appeal of film over digital?

[Freakscene]

I see a lot of beauty in digital photographs by many talented members here and elsewhere.

I see a lot of beauty in the digital work of @Freakscene and @Shab and others here in RFF.

Very kind, thank you.

 

[Godfrey]

I conducted an interesting experiment some years ago and went through my entire back catalogue to Pick out my favourite 100 photos for a blog I was setting up after I retired. I ended up picking just over 300 images, and despite having used digital for 15 years by then, both private and commercially, it turned out that only about 6 were digital.
I still don't know why that is.
Whether I just like the look of film or I'm just a shit digital photographer I don't know.
I'm in the midst of a 2 week roadtrip through Queensland in the land of Oz, I've only taken one roll of 120 film and 900 digital images so far, bet I like the film stuff better.
Now I'm taking photographs purely for myself I really have to wonder if I shouldn't just sell all my digital gear and stick to film. Only real problem I've just moved house and would have to build yet another darkroom, I'm 65 with health issues and I just don't know if I could be arsed.
First world problems...

There are a few of us who, when looking back, prefer more of the pictures we shot with film than with digital. The time gap is helpful as it dilutes any prejudgment ans lets the picture speak for itself. However, I’m reminded of Jane Bown who, when asked why she took so few frames, replied, ‘I realised that the best frames were always the first or last, so I stopped taking the ones in the middle.’

And for me it is quite the opposite: I look back through the many many photos I made over the past 50 years and, while there are a number of wonderful photos I made on film, there are far far more said signal photos I made with digital capture. I know for a fact that if I want to really advance my photography, rather than my photo-time entertainment, I should shelve all these lovely old film cameras and concentrate on making photographs with my M10-M, M10-R, and Hasselblad using the CFVII 50c back with either 500CM or 907x bodies.

Why? Because in my advancing age, time is ever more precious and I simply don't have the time to waste on all those tedious and boring tasks of processing film, scanning, etc. The wait to finish a roll of film before I can see what I've done seems interminable, the hour or two when I get a chance to do processing even before I can look at the result of that wait is a burden. I learn more, I experiment more, I see more by picking up any of the digital cameras, making a couple of exposures, and immediately examining them, understanding what I got and what I didn't, rendering them, posting them, and moving on to the next idea, the next try.

I do film because I enjoy the challenge, the oddities of film defects, the "unknowable" misses, and because I like my old cameras. (I better like my old cameras ... I've just committed to having my Vito II, new Vitessa L, another Retina IIIc, and Rollei 35S serviced again... That's a substantial outlay and commitment.) But when I really want to make photographs and not be caught up in the reminiscences, I *always* grab one of the digital cameras. That 'almost instantaneous feedback' is the best way to learn, to advance, to move forward.

It's why Polaroid instant film remains so appealing as well, and why I bought an InstaxSQ back for my Hasselblad. Learn the medium, learn to make the right settings, take the photo. What's there in the print is done. Study it and move on to the next.

Ah, Time. In the end, Time is the cruelest master of all. Oh well ... I just loaded the Polaroid SLR670a with another pack of color film. Lets see what I can make with another 8 moments of Time. 😀

G

 

[sojournerphoto]

And for me it is quite the opposite: I look back through the many many photos I made over the past 50 years and, while there are a number of wonderful photos I made on film, there are far far more said signal photos I made with digital capture. I know for a fact that if I want to really advance my photography, rather than my photo-time entertainment, I should shelve all these lovely old film cameras and concentrate on making photographs with my M10-M, M10-R, and Hasselblad using the CFVII 50c back with either 500CM or 907x bodies.

Why? Because in my advancing age, time is ever more precious and I simply don't have the time to waste on all those tedious and boring tasks of processing film, scanning, etc. The wait to finish a roll of film before I can see what I've done seems interminable, the hour or two when I get a chance to do processing even before I can look at the result of that wait is a burden. I learn more, I experiment more, I see more by picking up any of the digital cameras, making a couple of exposures, and immediately examining them, understanding what I got and what I didn't, rendering them, posting them, and moving on to the next idea, the next try.

I do film because I enjoy the challenge, the oddities of film defects, the "unknowable" misses, and because I like my old cameras. (I better like my old cameras ... I've just committed to having my Vito II, new Vitessa L, another Retina IIIc, and Rollei 35S serviced again... That's a substantial outlay and commitment.) But when I really want to make photographs and not be caught up in the reminiscences, I *always* grab one of the digital cameras. That 'almost instantaneous feedback' is the best way to learn, to advance, to move forward.

It's why Polaroid instant film remains so appealing as well, and why I bought an InstaxSQ back for my Hasselblad. Learn the medium, learn to make the right settings, take the photo. What's there in the print is done. Study it and move on to the next.

Ah, Time. In the end, Time is the cruelest master of all. Oh well ... I just loaded the Polaroid SLR670a with another pack of color film. Lets see what I can make with another 8 moments of Time. 😀

G

indeed, time and the awareness of its passing is a powerful driver.

 

[JohnWolf]

Film is beautiful, digital is not.

Sorry, Erik, but that's pure dogmatism and utter nonsense. If the history of art shows anything, it's that beauty is not the monopoly of this or that medium. The potential for beauty is everywhere. At least to those whose eyes and hearts are receptive to it.

 

[Shab]

I see a lot of beauty in digital photographs by many talented members here and elsewhere.

I see a lot of beauty in the digital work of @Freakscene and @Shab and others here in RFF.

Thank you!

 

[35photo]

Honestly I’ve done what you did. It was fine. Being a old film shooter, I’ve adapted a philosophy embrace digital for what it is… Has many strengths, I learn how to process my files much better and combining color palettes of different film stocks to create my own. The power of digital right there. Film sims now feel totally silly with this philosophy.

 

[Out to Lunch]

Home | The Printed Picture

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Honestly I’ve done what you did. It was fine. Being a old film shooter, I’ve adapted a philosophy embrace digital for what it is… Has many strengths, I learn how to process my files much better and combining color palettes of different film stocks to create my own. The power of digital right there. Film sims now feel totally silly with this philosophy.

"film sims now totally silly" .....
not 😛

 

[JeffS7444]

Regarding old gadgets: I like finding value where others only see old junk. Of course, some items are genuinely obsolete (discontinued film and battery types, and so forth) but sometimes, little modifications can make them relevant once again. Recycling can be fun!

Am also awed by the richness of some old objects: Lavish use of engraved, chrome-plated brass, embossed leather, even tropical hardwoods, for example. There's a ton of reasons why you might not want to mass-produce things in that fashion today, but we can savor past efforts.

 

[Dogman]

Getting back to Richard Benson (yeah, I could bore you to death with all the stuff about him**), in an interview I read with him he said that a craftsman loves his tools while and artist disdains the tools. He went on to say he considered himself and artist at times and a craftsman at times. Most of us are either craftsmen or artists...or both.

(**In one of Robert B. Parker's Spencer novels, one of the characters told Spencer he knew an awful lot of stuff that would never make him any money. A friend of mine once told me I was a lot like Spencer in this respect. 🙄 )


.....................

 

[JohnWolf]

Getting back to Richard Benson (yeah, I could bore you to death with all the stuff about him**), in an interview I read with him he said that a craftsman loves his tools while and artist disdains the tools. He went on to say he considered himself and artist at times and a craftsman at times. Most of us are either craftsmen or artists...or both.

(**In one of Robert B. Parker's Spencer novels, one of the characters told Spencer he knew an awful lot of stuff that would never make him any money. A friend of mine once told me I was a lot like Spencer in this respect. 🙄 )


.....................

Apropos the thread theme, the presence of craft is one of the big draws of film photography for me. I like the feeling of hands-on connectedness to the various phases of the home processing workflow. Even including loading, advancing, and unloading film. I would not consider myself a craftsman, but all that tactile involvement has a certain charm for me, like I’m actively participating in creating something substantial.

 

[Mos6502]

Benson is one of my photo heroes. One of his statements that will remain my mantra for eternity is it is "how the picture looks" that's important. The processes he details in his book and in these lectures are interesting but the only thing that really matters is how the picture looks. It's all that has ever mattered over the centuries of making pictures. Processes? That other stuff are just slogans on bumper stickers.

How does one get the image to look the way it does? 😉

 

[Retro-Grouch]

Benson is one of my photo heroes. One of his statements that will remain my mantra for eternity is it is "how the picture looks" that's important. The processes he details in his book and in these lectures are interesting but the only thing that really matters is how the picture looks. It's all that has ever mattered over the centuries of making pictures. Processes? That other stuff are just slogans on bumper stickers.

This is utterly in opposition to the tenets of Modernism, particularly in regard to painting. For the Modernists, the process and "how the image looks" are (or should be) inseparable. The most obvious example would be a Pollock drip painting. I'm not arguing a position here, only reiterating "The Truth" according to Clement Greenberg. Benson's perspective is not invalid, but it is partial within the broad field of art theory and criticism.

 

[Mos6502]

If you studied art in the 18th or 19th century, one was usually instructed in the use and effect of mediums before moving on to other subjects. Sort of the reverse of today, handling the media was considered of the utmost importance. Today you are taught about linear perspective, light sources, etc. and more or less just left to experiment with whatever media is chosen for the day. I think what hangs people up when we talk of "process" is understanding the difference between process as a practical matter (the final product is the direct result of process) and process as a conceptual matter (for example, choosing a media for a thematic or symbolic reason relating to the message of the work).

It is ridiculous to assert that only the results matter, and the process does not, while also teaching the finer points of processes in order to obtain the best result. Unless you're distinguishing between process in practice, and process as a concept.

 

[Dogman]

This is utterly in opposition to the tenets of Modernism, particularly in regard to painting. For the Modernists, the process and "how the image looks" are (or should be) inseparable. The most obvious example would be a Pollock drip painting. I'm not arguing a position here, only reiterating "The Truth" according to Clement Greenberg. Benson's perspective is not invalid, but it is partial within the broad field of art theory and criticism.

Yeah. But it's not dogmatic. And Benson was not a conceptualist either.

 

[Erik van Straten]

If you don’t take it seriously, even subconsciously, your work won’t be as good.


It will certainly never be if you never use it, or think it can’t be as beautiful.



Marty

How can I take it seriously? Give me one good digital example that is better than the best silver gelatin print.

An advantage of digital photography is the fact that the results can be stored digitally, but that fact does not improve the artistic quality of the photos. However, I admit that artistic quality is only a subjective concept.

 

[raydm6]

 

[Deleted member 65559]

View attachment 4839701

Indeed... we did get past 5 pages before the usual descent into hell.
As a cowboy friend of mine said. "Like two fleas fighting over who owns the dog....."

 

[tortellini_man]

i interact with endlessly configurable and somewhat unreliable electronics all the time in other hobbies and for work, so film photography can provide a bit of a break from that; using a purpose built mechanical machine makes my brain feel much less cluttered

Also since im more of a beginner, film restricts me somewhat in isolating which variables i can change and shows me how each impacts the image (although i could still do this with digital if i were more disciplined 😛)

i dont really have access to any sort of darkroom though, so the printing aspect of film photography is something i still need to explore. at the moment, i primarily view my film work digitally, so it is digital to some extent as well

i still like digital better for some stuff though; lens stabilization, modern super telephoto lenses, weather sealing, and other things help a lot for wildlife and macro for me

 

[Freakscene]

How can I take it seriously? Give me one good digital example that is better than the best silver gelatin print.

Then shoot digital and print it on silver gelatin paper. There are several ways and it is much more manipulable than a film negative. I can mix film and digital captures and even experienced professional printers can’t see the difference. I also regard carbon prints on rag paper as different, but as nice as silver paper. Do you look at different digital prints?

As I said, if you won’t take it seriously, it will never be good enough. And if you think there is only one way to do anything, you’re dealing with a belief system, not an assessment of the output you are looking at. I don’t mind if you’re not living in a reality based existence, but you should at least make it clear if you dismiss digital, don’t look at it, and ultimately don’t know anything about it when you completely dismiss it.

An advantage of digital photography is the fact that the results can be stored digitally, but that fact does not improve the artistic quality of the photos. However, I admit that artistic quality is only a subjective concept.

I am interested to understand if your beliefs are based just in belief or if you have looked at some digital outputs of different kinds. I am talking about output alone, without any of the other, vast set of advantages of digital.

I don’t want to argue, I want to know.

Marty