Film from a young person's digital perspective

[justin_reece]

First, I hate to even go anywhere near the ?debate? or whatever you want to call

it surrounding digital versus digital, but I do have a question:

 

If you?re young enough to have come from a digital background, and are now

trying or using film, what are your impressions? What are the implications?

 

I?m 22. While I shot a bit of film in the 90?s, sort of family snapshots, my

first digital camera came to me a long time ago. Since then I?ve shot quite a

bit with an unnamed dslr. About six months ago I started to fancy Hasselblad for

some reason, and deciding that they?re pretty darned cheap now, I picked one up.

It?s changed everything about how I work.

 

First, there is the concept of buying film. There are so many choices. I have a

love affair with HP5 right now. When I shoot with the Hassy, it?s as if there is

a quiet bubble around me. I like knowing there is no motor in it, and that the

lens is already so old that I just don?t have to think about trends. The best

part is that I was able to find everything for processing it at thrift stores. I

do it all in the bathroom. The results are extraordinary. Who knew there was

latitude? All I have to do is click the cable release and put my faith in the

camera and film. It?s comforting.

 

So to get back to the point - a lot of folks on this site seem to talk about the

days when film was big, and then digital took over. I just see them as two

completely different things. I especially don't get the idea of someone pushing

me to use digital if I don't want to.

[ronald_moravec1]

Film allows me to work in the darkroom. Digi is more computer stuff. I don`t have to

worry about back up files. although I do make one of the electronic contact sheet.

Darkroom time is not spent making making contact sheets, I simply make make final

prints.

 

When you get better, you will find there is no latitude in film. The difference is you

don`t find you missed until the film is developed.

[DickArnold]

There are both film and digital in my PN gallery. The film was taken in the mid nineties with Fuji Reala and Velvia on a Bronica. I have just recently scanned the film as I never got to these pictures when I had a darkroom.

Which brings me to my point, my production of large prints with digital is an order of magnitude faster than was my darkroom work hence there were a lot of exposures that I never got around to printing. I am scanning some selected 120 pictures of some of my earlier time in Russia. Since I no longer have a darkroom

scanning is the only way I can customize my printing of these pictures. Outside printing is way too expensive. All digital processing is faster and easier as scanning for high resolution with ICE is quite slow but the scanning outcome is sometimes better depending upon how good the original subject and exposure. However my all digital printing is a little sharper. I have Photokit Sharpening software with helps improve both the scanning and all digital printing. Velvia and even Reala captured marvelous color if you can capture it through the Photo shop process.

[mr. sullen]

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking me. I'm not using film, never have (except in movie making and back in the day when my family had one of those cameras) and probably never will. But if I thought I would do that, I suppose I would spend more time on what someone once said called "previsualization." It's an important concept of photography but I think today we can be a little bit loose about that concept, mostly because we have digital and can blast of thousands of pictures in a matter of no time without any cost. So if I went into film I suppose I would have to get better at "previsualization" or get some more money for the film.

[fullmetalphotograper]

From my perspective digital is just another format, just as slide, b&w, color neg., medium

format, & large format. Here is what I tend to see. Photographers with film backgrounds

are much more comfortable at going manual, tend to be better at understanding of

lighting and exposure, chimp less and to do more work at the capture end. Digital

photographers with no film backgrounds tend to capture more images, use automatic

modes more and tend to be more focus on post production, and have greater Photoshop

skills.

 

Photographers with film backgrounds tend to come out with less than photographers who

have digital backgrounds. I tend to find film photographers are more brutal image editors.

For the people with film backgrounds getting it right in the camera was all important

because you could not chimp, and with film the decision is easier if it is a good image or a

bad image. The thing I think most people forget is the basic process and mechanics for

photography is the same, the medium has changed.

 

If look to the film days you would see very similar posts about 35mm vs medium format

there is some irony here. Medium format photographers view 35mm was about the same

as film photographers view of digital.

[doug grosjean]

Justin,

 

I guess I'm middle-aged, learned on film, then went away from it for a time while shooting on early digital cameras, then came back to film because the older film cameras were cheap and robust (when traveling long distances on motorcycle), and repairable if they did fail.

 

Taking the "big view", I don't understand the debate. Lenses and boxes were used before cameras existed, by artists who would project a scene onto canvas and then trace it. Photography's birth simply replaced artists' hands and paint and canvas with chemistry and metal plates, then chemistry and glass plates, then chemistry and film. Digital photography replaces chemistry with an electronic sensor. Taking the long view, this is evolution, not revolution.

 

Or look at it this way: a one-time use chemical sensor, or an electronic one? Since I scan my negs to print them at a photo lab, I'm digital - I'm just not using a camera with a digital sensor, for now. At least not usually.

 

However.... I like eclectic processes and results. I've been playing with panoramic film cameras (swinging lenses), stereo 3D photography, and some large format (4x5 and 5x7). I enjoy the time in a darkroom, playing with chemistry to process film, and I absolutely love the look of a good contact print from 4x5 or 5x7. The panoramic scenes I've shot with swing-lens cameras are unique, good-looking, and faster for me than stitching a bunch of digital files.

 

Film and digi both have great quality nowadays. But the flavor of film photography is different, flying manually - I like the control and the manual interaction. The flavor of the final result is different, too, though I think a dedicated enthusiast could probably make digital pics look like film pics. Shrug.

 

To Shay Browing: I previsualize a lot, partly because my swing-lens panos don't show the full scene in the viewfinder. But even when shooting digital, I previsualize so that I'm not having to spend so much time shooting (vs. hiking, swimming, playing with my son, whatever), or edit 50 so-so shots to get the best one. I'd like to think I'm more of a sharpshooter than a snapshooter.

 

The tendency to previsualize, even when shooting digi, may be related to learning photography with film.... or to shooting mostly film, or digi with short-lived batteries out in the boondocks on vaca.... ;);)

[doug grosjean]

LOL - Ralph Berrett described me....

[saskphotog]

Well, I'm old. I shot film, lots of it. Now I am completely digital and love it.

 

Ralph's generalizations are no more true than any other generalizations. I knew I had to get it the way I wanted it in camera with film, which meant I payed a lot of attention at the time. It also meant I bracketed LOTS and spent hours in the B&W darkroom (I never did my own color)trying to do what I now do in seconds on a computer. The dark room was like doing timed laundry in a tiny, smelly room that left your hands dried out and stinky for the next 24 hours. It was dark in there too. Listened to a lot of radio (no iPod in those days, although I have one now).

 

Don't miss it one bit, because it just isn't necessary now.

 

When I wasn't shooting prints for a wedding or portraits, I shot mostly slide films of various sorts from Kodachrome in the very old days, to the more modern E6 films. Very demanding of exposure control etc., but projected slides are still very dramatic when you get them out to show people who have never seen it before. "Awesome" gets used a lot.

 

The point, which I suppose I should get to, is that anything that can be done with film can be done with digital. There is no need to see it as an either/or situation or some sort of one-up-manship. At this point I see it as just choice. If you like film and its inherent workflow, then shoot film and more power to you.

 

From my present rural Saskatchewan location, film has logistical problems that make digital difficult. Digital gives me all the potential I ever felt with film, and more "darkroom" possibilities than I ever had in the film days, without getting stinky and spending hours alone in the dark. I just like it.

 

And that's my thoughts about film from an old person's perspective.

[matt_wilson10]

Hi there! I am 18 years old and I shoot film. I also have a Nikon D50 and love it, but I dont get the depth with it like I do with film. I dont mind spending the money on having it processed because its what I love. On the other hand, its nice being able to throw your images right into photoshop for corrections. The convenience is nice with digital, but there are too many limits with it. My N90S goes with me everywhere, and usually my D50 also.

[leicaglow]

I'm 22 * 2, but I would say: Shoot with passion, with whichever tool that may be. Embrace all media as a possibility to express yourself.

[johan_de_groote]

I'm not young anymore, but there is one thing that bothers me and that always pops up when this debate starts: "you can shoot hunderds of photos because digital costs nothing". As if the chore of wading through all those images later doesn't cost. And I do not mean cost in the monetary sense.

 

As Doug said: "I previsualize so that I'm not having to spend so much time shooting (vs. hiking, swimming, playing with my son, whatever), or edit 50 so-so shots to get the best one". For me, this is the cost of digital. Coming back from traveling and having to go through all the images, trying to recall which one best captures the mood of that moment and a few months later discover that you only remember the photos because you didn't experienced the moment when you were there.

 

That for me is the reason to go back and stay with film for that use. But just as others said, it is a tool. There is a place and time when it counts to take hunderds of pictures and don't have to worry because having them is more important and so is the ease of working with them later on a pc.

 

It just changed the way I think about photography. I can now with digital to things I couldn't do before and I have an opportunity more.

[justinblake]

I am 27 so I have had a bit of time on film before digital became practical. I can still remember the first digital cameras I played with as a teenager which had very few pixels and if you were lucky they had "removable storage" in the form of a 3.5 inch floppy disk.

 

Today I shoot both digital and film, but I use each for very different purposes. If I am at a party or if I am doing photographic work for someone I will generally use digital. It is easier and there is a lot less stress about not capturing shots.

 

Shooting film is totally different though. When I am shooting film I will take a couple of rolls of film, one of my old manual film cameras (most being 2 or 3 times as old as I am) and I will jump in my car and drive around looking for beauty. Sometimes I will drive around all day and use $50 of fuel and not take a single shot but this will not have been a wasted day. The process of evaluating a scene can be fulfilling even if you decide it isn't worth a shot. And when you do take a shot you have the tension of not knowing how it turned out, waiting to finish the roll, stressing while you are developing the roll, eagerly inspecting the still wet negatives trying to see how they turned out then having to let them dry for an hour before you make your first print.

 

Digital is a wonderful technology and I have loved playing with it since I first got hold of a digital camera but I will always shoot film as well. I really hope that the younger photographers learning the art now are not deprived of the beautiful experiences they could have with film.

[dangoldman]

Im 17, and have shot both for the past few years. I started with digital, and it taught me some important fundamentals of photography. I have found digital to be far easier to work with, with regards to getting to an acceptable final print. This is because of bracketing and the amount of time it takes to see the adjustments take effect etc. However, a proper printed, or even scanned, low ISO film will blow digital away in my honest opinion.I also find it more fulfilling... must be the chemicals...

[Spearhead]

The problem here is that if you are a young person, and I have mentored young photographers, that you are concentrating on the wrong thing. Starting out, it's important to deal with questions like "What am I shooting?", "Why am I shooting it?", "How do I say it best with my photographs?", "How do I edit this into a meaningful presentation?" and "What do I do to say it best?" It is only as part of the last question that materials enter into the equation. Until you have gotten through the first four questions, and this can take quite a while, the issue of materials is irrelevant.

<p>

What I have observed over the years is that photographers who say things like "I am a film photographer" or "I am a digital photographer" really turn out to be camera users, and not photographers. It takes a lot of work to re-orient people towards photography, and what it can do, from the world of cameras and materials. I suggest you, and other young people with similar ways of looking at things, spend some time thinking about what it is you want to communicate with your photographs rather than what materials you want to use. In the end, materials are only a means. What you say matters, not what materials you pick, until you can say that there is a reason for those materials in getting out your message.<p>A few comments on other comments.<p>

 

<i>When I am shooting film I will take a couple of rolls of film, one of my old manual film cameras (most being 2 or 3 times as old as I am) and I will jump in my car and drive around looking for beauty. Sometimes I will drive around all day and use $50 of fuel and not take a single shot but this will not have been a wasted day.</I><p>What does this have to do with film? I have done this for years, with or without cameras, film or digital. You don't need a film camera to spend the day driving around looking for things you want to shoot. (I don't look for "beauty," but that's a different issue.) You don't need any camera. Red herring.<p><i>However, a proper printed, or even scanned, low ISO film will blow digital away in my honest opinion.</i><p>The problem with this comment is that it has nothing to do with photography, but only with one person's view of materials science. What blows me away, what blows away everyone I have met who is truly interested in photography rather than cameras and materials, is a great photograph that sings to the viewer. Boring photographs are boring photographs, regardless of the materials. Great photographs are great photographs, regardless of the materials.<p><i>Shoot with passion, with whichever tool that may be.</i><P>This is a great statement, and one that the materials guys should absorb before they lose the opportunity to become good photographers.

[jautey]

Jeff nailed it.

[matt_wilson10]

Makes me feel stupid about my post ^^^

[Spearhead]

Matt, you shouldn't feel stupid, you are young and obviously enthusiastic. You just need to direct the enthusiasm in a way that will help you grow. Find a mentor, locally if possible, online if not, who can help you grow photographically. Shoot as much as you can, take classes, and work with that mentor to produce better photographs and a better portfolio.

[stp]

Well stated, Jeff.

[justinblake]

I heard a comedian once, I think it may have been Chris Tucker, who did a sketch about gun control. He said what really needed to be done was bullet control. You read all the time about innocent bystanders being shot but if bullets cost $10,000 dollars each there would be no more innocent bystanders. If you heard about someone getting shot you would know they did something to really deserve it.

 

I think using film has a similar effect. While it is true that you could shoot digital in exactly the same way as film very few people will think twice before releasing the shutter when a digital shot is free. Instead they will take 1,000 shots and weed out the "innocent bystanders" later on their computer. The cost of film prevents you from doing this when you are shooting film. And if film were to cost $10,000 an exposure you can bet there would be very few bad film shots taken anywhere.

[Spearhead]

Justin, you are thinking about this in the wrong way. If it takes 1000 shots to get one great shot, and that shot has something to say to the photographer, to the world, to five people, that is what matters. It doesn't matter how many were taken.

 

An interesting side note here, the great Japanese photographer Araki did a campaign, he shot 6000 frames of film over a single weekend for 100 shots. That was done on film. Nobody, and I really mean nobody, cares what was was on the 5,900 frames that were not used. They only care about the 100 that were published.

 

This goes for anyone. If someone makes a photo that speaks to me, that sings, I have no interest in how many they shot. Interestingly enough, nobody that has bought a print from me, usually through shows but every now and then through my web site, has asked me how many shots I took. They ask how I happened to see it, how I feel about it, and they tell me how they feel about it.

 

What do you think is really important - the number of frames someone shoots or whether their photos can communicate?

[justinblake]

If you are too busy taking photographs you may not have any time left over to take any great pictures.

 

Sure you could rely on statistics to ensure a couple of good shots, in which case get yourself a high resolution digital video camera and your chances will improve even more.

 

I think you will find that most of historys great shots have been taken deliberatley not by chance. A great photographer can take a deliberate shot with a digital camera. Young photographers who are still learning the craft will learn through experience that they have a better chance of getting a good shot if they take thousands of exposures. The sad thing is that if this happens they may never learn how to take a deliberate shot.

[Spearhead]

<i>If you are too busy taking photographs you may not have any time left over to take any great pictures.</i><p>If you know what you want to say it, you say it. It doesn't matter how you get there.<p><i>Sure you could rely on statistics to ensure a couple of good shots</i><P>Nobody said it was about statistics, different people shoot different ways. You seem uninterested in the results, only in the process. It's the results that matter. Nobody cares how many shots happened on the way there.<p><i>I think you will find that most of historys great shots have been taken deliberatley not by chance.</i><p>Actually, most great photos took a huge amount of shooting to get there. Most great photographers spend a lot of time editing, or have people doing it for them.<p><i>The sad thing is that if this happens they may never learn how to take a deliberate shot.</i><p>You make a lot of statements, without any way to make them real. You seem much more interested in telling people how to shoot than in showing what is possible. Where are the results?

[danielleetaylor]

Jeff - well said.

 

I would add the following two things. One, the people who are accomplished in any human endeavor get there through practice. There's no such thing as being great by only occasionally doing something, but being "deliberate" about it on that rare occasion. Occasionally doing something is not being deliberate about it at all! Going back and exploring the same location, subject, or idea time and time again until you master and exhaust it is the deliberate path. I don't know where the myth comes from that a good photographer loads one roll of film and is tight with shots, or that this approach is a benefit to someone who is learning. The masters shot all the time. Every time I've heard a frame count for an accomplished photographer who worked in film, it easily rivaled would a digital shooter would produce. You want to be a great photographer, to really explore and know and exhaust your subjects and messages? Shoot until you break the shutter release button, and review and learn from every single frame.

 

Two, those who think one "blows away" the other have probably never seen the other done well. Or if they did, they didn't know it. Trust me, you can do pretty much whatever you want with either set of materials. It's not the materials you use, it's how you use them to communicate.

[danielleetaylor]

While I'm at it...why is there such angst over the materials used? Particularly when one starts exploring film? I started on color film, lab processed. I didn't have any angst when I bought my DSLR, I bought it and shot with it! I decided to take a class at the local college in B&W development and printing. I didn't agonize over it because I already had a DSLR, I just did it!

 

I did go through some effort to compare the two. Do you want to know what I found out? The quality of the final print depends on me. Otherwise they can be made to look pretty much how I want, and to look identical to one another, if that's the desire. It's not the materials. It's the person using them.

 

So go out and use them!

[thomas_sullivan]

"...It's not the materials. It's the person using them..."

 

;o)............where have I heard that before. So true....so true.

 

And IO agree with Daniel...everytime I heard or read in photographer's book forwards, article/interviews with National Geographic photographers.........every single time I heard any of them mention their frame count.....it was enormous.

 

But it's not about frame count....as Daniel implied....it's about having the camera with you all the time, shooting all the time. If you go to my website there is a quote on the home page by Harry Callahan................"......To be a photographer, one must photograph. No amount of book learning, no checklist of seminars attended, can substitute for the simple act of making pictures. Experience is the best teacher of all. And for that, there are no guarantees that one will become an artist. Only the journey matters..." - Harry Callahan

 

take your camera with you.....whatever it is.....and shoot.