appeal of film over digital?

[boojum]

I’m recovering from an operation. I can barely carry anything. The M9-P and my newly serviced ZM Biogon 25 2.8, my sharpest lens, plus finder, in my right hand this evening, just begins to cause me pain in my neck. I’m going to put film in the IIIf. I optimistically loaded the Hasselblad at the weekend. That’s going to sit a while. The X100 and iPhone might be my mainstays for a bit. But the battle I have with the X100 is the mode problems of digital, versus a film Leica. If it’s in Macro I can’t get the optical VF. If I was shooting manual focus I might have forgotten to switch back to AF. If auto ISO is off I might get a blurry picture. If the rocker selection wheel is not locked I might accidentally invoke macro, or forced flash. The possibilities are legion. With the IIIf it’s film in and frames left to shoot, and is the lens cap off.

Speedy recovery. I can speak for all of us when I say we want you to be lugging big 8 x 10's up hillsides with heavy wooden tripods real soon. And post the pictures, OK?

 

[JohnGellings]

You have proven my point: it is subjective and irrational. "Oh, I love the sound of the Edison wax cylinders, they capture the pure sound so well."

People can like something without it being superior. That is what you fail to understand. It is what you get used to sometimes. What works for you. What isn't broken should not be fixed, etc.

We can condition ourselves to believe that something is superior when it is not.

Because it is subjective... something can be technically superior while not having the same appeal.

"My mom's cooking is the best in the world." This is what double-blind tests are about.

Tests are for nerds. Most people just do what they like.

Out of not so idle curiosity I asked ChatGPT the percentage of use for each medium:

"The vast majority of photography today is digital. Estimates suggest that over 99% of all photographs taken are digital, with film making up less than 1% of the total.

Well, we have these things called cell phones that most non photographers use. They are as ubiquitous as non writers using pens, pencils and keyboards to write without being writers.

 

[DownUnder]

Well, we have these things called cell phones that most non photographers use. They are as ubiquitous as non writers using pens, pencils and keyboards to write without being writers.

I hope John in posting the above, was using sarcasm in its humorous intent.

Being me, I truly do not understand how the term "ubiquitous" fitted into his post.

Since when are cell phone users (aka photographers, in my lexicon anyway) NOT photographers?

More importantly, who has decided this? Someone in the pro-film/anti-digital brigade? (Not John, of this I'm sure.)

Will this same someone soon be popping up to insist that cell phone images are tintypes? After all they are made on a metal (or part metal) plate known as a card.

We know what liquid of any sort will do to a mobile phone, so those 'impressions' cannot be called wet plate images.

Shall we now redefine the term "ridiculous"?

PS Otherwise I quite approve of most of what John has written (as a writer or non-writer?) in his post.

 

[Prest_400]

Well, we have these things called cell phones that most non photographers use. They are as ubiquitous as non writers using pens, pencils and keyboards to write without being writers.

Those can be counted well as Digital and in all honesty, for snapshots they even work better than many cameras? No? Night mode for me is an example, it gets you the shot. Also no problems with street. On the technical side; Phone sensors are larger than legacy digital P&S nowadays.
I might renovate my digital system, ironically being film scanning as the driver for that and using a used body. And one can see that the upgrade cycle has plateaued.

There are of course different generational perspectives. I am a late millenial so am sandwiched between perspectives. The haptics of a phone camera are no issue to me, and I forgot the "digital is convenient, instant etc".
OTOH film wise I end up showing up some darkroom work around and vouch for developers like XTOL or HC110. "Hey, avoid Rodinal for ISO400+ films!" But the 20 year olds rebutte with: I want grain and contrast! What draws the new wave of film shooters are the quirks of the medium. A bit ditto for digicams; I suffered those growing up so don´t want to have anything to do with it!
After my photographic bucket list of traveling with medium format film and so, I thought that I would either scale down film a lot. It has instead revived my want to shoot film; and shoot more overall as well. However, as a rather specialised and targeted part of my photography.

 

[oldwino]

I think the most interesting artistic territory is always around the edges. Digital sensors can see things our eyes cannot, yet we persist in making digital photos that "look" like film photos. In fact, we obsess with this, as the existence of all of the "film-like presets" can attest. I suppose it's "tradition".
Likewise, film is second to digital in terms of reproducing objective reality, yet film attracts some because of the grain, the inherent defects, and the tangible result. The surreal can be powerfully emotional.
Digital grain might be more artistically interesting than film grain - who knows - very few seem to be exploring this.

 

[JohnGellings]

Since when are cell phone users (aka photographers, in my lexicon anyway) NOT photographers?

Do you really think that every person who uses a cell phone camera is a photographer? I mean, there needs to be a certain intent and love of the medium I would think to be considered a photographer. Maybe some basic understanding of the history of the medium, maybe some technical skills, or at the very least knowledge of composition. I was in no way saying cell phones cannot be used for serious photography. I was saying that almost everybody on the planet uses cellphones to make photos, but not all of those people are interested in Photography. It is just basic memory or note taking.

The ubiquitousness was due to him saying that 99% of photos are digital. Of course, because of cell phone photos.

 

[JohnGellings]

Those can be counted well as Digital and in all honesty, for snapshots they even work better than many cameras? No?

Of course...I was saying that the 99% of photos being digital is due to cellphone cameras. I agree, I use my phone for my kid photos.

 

[boojum]

Do you really think that every person who uses a cell phone camera is a photographer? I mean, there needs to be a certain intent and love of the medium I would think to be considered a photographer. Maybe some basic understanding of the history of the medium, maybe some technical skills, or at the very least knowledge of composition. I was in no way saying cell phones cannot be used for serious photography. I was saying that almost everybody on the planet uses cellphones to make photos, but not all of those people are interested in Photography. It is just basic memory or note taking.

The ubiquitousness was due to him saying that 99% of photos are digital. Of course, because of cell phone photos.

Here we go, one person defines a word that is already clearly defined in the language. A photographer is simply someone who uses a device to make a photograph. This is done without the need for any other person's approval. For when you criticize others you invite criticism of yourself. Try to remember what other people have done. As a stunning example Van Gogh never sold a painting in his life. And in the world of "unapproved" photography Vinian Maier is a giant. People laughed at, and still do laugh at, Picasso. Not everyone is a Van Gogh or Maier or Picasso. But everyone is doing as well as they can regardless of what others think. No one needs another's permission to purchase or operate a camera, gratefully.

So, yes, I do really think that every person who uses a cell phone is a photographer. And by encouraging and accepting others we invite them to become better, or not. Just let them have fun. They are under no other obligation.

 

[boojum]

Of course...I was saying that the 99% of photos being digital is due to cellphone cameras. I agree, I use my phone for my kid photos.

Show me the proof. You have just said that there is little to no work coming from other digital image generators. And lets say that you are right, improbable as that is. So what? Do you have a grading system for image worth dependent upon how it was created? Wet plate? Daguerreotype? Film? Digital, but camera only? Digital but maybe cellphone? APS-C? APS-H? Full Frame? Medium format?

Rembrandt was not great because of where he got his brushes nor Michelangelo great because of where he got his chisels nor Da Vinci because of how he shaped his quills. Great pics can come out of cellphones and lousy ones out of Hasselblads. I can prove that. ;o)

 

[Godfrey]

Of course, given the lack of constraints when using a digital camera of any kind ... no cost for film or processing, and an almost infinite number of exposures possible based on storage capacity and battery ... and the ubiquitous presence of smartphone cameras in millions of peoples' pockets, it is absolutely no marvel whatever that 99% of all photographs extant now are digital captures.

G

 

[JohnGellings]

Here we go, one person defines a word that is already clearly defined in the language. A photographer is simply someone who uses a device to make a photograph.

Then a writer is someone who simply writes. Does not matter if it is a note to a friend, a grocery list or a novel right?

photographer
noun [ C ]

UK

/fəˈtɒɡ.rə.fər/ US

/fəˈtɑː.ɡrə.fɚ/

a person who takes photographs, either as a job or hobby:

 

[JohnGellings]

Show me the proof.

Do you really need it? Do you really think cellphones do not account for a huge percentage of digital photographs?

Photo Statistics: How Many Photos are Taken Every Day?

Discover everything you need to know about photo statistics - Number of photos taken daily, number of photos on Google, and much more!

photutorial.com

You have just said that there is little to no work coming from other digital image generators.

Where did I say that?

And let's say that you are right, improbable as that is. So what? Do you have a grading system for image worth dependent upon how it was created? Wet plate? Daguerreotype? Film? Digital, but camera only? Digital but maybe cellphone? APS-C? APS-H? Full Frame? Medium format?

Again, where did I say this?

Rembrandt was not great because of where he got his brushes nor Michelangelo great because of where he got his chisels nor Da Vinci because of how he shaped his quills.

But according to you, those who paint spray paint a piece of furniture are the same.

Great pics can come out of cellphones and lousy ones out of Hasselblads. I can prove that. ;o)

Of course, but what makes you think I said anything differently?

 

[Retro-Grouch]

Of course, given the lack of constraints when using a digital camera of any kind ... no cost for film or processing, and an almost infinite number of exposures possible based on storage capacity and battery ... and the ubiquitous presence of smartphone cameras in millions of peoples' pockets, it is absolutely no marvel whatever that 99% of all photographs extant now are digital captures.

G

This is the source of the arguments above, and the dilemma. I think that people are arguing about when "camera usage" becomes "photography", the unspoken (because obviously elitist) premise being that there is a level of intentionality and knowledge that makes one a "photographer". This is understandable, though not excusable, because everyone in this forum is a professional, or advanced hobbyist, photographic artist, etc. who is deeply invested in their status and in the hard-earned knowledge that's embodied in that status. But who appointed us gatekeepers, and what is the cutoff point between camera usage and photography? This is, of course, a rhetorical question that can't be answered. Even assuming that there is a division, doesn't nearly everyone at one point or another fall at one end of the spectrum or another?
I see many film photographers believing themselves to be the guardians of "true photography", defending it against the modern techno-upstart, and many digital photographers similarly in arms against the onslaught of the phone camera. Everyone wants to defend what they believe to be their territory. But, finally, there is only a medium called "photography", based on the image formed by a lens (or pinhole) on a light-sensitive surface. Period. Its practitioners, whether digital or film devotees, have much to teach each other and much to learn, and would do well to stop arguing so much about the tools.

 

[Godfrey]

At it's most trivial, "camera usage" become "photography" when the person taking a picture says to themself "Oooh, that's a great shot!" OR when a person looking at a photo someone else took says to themself the same thing. Because in that simple statement, the picture is elevated to a point of something worth looking at, and appreciating, beyond the notion of 'seeing the kid with Mom on his birthday' or some such.

😉

What kind of camera made that shot is of vanishingly little importance.

G

.... Meanwhile, I'm enjoying the heck out of my 70+ years old cameras, as well as my latest whoopee fantastico cameras. Because parts of me just enjoy the mechanical/electronical thingness of these machines...

 

[JohnGellings]

This is the source of the arguments above, and the dilemma. I think that people are arguing about when "camera usage" becomes "photography", the unspoken (because obviously elitist) premise being that there is a level of intentionality and knowledge that makes one a "photographer". This is understandable, though not excusable, because everyone in this forum is a professional, or advanced hobbyist, photographic artist, etc. who is deeply invested in their status and in the hard-earned knowledge that's embodied in that status. But who appointed us gatekeepers, and what is the cutoff point between camera usage and photography? This is, of course, a rhetorical question that can't be answered. Even assuming that there is a division, doesn't nearly everyone at one point or another fall at one end of the spectrum or another?

Surely, someone has to make the decision that they like photography and want to make better photos and decide to pursue it further. If you do not care about photography past the "look at we did today at the zoo" phase, you probably aren't going to call yourself a photographer. I mean selfies are probably the most common photo, but most don't do it artistically.

I see many film photographers believing themselves to be the guardians of "true photography", defending it against the modern techno-upstart, and many digital photographers similarly in arms against the onslaught of the phone camera. Everyone wants to defend what they believe to be their territory. But, finally, there is only a medium called "photography", based on the image formed by a lens (or pinhole) on a light-sensitive surface. Period. Its practitioners, whether digital or film devotees, have much to teach each other and much to learn, and would do well to stop arguing so much about the tools.

Yeah, I do not care for that type of gatekeeping. I am not coming from a point of view of snobbery, but more from the point of view that a lot of people who use cell phone cameras do not think of themselves as photographers.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

Surely, someone has to make the decision that they like photography and want to make better photos and decide to pursue it further. If you do not care about photography past the "look at we did today at the zoo" phase, you probably aren't going to call yourself a photographer. I mean selfies are probably the most common photo, but most don't do it artistically.

Yeah, I do not care for that type of gatekeeping. I am not coming from a point of view of snobbery, but more from the point of view that a lot of people who use cell phone cameras do not think of themselves as photographers.

Agreed. But they are making photographs, lots of them. And they want that process to be as easy and transparent as possible. Makers of imaging devices, whatever they might be, are very aware of what people want. A good many of the products available to "photographers" are premised on what "camera users" want, because those are the products that can be sold to the largest number of people.

 

[Coldkennels]

...is everyone who makes dinner for themselves at night a chef?

...is everyone who drives to work a "driver"?

...is everyone who talks a "public speaker"?

There is a vast gulf between "does something out of necessity" and "does something out of personal desire or as a profession".

I've kicked many footballs in my life. I'd never dream of calling myself a footballer.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

...is everyone who makes dinner for themselves at night a chef?

...is everyone who drives to work a "driver"?

...is everyone who talks a "public speaker"?

There is a vast gulf between "does something out of necessity" and "does something out of personal desire or as a profession".

I've kicked many footballs in my life. I'd never dream of calling myself a footballer.

All true. But again, where do we draw those lines? And who draws them? And why? And for whom? I'm not saying I have the answers, but it's important to ask the questions...

 

[Harry the K]

All true. But again, where do we draw those lines? And who draws them? And why? And for whom? I'm not saying I have the answers, but it's important to ask the questions...

If there is no valid answer, why ask the question?

In my social environment there are many, many cell phone shooters, mostly taking pictures for showing off in social media or to just remember something. Sometimes I also use my cell phone to document something.
Of all the cell phone shooters I know, there is certainly nobody who would call himself "photographer". And there is nobody who claims to have more photographic knowledge than I have. But I also have difficulties to call myself "photographer", because I´m no professional, just a hobbyist.

So: Why draw lines? They are so subjectively drawn that they are useless.

 

[Leon C]

But I also have difficulties to call myself "photographer", because I´m no professional, just a hobbyist.

Why would you, being a photographer isn't defined by whether you get paid or not as that's the only difference between Pro or Hobbyist.

All being a photographer means is you make pictures through photography, which is just painting with light, when the term was around originally there were no phones so these days it doesn't really matter if you use a shoebox with a hole in it or a iPhoneyandroidy....thing, it's still photography.