ben@btwhite.org
Member
OK, so I won't feed the troll, but I will acknowledge his wit! Well done.
Ben
Tom Diaz
Well-known
That's a fine picture he uses to illustrate his article, and I liked the fact that he discovered it in a contact sheet with 35 other images he didn't like.
However, that could have happened with digital as well so long as you avoid the habit (as I do) of chimping all the time and deleting things.
Basically his rationale for film, which I like too, seems subjective and emotional like some of the other opinions he disparages.
It's mainly some definite, technical, practical features that keep me shooting film some of the time. For instance, it's easier to avoid blown highlights if you shoot negative film. I occasionally like to do "specialty" things like shooting infrared. Film, that is.
The big advantage to film these days is the very high quality rangefinder cameras and lenses you can get to shoot it with. I think that's about it, really, for most people.
Tom
Last edited:
zenlibra
Crazy Leica Fox
I love to shoot film for many of the same reasons as the guy wrote in his article. That being said I'd like to say to the digital defenders, relax, you've won. Digital photography will never go away. Let those of us who love film celebrate it.
It seems as if any discussion on any subject in society today quickly becomes polarized.
It seems as if any discussion on any subject in society today quickly becomes polarized.
wgerrard
Veteran
OT, but... I've never understood the criticisms of "chimping". Did Polaroid attract this kind of heat when it debuted? You take a picture, you see what it looks like. What's the problem? If film cameras had managed this trick 50 years ago, who wouldn't have peeked?
bmattock
Veteran
You do the same thing the author did, Al. You make a flat statement that *I* cannot force myself to not machine-gun photos, and *I* must get locked into some automaton-like robotic sequence. Speak for yourself. I can and do shoot machine-gun style, and I can and do shoot slowly and contemplatively - with film or digital.
There is no button on the camera that takes over my soul. I decide when to drop the trigger. Sorry it doesn't work that way for you.
bmattock
Veteran
And therefore, everyone else has the same problem, right? That's what Al says.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I quite often pop open the back of my OM-1 to check a shot I've just taken ... I don't know if it's coincidence or not but all those exposures I choose to look at seem to turn out exactly the same.
bmattock
Veteran
Again, I agree with you.
First, chimping is decried as a drawback. Why? Obviously if a person is staring at the back of their camera and misses a shot, that's bad. They could just as well have been changing film or a lens or a filter or just having a smoke. It happens.
Second, as you said, chimping can add value, it does not have to be a self-voyeuristic experience. I like to look at the histogram on mine, although I do not do it every shot, and I have considerable lengths of time into a shoot without looking at all - precisely because I felt my exposure was good and I didn't want to miss a shot by chimping.
Al and his pals make statements that can't be defended. In his world, if you have a digital camera, you MUST look at the back after each shot and you WILL do so at an inopportune time and miss some critical shot.
It just isn't true. Demonstrably so, since no camera forces a person to behave in any particular way. I'd like to see the scientific basis for that assumption.
bmattock
Veteran
I love film as well as digital. I shoot both, I enjoy both. I process my own B&W film because I feel it is still superior to digital in a number of important ways - even agreeing with nasty old Al on that point.
But loving film does not force me to hate digital. That's Al's gig.
So I am relaxed, and I appreciate both.
But of course, I also remember early on, when the anti-digital crowd was crowing about how terrible digital was, how it was only a fad, how it was going to vanish any day now, etc, etc. I think they're just mad that it didn't go away on schedule and that film is dying a painful and slow death.
Ha! Polarized! Good one! Photo reference.
bmattock
Veteran
That's a perfectly good reason to not machine-gun in that particular case.
It doesn't explain how the guy was forced to machine-gun and how he absolutely was incapable of picking his shots. We know he didn't, but I don't see the manacle on his wrist that forced him to behave in that manner. Perhaps it was down to a poor choice on his part, or just bad luck, eh? Perhaps he wasn't forced to do it at all.
Nah, couldn't be, huh, Al? He was forced by laws of nature beyond our ken to machine-gun away, because he had a motor drive. Poor fool.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Just when I think you're making some sense and attempting not to be too inflammatory you come out with that!
In your world there's no argument that can't be won ... I admire that!
wgerrard
Veteran
Hmmm...same thing happens here. I guess the little elves who live inside the camera haven't had enough time to draw the pictures.
You know, I bet there's an ice cream forum someplace where they're arguing about butter pecan versus pistachio. Meanwhile, of course, the smart people have raided the fridge and scampered off with both flavors.
bmattock
Veteran
Well, it's late. Forgive me.
In your world there's no argument that can't be won ... I admire that!
I defend my opinions with logic and enthusiasm. I am willing to take as good as I give. Sometimes my opinions are wrong. I have noted so in the past, and I eat crow publicly when I've been proven wrong. But I have a particular antipathy for illogic and emotionally-driven nonsense. Just a character flaw, I guess.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Indeed ... and realistically how many of the people on this forum who constantly berate each other over this particular issue don't have film and digital cameras in their toy boxes?
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Oh, I never said that everybody machine-guns or chimps.
As for shooting Polaroids, I did my share of them, both in a 4x5 view camera and with a Hasselblad. These were usually tripod shots where lighting was critical and an art director was also "chimping". We weren't looking to "catch the moment". We were checking to see that light was going where it was supposed to be going, that no shadows were where we didn't want them, that no unwanted reflections were appearing on shiny surfaces, etc. Sure, a lot of those things could be done with a digital camera. We were happy to have Polaroid. Nor was Polaroid cheap, so you couldn't get away with shooting dozens of "tests" and expect to get hired again.
As for shooting Polaroids, I did my share of them, both in a 4x5 view camera and with a Hasselblad. These were usually tripod shots where lighting was critical and an art director was also "chimping". We weren't looking to "catch the moment". We were checking to see that light was going where it was supposed to be going, that no shadows were where we didn't want them, that no unwanted reflections were appearing on shiny surfaces, etc. Sure, a lot of those things could be done with a digital camera. We were happy to have Polaroid. Nor was Polaroid cheap, so you couldn't get away with shooting dozens of "tests" and expect to get hired again.
Last edited:
David_Manning
Well-known
Actually, I posted this link because I thought it was ironic that I sometimes grasp for something tangible to justify my film use...it wasn't "anti-digital" or anything like that.
I use both, and there is a place for both...the world has moved on. But I do feel a different kind of creative energy to my film/rangefinder shooting. Since I can't describe or define that difference to myself, I happened upon a photographer who found a new and different way to justify (to himself, I might add) his adherence to film for professional use. Even though the reasoning might not be the same, I perhaps enjoy film for it's unknown surprise qualities.
All I can say is, I'm a published photographer who is entrenched in a digital workflow, but I get a total amateur's rush when I pull my exposed and developed film out of the wash tank. Why is that?
I think I like the process, that's all.
I sincerely wish every time I turned around, there wasn't a digital photography evangelist telling me what a crappy old process I use, and how inferior it is. I'm well aware of the differences, thank you.
I use both, and there is a place for both...the world has moved on. But I do feel a different kind of creative energy to my film/rangefinder shooting. Since I can't describe or define that difference to myself, I happened upon a photographer who found a new and different way to justify (to himself, I might add) his adherence to film for professional use. Even though the reasoning might not be the same, I perhaps enjoy film for it's unknown surprise qualities.
All I can say is, I'm a published photographer who is entrenched in a digital workflow, but I get a total amateur's rush when I pull my exposed and developed film out of the wash tank. Why is that?
I think I like the process, that's all.
I sincerely wish every time I turned around, there wasn't a digital photography evangelist telling me what a crappy old process I use, and how inferior it is. I'm well aware of the differences, thank you.
zenlibra
Crazy Leica Fox
I do too, if it weren't for digital technology I wouldn't be into photography at all. My DSLR was a gateway to creativity that I couldn't participate in without a darkroom. And I scan my negs so I'm completely hybrid, even prints on an inkjet are stunning these days.
I missed that one, good call!
fixbones
.......sometimes i thinks
Interesting read i must say..... and interesting how this thread has progressed too =D
I love film and currently shoot purely film just because i can and i want too.
I love digital too and i am sure i'll end up with one sooner than later.
At the end of the day, i LOVE taking photographs and i'd happy with either (and i'm sure many RFfers feel the same too........correct me if i'm wrong ;p)
I love film and currently shoot purely film just because i can and i want too.
I love digital too and i am sure i'll end up with one sooner than later.
At the end of the day, i LOVE taking photographs and i'd happy with either (and i'm sure many RFfers feel the same too........correct me if i'm wrong ;p)
bmattock
Veteran
Because it's fun? That's why I like it.
Nothing wrong with that. I like the process too. Of course, the process isn't the photograph. Nobody who sees your photograph sees your process or your enjoyment. The photograph isn't imbued with your filmic goodness. That enjoyment is for you.
Anybody here telling you that? I personally think that digital still has a ways to go before it's better than good old B&W film. Digital is still inferior to film for overall dynamic range and flexibility, but the gap is closing.
To be a digital evangelist, I'd have to give up using film, and I would hate to do that. I just digital a lot and don't care to hear over and over again about how it's impossible to avoid chimping, machine-gunning, or to actually exert manual control over your digital camera. Funny, I can do all those things.