Am I a film snob?

cooltouch said:
It could well be that still photography, as a popular medium, has entered its last days.
Click to expand...

...I somehow doubt this very much. The ability to take a still image from a motion picture existed from the very beginning of the process decades ago. It might be that taking a still from video and passing it as "still photography" has been getting more popular as technology gets better and the quality improves, but I highly doubt it will kill still photography. I bet if you took a poll here with digital photographers who have DSLRs that are capable of this process and ask: "would you scrap still photography all together and take "frames" from their video instead?", I bet less than 1% actually would do this. This is why so many videographers also do still photography with a completely different camera for that kind of work rather than simply taking a frame from their video. It's a very different process and way of thinking about things.
 
jordanstarr said:
...I somehow doubt this very much. The ability to take a still image from a motion picture existed from the very beginning of the process decades ago. It might be that taking a still from video and passing it as "still photography" has been getting more popular as technology gets better and the quality improves, but I highly doubt it will kill still photography. I bet if you took a poll here with digital photographers who have DSLRs that are capable of this process and ask: "would you scrap still photography all together and take "frames" from their video instead?", I bet less than 1% actually would do this. This is why so many videographers also do still photography with a completely different camera for that kind of work rather than simply taking a frame from their video. It's a very different process and way of thinking about things.
Click to expand...


I agree and so does this working videographer/photographer:

http://blog.leica-camera.com/interview/roy-samaha-an-artist’s-eye-on-the-2011-egyptian-revolution/

Check this part:

"Q. How do you think your training as a videographer influences your still photography, or does it?
A. I usually separate the two mediums in my mind. Still, photography is reality minus the movement and sound. Basically it’s cutting out a segment of reality and presenting it. Video is literally recording experiences in time. I don’t think they are connected; they are totally different mediums. I like both. The V-Lux is amazing because it has very good HD video capability and also takes high quality still pictures. At every moment, I could take a still picture and then record a few seconds of video that I can use later for different work."
 
jordanstarr said:
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
Click to expand...

Digital didn't make you lazy, your attitude towards it did. Sounds like you went into it with a lack of respect for the medium, so you treated it like it wasn't worth putting effort into. Composition, watching the light, exposure, etc. don't change with digital and they have just as much importance as they do in film. If you didn't shoot digital to the same standard as you do with film, don't blame the medium, blame yourself.
 
jordanstarr said:
...I somehow doubt this very much. The ability to take a still image from a motion picture existed from the very beginning of the process decades ago. It might be that taking a still from video and passing it as "still photography" has been getting more popular as technology gets better and the quality improves, but I highly doubt it will kill still photography. I bet if you took a poll here with digital photographers who have DSLRs that are capable of this process and ask: "would you scrap still photography all together and take "frames" from their video instead?", I bet less than 1% actually would do this. This is why so many videographers also do still photography with a completely different camera for that kind of work rather than simply taking a frame from their video. It's a very different process and way of thinking about things.
Click to expand...

I understand all that. Which is why I qualified my statement by using the term "as a popular medium." You're probably right, but with the inclusion of more and more video feeds into media that used to have stills only, and with the increased usages of iPad-like devices, I can see it happening. Not saying I'm in favor of it at all, but it's a trend and it's there.
 
emasterphoto said:
Digital didn't make you lazy, your attitude towards it did. Sounds like you went into it with a lack of respect for the medium, so you treated it like it wasn't worth putting effort into. Composition, watching the light, exposure, etc. don't change with digital and they have just as much importance as they do in film. If you didn't shoot digital to the same standard as you do with film, don't blame the medium, blame yourself.
Click to expand...


It did the same to me. Spray and Pray with exceptional Nikon pro bodies DSLR's. No I am not lazy.:mad: But over a short time, I did find the best usage of all my digital cameras over the last 10 years. Now I use film when I want to slow down and enjoy a totally different experience, as well as using film cameras for specific uses.

After tens of thousands of digital images both professionally and personally, I find that both digtial and film fit my particular needs quite well, as do my clients.

How did this turn into a "digital snob vs film snob vs digital snob" thread anyway?:)... LOL
 
Last edited:
Why bother?
Concentrate on your work/hobby. If it makes you feel good its probably something worth doing. At lest for yourself. Do not expect more than that. Masochist : )
 
dave lackey said:
Yep...I am both!:D
Click to expand...

I hope I am neither but I just use both and try not to worry whether someone else appreciates/validates how I do my hobby or not. I just try to enjoy my hobby and let others enjoy theirs their way. Anyway the OP's original question was easily answered awhile ago.

Bob
 
Well, I'm going out shooting tomorrow, and I've just packed my bag with...

Canon EOS 5DII with 24-105L
Leica CL with Summicron-C 40/2 and ERA-100

I love them both
 
Terence Donovan: "Let's face it, ****ing cameras are so ****ing cheap, you can buy a new ****ing camera for each ****ing job."

Me: "Maybe you can, but we're not all Terence Donovan."

Terence: "Not my problem, sunshine."

That's been one of my favourite quotes for the last 25 years or so: "Not my problem, sunshine." You need worry only about the things you choose to worry about.

Cheers,

R.
 
emasterphoto said:
Digital didn't make you lazy, your attitude towards it did. Sounds like you went into it with a lack of respect for the medium, so you treated it like it wasn't worth putting effort into. Composition, watching the light, exposure, etc. don't change with digital and they have just as much importance as they do in film. If you didn't shoot digital to the same standard as you do with film, don't blame the medium, blame yourself.
Click to expand...


I actually really wanted to go digital and didn't have a lack of respect for it at the time. I was sick of using a bathroom for a darkroom and wanted to "move with the direction of photography" so that I wouldn't "fall behind". I guess I should have been more specific in my statement and then you wouldn't have started your assumptions.

The reasons it made me lazy is because I could take as many photos as I wanted, so my composition was all over the place, trying all kinds of stuff that didn't work instead of sitting back, looking at the image and really thinking about it. At concerts, I didn't even have to look through the camera. I could just hold my flash in one hand, camera in the other, set it to 17mm and just start shooting like crazy (checking every now and then to see if my lighting was still the same). Because the technology was there, it made me lazy. Sure I could have taken my time and really thought more about my shots, but because I had digital, I didn't have to. Every medium whether 35mm, medium format, large format, digital changes the way a photographer shoots. I wasn't lazy before digital and I'm not lazy now that I went back to film....I became lazy when I started using it because it allowed me to and I fell into that like so many other digital photographers out there (not saying ALL). I see many photographers doing "street photography", not even looking through their camera. They're either too scared to look through the camera or are just lazy and don't take the time to compose the image, so they shoot from the hip and adjust the lighting, etc in photoshop. When the technology is there, it's easy to fall in that trap. I understand that there's lots of digital photographers who take lots of time and really think about what they're shooting, but the technology is easy to fall into. By the way, do you use auto focus or aperture priority or auto anything? 'cause that's just a small portion of the trap.
 
Everyone might be a "photographer" but few people can compose a picture. Give 100 people a full length portrait to take and 50 of them will probably centre the face in the frame. Give them a landscape with a featureless grey sky and they'll put the horizon halfway up. The sad thing is that they'll freely acknowledge that their pics "aren't very good" but they have no idea how to improve them.

I did a formal photography qualification (UK GCE "A" level) a few years ago at night school. I don't actually remember anyone trying to teach us composition, so either we'd all got the hang of it or they didn't know how to. In my case I used the rule of thirds a bit and then, after a few hundred frames, I realised Edward Weston was right; "to consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk."
 
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say Roger,

First you say that people are taking bad photographs because they are not following the rules of composition. Then you say that the rules of composition are meaningless?

Either way, I do believe that any 'rule' telling one how to compose something is rubbish.
 
Take heart: there are young people trying film for the first time in their lives or so it would seem. It may not be quite relevant to your post but a shop I visit which sells very desirable cameras and lenses said they now stock Holgas etc in response to demand. Indeed when I was recently there a young woman purchased one. If it means anything I have no particular digital/film leanings, I use both and have a darkroom and scanner as well so I have options.
 
Trouble with the whole Hipster Holga fad is that their experience of film will be pretty Low-Fi. Many won't ever see what film is truely capable of. When it is no longer hip to mess with plastic toy cameras many could abandon film for digital cameras.
 
Not a snob at all it's just what you dig using, I use both and suck equally with either. I just find my suckage to be instantaneous with digital as opposed to waiting to finish a roll of film and having it developed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom