On The Aesthetics Of Film Photography

[dcsang]

Let me preface this by saying that I'm not out to slag any one camera or type or brand or person 🙂 Read on and I hope you'll see what I'm getting at.

I tend to use that word a lot; "aesthetics", but I'm not sure I'm conveying the right message by using it.

Let me explain 🙂

In the days before the wide prevalence of digital photography, and before the onset of autofocus/auto wind/auto rewind cameras, I enjoyed taking photographs. I was not thinking in any way artistically (and I still don't imho) but it was more for the enjoyment of the act itself.

There was something about "it" that gave me some pleasure or left a smile on my face.

It did not matter what camera I was using; it could have been my dad's old M42 mount Pentax SL or the fabulous 126 cartridge film Kodak Instamatic camera with it's flash cubes or, eventually, my own Konica Auto S3; there was something I could not put my finger on per se that allowed me to enjoy the act of photography.

All of that joy was put aside for a while and with the advent of the digital age it was reawakened, in a way, but it was different than how I remembered it. It wasn't until I went back to film did it become reapparent and "whole" again. I've mentioned it before but there's just something about the feel of cocking a film advance lever, the rewinding of film manually back into its canister, its shell; the sound, no matter how loud or quiet, of a shutter. There's the anticipation of waiting, like a kid waits for the start of summer vacation, to develop the film (or having it developed for you). The surprise, like opening up a birthday gift, of seeing the prints or slides for the first time. The excitement of showing off your handiwork to those around you, and perhaps the pride that you have in displaying it on your own walls or the walls of a gallery.

To me, all of that, somehow goes along with using film.

Sure, I could say the same thing about the digital realm, and there are great benefits to using digital as I'm well aware (being the owner of a DSLR myself), but the almost overwhelming emotions that I get from using film and a film camera is intangible in comparison.

Maybe aesthetics isn't the right word after all.. maybe it's just joy.

Cheers
Dave

 

[GeneW]

Dave, I think you've summed it up pretty well. Joy is a fine word. The joy of using mechanical cameras. I shoot DSLR as well, and don't have any negative feelings about using one, but ... let's just say, it's not the same experience.

Gene

 

[KoNickon]

The joy of looking at a properly exposed and focused negative on a light table (or better, looking at a slide) and seeing all the color and detail you remembered from the actual event.

 

[OdDbaLL]

Hear! Hear!

 

[ChrisN]

Joe referred recently to the significance of ritual in our lives, in response to your post about the Canon 25mm. There's a lot of ritual associated with film-based photography, especially for those with their own darkrooms, but even for those of us without, the rituals have been practiced across generations (loading the camera, making photos, taking the film for developing, collecting the prints). Digital has wiped out those ritual behaviors, and with the rapid pace of change does not seem to offer any satisfying rituals to replace the old rituals.

 

[f/stopblues]

Well said Dave. I started out on my dad's old Pentax SLR that had a light meter, but had to be wound and focused manually. After that I had a long stint in auto-everything photography, but it wasn't til I got back into some manual type cameras, initially my C330 TLR, that I felt the satisfaction in the act of shooting like I did with that first camera.

I thought that feeling went away because the initial excitement wore off, but I found it was because I love the act of shooting.. the ritual of focusing carefully, winding, tweaking exposure, etc. For those same reasons I love the darkroom. Heck, I even have fun agitating my stainless developing tank for 15 minutes 😀

 

[bmattock]

My 2005 Kia Sorento is a very fine, comfortable SUV and I enjoy it. It has traction control and anti-lock brakes and a nice ride, and the air conditioning and stereo work well. I have never crawled under the Kia to clean the pumpkin or the transfer case.

My 1969 Dodge Charger was a fire-breathing monster that terrified the neighbors and I loved it. Both got me where I wanted to go, both could hold groceries. But the Charger made me smile when the 440 cubic inch V8 sucked air and hi-test gasoline through that garbage-can-lid sized four-barrel carb and the whole car twisted slightly to the right. I'd wash it, wax it, and then take off the wheels and clean the brake drums and scrub out the wheel wells.

The Kia never made me want to figure out exactly where in a four-wheel drift it would begin to tail out and swap ends. The Kia has never made me, um...pucker.

My 1964 Canon FX is something that I want to caress, to clean what ain't dirty, to practice focus and fire on. I'll take it out when I'm at home and just watching TV, miles from a roll of film or anything to take a photograph of.

My 2005 Pentax *ist DS, not so much. It stays in the bag until I need it.

Best Regards,

Bill "Zoom Zoom" Mattocks

 

[f/stopblues]

Hey Chris, you read my mind. Do two Chris's make a right though?

 

[Kin Lau]

Maybe it's the old "boys and our toys", where the extra step isn't a bother, but adds to the experience?

Operating the Speed Graphics with the focal plane shutter is almost like firing a cannon. The Graphmatic film magazine is very cool 🙂.

 

[gns]

I don't think it's about film vs digital, but I do enjoy using a simple, well made tool. There just don't seem to be many digital cameras that fit that description. Not there there couldn't be. I bought the Panasonic LC-1 mainly for its manual controls and traditional layout, but I admit, it is not quite there. I continue to use it though.

I suppose there were those a hundred years ago that bemoaned.. "There's just something about coating your own glass plates". Things change, but they don't.

 

[andrew]

I don't own a DSLR so I can't comment on the degree of ritual and satisfaction involved in shooting with one, but I agree with the comments above re: film cameras, developing and printing.

I just developed two rolls of 120 I shot using a Zeiss Ikon (thanks r-brian) and three rolls shot with my newly rejuvenated 35 SPn (thanks greyhoundman). As I was tipping my two tanks and keeping track of time, I couldn't wait to see what I captured on film. Shooting, regardless of the format, and printing (when it's going well) bring a similar euphoria and calm - it's a buzz that for me means I'm using the creative parts of my brain to experience and document the world.

I can only speak for myself, but I think it's a feeling everyone should have as often as possible. Preferably everyday, but sometimes life necessitates I accept that the frequency may be limited a few times each week.

Just my two cents. Thanks for starting an interesting thread.

 

[JMP]

Joe referred recently to the significance of ritual in our lives, in response to your post about the Canon 25mm. There's a lot of ritual associated with film-based photography, especially for those with their own darkrooms, but even for those of us without, the rituals have been practiced across generations (loading the camera, making photos, taking the film for developing, collecting the prints). Digital has wiped out those ritual behaviors, and with the rapid pace of change does not seem to offer any satisfying rituals to replace the old rituals.

I appreciate a lot of thoughts in this thread, and especially these comments about ritual. To me, they imply a certain care and connectedness to the equipment and the act of photography which is less attainable for me with digital. I feel that with improvements in efficiency (in photography and elsewhere) we sometimes lose the attention to the present that creates fulfilling experiences and results. If something is important then shouldn't we want to give it our fullest concentration? What's satisfying about letting the camera choose the focus, exposure, etc.?

I think that another part of this perception and the reason that I enjoy using mechanical equipment is that I have the potential to understand it, and this creates more of a relationship or closeness to it. I can see the care and elegant solutions built into a camera or mechanical creation, which translates to a form of beauty. I cannot look at a circuit board of a computer or digital camera in mid-calculation and hope to figure out how it works, and therefore I don't see the beauty, though perhaps it's there for those more knowledgeable.

Thanks for this thread.

 

[julianphotoart]

I just happen to hate digital image capture devices. I'm as excited about digital image capture devices as I am about my toaster producing toast. Please note that I am purposely not calling a digital image capture device a "camera" and digital image capture is not "photography". To me it's like calling rap "music". No, rap is rap and music is music.

I do not care why I hate digital image capture devices. I have lots of rational reasons for encouraging everyone I know to use film over digital (including long-term permanence/storage) but that's separate from my strong visceral distaste for digital. I don't know, nor do I care, why I love film and hate digital. Why am I left-handed?

The great majority of RFF denizens just simply prefer film-based RFF's. That's enough for me. Hi everybody.

Julian

 

[brightsky]

I own, like, and use a digital rangefinder as well as film cameras. However, for me, what the digital aspect has taken away from the film experience is anticipation.

Joe, I agree completely with your observation about rituals. Perhaps it is because I do not find the same leval of joy in establishing a raw data workflow as I did when developing my own prints. And, although I had to give up my darkroom years ago, I still feel excited when I am handed back my processed film and prints. Does anyone else always open the package in the car because you can't wait until you get home?

Looking at a print for the first time is akin to the feeling of anticipation on Christmas morning when the present is a surprise as opposed to having a good idea of what is in the package.

 

[FrankS]

I've said it before, that digital is the wave of the future and I hope most photographers go there, leaving me with my film cameras and traditional processes. FOR ME, film based photography has something that >I< cannot find/experience with digital. It has an aesthetic about it. It has soul. Or rather, it engages my soul.

This isn't film vs. digital. I freely concede that digital is the wave of the future and in many ways "superior" to film, (depending on how you define superior.)

Thanks, Dave.

 

[ywenz]

Are you sure you're not mixing up your joy of shooting film with joy of using a Leica to shoot film?

 

[egpj]

Yes, digital is superior to film and like FrankS I am glad that other people are moving on to digital. For all of the local camera club I am stuck in the past and can not embrace the future. I guess in a way they are right. I do not want to embrace the future. Used the digital cameras like some canon models and the Leica digitals and it is missing something. Downloading the memory card in comparison to souping negatives just does not have the same feel to it. Oh well, really beating a dead horse hear.

 

[erichard44]

I have a Sigma SD 10 DSLR and just acquired a Bessa r2 to go along with my G2 and range of lenses. I have shot about 1500 images on the SD10 since I got it, and I am looking forward to shooting some film. Part of might be ritual, but I think the other element is the esthetics of film itself, and images from film. First, film has been developed and improved over many years so that highlights are not so easily blown out. Second, film has a certain look to it, partly as a product of the not entirely linear response to light, and because of the grain. Digital is grainless, which at first seems kind of cool, but to me there is a certain lack of character. Digital is great for a certain look, but there are images that are better with grain and noise. I can and do get noise on the digital, above ISO 800, but it is a grating, regular, and unpleasant look. The images from the Sigma are wonderful, and it is nice to be able to see the images quickly, but the camera is big, especially with the modern lenses.

Richard

 

[Trius]

Frank: You have summed it up well: It [film photography] has soul. I can't really add much more on the photography/camera side, others have said it well.

But I can offer an example from another hobby pursuit. Frank's "soul" comment reminded of it.

I own a custom built cedarstrip/canvas canoe. It was built by Will Ruch, formerly of Muskoka, Ontario, now of Bancroft. It is a gorgeous craft, and handles like a dream. Lots of people thought I was crazy to want a wooden canoe. Afterall, kevlar is so much lighter, yadda, yadda. (BTW, my 15' boat only weighs about 52 lbs. ) Yeah yeah, but I can tell you it doesn't PADDLE like my boat.

On Will's website (http://ruch.wcha.org/), right beneath his logo, it says,

"A Wooden Canoe has Soul"

I've known that for a long time, since I was a kid. When I got in Will's boat for my first test paddle before I commissioned him to build me one, I knew that THIS one had the soul that is my soulmate. I didn't even need to paddle one stroke. I could just feel the soul coursing through the wooden ribs, into my knees and through my entire body.

Earl

 

[FPjohn]

Craft

Craft

Hello:

Perhaps it is the craft aesthetic. Traditional photography requires thought, manual dexterity and judgement. Much depends on choice of materials. Digital is the computer aesthetic. Granted that i'm occasionally godsmacked by what my photonote Olympus can produce. Up to 6x9" some images glow without trying to be a "photograph".
http://not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=10452
yours
Frank

no play on words in reference to the previous post was intended.