Film revival?

[Moving On]

I suspect few who ever shot film are satisfied with the LCD.

I suspect many who never shot Film are.

[Norma Desmond]

I suspect few who ever shot film are satisfied with the LCD.

I suspect many who never shot Film are.

Your suspicion may well be correct. To which I say, so what?

 

I'm not speaking for the few or the many. I'm speaking to what I do and care about, and am interested in what you do and care about.

[Sandy Vongries]

I started film in the '50's as a small boy and continued into the mid '90's - I toyed with film a bit after that but slid into digital with a couple of Canon ELPH cameras - with children and little free time . In 2009 I bought a D 60 kit - camera and the 2 kit lenses - I bought that to document building our house. I got serious in June '14 with the DF.

The intervening years, I have gotten more into digital, but at the same time, in the last 10 months, sliding back into film as a parallel track. Each has strengths and weaknesses. Another proverb - originally dated around 1400, closest to the (relatively) modern version, 1605 - "The proof of a pudding is in the eating." And a photo in the viewing, however it was obtained.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Sandy Vongries

[Norma Desmond]

Sandy, I can appreciate your being drawn to both film and digital at different times. And I can appreciate any individual’s preference, if they have one.

 

What I don’t get is when a preference is “justified” (as if a preference needs to be justified) by noting the deficiencies in the way some or even most people use an alternative method. Bill talks as if he would have to use an LCD the way some or most people use it, while I prefer to give him more credit than that. And that's why I bothered to point out the way I use an LCD, which is simply meant to show that it's not necessary to use an LCD the way it's most popularly used. To me, that's empowering, to know that I can use a tool as it suits me and not necessarily as most others use it.

[Norma Desmond]

I know plenty of people who prefer to work with film and I've heard all kinds of interesting reasons, most of which I appreciate. But this instant gratification thing baffles me. So I've been thinking about it a little. Now, of course, there may be other reasons to prefer film, but the focus here has been on the supposed instant gratification the LCD screen brings, where the preference seems to be to delay the gratification some. So, here goes:

 

Turn the LCD screen to the off position and wait two weeks until you look at the photos you took with your digital camera: Problem solved! :)

[Sandy Vongries]

Turn the LCD screen to the off position and wait two weeks until you look at the photos you took with your digital camera: Problem solved! :)

Deep pockets - Leica M-D - I know where you can get a great deal, two lenses & all the bits & pieces.

[Norma Desmond]

Leica M-D

That's a riot. I hope there are other reasons to get a Leica M-D. But the idea of spending $6,000 not to have a bell and whistle is so very 21st century. We are being marketed into stupidity.

 

And, as far as my suggestion about waiting two weeks to process stuff one takes digitally, I actually realize I do that unconsciously quite a bit. Particularly when I'm shooting on the street and on the go, I don't take the time or expend the energy to look at the LCD screen. I just get into a mode and shoot. And then, I often don't get around to looking at them for a couple of weeks or more.

[Sandy Vongries]

marketed into stupidity.

Tongue was far in cheek. :D

[Wouter Willemse]

What I don’t get is when a preference is “justified” (as if a preference needs to be justified) by noting the deficiencies

 

The funny thing is, most photographers do try to get decent tonality in their photos, yet in these threads, tonality gives way to pure black and pure white. One best way to do things, having one clear winner, and next look down on all the inferior alternatives and explain why they're the wrong way.

Add the chorus that claims that tools do not matter at all.

 

Photography should be a creative activity, yet bringing up the empathy to accept that others like to do things differently, to accept that different results can be equally valid and interesting, to accept that a personal and potentially unique view on the matter is a good thing - it seems terribly difficult.

There is nothing to get beyond the point that some do not seem to get that differences and choices are a good thing, and that we do not need a single best way of doing things.

[AlanKlein]

I chimp - that's the perfectionism in me as well as my impatience. But I also shoot medium format film. It's exciting when I receive the package back from the developers, cut open the wrapping, hold the film up to the light for a quick look to see how many I screwed up and how many might actually work out pretty good. The anticipation is aggravating and exciting both at the same time. Digital chimping and film processes are different but both have their great points.

[Vincent Peri]

...Particularly when I'm shooting on the street and on the go, I don't take the time or expend the energy to look at the LCD screen. I just get into a mode and shoot. And then, I often don't get around to looking at them for a couple of weeks or more.

 

Hmm... that's just like

shooting film...

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

[tomspielman]

I am reminded of many discussions that were had on a bicycling forum I used participate in. There is the "Steel is real" contingent that prefers the ride and durability of steel bikes over modern aluminum or carbon fiber bikes. At the same time you have aluminum and CF fans who view the arguments for steel and against their favored frame materials as outdated, factually inaccurate, and attributing mythical qualities to steel that don't actually exist (in their minds).

 

Beyond that there is the fixed gear / single speed bikes vs geared (multi-speed) bikes with fixed gear bikes often being denigrated as merely a fashion trend popularized by hipsters. Sound familiar?

 

I ride all of the above. I have a steel fixed gear bike and I have aluminum and carbon fiber geared bikes. People who ride geared bikes will often react to the arguments of single speeders this way: "If I want the experience of a single speed, I can simple choose to leave my bike in the same gear". While fixed gear and single speed fans would argue that is not the same and often ascribe zen or mystical qualities to riding single speed that a multi-speed bike simply does not provide.

 

I used to be one of those people that would argue that a single speed bike provides no benefits over a bike you can choose to leave in the same gear. And having spent my youth on a single speed, I understood the experience well enough that I knew I preferred gears. But a few years ago I decided to give "riding fixed" a fair shot and tried it for 30 days. Did not like it at first at all, but eventually grew to appreciate it quite a bit. And I can say definitively that it is not all like choosing not to shift.

 

Likewise, I think shooting digitally while choosing not to use the LCD is not the same as shooting film and not having an LCD. Or maybe to put it this way, choosing to not take advantage of the instant gratification is not the same as not having instant gratification as an option.

 

It is it an important distinction? Maybe not. I'm not one to argue that the lack of the ability to see the results right away is an advantage of film, - it's merely a difference. A difference that promotes a different approach to photography, - which some may like and others may not. Or for people like me, may like it for some photos and not others.

Edited February 22, 2018 by tomspielman

[Moving On]

Few well put together recipes rely on a single ingredient.

[Norma Desmond]

Or maybe to put it this way, choosing to not take advantage of the instant gratification is not the same as not having instant gratification as an option.

Tom, my main point is to question how much supposed gratification there is instantaneously from viewing an LCD on the back of a camera. For me, there's very, very little gratification at the moment I look at the LCD compared to many other moments of gratification I experience throughout the process of making a photo. Like I've said, I only have a reliable sense of the image once I have it home and can look at it and attempt to process it through my RAW converter. Until then, we're talking about the gratification in seeing a small, backlit, generically-software-generated jpg, which for me is a very unreliable predictor or representation of what I actually got.

 

As often as I see something on the LCD screen that winds up being a good photo, I get fooled by the LCD screen into thinking I've got something only to come home and look at it under more optimum conditions to discover it didn't actually have what the LCD screen fooled me into thinking it had. I've probably experienced more frustration from LCD camera screens than gratification, to be honest.

 

To be clear, I don't think not using an LCD when one shoots digitally makes digital photography just like film photography. I'm just saying not using the LCD would do away with whatever people think they're losing by looking at the LCD. There are still plenty of significant differences between the film and digital process, a lot having to do with the actual way one participates in the craft itself. The focus on the supposed instant gratification of LCD screens seems hyped to me.

 

I think those who get a thrill from opening the box when it comes back from the lab should be happy to get that thrill, just as I'm happy to get a thrill (a different sort of thrill) from processing my own RAW files. But I don't support my getting the thrill from processing my own RAW files by comparing it to the process whereby one sends their film to an outside lab. I just don't need or care to do that. And I certainly don't feel the need to call not processing one's own work superficial, which is how Bob referred to parts of the digital process.

 

The issue is not that we shouldn't each enjoy and appreciate a particular way we approach photography. The issue is the less than accurate claims being made about alternative methods as we talk about our own.

[tomspielman]

Tom, my main point is to question how much supposed gratification there is instantaneously from viewing an LCD on the back of a camera. For me, there's very, very little gratification at the moment I look at the LCD compared to many other moments of gratification I experience throughout the process of making a photo. Like I've said, I only have a reliable sense of the image once I have it home and can look at it and attempt to process it through my RAW converter. Until then, we're talking about the gratification in seeing a small, backlit, generically-software-generated jpg, which for me is a very unreliable predictor or representation of what I actually got.

 

As often as I see something on the LCD screen that winds up being a good photo, I get fooled by the LCD screen into thinking I've got something only to come home and look at it under more optimum conditions to discover it didn't actually have what the LCD screen fooled me into thinking it had. I've probably experienced more frustration from LCD camera screens than gratification, to be honest.

 

To be clear, I don't think not using an LCD when one shoots digitally makes digital photography just like film photography. I'm just saying not using the LCD would do away with whatever people think they're losing by looking at the LCD. There are still plenty of significant differences between the film and digital process, a lot having to do with the actual way one participates in the craft itself. The focus on the supposed instant gratification of LCD screens seems hyped to me.

 

I think those who get a thrill from opening the box when it comes back from the lab should be happy to get that thrill, just as I'm happy to get a thrill (a different sort of thrill) from processing my own RAW files. But I don't support my getting the thrill from processing my own RAW files by comparing it to the process whereby one sends their film to an outside lab. I just don't need or care to do that. And I certainly don't feel the need to call not processing one's own work superficial, which is how Bob referred to parts of the digital process.

 

The issue is not that we shouldn't each enjoy and appreciate a particular way we approach photography. The issue is the less than accurate claims being made about alternative methods as we talk about our own.

 

I agree that a 2 or 3 inch view of jpg doesn't provide a fully accurate representation of what a processed image on a larger display will look like. I also agree that the fact that digital cameras give you a preview via LCD is far from the only difference between using digital and film cameras. And I don't think of an LCD on a DSLR as instant gratification so much as I see it as reassurance. Like you say, you may be happy with the way an image looks on a small LCD only to have the imperfections become apparent when you see it on a computer. However, an LCD will tell you right away if you've really missed the shot. Instant gratification comes more into play when images are shared right from the camera or phone.

 

I disagree that not using the LCD would do away with whatever people think they're losing by looking at the LCD. Back to my single speed analogy, - I could decide I'm just going to leave my multi-speed bike in 4th gear and ride the whole way to work that way. But that is different than riding a single-speed bike and not being able to change gears.

 

I have a few small hills on my ride to work. If I ride a geared bike, I will change gears, - not just on the hills but at intersections and other places. On the flats there's not much difference, but if I decided that I'm going to leave a geared bike in 4th gear, I'd have to force myself to not change gears in situations where I normally would. On single speed, it wouldn't even be a consideration. You'd think I might miss the gears but I don't. It's a different approach. In the mountains however...

 

Likewise with a camera, you may be perfectly content to shoot away not looking at the LCD until you run into a situation where you're not quite sure you got the shot you wanted. Now, you could force yourself to not look at the LCD, but the temptation would be there. Not having an LCD at all makes it a different experience. One you may like, - or hate.

 

But let's acknowledge for a moment the fact that modern cameras have LCDs for a reason and modern bikes have multiple gears, - people generally prefer them -all things considered.

Edited February 22, 2018 by tomspielman

[Moving On]

The issue is the less than accurate claims being made about alternative methods as we talk about our own.

I think Bob's posts in this thread to be entirely accurate.

I think the counterclaim much ado about nothing.....

 

Many, in fact most who use an LCD screen never move beyond what they see in it.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Moving On

[Norma Desmond]

Well, we disagree on the accuracy. To me, the more important point is why one wouldn’t simply express joy or thrill in the process they employ without the need to compare like this. The film/digital thing is tired. When I hear it used as reasoning for liking what one does it strikes me as tired as well. I’m sure Bob and others enjoyed film long before digital came along. It would be interesting to hear why without reference to digital.

[tomspielman]

Maybe I'll skip the analogy and go for a concrete example related to photography.

 

Last week I went out on a frozen lake to get a night shot. I brought with me a digital camera and a medium format film camera. It wasn't long before I figured out that my odds of getting the picture I had envisioned weren't good. It was a little windy and the lantern I had brought along to help light the subject wasn't working right.

 

I spent 45 minutes trying different exposures and angles with the digital camera and got maybe two shots I thought were promising - based on what I saw in the LCD. I had only one shot left on the roll in my medium format camera and hadn't brought another roll with me so I didn't even bother getting that camera out.

 

I didn't really like any of the pictures once I saw them on a bigger screen but I had known that was the likely outcome within 10 minutes of arriving on the ice.

 

In that example you can argue either way about the pros and cons of film vs digital but what you can't deny is that having an LCD made my approach to the shot different on the digital camera vs the film. If I had only had the medium format camera with me, I may have not have even tried, or maybe I would have and been sure to bring a 2nd roll. Either way, I would have left after about 20 minutes instead of 45.

[Norma Desmond]

Tom, thanks. Your description makes a point I’ve been trying unsuccessfully to make. I said it in one of my earlier posts and it informs my thinking on the matter, but I haven’t emphasized it enough so it got lost. I said that I use the LCD as a tool, and it can be an important one at times. Sometimes, situationally, I don’t use it because I’m too on the go to take the time to look at the LCD. That’s very different from using it for the kind of gratification one gets when they open a box of negs or prints they get back from the lab. What you’re describing is using the LCD as part of your process, as a tool in your arsenal. You’re not describing instant gratification. Thanks again. Your post has given me a lot of clarity.

[tomspielman]

Well, sometimes people use an LCD for instant gratification or in the case of my teenage daughter, instant in-gratification:

 

"My hair's not right/my smile is creepy/I look fat in that one, - take another!"

 

Pictures of my daughter take half the time with a film camera because she can't see them right away. ;)

 

On a slightly different note, while lots of people fret over society's quest for instant gratification, how many of us will choose 5 day shipping over same day delivery if the cost is the same? Sooner is often better.

 

Anyway, like you've said, an LCD is a tool. It can be used to get better results more consistently. It's not just for viewing the images themselves. You can view histograms or even do on-camera editing. However, LCDs are often used to view what is more less an end product right after you take the picture. That's not inherently bad. But as I've said in another way, you're exercising different photographic muscles without an LCD. Your concerns are different. You don't stop to look at pictures you've already taken. With a digital camera, you can try to make yourself not look, but the temptation will be there at least some of the time. No temptation with a film camera and that can be freeing.

[Norma Desmond]

Well, sometimes people use an LCD for instant gratification or in the case of my teenage daughter, instant in-gratification:

Yes, absolutely, the operative word being "sometimes." What I wanted to emphasize is that "sometimes" it's not used that way. And what you had described about the frozen lake was an example of it not being used that way. Believe me, I'm not making any claims for how an LCD is always used. I'm suggesting how it can be used. What seems often to happen is that various aspects of digital photography are seen for how they're often used by the majority of users, or by the Facebook and Instagram crowd. When I think and talk about digital photography, though, I'm not talking about how it's popularly used. I'm talking about how I-I-I use it and how other more serious photographers may use it.

However, LCDs are often used to view what is more less an end product right after you take the picture.

Agreed. And, again, I'm not talking about how LCDs are most often used. I'm talking about less common usages . . . possibilities beyond instant gratification, which were going unmentioned.

No temptation with a film camera and that can be freeing.

Likely so. But that's not what people here were focusing on. I wouldn't disagree that people find the process freeing without the temptation of an LCD. But that's not what people here were talking about. People here were saying, very distinctly, that they like the idea of not having an LCD because it preserves the delayed gratification they get from receiving negs or photos in the mail from the lab. That's a different muscle from the muscle that frees one from temptation while shooting.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Norma Desmond

[Dieter Schaefer]

FWIW, sometimes I use the back LCD for "instant gratification" (or instant confirmation) that I got a particular shot but in the majority of cases (when I bother to look), the back LCD is used as a tool to check composition, focus, and exposure. Just one of the reasons why I consider digital the better tool for me and have given up using film a long time ago. Up to the point in time when I press the shutter release, shooting film or digital requires a nearly identical decision-making process (though different in the details); it is what I can do with digital afterward that tips the scale towards digital as the better tool. As an example: shooting portraits of my wife is hard because she is a "blinker" - chances are high that any given image taken will show her with her eye partially or fully closed. With digital, I can check and repeat if necessary. With film, I learn that most of the images have her with eyes closed two weeks after the shoot when I get the film back from the lab; a bit late to do anything about it. Naturally, I would shoot short burst with either medium to increase my chances of getting a shot with the eyes open - more convenient with digital than with film.

 

It's exciting when I receive the package back from the developers, cut open the wrapping, hold the film up to the light for a quick look to see how many I screwed up and how many might actually work out pretty good. The anticipation is aggravating and exciting both at the same time.

I remember those feelings well - if anything, moving on to digital has cut down on the aggravation part and possibly enhanced the excitement portion.

[pavel_l.]

Considering the low quality of the camera's LCD it can't bring the genuine gratification to serious photographers ( and I don't consider here the cellphone snappers.) 3 in screen is not a match to enlarged print. I think the most valuable feature of the camera lcd is a histogram. The first think I look after I scan my film is did my exposure and DOF as I want them, to underline my idea.

Cheers.

[bob_bill]

• Here is my 2 sentence post: Mark, just shot a few rolls and the mystery is refreshing, unlike the instant gratification of an lcd. Not to mention slowing down to craft the image, spot metering the scene, placing tones, not just checking for blinkies. Do you really think just checking blinkies is a better way of crafting an image than carefully making the shot? Sure seems like some folks are pretty sensitive about it. After pages of "angel on the head of a pin" discussion, I don't see any rebuttal of the fact that looking at the lcd is called "chimping" because of the ooh's and aah's of joy when it is viewed after the shutter is released. Evidence of gratification. It takes place immediately after taking the shot, immediacy. INSTANT GRATIFICATION. Fact. The term is recognized by most digital photographers. It is immaterial when the you look at it, an hour later or a week later. The FACT is that is what most folks do after most shots. If you think I have believe that the approach to crafting an image described tha twe are led to employ with film is somehow superior technically, you are absolutely right. It has nothing to do with some old debate about film/digital, it has to do with crafting an image. And guess what, when I have the time and the shot calls for it, I do it with digital. I don't have that option at $ 2 a click with film. Is glancing at the lcd and blinkies strike you as technically rigorous? Do you really think Ansel used a meter only to get an incident reading and set his camera? No he was taking many reflective readings and placing a particular tone in a particular zone. Hmm, But he did look at the image on that huge piece of glass at the back of his camera before taking the shot. It was like looking at the image on an 8x10 lcd. I wonder if he said ooh and aah then? So the gratification from large format could actually take place BEFORE the shot is taken. Now that should be good for 5 pages of discussion.
  

[tomspielman]

Hmm, But he did look at the image on that huge piece of glass at the back of his camera before taking the shot. It was like looking at the image on an 8x10 lcd. I wonder if he said ooh and aah then? So the gratification from large format could actually take place BEFORE the shot is taken. Now that should be good for 5 pages of discussion.

 

I confess to sometimes doing a little oohing and aahing when looking through the finder of my TLR. Very different from squinting with one eye through the viewfinder of an SLR. Not 8 X 10 but on a bright day it's almost like looking at a large, square LCD. ;)