Two Questions

[Bill Pierce]

What do you think is the biggest difference between film and digital photography. I know that for many it is the difference between the prints coming out of a wet darkroom and the prints coming out of a computer/inkjet printer (and the control offered in making the prints or screen images). Nor can you downplay the blessed simplicity of a film camera vs the many, sometimes valuable, controls available in a digital camera.

But, to me, the big difference between film and digital is the how differently we behave when we use the two different cameras. Whether it’s expense or a limited number of frames in a film camera, film photographers seem to do a little more thinking and a little less button pushing than digital photographers. Not only digital cameras, but also digital photographers, seem to have continuous mode and pride themselves on their burst ability. Obviously, you can think with any camera in your hands. So, as digital photographer, why do I often find myself in brainless, thinkless burst mode?

I guess I really have two questions. (1) What do you think is the biggest difference between film and digital photography. (2) Is there any way to overcome overshooting when you don’t have to pay for film?

 

[dasuess]

Turnaround time… We are up at our lake cabin for the week. Yesterday the neighbor next door came over and asked if I would take a group photo for them. Within ten minutes I had taken four exposures, went back to our cabin, imported the SD card into Lightroom, made a few simple adjustments and walked back next door and had them choose the best one. I’ll crank out a half dozen 5x7’s for them when I get home next week.

 

[Vince Lupo]

Sorry Bill but I think you’re either making generalizations or I’m some kind of weirdo outlier. Personally I’ve never given a thought to ‘burst mode’ or continuous shooting, and I like to think that I give just as much thought to shooting digital as I do film or even glass plates (I’d be interested to know where you got the idea that shooting digital requires less thought and that we’re all just blindly blasting away). I guess if I could say there is one ‘advantage’ of shooting digital it’s the instant feedback, and if you have to make adjustments you can do them right away and assess the differences in real time. This is particularly important if you’re shooting a job or you’re visiting a place that you may not easily be able to come back to and reshoot. Turnaround time might be another advantage as David mentioned above. And speaking of shooting jobs, if I DIDN’T think as much when shooting with my digital cameras on a job, I would definitely screw up that job and would definitely lose the client. So thinking and planning ahead are essential, no matter what camera I’m using.

And here’s another thing, which is a personal pet peeve and somewhat related: I don’t ever ever call myself a ‘digital photographer’, or even a ‘film photographer’ or a whatever photographer depending upon the particular camera I happen to grab that day, and despite what some of the camera clubs that I know like to cut us up into all these little neat categories. Maybe professionally I will call myself a ‘commercial photographer’ but that’s about the only exception. Personally I’m just a photographer - to me the recording media doesn’t matter, though I do have my preferences. I still have to think about light, composition, content and the moment, no matter what the image recording material is. But that’s just me.

Sorry if that’s not necessarily answering your two questions, but I hope it’s of some value.

 

[zuiko85]

The cameras I like all use film.
The camera I can barely tolerate is digital. (Other than my iPhone 6 my only digital is a Oly EM10 purchased used 2 years ago. My digital journey, all Olympus, all used, has been an E300, sold, an E410, given away. The EM10 has been the first I can focus with manual lenses with a fair hit rate of perhaps 50%.)

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I think the difference between film and digital is that digital has given more people access to photography.
As for question #2, I find if I don't have giant cards in my cameras I'm not as likely to use burst shooting.
I may have to get some bigger cards once the grand kids get a little bigger though, as my A9 can fill 'em up pretty darn quick.
I find shooting manual focus lenses really slows me down, starts me thinking more about what I'm trying to do image wise.

 

[agentlossing]

I believe that film and digital promote different behavior, but aren't inherently different. Well, the obvious difference is that you can see your photos right after taking them. That has many implications. But, a lot more of it than we think just comes from the mental manipulation that is being done to us by our own darned photographer selves with the two different mediums. In many ways, mental outlook makes for self fulfilling prophecies in life and photography is not any different.

On the other hand, if we discipline our approaches we can dismiss a lot of those "fundamental differences" between film and digital and just make photos. In other words, all the options to be and think differently are up to us.

Taking my OM-D out with the screen closed on itself, in manual, with the dials set to one stop per click and mainly keeping the same exposure settings unless the light changes is pretty much the same way I shoot film. And often the photos "feel" the same later.

 

[markjwyatt]

When I shoot digital I act the same more or less as I do as when I shoot film. I may feel freer to take an extra shot or even a few if I am in doubt, but more often than not I do not.

To me the main difference to me is the way B&W film looks vs. digital (and some color also). I do get some good B&W with my XT-2, but it is usually different than with film (not bad, just different). Sometimes digital looks close to film, but for me at least it takes a lot more work then just using film (and no one ever said digital images have to look like film). The closest digital images to film seem to be some of the Leica Monochrom images.

My theoretical reasoning is that film images are made of black dots (variable size)- pointillism, while digital is continuous grey spectrum, possibly with some grain as noise thrown in. I.e., in film, the grain is the image, in digital with simulated grain, the grain is noise. Somehow the grain being the image just looks better. I do not have solid evidence to back that theory up. I think this is why some people really gravitate towards grainy film images (moving towards pointillist pictorialism, which has a certain look to it).

 

[kshapero]

I have noticed I have a higher keep rate with film than I do with Digital. With film I have no choice but to take my time (no "burst rates). With Digital everything says shoot and shoot, but I am learning to slow down.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

In addition to obvious (difference in the look, screen, print doesn't matter).
If you don't have heck a lot of disposable money, film takes heck a lot of your free time just to get something somewhat visible from it.
(If you not just one roll a month film renaissance warrior).

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

I guess I really have two questions. (1) What do you think is the biggest difference between film and digital photography.

Personally, the biggest difference is the gear. I enjoy the process of taking photos as much or more than the actual photos themselves, and the cameras I most enjoy shooting either don't exist in digital (2.8D, SV, F2 etc.) or exist at a price point way beyond my consideration (M2). My digital's a great tools, but I don't find any of them particularly emotionally engaging.

(2) Is there any way to overcome overshooting when you don’t have to pay for film?

As with Vince's reply, I find this generalisation of digital shooters a bit odd. I don't use burst and never have, and broadly speaking I shoot digital at a similar rate to 35mm film.

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

Bill Pierce -- I guess I really have two questions. (1) What do you think is the biggest difference between film and digital photography? (2) Is there any way to overcome overshooting when you don’t have to pay for film?

Firstly, I can’t answer your questions. But, I can talk about it.

I’m a digital photographer - that means that I only shoot digital. A couple of years ago I realized that I was only using my digital cameras. This was not a conscious decision based on data, spreadsheets, money, conversations with a higher power… it was just the way things were. Sometimes decisions are not made, they just evolve as a matter of course. I had lots of film cameras, I just didn’t pick them up anymore. I had no interest in film. My interaction with film was not scratching my itch. Then the day came, I realized I was no longer a film shooter. It wasn’t a decision, it was just the way it was. Kind of like getting a divorce.

So, a couple of years ago I got a divorce from film photography. It was amicable. We still respect each other, we have fond memories, I still have strong, strong memories of holding my Canon F1, shooting slide film… and, overnight photo trips! But, I’ve moved on. The divorce is final. No turning back. My life is digital.

All the best,
Mike

 

[Timmyjoe]

I'll answer the second question Bill: "Is there any way to overcome overshooting when you don’t have to pay for film?"

I don't try. I'm certainly no Garry Winogrand, but I remember something he once said about taking pictures to see what something looks like when photographed. I find myself doing that all the time when I have a digital camera with me. Again, not that I'm creating anything like what Garry made, but I'm just curious what something I see in front of me(usually some particular lighting on a subject) would look like if I captured the image. Does the captured image invoke the same reaction I had in the moment. Usually not, but it don't cost me nothin'.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Dogman]

My style of shooting, if it's at all a style, is reactive. I try not to think too much and just let the situation lead me on. But this didn't begin with digital, it actually started when I began to use Leicas in the past...the ones that used film. Prior to that, I shot fairly conservatively and tried to put everything in a box with the dimensions of the film frame. With the Leica, I shot looser and often I shot more frames. There was nothing really precise about shooting a Leica. The frame lines were suggestions. Thinking too much about how to precisely frame and shoot would drive you nuts.

For my looser type of shooting, continuous feels right and bursts of several frames per second frequently gets the picture in a dynamic situation. Let's face it, I'm old and my reaction time is slowing down and my hand-eye coordination is decreased and I need all the help I can get.

As for the first question--the biggest difference between film and digital--for me it's simplification of the process. Thinking back on using film, I sorta get the creeps. Hard to recall that I spent over 30 years measuring, mixing, loading, inverting, washing, drying, squinting, projecting, flashing, developing and washing and drying again. Call me lazy, impatient, whatever. I've been down that road and I don't wanna go down it again.

 

[narsuitus]

I guess I really have two questions. (1) What do you think is the biggest difference between film and digital photography. (2) Is there any way to overcome overshooting when you don’t have to pay for film?

1. The biggest difference between film and digital photography for me is reliability. My manual/mechanical film cameras are very rugged and dependable. I have automatic/electronic digital cameras that break too often and are very expensive to repair.

2. Large format sheet film cameras force me to slow down and not overshoot.

 

[jsrockit]

Convenience… I can do everything I need to on a laptop while sitting on the couch if I need to… prints, books, etc. I can live in the tiniest apartment and still do my photography from beginning to end in my home. And without disposing toxic chemicals in a way that might not be proper.

As far as shooting, I don’t think it’s changed the way I photograph (regarding spray and pray- I mean film photographers of the past definitely blew a roll or two on one subject) as much as super fast AF and high iso have.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

1. The biggest difference between film and digital photography for me is reliability. My manual/mechanical film cameras are very rugged and dependable. I have automatic/electronic digital cameras that break too often and are very expensive to repair.

2. Large format sheet film cameras force me to slow down and not overshoot.

Interesting. I have M4-2 which needs repairs periodically. Other cameras with similar curtains also needed it. Even Nikon F2 needed some CLA.
I purchased dozens of manual/mechanical cameras which needed CLA at least.
The only film camera which works without issues is full of electronics EOS 300 from nineties.

Large format is good for still life, which is no rush anyway. 🙂

 

[Godfrey]

Sorry Bill but I think you’re either making generalizations or I’m some kind of weirdo outlier. Personally I’ve never given a thought to ‘burst mode’ or continuous shooting, and I like to think that I give just as much thought to shooting digital as I do film or even glass plates (I’d be interested to know where you got the idea that shooting digital requires less thought and that we’re all just blindly blasting away). I guess if I could say there is one ‘advantage’ of shooting digital it’s the instant feedback, and if you have to make adjustments you can do them right away and assess the differences in real time. This is particularly important if you’re shooting a job or you’re visiting a place that you may not easily be able to come back to and reshoot. Turnaround time might be another advantage as David mentioned above. And speaking of shooting jobs, if I DIDN’T think as much when shooting with my digital cameras on a job, I would definitely screw up that job and would definitely lose the client. So thinking and planning ahead are essential, no matter what camera I’m using.

And here’s another thing, which is a personal pet peeve and somewhat related: I don’t ever ever call myself a ‘digital photographer’, or even a ‘film photographer’ or a whatever photographer depending upon the particular camera I happen to grab that day, and despite what some of the camera clubs that I know like to cut us up into all these little neat categories. Maybe professionally I will call myself a ‘commercial photographer’ but that’s about the only exception. Personally I’m just a photographer - to me the recording media doesn’t matter, though I do have my preferences. I still have to think about light, composition, content and the moment, no matter what the image recording material is. But that’s just me.

Sorry if that’s not necessarily answering your two questions, but I hope it’s of some value.

100% agreement.

I like working with all the cameras I own. If I don't like working with a camera, I get rid of it.

So, addressing the questions specifically:

(1) What do you think is the biggest difference between film and digital photography.

The way the two different recording media capture light is different.

(2) Is there any way to overcome overshooting when you don’t have to pay for film?

Yes: Stop overshooting.

G

 

[Doug A]

1a. I have been using film cameras for 70 years. I have yet to try a digital camera that is anywhere near as much fun.

1b. ISO 400 cubic grain films developed in Rodinal have a unique signature with edge contrast that I have never seen realistically duplicated with digital.

2. I found the opposite problem when I did try digital. With the instant feedback I deleted almost all of my pictures as soon as I took them. On a film photowalk I often come home having shot a complete 12-exposure roll. On a digital photo walk I would seldom come home with more than two or three pictures.

 

[PaulDalex]

I started with film in the fifties.
And I heartily agree with Lupo

 

[ellisson]

For the first question, the ability to get instant feedback, faster turn around time for a final image, and overall greater convenience with less time expended favor digital over film. Unless you take a film negative all the way to an enlarger and analog printing, there is some component of digital processing involved even with film shooting: scanning, post-processing with software programs, laser (digital) printing, WIFI transfer, presentation on social media or on products or print media for marketing and other commercial uses.

Regarding equipment, film cameras do have an enduring charm, and vintage models are sought by users and collectors, more so than digital cameras which change with improved digital sensors, materials, image stabilization methods and water resistance, etc. After shooting digital for a while, I find it refreshing to pick up an older, simpler film camera, load a roll of film and work in that medium for certain kinds of shooting. True medium format (not just slightly larger 35mm🙂, is expensive for digital, more within my budget for film.

Regarding the second question, I tend to take more images with digital, but it is usually based on the feedback/preview and the desire to bracket, which I may be less inclined to do with film. What it does not represent, is shooting randomly at things, at subjects or scenes that I know are trivial (to me) or just plain uninteresting from my prior experience shooting them in the same or similar light. It's a pain to delete multiple boring images, so why take them?

The most annoying issue I see with digital is over-processing. A very nice digital image can be rendered unnatural and difficult to view with over contrast, over sharpening, over de-hazing...etc. And with hybrid processing, it can be a problem for film images, too. Then again, what one person considers over processing may be considered artistic rendering by others, even when the processing is extremely exaggerated for effect. Scan around flickr for numerous examples....

In the end, I suppose the world of photography, like the art world in general, is always changing with new ways of seeing and interpreting life and the world.