Defining a Film Purist...

<p>What are the characteristics of a film purist? And do you think the film purist is a dying breed? </p>

<p>I see this going badly. :) I use 99%film in many formats. I scan negatives and some say I am not a purest because I use a Hybrid workflow. I develop my own B&W film yet some say I am not a purist because I send out some color work. My guess is. I am as pure as I can be with what I have to work with.</p>

<p>Someone who uses film cameras in preference to digi snappers, and possibly processes their own film and prints the negatives in a darkroom. They could use B&W, colour neg or transparency film.<br>

No, not a dying breed, as eventually everyone dies, including people who use the digi snappers.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yeah, I'm a dying-breed filmie as well. I've made several attempts at warming up to digital, and have a nice Pentax setup, but I'm still 90% film. I also do darkroom and process my own E-6, my walls are getting covered with homemade prints of various sizes. I love the smell of fixer in the evening, it smells like...rotten eggs and vinegar.</p>

<p> When they open the refrigerator door they look at their film supplies first and then they look to see if there is any milk. The digi snapper just looks for beer. </p>

<p>Dedicated fridge for film?<br /> (Which includes me in the definition. It's not full-sized, however.)<br>

On the other hand, I'm a digital darkroom person, I scan the processed negatives. The wet print darkroom was always frustrating to me.</p>

<p>Hand up... I'm probably considered a black and white film purist, however, I don't wet print any more, I just make negatives on the Hasselblads, soup and store them. At the moment I do nothing with them. Color is digital and will continue that way as far as I see.</p>

<p>Uses words like "digi-snapper".</p>

<p>I also think that the "magic" of photography has a lot to do with a light sensitive emulsion. There is a sense that you captured something more real. And when illuminated through light creates a beauty that a processed image that was captured on a sensor can't recreate. I think a purist understands that to a degree, and is more aware of the longevity of photograph through film.</p>

<p>Dedicated fridge? An eight cu ft freezer works better, stores lots of film and 16x20 B&W and colour paper as well. :)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>the "magic" of photography has a lot to do with a light sensitive emulsion... ...something more real... ...a sensor can't recreate... ...I think a purist understands that...</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>"Uses words like "digi-snapper""</em> or makes unfounded statements about what others accomplish or understand. A film <strong>enthusiast</strong><em>,</em> in contrast, enjoys using the film process to achieve objectives without harboring attitude towards other people's methods. </p>

<p>I think purists in any field often get caught up in the process rather than having more concern with the results. With photography, if the picture doesn't grab the viewer, no one really cares how you made it. In fact, even if it does grab the viewer, that don't really care either. Purity resides with the shooter not the viewer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>digi snappers</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is digi snapper the new whipper snapper? For as much film that goes through my cameras, I am not a purist. I'm open to any medium that gets the job done. Film purists for the sake of the medium are probably already dead, because they're not open to using new mediums to express themselves.</p>

<p>I think film purists believe that film is the purest format to record images in. I would class myself as one of those - film has just one artefact (if exposed correctly) - grain, which just so happens to be quite an artistic artefact in itself.</p>

<p>But I wouldn't say a purist is not open to using new mediums - it's just they believe that film is the purist's choice. Last year I shot a wedding with an F6 and a D3. I shot way more on the digital, and to be fair, it captured images in lower light without any fuss. However, I still think the film shots had far more depth and beauty to them.</p>

<p>I'm not a purist anything. I'm a photographer who happens to enjoy working with film and the traditional darkroom rituals. I also use a hybrid workflow, as Larry described. And I shoot a lot of digital.</p>

<p>The real purists, if such a breed exists, brew their own light sensitive materials and coat their own glass plates or film and paper. Film, as we know it, was to the "real photography" of the late 19th and early 20th century as digital is to film in the late 20th and early 21st century. The carte de visite replaced daguerreotypes, ambrotypes and tintypes. The cabinet card replaced the carte de visite as a format that popularized photography, and was itself replaced by Kodak's pre-loaded cameras.</p>

<p>It's easy to be a purist without context or history. Until we discover many of the materials we hold sacred were once considered inferior or "too easy" by an earlier generation of purists. Some digital photographers seem to think their craft would be more "pure" if only cameras offered less automation and features.</p>

<p>I'm reminded of an article I read recently in a magazine where the author blasted the "kids these days" for not knowing anything about light, composition, f-stop, the subtleties of making a picture... that they weren't "real photographers" with their little boxes held in front of their faces. If this line of arguing sounds familiar, it's because we hear it all the time: now that it's so easy to make a picture, nobody looks or thinks twice about it... and these were all brought up.</p>

<p>If you want to read this article, it's called "Photography's Worst Enemy" and was written in 1908.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nothing ever changes except those speaking about change. :)</p>

<p>I told myself I would never contribute to yet another film vs digital thread because it has all been hashed over so many times before that it is becoming sickening. I am only going to make a quick reply to this to make a point that has not been mentioned here. THE CAMERA. My number one reason when I use film is because I so much more enjoy using the CAMERA than a modern digital SLR. I have both a Canon 5D MkII and a old Minolta X700 35mm SLR. I will often use the Minolta instead of the Canon simply because of the pure pleasure of using the old camera. Even with my bad eyes, I can manually focus the Minolta to perfection, which I cannot begin to do with the Canon. I love having an actual dial with numbers on it for shutter speed and being able to adjust the aperture on the lens where it should be. I can put on my wide angle lens, set the hyperfocal distance at f8 and shoot without even worrying about focus. The motor drive on the camera makes the most beautiful CLACK sound between each frame. The camera is over 30 years old and performs like a new one and probably will for another 30 years, (not that I will be around). The Canon, while a nice camera that takes fantastic photos, feels in comparison like a video toy that will be lucky to make it for a decade. </p>

<p>So bottom line, to me it is not really a film vs digital thing per se. To me, it is a film camera vs a digital camera issue. If a manufacturer would produce a digital camera with a full frame sensor without all the silly garbage and video and such, with simple controls like on an old film SLR, .... then I would likely not use film again, .... well except for my pinhole camera!</p>

<p>I use the world "digi snapper" all the time because I have a D200. From the very beginning I thought it was a snapping machine. So if I am going to grab it as we leave the house I usually will say something like, "wait a second while I grab the digi snapper". However of course as time goes along the camera's snap off photos even faster with ever more features that make a poor exposure less likely. </p>

<p> I shoot film also but I am not a film purist or anything. Just somebody that takes pictures of family, vacations and hobby pictures. </p>

<p><strong>I really didn't have any intentions of this turning into a film vs digital thread.</strong><br /> <strong> </strong><br /> I should have known better, though. Here's what it comes down to. Film is a mature medium, it's had hundreds of years to get where it's at. Today you have more dynamic range, better color tonality, and overall film has got personality. Digital is a still a baby, however, it's here to stay. It's still very young though and I can only see it getting better as companies revaluate what makes photography great and how to integrate that into processors. Because let's face it, digital still lacks those traits, great dynamic range, color tonality depth, suffers from moire, and yes, has no personality.<br /> <br /> I find so much comfort in having a film camera, I know I'm not going to get rid of it in 4 years to "trade up" to the next big digital camera." I'm not getting something new, looking for a digital camera with better film traits.</p>

<p> <br>And here's the thing, You could call me old fashion, but I'm not old. I just turned 26. I grew up shooting digital. In fact, I used to say things like, "film is dead." I've pushed digital to it's limits. Buying a good film camera and never looking back has been the best thing to happen to me. It was the key ingredient that my photography was lacking. A year later, I'm represented by an art gallery and getting interviewed.<br /> <br /> Everyone today has that internal battle going on in their heads, should I shoot film or digital. and unless you figure out the questions which are important to you, you'll never truly know those answers.</p>

<p>I think it's so nice and refreshing to read these positive comments about film. But I don't see so many purists around here: everyone (including myself) uses mainly film for shooting but does not have anything against taking some pictures from time to time with a digital camera. Or to scan negatives or slides.<br>

I believe that's the main difference with the largest part of digital users: they slam film no matter what, while we can praise the positive features of digital.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Everyone today has that internal battle going on in their heads, should I shoot film or digital. and unless you figure out the questions which are important to you, you'll never truly know those answers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, not everyone today does not have an 'internal battle going on in their heads'. As I said earlier, you're making unfounded statements about what others accomplish or understand.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I believe that's the main difference with the largest part of digital users: they slam film no matter what,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Largest part? Seriously?</p>

<p>Another unfounded statement about others. Plus, the hypocrisy of criticizing 'slamming' behavior in the very same sentence featuring it.</p>

<p>This isn't a film vs. digital thread. Its worse. Its a film user vs. digital user thread.</p>

<p>I thought this thread was going fine even though I stated in my first statement I figured it would go bad. Well some of you did not let me down. Photography is not Ivory soap and even it is not pure.</p>

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>I thought this thread was going fine even though I staterd in my first statement I figured it would go bad. Well some of you did not let me down. Photography is not Ivory soap and even it is not pure.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It seems almost inevitable. Any reference to "the other ones" is taken very badly: even because "they" are reading and listening and replying...<br>

(I am half joking of course.. :-) )</p>