And another reason I use film

kshapero

kshapero

South Florida Man
Local time
1:42 AM
Joined
Mar 27, 2006
Messages
10,048
When I was a kid I was always told that if you have to pay for something you will value it more. Every time I am ready to take a shot with a film camera I know it is costing me money, even if only 20 to 40 cents, it is still money. I find that I tend to think about the shot more. Of course, I know digital cost money but it is not the same. About a month ago, I shot a wedding with film. I took about 100 exposures and delivered 15. Another guy with a Canon DSLR took about 2000 exposures and delivered about a 100 exposures. last night I was at the couple's house, and on their coffee table was an album from the other guy and on the wall was 4 "11 x 14's" of mine.
 
Last edited:
i suspect that it has NOTHING to do with film vs digital. a good photographer will transcend the capture medium.

great photographs happen in front of you... being able to see them and capture them really doesn't have anything to do with the tools used. i don't really see the "film" point. certainly a "slow, composed approach" could be argued
 
The cost of film might be the reason for the "slow, composed approach" compared to machinegunning 2,000 mindless frames on a digicam. At 20 to 40 cents apiece it would have cost several hundred dollars on film. No film shooter would shoot so many crappy pictures in hopes of getting a few keepers. No sane digital photographer would want to come home from a wedding and go through that many frames in search of the keepers.
 
The slowing and composing approach could also have something to do with the limited number of shots per roll of film. Sure, its easy to shoot and reload a somewhat newer (relative) camera, I notice it myself. But when Im shooting with lets say the Fed, I'm more selective of shots. Maybe because I'm trying to minimize the song and dance involved with reloading those things in the middle of a shoot, on the street, in a crowded setting, in a parade, in the rain, ect ect...
 
again al, and i am not trying to be simply argumentative, i don't think the issue lay in the capture method (ie; film vs digital). i think a careful, composed and thoughtful photographer will shoot the same amount of frames regardless.
there is a very real cost to blowing 3000 frames (on digital) believe me. i presume the fellow won't be doing that very long.
 
Al Kaplan said:
The cost of film might be the reason for the "slow, composed approach" compared to machinegunning 2,000 mindless frames on a digicam.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The tool and medium we choose to use DOES affect the way we see and shoot. In theory, we could do the same with digital as we do with film, but in real life it doesn't always work out that way. It's rediculous to expect that things like this will never affect the way we shoot.
 
Horses for courses. Ever read the story of the bitter photographer who missed the Jack Ruby photo? There is something to be said for 'spray and pray' in the right circumstances. If he had had a digital camera with a high frame rate...well...who knows?

http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/spe/2003/jfk/stories/063002dnmetshot.378ed.html

But the ultimate reason for people decrying digital is that they're no good at it. Fair enough, if you suck at it, don't do it, by all means. Doesn't mean everybody else sucks at it.

I shoot film and digital. I use the cameras differently - they have different strengths and weaknesses. Surprise! Instead of bitching that a digital camera is not good at being a film camera, or vice-versa, I use them in accordance with what they are good at.

And for the record, when I shoot 2,000 frames of a wedding, I get a lot of keepers, and no, it's no trouble to look through them all on my computer. But then, I can use a computer, I'm not hunting and pecking a keyboard in addled confusion and cursing these new-fangled devil machines.
 
it could be argued that it would be "ridiculous" to expect that the medium defines the photographer. it's not theory my friend... a careful, composed and thoughtful photographer will transcend the medium.
a "mindless" frame will be equally "mindless" on film. if the cost of film slow you down and that makes you a better photographer then kudos. the motivation to slow down and be more thoughtful can come in many forms. a few 3,000 frame jobs can do it too.
 
for the record "spray and pray" was a well known bit of terminology long before digital cameras hit the market.
 
congratulations kshapero. you should be proud. it takes alot nowadays for folks to make a print at all, let alone frame and display. i think it is quite a compliment to your work.
 
I don't know about "slowing me down" or "thinking more before the shot", but I certainly work better with film cameras than with their digital counterparts, which I still find clumsy and cumbersome. I was reminded of this earlier this afternoon when, emerging from J & R's Computer Store on Park Row, I saw one of the stranger camera-demo presentations I've ever seen: an oversized, cushman-like truck with an open bed displaying most of Olympus' current digital camera lineup, right up to the pro E-3, parked on the sidewalk. Weird.

I walked up and picked up an E-3 with what I remember being a 50-200 f/2.8-3.5 zoom. I had a hard time remembering that this was supposed to be a four-thirds sensor machine, because it felt at least as big as a Canon 5D. I really don't like that size of camera anymore, especially with a big-ass zoom bolted on. The camera's AF seemed responsive enough in the overcast daylight, but everything seemed huge. This was what Olympus was supposed to be going against, at least once upon a time.

I talked to one of the reps while snapping away. (I think the images I left on the CF card were a good deal more interesting than the ones I had to erase to make more room.) I asked pointedly about how the E-3 was doing against the Usual Suspects, and complained about Olympus dragging its heels in terms or delivering one or two good, killer primes for their dSLRs. He said that the E-3 was "holding its own, for what it is" (i.e., a smaller-sensor camera than its pro counterparts?), and that he admitted the lack of primes was "an issue", but that they would have to charge some serious coin for them to make the effort worthwhile (have they had a word with Zeiss lately?). I had a real hard time grokking with the E-3, but I have a hard time grokking with most any dSLR that feels overfed in my hands. So many things felt wrong to me that I could fill half a journal. Maybe the micro-four-thirds thing can have a positive influence, but I think that camp had better move fast before the big dogs eat their lunch.

Of course, I largely shoot film, so (allegedly) none of this should concern me. But I would say one-half the reason for sticking with film is my understanding of how film works and reacts in general (and certain favorite emulsions of mine in particular), but the other half, again, is how the cameras i load the film up in actually work. There's an avalanche of difference between the simplest digicam I use and the film cameras I work with on a daily basis, and it's this gestalt that looms largest for me. I'm somewhat convinced that this issue can be dealt with in the digital world, and will likely happen eventually, but, near as I can tell, nobody has bothered thus far, never mind the price. This doesn't mean there aren't digicams I don't like, it just means there are film-based cameras I like more, usually a lot more, in day-to-day work.


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
i know press guys who are spray and prayers... actually a LOT of them. i am the odd man out. i remember sitting about with some espresso's one day as everyone was filing their adrianne clarkson (canadian gov general at the time) photo's and the shock on one of the guys face when i explained i only shot three frames.
 
emraphoto said:
it could be argued that it would be "ridiculous" to expect that the medium defines the photographer.
Click to expand...

No one said we should expect it to define the photographer. I wrote: "It's ridiculous to expect that things like this will never affect the way we shoot." BTW, thanks for correcting my spelling. :eek:


it's not theory my friend... a careful, composed and thoughtful photographer will transcend the medium.
Click to expand...

Not always. I don't expect absolutes like that in real life, that's why I used the word "theory". Maybe there's a better word to use, but it was the best I could come up with at the moment. :) I would rather not discount the skill of a photographer just because he can make great pictures with film but possibly has never found the same level in digital. People are much more complicated than that, and I think that's what I meant when I used the word "theory" to describe this possible, but not always probable, transition.

the motivation to slow down and be more thoughtful can come in many forms. a few 3,000 frame jobs can do it too.
Click to expand...

I agree. I just don't care for the part of the picture making process where digital slows me down. ;)
 
Barrett, as you know, having a preference is no crime, and what a boring world it would be if we all liked the same thing, eh? On the other hand, the person (not you) expressing such a preference often feels the need to do so in a way that makes it seem that his preference is because there is a 'right' and a 'wrong' and he's cleverly picked the 'right' way.

I shoot both and like both, and truly, I have no problem making my smallish *ist DS perform the way I want to. I shot all day with it today, on full manual, set my ISO and my white balance manually, and used a 50mm f/1.7 manual focus lens. Got just what I expected and what I wanted. Of course, my way is 'mindless', so I guess my opinion doesn't count.
 
i understand and appreciate your points marke.

(i would rather not discount the skill of a photographer just because he can make great pictures with film but possibly has never found the same level in digital. People are much more complicated than that, and I think that's what I meant when I used the word "theory")

of course my friend, of course. i could not have said it with more eloquence.

and ultimately i must echo los. well done indeed ken!
 
Wow, I just saw Ken Rockwell's recent thread. I think he agrees with me, why are all his photos so drenched with heavy color. Anyway it is funny he seems to jumping back onto the film bandwagon again. BTW the other day some teens stopped me at a mall while I was loading film. They were amazed and thought this was a new technology that would replace digital (no kidding).
 
When I worked at a photolab we had a guy come in who shot weddings on film.
I made a note that if I were to ever venture into that area I would never do it with film. Not as a primary camera.
The number of shots he got where someone was blinking or had a slightly off expression. That's the good thing about digital.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom