Film Lives!

[lex_jenkins]

<p>At times, while out taking photos, I regret the opportunities I may be missing at that moment to debate photography on a discussion forum.</p>

<p>But this will not have been one of those moments.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lex, LOL!</p>

<p>__________________________________</p>

<p>[sarcasm]When I'm shooting, I'm usually feeling guilty that I'm not out feeding the hungry or healing the sick. When I'm eating, I'm usually wishing I was taking pictures. When I'm filling my tank with gas, I'm usually sorry I'm not having sex with any number of people also filling their tanks. Let's see, duh, when I'm . . .[/sarcasm]</p>

<p>Seriously, I do what I do. If I spent my life thinking, as I engaged in every activity, there was something better I could be doing, I'd need a whole lot of Prozac just to get through a day. I try to avoid that kind of anxiety and those kinds of false choices.</p>

[rossb]

<p>I think Fred you are the poster who turned this film thread into a versus thread. Your behavior is very inflamatory you know. Just letting you know in case you would like to make an adjustment in that regard. </p>

<p> I did look at Daniel's pictures and found them of extreme high quality. I do not look at your posts however as I know you have a penchant for penus pictures which I do not wish to view. I am sure you have skills however. <em> </em> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<I know you have a penchant for penus pictures>>></p>

<p>Oy vey, <em>penus</em> pictures, huh! Penises can sure make an emphatic impression. And, absolutely, Ross, if you don't want to view certain pictures, don't. Not sure penis pics have to do with anything being discussed here, unless penises respond better to film (actually, someone did say they find film and darkroom work sexy, so maybe it at least affects his penis in some way) but it's great to hear what you want to look at and what you don't.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Too much finger wagging on a otherwise interesting thread.</p>

<p>It is just nice to have both digital and film.Choices.</p>

<p> </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p><em>Penus</em>.</p>

<p>Well, why not. We're in this together. All of ... us ... versus.</p>

<p>BTW, does anyone else recall an earlier article by Debbie Grossman on a somewhat similar issue, several years back? It was about digital techniques for emulating our favorite b&w films. As I recall it met with similar indignation.</p>

<p>Whatever sells magazines and web traffic. Even when the "versus" is merely implied.</p>

[colin carron]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>Tim, the tone of this thread is different to the Film v Digital storms of old. The heat of battle is gone, everyone is going through the motions like the dying minutes of a game where the home side are so far ahead that they cannot be caught. Even the article assumes most people need to get back to film as though they had already left. It strikes an oddly moral tone - film may not be better, but it is good for you. The thread itself tries to generate a bit of heat from other sources with a discussion about new and old word forms. No, the good old full-on ranting film v digital thread is no more. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

It's not a film vs digital thing anyway. It's about the 'thoughtlessly rushed' vs the 'deliberate', the 'easy catch' vs the 'wrestled from'. The editor made the mistake of equating that with analog vs digital.<br>True, in the days of old, the days when we just had to go about making (!) photographs very deliberately (simply because the process was lengthy, cumbersome and involved heavy equipment that just wouldn't slip in and out of a shirt pocket), the medium was 'analog'. True also, that nowadays, the days in which it takes no more than the push of a button to take (!) a photograph, the vast majority of photos are taken using digital cameras. But that's a parallel evolution; two things that must not (as they have) been confused or mistaken for one and the same thing. In fact, the editior displays very little knowledge of the history of it all, not recognizing (or not wanting to) that that ease of use thingy was already here in days when we all still used film, when photography was a 100% 'analog' medium.<br><br>Same here in this thread: anyone who even thinks this could be a film vs digital thing is probably not old enough to know what he/she is talking about, or already old enough not to remember his/her grandchildrens' names anymore.<br>;-)

[absent]

<blockquote>

<p>It strikes an oddly moral tone - film may not be better, but it is good for you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which is probably the root of the matter. Most of the contributors here are probably competitive by nature. If not in competition with other photographers, for either awards or business, they are in competition with themselves to build their skills and make "better" photographs. Not that this is a bad thing.<br /><br />To some competitors it's all about the result. To others, it's about process as well. Therefore, given "equal" results (if two photos can ever be "equal") the one originally taken with film must be "better" because film is <em>harder to use</em>, and especially <em>harder to use well</em>.<br /><br />To the sports/action shooter, and the typical hobbyist, this is all nonsense because it's all about the end result. If the digitally captured image in it's end form (which is often a web image or small print) is "just as good" as the film shot, why waste all that time and why not take advantage of the ability to chimp?<br /><br />Nah, says the film shooter - I had to work harder, so mine's better! <em>Mine's bigger</em>! (I put that in for Fred.)<br>

<br />And what does the ferrotype/wetplate artist say? Probably some variation of "D*mn kids...."</p>

[mike dixon]

"because film is harder to use, and especially harder to use well."

 

I've never seen any evidence of that. Well, granted, loading a medium-format film back or an old Leica M can be trickier than sliding in a memory card, but other than that I don't see how film is more difficult. Negative film has far more exposure latitude than digital. The overwhelming majority of color film users drop off their film at a lab for developing and printing (and developing and printing b&w isn't that difficult when compared to mastering Photoshop and digital printing). In my experience, the technical aspects of photography are easier with film.

 

You may be correct about people's justifications for why film photography is "better," but the basic premise that using film is harder is nonsense.

[dan_south]

QG, I agree with you one hundred percent. I made the point that endless photo ops happen away from where we are

standing. Conversely, where we are standing photo ops aren't happening all the time. We don't need to shoot 16 hours a

day in ordeer to capture good opportunities - how would we store all of those images and when would we review them?

Picking the right time to shoot, a time when we can be focused on the task, will yield a higher percentage of quality

images.

 

Therefore, there's always going to be some time left over to post comments in the currently raging film versus digital

debate.

[David_Cavan]

<p><br />What Kerry said, +1. Almost word for word. Film was fine - as I posted on page 1 of this thread it worked for us for generations. But we've put it away and moved on to something that allows us to shoot differently. The fact that some people think that means we're some kind of philistines is an acceptable trade-off to me.</p>

<p>And I meant my earlier post about how much time gets wasted on this topic - here I am doing it right now. It ain't going to get solved, resolved or agreed on these posts.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>One of the biggest differences I find when working with film in the darkroom compared to digital/scanned film on a computer is that I can see my edits on digital files in real time. If I move a slider too far and make an image too light, to dark or too contrasty I can simply move the slider back to a better position. Once I have the image looking how I like it then I can print it, maybe after seeing the print I might make some changes. When I close Capture One all my edits stay where they are if I come back to an image a few weeks later I can carry on where I left off or do something completely different.</p>

<p>With darkroom printing I can't see a single thing I have done until I develop the paper. Make one mistake while making a print and it could be ruined. Every print needs planning and there is no way to know if something went wrong until the paper is developed. Making multiple prints takes a lot of time and effort, notes need to be made so it is easier to make a print at another time. I can easily see how many could consider darkroom printing to be harder or require more skills but I could also argue that the skills are just different for making darkroom prints.</p>

<p> Shooting slides or shooting JPGs require about the same exposure skills if one wants to use the images without further editing. Shooting negatives or digital RAW gives the shooter a more room for error. The negatives will need to be printed or scanned to be of much use and the RAW files will likely need to be processed before printing. Either way if you can't shoot worthwhile pictures in the first place it won't matter what medium you choose.</p>

<p>As for the journey, well for many it is as important as the destination. Shooting B&W film and making traditional B&W prints is a journey many choose but it doesn't suit everyone and that has nothing to do with choosing convenience over quality. Not everyone wants a darkroom in their home or has space for one even if they wanted one. Not everyone got back great looking color prints from their local labs for some the quality of their color prints just got worse along with more and more scratched films.</p>

<p>Personally myself I enjoy B&W darkroom printing so it's not something I want to give up. It's great the magazine did this article as film needs all the support it can get. The more people that use film the better chance of it staying available. That doesn't mean I think film is better than digital. For me it is a different way of working that has it's own challenges, requires different skills and brings me great enjoyment. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy digital, I enjoy digital very much.</p>

[absent]

<blockquote>

<p>the basic premise that using film is harder is nonsense.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not just about the exposure. Film is harder to use in so many basic ways. For example, each roll of film has to be physically loaded into the camera and correctly threaded into the takeup spool. Hands up, all those who've lost photos due to misuse or failure of the film transport mechanism? Thanks - and the rest of you either never shot 35mm or are liars! Digital memory cards are far easier to install, and hold hundreds of images vs. film's 24 or 36.<br>

<br />Even a tiny light leak, in the camera or film canister, will gradually ruin unexposed or undeveloped film. This is not a factor for digital except at the instant of exposure.<br>

<br />Film is heavy and bulky. It is much more vulnerable than digital media to damage due to heat, water, scratches, fungus, and other environmental perils. Carelessly stored film will gradually degrade due to these factors; digital is much tougher.<br>

<br />With film cameras the sensitivity setting (ISO) must be noted and correctly set for each roll. Get it wrong and all the photos will be improperly exposed. With digital, ISO is simply another exposure parameter like shutter speed and aperture and can be varied at will or allowed to vary automatically.<br>

<br />Finally, with film you never know what you're going to get until development takes place (which is another point of vulnerability). This is the principal reason it is harder to use well - there is no "image review" (or "chimping" if you must) so everything has to right the first time. Yes print film has greater exposure latitude than digital, but that is no help if the subject is out of focus.<br />　</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>"Hard" is subjective -- no, Ross, this isn't about penuses. :-)</p>

<p>Sometimes photography is treated like an Olympic competitive sport, where degree of difficulty matters. </p>

<p> </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Well, Fred, as long as we believe there can be good and bad photographers, degree of difficulty does indeed matter.<br><br>The <i>"basic premise that using film is harder is"</i> a confusion of old style cameras and the relative difficulty of using them compared to auto-everything, you-do-not-need-to-do-anything cameras, and that thingy about many modern day cameras, that will not let you do anything (apart from pointing it at something) even if you wanted, with a 'film vs digital' thing that does not apply.<br>As mentioned before, it's no more than a display of ignorance.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Q.G., though I may assess photographers as good and bad, I usually don't base that on degree of difficulty. If I found out that someone struggled for days on end to load their film, lost several rolls while crossing the dangerous river, protected their camera in a waterproof bag, hiked for days to get to their spot, sweated in the darkroom or at the computer for days at a time to get their results, that won't have much affect on whether I consider them a good or bad photographer. I tend to assess good and bad photographers based on the photos they produce, based on their vision, not the difficulty of their process. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Fred, if no degree of difficulty would be involved everybody would be a good photographer, everybody would only make great photographs. What could be stopping them?<br>It doesn't help putting physical hardship forward as a sort of difficulty now. It's neither the sort of difficulty the article was putting forward nor the sort of difficulty (though it could well be part of it) that needs to be dealt with to become a good photographer.<br>Your statement was a bit of nonsense. Which was not very difficult to tell. ;-)

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>if no degree of difficulty would be involved everybody would be a good photographer, everybody would only make great photographs. What could be stopping them?</em>>>></p>

<p>Vision.</p>

<p>Sorry you thought what I said was nonsense. Just trying to have a discussion. I disagree with you. Let's keep physical duress out of degree of difficulty, as you suggest, and just limit it to things like loading film and setting the camera and processing, etc. If there were no degree of that kind of difficulty, I disagree that everybody would be a good photographer. A good photographer, to me, makes good pictures. Not everyone who masters handling a camera or processing photos has the vision or insight necessary to be a good photographer. Being a good photographer has little to do with degree of difficulty of using the tools, IMO.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

No, Fred. Let's not limit "difficulty" to <i>"things like loading film [...]"</i><br>"Vision" is just a word. The thing you would have to say to show that what you said was not just nonsense is that acquiring "vision" does not involve any difficulty.<br>You seem to think that it (or whatever it is that a good photographer does make) cannot be acquired, or if it can does not involve any amount of difficulty. Neither view makes any sense.<br><br>Your original statement was just a bit of nonsense. Thrown at this thread for dramatic effect, perhaps? As a haughty dismissal of the author of the article?<br>It certainly does not do justice to the topic, nor does it contribute to a sensible discussion of it.<br><br>And if you think that knowing how to use the tools of the trade has <i>"little to do with"</i> it, you really have to learn a thing or two. Or three.<br>But be prepared: it will be difficult now and again. ;-)

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Q.B., I enjoy talking to you and sharing ideas. I wish you'd stop with the personal barbs. Can we get over that and just talk at this point, here and now?</p>

<p>The subject of difficulty got started in terms of film usage being more difficult than digital processes. I am saying that dealing with THAT kind of difficulty is not what makes good photos.</p>

<p>I am not dismissing difficulty and I didn't say that knowing how to use the tools of the trade has nothing to do with it. I, of course, think knowing your tools is vitally important. As a matter of fact, you're helping make my point, which is often what a good back and forth between two people can accomplish. If you know your digital tools well, you can use them capably and fluently to advance your vision, just as you can if you know your film tools well. What I am skeptical about is the claim that the degree of difficulty of film over digital (or digital over film if there are those who think digital is a harder process) will have to do with whether one's photography is good or not.</p>

<p>Vision, IMO, is how one sees the world and how one conveys what they see to a viewer via a photograph. I think some people have a kind of innate sense of vision, a gift if you will, and I think they can acquire more of it or hone it over time. I think others acquire it over time. I think for some people vision is easy, for others much more difficult. I think that any of this can lead to good photographs, depending on a lot of factors other than degree of difficulty.</p>

<p>Again, I wasn't claiming that having or getting vision was easy or difficult. I was claiming that the <em>relative degree of difficulty of film or digital process</em> (which was the original point I was responding to) has little to do with good photography.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Fred, only you make it something that revolves around the difficulty of loading film, right?<br>As i have said a number of times before, the whole matter does hinge around, not film vs digital, but fully manual vs fully automatic.<br>What is bemoaned by the article is the fact that the do-it-all thingies of today do not even allow the photographer to use the few parameters involved the way that fits his or her "vision" best. The error was, as said, to equate 'full input of the photographer needed, else no result at all' with film, 'very little or no involvement of the photographer required or desired' with digital.<br><br>That however should not tempt you to start raging against the notion of a receptive machine, or claim that difficulty is something olympic athletes have to deal with, but not us photographers.<br>A good photograph is made either by accident (it happens), or by having mastered the difficulties peculiar to the art.<br>Why does that matter? Because someone here (i'll not name him, as per someone's request. But you know who you are ;-) ) suggested that difficulty does not matter in photography. Which is nonsense.<br>Agree?

[q.g._de_bakker]

Myself, Fred, i also make mistakes. The author of the article bemoans the incessant flow of (apparently useless: all we need - so it says - is that quietly receptive machine) information that these modern cameras feed back to us. Not the fact per sé that that information is telling us what the camera is going to do.

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>Fred, only you make it something that revolves around the difficulty of loading film, right?</em>>>></p>

<p>No.</p>

<p>Q.G., for context, my statement about difficulty was in <em>response</em> to Jim Ruley's last post above, and <em>he</em> was talking about loading film. I was responding to what he was talking about. I don't think Jim was mentioning things like loading film in the context of their being signs of good photos, which is what you then brought up in response to me. The conversation was a bit like playing telephone. Step C didn't seem to me to follow from Steps A and B. He was merely comparing film and digital. Neither of us were making any sort of case for what makes a good photo. You brought that into the mix.</p>

<p>I don't think setting up a competition in terms of degree of difficulty of a film process vs. a digital process gets me to be a better photographer. I do think that setting up competitive goals in sports is often an important part of sports. It's one place in which I think sports and photography can differ. Some people enter photo competitions and that's fine. Some people want to outdo the next guy or be better than the next guy and that's fine, too. It's simply not for me. I may work as hard as an athlete to familiarize myself with the tools of photography. I don't find competing, though, to be much a part of my photographic pursuits. </p>

<p>I did think and continue to think that suggesting that a film camera was necessarily more passive than a digital camera is being narrow-minded and is a rationalization for someone, the author, who wants digital users to emulate film users instead of simply appreciating and adeptly using the tools they've chosen to use. If you choose to dismiss those comments as a <em>rage</em>, I have no power or need to stop you from doing so. I'll just say I didn't feel terribly full of rage when I made the comments. </p>

[absent]

<blockquote>

<p>As i have said a number of times before, the whole matter does hinge around, not film vs digital, but fully manual vs fully automatic.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are fully manual film cameras.<br>

There are, or have been, fully automatic film cameras.<br>

There are fully automatic digital cameras.<br>

There are fully manual modes available on many digital cameras which at least allow the user to emulate full manual operation.</p>

<p>Therefore, film doesn't imply manual, and digital doesn't imply automatic.</p>