Why I Shoot Film...interesting film missive

One major criticism that seems to be aimed at digital is the ability to blaze away and select keepers post blaze and to hell with the mistakes. I was reading an article about the Nikon F6 which is arguably the most technologically advanced SLR film camera ever made. When designing a successor to the F5 Nikon considered giving it 10 fps capabilty but changed their minds and stuck with eight. So what advantage does didital have here ... none ... you can blaze away mindlessly with film if you so choose but at a price of course ... I'm sure many professional photographers who weren't footing the bill for their cameras or the film did just that!

I don't mind the aticle at all ... it's one person's opinion and he makes that point clear and where the neurosis is within it escapes me!
 
I don't think he's declarative about anything. It's obviously an editorial piece...you don't really read the newspaper and believe everything in there is FACT, do you?

He sums up, in HIS words, why he likes film. I have different reasons, but I happen to feel the process is part of the journey, when I have the luxury of shooting for myself and not an editor's point of view. The grain, tones, missed exposures, soft focus, etc. are all part of that process for me.
 
Geez, there doesn't even seem to be a point in presenting an alternative viewpoint or just expressing a personal opinion here any more. Either way you get sniped at.
I present a highly simplified answer to the debate in my signature now. 'Nuff said.
 
mabelsound said:
"I find that for me" etc. are filler phrases that would weaken the piece, IMO. Obviously it's just his opinion and he's referring to himself. He doesn't have to repeat it over and over, it's inherent in the framing of the essay.

Again, I don't think it's genius or anything, it's just a simple bit of writing explaining why he likes what he does.
Click to expand...


Equating a personal preference with a universal truth is a common human frailty. I read the piece as being more about the characteristics of the writer than about the characteristics of film. As such, he's really describing what he sees as the virtues of film in a specific relationship, i.e., with him. While any assertive piece can be considered to reflect the writer's opinion, it becomes factual and more persuasive when evidence is introduced to expand it beyond the strictly personal. That didn't happen here. That doesn't make any less interesting or valuable.
 
One of the biggest problems in shooting sequences machine gun style, with film or digital, whether two frames per second or twenty, is that you get locked into the camera's sequence of exposures. You can't take the picture BETWEEN the ones being exposed by the camera's automation.
 
Last edited:
and so the author of the essay is the only one entitled to an opinion here it seems.

i think he ascribes way too much to film and underestimates the use of digital.
my opinion as i read his piece.
it seems more self analysis than reality check.

plus, it gets very tired very fast this whole film is creative and digital is clinical crap.

since i started using digital my style, my way of shooting has not changed one iota.

if i were shooting an slr then maybe i could see a change in how i shoot but having stayed with a rangefinder nothing has changed for me.
 
Al Kaplan said:
One of the biggest problems in shooting sequences machine gun style, with film or digital, whether two frames per second or twenty. is that you get locked into the camera's sequence of exposures. You can't take the picture BETWEEN the ones being exposed by the camera's automation.
Click to expand...


So would this keep you happy Al ... 60fps! :eek:
 
back alley said:
plus, it gets very tired very fast this whole film is creative and digital is clinical crap.
Click to expand...
It gets equally tiring when someone declares they prefer film or posts a link to a pro-film article, and the digital-only league jumps all over it. It seems they can't wait to say how tiresome it is and how they can shoot their digital cameras the same way they shot their film cameras etc.
How about you let film lovers celebrate film, and digital lovers can celebrate digital.
Personally, I'm with Bob Michaels and I will try and celebrate images.
 
Al Kaplan said:
One of the biggest problems in shooting sequences machine gun style, with film or digital, whether two frames per second or twenty. is that you get locked into the camera's sequence of exposures. You can't take the picture BETWEEN the ones being exposed by the camera's automation.
Click to expand...

thats a bloody good point Al and i can't let it go un-noticed. i have experienced it myself on numerous occasions.
 
back alley said:
and so the author of the essay is the only one entitled to an opinion here it seems.

i think he ascribes way too much to film and underestimates the use of digital.
my opinion as i read his piece.
it seems more self analysis than reality check.

plus, it gets very tired very fast this whole film is creative and digital is clinical crap.

since i started using digital my style, my way of shooting has not changed one iota.

if i were shooting an slr then maybe i could see a change in how i shoot but having stayed with a rangefinder nothing has changed for me.
Click to expand...

I shoot a DSLR and an R-D1 AND a digi point and shoot, and I shoot them all the same way--I take very few photos, and generally shoot digital as if every frame is costing me money. So I'm with you on this, Joe. But I like film for many of the reasons this guy does. That's why I still shoot it, as well as digital.
 
Considering this started out as someone (innocently?) posting a link to an article they found interesting ... we got to this 'Mexican stand off' stage fairly rapidly!

I wonder if film and digital users will always be this combative? :p
 
Keith said:
Considering this started out as someone (innocently?) posting a link to an article they found interesting ... we got to this 'Mexican stand off' stage fairly rapidly!

I wonder if film and digital users will always be this combative? :p
Click to expand...
My vinyl reissue of Pet Sounds totally kicked the ass of some wimpy CD yesterday!
 
I am sorry but it is just a badly written article by someone who thinks everybody is a fool. that is my take on it, has nothing to do with the content. The delivery is just horrible.
 
A classic case of the "picture between the pictures" was at a baseball game and this newspaper photographer I knew had just gotten a motor drive for his Nikon F. This was back in the 1960's. He started shooting as the batter aproached home plate. The sequence shows the catcher preparing to catch the ball as the batter starts sliding to home plate and ends with the ball in the catchers mitt and the batter's feet well past home plate. There was no picture showing if he was "safe" or "out". The guys who weren't locked into a sequence ot the shot. He was "out", the ball in the glove, his feet still inches from the plate.
 
I shoot film but this article has nothing to do with why. So its not something I would share with friend to explain. My digital SLR experience is what made me a better photographer allowing me now to good results with my M6. Essentially, at the price point I am willing to spend, film is giving me the best results. I would jump to 100% full frame digital if it could afford an M9.I also have a great little digital P&S which is the right tool for certain occasions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom