The Empty Mind -- film vs. digital

NickTrop said:
It's the other way around.

It's not that shooting digital results in "empty mind" photography.

It's that you must have an "empty mind" to shoot digital photography.
Click to expand...
I see. Your preferences are deeply thought out, while those of others are unthinking. Right.

I hope you're joking. If you are, then I am :D But if you're not then I'm not :mad:

...Mike
 
kevin m said:
The fact that I actually used a pair of Leica M's professionally means nothing, does it? All one has to do is simply question the myth of Leica's supremacy as a silent, compact, take-anywhere camera and the darts come flying. This place too often resembles a house of worship more than it does a forum.

My point is that if one's camera is too heavy/bulky, too fragile or too valuable to take EVERYWHERE, then perhaps that particular camera is a limitation on one's photography. If one's CAMERA is more precious than the images it takes, perhaps one has the cart leading the horse, n'est-ce pas?

It ain't 1954 anymore.
Click to expand...

I agree. The camera should be seen as an usable tool. My M3 is beat up and I'm gonna modify this so I feel that this is no longer "valuable", precious for me. So it makes much easier for me to make photography without any compromises.

When I said plastic, I thought more about weather sealings.

Regarding weight, I found that a designated body of 600gram (like M) is optimal weight compared to smaller of 200gram especially when you take shoots at dark places. I don't think you can get usable images with slower shutter timings if you use 400gram Rolleiflex TLR either. So form follows function (remember saab advertisement?) :D
 
For good or ill I have followed my friend's suggestion and put the M6 aside this past week in favor of the Nikon D200. I made around 100 exposures that I consider within the 3 Prints Project. It's definitely different and I will continue to alternate weekly between film and digital. There is really no way for me to predict where it will lead. Too much to consider right now as I look at them but I will post them on my blog late Monday.

I did drag the D200 around with me most of the week and was mostly happy I didn't break it. There is a lot more to bang around than with the Leica.

Thanks again for your input.
 
KM-25 said:
I shoot both, about equally, professionally.

With film, I make the judgement call, frame it, wait for the right moment, click and then move on to the next frame.....that is the key thing, with film, I make the current image and then I move on. I have faith in what I just did and don't even feel the need to chimp.

...

For every time you look at the back of the digital camera, it points your head downward, away from the world, the moment and the life that you live and places you in the past, not the present that will give you the best opportunities for meaningful images.
Click to expand...

It's interesting to hear a clearly experience professional photographer say this. One who has extensive experience with film.

My own journey from digital to film taught me how I was using digital (photoshop, RAW, and the LCD) as a crutch. Shooting film taught me to do away with that. I tell this to people and they say you could do the same with digital - set your camera to manual, turn of the LCD. Who actually does that though?
 
Steve Williams said:
Since the end of November I have committed myself (along with a friend) to shoot two rolls of film each week, process, and make three silver prints. At the end of January I started posting the results on my Vespa blog (a Vespa and Leica are similar) and until this past week was quite satisfied with the process.

You can see the 3 Prints Project posts HERE

The key word for this post is process.

Another friend and serious photographer cautioned me about becoming enamored with process and suggested that passion for what I see should be driving me and not the warm fuzzy feelings I get being in the darkroom (yes...*sigh*).

And he went on to suggest that not only might I be hobbled by the process but shooting film might keep me from reaching the Empty Mind, the place where I can let go of my expectations and preconceptions and really begin to see.

Words from him are not something I take lightly. And I have considered carefully how I work with film. Looking at my contact sheets it's obvious that I am careful tripping the shutter and work with what is familiar and comfortable. I don't take risks and don't push. He could see it. (*******)

Ever the rationalizer I suggested that if I wasn't getting the warm fuzzies from the camera and process I wouldn't be shooting. He conceded my point but told me that it did not remedy my careful view of things.

So I have been second-guessing myself for the past week. I parked the M6 in the Domke bag and have been carrying the Nikon D200 with a 20mm lens around. I use it professionally but never much personally. It's a beast in comparison and I don't feel comfortable with it. Strange considering how much I use it otherwise. But there is no doubt that I am face to face with my narrow approach and predisposition with the Leica.

I can't turn this around in my head any longer. (Well, I could but don't want to). So aside from venting existentially I was wondering if any of you have run into a similar fork in the road?

Have any of you long time informal shooters made the transition to a digital SLR and found new freedom? Or new paths?

I carried the Leica everywhere. The D200 is a pig but carry it I do. But I feel myself hating it.

Will this pass?
Click to expand...
I just can't find fault in your post, beside the fact that you're questioning yourself. What is wrong with process ? In today's day and age, is that not at least part of the reason why we choose to shoot film ? The fact of the matter is, that is what makes the two types of photography different from each other, why IMO, the question is not an either/or, but a when to use what.

Enjoy both.
 
Your friend is wrong to tell you how you should be thinking or feeling. If the process is what brings you to photography, and that's what makes you happy, then that's what you should do! I'm one of those process people, and I'm fine with it! Relax and enjoy.
Vic
 
My, My....My ! Well for what ever it's worth let me through another way of looking at this whole arugement. It is very similar to the Sail vs Power "boats" or another even better angle is the differentce between vintage vs modern propeller aircraft or Prop vs Jet. Digital is final step in the evoultion of the "groof proof" consumer markeing goal going back almost 50 years.

Film requires that you are "piloting" the creative concept every step of the way from take off to landing and the whole time you flying. Your totally responsible for eveything , tacking, sail management and it is all done by......"The Seat of your Pants" No ABS or Auto Pilot, no Crash Avoidanve Systems.

Digital is like playing a video racing game on you Wii or PS3 Back when I was a student,,,,not all that long ago. No one would ever think of claiming credit for a print that came off a automatic lab machine. Now days Digital is making it so the people who are really caught up in it feeling as if they are actually creating something. This is not true. For most of them can not even focus.!!

Auto Focus is really the biggest proof how far down on the passive free ride society the majority if the consumers have moved down. Hell even F-1 dropped traction control and computer conrtolled suspensions because the drivers were not actually responsible for their performance.

When you using film there is no safety net......Crap in Crap Out ! Your skill and Karama is what you get for your final print. It's a high wire act but failure is the best teacher.

Best regards.....Laurance
 
sonofdanang said:
Well, I do. And, from what I see at other events where I'm working with other photographers, so do many others. If your shooting action, looking at the LCD is a real liability - chimping = missing the shot.
Click to expand...

Cool. I don't think I've ever seen someone do this...
 
larmarv916 said:
My, My....My ! ...
Click to expand...
Back in the day, when we wanted to communicate ideas, we would type it up with our IBM Selectric, and then mimeo off a few hundred copies and mail them out to a bunch of friends and acquaintances. That would get the ideas across, because they could actually HOLD our words in their hands.

Any hack can do this internet stuff. We don't even have to use our real names. What kind of commitment or talent does this take?
 
Back when the IBM Selectric was in it's years of prime power as the communitaction tool of choice. Most of the memo's that went out the door were never seen by the intended target. The secratary of other office gard dogs. Filtered out the daily mail and maybe....it got to it's group of intended targets.

I do not have a problem with people choosing a particulart tool for gemeration of photo images. what Iam saying is that the medium is not the same. When all of the actual accountability or risk for the final image is handled by a software program that corrects for all of the actual faults of the lens or takes over the vast bulk of actual decisions for the end product.

If digital is the tool of choice for someone else that is fine but do not say that the process of creative birth or output is the same. A painter and a digital photographer do not have the same skill levels for reaching the similar final goal. That is lke saying a digital 3D sculpture from a cad scaned sample is the same as the one generated by one EYE and Hammer of a single artist.

I can remmeber many authors of paper memos that we negative reaction came back would disavow that the memo had been incorrectly released without their permission. Think back to Watergate and several other paper based scandals where the authors swore......"Hey man I didnt write. that" !!

When the human element is removed from the actual creative birth and delivery and the skill gets down to push this button and walk away....As in email your flash drive or FedEx it to some art director thousaands of miles away so they can choose 1 or 2 images from the 500 shot during a couple of hours...Well you get my point.

35mm was still a film media....digtal is almost a robotic simulation process. Iam not lossing sleep over this idea and for those who need it actually they enhance the world view of film as a art from.
 
omg dude. Wow. I read your page back in August when I was mulling over buying a vespa. Because of you I kept debating the merits of a GTS versus the LX. Weird to see you frequent another forum. I ended up getting a black LX 150 by the way. My ex ended up taking a photo 1 class and her personal project was on vespas. She was the one pushing hard for me to get one because she had one. And then because of her for some odd reason I end up taking shots of vespas whenever I pass by one.

As for film versus digital. However you shoot is how you shoot. Personally. I find myself in the opposite position. I often grab my M7 over my digital M8. The only time I use it is when I'm on a deadline, or just goofing around or when I know they're just going to be shots for the internet. Otherwise, it's always my M7 in the camera bag when I'm out the door. And I don't hesitate at all because it's film. I think that argument is just silly. No personal offense intended. But I simply don't think that way. There are times I'm checking over my fresh negs and it's like two rolls of the same thing. If it's cost prohibitive, I can understand that. Then maybe the D200 is best for you. If it's the time spent on processing. Maybe you should just start taking your stuff to a lab to get it processed. There's no shame in that.
 
swoop said:
omg dude. Wow. I read your page back in August when I was mulling over buying a vespa. Because of you I kept debating the merits of a GTS versus the LX. Weird to see you frequent another forum. I ended up getting a black LX 150 by the way. My ex ended up taking a photo 1 class and her personal project was on vespas. She was the one pushing hard for me to get one because she had one. And then because of her for some odd reason I end up taking shots of vespas whenever I pass by one.

As for film versus digital. However you shoot is how you shoot. Personally. I find myself in the opposite position. I often grab my M7 over my digital M8. The only time I use it is when I'm on a deadline, or just goofing around or when I know they're just going to be shots for the internet. Otherwise, it's always my M7 in the camera bag when I'm out the door. And I don't hesitate at all because it's film. I think that argument is just silly. No personal offense intended. But I simply don't think that way. There are times I'm checking over my fresh negs and it's like two rolls of the same thing. If it's cost prohibitive, I can understand that. Then maybe the D200 is best for you. If it's the time spent on processing. Maybe you should just start taking your stuff to a lab to get it processed. There's no shame in that.
Click to expand...

Definitely a small world.

The Vespa and the camera seem like a natural pairing, at least to me. Sorry to hear your inspiration for the Vespa is now your ex but at least you still have the scooter.

There is no time or money issue with film or digital. Whenever I struggle it's a mental issue that appears as sloth or laziness with roots too numerous to go into here. The book "Art and Fear" does a good job rounding them up. This week things are going much smoother. Shooting digital this week and have primarily been shooting with the Canon G9. Nice little camera.
 
Nh3 said:

Anyway, I want to be prepared and focused and wait for the right subject. So, I guess what you need is to findout the right subject for you and then give it all.
Click to expand...

NH3: I've read your post a number of times and it has a lot of things in it that resonate with me. Determining the what the right subject is for me is a real challenge. Waiting doesn't work for me. I just need to slog on and make pictures until something touches a creative chord.

Ah photography...
 
interesting read. I have gone from film to digital and back. I found firing the shutter was too easy with digital. Even though I would take shots I passed up on film, but I also put less thought into them. Film teaches you to think and therefore to see since you see with your mind, not your eyes....
 
Seriously, I used to hem and haw about which camera to use and had all these idealistic phases where Mamiya ruled, then Hasselblad ruled, then Nikon manual ruled, then Leica ruled, etc. I don't really think the camera matters at all, it's all in your mind. It's your mind's eye that captures the image initially. All the camera does is record it. Your skill refines it. My work hasn't gotten better or worse due to the camera I use, my mind just adapts to the medium and I have an image. How you work it (i.e. film, digital, photoshop, darkroom) is irrelevant to the final image.

I don't expect people on a film forum to be open to such a suggestion, in fact, most here would consider not putting a camera on a pedestal to be blasphemy. The camera is not important, the mind is the key. This is not to say that you shouldn't master your tools, but one tool is not the key to unlocking anything Zen-like. It's when you accept that these tools are just extensions of your mind, then you will become a photographer and not a camera stroker.
 
Ara Ghajanian said:
Seriously, I used to hem and haw about which camera to use and had all these idealistic phases where Mamiya ruled, then Hasselblad ruled, then Nikon manual ruled, then Leica ruled, etc. I don't really think the camera matters at all, it's all in your mind. It's your mind's eye that captures the image initially. All the camera does is record it. Your skill refines it. My work hasn't gotten better or worse due to the camera I use, my mind just adapts to the medium and I have an image. How you work it (i.e. film, digital, photoshop, darkroom) is irrelevant to the final image.

I don't expect people on a film forum to be open to such a suggestion, in fact, most here would consider not putting a camera on a pedestal to be blasphemy. The camera is not important, the mind is the key. This is not to say that you shouldn't master your tools, but one tool is not the key to unlocking anything Zen-like. It's when you accept that these tools are just extensions of your mind, then you will become a photographer and not a camera stroker.
Click to expand...
I'll respectfully disagree. I believe what works for you or me may have little bearing on what works for another. There are many paths to the same destination.

While I agree that the mind is the important part I do not think you can dismiss the tools as unimportant. Each brings it's own character to the creative process. If we were all equally emotion-free then perhaps you would be correct in your larger statement. The tools, environment, and media in which we work affects what we do. I've seen painters and photographers who can only function amidst chaos and materials that would drive me mad.

I don't think we disagree on how one becomes a photographer. We just see things differently on the affect tools might have on how we get there. What works for you might not for someone who is not you. The real challenge might be can they see if it's not working? And if it's not where do they look for the solution? The mind does not work in a vacuum or in absolutes.

Working professionally I work much like you do. I use whatever camera I need to render my vision. I will make mental leaps of technology and gear to achieve my goals. For personal work I am navigating the world differently and generally sketching with a camera and not producing images in the same manner as I do for money. And that process is just different.

Anyways, thanks for your thoughtful words Ara. There is much to consider.
 
The digital process just doesn't excite me in the way a darkroom does. The whole experience of the wet process is just more enjoyable for me. I'm not against digital and shoot a fair amount but that whole post processing thing is just a bit dull. The fact you have to get so many parts of the process sorted from the monitor, the printer, software etc and then it all needs upgrading at some point.

I find it easier to get in the zone when out with a film camera and it seems to me a function of my character or personality. Each to his own and the realisation for me that its wasn't just about the picture was fine. I came late to photography, it has been a delight to find how it makes me think about the world and my view of it in a way that my music making never really did. Maybe its just because its new but for the moment I love the whole process and the way my interaction with it evolves.

It'll be a cold day in hell if I ever have to give up the darkroom but if I never touched Photoshop again it wouldn't bother me.

Great post Steve and its reassuring that other folks roll this stuff around there heads to.
 
I don't understand why one would have to do one or the other. I make complex Photoshop art using scanned film and digital capture, and I shoot a roll of Acros every week on my M cameras. Roger, I think my straight black and white work is more like "empty mind," while the digital collage is more like "cluttered mind." I just got a G1 and am waiting for the Novaflex adapter to arrive from Germany. It's all rich! We make the rules, not to inhibit us, but to push creatively against. All that said, I still prefer film for most things and Leica M cameras.
 

Attachments

  • The Great Wave.jpg
    The Great Wave.jpg
    16.7 KB · Views: 1
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom