Why do all we film guys keep holding on?

It's all about the cameras. If someone would offer a 35 mm sensor in could put in my barnack or contax II, i would use that instead of film.
there is no digital camera that can be compared e.g. to a twin lens rolleiflex.
so, for me it's not about film, but on old cameras...
 
Gumby said:
I hope not... otherwise your "rant" becomes just that. Discussion is good; talking AT people is less good.
Click to expand...

I guess you're right. I just don't want to be part of the worry-without-reason crowd where most seem to have very ambivalent opinions. It creates a stir with no purpose.

Good points of yours regarding the need for identification and self-affirmation.

There's another thread about darkroom printers where I found this little flash video: http://www.laboratoire-tirages-argentiques.com/prestation-eng.html I have no idea what the speaker is saying and the music is a little weird, but it's nice to see a professional printer at work.

Holding a negative, controlling the light shining through it, watching the positive emerge, immediately creating a physical copy of your work - it's the tactile and direct visible feedback that is important, with as few layers of abstraction as possible. A digital workflow will never be even remotely similar.

But if someone likes all the technical inventions that is not about photography, I respect that. Just don't presume everyone consider it a refinement or a superior evolution.
 
No 'doom and gloom' here. Naturally I don't want to pay more for film but then I don't want to pay more for anything. So call me cheap.

I think the OP was just asking the *reasons* people still use film. There were many reasons in several directions. The "I just like mechanical cameras" reason may be meaningless to the MF shooter who prefers the tonal qualities of film. Then there are the folks who just can't justify the price. It's not just the camera but the computer support and storage and migration cost.

You could just as well ask why a few people still use wet collodion on glass. I sure would not want to try that but I salute and cheer on the one's who do.

One more thing. I would never understand why a digital only photographer would ever feel diminished or threatened by another photographer's choice to use film or stick with film. It is not a comment on the digital photographer's choice of equipment.

Finally, there seem to be a lot of photographers who are having a blast enjoying all the advantages of both digital and film photography.
 
That basically says it all. You are 69 years old.

There are many 25 year olds who have never seen a roll of film or handled a film camera, except maybe a disposable camera.

If you told them that you liked film photography, they would stare at you with non-comprehension like you were some kind of a nut or a weirdo eccentric. The same as a guy with a dial telephone.


pete hogan said:
I like the feel of the old Barnack, I like buying film, I like pulling prints out for a look; I've liked these for 60 years.
Click to expand...
 
I'll be 30 in a week - god, that's scary to admit - so I'll take a stab at it. I shot film when I was up to my teens, then switched to digital around the time 1 megapixel cameras came out. This january, I bought back into film - currently owning about 20 film cameras. Yes, it went fast.

For me, it's a combination of things. First, I really like mechanical things. I collect watches (own about 70), flashlights (more then a few), and knives (too many to count...). I also have a fascination with space, aviation, cars and anything else mechanical. So, mechanical/simple electronic cameras like the Canon GIII rangefinder, Bronica ETRS, Minox 35, early Minoltas, Pentax Auto 110 etc. fascinate me.

But, it's also about pride of ownership. Whenever I look at an image from my EOS 450D or Powershot G12 I think: man, that camera takes great pictures! They do focus, they do metering, they do depth, they handle the colors... basically I'm the idiot holding the box and pressing a button. There's little pride in ownership.

But working with the manual cameras, doing all this yourself, you take great pride in getting it all just right. I felt that especially when I got back my first mounted slides. Not only a confirmation of good photographic technique, but a unique, tangible piece of artwork to commemorate the occasion. I felt pride like I'd never felt before!

Sure, since then I've messed up quite a few shots and I'm not a real artsy photographer, but I can say with certainty: the shots that I *do* make are mine and mine alone. The camera is merely the tool I use.
 
I Love Film said:
That basically says it all. You are 69 years old.

There are many 25 year olds who have never seen a roll of film or handled a film camera, except maybe a disposable camera.

If you told them that you liked film photography, they would stare at you with non-comprehension like you were some kind of a nut or a weirdo eccentric. The same as a guy with a dial telephone.
Click to expand...

I guess you didn't notice that there are some 25 year olds who already posted in this thread who use and prefer film too.
 
Keith said:
I like the new avatar Akiva. 🙂

'Mysticism?' ... I think with the constant, relentless roll out of new digital gear the stability of film and the cameras that use it is reassuring. I'm finding this constant barrage of new digital cameras pretty tedious personally ... it's de-valuing what I regard as a legitimate art form and turning it into more twenty first century consumer driven crap to amuse the masses.
Click to expand...



Oh no, another "film v. digital" thread...well, at least that's what it seems to have turned into.

Well, Keith, I must take umbrage at your comments that digital is taking "a legitimate art form and turning it into twenty first century consumer driven crap to amuse the masses." I've been shooting for nearly thirty years, and only took to digital four years ago. I'm a serious photographer, if not Alfred Eisenstadt, so I like to think I'm not devaluing " a legitimate art form," by going digital, as you seem to suggest.


First. digital is here to stay , like it or not. It's the wave of the future. Technology does not stand still. So don't blame the medium. I don't think shooting digital has made me a WORSE photographer, and while I still shoot film on occasion, there are things I like about digital better than film.

Second, I'm sure there were those who made the same argument as you have, when the Kodak cameras came out way back when. Or when the 35mm cameras started to take over the world. After all, those cameras made it easier for anybody to shoot photos--as they did--and to turn "a legitimate art form into consumer crap," albeit on celluloid, as opposed to hard drives. I mean, let 's face it, back in the good old film days, MOST of us weren't David Douglas Duncan, either.

And I'll bet if you look through photo publications from back then, there was a "constant barrage of new cameras" being pitched to the public...it's just that now, instead of being considered "tedious," they're called "classics".
icon7.gif
 
I think bjornkeizers puts it well.

For me, I feel like I'm taking a photo more with film, rather than having a camera do it for me. Now obviously you can shoot digital manually, and shoot film automatically. There is nothing logical in my argument, it's just a feeling.

Recently, I did try to ditch film and go digital, it lasted about a week and I came running back. It just did not feel like the hobby I liked, sort of like a Snooker player trying to like American 8 Ball pool, so very similar, but so very different too. I'd *love* to prefer digital, so easy, so convenient, no scanning, no processing, no X Ray worries, no being stuck with the wrong film in the body. Digital makes all the sense in the world, but for now, it's just not the hobby I like.
 
Completely correct, and yes, I have a lot of really old photographic magazines, and I have read them.

Every technological sea-change has brought out the ones who don't feel the new process is "legitimate".

"Miniature film", that is, film that was 4" x 5" or smaller, was berated as complete garbage. All Kodak roll film was soulless nonsense, only people who hand sensitized metallic plates were "real" photographers, and so on.

Paul Luscher said:
Second, I'm sure there were those who made the same argument as you have, when the Kodak cameras came out way back when. Or when the 35mm cameras started to take over the world. After all, those cameras made it easier for anybody to shoot photos--as they did--and to turn "a legitimate art form into consumer crap," albeit on celluloid, as opposed to hard drives. I mean, let 's face it, back in the good old film days, MOST of us weren't David Douglas Duncan, either.

And I'll bet if you look through photo publications from back then, there was a "constant barrage of new cameras" being pitched to the public...it's just that now, instead of being considered "tedious," they're called "classics".
icon7.gif
Click to expand...
 
I Love Film said:
Yes, there are, and mostly you will find them on forums such as these.

The vast majority of the public does not use film and may never have ever have used film.
Click to expand...

Not sure we're at that point yet, digital cameras only started outselling film cameras in the early 2000s, so you'd need to be pretty young to never have experienced film. Even after that, disposables are still pretty common at weddings etc. I'm 33 and film is very easily in my memory, 10 years ago, I was not even interested in photography, but I was still completely familiar with film.

The time will come of course.
 
For me, I like the way film cameras feel in my hand. I like the solid metal feeling of my MP, or even my old Pentax ME Super, over the more plasticky feeling of most modern digitals. I also like shooting RF, and I can't afford a digital RF. I can't afford a digital back for my Hasselblad either, so there we are.

I do shoot both, however. The look of film is better than that of digital most of the time in my eyes. The problem is that there seem to be ore films being discontinued all the time, and processing labs are closing, which leaves me feeling pinched when I want to shoot film.

At this point, you have to really want to shoot film for some reason if you still do it.
 
I Love Film said:
Yes, there are, and mostly you will find them on forums such as these.

The vast majority of the public does not use film and may never have ever have used film.
Click to expand...


In a thread that asks "Why do all we film guys keep holding on?", you focus on one person's response and say "That basically says it all. You are 69 years old." You discounted the reasons he offered in his post and attributed his preference for film instead to his age. Why would you do that?

Many people of all ages expressed in this thread why they keep using film. Some mentioned age or implied it, but most people, like the guy you decided to single out, gave other reasons than their age. Some of the younger posters gave reasons that were substantially similar to the one you singled out, yet you didn't conclude that it was because they were 25.

I don't have a bone to pick. I just don't understand how you can make such a conclusion with nothing to base it on.
 
He is older, he bases his perceptions on pleasurable experiences he has had with film and mechanical cameras over many decades, and he has a long history with film with which to base his world-construct.

The vast majority of people in the world are now on the younger side of the age curve, and most do not have much, if any, experience with film. Therefore, they have no frame of reference with film and could not even fathom the 69 year old's reasons for sticking with film.

Of course, there are exceptions with a small number of younger people who have decided to experiment with film. I am not "discounting" the older man's opinions, just stating fact.

One day, most people will not drive cars and not have any memory of having driven a car. There will be a few people who will recall the pleasure of driving their own car, but most will only have had the experience of mass transit or being teleported.



loquax ludens said:
In a thread that asks "Why do all we film guys keep holding on?", you focus on one person's response and say "That basically says it all. You are 69 years old." You discounted the reasons he offered in his post and attributed his preference for film instead to his age. Why would you do that?

Many people of all ages expressed in this thread why they keep using film. Some mentioned age or implied it, but most people, like the guy you decided to single out, gave other reasons than their age. Some of the younger posters gave reasons that were substantially similar to the one you singled out, yet you didn't conclude that it was because they were 25.

I don't have a bone to pick. I just don't understand how you can make such a conclusion with nothing to base it on.
Click to expand...
 
Eccentric? Probably. Many years? Sure. Where do you think "digital" came from anyway? Look up John V. Atanasoff (Iowa State University, 1939). Look up Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center). My father was on the team that set up data processing for Social Security in Baltimore in the 1930s. Did you think Apple did it?

I was programming in Fortran long before those boys were working in their garage.

There is mechanical satisfaction in the old Barnack, and a few of the other old ones too. And film has a long way to go. The really great inventions are like that.

Pete
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom