Film? cause it's easier

[sjmurray]

<p>I don't get it, Film. I started shooting film in the 60's. I after I got my first digital camera, a D70, I found I could do anything with digital I could do with film, only easier. I sold my film gear. Years later now, its even better. To each his own.</p>

[wildflower art]

<p>I lament that schooling and the industry has not kept pace with the technology trust in our hands. Professional photography is not interested in capturing the moments that matter most to photographers and this is where it falls short for most users. Photography follows the production and work flow of the professionals to an immense degree. This emulation pattern may be true of most endeavors and hobbies, like saturation points and diffusion patterns. Professional photography is interesting in making an object matter to a viewer, and digital photography has changed the field into finding one picture to make a viewer respond. Digital photography may be more about impacting a viewer with immediacy which is naturally a valuable quality, and a goal of great photographers. </p>

<p>Professional photography has been digital for more than 12 years now, and so it brings most of the market with it. Was a well exposed Velvia slide better than a Nikon D1 picture? Yes, but the news markets went with the D1 anyway. Did you know at most places, events, and actions, professional photographers will not take more than one picture, one roll of film, or more than one hour? Some rule of statistics applies. The digital era has put more professional equipment in the hands of more photographers, who, like people in all endeavors, are frustrated they are not doing more. <br>

Film had a more definite end point, the set of 24 or 36 prints. With a digicam, everyone can dream of being a photographer for National Geographic. Kodak has emerged from bankruptcy, not to make film, but to print professional's pictures and do corporate art. They must be telling us we can all take great pictures with what we have. I believe this, and believe that with editing software and a microphone we could all be professional cinematographers with hi-def video capabilities. I also believe that photos in our hands will be what we want, and digital makes photography an easy challenge, a paradox of our own creativity. </p>

 

[Brad_]

>>> for me, shooting street (mostly folks trying to survive another day) in Asia, I prefer film, for all of it's patina.

 

Can you post some examples so I can *see* what you are talking about?

 

>>> I find when I shoot street in asia with a dig, what comes back is nice pictures of struggling folks...boring...film nails

street IMO

 

I have a pretty large portfolio of street photos captured digitally and not a one of them showing someone obviously

struggling. Does your camera have some kind of "scene mode" (an icon of a struggling/helpless/homeless person on the mode dial?) that automatically causes that to happen?

 

If you could show some of your film shots that were nailed, and not boring, that would be helpful in the discussion.

[malcom_knight]

<p>Easier? Yeah right!<br>

Yes, the wonders of film…..LOL….. Several steps must go flawlessly to make a great print from film:</p>

<ol>

<li>Technique (same with digital)….</li>

<li>Processing- hope the chemicals are fresh and the lab is competent. If not, your whole project is screwed. Chemicals are bad=film can be blotched, ruined, spotted, scratched…overdeveloped, underdeveloped. (not a problem with digital)</li>

<li>Digitizing – for great prints you need an expensive film scanner- and good scanning skills.(not with digital)</li>

<li>Good post processing skills (same with digital) – exception: that film may require a grain reduction software, and more post processing to clean it up so it will look as clean as a digital camera image.</li>

<li>Good print preparation software, or a competent print lab.</li>

</ol>

<p>It’s a lot more work to get film to look as clean as those from today’s DSLRs. The more variables you put into place, the more opportunity there is for problems to arise. I still find my digital images to look sharper and have less noise and artifacts than my film scans. Film also can’t match the high iso achievements of the current DSLRs. And let’s not forget the time it takes to scan the film.</p>

 

[dhbebb]

<p><em>let's all please get beyond the 'figure out your subject' statements and the 'you only need one lens' statements'</em><br /> “Film Music”, if people ask questions on PN, I try to give answers based on 60 years of photographic activity as an amateur and pro (I started as a small child). My way is not the only way, I have no ability or desire to force anyone to take my advice, but I make sure I don’t waste any time trying to advise anyone who is running around with his hands over his years saying “La la la, I can’t hear you!” <br /> Which, quite frankly, describes you. You have made a number of very verbose but vague postings, you say you love film but don’t say if you’re shooting b+w or color (at a guess, you’re trying for the classic photojournalistic look of 35 mm Tri-X). Clearly, despite buying large numbers of cameras (type not specified, although you say they are mostly cheap) and shooting countless frames, you are highly dissatisfied with the results, to the extent that you say you’re happy with only 1 shot in 1,000 or more and you don’t even show us one of these. I therefore conclude that the reason for your postings is that you realise you’re going absolutely nowhere with your photography and are hoping someone will give you the magic secret. If you then choose to ignore everything that’s said – be my guest!</p>

[heningstepfield]

Wow...folks are not reading the entire thread before jumping in and attacking a

statement or two, a tad bit of noise being generated by way of selective reading I

fear, long thread, don't blame anyone for getting lost in what appears to be much

now bordering now on confusion...peace folks... the aggression has earned my

silence from here on, again, sorry to have hit a nerve....ha ha, but you are a

sensitive bunch now Arn't you?

[lex_jenkins]

<p>The micro-zeitgeist tends to be difficult to trace when it's buried under hyperbolic initiating posts.</p>

<p>I know lots of folks who shoot film often, sometimes daily, sometimes almost exclusively. None of them posts "versus" threads or claims film is better, quicker, makes your hair smell fresher or frees your bed of bedbugs. And certainly not because it's easier - it's a lot more work. They simply use it because they like it, because they enjoy the process and the medium for its own sake. And it shows in their work. Not because their photos were taken with film, but because they invest all of their creative energy into making photos rather than into insupportable assertions or forum sparring sessions.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

Steve Murray wrote:

 

"I don't get it, Film. I started shooting film in the 60's. I after I got my first digital camera, a D70, I found I could do anything

with digital I could do with film, only easier. I sold my film gear. Years later now, its even better. To each his own."

 

Steve, you don't get it because you don't want to get it and this is usually what I hear from folks your age, sadly closed

minded in some cases. If you wanted to "get it" you would put some effort into it, find out who is shooting film and why

today, not in 1960-something. Why don't you write New York Times staff photographer Josh Haner and ask him why he

shoots film? Seriously, I am beginning to think that free with each purchase of a digital camera comes a bucket of sand.

[DB_Gallery]

The OP's post, the whole thread is pretty silly, I would never come on here and say film is easier because from a technical

or productivity standpoint, it is not. But it is easier for me to choose film over digital for the life it lets me live through the

journey and results that it is. So in that case and for me personally, film is indeed easier...

[dhbebb]

<p><em>Steve, you don't get it because you don't want to get it and this is usually what I hear from folks your age, sadly closed minded in some cases.</em> <br>

I have to say that I find this gratuitously patronising and arrogant. After all the color film I have shot, I really can’t see any future for it, since it delivers nothing that digital color doesn’t (apart arguably from an intrinsically slightly longer tone scale, which can also be achieved digitally with only minor effort). I was a diehard film MF film user until Ektachrome E200 was discontinued, at which point I could not see any other material I wanted to use and went digital. My Canon 5D II is the best single picture-taking instrument I have ever owned. <br>

When it comes to b+w, I personally find the results with digital anemic – I am currently working on a project with a wide variety of subject matter which essentially celebrates the image quality of 35mm Tri-X and Leica cameras. For me, there is an element of nostalgia in this – if I was younger, I’m not sure I’d feel the same way, although there are quite a few younger photographers which want to try film to see what the fuss is about. On the other hand, in a world with 7 billion people, it’s getting harder to accept the uncontrolled discharge of chemicals by private individuals, even if today’s living accommodation offers space for home processing and printing at all. Meantime photo labs are closing all over the place. <br>

Film is unquestionably an anachronism – it’s alive and kicking now, I can’t see it lasting more than 10 or 15 years at the outside.</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>Daniel, I understand that you and many others people prefer film, for various reasons - creatively, a love of the process, a preference for the results, a family activity, whatever. That's wonderful and I hope film stays around for people to use and love. However, others prefer digital, vive la difference!</p>

<p>I strongly doubt that Steve "doesn't get it" after using film for fifty years! He just prefers digital at this point. There's nothing wrong with that, his preference for digital is just as relevant and considered as your, or Josh Haner's, preference for film. There's no need to be degrading or rude at all. </p>

<p>Personally I also prefer digital at this point, in every way. It's just my personal choice, it doesn't reflect on anyone else's choices, is not threatening and is fully considered. I get it, I owned a film lab in London for over ten years, I shot film (8x10 through 35mm) professionally for over 20 years. Creatively the digital process and results suits me much better, for my professional work and more importantly for my personal work. I would never presume to tell someone who prefers film that they "don't get it" - I respect their choices and preferences and would hope the same was true the other way. This is the small stuff!</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>the world went through a similar evolution when audio changed from tape to dig about 12 or so years ago <br />ask any working audio engineer who experienced both worlds, the capture medium does in-fact have an impact on the final product (both in-terms of process and, in the case of audio, the sound) </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I recall well the analog to digital revolution in audio. There are some parallels in the still photography and video worlds, but there are vast differences.<br>

<br>

The jump from chemical darkroom to digital image processing has parallels to the movement from audio tape splicing and editing to digital processing in Pro-Tools. The resolution of early digital recording devices was problematic, as was the output of early digital cameras. Digital audio processing and image processing both use specialized software that supports a variety of third-party plug-ins.<br>

<br>

However, there are areas where the differences are greater. Analog tape decks required regular maintenance by skilled technicians. Film cameras don't need the same amount of care and feeding. Making the jump from analog to digital camera - or using both simultaneously - is not difficult as long as best practices are followed.<br>

<br>

One thing is certain. Digital is here to stay. Its conveniences are abilities far outweigh its shortcomings. Analog might be your preference, but at this point in the evolution of digital technology, analog offers no clear advantage.</p>

 

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>Steve, you don't get it because you don't want to get it and this is usually what I hear from folks your age, sadly closed minded in some cases.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Sweeping generalizations on age do not add anything to the discussion, nor to they make a legitimate case for anyone's position. If someone turned this around and implied that you were too young to know what you're talking about, that would be no more legitimate than your statement, and it would be insulting to lots of excellent photographers regardless of their age.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>FFS, Daniel, how's that bile developer working out for you?</p>

<p>This thread reminds me of the those ironic "bad cop/bad cop" variations on the good cop/bad cop movie trope. It's photography's newest trope, "bad film ambassador/worse film ambassador".</p>

<p>Meanwhile, the ever-young-at-heart Sally Mann seems to have inspired a whole 'nuther generation of younger photographers to delve - cautiously, we hope - into wet plate collodion photography. If you follow enough relatively newer websites (PetaPixel, 121clicks, and several others), seldom is heard a discouraging "versus" word, but there are plenty of examples of photographers who just do it - all types of "analog" photography - without the hyperbole, angst, rending of garments and tearing of hair, sackcloth and ashes, oldphartism and browbeating that seems to have become the standard photo.net style.</p>

<p>Ask me again why I banned "versus" threads from the b&w forums. The folks who actually do it and enjoy it don't want their well poisoned with these gratuitous versus threads.</p>

<p>Y'know what's inspired and encouraged me the most about the future for "analog" photography, whether it's film, DIY emulsions or DIY developers made from gawdawful stuff like urine? Facebook. Virtually all of my Facebook contacts who are into traditional light sensitive photographic media just do it. They show their results regularly. And they don't indulge in gratuitous versus arguments or flay other photographers for not being purist enough. Instead they share the joy they feel about using a medium and process that inspires and motivates them and their creativity.</p>

<p>If you're feeling the irrepressible urge to justify your personal preferences through gratuitous versus posturing, self-congratulatory preening and unnecessary creation of conflict on <a href="http://i0.kym-cdn.com/profiles/icons/big/000/015/384/arguecat.png">arguecat</a> threads, you're probably doing it wrong.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Daniel Bayer wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Steve, you don't get it because you don't want to get it and this is usually what I hear from folks your age, sadly closed minded in some cases. If you wanted to "get it" you would put some effort into it, find out who is shooting film and why today, not in 1960-something. Why don't you write New York Times staff photographer Josh Haner and ask him why he shoots film? Seriously, I am beginning to think that free with each purchase of a digital camera comes a bucket of sand.<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can't fathom what you are going on about! What''s there to "get." I shot and hand processed film 35mm to 4x5, made my own developers from scratch, spent hours in the darkroom printing, toning etc. Memorized Ansel Adam's "The Print" and "The Negative." I couldn't wait to get away from the chemicals, the darkroom, the hours etc. I find I can be much more creative with digital, and work in color too, which I couldn't do with my black and white darkroom. Digital has given me new tools to do things I have never been able to do before, and more efficiently too. I understand certain people like to work with film and it feels satisfying to them. That's great for them, but I feel that way with digital. <br /> Why are you so defensive about film? What is it about using film that you feel is so much "better" than digital? Have you looked at my portfolio here to see what I have done with digital? Maybe you should before you go off telling me what medium I need to shoot to be a good photographer!<br>

Doing creative work means that the medium you choose to create in is a highly individual choice. That you think I should use film is like me telling you to throw away your camera and start painting in oil!</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<blockquote>

<p>But it is easier for me to choose film over digital for the life it lets me live through the journey and results that it is.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Is this really how you want to go through life?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Seriously, I am beginning to think that free with each purchase of a digital camera comes a bucket of sand.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well I could tell you to go pound sand but as I use both film and digital I am too mellow a fellow.</p>

[studio460]

<p>I've actually been mulling over the general topic of this thread myself lately. I haven't read through every post here, but I really <em>do</em> like film's inherent archival properties. There's simply no such thing as a future-proof digital format. Although this topic has been hacked to death, I still think it's worth continued discussion. In the future, when no one even remembers what a ".JPG" was, and proprietary "RAW" formats have long been abandoned for ".SFXGs" (some f------g 'X' graphics format), I'm sure the ability to scan and print a film neg will still persist.</p>

<p>I own a top-of-the-line 35mm film body, a Nikon F6, but rarely have I put it to any use. Thanks to this thread, I think I'll force myself to take it out on a regular basis now (I've certainly been meaning to). I've been thinking of shooting at least one roll of color negative, and one roll of Tri-X on every portfolio shoot from now on--just for the heck of it. Since I'll have digital "Polaroids" of my exposure from my Nikon digital FX bodies on hand, merely mimicking the exposure settings and flash output on the F6 should be close enough. I'm by no means a film die-hard. In fact, I can't even remember the last time I even shot a roll of film. But, if I follow through with my new routine, here's what's in it for me:</p>

<p>1. After processing, I'll have true archival media of <em>some</em> of the shoot: 36 in color; 36 in black-and-white (I still have a full brick of Tri-X in the fridge).</p>

<p>2. Film certainly makes <em>me</em> shoot more slowly . . . well, maybe not necessarily more slowly; perhaps just a bit more <em>thoughtfully</em>. No, that's not quite it either--but it does make me shoot somehow, <em>differently</em>. And, I certainly <em>feel</em> different when shooting film (e.g., I find film bodies' large, ultra-bright viewfinders thoroughly inspiring. Don't you?).</p>

<p>3. Shooting film also inspires me to use different lenses (the obvious--typically, older lenses). My 35mm f/1.4 Ais, my "new" (used) Nikkor 43-86mm, "flare-maker," pre-Ai zoom (still need to have it converted). And, for whatever reason, my AF Nikkor 18mm f/2.8D just feels "right" on a film body. Then there's my Nikkor 105mm f/1.8 Ais . . . I <em>really</em> need to run some film through that one soon. Wait. There's also my AF DC-Nikkor 105mm f/2.0D--now, that lens was made for shooting "artsy," flare-ey, grainy Tri-X images.</p>

[studio460]

<p>4. Shooting with a film body will be worth it just to see people's faces wondering why my "LCD" is covered-up by a cardboard Tri-X label.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I used to draw stick figures on pieces of tape stuck on the back of my film cameras. So when kids asked to look at the photos I just took, I could show 'em something. Then I'd explain the photos just needed more time to develop before the stick figures grew up.</p>

[unangelino]

<p><strong>@ Keith Reeder</strong></p>

<p>You're right, I do feel entitled to criticize the the sarcastic respondents to this thread. The OP's take on things is suspect as well (as I thought I made clear in my first post). In the end, I believe the OP had something to say that his initial post failed to get across. What he had to say may have been debatable or silly, just as you say. But, he is not a troll; he's posted at pnet about the very same gear he discussed in his OP and his subsequent posts have showed his willingness to hang around and face some of his doubters.</p>

<p>In the end, I think it's fine to meet posts with agreement, disagreement or even bewilderment. I'm just not crazy about sarcasm especially when it's in response to someone who may need some time to convey the essence of his thoughts.</p>

<p> </p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>The OP's take on things is suspect as well …</em><br>

I’d say it was unclear. For me, the OP is saying “I’ve bought dozens of cameras, shot thousands of frames and spent 1,000s of $$$, but my hit rate is still 1 in 1,000 or lower, and even with the shots I think are hits, I’m not confident enough to show them to anyone – HELP!” As a very experienced photographer and occasional mentor and teacher, I’m used to dealing with this situation – but the first thing anyone would need to do before they can help is break through the thicket of excess verbiage which the OP is using as a smokescreen. Ultimately, if someone asks for advice but then refuses to listen to a single word, all I or anyone else can do is conclude that we’re wasting our time and walk away.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Some people photograph because they have something to say, something they want to show.<br>

<br />Some people photograph because they are obsessed with materials and hardware.<br>

<br />The differences are obvious. Some want people to show their photos and some want to talk about things they won't show.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>As an illustration of what I said at the bottom of page 6 about pro-film arguments, this pic is one of the series I mentioned. It's on 35 mm Tri-X, which for me not only has nostalgic associations but also gives a specific image quality that straight digital doesn't have (but of course digital can have via special plug-ins):</p>

<div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"...if someone asks for advice but then refuses to listen to a single word, all I or anyone else can do is conclude that we’re wasting our time and walk away."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was initially tempted to reach the same conclusion, but something in the OP's tone indicated he might be open to a bit of levity and ribbing. The opening post wasn't exactly serious and didn't really invite a conventional discussion. Folks who are genuinely interested in exchanging sober, serious opinions on the pros and cons of film and digital media don't usually phrase their initial posts with outrageous hyperbole, contradictory positions and Sgt. Snorkel style NUMLOCK faux-cussing.</p>

<p>I wouldn't quite call it trolling, but I did get the impression the OP was game for some bantering akin to playing the dozens and was fishing for reactions just to gauge the sense of humor of the participants.</p>

<p> </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Lex, I think anyone who Mr. and Mrs. Music had the poor sense to name "Film" automatically starts at about 50% on my troll meter.</p>