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

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

19 hours ago, PatB said:

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.

I did shoot a fashion show once and I didn't have to machines gun photos.  The fact was that experienced models know how to move from pose to pose, I just had to follow their movement flow sometimes just saying "hold" now and again. They would shift and move into a stance and I would hit the shutter.  It was very fIuid and I was amazed at how good experienced models can be.  Really, they did all the work. I probably had about 5-6 hundred images but it was for about 10 models. 

Edited October 27, 2022 by httpwww.photo.netbarry

[PatB]

Really enjoying reading the contributions to the thread. 

@conrad_hoffman mentioned something I originally expressed in my reply earlier but decided to delete no to muddle the thread. It just confirms it was perhaps relevant. Yes, "the promise" with film. That's yet another interesting aspect. Looking at the digital file could in fact dampen your (or the collaborators) spirit during a shoot if the results are not quite what you were aiming for. With film, as you rightly point out, you just ride that dragon to crash and burn in the end. 🙂 The instant feedback of being able to look at the photo to make sure everything is right is invaluable for commercial work. I always had packs of Fuji FP100 instant film to check the light. And when you got an amazing fleeting expression on the instant print you then had to try to replicate it (if you were lucky) with film, digital, it is just there. first try.

I think it is more challenging to get a decent photograph with film, the artefacts, the grain, the low iso resulting in blur, lack of sharpness inherent to less-than-perfect focusing mechanisms etc.  With digital, on the other hand, it has never been easier to take a stunningly detailed & sharp image.  I feel that photographers pursued a "digital look" (clean, sharp and rainless) during film era, while, ironically, a lot of people look for an "analogue look" with digital. The first wave of ditching analogue equipment en masse in mid 2000s demonstrated that the benefits (sheer image quality and convenience, especially with full frame sensors) simply outweighed everything else. No one wanted the film aesthetic any longer. Remember analogue equipment prices then? A lot of current film photography I see on flickr is "sloppy" by analogue era standards I feel. But, I think it the inherent imperfections are now seen as more desirable. 

I have met a few younger photographers who jumped into film in recent years to label themselves as "artists". Suddenly you had an influx of "analogue photographers" not just "photographers". Some came out disillusioned after a year, as the results were nothing like they were hoping for, the film failed to bring credibility to their work. Just costly, blurry snapshots and a lot of hard work. I think this wave is subsiding now but I also hope the established analogue crowd (including myself) will be enough to justify film manufacturing for decades to come. I love B&W look. I develop & scan everything myself. I also love analogue colour but it is prohibitively expensive I think (maybe because I remember the normal film prices). Fuji 400h was my favourite negative stock for people photography but digital colour can be manipulated at infinitum and modern sensors certainly get me there now and I no longer feel I am compromising anything. 

When I shoot for myself I try to avoid chimping (I am yet to tape the screen a la Leica M-D though) & only review after the moment has passed or at the end of the day. But what I also do is leave the photos on my hard drive for some time and try not edit immediately. This allows me to distance myself from my work emotionally and analyze it afresh later, just like rediscovering photos on a roll of film you had forgotten. I think digital also lacks that reflection stage, where the sheer quantity of photos taken just puts you off, a lot of people flick through them to never revisit. Scanning/printing allows you to contemplate the results more perhaps?  

@Jochen1664876637 Hah, darkroom... developing & scanning is enough, thanks. I used to print B&W but I can't see myself doing it again. I do have a dedicated BW-only printer with a carbon ink set that feels that void. 

@Edwin Barkdoll Went similar route to yours. Also ended up with a Z7, also used to shoot an XPan :). Sold all MF equipment in the end, including a P1 MF digital back I used with my favourite Mamiya RZ system for almost a decade. The quality of modern 35mm combined with modern (Z) lenses and AF precision of mirrorless is astonishing really. So do not get me wrong, I fully recognize digital but because I missed the B&W MF look I decided to get the last & only analogue camera - the Rollei. I am toying with the idea of repurchasing a 35mm compact but my Ricoh GRII has met all my 35mm-look yearnings. The B&W-loaded Rollei in my bag and the Ricoh in my hand for "off the cuff" shots are hard to beat for personal work. Sometimes it's just the Ricoh that goes. 

