Film Gives Photography Value

[nickjb]

I began photography digitally in 2010 when I bought a Canon EOS 50D. I sucked, of course, but 3 1/2 years later, I know generally what I'm doing even though I have no illusions of being a learner for the rest of my life.

But after so long, doing digital photography for myself feels like there is no motive. Pictures can be taken at no cost, deleted, retaken, perfected (which isn't a bad thing mind you) without incurring any additional cost. This is great for jobs, but it sucks the life out of it, to me. The temptation is there to just perfect and perfect instead of thinking and taking your photo and moving on.

I recently bought a 1971 Canonet QL19 and have been shooting my first roll with Ilford FP4 125.

The thing about shooting film, and especially without a built in meter (mine seems quite a bit off), autofocus and auto exposure is that I feel like every single photo is an assignment. Every time I wind the lever, I'm about to spend around $1-2 to take this picture so I have to make sure it's spot on.

Not only that, but due to the cost of each picture and having already bought said rolls of film, you have a motivation to use that film and use it well. It's like, "Hey, there's still 14 pictures left on this roll before you can see the results. Go out and take some!"

I'm ordering some Portra 400 soon and my desire is to take my digital portrait photography and meet friends and new people and take their picture on film instead, probably only with natural light. I can't wait to get this roll of B&W developed and see how the camera and film handles and how my expectations differ from the results.

I love what film does to the value of photography, besides the other benefits (dynamic range etc etc etc).

Thoughts? Am I just rambling?

 

[jslabovitz]

That's a great point, and one I completely agree with. Process (work, effort) builds value; anti-process (automatic, 'perfect') takes away value.

 

[defconfunk]

I look forward to hearing your feelings when you get that first roll back. I really look forward to hearing your thoughts when you get your first roll of Porta 400 back. Porta 400 is by far my favourite colour film.

I highly suggest getting the 4x6 prints right at development time for both your first rolls. Two reasons:
1 - The physicality of it - holding a print is an emotionally different thing than seeing an image on a screen.
2 - The image is different. You are used to seeing your digital images on a screen. Porta, while designed with scanning in mind, is a print film. It prints beautifully. If all you see of it is a scanned jpg, then you are only seeing something you digital camera can give you. When you see it printed on photo paper, you are seeing something more than a jpg. That alone is worth the $8 to me.

When getting prints done at the minilab, I get B&W printed on glossy, because it looks closer to silver gelatine prints; and I get colour done on matte. It's a personal preference, but my recommendation for your first go of it.

---

To talk more about your point - that film gives images a value... I both agree and disagree.
-I've quickly stopped thinking about the cost of the individual images as I take them (that would change if I want to LF). Maybe this is because I buy my film in bulk orders, so the cost is seperated from the act of using it, often by months or more. I think the fact that manual film shooting requires a mindful working process, with the knowledge that there is no undo, is part of what gives it this sense of value. the difference may be subtle, but I think about how I only have so many shots left, and I have to make each one count, but I don't think about how much each one is costing me.

-I agree that the roll forces you to treat shooting it as a project. I have a half finished roll of Fuji Superia 1600 that I shot 6 months ago, and now I'm trying to find suitable/good-enough uses for the rest of it. Since the film is no longer made I can't just toss the shots on less than awesome images, but at the same time, finding a use for film that fast is hard. And until I use it, not only can I not see the first shots, but I can't use the camera it resided in! This is not a problem that exists in the digital realm 😉

-I agree that it does change the way we approach "perfect" images. I take a shot, maybe two, and then move on. If my image works out, great, if not, oh well. It is much more Zen. I no longer worry about "missing the shot". This is a big benefit, because I've started to see that in my daily life there are so many shots I *could* take. Evaluating which shots are worth taking (both in dollar cost, and your own time) is a skill that film gave me that digital did not. My vacation photographs are now much more limited - no more 500 picture slide shows!

 

[defconfunk]

I read this and thought "I just read this somewhere else today"
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2013/03/07/always-remember-to-take-your-time-in-a-fast-moving-world/

 

[nickjb]

I read this and thought "I just read this somewhere else today"
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2013/03/07/always-remember-to-take-your-time-in-a-fast-moving-world/

Thanks for linking that. Nice to hear the same experience from a seasoned professional!

 

[shadowfox]

Nick, you summed up nicely the feelings of a lot of people.

The fact that film is still available now eludes many futurists -- amateurs and pros alike -- a decade ago who declared that digital will be the only way to do photography.

On a more philosophical level, I think we as human beings resonate with imperfection because we ourselves are imperfect.

 

[Archiver]

Although I don't break down film into a cost-per-frame basis, I think of each roll as a complete cost, including purchase, development, scan and printing. I always get a set of prints as it costs very little compared with the film/dev/scan, and as was mentioned above, it gives you something to hold. As each roll can cost me up to $45 in total, I make sure that each photo counts.

Over the course of a few years, I filled about six or seven photo albums with prints, each album containing 250 photos. I could have shot a lot more film, but I found a few digital cameras that gave me the same feeling as film, these being the Sigma DP series and the Leica M9. After I got the Sigma DP1 in 2008, I all but stopped shooting film, as I found the Sigma output to be quite close. Also, the Sigma's glacial operation speed and low battery life made it feel like a film camera, too! 😀

It's a very different feeling to go through a photo album compared with folders full of images. You can really track your development because film forces you to concentrate much more, and when you make each shot count, the overall quality goes up.

You can also blend your digital and film practices. Shooting digital allows you to make mistakes and get instant feedback on each image. And from that, you can take those lessons and apply them to film, with an even keener sense of quality and engagement. Your film images will inspire you to do even better with both film and digital, and the process continues.

 

[NY_Dan]

Film: You can hold it in your hands. You don't know if the film is good, if you loaded or exposed it properly. Maybe your camera technique was wanting. Perhaps the shot you thought you got, you didn't and the one you thought was bad is great. You judge yourself -- if accurately you get what you expect - more or less. If not, you don't and you try to figure out why. When finished shooting, you mentally review your shots, and you mentally select those you're most eager to see later. If it's too late to process, you think about it before you go to sleep, and at some point(s) the following day. As you process your film, you wonder, did I load the reel properly, and how will the shots look? Now the film is out of the fixer and you give it a quick rinse, hold the first few frames to the light and try to judge if you got anything good. Once dry you examine all the shots, if you have a Tamron Fotovix, a scanner or a darkroom to make a contact sheet, you quickly get answers to your questions. Photography is dealing with multiple variables at all stages of the process. When you shoot digital, sure there are certain work flow advantages, but you don't get the satisfaction and involvement of overcoming greater obstacles. You're less involved. It's for many, incomplete. Ladies and Gentlemen I give you film. And I'm spent!

 

[loudy]

NY Dan, wow man, you nailed it.
That is a big reason why I continue to shoot film. I don't shoot it 100%. I play with digital too. But when I shoot digital, there is often an emotional disconnect. Like this doesn't really matter or its hard for me to take seriously. Because I don't really need to. No matter what, I'm not as connected or involved as when I use film.

Its not always convenient. But another way I think about it is this. If I want to be efficient in the morning, I use the drive through at Starbucks. One day a week however (Sunday), I prefer to walk inside, greet my barista and ask her for my regular drink, sit at my favorite couch, read the paper while I soak in the morning, and sip my latte. It's the exact same drink I get in the drive through. But the experience is more involved. And sometimes that is what feels better.

I also would probably start to take digital a little more seriously without the storage issues. The quality is there in almost all cases. But to me, it just feels so disposable...

 

[chikubi]

Personally, I think people tend to romanticize film way, way too much. I say this relaxing here at the computer after spending a day processing the last rolls from my B&W backlog. Maybe it's because I grew up with film and so it still is just an everyday thing to me, but I just don't get it when people wax poetic about it like it's some magical gateway to connecting with the "real" world, whatever that is.

To wit, I have film cameras from Brownie boxes to modern SLRs and shoot them regularly. Similarly, I have a Nikon D3 with pro glass and all the trimmings that I also shoot regularly. Film/digital, digital/film . . . apart from the necessities that arise from differences of workflow, why would you shoot one differently from another? I mean, I shoot film because it has a certain look to it that I enjoy plus many of the cameras add their own unique flavor to the mix. For certain projects these traits suit the purpose perfectly and are highly desired. I shoot digital for much of the same reason - it has its own look and for certain work its traits are highly desireable as well. Other than that, I shoot them the same way - same compositions and considerations - you know, the same.

Cost has nothing to do with either for the most part - my B&Ws run about $0.08/frame, color about $0.30; digital it's currently about $0.15/frame, but dropping gradually with each additional frame I take. One medium I paid up front in full for, and the other is pay-as-I-go, but neither is expensive and I could care less how many frames I shoot at any given time.

Furthermore, digital isn't easy. Disregarding snapshots, if you think that there's no work involved when shooting digital, then either you're not very good with it, or you don't have very critical standards of quality. If you want professional looking photos in digital, you have to put the time in, period. That means both in actual editing time, plus the time required to learn the skillset needed to produce quality photos with digital tools. It's no different than film, but doesn't smell as bad and you can get fat faster from all the seat time you'll put in. In any case, if you're treating digital as if it's some cheap knock-off of photography because it somehow doesn't feel "real", I suggest putting more effort into it, plain and simple.

 

[nickjb]

Furthermore, digital isn't easy. Disregarding snapshots, if you think that there's no work involved when shooting digital, then either you're not very good with it, or you don't have very critical standards of quality. If you want professional looking photos in digital, you have to put the time in, period. That means both in actual editing time, plus the time required to learn the skillset needed to produce quality photos with digital tools. It's no different than film, but doesn't smell as bad and you can get fat faster from all the seat time you'll put in. In any case, if you're treating digital as if it's some cheap knock-off of photography because it somehow doesn't feel "real", I suggest putting more effort into it, plain and simple.

I never said digital photography requires no effort or skill. Look at my website if you think I think I don't put effort into my work.

 

[chikubi]

I never said digital photography requires no effort or skill. Look at my website if you think I think I don't put effort into my work.

Sorry for the poor wording, it wasn't directed at you specifically, just in a general sense. Your work is truly excellent and it's obvious that you're invested in it a great deal.

I guess specifically considering your point, I just don't understand the idea of how cost adds value to your shooting. I've been shooting film for close to 40 years, some more seriously than others. Perhaps, for me, because of that it's nothing special - it's way to take photos, it works the way it works, requires a certain skillset to be productive, and the cost is something that's always been there and is a given. I shoot it and digital with equal care and consideration, with as many frames as required for the task at hand, fast or slow, whatever it takes. For me, both media are on equal footing and possess equal value, so it seems odd in my mind to treat one higher or lower for what seems to me, arbitrary reasons.

And please, don't be mistaken, I'm not saying your viewpoint is wrong or less valid, but I see similar viewpoints as well from others here and there and they all seem somewhat odd and over-dramatic/over-romantic. Maybe it's just because I went from film to digital then coming from the other way around.

 

[jslabovitz]

I went back and read Nick's original post, and realized I read 'value' differently than simply describing the dollar cost of a shot. Rather, I read 'value' as a verb: I value something because there is some quality about it that distinguishes it from something else, which I do not value as much. What is that quality that gives value?

In the context of film, it's not film per se that adds or creates value, but rather how it affects the working process of the photographer. Choosing film often implies choosing a manual camera with one of a variety of film types; taking a shot implies manual focus and exposure; processing implies the choice a developing process, and may imply printing by hand in a darkroom or printing press. That workflow describes a largely hands-on, tactile, physical, and experiential process (even if there's a bit of digital scanning & editing in the middle).

That implied value of artistic process may not hold true for everyone, of course. I happen to value hand-made objects (art, clothing, food, etc.), and my environment and life choices reflect that. Someone else may value another quality -- say, an appreciation of high-tech materials, or a particular political point of view. It's probably futile to try to compare the values of very different approaches, but possibly useful to understand how similar actions/methods/etc. can perhaps be comparable.

Waxing philosophically far too late at night,
--John

 

[nickjb]

I went back and read Nick's original post, and realized I read 'value' differently than simply describing the dollar cost of a shot. Rather, I read 'value' as a verb: I value something because there is some quality about it that distinguishes it from something else, which I do not value as much. What is that quality that gives value?

In the context of film, it's not film per se that adds or creates value, but rather how it affects the working process of the photographer. Choosing film often implies choosing a manual camera with one of a variety of film types; taking a shot implies manual focus and exposure; processing implies the choice a developing process, and may imply printing by hand in a darkroom or printing press. That workflow describes a largely hands-on, tactile, physical, and experiential process (even if there's a bit of digital scanning & editing in the middle).

That implied value of artistic process may not hold true for everyone, of course. I happen to value hand-made objects (art, clothing, food, etc.), and my environment and life choices reflect that. Someone else may value another quality -- say, an appreciation of high-tech materials, or a particular political point of view. It's probably futile to try to compare the values of very different approaches, but possibly useful to understand how similar actions/methods/etc. can perhaps be comparable.

Waxing philosophically far too late at night,
--John

Yes, you've described what I might have been trying to say pretty well.

With digital, it's great because you can perfect your work before beginning post processing. Not only that, it also accelerates the learning curve because you have the result right in front of you to check and adjust your lighting or composition or techniques and try again. You can also take many, many, many more photographs at a time and not run out. You can calculate less and tweak more which is perfectly fine!

With film, you have no such option even if you were as well restrained as you could be on a digital camera. Digital and film require different approaches.

If I was doing a lit portrait on film without the aid of a digital camera or continuous lights, I would need to measure more, trust my intuition and know my ratios before taking the picture and hoping that I'm going to get the rim light or the key light or the contrast I was picturing in my head.

And I guess that's a major point of me personally shooting on film; to challenge what I've learnt. Also, I do enjoy the mystery factor that I get when I click the shutter on this old rangefinder.