My photography thoughts

[begona]

Hi guys

Before I share my thoughts/doubts I want to wish you all the best in 2017. May the force be with you.

Now, maybe some of you faced similar "problems". For a long period I shoot film, and basically I do not shoot a lot (maybe roll per month or even less) tryin to find some nice motive, always thinking how that photo will look on my wall. I am having my M2 all the time with me but not shoot a lot. Somehow I think it is a shame to spend silver on something I am not sure it is good enough..I do not press shutter button if I am not sure that I will have decent photo. And after that I am very selective and, after 10 year of shooting, I have circa 20 photos on my webpage I am satisfy with.

On the other side, few time in my past, I shoot digital, mostly documentary/street work. It makes me happy but I do not appreciate digital photo as much as film. It seems that with digital it is much more easy to make good photo than with film. When I start to shoot some documentary project it makes me very happy but after some time when I look back to that photos I do not appreciate them as analogue photos and I always get back to film. To be clear, if those documentary projects were made on film I would be VERY happy with them.

So I am somewhere in between but somehow I can not do the both in same time or put both(digital and film) on my webpage/instagram as I want to be consistent.

So...how you make yourself to shoot film as it is digital, not thinking about film, sliver, money, rubbish photos etc?

In my signature you can find links with some photos I made on film. No digital for now. I am not in that phase

Thanks

Goran

 

[telenous]

Don't hold back, there's no substitute for first hand experience. Nobody learned anything about anything in photography by not shooting. You need to experiment with your film, even if you end up (and you will) with some not so very good photos. Develop/scan/print yourself to save on costs.
.

 

[davidnewtonguitars]

Hi Goran.
I shoot Digital and Film also.

I began photography in the 1960's, so it was all film of course. Because I had a job during school, I had money to buy a nice camera and even turned my bedroom into a darkroom.

Through the years I used a film camera, a Pentax SLR, then a Contax IIIa, finally an Olympus XA.

Along came digital, and several small point & shoot cameras, I quit film for the lure of digital, now back to film along side of digital.

I have worked out that digital is for my work, taking pictures of my products, and film for recreation and family photos. This way I can take a lot of pictures of my work, throw away a lot and keep only the best, like I did when film photography was less expensive.
The nature of my "work pictures" is that they have a short life, not for posterity.
I think of film photography as that which will live a longer life, pictures being passed down in the family, such as that. I also enjoy the cameras and have fun with taking film pictures, but because of the cost, I try not to shoot many shots of the same subject, and a roll of film may last a month, just like my mother did when she was the family photographer.

 

[begona]

Thanks guys for your thoughts.

I just have to relax and shoot film like it is digital..Ok film is not cheap but still...It seems like only way to be fully satisfy. I am not professional photographer so I do not have to care about job or customers

And get rid of digital cameras as they are tempting

 

[Ko.Fe.]

This post is at the wrong sub-forum.

I have film M with me all the time, I'm taking only few photos and mostly if I like them to be printed. I'm finding it much more ideal vs digital, because it is not very expensive and prints from darkroom are much more easy to make for me. Printing from files with similar quality is terribly expensive. I see absolutely no need to use digital for documentary, projects and street. To me digital is worth of instagram, FB and forum galleries.
If I could find good printing alternative from digital, which has similar quality for FB darkroom prints and doesn't cost insane price, I will start to use digital more.

Film is not cheap? Which film? Color? 8x10? I'm finding what 30.5 m bw bulk for 40-50 USD is cheap, chemicals costs next to nothing and only 8x10 are 1$ per FB prints, but it is not so expensive as printing from files.

 

[______]

So I am somewhere in between but somehow I can not do the both in same time or put both(digital and film) on my webpage/instagram as I want to be consistent.

Do both.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." -Ralph Waldo Emerson

Save​

 

[emraphoto]

Hi guys

Before I share my thoughts/doubts I want to wish you all the best in 2017. May the force be with you.

Now, maybe some of you faced similar "problems". For a long period I shoot film, and basically I do not shoot a lot (maybe roll per month or even less) tryin to find some nice motive, always thinking how that photo will look on my wall. I am having my M2 all the time with me but not shoot a lot. Somehow I think it is a shame to spend silver on something I am not sure it is good enough..I do not press shutter button if I am not sure that I will have decent photo. And after that I am very selective and, after 10 year of shooting, I have circa 20 photos on my webpage I am satisfy with.

On the other side, few time in my past, I shoot digital, mostly documentary/street work. It makes me happy but I do not appreciate digital photo as much as film. It seems that with digital it is much more easy to make good photo than with film. When I start to shoot some documentary project it makes me very happy but after some time when I look back to that photos I do not appreciate them as analogue photos and I always get back to film. To be clear, if those documentary projects were made on film I would be VERY happy with them.

So I am somewhere in between but somehow I can not do the both in same time or put both(digital and film) on my webpage/instagram as I want to be consistent.

So...how you make yourself to shoot film as it is digital, not thinking about film, sliver, money, rubbish photos etc?

In my signature you can find links with some photos I made on film. No digital for now. I am not in that phase

Thanks

Goran

well, the technical process of shooting film is where it's at for some folks. in fact both mediums have an extensive list of merits for and against.

it seems to me, from the tone of your post, that you need to ask yourself some questions. is your interest rooted in the chemical process, lovely mechanical machines etc. or is it in images unto themselves? to produce an extensive body of images you need to shoot a lot. i mean a lot. digital then becomes a persuasive argument.

i might suggest that you contact some folks here about digital workflow leading to great prints. take a look at what Larry Towell is doing with digital these days. Salgado has an interesting approach to printing that may interest you. modern digital files, when shot with a bit of care, can produce jaw dropping print quality.

either two approaches to photography don't need to be mutually exclusive. having invested a lot of energy in each camp, i choose to remain firmly planted in both.

 

[FrankS]

Hi Goran! Your thoughts are a lot like mine. I'm a long time film shooter and recently added digital. I love using my old classic film cameras but carry a small digital point and shoot with me daily because of small size, ease of use, easy process, and no cost for film. I get pictures on digital that I don't get with film because of these reasons. Some of my digital pictures I wish I had taken with film - wish I had a real film negative to hang on to. Backing up digital files is a pain because I'm not a computer person.

I'm otherwise happy with my digital results but I am less satisfied by the digital process. It makes me think of myself as being lazy and that I cheated by not using film. With greater effort comes greater reward, right?

I use digital as my point and shoot, but sometimes get good shots because it's with me constantly and I use it freely. When I have the intent to photograph "seriously", I use film. On my website, I have both film and digital images. I really like the quote about foolish consistency - thanks for that faberryman!

Have a great year everyone!

edit added: Listen to John in post #7. He knows what he's talking about.

 

[brennanphotoguy]

well, the technical process of shooting film is where it's at for some folks. in fact both mediums have an extensive list of merits for and against.

it seems to me, from the tone of your post, that you need to ask yourself some questions. is your interest rooted in the chemical process, lovely mechanical machines etc. or is it in images unto themselves? to produce an extensive body of images you need to shoot a lot. i mean a lot. digital then becomes a persuasive argument.

i might suggest that you contact some folks here about digital workflow leading to great prints. take a look at what Larry Towell is doing with digital these days. Salgado has an interesting printing approach printing that may interest you. modern digital files, when shot with a bit of care, can produce jaw dropping print quality.

either two approaches to photography don't need to be mutually exclusive. having invested a lot of energy in each camp, i choose to remain firmly planted in both.

I'll second this. It sounds like you're thinking too much about the medium itself rather than WHY you like or dislike one or the other. You make it sound like you just don't like an image because it was made with digital rather than not liking the image for it's lack of content or aesthetic value.

 

[begona]

Yep guys...I am completely aware that technology seems like more important than result..and I know it is wrong. I know that shooting with a film will not make any photograph better than shooting with digital as only a final print is important, but somehow I just do not appreciate digital photos I make. It is not about photo itself but about a process, effort.

Also, I know there is no an answer somewhere around but in myself...But it is nice to share with people to see if they face the same "problem"

 

[brennanphotoguy]

That's fine if you like it personally. It sounds like you should dump your digital equipment and invest in film and chemicals and a scanner. Developing at home and scanning at home really cuts down the cost to a much more manageable price/shot figure. Your photography should be for yourself and you should shoot with what makes you happy, otherwise why do it? If shooting digital for whatever reason doesn't give you the results you want then you need to shoot film.

 

[begona]

Breennan, I develop and scan at home..used to enlarge when I was in Croatia. So.. Honestly I am not big fan of developing but as there is no lab in Manchester I have to do it by my own. That's life

 

[emraphoto]

Yep guys...I am completely aware that technology seems like more important than result..and I know it is wrong. I know that shooting with a film will not make any photograph better than shooting with digital as only a final print is important, but somehow I just do not appreciate digital photos I make. It is not about photo itself but about a process, effort.

Also, I know there is no an answer somewhere around but in myself...But it is nice to share with people to see if they face the same "problem"

you misunderstand. neither approach is wrong. digital makes the idea of mass communication more attractive when considering time and money. if you are at it to communicate, loudly, timely and across many platforms then digital is an attractive approach. if you like cameras and the film process and feel like that's what brings you pleasure, then the only wrong thing to do would be to abandon that.

i still advise to talk with some folks about how they get the digital prints they want. it is a steep learning curve that requires a commitment of time and energy whether you do it at home or build a relationship with a printer. if you have already put that effort in then the conclusion seems apparent.

 

[cz23]

For me, one of the compelling features of digital is the ability to shoot freely, without concern for cost or processing time. For some types of photography that isn't important. But I find it particularly valuable for street shooting, where things happen quickly and so much depends on serendipity and luck.

Personally, I feel the freedom of digital is good for creativity and is a fair trade for the aesthetic of film. There's also the possibility that, with more digital processing effort, you can get a look that's somewhat closer to what you like about film.

But if you're committed to shooting street with film, I think you need to face the music and be willing to accept the higher cost associated with shooting freely.

John

 

[Michael Markey]

For me, one of the compelling features of digital is the ability to shoot freely, without concern for cost or processing time. For some types of photography that isn't important. But I find it particularly valuable for street shooting, where things happen quickly and so much depends on serendipity and luck.

Personally, I feel the freedom of digital is good for creativity and is a fair trade for the aesthetic of film. There's also the possibility that, with more digital processing effort, you can get a look that's somewhat closer to what you like about film.

But if you're committed to shooting street with film, I think you need to face the music and be willing to accept the higher cost associated with shooting freely.

John

Agreed.
Although I still shoot film I tend not to use where there is a need to shoot more freely.

Its not just a question of cost but also the need to deal with the material.

Possibly unlike most film shooters ,although I enjoy the cameras and the aesthetic, I dont care for the bit in between

 

[begona]

I agree with you guys...It was not questionable from beginning. A fact is that in the ocean of all opportunities these days it is hard to stick to one.


"But if you're committed to shooting street with film, I think you need to face the music and be willing to accept the higher cost associated with shooting freely."

That seems very true.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

"But if you're committed to shooting street with film, I think you need to face the music and be willing to accept the higher cost associated with shooting freely."

That seems very true.

False to me. I'm using one roll, maximum two if I go for the street for several hours. Often, I'm not finishing roll at all. I'm only taking it if I'm going to print it. And I print about five from them.
I do same with digital M as well. Went on the street 31.12. took less than twenty shots.

 

[______]

False to me. I'm using one roll, maximum two if I go for the street for several hours. Often, I'm not finishing roll at all. I'm only taking it if I'm going to print it. And I print about five from them.
I do same with digital M as well. Went on the street 31.12. took less than twenty shots.

Perhaps your experience is not universal.

 

[Godfrey]

...
So...how you make yourself to shoot film as it is digital, not thinking about film, sliver, money, rubbish photos etc?
...

IMO, that's the wrong question.

If you shoot with a digital camera the same way you shoot with a film camera, and you like what you do with a film camera, you will get the same results and be happy with them. Go vice versa and shoot with a film camera the same way you shoot with a digital camera, and you don't like your digital camera results, you will again get the same results and not be happy with them.

The key isn't to 'make yourself shoot film as if it is digital' (that is, not worrying about money, consuming resources, etc). The key is to learn what it is you are doing with your digital photography that produces the results that satisfy you. Once you know that, you apply those same techniques to whatever recording medium you like and you make photographs that satisfy you.

Film is a different recording medium from a digital sensor and processing film images is rather a different set of skills compares to processing digital images. You can make them do pretty much the same thing, once you understand both mediums and become skilled at processing them, after which you can let go of the notion that one is "better" than the other. That's the point at which you can see and exploit the specific qualities of either to satisfy you best.

I work with both film and digital mediums. I work with them in pretty much the same way, taking into account as I do their different qualities and characteristics and the differences in processing flexibility that they imply. I make about the same number of exposures (and am generally pretty frugal on that score; never saw the point of shooting a bazillion exposures because it just adds overhead in the sorting/picking/processing later), and process about the same number out of a shooting session to a final rendering. A few months later, I edit down the finals and discard the ones that really didn't stand up to inspection over time, and look back at the originals again to see if I missed any that were worth processing.

Most of the time, now, I use a digital camera because the processing options are greater, there's more sensitivity and dynamic range to work with, and I can get my results more efficiently and consistently. But I still love working with film from time to time, and enjoy the randomness of its flaws and limitations. The costs are low in both cases, overall, because of the volume that I shoot and what I consider worth printing.

Good luck.

G

 

[Out to Lunch]

The photos that will survive a generation, digital or analogue, are those of the ones you love...either on a screen or in a sock drawer...