@Ricochetrider I know exactly how it feel to be "that guy". I recommend ThinkTank Rotation backpacks, this has been a game changer for me. No longer having to say, "hold on, I just need to take my camera out" or  "go on I'll catch up with you" just rotate it on your hip, stop, shoot, done. It is a revolutionary idea in the photo backapck game, I think. 

 @samstevens This merely a casual photo conversation, not constructed to torment myself 🙂. I still continue to shoot but need a tweak as both the image characteristics I described and the "oh I should have pressed it" moments I have had lead me to this self-analysis. 

@httpwww.photo.netbarry Sounds about right Barry. 

Edited October 27, 2022 by PatB

[rodeo_joe1]

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

Short answer: Yes, most definitely. Especially at the learning stage

The longer answer has been expounded already in the previous posts. 

FWIW my personal history with film goes back more than 60 years, and I shot film both for pleasure and work for about 45 of those years. Digital arrived, and I mentally breathed a sigh of relief and moved on and forward; shooting more, and more experimentally. Although I do still prefer a well-composed and considered picture. 

Edited October 27, 2022 by rodeo_joe1

[samstevens]

5 hours ago, PatB said:

With digital, on the other hand, it has never been easier to take a stunningly detailed & sharp image.

That’s never been my goal, even though I’m a digital photographer. My goal is to express something, to share something personal. Stunning is way down the list of qualities that motivate me or that I care about.

 

I don’t find taking a meaningful picture easy at all. I like it that way. It’s part of the reason my keepers are special to me. The “ease” of taking a stunningly, sharp photo sounds like a Canon or iPhone commercial or, worse, that old joke about the impressed viewer of a photo who says to the photographer, “You must have a really good camera.” For me, it’s less the camera or the medium and more the soul and skill of the person using them. I’m more moved by good storytelling, innovation, photographic personality, personal style than I am by sharp details … most of the time.

Edited October 27, 2022 by samstevens

[Ed_Ingold]

Is this a blatant attempt to restart the film v digital debate?

There nothing wrong with film if you don't mind spending $20 per roll (with processing) and waiting 2 weeks to see the results. Oh yes, and changing rolls every 20-36 frames, and wishing you had something faster than ISO 400 indoors.

[Gary Naka]

16 hours ago, AlanKlein said:

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

LONG answer

I may shoot from 500 to 2,000 frames at a game. 
Depending on what camera I use, what I am trying to shoot, how long the game runs, and the sport/game itself.

It is, and I've had to figure out a few ways to streamline the process.

I shoot in JPG, to avoid the extra time effort to do a RAW to JPG conversion.
It is a quality compromise, purely to reduce processing time.

I do it in a few passes

#1 - QUICK cull to delete the obvious bad pics, like: the shot of my foot when I accidentally pressed the shutter, OOF shot of the back of ref when he ran in front of me, etc.
#2 - I sort the pics by jersey number. 
This tells me two things, 1) who has a LOT of pics and 2) who has no/few pics
For sports like tennis, without jersey numbers, I sort based on rank or court number.
#3 - For 2-2, the players with few/no pics, I will go through ALL the pics looking for pics with them in it, and crop out a pic of them. 
Because I shoot for the Athletic Dept, my goal is to get pics of as MANY of the players as I can.
#4 - For 2-1, the players with a LOT of pics.  I will go through their pics and select the best 10-15 to edit.  In a burst of 6 shots, I pick the ONE best shot.  This way I avoid wasting time editing pics that won't make the final cut anyway.  One reason for editing 10-15 is that sometimes I don't find a problem with a pic, until I edit the pic.  So with extra pics, I have a few extra that I can reject.
#5 - When I edit the pics, I do it FAST.  I rarely spend more than a minute on a pic; level, crop, adjust brightness, rename when I save.  1 min per pic x 120 pics = 2 hours.
#5a - I put the jersey number on the front of the file name like for player #5 = 05-ND1_0400.JPG.  This keeps ALL the pics of a player grouped together, so it is easy to find a specific players pics; for the parents, the AD, and me.
#5b - I changed the file number saved by the camera, so that the specific camera is identified. 
Example for Nikon, default is NDS_1234.JPG.  I change it to NDx_1234, where x = the camera number.  Example ND1, ND2, etc.  So by looking at the file name I can tell what camera shot the pic.  This is important when I have to troubleshoot a problem, as I have to know what camera to look at.

#6 - When I assemble the pics for upload, I limit the number of pics per player to 5-10, to limit the size of the upload.  I found an upload of about 100 seems to be the best size.
For large teams like football, with up to 30 players, it will be maybe 5 pics per player.  For small teams like golf, with only 5 players, it will be 10-15 pics per player.
For the large teams, I will often split the upload into two; 1) the individual pics, and 2) multiple player pics and other pics. 
Following are two examples for football:

Individuals
https://carlmontathletics.org/photos/2022-23-football-varsity-vs-santa-clara-17-7-individuals
Multiples
https://carlmontathletics.org/photos/2022-23-football-varsity-vs-santa-clara-17-7-multiple-others

And for Golf:
https://carlmontathletics.org/photos/2022-23-golf-girls-vs-hillsdale

This is the school's athletic dept picture page. 
https://carlmontathletics.org/photos
Game pictures without a name in the title are usually my pictures.
The students put their name into the title.

I made some YT videos that I use for my class, which may also help you:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLeKO26zuJMZusXuSalzFkUn61DciD7aPq

whew

 

Edited October 27, 2022 by Gary Naka

[Gary Naka]

Having said all that, when I get into my non-sport casual photo mode, I shoot in SINGLE SHOT mode.
Sometimes I just take ONE shot of a subject, sometimes a few.  No different than when I shot 35mm film.

2-1/4 or 4x5 different story.  Then I spend a LOT more time on the ONE shot, as I rarely shot more than ONE pic of a subject.
Unless I was JUST shooting that ONE subject, like a car.

Even with digital, I still study the shot before I shoot.  To try to get the best shot possible with the fewest shots.

However, there are sometime when you just don't know.
So I shoot several different shots from different locations/angles, then I can make up my mind later.
Sometimes you may like one shot, and your client/others may like another shot.

[oldwino]

This is an interesting discussion - it brings back memories of lugging around a Nikon F2 with a heavy motor drive and a 250 exposure back. What could that drive do, 4fps? 
Also reminds me that back then, all the 35mm guys wished they could shoot medium format, and all the medium format guys (weddings primarily) shot Mamiya and wished they could afford Contax. And the doctors and lawyers had Hasselblads. 
 

I still enjoy shooting film. I think the cameras were much more interesting to use back then. I do have a few digital cameras, too, because sometimes easy is better. I am pretty sure they all have the “continuous” focus and advance, and probably 100s of frames per second, but I’ve never once used that feature. 

[samstevens]

18 minutes ago, oldwino said:

Also reminds me that back then, all the 35mm guys wished they could shoot medium format, and all the medium format guys (weddings primarily) shot Mamiya and wished they could afford Contax. And the doctors and lawyers had Hasselblads. 

Penis envy meets photography. 🙄

[oldwino]

39 minutes ago, samstevens said:

Penis envy meets photography. 🙄

Not a lot has changed in photography in this regard!

[mjferron]

5 hours ago, Ed_Ingold said:

Is this a blatant attempt to restart the film v digital debate?

There nothing wrong with film if you don't mind spending $20 per roll (with processing) and waiting 2 weeks to see the results. Oh yes, and changing rolls every 20-36 frames, and wishing you had something faster than ISO 400 indoors.

Nah home rolled and developed B&W film maybe $5 and dry in a few hours. 

[AlanKlein]

3 hours ago, Gary Naka said:

LONG answer

I may shoot from 500 to 2,000 frames at a game. 
Depending on what camera I use, what I am trying to shoot, how long the game runs, and the sport/game itself.

It is, and I've had to figure out a few ways to streamline the process.

I shoot in JPG, to avoid the extra time effort to do a RAW to JPG conversion.
It is a quality compromise, purely to reduce processing time.

I do it in a few passes

#1 - QUICK cull to delete the obvious bad pics, like: the shot of my foot when I accidentally pressed the shutter, OOF shot of the back of ref when he ran in front of me, etc.
#2 - I sort the pics by jersey number. 
This tells me two things, 1) who has a LOT of pics and 2) who has no/few pics
For sports like tennis, without jersey numbers, I sort based on rank or court number.
#3 - For 2-2, the players with few/no pics, I will go through ALL the pics looking for pics with them in it, and crop out a pic of them. 
Because I shoot for the Athletic Dept, my goal is to get pics of as MANY of the players as I can.
#4 - For 2-1, the players with a LOT of pics.  I will go through their pics and select the best 10-15 to edit.  In a burst of 6 shots, I pick the ONE best shot.  This way I avoid wasting time editing pics that won't make the final cut anyway.  One reason for editing 10-15 is that sometimes I don't find a problem with a pic, until I edit the pic.  So with extra pics, I have a few extra that I can reject.
#5 - When I edit the pics, I do it FAST.  I rarely spend more than a minute on a pic; level, crop, adjust brightness, rename when I save.  1 min per pic x 120 pics = 2 hours.
#5a - I put the jersey number on the front of the file name like for player #5 = 05-ND1_0400.JPG.  This keeps ALL the pics of a player grouped together, so it is easy to find a specific players pics; for the parents, the AD, and me.
#5b - I changed the file number saved by the camera, so that the specific camera is identified. 
Example for Nikon, default is NDS_1234.JPG.  I change it to NDx_1234, where x = the camera number.  Example ND1, ND2, etc.  So by looking at the file name I can tell what camera shot the pic.  This is important when I have to troubleshoot a problem, as I have to know what camera to look at.

#6 - When I assemble the pics for upload, I limit the number of pics per player to 5-10, to limit the size of the upload.  I found an upload of about 100 seems to be the best size.
For large teams like football, with up to 30 players, it will be maybe 5 pics per player.  For small teams like golf, with only 5 players, it will be 10-15 pics per player.
For the large teams, I will often split the upload into two; 1) the individual pics, and 2) multiple player pics and other pics. 
Following are two examples for football:

Individuals
https://carlmontathletics.org/photos/2022-23-football-varsity-vs-santa-clara-17-7-individuals
Multiples
https://carlmontathletics.org/photos/2022-23-football-varsity-vs-santa-clara-17-7-multiple-others

And for Golf:
https://carlmontathletics.org/photos/2022-23-golf-girls-vs-hillsdale

This is the school's athletic dept picture page. 
https://carlmontathletics.org/photos
Game pictures without a name in the title are usually my pictures.
The students put their name into the title.

I made some YT videos that I use for my class, which may also help you:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLeKO26zuJMZusXuSalzFkUn61DciD7aPq

whew

 

Gary, That's quite a job you have.  I hardly shoot quantity pictures and still get lost going through them and filing to find again. 

[Gary Naka]

18 minutes ago, AlanKlein said:

Gary, That's quite a job you have.  I hardly shoot quantity pictures and still get lost going through them and filing to find again. 

Oh "filing" is a totally different subject. 
I do not have a perfect solution (I wish), just one that generally works, for ME, and the way that I work.

For school I file by the date of the event + description.

Example the file structure in the attached pic.

 

If you want a pic of a specific student; you have to tell me the sport they played in, their jersey number, and the games that they played in.

If you just tell me the name, I have no way to find that student.

Edited October 27, 2022 by Gary Naka

[Nick D.]

"Does film, as a medium, get in the way of shooting?" - yes.

Film just like old classic car, nice, expensive, has some specific charm in it. But when you look at specs,  it just can't beat new more powerful, more advanced technology.

[q.g._de_bakker]

And how does that get in the way?

[invisibleflash]

OP...I would generally agree with you.

I statred with film in the late 60's. I gave it up in early 2000's. I still work with a ton of film in the Archive. But for my personal work, I'm very happy with digital. 

Edited October 28, 2022 by invisibleflash

[Ed_Ingold]

7 hours ago, mjferron said:

Nah home rolled and developed B&W film maybe $5 and dry in a few hours. 

B&W is fun and easy. Color development is much harder, and the chemicals not that easy to come by either. Bleach and fixer are usually combined as "Blix", which does a poor job clearing the emulsion. I've done my share, but now I would leave it to a lab.

[za33photo]

No....I use both film and digital camera's , and enjoy using both , there is no difference in how I shoot.

I however have to "ration" my use of film as it is rather expensive nowadays 😄.

 

[JDMvW]

Long before the ease and lower cost of digital recording, the same question was debated under the rubric of "overshooting"

 

(You see, 35mm was so much quicker, cheaper, and easier than large format film)

here from Popular Photography in July of 1957 is

Overshoot? 1957-09 PP.pdf

Edited October 28, 2022 by JDMvW

[JDMvW]

35mm was the equivalent of "digital" in the 1930s.

There were great numbers of articles in the press about quality of image, ease of shooting, etc......

[samstevens]

The 2020s is desperately trying to be the 1930s all over again. Unfortunately, in several ways, it’s succeeding.

[mikemorrellNL]

W.r.t. to the OP's question, I (as an exclusively digital photographer) seriously doubt whether whether film gets in the way of shooting. I firmly belive that different cameras and image capture media are just tools that enable (video)photographers to produce the results that they want to achieve under different circumstances.

I agree that the quality of images shot on film is qualitatively different to those shot digitally. And I love the quality of film images! In my opinion, there are certain genres - and shooting situations - that just look better when shot with film than digitally.

The converse is also true. Digital 'burst photos' enable the very best sport and action photo's to be selected from the 'burst'. IHMO this is not 'spraying'. I (voluntarily) take photos at events and interviews. For 80% of the time, my camera just hangs on my shoulder. Whenever I anticipate that 'something is about to happen', I take a 'burst' of photos. Mainly to ensure that I have at least 1 photo of my subjects with their eyes open, preferably smiling and with some kind of expressiveness (face/gestures).

TBH, I would have no idea how to capture this kind of images on film. But I would be up for capturing (static) portraits on film.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Burst rate/photography is mentioned often in this discussion. And yes, if you want to, or need to, take 100s of images in a few minutes (seconds), digital is more convenient and cheaper than film.

Is that the full scope of the question? Is not being able to, or afford to, shoot that many frames in such a short time the definition of getting in the way?

 

Film and digital are different in many ways. Digital sensors differ from each other in almost as many ways as brands and types of film did/do. There is much to choose between, and from that variety of options some will suit what you want better than other options. But when does an option "get in the way"?

[samstevens]

8 minutes ago, q.g._de_bakker said:

But when does an option "get in the way"?

Good, pertinent question. 
 

My answer: When you let it or you want it to, often guided by a prejudgment or agenda. 

[Ed_Ingold]

"Burst Rate" applies to sports and event photography, not landscapes, portraits or travel. A burst of 3-6 images has a much better chance of producing a "keeper" image of a moving subject than a single shot, however well timed. In that universe, you're paid for keepers, not good intentions.