Does film, as a medium, get in the way of shooting?

[PatB]

It’s something I have been pondering over. I feel like I definitely take less risks when I shoot film, the photos are less dynamic & safer compositionally, expressions more static. I feel like I should specify that this musing of mine is around people photography and personal documentary, not landscape.

I do not have the habit of spraying when I shoot digital but I was looking at a friend’s actor portfolio shoot she had done recently where she received 1800 photos (from what was a 2-hour shoot with a few changes for different looks) to sort through – made me think that there was no way you could do that on film… Were the results worth it? Probably, she did get some good shots, but was it a calculated method or a controllable(?) accident? And does it matter, if the results were good in the end.

These days I do not shoot film for assignments, sold all film equipment when it suddenly resurfaced and gained popularity in late 2010s. It became too ubiquitous for the wrong reasons, a medium for the medium’s sake, a mannerism which was perceived as a way to turn into an artist. WHile it contributed to the decision, this was not the main reason, though, I simply felt analogue got in the way. Suddenly, shooting digital only felt liberating: lower costs, not having to change rolls and spoiling the flow, iso limitations, spending more time on scanning and processing than on the creative process/research/generating ideas.

These days I only have a single analogue camera which I use for personal people photography or travel. It’s a Rolleiflex: one camera, one lens, one film stock (BW), own processing & scanning – eliminating choices and focusing on the subject feels like the right approach to me at this stage, but the results are still much, much more careful when compared to digital. When shooting film, I frequently feel I should have pressed that shutter even though the framing/moment/expression was not quite perfect but the gut feeling was there; as a consequence, with analogue I seem to wait longer, sometimes missing the shot entirely. 

What about you, does shooting film make you shutter shy?

 

[SCL]

Not shutter shy. I use both film and digital equally easily...just different tools to accomplish the same task. I think, other than costs or aesthetics, people overthink which to use.

[paddler4]

I gave up film entirely, after decades of film photography. I don't see enough upside to warrant the big downsides.

I do think that digital encourages people to spray and shoot without thinking enough. However, there's an easy solution that doesn't require film: stop and think before shooting. 

I once spent a day with a top tier professional landscape photographer who was shooting only digital. When we got to a location, some of the novices would start clicking away. The pro walked around for quite a while, scoping out the situation and thinking about possible compositions, before he took a single shot. 

[Robin Smith]

Speaking for myself, my background in film does mean I don't run and shoot like I might if I had always worked with digital. I was always an economical shooter using film, and this habit has been carried over to digital. I think this is artistically not the best. Experimenting is usually good and now there is no penalty in taking more shots it may pay you to do so. I fight against my instinctive caution all the time.

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

It seemed back when film was the basic medium, and relatively much less expensive, the advice given was that the cost of film was the least of your expenses so don't worry about being overly conservative in your picture choices. Of course that pales in comparison to the advent of digital photography where there's no extra expense in taking photos except for editing time, which can be important.  But I've never been a "spray and pray" type of photographer as I usually don't shoot sports where that can be useful.  I also have never shied away from taking a "hoper" shot with either medium.  Today with the cost of film and developing, unless B&W at home, plus changing film when shooting, people are probably a more picky in shot selection with film.

[conrad_hoffman]

Back when I shot film I didn't waste the stuff, but wasn't that frugal either. It was cheap. OK, I bought 100' rolls of black and white and processed myself, so quite cheap. I just got beaten up around the head and shoulders over at dpreview for dissing the release of some new Kodak color neg films. Apparently I'm a small-minded hater. I can't imagine why anybody would shoot the stuff today, given the very high cost and technical limitations. I hadn't looked at film prices in a while, but WOW! I've sold all my 35mm gear because the format just doesn't do it for me. If I want to shoot 4x5 color, it's looking like about $7 per shot, plus processing. I'm good enough, but not so good that every shot is a winner. That price puts it firmly in the past. Black and white I can still manage.

Edited October 25, 2022 by conrad_hoffman

[samstevens]

25 minutes ago, conrad_hoffman said:

Apparently I'm a small-minded hater.

The price of having a different opinion on the internet. 🙁

[Rick Helmke]

I shoot film in three formats simply because I want to. Digital has its advantages but can make one sloppy, figuring if they spray and pray they’ll likely get something useful eventually. When film was all we had I carried a bunch of it. I paid attention to how close to the end of the roll I was and could change rolls before the next play in a football game. The nice thing about digital though is that I can download to my laptop, edit as needed and email images back to the newsroom which makes deadlines less stressful. Still, if I want to do serious work I mostly go with medium or large format film in b&w, take my time and open my eyes. In the field or the darkroom it’s a completely different way of working.

 

Rick H.

[Gary Naka]

It depends . . .

If you THINK about the shot, then film or digital, no difference.
But as was mentioned, digital makes it "free" to take several alternate pics, vs. just ONE shot.

I you use digital as "spray and pray," then film gets in the way of that kind of shooting.
The problem that I have with S&P is that the photog uses volume to make up for lack of skill.  "If I shoot enough, there should be something good in there."

Now for sports, for ME, different story.
Digital and the ability to take LOTS of pics and throw out LOTS of rejects, makes getting the gems a lot easier.
Is it S&P, not really, cuz you have to still know what you are doing.
Ever try shooting baseball to get the ball "just" touching the bat.  There is a LOT of trial and error to get that shot.
And I don't have to worry about hitting the end of the roll of film, in the middle of a play, and missing the key moment.

About people photography, specifically portraiture.
In the past, good studio photographers would spend time with the subject getting the light just right.
Today, in the few chain studios that I saw.  They use an fixed umbrella, take a shot, and "next customer."  I see very little skill.

[samstevens]

17 minutes ago, Gary Naka said:

It depends . . .

If you THINK about the shot, then film or digital, no difference.
But as was mentioned, digital makes it "free" to take several alternate pics, vs. just ONE shot.

I you use digital as "spray and pray," then film gets in the way of that kind of shooting.
The problem that I have with S&P is that the photog uses volume to make up for lack of skill.  "If I shoot enough, there should be something good in there."

Now for sports, for ME, different story.
Digital and the ability to take LOTS of pics and throw out LOTS of rejects, makes getting the gems a lot easier.
Is it S&P, not really, cuz you have to still know what you are doing.
Ever try shooting baseball to get the ball "just" touching the bat.  There is a LOT of trial and error to get that shot.
And I don't have to worry about hitting the end of the roll of film, in the middle of a play, and missing the key moment.

About people photography, specifically portraiture.
In the past, good studio photographers would spend time with the subject getting the light just right.
Today, in the few chain studios that I saw.  They use an fixed umbrella, take a shot, and "next customer."  I see very little skill.

This is an unbelievable rationalization for, when I do it, it’s ok, but when you do it, it’s due to lack of skill. It’s not called spray and pray in sports but it is in other endeavors. Got it. 
 

You want to take lots of shots in rapid succession at a sporting event, I totally understand. But that doesn’t change the fact that, as the kids nowadays say, it is what it is. 
 

Me, I started being serious with digital. Was never the spray and pray type. Don’t judge others one way or the other for how they work. I’m more interested in the photos they show me. 

Edited October 26, 2022 by samstevens

[PatB]

Thanks for the replies & thoughts.

 

I placed the observation in the context of people photography & personal documentary as something like sport or wildlife photography is driven by different techniques and, like you guys pointed out, trial and error & high frame rates due to extremely rapid changes are extremely beneficial and inherent to that genre of photography, this is where digital shines, no doubt.

 

But coming back to my friend’s shoot, the photographer asked for an expression/pose and then ‘machine-shot’ that at a horizontal or vertical axis with sight angle changes as the actress was coming in and out of it. It was 1800 frames without blinkers which must have been excluded as you are bound to get those with such an approach. So 1800 frames in 35mm terms = 50 rolls of film, 112 rolls of 6x4.5 film, 150 rolls of 6x6, 180 of 6x7 etc. unlikely during film days for a low profile commercial shoot, completely unfeasible financially now. Don’t get me wrong I am not criticizing that approach just making an observation. For an actor’s shot, unlike for a model who should be able to hold a pose / expression naturally and on cue, actors expressions are more dynamic and in constant flow, perhaps the photographer was emulating camera movement? Which creates another issue on whether the actor would be able to repeat that expression or was it merely captured by accident? Models, for instance, sometimes put happy smiley accidents in their portfolios where you know this was definitely a one off, not a true reflection of their posing skills. But, for an actor, it might get them the audition they are after, so, again, it is the end result that counts (despite the fact that giving a client 1800 frames to sort through could be considered lazy or even self-discrediting by some).  

 

I have witnessed the positive effect of the shutter clicking away in portrait/people photography first hand many times. Sometimes pressing the shutter when the expression is not even there is a way to relax the subject, to give them reassurance that they are doing fine. It loosens them up and often contributes to much more natural results. I once had a bit of a model meltdown when she thought she was not performing well because my frame rate was low. We were working on expressions, I was directing her, trying different poses, moving in and out of them, and I had communicated that approach ahead of our shoot. It turned out she was not used to that mode of working, explaining that generally people just shoot away even if she is not ready, often even when she is merely preparing/changing. As she specialised in nude photography (working mainly with PurplePort crowd) that triggered some unnerving thoughts…

 

I think that both the financial aspect of shooting film and the amount of work that goes into developing/scanning to even consider a frame inhibit my instinct. I definitely see as some sort of an interference which I feel I should try to counter to develop as a photographer. It is not going to stop me using film but will be a tweak to the way I shoot analogue. On the flip side, the amount of keepers I tend to get per roll of 6x6 film is 40-50% on average already. Not necessarily technically good shots, but ones that elicit some sort of emotional reaction from the viewer, ones that are engaging. I think an obvious way forward would be to simply allow (force) myself to take at least a couple of frames when the instinct dictates (2? 3? 4 shots?) and the shooting opportunity lasts long enough, without any remorse at the editing stage, take it as experimentation, to see if the dynamics in the analogue photographs change through that approach.

 

It took 28,000 initial shots to produce Robert Frank’s “The Americans” (83 final photographs), but then there was no digital alternative, I wonder if it had been any different if it was around then. 

 

Some good insights into both the shooting (working the scene/subject) and then the editing process are: “Magnum Contact Sheets” and “Contact High: 40 Years of Rap and Hip-hop Photography”. It is obvious that the photographers certainly did not rock up and with their brilliant eye took a single “money shot” and that it was always a process which involved multiple takes, but not excessive amount of photos.

Edited October 26, 2022 by PatB

[AlanKlein]

I think a lot depends if you're a pro or amateur and the type of photography  I'm an amateur who takes landscapes.  I have time to think , walk around, changes angles, etc.  So film slows me down to do just that instead of shooting right away as I would do with a P&S digital which I use when I'm traveling on vacation.  Back when there was only film, I would shoot a dozen rolls of 35mm over a ten day vacation.

 

The process of handling a film camera, loading film, scanning, etc. is part of the fun of film photography.  I like to get nice results.  But I'm not depending on it earning me  a living.  I will bracket exposures especially with medium format.  But obviously no spraying and praying with film.  

[samstevens]

12 minutes ago, AlanKlein said:

So film slows me down to do just that

Can’t you slow yourself down if you want to? That’s no knock on film. I get that it feels a certain way to film shooters and I get the significance of that. I don’t get the lack of control digital seems to encourage or demand, especially for and in the minds of film users.

 

2 hours ago, PatB said:

I think that both the financial aspect of shooting film and the amount of work that goes into developing/scanning to even consider a frame inhibit my instinct. I definitely see as some sort of an interference which I feel I should try to counter to develop as a photographer. It is not going to stop me using film but will be a tweak to the way I shoot analogue. On the flip side, the amount of keepers I tend to get per roll of 6x6 film is 40-50% on average already. Not necessarily technically good shots, but ones that elicit some sort of emotional reaction from the viewer, ones that are engaging. I think an obvious way forward would be to simply allow (force) myself to take at least a couple of frames when the instinct dictates (2? 3? 4 shots?) and the shooting opportunity lasts long enough, without any remorse at the editing stage, take it as experimentation, to see if the dynamics in the analogue photographs change through that approach.

It sounds like you’re fighting with yourself a lot. That, in itself, can be inspiring, if you use it to your advantage. It can also be an obstacle if it gets in your way. It may not be the “fault” of film and digital. It may just mean you’re striving to get out of your own way, which a lot of artists do. Some simple letting go can be a good prescription.

[Ricochetrider]

Hmmm interesting! 
I’ve been shooting mostly film since 2018. Between then & now my mirrorless Olympus has rarely left the house. That said, I did take it on a vacation to Greece in June. While, in the past I would definitely have shot a couple thousand photos, this time I think I came home with about 600-700 digital shots out of which I ended up with maybe 200 or so keepers. I also took my old Lumix LX7 to Maine in September too, again, not going haywire with the spray & pray technique. On both holidays I also shot some film but again didn’t shoot massive amounts with the film cameras either.

Maybe shooting film has slowed me down but the more likely scenario might be that I’ve learned the value of being more conscious about what I’m doing with my camera. I say this b/c I tend not to take a lot of time with my compositions. I see what I want to shoot and pull the trigger- a technique which, I think, has come from always being the person with a camera, having to shoot and then catch back up to either the group or to my GF - who refuses to wait around while I take photos! So while recently I haven’t been shooting crazy numbers of shots, I still haven’t really “slowed down” all THAT much! 😄
 

 

[Edwin Barkdoll]

Not sure about "getting in the way", but I definitely have projects that are virtually impossible using film particularly macro work where I end up stacking a few hundred images into a single, final photo.

I do like Kodak HIE infrared and still have 20 (?) rolls of 36 in the deep freeze but since converting a Nikon D300 to IR I don't miss the film rendition. And what a PItA HIE was to shoot and process!

I am still a conservative shooter – leftover from film days – and I even bracket unnecessarily (thanks Fuji Velvia...).

Even nostalgia died when I finally traded in my Hasselblad XPan for a Nikon Z7.

All in all the convenience, the rapid turnaround, the dynamic range, etc make looking in the rear view mirror a nonevent for me.

[AJG]

1800 photos in 2 hours seems like a lot to me, and probably a lot more than was necessary. When I shot a lot of studio portraits on film, I often found that either the very first shot or the last from a sitting were the best ones, both in my opinion and the client's. Since I often worked with medium format that wasn't a lot of pictures, although I often used a Mamiya press camera with interchangeable backs so that I could shoot a Polaroid test and then go on to multiple rolls of  film once I was satisfied with lighting, etc. As for the basic question, I have never found film to be a barrier to taking pictures.  Cost is certainly a consideration, but not an overwhelming one for me at this point. This seems to me to be one of those personal decisions that we all have to make for ourselves. Both film and digital can make great images--the question is which one works best for you.

[Terryro]

I just enjoy using film. For me it makes me slow down and think about the image I'm making.  My first 35mm camera was purchased while in Vietnam in the 60's.  Went on to college and took every photo class they offered.  Photography has been involved in most of my jobs in my working career.  Digital photography was a means to an end for the last 20 years (some days were diamonds and some were very dark coal). Now that I'm retired I look forward to film photography again, as a therapy for a happier time. I have 18 film cameras and looking forward to making use of each one.   

[AlanKlein]

8 hours ago, samstevens said:

Can’t you slow yourself down if you want to? That’s no knock on film. I get that it feels a certain way to film shooters and I get the significance of that. I don’t get the lack of control digital seems to encourage or demand, especially for and in the minds of film users.

 

It sounds like you’re fighting with yourself a lot. That, in itself, can be inspiring, if you use it to your advantage. It can also be an obstacle if it gets in your way. It may not be the “fault” of film and digital. It may just mean you’re striving to get out of your own way, which a lot of artists do. Some simple letting go can be a good prescription.

Sam, the only digital I have beside my cellphone is a P&S that I take on vacations or road trips because it's small, easy to carry in my pocket, shoots video and stills, and I don't need a tripod.  When I shoot film, I always use a tripod, the equipment is heavy (MF and LF), and it slows me down to think even where to just set up the tripod.  I suppose if I spent a lot on digital equipment I'd do something similar and slow down.  But that's speculating since I don't have that equipment. 

[conrad_hoffman]

Film does offer something that digital doesn't. Film is like buying a lottery ticket. From the time you buy it, to the time they draw the numbers, anything is possible. The sky's the limit. You're just around the corner from being a millionaire. With film, between the button press and the processing, those images will be the best you can imagine. In my case, I become a meld of Ansel Adams and W. Eugene Smith. What I saw with my mind's eye is brilliant, pure genius. It's only after processing that the truth comes out- I'm so-so at best. Great high while it lasted.

[Gary Naka]

20 hours ago, samstevens said:

This is an unbelievable rationalization for, when I do it, it’s ok, but when you do it, it’s due to lack of skill. It’s not called spray and pray in sports but it is in other endeavors. Got it. 
 

You want to take lots of shots in rapid succession at a sporting event, I totally understand. But that doesn’t change the fact that, as the kids nowadays say, it is what it is. 
 

Me, I started being serious with digital. Was never the spray and pray type. Don’t judge others one way or the other for how they work. I’m more interested in the photos they show me. 

Do you think and plan before you shoot, or just shoot?  There IS a difference.

Example 1
If I am shooting a batter and trying to get the ball touching the bat, I have a goal of a specific shot.
vs. just shooting pics of the batter, and see what I get.  

OK both are max FPS shooting, so you are mechanically doing the same thing.

Example2
When I shoot a golfer and I want to capture the club/ball contact, I will shoot at 50fps.  But JUST for that shot.  IOW I have a specific reason to set up that way.
Normally I would be shooting at 10fps or less.  I don't shoot everything at MAX frame rate.

[samstevens]

15 minutes ago, Gary Naka said:

Do you think and plan before you shoot, or just shoot?  There IS a difference.

Sometimes I think and plan. Sometimes I just shoot. There’s a difference. 
 

But I can think and plan or just shoot at a sporting event, when I’m street shooting, or when I’m shooting people. 
 

And, one can spray and pray at a sporting event, on the street, or shooting people. Whether you spray and pray at a sporting event, on the street, or shooting people, you’re spraying and praying. 

[AlanKlein]

1 hour ago, Gary Naka said:

Do you think and plan before you shoot, or just shoot?  There IS a difference.

Example 1
If I am shooting a batter and trying to get the ball touching the bat, I have a goal of a specific shot.
vs. just shooting pics of the batter, and see what I get.  

OK both are max FPS shooting, so you are mechanically doing the same thing.

Example2
When I shoot a golfer and I want to capture the club/ball contact, I will shoot at 50fps.  But JUST for that shot.  IOW I have a specific reason to set up that way.
Normally I would be shooting at 10fps or less.  I don't shoot everything at MAX frame rate.

Gary, How do you handle going through so many pictures afterwards?  It seems like a big burden.

[AlanKlein]

1 hour ago, samstevens said:

Sometimes I think and plan. Sometimes I just shoot. There’s a difference. 
 

But I can think and plan or just shoot at a sporting event, when I’m street shooting, or when I’m shooting people. 
 

And, one can spray and pray at a sporting event, on the street, or shooting people. Whether you spray and pray at a sporting event, on the street, or shooting people, you’re spraying and praying. 

Sam I don't understand your point.  What does it have to do with Gary's post? 

[samstevens]

15 minutes ago, AlanKlein said:

Sam I don't understand your point.  What does it have to do with Gary's post? 

Maybe you haven’t been following the conversation carefully. It was a response not just to his most recent post but toook into account his previous post as well. 

[Jochen_S]

There was a time when DIGITAL(!) slowed us or me at least down. Powershot Pro70, Coolpix 990, that Leica rebadged 1.5MP Fuji, horrible point and wait cameras. My first DSLR took a minute to write 5 frames. I covered concerts shooting a pair of film beaters in between. 

Digital has improved. But we are free to adapt or even forced to procrastinate that. 

Film would surely get into my way since I 'd run out of darkroom stamina after half a dozen prints.