Silver is dead?

My photography went digital about six years ago, though I continued to use film occasionally. I loved the instant feedback and my photographs improved drastically because of it. The ability to check exposure and composition right after the shot allowed me to link cause and effect, to compare my intentions when taking the shot with how well they were realized, then make immediate adjustments to get the look I was after. As far as the basics of photography went, digital flattened out the learning curve a bit for me.

So, digital was a great learning experience, though I did struggle for a while to get the prints I wanted. I didn't find color management, ICC profiles, screen calibration and resolution issues, and printer settings nearly as exciting as digital capture, but being a Mac user for almost two decades and having more than a passing familiarity with Photoshop, since version 2.0, certainly helped. After developing some competency, certainly not mastery, of these techniques, I enjoyed the convenience of digital processing and the freedom of experimentation that an unlimited supply of "film" allowed.

But after a few years I began to be pulled more and more towards film for several reasons. I think I'd picked up a few bad habits over the last few years - my fault, not digital's - among them indiscriminate use of zoom lenses and burst mode, rather than using my feet and my brain to evaluate a scene and compose the shot. Not that I tend to intellectualize a composition anyway, usually relying more on intuition, but nevertheless the convenience of digital began to seem more of an impediment to my photography than a benefit. I also tired of using a big, heavy and conspicuous DSLR with zoom lenses and decided to simplify.

I sold all my digital gear a few months ago and bought two OM bodies and four prime lenses. Now I'm developing my own black and white film and scanning the negatives. I don't have the room or the extra plumbing for a darkroom for printing, so use my inkjet for prints or send them out.

I feel like this hybrid system works well for me, but I have no problems with either film or digital. A good photograph is a good photograph no matter which medium was used to capture or print the image. Someday I will probably return to digital - the micro 4/3 system, especially the GF1 and EP2, look pretty interesting - but for now I'm quite happy using film and love the look in black and white.

Whatever you use, I wish you all good luck!
 
Nah, Frank. But it doesn't matter whether anyone thinks film is best or not (and they are free to think so), film's future will ultimately be the same. :)
 
Here's a tale: a man works with electric screwdrivers all day, so he carries a heavy bag and chargers, and gets along with his destiny. He sees another man who uses at home -once a year- a small, classic screwdriver to keep things perfect, and he also gets along with his destiny.


Then Mr. Electric screwdriver life man, tells the other one: how come your home is OK? When was the last time you were contracted to unscrew a whole submarine?
 
back alley said:
There´s much more soul in my analog photographs than in any digital capture (and this holds true for most stuff I see on flickr).
Click to expand...

It´s interesting that you feel offended by my opinion on my photographs. I like them better than yours. So what? Looks like you are spending too much time here...
 
I,ve been checking out RFF regularly since discovering it over the Christmas break, and as this thread has already gone way off the original post anyway--. I don't shoot digital (I do own a small Lumix for those occasions when convenience counts) even though it has obvious and distinct advantages. That said, I have no argument with people that do prefer digital, its just not for me. Start to finish I just don't enjoy the digital process. In discussing the reasons to photograph and what to photograph, David Vestal (photographer, writer, teacher) made this great statement: "The manufacture of well made photographs is not the aim: we already have a surplus. Expression is the point" Amen. In my personal film/digital debate I modify this to: The process is the point.

By the way, this is a great forum and I have seen a lot of wonderful photographs (both digital and film). Now I just have to get a scanner and upload my own. If only I can get my head around all that digital technology stuff that will come along with it ----
 
i remember walking into willoughby-peerless (sp?) many years when i was a young lad. i had my canon f1 with me, hanging around my neck and was asking the clerk some questions when this guy strolls by with a nikon round his neck.
he looks at me and says some smart aleck remark about canons and how nikons are for professionals.

from the beginning...it has been thus!
 
The soul is immortal, so you see, film can never really die. ;)

Winky denotes a joke. :)

Smiley means no malice intended.
 
Actually, historians believe the Delaroche quote is apocryphal, because no one has been able to find a single source for it, in anything he wrote or a quote from a contemporary. But it does sound dramatic.
 
For the past few years, I've been using both. Digital is the only way for me to shoot color for our weekly newspapers and I use it for images that I don't intend to print - sports, etc. But I still shoot two to four rolls of film a week, mostly Arista's Tri-X clone. These are shots I intend to print, mostly the rural community where I live and the local volunteer fire companies. I've been photographing them for nearly 40 years and put together a book of black and white prints for them every year. Since I started that project with black and white film, I'll keep it that way. Besides, working in the darkroom is something novel now; working with a computer is too much like, well, work.
 
Bill Pierce said:
What were your experiences if you moved from film to digital outside of the obvious pain of learning a new craft and buying new gear?

Was it worth it?
Click to expand...


I've added digital to my work, not completely happily. I dislike the look one gets from digital files a lot of the time, and simply adding 'grain' via a filter seems like a silly way to pretend one is using film, much as the 'watercolor' filter looks tacked on.

That said, I use digital- with an M8 and a Ricoh GRD2, but still prefer the look of film. It is becoming a cost thing for me in my personal work, my lab keeps raising prices and that M9 keeps looking more and more like a way to save money in the long run. Of course any $ work is all digital all the time: for both the cost thing and the time thing.
 
The screams of outrage seem to have largely subsided, so...

My story--as far as "serious" photography, whether for pleasure or for pay--started with digital, which I found fascinating and fun. I then transitioned to film, which I found at least as fascinating and fun, but more difficult and effortful, but which resonated with me on a more mysterious level--or perhaps it was mystery itself--and I was hooked. After learning some chops with film and manual cameras, a couple of paid assignments had me readopting digital.

I use both media now, as some people use both paintbrushes and chisels, or use charcoal sometimes and a digitizing tablet other times. There are innumerable differences in the minutiae of process, and many similarities, too.

The most difficult hurdle going back to digital for me happened to be some of its salient benefits--instant feedback and free shots. Sometimes I would get so much into the editing head space that I could no longer see what was around me, only the results I wanted, or thought I wanted. I missed many opportunities this way, despite results that were technically superior and more reliable and consistent. I can only speak for myself, but for some kinds of work, instant review is enormously beneficial, while for other kinds of work, it is death. I had to turn off review for a time, and educate myself about what I can and cannot accomplish with it.

I also succumbed to the temptation to try to over-shoot my way out of difficult situations and decisions, only to discover that I was simply deferring solving those problems while creating more work for myself, and, again, missing opportunities because I was looking through the wrong end of the process.

I still prefer to shoot and print silver, not so much for results, but because for some reason I am more easily able to invest my self in the process, and it rewards me in kind. With silver I am able to use photography to interact with and process the world, to understand it in a certain way, at a certain pace. This happens less easily with digital, while at the same time it presents more distractions. I could come up with a number of analogies, but unfortunately they would each conjure different things to different people. They mostly have to do with digital being largely electronic, the interaction with it more virtualized, mediated, and automated, while silver is less so. And yet silver is the more mysterious, alchemical process.

That brings up another thing--my silver-related gear tends to be mechanical and manual in nature, and I relate to it at least partly on a tactile level, while my digital gear tends to be more automated and electronic, my relationship with it more abstract and less tactile. This colors my opinion, as I'm sure it does others', in ways that have nothing to do with the nature of silver or sensor.

I assume there are people out there for whom the experience with both media is exactly the opposite, or equally personal and intense, or equally impersonal and technical. For me, the difference seem to be narrowing.

@sonofdanang: I'm curious, one has to explain D76 to customs but not HC110?
 
Last edited:
Bill Pierce said:
After the screams of outrage subside - two questions...

What were your experiences if you moved from film to digital outside of the obvious pain of learning a new craft and buying new gear?

Was it worth it?
Click to expand...

I feel sad for my sons. They have not really felt the magic of developing your first real of film and developing their first print with their hands. I really think this was an important part of this wonderful addiction, the part that gets into the blood. Yes, we have RAW developers, but to me mouse work does not hold the same feeling. Perhaps that's because I've come up through cards, keyboards and now mice and computers have lost their magic.

While I really prefer using a manual camera I've come to accept my little GRD III's computer. It's really surprised me the way I've adapted to switching metering styles rather than trusting my incident meter. I don't think that even if I had money I would go out and pick up an F3 or an M7, but I have to say automation is not the ugly monster I thought it was even five years ago.

I'm a lot happier because I love slides for the purity of it, digital seems to give me the same feeling. Not having some machine telling me how it thinks my picture should look. My wife wants prints of pictures of the kids so shooting slides causes strife so I just don't.

Was it a good thing ..... so far yes. I know I will not transfer 100%, there is something special about film cameras but last few digitals I've used feel really good in my hands.

Was it worth it, heck yes. There are many things I will miss (e.g. Kodachrome) but they are totally outside of my sphere of influence or capability to make myself so I do not worry about them. I rather focus on the good and digital has provided me a lot of good and it's still really really young.

Great question Bill!

B2 (;->
 
While I doubt I will return to the darkroom for printing, I just bought a new tank, reel, bottle of Rodinal, etc. to get back into souping my own film for the first time in about 25 years. Also bought 10 rolls each of 135 Neopan 1600 and 120 Neopan 400.

My wet printing skills never materialized, so I can live without it (I'll scan and digitally print my film). I am jealous of those who can make masterful wet prints and I hope those folks never give it up. My own foray back into processing negatives is my small act of protesting the all-to-rapid demise of film. I will continue to shoot both film and digital for as long as I can.

Bill, if you are being a provocateur, let me voice my full-throated support. Keep it up.
 
charjohncarter said:
Yes, let the market choose.
Click to expand...
I would let it choose, except I heard it crashed.

----

Bill, in the late 90s I switched to digital, and put away my enlargers, and tanks, etc. The transition was easy - I was already into computer artwork, so processing on computer came naturally. I soon upgraded my camera, and now have three digital cameras, each with a unique strength.

However, I still consider myself a film photographer. Whenever I want to make a picture that expresses something personal, or universal, or that is a one of a kind, I use film. Where digital gets the job done (it's the medium of choice for all commercial, news and 99% of all snap shooting), film remains a medium onto itself, and so artists wanting to use the characteristics that belong to film will continue to use it.

It is pretty easy, for the time being, to take a hybrid approach to making pictures by machine. You can easily switch between digital cameras and film cameras because they are still similar (but this will be changing more and more.) Some photographers even split the work for any particular image - many shoot on film, but print digitally, and some shoot digital, and make digital negatives to print on silver.

It's a big world.
 
I had a thought last night...If old chaps get tired with film and go digital, or abandon photography at all, there's nothing wrong at all. They have done enough to be free to choose either. What's important - their efforts have carried film path up to this days when younger crowd can learn from them and continue using film. This is for what I warmly thank them and don't get upset if they choose to use digicams or what.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom