It's hard to shoot film

RichC said:
@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!
Click to expand...

Here, here! And, by the time I wade through the endless array of options provided by most digital cameras either the moment's passed or something else changes that results in recomposing or walking away in frustration.
 
I do not understand the concept some people have that using a digital camera is more complex than using a film camera. Sure, the cameras themselves are more complex but the actual operation is identical.

Now, if you're handed an unfamiliar digital camera...sure, you probably would be a bit bewildered. But owning and using a camera you have properly familiarized yourself with and have set up as you want to use it, certainly you would have no difficulty.

One of my friends who has many years of photography experience bought a Pentax DSLR some years ago. It was his first digital camera. I realized sometime later that I had never seen any photos he had done with it and he had not mentioned using it. He mumbled something about not being interested in it like he thought he would be. When he had left the room, his wife told me he doesn't use the camera because he is afraid of it. He doesn't understand it and he doesn't feel comfortable learning the process.

If you're uncomfortable with the process and unwilling to study the procedures in using a new camera, it's not the process itself to blame.
 
Bill Pierce said:
It’s hard to be a film photographer. ... Which brings us to the question - why use film?
Click to expand...
For me, it boils down to:

Photos captured on film don't look at all like reality. It is a representation of reality that makes no attempt in being accurate: the contrasts are different, the tonality, you can see grain, if you shoot b&w, you can get pitch black skies, high contrast, all forms of colors are gone. It is my representation of reality that is only loosely based on what actually happened in front of you. And the fact that it is difficult and that you need to master the craft makes it even more appealing to me because I have the sense that I have accomplished something if everything went the right way. Days, sometimes weeks have passed after shooting until you see for the first time what you actually tried to capture. By then, you might have even forgotten what pictures you took which makes you more removed from the actual act of taking the photo, and hopefully more objective whether you have a good picture or not.
 
My Nikon Z6 works pretty much just like my Nikon FM2n. In fact, they are remarkably similar, in size (the Z6 is basically an FM with a motor drive attached) and weight. Sure, the Z6 can do a lot more things, but it doesn’t have to. It’s still just a camera.
Now, I prefer the FM overall, but that could just be years of muscle memory at play. But I may get over that eventually.
 
giganova said:
For me, it boils down to:

Photos captured on film don't look at all like reality. It is a representation of reality ...........
Click to expand...

No, it does not have to precisely reflect reality, but with some aggressive post processing editing, neither does digital. With that said, I like your point.

In regards, to the ease of film or digital capture, most of my film cameras have entered their sixth decade or are getting ready to. When compared to the built-in artificial intelligence found in modern day cameras, my film cameras are dumber than sack of rocks, but I'm fine with that. - I prefer being forced to think about available light and the angle it is striking the subject. -
 
One thing that I appreciate about film photography is that the medium is stabile. With the constant evolution of digital technology as a whole there is no telling where cameras and computers are headed going forward.

Chances are that today’s interfaces (in the cameras and in the computers both) will soon be replaced by something entirely different. Today’s cameras would remain functional of course but compatibility issues might present numerous challenges. Some who enjoy owning the latest and greatest gear might find this to be a bonus. Either way, people should use what they like to express their creativity through photography/digital imaging/whatever it might be called next
 
With film you can still use very old cameras, this one was made with a Leica I from 1930 in 2018 or 2017. Digital technology can be used to share the image with the rest of the world.

Erik.

48569207576_d58768d040_b.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom