just prefer the look of digital compared to a B&W photograph made from film (assuming it's done right of course). Some people prefer the paintings of those kids w/ the big eyes. That's their problem, and I am not about to give them any strokes for having poor taste. Not everyone is cut out for this.</p>

<p>I'm certainly not romantically attached to the process,and I would disagree that it's about the process. It's about the image, period. It's an image thing. If I could get a better image than with film using some other process, digital included, I'd do it. I can't. Yes, everything in the article was the author's opinion. This is my opinion. That's how it works. You have to have conviction about your path, or what's the point? I am 100% convinced that people have been exposed to so much crappy photography that they have no idea what a good photo is supposed to look like. There ARE standards, and you have to learn things. Learn what is good, what isn't. It takes time. There are people still making tintypes. I doubt they're losing any sleep over what anyone thinks about that. That's what they like, so that's that.</p>

<p>Before the internet (BI), people's exposure to good photography was primarily in Life, Look, and coffee table photo books. Some people went to galleries, but not many, especially as photography was saddled w/ a stigma that it just wasn't up to snuff compared to the REAL arts like painting and sculpture. In order for a photo to get into any of these venues, it had to be rigorously vetted by knowledgeable people who used only the best of the best. It cost a lot of money and time to put together a national publication or book. If we're talking galleries, it behooved the gallery owner to understand what a good photo was supposed to look like, or there were no sales, and there was no more gallery. Today, it all gets loaded up on photo sites, slapped onto buses, the TV and the computer slam images at us so fast we cannot consciously process them (which is what advertisers strive for), etc. There is no one making sure that we get a quality image anymore.</p>

<p>Anyway, even w/ it's faults, I liked the article. He took the time to express his views much better than I could, mistakes and all. It's a vital and relevant point of photography that is at a turning point even as we speak here.</p>

>>> I think it's OK to say that film looks way better than digital if we're talking B&W.

 

Having shot both, that's not something I would say...

<p>Steve,<br /> You are making an argument like, a Rolex tells better time than a Swatch. At best, some rare few might see a meaningful difference between 4 x 5 film and full-frame digital but judging which is better and by what criteria leaves little resolved. How many of us are master lab workers that can make a meaningful comparison? Unless the point is the process is more satisfying to you to the extent that you are skilled with it. Or side-by-side comparisons?</p>

<p>"There is no one making sure that we get a quality image anymore."<br>

there are many people who work tirelessly, everyday, to make sure only the best is supported and represented. there are also people who see content as the measure of a good photograph, not the particulars that would distinguish a film image from a digital image. most of them have VERY good eyes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"There is no one making sure that we get a quality image anymore."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I could interpret that to say that I don't have people telling me what to see, or what to think is "quality", or "good". I get to make those choices myself. Just another way of looking at it.</p>

<p> Why? Because when I insert an archival negative into an archival sleeve,I feel as if I've captured those images for posterity and that they'll survive long after my death. BUT when I burn a digital file to CD or DVD,I feel as if sometime within the next few decades they'll either be corrupted,damaged or unreadable. The bottom line is: I still don't trust digital.</p>

 

<p>Forgive my additional posting here. I never seem to get things somewhat together until later, when I've thought about things a little more.</p>

<p>Leaving aside the technical concerns of film/digital, I've come to the conclusion that there's something "missing" with digital. Emotion, truth, soul, call it what you will, but film has something that digital capture doesn't, and whatever it is, it is essentially undefinable w/ words. Why that is, I haven't a clue. I could only guess at it. All I know is what I see and what I feel when looking at a film based image. This presupposes that the image is a really good one, and taken by a good photographer. An image that communicates something beyond the mere IQ level.</p>

<p>Digital is just too clean. To compensate for the lack of tonal graduation, digital shots are often "juiced up" and "photoshopped" to give something that the original capture lacks. It doesn't work very well either. Practically speaking, the digital capture of light on a sensor is not the same as light arrayed on a film emulsion, so they SHOULD look different. No amount of software is going to change that. It doesn't matter if it's a Leica B&W sensor either, it's still a sensor.</p>

<p>I've done my share of digital photography. I've looked at my stuff and other people's stuff. Whenever I see a good film photo, there is something that communicates deeply to me on an emotional level. Digital capture doesn't do that. No digital image I've ever printed or looked at has ever done that, and why that is is really beside the point. Maybe it's the grain. Who knows? It would be like trying to dissect a great poem. What's the point? It is not relevant. Film has something magical about it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Film has something magical about it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Why not show us that magic? Or show us some of your digital shots that are "too clean"? Until you do that, it's just web yakking.</p>

<p>Steve:</p>

<p>While I understand what you're trying to say, I have to add that neither is better on an absolute basis. The choice depends on your application. Once you know your application, the debate goes away. It's the artist, not the medium, which defines quality....</p>

<p>Most pros speak in format, not film vs digital. Debating which is better is as silly as boys vs girls or oil painting vs watercolor. Museums are full of both. One of the side effects of our consumer society is that we can't just enjoy something, we have to sell it. Enjoy your medium, and let others enjoy theirs...</p>

<p>TEST</p>

<blockquote>

<p>One practical reason: my hard drive crashed and all digital photos for 2 years are lost.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's not a compelling reason. A fire, flood, or storm could have destroyed your negatives, and there would only be one copy of them. With digital files, we have the option to make multiple copies of our raw files, each identical to the original. We can store these copies on multiple drives in multiple locations. The fact that you chose not to make backups is not the fault of the digital photography workflow.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>subjunctive, for non-native speakers</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Plenty of native English speakers could use a few lessons on the use of the subjunctive, the reflexive, personal pronouns, etc. Speaking and writing with proper English grammar is becoming a lost art.</p>

<p>Like I have said in earlier post about the only thing I would mildly agree with Eric is about negative film has wider dynamic range but then it's not that much.<br>

I do shoot film almost no digital but for only 2 reasons.<br>

1. I have plenty of film cameras as well as the equipment to do my own color darkroom work.<br>

2. I don't want to spend money to buy digital cameras because what I want in digital are quite expensive so I continue to shoot film for as long as I can.</p>

<p>It's in what makes you happier, where your heart is, sometimes more often we don't agree as we see-do things differently but it all ends up to respecting other's opinions-decisions. Different strokes for different folks...............to each his own.</p>

<i>I've come to the conclusion that there's something "missing" with digital. Emotion, truth, soul, call it what you will, but

film has something that digital capture doesn't...</i><p>

That's odd. When I've gotten compliments about my photos (whether shot

with film or digital), those are some of the words that people use. If you're having trouble seeing those things, perhaps you should have your eyes checked.

Mike, the title of this thread, most of the basis of the replies are emotional connections as to why one shoots film. Steve

gave the opinions he did as *his* opinion, not everyone's so instead of telling him to have his eyes checked, perhaps

have your attitude checked instead.

 

There are a lot of other reasons I could have given as to why I much prefer film over digital but they would have likely

ruffled feathers of birds who never seem to fly and instead, just talk about flying. So I cited my main reasons, because I feel I do my

best work with it, the process is more along the lines of the life I want to continue living as an artist and because I *can*!

<blockquote>

<p>Film has something magical about it.<br>

<br /> Why not show us that magic? Or show us some of your digital shots that are "too clean"? Until you do that, it's just web yakking.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pitty you don't know what Steve Mareno said represents his <strong>OPINION</strong> only. You mean it is so hard to understand that?</p>

<p>Apart from that why not you show some proper attitude in replying to others that has a different <strong>OPINION</strong> than yours!? Your's is just web 'farXing' with no meaning at all!</p>

"I feel I do my best work with it, the process is more along the lines of the life I want to continue living as an artist and because I *can*!"

 

Daniel, all of those reasons are perfectly valid. They're all statements about how you relate to the medium you choose. They are qualitatively different than Steve's "opinion" that digital cannot properly capture emotion, truth, or soul. It's fair to point out that many other people don't have a problem seeing those things in photos that have been captured digitally, so perhaps it's not the fault of the medium if he can't see them.

 

If someone said that it is his opinion that "novels written with a word processor cannot effectively convey humor, triumph, and tragedy the way that novels written with a typewriter can," is it unfair to challenge that assertion? Or how about "it's my opinion that film users are all a bunch of bitter old guys afraid of change"? Should that go unchallenged because it's stated as an opinion, even though there's tons of evidence that it's complete nonsense?

<blockquote>

<p>W. Watson<br /> "The bottom line is: I still don't trust digital."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But you trust someone will keep your negs? What better trust is there? Maybe your scanned negs?<br /> I <em>feel</em> the same way but I have to be a realist. I bought a bunch of full slide trays at an estate sale. A whole families' lives were there. It gave me a weird feeling to see the boy as a baby and the dog as a pup. It is all about <em>feeling</em> not reason.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>If someone said that it is his opinion that "novels written with a word processor cannot effectively convey humor, triumph, and tragedy the way that novels written with a typewriter can," is it unfair to challenge that assertion? Or how about "it's my opinion that film users are all a bunch of bitter old guys afraid of change"? Should that go unchallenged because it's stated as an opinion, even though there's tons of evidence that it's complete nonsense?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mike, to make it easier for you I've copied and pasted a paragraph from Steve. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>I've</strong> done <strong>my share</strong> of digital photography. <strong>I've looked</strong> at <strong>my stuff</strong> and other people's stuff. Whenever <strong>I see</strong> a good film photo, there is something that<strong> communicates deeply to me</strong> on an emotional level. Digital capture doesn't do that. No digital image<strong> I've</strong> ever printed or looked at has ever done that, and why that is is really beside the point. Maybe it's the grain. Who knows? It would be like trying to dissect a great poem. What's the point? It is not relevant. Film has something magical about it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Did he ever say that this is a new found science and whoever that can't see it were either blind or stupid or anything like that? HE feels strongly about something and therefore he wrote the above. Simple as that. You don't agree with him, fine, but there's no need to say it as if <strong>your OPINION</strong> can counter his. Talking about mixing opinion with facts... Worse, shouting out just another OPINION from high horse.</p>

"there's no need to say it as if your OPINION can counter his"

 

I didn't say anything regarding my opinion countering his. I don't dispute that he likes photos taken with film more than he likes photos taken digitally. I said that the opinions of numerous other people counter his claim that digital cannot capture emotion, truth, or soul because it lacks some magical property that film has.

I dunno Mike, I am going to agree in that there is just something missing in digital....and even after using it for 20 years I

still don't know what it is, but I just get that gut feeling about it, who knows, right? I have given up on trying to figure out

what I find missing because I have better things to do like make photographs. If he says it is lacking in some way, who

are we to judge anymore, I think we have far larger things to worry about.

 

I will say this though, up until about a year ago, I had made very few prints that were not output by digital means and even

those few were simple late 90's newspaper RC reprints of images I had shot. But lately, especially after attending John

Sexton's Expressive Print workshop in Carmel last month, I am so utterly blown away by what a rich experience both

making and viewing a stunning silver print is that I feel as though viewing photographs online, in magazines and even in

books has been like listening to a recording while viewing a silver gel print is like a live performance.

 

This is *purely* my emotional and experiential reaction after having made close to 3/4 million photographs over my

career. I was never in the financial position to truly appreciate this until now and it is the way I feel about it.

<p>See, there are opinions that reasonably valid--maybe you prefer Italian food to Chinese food, or vice versa. Likewise, and more to the point, maybe you prefer doing your photo manipulation with dodging, burning, and split-filtering in a wet darkroom than on a computer; or maybe you just enjoy using classic manual cameras, which necessitates using film. I get that. Fine. And to some extent I agree.</p>

<p>But then there are opinions that IMO are just silly, such as that digital pictures are comparatively lacking in emotion, truth, soul, etc., or that film has something magical about it, or that film has more 'depth'. IMO, those qualities either have <em>very</em> little to do with film versus digital, or else they are just nonsensical non-descriptions of imagined differences, the emperor's new clothes of artistic endeavors.</p>

<p>That digital and film pictures (or videos or ...) often look somewhat different cannot be intelligently debated. If you prefer the more typical look of film to the more typical look of digital (or vice versa), that's fine. But that is a function of the combination of (1) the default characteristics of the two media (exposure-response, noise / grain, etc.) and (2) your inability or unwillingness to manipulate them in ways that make one look more like the other and/or (more importantly) whatever look you want to achieve--not the inherent abilities of the respective media to convey emotion, truth, or whatever.</p>

<p>Clearly there is no right or wrong answer here - like any other artistic preference it's purely subjective. Ultimately it's content that matters and the capture medium is always going to be secondary (although supporting) to that. The frequent belligerent and defensive posts that attempt to denigrate other's opinions - on both sides - seem silly and unnecessary. Use what you like, hopefully film will be around for a long time and we will all have plenty of options.</p>

<p>Personally I love digital. I essentially shoot the same way that I did with film except the capture medium and post work is different. For both my commercial work and my personal artwork it suits my vision and I enjoy the digital process much more that the endless time that I used to spend in the darkroom - vive la difference, other feel differently and that's great. I worked exclusively with film (Sinar 8x10 and 4x5, Hasselblads, Mamiya RZ67s and some 35mm) professionally and personally from 1983 to 2005. I loved using film - it was the only option, but I truly loved it - however, for me (stressing for ME) my career and artwork with digital since 2005 has been much more rewarding, creative and satisfying. As to the magic, emotion and being blown away - I find that has much more to do with the photographer and the content than the capture medium. I have been equally emotionally affected by stunning images in both film and digital (and also oils, watercolors, etc. etc.).</p>