Why Shoot Film?

[ky1]

<p>Why don't we all go back to live in caves and use bowl and arrow for hunting ?<br>

Yes, I like the B & W film pictures great artists took. I even like a few of the B & W pictures I took with film. But for 99.999% of the picture taking folks, it is like banging their head against a wall and a waste of material and time.<br>

I don't believe for a moment that Eric Kim really abandoned digital and went back to film. He ha his own agendas such as promoting his classes and his website.<br>

Don't forget that as great as Gary Winogrand was, in his prime, his success rate was about 50 frames to one. <br>

Digital photography has changed a wasteful practice by most of us into something good in terms of environmental friendliness. I certainly don't want to go back to film. </p>

<p> </p>

[DB_Gallery]

That is offensive Kin, it has nothing to do with going back or living in caves, there are plenty of very talented people

amateurs and pros alike who are making killer new images on film. You obviously don't get it so why post what you did,

the question was why do you use film, not lets be a jerk and bash it.

 

I believe Mr. Kim has abandon digital just like I am doing, believe it bud! There were some very well considered answers before you dropped your steaming plop on everything. Do you walk up to a musician playing an beautiful old Martin acoustic guitar and tell him he is living in a cave? I don't hate digital but I sure as heck despise attitudes like yours that have surfaced along with it.

[c_watson1]

<p>You'd further your case, Daniel, by ditching the splenetic APUG party line rants and scattergun insults--something I'm not sure you can actually pull off. Your New Age bromides about the innate superiority of film clash with what for many is more a matter of practicality than preference. You're just not furthering the conversation with this sort of affront.</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>If something is missing with digital then I would think it would be easy to show with a film image. Could someone show me an example?</p>

<p>If it is something easily shown then it could provide a boost to film sales.</p>

<p>Sometimes we can't express ourselves with words which is why a visual medium is so important.</p>

[steven_p]

<p>What I find most bothersome in any digi/film discussion is the absence of actual print documentation passed down from/through family members. A whole treasure trove of mom or pop's lifelong feelings, memories of importance. (Yup, I'm a sucker for that 30lb. box of old photos.)</p>

<p>Gone.</p>

<p>A whole generation gone missing because all was contained on a measly hard drive or SD card.</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<blockquote>

<p>A whole generation gone missing because all was contained on a measly hard drive or SD card.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Or a cardboard box filled with family memories destroyed by fire, or flood, or tornado.</p>

<p>My Mother had our family photos dating back to the 1870's in a cardboard box. It survived but the images now are digitized, reprinted, and spread to different parts of the country. They are also easily viewed on different web sites.</p>

<p>If your images are important then you have to use the best methods to retain them for future generations. Depending on the survivability of a cardboard box isn't a method I would choose.</p>

<p> </p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>While I don't agree with almost all of the reasons Eric Kim listed but I do shoot film 99% of the time. I disagree with Kin Yu there is absolutely nothing wrong with using film or digital. You can't expect others to do the same thing you do. </p>

[thomas_k.]

<blockquote>

<p>Why don't we all go back to live in caves and use bow and arrow for hunting ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some of the most fascinating and still to this day not fully understood art was created when people used "to live in caves". See paleolithic cave art. </p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>24 hours in a day that is a single day in your one single life, how will you spend it?<br>

http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2013/05/24/186509291/what-if-there-s-no-internet</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

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

<p>That's not a compelling reason. A fire, flood, or storm could have destroyed your negatives</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But which scenario happens more often?</p>

 

[museebfoto]

<p>I totally agree that most of B&W photos are more appealing from film than digital, as I think this belong to the very steep characteristic of sensors comparing to the films. In modern sensors the gap almost fade. On the other side and for a coloured photo, minority can get the colours ( the photos ) they want from film.</p>

[f_ph1]

<p>Steve Mareno:<br /> Let me preface this by saying that it is MY opinion...<br /> I completely get what you are saying. There are people who don't get it, but still want to make it an "us vs. them" thing. I have a theory, and, mind you, it is but a theory. <br /> People who don't get it tend not to be artists. Frustrated (and, perhaps fascinated) by a lack of understanding of the approach, philosophy, and materials that artists use, they tend to ridicule the same, in a feeble and sad attempt to "prove" their relevance in some way. <br /> Put another way, their thought processes might be summarized as follows: " I don't understand why/how there can be some quality of any importance other than the simple composition of a photograph. I don't see what an 8x10 view camera can do for me that a Nikon D200 can't. Therefore, those people who go on and on about tonality, depth, color palletes, and grain are stupid and pretentious. I am inclined, yea, verily, obligated, to expose them for the foppish fools that they are."<br /> I let go of this forum (again...and again) because of the seeming ominipresence of those who oppose for the sake of opposition. I have had my work insulted by some of the same respondents who seem to want to make things personal in this thread... at least I know it's not just me. I think that if someone has the poor taste to challenge someone to produce images that substantiate his OPINION, then that person should post a few of his to buttress his own dubious credibility.</p>

<p>For the record, I have owned and used many a digital camera (at least 10), including a late model, full frame dslr. None of them allow me to make images with the same impact as those I have made with my 6x9 Fujis, my Hasselblads, Rolleiflexes, nor the Konica 35mm rangefinder I still have and use from time to time. Film is different, and although some great images have been and are being made digitally, they do not have the same qualities (small q) that film images have, particularly when printed via traditional means. For some reason that is apparently beyond my scope of comprehension, alluding to this gives some folk the willies.</p>

<p> </p>

[f_ph1]

<p>Ok... at least I THINK I get what you said. Peace.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> There are people who don't get it, but still want to make it an "us vs. them" thing.

 

Absolutely! And (perhaps not so) curiously, threads like this are always started by someone who shoots film, needing to justify their position. Wonder why...

Insecurity, maybe?

[f_ph1]

<p>Thank you for illustrating my point, Brad.</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<blockquote>

<p>People who don't get it tend not to be artists. Frustrated (and, perhaps fascinated) by a lack of understanding of the approach, philosophy, and materials that artists use, they tend to ridicule the same, in a feeble and sad attempt to "prove" their relevance in some way.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>F Ph,</p>

<p>Your whole post illustrated your point far, far better than anyone else could. It was as if you were looking directly into a gigantic mirror.</p>

<p> </p>

[f_ph1]

<p>Marc... just out of curiosity...how long did it take you to craft your little barb? You must be quite pleased. But, it is rude, I think, to change the direction of a thread, simply to satisfy one's need to throw insults about. <br>

I'd be interested in more commentary that speaks to the original poster's question. My contribution:<br /> The reason I shoot film is because I have not been able to get the same look with digital. I really love the smell of Pan F in the morning (no joke), although I detest the smell of developer. I have been an artist (painter, illustrator) for quite a long time. When I want to make a profound statement with respect to an image, I try to work it up in oils. And yes, although I am not enamored with the smell of turpentine, and hate the fact that some of the paints I use contain toxic elements (e.g. lead white), I endure these difficulties because I have been unable to get the same results using acrylics, which are far easier to work with.<br /> Now, this might speak to a weak link in my artistic armor, fair enought. However, I have also seen some great work by other artists crafted with acrylic paint. That being said , looking at a Vermeer in person is like looking at nothing else. Vermeers GLOW...</p>

[holly_yates]

<p>Film photography is one of the best ways to learn the relationship between shutter speed and aperture. It really brings you back to the roots of photography.<br>

I'm 15 years old and I prefer my film DSLR (over 20 years old) over my digital SLR. Film photography is more organic, and it really feels like your truly creating something; the idea of capturing something on film is exciting to me. Capturing it on a digital camera, well it's cool that i can see what I'm taking a photo of, but it's not the same.. it's more ordinary. Film will never die. Sure, digital is more popular but there will always be people like me who are curious and want to go back to the start of photography. I feel a sense of pride, pursing film photography because I feel like I truly am a photographer, if that makes any sense.</p>

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>

<p>"I don't understand why/how there can be some quality of any importance other than the simple composition of a photograph. I don't see what an 8x10 view camera can do for me that a Nikon D200 can't. Therefore, those people who go on and on about tonality, depth, color palletes, and grain are stupid and pretentious. I am inclined, yea, verily, obligated, to expose them for the foppish fools that they are."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>F Ph, I followed the link in your profile and looked at some of the photographs you have posted on flickr. The work possesses rich tones, is engaging, has a feeling of depth, and overall is a pleasure to look at in my opinion. I respect it. It needs no defending, or the creation of a strawman argument. For that is what I take the quote above to be. I haven't seen anyone in this thread posit such things. I have to agree with Brad in that the majority of these "versus" threads seem to be started by those who solely or primarily shoot film. Why? I don't take the OP's original post to be necessarily defensive, but some of the responses in this, and the thread on fashion photographer Roy, certainly appear to be. Who are the Daniel Bayers of this world tilting against? (Mr. Bayer is most ironic in that when I "google" his name to see "how far he has risen in the photographic world", I come across an exhibition he once had of images taken with a digital camera phone.)</p>

<p>Speaking for myself, and possibly some other PN photographers with whom I am acquainted, we take our time when we shoot, we consider what we do, we lovingly and skillfully edit and possibly post process in PS, LR, and Silver Efex Pro. We make prints (and yes, sometimes they are silver gelatin prints), some of us actually sell them, exhibit them, and some of us have clients who pay us for various projects. Our work is neither cold nor artificial, and I will be bold enough to say that if you held some our prints in your hands you would be hard pressed to tell whether it had been taken with a film or a digital camera. Such is the nature of the technology that is available today. Some of us also embrace cell phone photography in our repertoires and consider it to be just another medium and mode of expression. And I will further say that not one of us will, or has, put down anyone who shoots exclusively with film.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, some of the arguments used in favor of film are often tautological. If someone looks at a print and cannot tell that it is digital, then they have no eye and are cretins too ignorant to discern the special "magic" of film. If someone buys a print made from a digital file, then they do not know any better and have no taste. If someone uses a digital camera, they spray, chimp, are lazy, and have no real skills or appreciation of craft. If someone saves their digital images, they only do so electronically, never make prints, and will see their work completely wiped out when an electromagnetic cataclysm destroys all digital data and the internet. Only manual film camera photographers and red-headed French women with polaroid cameras will be left.</p>

<p>May that day arrive soon so that we can all become film photographers and have an end to these ridiculous debates.</p>

[f_ph1]

<p>Steve:<br /> First, thank you for your kind words.<br /> Secondly, to address your well written statement, I actually concur. The problem I am seeing here is that, simply because one asserts that digital capture is the reason for the deterioration of the craft, if you will, some assume that this implies that digital photography is somehow inferior.<br /> It does not, and I do not think the aforementioned sentiments are mutually inclusive.<br /> For example, I find that digital cameras, for me at least, are far better (perhaps due to my lack of competence with film) for capturing scenes shrouded in fog. For some reason, I just can't seem to read the meter right, stick with the readings, or stray from them enough, and in the proper direction, to do with film what I have done digitally.<br /> Digital cameras have allowed for photography to take a path not realized before its existence. This, as with most, if not all new technologies, is a double edged sword. Some are able to do fantastic things with digital cameras; the vast majority are not. However, because the learning curve involved in creating a "properly" exposed, sharply focused image is so much easier now, we see a much higher garbage to quality ratio than we did when film was the only game in town.<br /> <br /> I agree with the fashion photographer to whom you alluded (assuming I understand his position) that digital capture has been a<strong> factor</strong> in lowering the standard, or at least distorting it to the degree that it is distasteful. This does not mean that the <strong>medium</strong> is inferior beause of this.<br /> Perhaps I should have stated my opinion a different way: There are things that some of us want to do photographically that film makes easier. Some of these things can't be done as well digitally. Perhaps the reason that film shooters often start these threads has something to do with the fact that the industry, such that it is, appears to be hell bent on marginalizing the use of film. Just go into a retail camera store (if you can find one) and ask for developer, or, heaven forbid, large format film. If the person on the other side of the counter even knows what you are talking about, it is not unusual, in my experience, to be asked why one doesn't just "upgrade" to digital. </p>

[bebu_lamar]

<blockquote>

<p>because I feel like I truly am a photographer, if that makes any sense.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am not sure if it makes any sense but I do notice that in the film days it was like:<br>

Photography is about photographing the photographs.<br>

But today in the digital world it's more like:<br>

Imaging is about capturing the images. <br>

All the same but different terms? Or may be digital isn't really photography? <br>

Once again I am not sure. (pun intended).</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<blockquote>

<p>Marc... just out of curiosity...how long did it take you to craft your little barb?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It just about wrote itself. Your incredibly narrow minded post reflects more upon yourself than a user of a different format.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>People who don't get it tend not to be artists.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Justin Bieber calls himself an artist so I assume he gets it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Frustrated (and, perhaps fascinated) by a lack of understanding of the approach, philosophy, and materials that artists use, they tend to ridicule the same, in a feeble and sad attempt to "prove" their relevance in some way.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Into the looking glass. What do you understand? Do you remember Kodachrome II? Do you remember how upset we were when they replaced it? Do you remember when Tri-X came out in 35mm and 120? How about High Speed Ektachrome? Ever try the Ektaflex development system? How about Cibachrome?</p>

<p>I don't recall anyone being called a non-artist back in the day because they used a different format. It was the results that mattered. I don't think people today should be insulted by others with a limited knowledge of photography.</p>

<p>We are able to make our decisions from a vast array of formats, tools, and techniques. Chose whatever you want but don't insult others that have chosen a different path and don't want to follow yours.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

[f_ph1]

<p>What do I understand? I understand how to use cameras, digital and film, to make images that many people, including other artists whose work I respect, seem to like. Some of them acually like them enough to pay for prints of them. <br /> I also know how to make images without the use of cameras; using oils, acrylics, watercolor, pen and ink, and graphite. Don't have a portfolio of my paintings to show you. As for the former, following the link on my info page will show you what I know about making photographs. Nobody seemed to care at the point of payment, nor while expressing appreciation, about whether or not I remember Kodachrome II...<br>

Quite frankly, I fail to understand the reason for the untoward tone of your remarks. My contention that artists are not always understood is simply a statement of fact. Not all artists are photographers, and not all photographers are artists. <br />Those photographers who are artists typically have a different approach, as well as a different goal in mind when producing their work. <br>

What exactly do you find insulting about this? Perhaps taking the time to ask a question in order to clarify a position would meet with better results than simply insulting someone on an online photography board.<br>

In the grand scheme of things, it ain't that serious, dude.<br>

<br /> Now...what exactly do you understand, other than how to take opinions personally and be insulting?</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<blockquote>

<p>Now...what exactly do you understand, other than how to take opinions personally and be insulting?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Put the mirror down. You are just projecting your feelings on others.</p>

<p> </p>

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>...digital capture has been a<strong> factor</strong> in lowering the standard, or at least distorting it to the degree that it is distasteful.</blockquote>

<blockquote>There are things that some of us want to do photographically that film makes easier. Some of these things can't be done as well digitally. Perhaps the reason that film shooters often start these threads has something to do with the fact that the industry, such that it is, appears to be hell bent on marginalizing the use of film.</blockquote>

<p>Good points, F Ph. I too would concur. Your comments point toward something that although a bit off topic, is perhaps somewhat related. Call it the democritization of photography, if you will. It is much more easily accessible to people now than it ever was before, but is, as you stated, a double edged sword. Those blessed with a native eye for the photographic can develop that eye much more quickly in 2013 than they could in 1963. But they must compete with not only those of their kind, but also with a sea of mediocrity and photographic noise that is difficult to stand out in. How many photographers with similar vision and talents would have stood out and competed with the likes of Vivien Maier or William Klein had digital photography come to the fore in the 1940's or 1950's? There is not only a plethora of crap and mediocrity out there today, there is also a plethora of what once would have been considered good work. </p>

<p>The article about the possibility of the internet shutting down, or the short film about the electromagnetic storm wiping out digital data: the anarchist and the luddite in me delights in the thought of that happening even though it would inconvenience me. I try to learn and use social media and new technologies, but there are aspects to some of it that sicken me. It has its uses, and much of it can be enjoyable, but I did not grow up in an exclusively digital age and its disapperance would not be psychologically devastating to me. So to those who linked to those things as cautionary tales for those enamored of the digital world, I say, "I understand. I'm with you." But it's not bloody likely.</p>

<p>Although I used film for tourist and family shots throughout my life, I did not pursue photography as an art or avocation until after I had started using a digital camera. But the articles and posts I see on the disappearance of film and labs is depressing to me. Somewhere I have two rolls of exposed Tri-X that I used with an old Nikon EM (a horribly designed camera) that someone once gave me. I just never got around to having the film developed. Who knows what worlds might open, or what passions might awaken, should I see the results of those long ago shots? I would far prefer that the world of film was just as vibrant now as it seemingly was not that many years ago. I would like that option, that choice, to still be open to me. Although it may still be to a certain extent, it is not what it once was. And the person who stands behind the counter and asks the film shooter why they don't "upgrade" to digital is just as foolish and misguided as the man who claims that street photography can only be done with a Leica and black and white film. </p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>