Riverman
Well-known
Yesterday afternoon I found myself in a cafe in Annapolis after a day shooting landscapes on the shore of the Chesapeake. It had been a fantastic day. Pleasant sunshine but a biting wind. For the first time in weeks I'd spent the whole day outdoors shooting and I felt completely exhausted but invigorated too. There was colour in my cheeks.
A guy came in and sat at the table next to me and plonked down a huge, pro level Nikon D-SLR with a muscular looking zoom lens attached. A short while later a couple came and sat at the table next to him. The guy in the couple clocked the DSLR instantly and noted to the chap what a fine camera it was. From what I heard of the conversation, the guy with the camera was a pro while the guy fawning over it was, like me, an amateur photographer.
I resisted the temptation to unveil the Canham 5x7 that was stuffed into my rucksack. It would have been rude to interrupt them. But in my mind I was thinking.... "That's not a camera, now THIS is a camera".
As a film acolyte, am I a snob? Over hearing this conversation next to me I felt - I am ashamed to admit - a sense of superiority and also resentment, not so much towards the guy with the camera (although he was exhibiting it rather ostentatiously) but rather the second guy heaping praise on it. Mainly resentment that the onward march of digital (particularly as it is embraced by non-professionals) is leading to the disappearance of films and papers that I've enjoyed for years - especially in the realm of colour.
Digital has so much going for it if you are a professional: speed, economy, image quality, ease of editing etc. If I was a pro, I'd shoot digital. No doubt. But I don't have clients, deadlines or books of account for my photography. I shoot what I want, when I am able. I enjoy the entire process, from exposure to print. I love the fact that each shot I take results in a tangible, physical image in negatives that, archived properly, should survive for many decades.
Not to say anything about the skill of the individual photographer but I wonder if there are different degrees (or rather 'intensity levels') of amateurism? I consider myself an extreme amateur in the true sense of the word. I'm not talking about my technical proficiency here (I would say that I have a reasonable level of technical skill - but like any craft, photography is a constant learning process) but rather my enthusiasm for what I do. Photography is my life's passion. It completely drives me. If I won the lottery next week I know exactly how I would fill my days after quitting my day job.
These days though, it seems as if 'photography' is everybody's hobby. I have friends who have never had much interest in photography at all (or any other creative pursuit for that matter) but who now tout the latests DSLRs and claim photography as a 'hobby' even though the snapshots produced exist only on Facebook pages etc...
Guys and girls that shoot photographs to put bread on the table should make the most of the fantastic digital tools that are available to them. But it's such a shame that so many professed amateurs are turning away from film or never even coming into contact with it.
I hate to feel like a snob. But the digital onslaught just makes it harder and harder to do what I love, in terms of the cost and availability of film materials. And few, if any, of those new DSLR shooters know or care it seems.
A guy came in and sat at the table next to me and plonked down a huge, pro level Nikon D-SLR with a muscular looking zoom lens attached. A short while later a couple came and sat at the table next to him. The guy in the couple clocked the DSLR instantly and noted to the chap what a fine camera it was. From what I heard of the conversation, the guy with the camera was a pro while the guy fawning over it was, like me, an amateur photographer.
I resisted the temptation to unveil the Canham 5x7 that was stuffed into my rucksack. It would have been rude to interrupt them. But in my mind I was thinking.... "That's not a camera, now THIS is a camera".
As a film acolyte, am I a snob? Over hearing this conversation next to me I felt - I am ashamed to admit - a sense of superiority and also resentment, not so much towards the guy with the camera (although he was exhibiting it rather ostentatiously) but rather the second guy heaping praise on it. Mainly resentment that the onward march of digital (particularly as it is embraced by non-professionals) is leading to the disappearance of films and papers that I've enjoyed for years - especially in the realm of colour.
Digital has so much going for it if you are a professional: speed, economy, image quality, ease of editing etc. If I was a pro, I'd shoot digital. No doubt. But I don't have clients, deadlines or books of account for my photography. I shoot what I want, when I am able. I enjoy the entire process, from exposure to print. I love the fact that each shot I take results in a tangible, physical image in negatives that, archived properly, should survive for many decades.
Not to say anything about the skill of the individual photographer but I wonder if there are different degrees (or rather 'intensity levels') of amateurism? I consider myself an extreme amateur in the true sense of the word. I'm not talking about my technical proficiency here (I would say that I have a reasonable level of technical skill - but like any craft, photography is a constant learning process) but rather my enthusiasm for what I do. Photography is my life's passion. It completely drives me. If I won the lottery next week I know exactly how I would fill my days after quitting my day job.
These days though, it seems as if 'photography' is everybody's hobby. I have friends who have never had much interest in photography at all (or any other creative pursuit for that matter) but who now tout the latests DSLRs and claim photography as a 'hobby' even though the snapshots produced exist only on Facebook pages etc...
Guys and girls that shoot photographs to put bread on the table should make the most of the fantastic digital tools that are available to them. But it's such a shame that so many professed amateurs are turning away from film or never even coming into contact with it.
I hate to feel like a snob. But the digital onslaught just makes it harder and harder to do what I love, in terms of the cost and availability of film materials. And few, if any, of those new DSLR shooters know or care it seems.
Last edited:
dave lackey
Veteran
Snob? Nah.
Defensive? Yep. So am I because the world has changed, some for good, most for not so good. These days everybody thinks they are a photographer. In a discussion with a famous photographer living in Montreal last year (no name given as it is not important), I was enlightened about how tough it is to be a photographer these days. P&S, DSLR, unlimited spending on computers and mega-expensive digital cameras, which was unheard of by the average person a few years ago.... have all changed the scene.
Forget the quality or lack of quality of the average person's photos. Forget that they spend obscene amounts of money on a Nikon, Canon or whatever and never make a dime. It is because of the changes that photographers have to distinguish themselves FROM those people to make a living. Either that or become a hobbyist.
The saddest thing is, people and I do mean professional photographers and hobbyists alike, limit themselves to digital. In my former profession, it would be suicidal to limit oneself, and I cannot imagine anyone limiting their creative ability, but they do.
Am I defensive? Yes, because it makes life more difficult as a photographer and also as a film-based photographer specifically.
BUT, there is hope in that we have an opportunity to do our own thing and offer something different, or, just satisfy our own interests as a hobby. How is that for a bright light?
Personally, I use both digital and film about equally. Which one is more fun?
FILM!
So, there is no reason for jealousy or whatever you want to call it. When people fawn over that plastic DSLR today, it will be replaced by something else in a few months and soon headed to the landfill. Kinda like my wife's classic E-Class that will far outlast any of the Japanese cars we have owned over the last 30 years (all of them are in the junkyard). Smug? Snob?
No, just a realization of value from some of the finer pieces of engineering ever offered.
dave lackey
Veteran
Oh, yeah, about that disappearance of film thing.
Do like Roland and Tom A and numerous others, and buy hundreds of rolls at a time for your own use. Then, expand your hobby (or profession) and TEACH everyone you know all you can about film photography. It is like any other worthwhile endeavor. We can keep it alive.
The so-called doom of film is caused by US not THEM, whoever that would be.
Do like Roland and Tom A and numerous others, and buy hundreds of rolls at a time for your own use. Then, expand your hobby (or profession) and TEACH everyone you know all you can about film photography. It is like any other worthwhile endeavor. We can keep it alive.
The so-called doom of film is caused by US not THEM, whoever that would be.
Morca007
Matt
Yes, you are a snob.
Neare
Well-known
Ahhh nah... All us film shooters want to show off our gear as 'real' cameras. I imagine part of the reason is it is more than possible that the guy carrying around the DSLR had never once laid his eyes on a view camera and probably didn't think people actually used them.
Though, you can never judge the quality of the photographer by the size of their camera anymore. The days when only the studio shooters could afford the expensive ones is going. As Dave said, everyone now fancies themselves a photographer and they spend huge amounts on money on gear that surpasses their needs - it's all due to that false mind set that a more expensive camera takes better photos. That is a fact that probably applies to many shooters here at RFF, myself included.
I was giving some advice to a young man on a local forum who was about to take a photography class and wanted to know which camera would be appropriate. BTW, I am the only film shooter who seems to participate on that forum. He mentioned that he didn't know if he was going to be using film or digital. 15 or so other members all recommended DSLR's from entry models to some interesting people saying he should go straight for the 5d
I was the only one who gave him a little list of nice, extremely cheap film slr's he could pick up and ended my post by saying I think it would be great if he was going to be taught on film, as the learning process is far far more intensive and therefore better IMO. Also, I said that if I could give you one lesson is is that no photographer is better than the simplest camera, a more expensive camera does not take better photos.
The OP replied to the simplest camera comment completely confused and couldn't believe that to be true
But naturally I get comments against me from the 'digital snob' crowd saying how untrue everything I said was, and that with digital I can instantly look at things like histograms and that will better my photography.
I'm sorry, but all I was thinking at that point was "Why the hell do I want to look at a histogram? I'm a photographer not a scientist, I know what a underexposed photo looks like and I don't need a graph of mumbo jumbo to tell me that and have me pixel peeping on the sidewalk every second."
And also, honestly how many people who go out and buy cameras for photo classes actually care about looking at histograms? Not a lot I imagine, most reckon if they just stick it on auto everything will be sweet.
Anyway, I think film snobbery is kind of legitimate. Not because film photographers are better but rather that someone shooting film - the product that the photographer can be so varied, different formats, film, developing methods, printing etc. It's such an in depth medium. Whereas digital photography, excluding crazy photoshop skills, will always look like a digital photograph - 95% chance I know what their work looks like without even seeing it, to film shooters that is just to boring. And I think that many film shooters don't consider photoshop to an aspect of 'photography'. At least I don't, there's no light, lenses, photosensitive material, chemicals or risk involved. Common.. it has an undo button, it's more along the lines of digital art rather than photography. But most digital photographers will disagree with me, so yeah I'm probably a film snob.
Ok, so rant over but I agree with Dave, film dies because we stop promoting it. You probably can't convince the guy with the 10k digital equipment sitting on the cafe table, but I can't help but think that the oogling guy next to him could have found your view camera far more interesting and impressive
But pulling it out just like that would have been very rude! Next time you sit down at a cafe, leave the camera on the table instead
Excuse the long post...
Though, you can never judge the quality of the photographer by the size of their camera anymore. The days when only the studio shooters could afford the expensive ones is going. As Dave said, everyone now fancies themselves a photographer and they spend huge amounts on money on gear that surpasses their needs - it's all due to that false mind set that a more expensive camera takes better photos. That is a fact that probably applies to many shooters here at RFF, myself included.
I was giving some advice to a young man on a local forum who was about to take a photography class and wanted to know which camera would be appropriate. BTW, I am the only film shooter who seems to participate on that forum. He mentioned that he didn't know if he was going to be using film or digital. 15 or so other members all recommended DSLR's from entry models to some interesting people saying he should go straight for the 5d
I was the only one who gave him a little list of nice, extremely cheap film slr's he could pick up and ended my post by saying I think it would be great if he was going to be taught on film, as the learning process is far far more intensive and therefore better IMO. Also, I said that if I could give you one lesson is is that no photographer is better than the simplest camera, a more expensive camera does not take better photos.
The OP replied to the simplest camera comment completely confused and couldn't believe that to be true
But naturally I get comments against me from the 'digital snob' crowd saying how untrue everything I said was, and that with digital I can instantly look at things like histograms and that will better my photography.
I'm sorry, but all I was thinking at that point was "Why the hell do I want to look at a histogram? I'm a photographer not a scientist, I know what a underexposed photo looks like and I don't need a graph of mumbo jumbo to tell me that and have me pixel peeping on the sidewalk every second."
And also, honestly how many people who go out and buy cameras for photo classes actually care about looking at histograms? Not a lot I imagine, most reckon if they just stick it on auto everything will be sweet.
Anyway, I think film snobbery is kind of legitimate. Not because film photographers are better but rather that someone shooting film - the product that the photographer can be so varied, different formats, film, developing methods, printing etc. It's such an in depth medium. Whereas digital photography, excluding crazy photoshop skills, will always look like a digital photograph - 95% chance I know what their work looks like without even seeing it, to film shooters that is just to boring. And I think that many film shooters don't consider photoshop to an aspect of 'photography'. At least I don't, there's no light, lenses, photosensitive material, chemicals or risk involved. Common.. it has an undo button, it's more along the lines of digital art rather than photography. But most digital photographers will disagree with me, so yeah I'm probably a film snob.
Ok, so rant over but I agree with Dave, film dies because we stop promoting it. You probably can't convince the guy with the 10k digital equipment sitting on the cafe table, but I can't help but think that the oogling guy next to him could have found your view camera far more interesting and impressive
But pulling it out just like that would have been very rude! Next time you sit down at a cafe, leave the camera on the table instead
Excuse the long post...
Last edited:
Upgrade to a nice DSLR yourself (maybe 5D mark II?) and stop looking back.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
dave lackey
Veteran
Well, the OP opened himself up for smart a** comments, so I hope he has thick skin.
The question should really be, are those two people at the other table digital snobs?
The question should really be, are those two people at the other table digital snobs?
Riverman
Well-known
Well, the OP opened himself up for smart a** comments, so I hope he has thick skin.
The question should really be, are those two people at the other table digital snobs?
Thick enough!
In any event... the emotions that I discuss in my original post have little to do with photography and more with ethics and moral philosophy really. We are all of us guilty from time to time of those venial sins that the Church classifies as forgiveable.
So there you have it. I'm doing my public penance on rff!
dave lackey
Veteran
Haigh
Gary Haigh
Film and digital both have their place. No shortage of film down here in Oz either.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
Different folks, different strokes. It's all photography, though.
dave lackey
Veteran
I feel this way sometimes looking at DSLRs and I'm using digital cameras. Yes, it is snoberry. However, I try to remind myself that they are just tools and they are avilable to anyone who wants to buy them... just like film cameras and film. Also, for all I know, that person might be a great photographer.
Additionally, I don't think quality cameras are any more ubiquitous than they were 20-30 years ago when every average joe seemed to have a manual focus SLR (remember the boring slide shows?). I think the way we view images has changed and has made photographs, that normally wouldn't be seen outside of the family, more prevalent (Flickr, etc). Most people I know that have low-end DSLRs do not think they are great photographers, but are just happy to have a tool that allows them to make techincally good (exposure, etc not composition) photos of their lives.
Yes, it is snoberry. However, I try to remind myself that they are just tools and they are avilable to anyone who wants to buy them... just like film cameras and film. Also, for all I know, that person might be a great photographer. Additionally, I don't think quality cameras are any more ubiquitous than they were 20-30 years ago when every average joe seemed to have a manual focus SLR (remember the boring slide shows?). I think the way we view images has changed and has made photographs, that normally wouldn't be seen outside of the family, more prevalent (Flickr, etc). Most people I know that have low-end DSLRs do not think they are great photographers, but are just happy to have a tool that allows them to make techincally good (exposure, etc not composition) photos of their lives.
dave lackey
Veteran
Photography for the average person has changed EXPONENTIALLY since the 60's, 70's and even the 80's when electronics and AF were first introduced. And yes, Flickr and Facecrap and all the other media have radically changed photography for the average person. So has digital! So have phones! You name it, it has changed radically. Limiting the discussion of change in photography to the 1980's shows only that you are limiting yourself in the discussion.
At the end of the day...use digital, if it turns you on.
Use film, if it turns you on.
The truly blessed among us will use both.
At the end of the day...use digital, if it turns you on.
Use film, if it turns you on.
The truly blessed among us will use both.
migtex
Don't eXchange Freedom!
Technology Dictatorship marches on.
We are here "talking" about Analog and Digital (notice I did not said "Film") photography and the World is already revolving on Video Everywhere.
Pro Photographers now have to shoot Video (in HD mode no less...), edit & comment on what they shoot besides taking photos.
(remember me on some thread while ago about shooting just video and pick a frame (one frame) has a "photo".
Yes, we all snob's..... even the Digi ones they (we) just don't know it! Yet.
Because I like to be turn on, I use both... but not Video!
We are here "talking" about Analog and Digital (notice I did not said "Film") photography and the World is already revolving on Video Everywhere.
Pro Photographers now have to shoot Video (in HD mode no less...), edit & comment on what they shoot besides taking photos.
(remember me on some thread while ago about shooting just video and pick a frame (one frame) has a "photo".
Yes, we all snob's..... even the Digi ones they (we) just don't know it! Yet.
Because I like to be turn on, I use both... but not Video!
igi
Well-known
+1 on everyone who said that as we have film snobs, we also have digital snobs
The only thing film does not have is the luxury of snobbery. All this film snobbery, calling film cameras the "real" cameras is killing the industry.
Remember, no matter how many thousands of rolls of film you buy, you're not keeping film alive. Your just keeping film on its respirator.
Getting people to shoot film is the only way up and snobbery does not help one bit.
The only thing film does not have is the luxury of snobbery. All this film snobbery, calling film cameras the "real" cameras is killing the industry.
Remember, no matter how many thousands of rolls of film you buy, you're not keeping film alive. Your just keeping film on its respirator.
Getting people to shoot film is the only way up and snobbery does not help one bit.
Haigh
Gary Haigh
I use and self publish both. Love'm for different reasons but love them both.
jordanstarr
J.R.Starr
I'm a film snob as well, riverman. Maybe we could start a support group or something.
That being said, I did a photography program with about 40 homeless youth for 6 months and we used digital because it had it's place -it was easier to learn, easier to edit and they got their immediate satisfaction. A couple of the youth used film and one loved it, so I gave him film and a camera to keep and just keep doing it.
As weird as it sounds, I kind of agree with berlin. Get a digital camera and see what all the hype is about. I shot with a pro DSLR for a couple months, got a photo published in Guitar Player Magazine during that time and had another 5-10 published in album art and other stuff for bands. BUT....I hated it. it was too easy. It made me lazy in every respect -editing, composition of the shot, watching the light, etc. As such, I have a biased towards digital and a cynical view on it's direction more towards "computer art" than photography (my opinion, which could use it's own discussion). That's why I'm a snob. It's not that digital cannot produce great prints....but I'm going to stop ranting now.
...so how about that support group?
That being said, I did a photography program with about 40 homeless youth for 6 months and we used digital because it had it's place -it was easier to learn, easier to edit and they got their immediate satisfaction. A couple of the youth used film and one loved it, so I gave him film and a camera to keep and just keep doing it.
As weird as it sounds, I kind of agree with berlin. Get a digital camera and see what all the hype is about. I shot with a pro DSLR for a couple months, got a photo published in Guitar Player Magazine during that time and had another 5-10 published in album art and other stuff for bands. BUT....I hated it. it was too easy. It made me lazy in every respect -editing, composition of the shot, watching the light, etc. As such, I have a biased towards digital and a cynical view on it's direction more towards "computer art" than photography (my opinion, which could use it's own discussion). That's why I'm a snob. It's not that digital cannot produce great prints....but I'm going to stop ranting now.
...so how about that support group?
cooltouch
Established
I think you're onto something here. A few days ago I saw a TV commercial for that new newspaper that you can get on your iPad? Called The Daily, I think? The brief shot of the paper instantly reminded me of the "magical" newspapers in the Harry Potter books/movies, where the images had movement while the text was stationary. When I saw this, I realized that a Rubicon of sorts had been crossed. Granted, with the proliferation of YouTube and other sorts of videos being embedded into websites, this technology is not new. But having it in newspaper format on an iPad is.
Your average guy or gal on the street will always prefer to watch video over viewing stills. It's in our DNA. Our vision is "designed" to detect movement. And if people can see a mini motion picture running alongside the text of the article, they will go for this, and they won't even look back. Image resolution takes a backseat to bandwidth. As the iPad and it knockoffs proliferate, soon people will want digital photo frames that will playback video instead of just stills. Heck, for all I know, digital photo frames that play back digital video already exist. The technology is certainly there.
It could well be that still photography, as a popular medium, has entered its last days.
As for me, I own two digital cameras -- one P&S and one DSLR. But I own 8 or 10 still cameras -- not sure exactly how many, I'll have to think about it for a minute. And it distresses me to think that a day may come when I can no longer find film for these cameras, a few of which are like best of old friends to me. I've known them longer than just about anyone else I know outside of family. Frankly I don't care how much better than film digital allegedly is. I just want to be able to continue to use these dear old friends for as long as I choose, and I don't want others making those decisions for me. They can just shaddup about their danged digital and leave me in peace.