If it wasn't for digital ...

If it wasn't for digital ...my photography would be less interesting. But I see it in a different way. As retired and amateur I have enough time (not so much as people would believe) and I shoot both digital and film. Digital when I need the photo, film when I like to enjoy the process. Digital comes in play for me in both cases because I scan film (and this becomes digital), postprocess it and make an inkjet print. I print a lot. This allow me to keep the cost low (only cost beside the film is the c41 developing) and to have almost full control on the process and final result. Without the digital revolution I wouldn't print myself, I wouldn't print B&W, I would make dummies of possible photobooks.
robert
PS: I know somebody sees it as an heresy but very oft I have with me both a film and a digital camera...like a Rolleiflex and a Leica x1...

rob_2013_06-1.jpg
 
Keith said:


How many of us here are in this same boat where you would like to be shooting film but time and various commitments just don't allow it?
Click to expand...


I'd rather be shooting period. Regarding film - I'm enjoying my Mamiya so much that I'm considering dabbling again with 35mm.

Digital, with it's obvious perks, can't be beat with my family's lifestyle. Lately however, there's been that tiny bit of time available for scanning - which is also what drove me to get the MF... which is again reigniting the fire for film....
which is why I'm hooked on the classifieds ;)
 
Ko.Fe. said:
The time absents is not always valid excuse, IMHO. The luck of objects for photography, either.
If, OP is drywaller, who drives five minutes to work, may be. But if crocodile hunter! :)
After finishing of our basement I respect drywallers even more, BTW :)

Digital, film is the matter of personal choice and has nothing to do with busy at work time. If...
If you have time to take pictures it could be taken on film as quick and as easily as with mobile phone.

The question is - are the pictures only worth of FB, Instagram crowds only or pictures deserving the Winogrand's approach?
Click to expand...


Hartle–Hawking boundary condition in which the whole of space-time is finite in fact will allow the OP to be short of time I think you'll find :)
 
With family and friends across the country, digital cameras help me see their daily adventures - because not everyone has the patience for film. And getting my girlfriend an RX100 II was probably the best idea I've had in ages.
 
If they would only build me a digital Leica II I would be all over it! :)

Meanwhile...

That aside, though I love shooting film, digital is certainly more convenient at times, both in the taking and in the processing. So I use it when that convenience is important. As for the pictures, I don't care whether they were taken with digital or with film, as long as I have them.

Now...can anyone tell me how to adapt a digital back to my Agfa Billy Record?
 
I am doing 10-12 hour shifts currently. In the early morning I additionally train one hour on my road bike, and always have either my GF670 or X2 in my bag...In my midday brake I often go for a walk in the nearby park with my MF film camera, and nothing could be more relaxing.
So...no, the busier and stressed I am the more I use photograhy as a balance, the more I enjoy film photography, the process of creating something.
 
… lack of patience to get my film back is satisfied and I am forever learning from the immediacy of what digital teaches me about exposure. While I have the best of both worlds of shooting in film with outstanding tools…. life is good and we are all lucky to have both….
 
I have been retired for the better of this year and have found I have a lot of time for photography. I still have some RF and SLR gear that I am unable to convince myself to sell. The fact is I enjoy digital photography as much as I did shooting film.

Mike
 
My issue isn't time as much as cost and turn around time for film.


Keith said:
... I probably wouldn't be taking any photographs at all currently.

I'm working full time five days a week ... I start early and am seldom home before dark and there's no gas left in my tank when I do get home. Saturdays are full with the chores I don't have the time or energy for during the week and I usually spend Sat night and all Sunday at the GF's place, then home and get ready for work Monday morning and the whole cycle starts again.

I would personally rather be shooting film but I really can't stretch that far in finding the time or energy to do so ... digital (bless it) is keeping me in the loop until things change.

How many of us here are in this same boat where you would like to be shooting film but time and various commitments just don't allow it?
Click to expand...
 
digi goes wherever I go every excursion, every workday. As Daniel writes, the immediacy of digital feedback for learning how to address various lights and situations is a lucky benefit. But when I can (more often than not), like Robert Blu I pack both digital and film, sometimes 35 + 120. Still dropping the film off for development/scans, though I could take on more of the wet development and will, I expect, once I retire.

Photographically I'm making up for time not exactly lost but spent otherwise (teaching, writing); at age 61, the prospect for shooting and growing technical skill much as I'd like is ra ther less infinite than it felt 30 years back. Over a 3 year period I've done a lot of trials of gear, film, and ways of seeing. If it weren't for digital, I would not have gotten this far 'back' into film, and I'm grateful for that. And for RFF every day....
 
rhl-oregon said:
digi goes wherever I go every excursion, every workday. As Daniel writes, the immediacy of digital feedback for learning how to address various lights and situations is a lucky benefit. But when I can (more often than not), like Robert Blu I pack both digital and film, sometimes 35 + 120. Still dropping the film off for development/scans, though I could take on more of the wet development and will, I expect, once I retire.

Photographically I'm making up for time not exactly lost but spent otherwise (teaching, writing); at age 61, the prospect for shooting and growing technical skill much as I'd like is ra ther less infinite than it felt 30 years back. Over a 3 year period I've done a lot of trials of gear, film, and ways of seeing. If it weren't for digital, I would not have gotten this far 'back' into film, and I'm grateful for that. And for RFF every day....
Click to expand...

thought provoking comments…
i realized a while back that, at 63, i was in it for the pleasure of creating some good images and not for the fame or money or anything else for that matter. i used to half-ass dream of working for a newspaper someday…never happened…yeah, it's all about the pleasure of creating now.
 
I don't find film any more time consuming than digital. For me it's finding free time, weather, and inclination, all at the right time of day to go out with my tripod and a camera. Whether it's digital or not (it's not), I don't think would make any difference to me.

Loading my Rolleiflex won't take long, I'd be using a tripod, so slow film is no problem, it's just a matter of getting out there at the right time, in the right weather, without other people getting in the way. You'd be amazed at how many people have the temerity to be on the beach the same time as I am.
 
rhl-oregon said:
digi goes wherever I go every excursion, every workday. As Daniel writes, the immediacy of digital feedback for learning how to address various lights and situations is a lucky benefit. But when I can (more often than not), like Robert Blu I pack both digital and film, sometimes 35 + 120. Still dropping the film off for development/scans, though I could take on more of the wet development and will, I expect, once I retire.

Photographically I'm making up for time not exactly lost but spent otherwise (teaching, writing); at age 61, the prospect for shooting and growing technical skill much as I'd like is ra ther less infinite than it felt 30 years back. Over a 3 year period I've done a lot of trials of gear, film, and ways of seeing. If it weren't for digital, I would not have gotten this far 'back' into film, and I'm grateful for that. And for RFF every day....
Click to expand...


Robert, you are, as always, very thoughtful and articulate.
 
Keith said:
How many of us here are in this same boat where you would like to be shooting film but time and various commitments just don't allow it?
Click to expand...

Same thing here. I love film, but I simply do not have the time for developing and scanning anymore. So I am biting in the sour apple and use digital.

Well, the Anmutung of digital is different, but at the moment I am concentrating more on content then on appearance. In theory almost any camera could work for me right now. It really does not matter that much anymore.
 
I love digital, I like how fast it moves from photo to post-processing to the finished photo.

However, where I'd like to engage in film is if I had a Hasselblad.
 
At this phaze of my life ( I am 70 years now...) The choice is very simple:
I love B&W, I love grain. I don`t want to carry a lot of gear.. So:
If I shoot street, I go out with a M4 with 35mm 1,4 and M8 with 21mm (is a crop 28mm) If the subject has a lot of details, I pick M8,(I have taped shut the rear screen, not to be distracted while shooting by always looking at it) If the subject is a nice wide scene or people, It is film with M4.
If I want to shoot abstractions or nature I pick the X pan and Horizon, they both make 24X60mm frames (film) Then If I meet an interesting person, I ask to photograph him in his place ( artists, musicans) There I go with hasselblad ELX with 70mm film cassette and 80mm or 180mm lens- they are both perfect for portraits, then just a tripod and some reflectors. I develop the 70mm 400 Iso film in Acufine to get that incredible grain. I want to concentrate on what I am seeing in front of my camera, not in back of it...
I had all thosed digitals, Nikons & hassy CFV back. They are all gone, didn`t deliver what I wanted: Simple B&W negative that I scan in Flextight or print in my Multigrade Focomat IIC enlarger with those great Oriental or Bergger baryta B&W papers... That is photography to me... A truly happy man...
 
I have 2 cameras loaded with film for 6 months, I just wish I will have the energy and time to shoot and process film on weekends. So convenient to carry only a GRD or an X2 and get your result as soon as you upload to your computer.
 
noisycheese said:
You have to do something for yourself in this life, otherwise there is no quality of life.

Remember the old saying "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy?" People seem to have forgotten that little truism. It's still true, though. Too much work and not enough recreation results in burnout. It sounds like many who are responding to this thread are on the cusp of burnout - if not past the cusp.

Take some time for yourself, brothers and sisters! Do something for you, something that is fun. The house won't collapse if it's not 100% perfect in every little detail. The teenagers won't die if you don't cater to them 24/7/365.


It all depends on how you look at the money and cost facet of photography.

I find $4.50 for a roll of Tri-X and less than $0.25 for chemicals to develop each roll alot more affordable than buying a Monochrom M to use with my Leica M lenses.

Sure, I could get a D7100 for around $1000 to use with my Nikon glass. But SLRs can be very exasperating in some situations, lile low light shooting when the autofocus goes deaf, dumb and blind - GRRRRRRRR!!! SLRs and the lenses for them are big and heavy compared to a rangefinder camera - and SLRs are noisy as hell compared to the whisper quiet operation of a rangefinder.

I frequently find myself photographing in situations where a quiet camera is mandatory. I have tried to use my F100 and it is just to loud. It causes disruption and distraction in the quiet of a church or temple, which is exactly what you don't want. When doing street photography at close range, the racket caused by a SLR alerts your subjects. It intrudes on the unguarded moment - or else it causes them to walk away.

Once you become accustomed to rangefinder cameras, SLRs are just not as much fun as they once were. That's been my experience, at least.
Click to expand...

Hey! Thanks for picking up on my ramblings Cheese! I used to be a "professional photographer" back in the 80s. It kinda sapped my love for the medium, so that by 1990, I just quit, and put my degree in chemistry to work, doing industrial quality control, then finally finding academia, where I could teach chemistry and play every day with the biggest, best 'chemistry set' in the world! (Anybody else here old enough and nerdy enough to remember what a chemistry set was?)

So I love my job, and never feel like doing it will make me a dull boy. However, there was the photography thing rattling around in the back of my mind. I still had cameras, but by the mid 1990s they were obsolete film cameras. I was excited - titillated if you will - by the emerging technology of digital photography. In 1995 (or so) I bought my first digital camera. It was a sphere that was tethered to my Mac, and had a non-focusable lens. I put it on a stellar spectroscope, and WOW! Suddenly I could obtain star spectra that rivaled anything I had seen in the literature, for a fraction of the cost. Soon I was pointing the QuickCam at a variety of subjects, in short doing photography with it.

I was hooked, and went whole hog into digital photography, Nikon 950, D100, Olympus pocket cameras, bought (and sold) a Canon P&S. Blogged it all! I was the digital photography poster boy of 2002.

Although I didn't go fully back into the Biz, I did work part time in photography. I shot weddings, grip&grins, and other events, made websites, and even did the odd art show (winning Arizona Artist of Promise, first place in the Eric Fischl photography competition, and a few shows locally and one that traveled around California.) I felt I was back in photography, all the while having a full time job that could support my part time job!

But then I started with the burn-out once again. One wedding where the bride-zilla was particularly brutal got me started, and a website where they wanted more and more free touch-ups finished it off. I quit doing photography for pay cold turkey. But I wanted to keep making pictures! So I dug out my Olympus OM-1n, and the three lenses I had for it, and signed up for a "portfolio development" course at the local community college (which coincidentally was also my employer, so it was nearly free) and began working on my skills and creativity with film based photography. I started blending chemistry with photography, culminating in a large collection of modern urano-ferro-vanadotype prints which derived their intense colors not from the cibachrome of my past, but from heavy metals.

The teacher of that class is now one of my best-ever friends, as well as my biggest fan. I turn down paid jobs now, and only work on what I want to do. I have a saying when students or others talk about improving their photography: I'm trying to become worse, I want to be less accessible. If you ask my girlfriend, I've succeeded!

So yes: if it weren't for digital, I would not be doing what I do today. I still use digital cause it's fun, but I shoot film because I'm driven to.
 
Chris101 said:
I was shooting digital and getting stuff done, but then I decided that chores, etc. could wait. My house is falling apart. My family complains, but I'm shooting a roll of film every two days and taking an hour a day for myself to develop and scan them. In the spring I plan on devoting 4 more hours a week to serious darkroom time, and getting some prints done.

In the past I have been all about how can I please those around me who depend on me to make their lives better. But the kids are both teens now, and need to pick up some of the slack. I'm gonna make sure that I am enriched by my own actions now, and shooting film is a part of that equation.

Let me tell you, I enacted this new philosophy this week, and so far, the backlash has been ... intense! Digital ain't so bad, eh?
Click to expand...

Inspiring post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom