Archiver
Veteran
My first camera was a black plastic Kodak 'Brownie camera' that used 110 cassettes and had a big yellow shutter button. Dad had a big and heavy Minolta SR-T and a lighter, but still heavy to a child, Pentax ME. I was often told to choose my shots carefully, and be careful because film was expensive to develop.
ME - Sky High by Archiver, on Flickr
Many years later, my first digital camera, and the one that really started me on the photographic journey, was the Canon S45. With a digital camera I was free to take as many photos, try as many things, and stuff up as many times as necessary to get a halfway decent image. Over the ensuing years I took thousands of crappy snapshots but always pushed myself to shoot better ones, as well.
GPO Canary exhibit by Archiver, on Flickr
And then I started using film. Many of my images were still experimental as they lacked the immediate feedback of digital, and I shot a lot of random and banal things. But my parents' words still echoed in my mind and I took care with my exposures and shot with economy in mind.
T3 - The Lighthouse Rocks by Archiver, on Flickr
That image of the lighthouse was taken on a solo trip to Sydney. I spent two weeks driving to as many scenic locations as possible and taking photo after photo with a Canon 400D. But the images that I liked the most were taken with my Contax T3.
Another few years of digital-only followed, and now I've brought film back into my personal work.
What I've discovered is that shooting the M9 for four years has improved my ability to shoot the M7 no end. The same metering and framing, plus experience with the lenses, means that I can much more accurately estimate what the film image will look like.
M9 - Valentino by Archiver, on Flickr
(this is not film!)
And more generally, all the failed experiments, flubs and experience with digital have given me a much wider base to estimate film images. While digital lends itself to a spray and pray approach, it also massively ramps up the learning curve if you're paying attention, naturally.
Looking back through my film albums, as well as my digital archives, I can see what were considered images and what were random snaps for the heck of it. As I shoot film now, I can take the hundreds of thousands of frames of digital experience and apply them to get images that I actually want.
At a technical level, I recognize colour negative's limitations in the night, and shoot digital there. Generally, I am now shooting film in daylight and moderate natural light situations, but keep night time for digital.
Digital has also helped me to appreciate film even more as a limited-resource medium. Nothing like the contrast of an unlimited glut to bring ascetic restraint into perspective. It must be like someone who shot with half frame transitioning to medium format.
Now, I shoot film like I want to create something special with each frame. Special to me, not necessarily a work of art, but something visually pleasing or of meaning and significance. I see a lot more portrait work with family and friends with film in my future.
Has digital changed the way you shoot film, too?
ME - Sky High by Archiver, on FlickrMany years later, my first digital camera, and the one that really started me on the photographic journey, was the Canon S45. With a digital camera I was free to take as many photos, try as many things, and stuff up as many times as necessary to get a halfway decent image. Over the ensuing years I took thousands of crappy snapshots but always pushed myself to shoot better ones, as well.
GPO Canary exhibit by Archiver, on FlickrAnd then I started using film. Many of my images were still experimental as they lacked the immediate feedback of digital, and I shot a lot of random and banal things. But my parents' words still echoed in my mind and I took care with my exposures and shot with economy in mind.
T3 - The Lighthouse Rocks by Archiver, on FlickrThat image of the lighthouse was taken on a solo trip to Sydney. I spent two weeks driving to as many scenic locations as possible and taking photo after photo with a Canon 400D. But the images that I liked the most were taken with my Contax T3.
Another few years of digital-only followed, and now I've brought film back into my personal work.
What I've discovered is that shooting the M9 for four years has improved my ability to shoot the M7 no end. The same metering and framing, plus experience with the lenses, means that I can much more accurately estimate what the film image will look like.
M9 - Valentino by Archiver, on Flickr(this is not film!)
And more generally, all the failed experiments, flubs and experience with digital have given me a much wider base to estimate film images. While digital lends itself to a spray and pray approach, it also massively ramps up the learning curve if you're paying attention, naturally.
Looking back through my film albums, as well as my digital archives, I can see what were considered images and what were random snaps for the heck of it. As I shoot film now, I can take the hundreds of thousands of frames of digital experience and apply them to get images that I actually want.
At a technical level, I recognize colour negative's limitations in the night, and shoot digital there. Generally, I am now shooting film in daylight and moderate natural light situations, but keep night time for digital.
Digital has also helped me to appreciate film even more as a limited-resource medium. Nothing like the contrast of an unlimited glut to bring ascetic restraint into perspective. It must be like someone who shot with half frame transitioning to medium format.
Now, I shoot film like I want to create something special with each frame. Special to me, not necessarily a work of art, but something visually pleasing or of meaning and significance. I see a lot more portrait work with family and friends with film in my future.
Has digital changed the way you shoot film, too?
