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

[kmac]

6 hours ago, q.g._de_bakker said:

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

That's right, and for me, no option gets in the way. However ....

I prefer to shoot film but I still carry my 15mp digital compact with me, and use both depending on the situation or scene.

I've never got into the habit of spraying and praying with either film or digital, just two shots at the most if I have a doubt about the exposure.

Also I've found that often a film shot can be quicker than digital and still pay dividends. I had less than a minute one day not long ago to get a shot of a spectacular ever changing scene, and I chose my film camera, already attached to the tripod, rather than the hassle of going through the settings to get the digital camera ready to shoot, take a test shot or two, and likely miss the shot just at the right moment it needed to be taken. That film shot did very well, receiving the most Likes I've ever received for any one shot I've posted on PN so far, both digital and film.

Film was much more predictable in that instance, and quicker, just three setting on the film camera, done fairly smartly, and pressed the shutter. The digital camera has Automatic but from my experience with that, nothing is ever the way you want it, except as a snapshot of something relative unimportant.

 

 

[PatB]

17 hours ago, JDMvW said:

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.pdfUnavailable

Some excellent insights in the article which ring true - thanks very much for sharing! Especially regarding the exploration/discovery of the subject through shooting and taking risks in the creative process without a fear of failure. A while back, I decided to simply skip the obvious angle (for personal, not commercial, though), often raising the camera to my eye and not even pressing the shutter (film or digital, no matter), to move to the less banal angle.

The evolutionary 35mm format as the 'digital' when it hit main stream photography when it comes to ease of shooting is a good analogy too. Although, digital as a medium has had an even bigger impact overall no doubt. Phone photography could be at a similar evolutionary stage now as 35mm was back then for the casual shooter, as in the old: "the best camera is the one I have with me".

Edited October 29, 2022 by PatB

[q.g._de_bakker]

So the question really should be: do people tend to shoot (far) too much as soon as doing so becomes easier?

 

The answer, obviously, is 'Yes. They most certainly do.'

And that then gets turned around, formulated as 'Wasn't the old way too restrictive?'

A sign of what? That it used to be hard to do what you needed to? Or that it still needs to sink in that not everything makes sense just because it has become possible?

[Ricochetrider]

19 hours ago, kmac said:

That's right, and for me, no option gets in the way. However ....

I prefer to shoot film but I still carry my 15mp digital compact with me, and use both depending on the situation or scene.

I've never got into the habit of spraying and praying with either film or digital, just two shots at the most if I have a doubt about the exposure.

Also I've found that often a film shot can be quicker than digital and still pay dividends. I had less than a minute one day not long ago to get a shot of a spectacular ever changing scene, and I chose my film camera, already attached to the tripod, rather than the hassle of going through the settings to get the digital camera ready to shoot, take a test shot or two, and likely miss the shot just at the right moment it needed to be taken. That film shot did very well, receiving the most Likes I've ever received for any one shot I've posted on PN so far, both digital and film.

Film was much more predictable in that instance, and quicker, just three setting on the film camera, done fairly smartly, and pressed the shutter. The digital camera has Automatic but from my experience with that, nothing is ever the way you want it, except as a snapshot of something relative unimportant.

 

 

Here's is the exact problem I have with digital cameras: complexity, to an insane degree. To the point where I personally often made the habit of just letting the camera "have it"- because why miss the shot, indeed? Then again, as noted also, above, the camera doesnt always "get it right"! 

If there was a digital camera that had only aperture, ISO and shutter speed with a linked digital screen on it and a decent viewfinder- and little or nothing else, and didnt cost too much (read: thousands; hello: LEICA) it'd probably be a smash hit, especially if the lens(es) were done well. 

 

Film get in the way? Not nearly so much as 10,000 functions in a complex menu do. 

 

 

[samstevens]

20 minutes ago, Ricochetrider said:

complexity

I have a digital Canon 5D MkII

When I first got it, I spent about 3 or 4 hours reading about and checking out the different menus. Over the 6-7 years I've had it, I've maybe spent another hour or two reading up on something or other. I use a very low percentage of the bells and whistles available. I shoot manual, so once I've set it to manual, I'm good to go. Changing from manual to auto focus, which I sometimes do, is a simple switch on my lenses, accomplished by one finger without much effort or thought. Same for my F-stop, shutter speed, and ISO, simple flick of my finger. Seriously, no bell or whistle has ever gotten in my way. I have a hard time understanding how one would. I'm able to completely ignore what I don't want to use. The camera has never once forced its will on me! I'm generally a happy camper and spend my time taking and editing pictures, not worrying about technology or obstacles, except for the occasional low-hanging tree branch I walk into or curb I miss because I'm concentrating on street action. 

😊

Edited October 30, 2022 by samstevens

[kmac]

32 minutes ago, samstevens said:

Seriously, no bell or whistle has ever gotten in my way. I have a hard time understanding how one would. I'm able to completely ignore what I don't want to use. The camera has never once forced its will on me!

Hence why minimalist digital cameras may be more beneficial to many folk. Only using a few of the vast array of settings in a complex digital cameras results in a feeling of wasting half or more of the camera, sure, they are there if one needs them, but at the end of the day, they never get used, or hardly ever get used.

What I would like in a new digital camera, and not much more, is full manual, auto, ISO from 25 to 1600, panorama stitching, auto white balance, macro, and an excellent viewfinder with light meter display. Zooming could be just optical, with no digital software zooming added, I could never work out why digital cameras have digital software zooming.

I reckon I'd buy a basic camera such as that, if it was good quality, and it wouldn't have to be high mega pixels, just somewhere between 15 to 20.

[samstevens]

34 minutes ago, kmac said:

Only using a few of the vast array of settings in a complex digital cameras results in a feeling of wasting half or more of the camera

Different strokes. I never felt like I was wasting anything. I felt like I was doing my thing with an instrument that was made to accommodate more than just my needs. Same with Photoshop. It has a whole lot of bells, whistles, and slider bars I don’t care to use. But it’s never bothered me that they’re there. Don’t use the cruise control on my car. Don’t use most of the channels my cable tv gives me, don’t watch most things Netflix and Amazon offer, but never minded them being there for other folk who watch them. My new stationary bike has way more features than I need as does my phone as does my new toaster, for goodness sake. If I walked around feeling wasteful for all the techno bells and whistles around that I don’t make use of, I’d be a mess. I choose simply to do what I do in a world that has always offered more than I need, in one way or another. 

Edited October 30, 2022 by samstevens

[Robin Smith]

I'd agree that complexity is an issue with digital, because they have such tremendous capabilities. The ability to assign only the functions you use to a dedicated menu for you, which is available on most current cameras is a good way to relegate the never or rarely used functions to invisibility, but it does take some time and experience before you know what you might want to use and what is pointless for you.

[AlanKlein]

On 10/30/2022 at 12:29 AM, samstevens said:

Different strokes. I never felt like I was wasting anything. I felt like I was doing my thing with an instrument that was made to accommodate more than just my needs. Same with Photoshop. It has a whole lot of bells, whistles, and slider bars I don’t care to use. But it’s never bothered me that they’re there. Don’t use the cruise control on my car. Don’t use most of the channels my cable tv gives me, don’t watch most things Netflix and Amazon offer, but never minded them being there for other folk who watch them. My new stationary bike has way more features than I need as does my phone as does my new toaster, for goodness sake. If I walked around feeling wasteful for all the techno bells and whistles around that I don’t make use of, I’d be a mess. I choose simply to do what I do in a world that has always offered more than I need, in one way or another. 

Spouses can be like that.

[gwhitegeog]

As an educator and someone who taught in the past on Masters photography courses, I could write a book on this and I am sure books have been written.... My view is this: film slows you down but that's probably a good thing technically and creatively. We should not forget that most film cameras are older, often manual focus, with metered manual or aperture priority, etc, manual wind and so on. So, there are a whole bunch of 'barriers' that slow you down anyway, compared to 'spray and pray' digital. Teaching photography is possibly easier with manual and film cameras but then there is the delay of the darkroom process before you can see the results. I have seen incredible, cutting edge digital photography that is both technically and creatively admirable. For me, living in rural Europe, I indulge myself with my collection of Nikon and Canon 35mm cameras (and medium format too) and a fridge load of film, probably for the fun of using these amazing pieces of engineering (that are now 30,40,50 years old) more than any other reason. I shoot 2-3 rolls of 35mm film per month on average. Nonetheless, I have just bought an iPhone 15 Pro and the quality of the camera system is breathtaking.

[JDMvW]

With 20-36 images per roll of 35mm film, I surely did shoot fewer pictures. Sometimes that was good, but with scanning and Photoshop I find that a lot of my old film "duds" can be rescued. I'm now glad I didn't just throw the "others" away.

Between x-rays, heat, and mechanical errors, I certainly have a lot more "keepers" than I did with film

[paddler4]

I don't take huge numbers of photographs with my digital cameras, but I take a lot more than I did with my film cameras. And that's a good thing. I feel free to experiment and take chances without worrying about cost or the number of frames I had left in my camera or my bag. And I can essentially change "films" with the press of a button. No more stopping everything to take out a changing bag, carefully rewinding just enough, inserting another roll, etc.)

The complexity of modern digital cameras is unavoidable: the manufacturers have to spread the costs of development over a wide variety of potential buyers. I don't take videos with my digital cameras, so all of the increasingly sophisticated video capabilities are wasted. I don't even understand some of them. Doesn't bother me in the slightest because I simply ignore those features. They never get in the way of doing what I want to do.

The only time I find the complexity a nuisance is when I buy a new camera and have to spend a few hours figuring out how it works, how to customize it for my needs, and what I can ignore.

What's omitted from this discussion, if I'm not missing something, is the vastly greater control digital gives us. I can do things that I was incapable of doing with analog (e.g., focus stacking), and I can do others vastly more easily and better (tonality adjustments, sharpening, color adjustments, yada yada). I loved my old FTb, which I still have, but I haven't shot a single roll of film since I bought my first DSLR years ago,.

Re people who use digital to shoot far too many images: not my problem. Unlike, say, the many people who misuse the capabilities of cars, they pose no danger. 

[gwhitegeog]

I remember taking a digital photograph in Bruges in 2006. It was almost dark in January. I had a then state of the art Canon EOS 5D with its full frame 12mp sensor, using the 17-40 f4L. I set the camera to 1600 ISO, hand held at 1/50 at f4.5. The outcome was amazing and it was almost a 'conversion on the road to Damascus'. This photograph would have been impossible with film. The scene was almost dark (not that you'd think so from the image. Original RAW converted to TIF. Downsized to JPEG for this post. Gary

[kmac]

Ironically, that shop sells films

[gwhitegeog]

Indeed! A long time ago....