Bill Pierce
Well-known
Mr. Bill Pierce, is that it? An opening and closing statement in one?
The question that I wanted to hear the answers to in this discussion was “Can digital photography be practiced with the same shooting simplicity and attention to the subject as film photography?” The answer is obviously “Yes.” So, probably the real question is why so many photographers allow the multitude of menu options often divert their attention away from the subject. The most obvious, but certainly not the only, example of this is looking at the picture just taken on the camera’s LCD and missing the moment to take what could be an even better picture. Truth is, years of film photography so ingrained the habit of prioritizing looking at the subject and not paying much attention to operating a relatively simple camera, that I don’t have a problem with digital cameras. I said I did because it is much more polite to point to your own inadequacies than that of others. And I do see some good folks distracted by evil, egotistical menus demanding attention.
RichC
Well-known
@Bill...
My suspicion is that the focus went from the subject to the camera well before digital, when autofocus and autoexposure became widespread. We then got the idea that you had to divide your attention between the machine and the subject - after all, we need to know what the camera is doing since it's constantly changing focus, aperture and/or shutter speed to match the conditions preciseness.
But as those who use manual cameras know well, under typical shooting conditions, things simply aren't changing that fast - if the weather's unchanging, leaving your exposure alone is often the better decision, in contrast to the automated camera that changes constantly as it's pointed at lighter and darker parts of the scene. And the same for focus: a moving subject does not necessarily mean refocusing the lens - regardless of the autofocus camera's constant lens movement as it tracks with millimetre precision, heedless that it's unreasonable for the situation.
As you say, digital cameras complicate what is essentially a simply device with further distractions, further things that the makers and magazines and bloggers convince you to know and check to take a good picture. Often, digital cameras with their complexity make taking photos appear far, far more difficult than it ought to be...
I've an MA photography, yet sometimes appear foolish to friends: they hand me their compact camera, and I fumble and fail to operate it - baffled by their complexity - because I use all cameras in manual mode!
My suspicion is that the focus went from the subject to the camera well before digital, when autofocus and autoexposure became widespread. We then got the idea that you had to divide your attention between the machine and the subject - after all, we need to know what the camera is doing since it's constantly changing focus, aperture and/or shutter speed to match the conditions preciseness.
But as those who use manual cameras know well, under typical shooting conditions, things simply aren't changing that fast - if the weather's unchanging, leaving your exposure alone is often the better decision, in contrast to the automated camera that changes constantly as it's pointed at lighter and darker parts of the scene. And the same for focus: a moving subject does not necessarily mean refocusing the lens - regardless of the autofocus camera's constant lens movement as it tracks with millimetre precision, heedless that it's unreasonable for the situation.
As you say, digital cameras complicate what is essentially a simply device with further distractions, further things that the makers and magazines and bloggers convince you to know and check to take a good picture. Often, digital cameras with their complexity make taking photos appear far, far more difficult than it ought to be...
I've an MA photography, yet sometimes appear foolish to friends: they hand me their compact camera, and I fumble and fail to operate it - baffled by their complexity - because I use all cameras in manual mode!
Bill Clark
Veteran
It sure is.
The largest print I sold, when in biz, was 40x30, using a Canon full frame digital camera, the size of the body is the same as a 35mm film camera. Try making a 40x30 with 35mm film.
Faintandfuzzy
Well-known
Odd...my prints that big from 4x5 trounce and Canon DSLR. Your issue is format..not film
ka7197
Established
Yawn.
The biggest print I sold so far was 40 × 60 from a 6 MP digital APS-C camera. Admitted—when looking from a real close distance, that print's pixels started to fall apart. But from a reasonable viewing distance it looked just fine. Yet I wouldn't want to print any bigger from that camera.
The biggest print I saw recently (not mine) was 100 × 150 from a 24 MP digital full-frame camera. Looks good even from reading distance.
Used to do that on a regular basis. No problem, even with high-speed film. 35-mm film starts to get tricky when reaching or exceeding 50 × 60.
Dogman
Veteran
Simplifying the complex is not that hard. But you gotta know what you want to accomplish in order to do it. New cameras often confuse me until I get comfortable using them but the main thing for me is setting them up for what I want in the pictures I take. Every one of my cameras are set up the same way. I don't fiddle with menus when shooting.
As for "chimping", I actually do that quite a bit. But I don't review the image after every shot, I check all the frames I shoot of a subject before moving on. For my type of photography, it works well. Probably because I'm a clutz sometimes and make mistakes in focus or exposure or something else. In the end, my pictures are better because I catch those mistakes while they can be corrected.
As for missing pictures, there's a video somewhere of Garry Winogrand shooting on the street that shows him changing film and something interesting happens while he's doing it. He just smiles and says something to the effect that there are no pictures that happens when he's changing film. To me, if I miss something it's not a big deal. There's always another picture.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Menus are not evil or egotistical, nor do they demand attention. That behavior is all on the photographer. You can't blame your shortcomings on the camera.
jawarden
Well-known
So that was your largest. What was your average size? Your smallest? Did 35mm work for those?
I've seen prints at least 40x30 (I assume you're referring to inches?) from 35mm film that looked outstanding when viewed from an appropriate distance for the size.
css9450
Veteran
I recall a thread some months (or years?) ago where an assumption was made that everyone shooting a digital camera most likely dives into the menus, changes ISO and white balance, reformats the memory card, switches the focus pattern and racks the autofocus back and forth all the way between each and every photo. Oh, and probably pixel-peeps on the monitor afterward. An exaggeration, obviously. Hopefully no one believes that, because I am sure most of us don't do any of those things.
ktmrider
Well-known
I don't see why shooting film is any different then it has been for the last couple decades. I made my first darkroom print in 1966 using a 4x5 Graflex as a freshman in high school. I don't see why shooting digital like film is any more difficult. Go into the program and select manual for everything or pick a date to pretend your digital was made and give it the auto features of the equivalent date film cameras.
Expose digital like transparency film and film like film. If printing in a darkroom is important then build a darkroom (something I have never had in 44 years). If not, scan the film and post to your computer.
The basics of good photography and great photos is the same(composition, lighting, exposure, decisive moment etc) on either digital or silver. My favorite film camera is a Leica M2. I like using it with a 35 or 50 and a hand held meter. My favorite digital is a FujiX100F and various jpeg film simulations. I set everything to auto and have a blast. Computer time (which is my kryptonite) is kept to an absolute minimum.
The great thing about all todays technology is you select how you like to do things from coating your own glass negatives to the latest and greatest digital sensor from Canikon.
Expose digital like transparency film and film like film. If printing in a darkroom is important then build a darkroom (something I have never had in 44 years). If not, scan the film and post to your computer.
The basics of good photography and great photos is the same(composition, lighting, exposure, decisive moment etc) on either digital or silver. My favorite film camera is a Leica M2. I like using it with a 35 or 50 and a hand held meter. My favorite digital is a FujiX100F and various jpeg film simulations. I set everything to auto and have a blast. Computer time (which is my kryptonite) is kept to an absolute minimum.
The great thing about all todays technology is you select how you like to do things from coating your own glass negatives to the latest and greatest digital sensor from Canikon.
nightfly
Well-known
I just started shooting film again after a 6 year hiatus. Basically when I stopped shooting black and white, I stopped shooting film.
But I found that I like the look of certain color films and I haven't found a way to emulate them to my own satisfaction so I picked up a film camera and some film and I'm in the midst of a film renaissance.
A couple of observations:
1) I generally like film cameras better. My M9 is close, but film cameras still have edge. I just picked up a Contax t2 that I'm having fun with.
2) I hate scanning and spotting.
3) I miss the immediate gratification of digital.
4) I generally like the look of film better.
What I might end up doing is making my own LUTs from my film scans as I've found that yields the best results on digital but right now I'm going to keep going with film for awhile and mix in digital when I need that quick satisfaction.
I did recently see some of Joshua Jackson's digital work that has an amazing look to it. I think he's a Fuji digital guy and I'm curious how he achieved it.
But I found that I like the look of certain color films and I haven't found a way to emulate them to my own satisfaction so I picked up a film camera and some film and I'm in the midst of a film renaissance.
A couple of observations:
1) I generally like film cameras better. My M9 is close, but film cameras still have edge. I just picked up a Contax t2 that I'm having fun with.
2) I hate scanning and spotting.
3) I miss the immediate gratification of digital.
4) I generally like the look of film better.
What I might end up doing is making my own LUTs from my film scans as I've found that yields the best results on digital but right now I'm going to keep going with film for awhile and mix in digital when I need that quick satisfaction.
I did recently see some of Joshua Jackson's digital work that has an amazing look to it. I think he's a Fuji digital guy and I'm curious how he achieved it.
LCSmith
Well-known
I do not think the answer is obviously "yes". Photography can be practiced with the same degree of simplicity using either digital or film, but each is its own kind of simplicity.
The utter lack of electricity in a completely mechanical film camera offers metaphysical simplicity beyond what the digital camera can offer. The digital camera, like the new Fuji with the fake film pixelated merit badge on the back, can only amount to a simulacrum of the simplicity of a mechanical camera.
Axel
singleshooter
I´d really like to see examples for this "look of film" thing.
What is it, what does it mean and is there any conclusion of people who use this term?
nightfly
Well-known
Forgot to mention, I think the simplicity aspect all has to do with the camera, not the medium per se. I can shoot my M9 exactly as I can my M4-P and in fact when I first got it I kept going for the rewind lever.
But most digital cameras add a ton of additional functionality that you need to navigate around or ignore.
If your film camera was a late model SLR it's probably not too much of a difference but if you're coming from a rangefinder or a fancy point and shoot (Contax, Ricoh, etc), there's a lot to ignore.
As much as everyone praises the Ricoh GR digital series, I often wish it totally mimicked the film version with a dedicated, marked top dial aperture wheel and basically nothing else.
Also unfortunately in digital, you can't get full frame and compact and simple the way you could in a film camera. Full frame pretty much means large and complex, Leicas sort of excepted.
But most digital cameras add a ton of additional functionality that you need to navigate around or ignore.
If your film camera was a late model SLR it's probably not too much of a difference but if you're coming from a rangefinder or a fancy point and shoot (Contax, Ricoh, etc), there's a lot to ignore.
As much as everyone praises the Ricoh GR digital series, I often wish it totally mimicked the film version with a dedicated, marked top dial aperture wheel and basically nothing else.
Also unfortunately in digital, you can't get full frame and compact and simple the way you could in a film camera. Full frame pretty much means large and complex, Leicas sort of excepted.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Check out the new Sigma fp. Its small, full-frame. And can make images at crazy-high ISOs.
PKR
Veteran
Hi Bill,
I've made many 30x40 prints from Kodachrome and, there was a 4x5 internegative in the process. They looked great, from a foot away. The normal viewing distance is much greater.
FF digital is sharper but, doesn't look as good as Kodachrome. Not to my taste, anyway.
Digital for work, film for me.
valdas
Veteran
It's an easy term to use
I know it's about escaping the answer which would be technical and objective, however, I have to admit - I think the same way very often. Every time I shoot digital and look at my pictures I rarely like them (unless I manage to post process them so they look "like film"). What is this "looks like film"? I am not able to spell it out in terms of technical aspects (I am sure there are people on this forum who can) - maybe it is color, grain, tonality, resolution... I don't know, but I look at film and I see that it looks like film So, when you ask for examples of "look of film" - almost any film image is an example of that look.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
I think the reason I struggle with shooting digital the way I shoot film is, being a tad too "perfectionistic", I have a tendency to check exposure when I have a digital camera, something I obviously can't do with film. Knowing I can quickly check to see if I blew out the highlights or crushed the blacks, in the moment, when there is still time to "correct" my mistake and "reshoot" is too much of a temptation. And it takes me out of the moment and out of what I really want to be focused on. But this is a personal bugaboo, and something that other digital shooters may not wrestle with.
Best,
-Tim
Guth
Appreciative User
This
I’ve been an analog kind of guy for as long as I can remember. There are a multitude of reasons for doing the sort of things that I enjoy, but the key is that I do enjoy them all.
- Still enjoy listening to LP’s
- Still enjoy having access to a watch on my wrist
- Still enjoy playing acoustic guitar
- Still enjoy driving cars with manual transmissions
- Etc., etc., etc.
- Still enjoy shooting film
If I were to really think about it, this would be a fairly lengthy list. Ironically film photography is the one thing that I took an extended break from. The rest of these things stretch back continuously through many decades of my life. Exactly what ties all of these things together is hard to put into words, but in part it has to do with enjoying the processes involved with each.
In addition, these days as technology becomes further intertwined with more and more of what we do there remains a part of me that likes to keep my tools and toys on the “simpler” side. As a result I feel that my interactions with them are bit more involving while I am a bit less isolated from the overall experience. This is not to say that I reject technology in general (most of my career has been spent in the high tech arena). I just like to keep a certain balance in my life. In the case of film photography I also don’t mind having the resulting negatives and transparencies when all is said and done.
DominikDUK
Well-known
Shooting film or digital is as simple or as difficult as you want. Film photography with a Holga,a P&S or an AF in full Auto is hard to beat in terms of simplicity. The same applies to digital in full Auto nothing simplier than that. Weirdly enough I know quiet a few very good photographer who prefer Auto everything to full Manual because they feel that the whole technical part stands in the way of creating a good Photograph. I somewhat agree with that Notion, photographers especially Amateurs tend to give the technical (Control) side to much importance they think About F-stops etc.. instead of the scene in front of them.
Digital can be just as simple as film photography and vice versa it's the photographer who complicates things.
Digital can be just as simple as film photography and vice versa it's the photographer who complicates things.