Bill Pierce
Well-known
It’s hard to be a film photographer. Do you process the film yourself or send it out? When film was king, most folks processed their own black and white and sent color out. Finding that specific film developer that produced the specific look and tailoring the film speed and degree of development to the range of tones you preferred meant do it yourself. And, of course, that personalization carried on through the printing.
You can do that today. But it’s a little more expensive, and finding some gear, like a really good enlarger, is difficult. Understandably, folks turn to processing film, but avoiding the problems and expensive outlay of silver printing by scanning their negatives and inkjet printing. The problem there is a really good scanner for small negatives costs a fortune.
Which brings us to the question - why use film? Talking to a lot of film photographers, including quite a few that work with computers in their day job, it’s not some wonder secret super technical advantage. It’s the simplicity. The very basic, essential, important camera controls, just film speed, focus, shutter speed and f/stop - nothing else. And, unless you are shooting a Hulcher, which is basically a slowed down movie camera, one picture at a time, no 30 (or even 5) frames per second. You pay attention to what is in front of the camera. There’s not a lot more to do.
You pay attention to what is in front of the camera. I think that is incredibly important. And sometimes it is rather difficult. I’m not quite sure why, but our many menued digital play toys can make themselves very attractive when we should be paying attention to what is in front of our cameras.
As the world of film photography and the gear that supports it diminishes, as digital photography becomes the overwhelming norm, can digital photography be practiced with the same shooting simplicity and attention to the subject as film photography. You would think so, but I’m not sure. I shot film for a long time, and I find myself falling into the digital trap of paying attention to the camera instead of… you know.
Your thoughts.
You can do that today. But it’s a little more expensive, and finding some gear, like a really good enlarger, is difficult. Understandably, folks turn to processing film, but avoiding the problems and expensive outlay of silver printing by scanning their negatives and inkjet printing. The problem there is a really good scanner for small negatives costs a fortune.
Which brings us to the question - why use film? Talking to a lot of film photographers, including quite a few that work with computers in their day job, it’s not some wonder secret super technical advantage. It’s the simplicity. The very basic, essential, important camera controls, just film speed, focus, shutter speed and f/stop - nothing else. And, unless you are shooting a Hulcher, which is basically a slowed down movie camera, one picture at a time, no 30 (or even 5) frames per second. You pay attention to what is in front of the camera. There’s not a lot more to do.
You pay attention to what is in front of the camera. I think that is incredibly important. And sometimes it is rather difficult. I’m not quite sure why, but our many menued digital play toys can make themselves very attractive when we should be paying attention to what is in front of our cameras.
As the world of film photography and the gear that supports it diminishes, as digital photography becomes the overwhelming norm, can digital photography be practiced with the same shooting simplicity and attention to the subject as film photography. You would think so, but I’m not sure. I shot film for a long time, and I find myself falling into the digital trap of paying attention to the camera instead of… you know.
Your thoughts.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
I shoot film (B+W) because I can make silver-gelatine prints from the negatives. That is the only reason.
Erik.
Erik.
Axel
singleshooter
That all happens in the head
Sure digital photography can be simple. Why not? Take one picture instead of ten, take the settings you are used to instead of a twinky-blinky program and
so on. Why not?
The traps of paying attention to other things than initially aimed are all around us. It´s a challenge. But I have managed my photography to be easier than ever. Digital.
What can be simpler than putting a memorycard in and have my picture(s) available?
My 5ct
css9450
Veteran
twvancamp
Thom
I've been having the opposite feeling lately. After shooting film for ~15 years I got my first digital camera this summer, and I have found it very difficult to create a great photograph. Very fun to experiment and learn though.
Shooting film has become logistically difficult in some cases (sourcing material and chemicals, etc.) and certainly more expensive, but still the familiarity makes it more enjoyable for me than shooting digital.
That said, I don't think there is anything inherently pure or authentic about film photography. It is one medium among many.
Shooting film has become logistically difficult in some cases (sourcing material and chemicals, etc.) and certainly more expensive, but still the familiarity makes it more enjoyable for me than shooting digital.
That said, I don't think there is anything inherently pure or authentic about film photography. It is one medium among many.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
Like Erik, I photograph with film because I print. Without the darkroom, i'd feel like a musician without an instrument....
fiddle
Established
I also shoot B&W film because I print. I enjoy the process, even developing film....
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I was wondering where is Bill, lately.
Couple of things to debunk.
Enlargers. Very easy to get within major cities. Like Toronto. Burlington camera has something like two dozens of them. I was watching one Leitz mint one, well under 1K$ on Kjiji in Kensington, ON. Nobody wanted it, including me.
Scanner. BH has Plustek on sale every year. Well under 400 USD, software included. This is good scanner if you are not pixel counting gearhead, but want good inkjet print. And Epson flatbed will do 120 very well. Not expensive either.
Is it hard to be film photographer?
Yes. Darkroom paper is outrageously expensive now. Cheap RC is three times more than heavy weight inkjet paper. Film prices are going up every year or more often.
And it takes so much time to develop, scan or dr print.
No. I don't have to worry about batteries getting empty and forgetting SD in PC.
Cameras are plenty if you are OK with modern SLR. Just use same lenses, only switch from DSLR to SLR. (Canon EOS).
I get constantly asked if it is film camera.
Then I'm tired, I move my lenses to digital camera for couple of days or a week.
Taking image on film is not big deal. Bessa with TTL, Canon EOS with TTL and priority mode or just S16 will give good picture. Just don't be gearhead.
Couple of things to debunk.
Enlargers. Very easy to get within major cities. Like Toronto. Burlington camera has something like two dozens of them. I was watching one Leitz mint one, well under 1K$ on Kjiji in Kensington, ON. Nobody wanted it, including me.
Scanner. BH has Plustek on sale every year. Well under 400 USD, software included. This is good scanner if you are not pixel counting gearhead, but want good inkjet print. And Epson flatbed will do 120 very well. Not expensive either.
Is it hard to be film photographer?
Yes. Darkroom paper is outrageously expensive now. Cheap RC is three times more than heavy weight inkjet paper. Film prices are going up every year or more often.
And it takes so much time to develop, scan or dr print.
No. I don't have to worry about batteries getting empty and forgetting SD in PC.
Cameras are plenty if you are OK with modern SLR. Just use same lenses, only switch from DSLR to SLR. (Canon EOS).
I get constantly asked if it is film camera
. Then I'm tired, I move my lenses to digital camera for couple of days or a week.
Taking image on film is not big deal. Bessa with TTL, Canon EOS with TTL and priority mode or just S16 will give good picture. Just don't be gearhead.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
I love the simplicity of shooting B&W film, kind of photography broken down to its essentials, light and shadow, and I enjoy (maybe nostalgically) the process of processing the film, knowing I'll get this or that result depending on developer used and timing. Since I currently don't have a darkroom, the film gets scanned and finished digitally.
I hear what you're saying about finding a digital solution that gives "the same shooting simplicity and attention to the subject as film photography". That's a goal I've had for a while, and have tried different solutions from a Nikon Df with MF lenses to my current solution, which ain't perfect, but is getting better. I'm using a Nikon Z6 with Nikkor rangefinder lenses from the 1950's. I have the digital body set up as Aperture Priority, and with the little "zoom to focus" button on the front of the camera (a huge advantage for these aging eyes), I can just concentrate on what's in front of the camera, quickly manually focusing and composing, and pop the shutter when the moment arrives.
Best,
-Tim
I hear what you're saying about finding a digital solution that gives "the same shooting simplicity and attention to the subject as film photography". That's a goal I've had for a while, and have tried different solutions from a Nikon Df with MF lenses to my current solution, which ain't perfect, but is getting better. I'm using a Nikon Z6 with Nikkor rangefinder lenses from the 1950's. I have the digital body set up as Aperture Priority, and with the little "zoom to focus" button on the front of the camera (a huge advantage for these aging eyes), I can just concentrate on what's in front of the camera, quickly manually focusing and composing, and pop the shutter when the moment arrives.
Best,
-Tim
willie_901
Veteran
"We Have Met The Enemy And He Is Us"
"We Have Met The Enemy And He Is Us"
Using a digital camera and working as if one had a film camera are not mutually exclusive. There are many digital cameras that support a simple ( I prefer minimalistic) mode of operation. Many of them are relatively inexpensive.
Film - you spend a lot of time leaning how to develop your negatives/transparencies
Digital - you spend a lot of time with a poorly written manual, doing research on-line and using an inefficient, user-hostile interface to learn how to operate the camera in a minimalistic fashion
Film - you spend a lot of time leaning how to print negatives/transparencies; you have to organize and store them
Digital - you spend a lot of time learning how to control image post production rendering
Once one knows how to operate a digital camera as one operates a film camera, what exactly prevents the digital photographer from thinking and working as they did with their film camera? I can't think of any intrinsic factor.
Nothing about digital photography interferes with paying attention to what is in front of our cameras. This means the issue is one of self-discipline. It requires keeping our centers of attention on photography instead of technologies. This is a matter of practice and self discipline. If working as a film photographer is really important, the only thing stopping us is dedication.
Using raw files requires initial investments in time and money. It also involves spending time on image optimization in post-production. This may appear to be inconvenient.[1] However the inherent versatility of raw files means one can completely ignore using in-camera menus and concentrate on being a photographer.
Using in-camera JPEGs does not necessarily cause distraction from thinking about what's in front of the camera. It just reduces our options for image rendering.[2] It also means we must pay more attention to exposure (aperture, shutter time) and post-acquisition image brightening (camera ISO parameter selection).
Of course it can. There are two requirements:
The later point means we recognize raw-file, post-production rendering can liberate us from using the camera's menu system to change in-camera image rendering parameters as work. This eliminates all distractions but one - battery life. Even camera ISO is not a critical parameter for digital cameras with pseudo ISO-invariant data streams[3].
nb: post title attributed to cartoonist Walt Kelly
[1] With film producing an aesthetically print is also time consuming. If one uses a hybrid workflow, then you have to spend time and money creating those digital tools just as you would in digital image post-production.
[2] Some digital cameras will create in-camera JPEGS form a single exposure using different rendering parameters. This means you could have three different in-camera renderings of one exposure for instance vivid, normal and monochrome. This triples JPEG storage space but increases versatility. Newer cameras with newer storage cards experience almost no buffering delay when storing three JPEGs instead of one.
[3] Except in extraordinarily low light, the noise for the data is dominated by photon noise. The noise from camera electronics is constant to +/- 1/3 stop over a wide range sensor exposure levels. This means for raw files there is no advantage to increasing image brightness in-camera by increasing the camera ISO parameter. You can use the cameras base ISO parameter for all exposures (except those few in extremely low light). Of course you need to maximize exposure (aperture/shutter time) just as one does when exposing film. It also means in low light the image will be too dark to review in-camera (which is film-like).
"We Have Met The Enemy And He Is Us"
Using a digital camera and working as if one had a film camera are not mutually exclusive. There are many digital cameras that support a simple ( I prefer minimalistic) mode of operation. Many of them are relatively inexpensive.
Film - you spend a lot of time leaning how to develop your negatives/transparencies
Digital - you spend a lot of time with a poorly written manual, doing research on-line and using an inefficient, user-hostile interface to learn how to operate the camera in a minimalistic fashion
Film - you spend a lot of time leaning how to print negatives/transparencies; you have to organize and store them
Digital - you spend a lot of time learning how to control image post production rendering
Once one knows how to operate a digital camera as one operates a film camera, what exactly prevents the digital photographer from thinking and working as they did with their film camera? I can't think of any intrinsic factor.
Nothing about digital photography interferes with paying attention to what is in front of our cameras. This means the issue is one of self-discipline. It requires keeping our centers of attention on photography instead of technologies. This is a matter of practice and self discipline. If working as a film photographer is really important, the only thing stopping us is dedication.
Using raw files requires initial investments in time and money. It also involves spending time on image optimization in post-production. This may appear to be inconvenient.[1] However the inherent versatility of raw files means one can completely ignore using in-camera menus and concentrate on being a photographer.
Using in-camera JPEGs does not necessarily cause distraction from thinking about what's in front of the camera. It just reduces our options for image rendering.[2] It also means we must pay more attention to exposure (aperture, shutter time) and post-acquisition image brightening (camera ISO parameter selection).
Of course it can. There are two requirements:
- one has to understand how to set up and operate a digital camera that leads to a minimalistic operating environment
- one has to think about the in-camera data as data instead of an image.
The later point means we recognize raw-file, post-production rendering can liberate us from using the camera's menu system to change in-camera image rendering parameters as work. This eliminates all distractions but one - battery life. Even camera ISO is not a critical parameter for digital cameras with pseudo ISO-invariant data streams[3].
nb: post title attributed to cartoonist Walt Kelly
[1] With film producing an aesthetically print is also time consuming. If one uses a hybrid workflow, then you have to spend time and money creating those digital tools just as you would in digital image post-production.
[2] Some digital cameras will create in-camera JPEGS form a single exposure using different rendering parameters. This means you could have three different in-camera renderings of one exposure for instance vivid, normal and monochrome. This triples JPEG storage space but increases versatility. Newer cameras with newer storage cards experience almost no buffering delay when storing three JPEGs instead of one.
[3] Except in extraordinarily low light, the noise for the data is dominated by photon noise. The noise from camera electronics is constant to +/- 1/3 stop over a wide range sensor exposure levels. This means for raw files there is no advantage to increasing image brightness in-camera by increasing the camera ISO parameter. You can use the cameras base ISO parameter for all exposures (except those few in extremely low light). Of course you need to maximize exposure (aperture/shutter time) just as one does when exposing film. It also means in low light the image will be too dark to review in-camera (which is film-like).
Derek Leath
dl__images Instagram
I still shoot film. It's fun and you take your time and look around more before you push the button. There is a curtain satisfaction from waiting until you develop the film and see what you will get. I'm also an analog kind of guy. I still listen to LP's and wear a watch.
AllBritishCarShow-9
by
Derek Leath, on Flickr
AllBritishCarShow-9 by
Derek Leath, on Flickr
Axel
singleshooter
When I compare my Canon Film-EOS and my digital EOS there is nothing what I could
call "more complicated" in the digital one. Get a lens, a time, an aperture and there you go.
P/A/S/M works in both bodies same.
When it comes to printing I get 20x30 prints immediately at my local drugstore. Posters and
special things are handled online.
"Post processing" is a special thing that has its equivalent in the darkroom of the analogue
way. It does not belong to digital photography or digital cameras basically.
Make no mistake - every film user has my big respect and I value film photography very
high. It is a very charming way to take pictures. Digital is matter-of-fact, technical, efficent.
This was only a try to grade some terms
call "more complicated" in the digital one. Get a lens, a time, an aperture and there you go.
P/A/S/M works in both bodies same.
When it comes to printing I get 20x30 prints immediately at my local drugstore. Posters and
special things are handled online.
"Post processing" is a special thing that has its equivalent in the darkroom of the analogue
way. It does not belong to digital photography or digital cameras basically.
Make no mistake - every film user has my big respect and I value film photography very
high. It is a very charming way to take pictures. Digital is matter-of-fact, technical, efficent.
This was only a try to grade some terms
mbisc
Silver Halide User
Same here -- I shoot B&W film because I want to print the negatives in the darkroom -- I spend 40+ hours a week "playing" with some of the finest computers out there, and therefore do not want to spend more time in front of a monitor.
Wigwam Inn - Holbrook, AZ by Mike, on Flickr
Wigwam Inn - Holbrook, AZ by Mike, on Flickr
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
Wrestling with a pre-war Balda Pontina folder today I have to dissent from the notion of film being easy to shoot, at least on that! A curious and rather joyless experience. Oh for some buttons and any form of focus aid.
css9450
Veteran
Its not that hard. Turn the "PSAM" dial to "M", turn the AF dial to "Off", turn the "motor drive" control to "S" and just leave it like that. You don't even have to use the meter if you don't want to.
css9450
Veteran
Exactly. I went from a Nikon N90S to a Nikon D80 DSLR and didn't even have to crack open the manual. The only substantive difference was the digital lets me choose WB and ISO.
Takkun
Ian M.
On equipment: well, sometimes its easy to find, sometimes not. There's countless 'dead' systems out there, at all number of price points. Heck, the shipping price for my GX680 was almost as much as the camera itself. Between eBay, KEH, and a few local options, its relatively easy to find what you want or need. It does alleviate my small worry that sometime soon all the film gear in the world will be too junked to be useful.
On the other hand, there are cross-compatibility issues. With the right adapter, any old lens works fantastically on a new mirrorless—but I'd hazard to guess the M system is the only truly backwards-compatible system still in use that works fine on film.
But you do make a good point on printing/scanning equipment. I worry about the long-term viability of my old Nikon scanner; there's nothing really on the market that replaces it, and I don't have much patience for DSLR scanning (but its the only option for MF/LF). Enlargers seem to be literally free for the taking sometimes—if you can find them.
I don't do my own wet printing (or even my own inkjet) anymore, but that method really doesn't seem to be an outlier anymore. I really love printing on matte FB paper, which anyone whose attempted in a darkroom knows is a pain and requires a lot more equipment than can fit into a bathroom. Addressing another one of your points, I shoot a lot of film, and batch scanning lets me capture photos I never would have otherwise spent the time printing, but might share online or print in a book collection.'
Other than the dearth of good, affordable scanners these days (something I started a thread on a while back, it baffles me), I think the hybrid approach is a net plus. My alma mater still has a very well-stocked darkroom available to access.
Re: cameras and simplicity. Others touched on that, but either film or digital is as complex or simple as you can make it. I've shot with an F6, which is essentially a 'film D2x,' with all that era's latest tech; and own a digital M, which, other than the digital guts, puts you back in 1978. And with a hybrid workflow, one doesn't have the luxury of eschewing digital post processing. One small advantage with film, however, is the lack of dependence on proprietary rechargeable batteries that can be difficult to find later on, or just a pain to have to charge. I don't like having to remember to charge 8,000 things every night.
It's true that I do reach for a mechanical RF or meter less MF SLR for a little bit of simplicity at times, but that's not the primary reason I shoot film. I'm not really sure if I can totally articulate it. Part of it is the surprise and delayed gratification of a successful shot. A little bit of satisfaction of keeping a useful piece of machinery useful. An enjoyment of working with my hands for part of the process, and reliving the magic of first learning the darkroom. A bit of my contrarian streak in proving film is still viable beyond Lomography-type shots.
Mostly, I just like how it looks. When it's good, it's good.
On the other hand, there are cross-compatibility issues. With the right adapter, any old lens works fantastically on a new mirrorless—but I'd hazard to guess the M system is the only truly backwards-compatible system still in use that works fine on film.
But you do make a good point on printing/scanning equipment. I worry about the long-term viability of my old Nikon scanner; there's nothing really on the market that replaces it, and I don't have much patience for DSLR scanning (but its the only option for MF/LF). Enlargers seem to be literally free for the taking sometimes—if you can find them.
I don't do my own wet printing (or even my own inkjet) anymore, but that method really doesn't seem to be an outlier anymore. I really love printing on matte FB paper, which anyone whose attempted in a darkroom knows is a pain and requires a lot more equipment than can fit into a bathroom. Addressing another one of your points, I shoot a lot of film, and batch scanning lets me capture photos I never would have otherwise spent the time printing, but might share online or print in a book collection.'
Other than the dearth of good, affordable scanners these days (something I started a thread on a while back, it baffles me), I think the hybrid approach is a net plus. My alma mater still has a very well-stocked darkroom available to access.
Re: cameras and simplicity. Others touched on that, but either film or digital is as complex or simple as you can make it. I've shot with an F6, which is essentially a 'film D2x,' with all that era's latest tech; and own a digital M, which, other than the digital guts, puts you back in 1978. And with a hybrid workflow, one doesn't have the luxury of eschewing digital post processing. One small advantage with film, however, is the lack of dependence on proprietary rechargeable batteries that can be difficult to find later on, or just a pain to have to charge. I don't like having to remember to charge 8,000 things every night.
It's true that I do reach for a mechanical RF or meter less MF SLR for a little bit of simplicity at times, but that's not the primary reason I shoot film. I'm not really sure if I can totally articulate it. Part of it is the surprise and delayed gratification of a successful shot. A little bit of satisfaction of keeping a useful piece of machinery useful. An enjoyment of working with my hands for part of the process, and reliving the magic of first learning the darkroom. A bit of my contrarian streak in proving film is still viable beyond Lomography-type shots.
Mostly, I just like how it looks. When it's good, it's good.
stompyq
Well-known
I shoot film and develop BW at home. I get color film developed at the lab. The negatives then get scanned. I hate darkroom printing. Hated it when it was the only option and love the fact that I don't have to mess around with it now.
That search for the perfect negative developer is also gone now. All you need is a decent negative that doesn't have blocked highlights. All manipulations can be done in post. Overall I'm not a huge fan of anything darkroom related. I love the results I get from Film and love using film gear. But that's it.
That search for the perfect negative developer is also gone now. All you need is a decent negative that doesn't have blocked highlights. All manipulations can be done in post. Overall I'm not a huge fan of anything darkroom related. I love the results I get from Film and love using film gear. But that's it.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
The truth is, excepting seeing the image right away, I cannot think of a single good reason to pick up a digital camera. If I don't need, or want to see the image right away, I have little reason to use my DSLR.
shimokita
白黒
I shoot digital for an impatient world... time has shrunk in my perception and digital is were the image will end up so there's that. With the dSLR and mirror-less I tend to shoot an extra frame or three... but I set the camera to my preferences and don't fiddle with anything.
At the same time I enjoy shooting film... developed at the local mom & pop shop were I like the conversation and connection... always a wave when walking by.
Typhoon №15 @ 2:20 AM passing over Tokyo
At the same time I enjoy shooting film... developed at the local mom & pop shop were I like the conversation and connection... always a wave when walking by.
Typhoon №15 @ 2:20 AM passing over Tokyo