lorriman
Established
I didn't have the chance to answer some of the (unexpected) replies to my feedback. And things were getting interesting when the thread was closed.
The per-shot cost of film has a tendency to encourage a more deliberate approach to taking an individual photograph. Waiting for the moment, planning, care and attention. It's almost necessary to photograph that way when using film. That's the kind of photography that I want to see. I want to share in the satisfaction of the success of a well executed photo and not wade through millions of photos that I reckon likely owe more to chance than human effort.
There are other factors also, which are important to me. I'm a nostalgia and atmosphere nut. It's important for me to see a photograph as a story from the past. Digital psychologically transports me right in to the frame as if it were happening right now, which is pointless and undermines the purpose: why not just have another walk or picnic and enjoy the moment. This is one of the reasons I kick away any plastic toys or objects when photographing kids. The plastic destroys nostalgia atmosphere. I appreciate lomography for this reason also though the arty-farty bent of lomographers irritates me; too much teenage self-regarding nonsense. Granted a 150 years ago I would have been asking for a 'painting' marker, but I'm not claiming to be entirely rational.
For these reasons I reckon there is really quite a big divide between film and digital. It's even greater when you aren't in it simply for the imagery. My emphasis is story, nostalgia, atmosphere etc. I wouldn't mind skipping all those pics of objects and buildings also. Unite this to the deliberation involved in a film pic and I think that film photography is a breed apart and worthy of special recognition.
So for me it's not enough that the picture is good. I want more than that, to answer Roger.
So why not Apug? Because they want my money in order to see the galleries and I'm just too cheap.
The per-shot cost of film has a tendency to encourage a more deliberate approach to taking an individual photograph. Waiting for the moment, planning, care and attention. It's almost necessary to photograph that way when using film. That's the kind of photography that I want to see. I want to share in the satisfaction of the success of a well executed photo and not wade through millions of photos that I reckon likely owe more to chance than human effort.
There are other factors also, which are important to me. I'm a nostalgia and atmosphere nut. It's important for me to see a photograph as a story from the past. Digital psychologically transports me right in to the frame as if it were happening right now, which is pointless and undermines the purpose: why not just have another walk or picnic and enjoy the moment. This is one of the reasons I kick away any plastic toys or objects when photographing kids. The plastic destroys nostalgia atmosphere. I appreciate lomography for this reason also though the arty-farty bent of lomographers irritates me; too much teenage self-regarding nonsense. Granted a 150 years ago I would have been asking for a 'painting' marker, but I'm not claiming to be entirely rational.
For these reasons I reckon there is really quite a big divide between film and digital. It's even greater when you aren't in it simply for the imagery. My emphasis is story, nostalgia, atmosphere etc. I wouldn't mind skipping all those pics of objects and buildings also. Unite this to the deliberation involved in a film pic and I think that film photography is a breed apart and worthy of special recognition.
So for me it's not enough that the picture is good. I want more than that, to answer Roger.
So why not Apug? Because they want my money in order to see the galleries and I'm just too cheap.
