Why 35mm in the age of digital

Hello:

Interesting article. You concede to digital on the grounds of utility. Am I alone in considering 35mm film to offer both an aesthetic and archival alternative?

Best.

Yours
FPJ
 
Thanks for the good words!

FPJohn: I wouldn't totally concede the grounds of utility to digital, I'm more of the "if it satisfies you better, run with it" camp. As you said, archival concerns can weight in the balance as well. It's just that a lot of people have switched to digital for practical, rather than aesthetic reasons.

I concentrated on the megapixels/amount of pictures mainly because those are in my opinion the two big concerns for users, and the source of endless holy wars.
 
I don't use digital, but I don't think you have proved your point. A 35mm sized digital camera has all the same characteristics as an equivalent digital one. An overstuffed Canon or Nikon SLR is just as obtrusive in film or digital. A rangefinder is just as quiet and inconspicuous in either format. The only edge film edge right now is the lack of a full frame digital rangefinder.

Do people think differently when they pick up one capture system or another? I don't know since I don't use digital, but I doubt it. If one overshoots and spends time looking at the screen after each shot that isn't the fault of the camera, but of the photographer.

If there is something special about 35mm you haven't expressed it to my satisfaction yet.
 
I honestly don't get it - why wouldn't the exact same reasoning for "time extracted" apply to a digital capture? I did not understand why 35mm was or is in any form superior to digital from that article.
I like your writing style and the pictures and I shoot a lot of 35mm film, I just didn't understand your message.
 
"The digital SLR is a vacuum cleaner of pictures, obese with supersized amounts of imagery"

Very nice analogy. I agree with the views voiced in the article.
 
robertdfeinman said:
If there is something special about 35mm you haven't expressed it to my satisfaction yet.
Click to expand...

If pressed, I would say that the following sentence says it in a nutshell: "It is about memory, desire, and yearning for completion."

My idea is that memory plays a more fundamental role with 35mm than with other formats, including digital, because we must accumulate "blindly" a certain number of pictures before seeing them.

Of course, you can accumulate quite a heavy stash of pictures with film like one does with digital, but where I think film is special is the forced delay between exposure and feedback. With 35mm, it's unavoidable that this delay be larger than one's memory of the events they photographed. With digital, regardless of how many pictures you take, you can always have immediate feedback. With large format, you still have a forced delay, but you don't have a whole roll to finish--most people will finish their 36exp before processing.

By the time you can see your 35mm photos, you have already forgotten quite a lot about them. They slip away from one's grasp, and printing them is like trying to reawaken deep memories.

But as the word "essay" means, it's only an attempt to say something, not the definitive word... Again, thanks for the reactions, of all kind, they are appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Although I agree with your sentiments and like the imagery of the bloated, pregnant DSLR, I don't think you made your point very well.

I think anything you said really could be said about a digital with the screen off even more so if you are talking about the limits of your memory vs a flash card. Certainly if you can take more than 36 pictures at a time, the memory argument goes even more in favor of digital. Even if you could remember a roll of film, could you remember 2 gigs?

Really the difference to me is quality, not quality in the sense of mega pixels but the actual look of film, the texture of grain and the tonality that film brings. There is an inherent look that I really like, a buzz I get from viewing a negative or a slide that I don't get from looking at an LCD.

There is also the tactile quality of the roll of film, of the image existing in space independently of a computer. The ability to look at a roll of film by simply holding it up to a window with the naked eye.

And of course there is also, to bring it back to this forum, the pleasure of using a purely mechanical device that is always ready, with no need to be turned on. I think even if I had more appreciation for digital imagery, I would be hard pressed to use the devices you have to use to make it.

Honestly at this point in time there is no reason to even make the argument, I think you can only let the work and the medium speak for itself.
 
Last edited:
I was recently reminded of one of the main reasons I prefer film to digital photography.

I was visiting a family member who is in his 80s, and we were talking about old family members who are now long gone. He said to me he had an old box of his mum's photos (I remember her from when I was very young), and he got it out and we spent a happy hour or two going through them. I borrowed some and took them home to make copies.

Wind forward 30 years and consider a similar situation. I might be here saying "We found an old box of his mum's that contained some obsolete old computer disks. The computers that can read them are well gone now, and the disks are probably unreadable anyway".

And that's one of my reasons - so the old boxes of photos will still be there to be found and enjoyed by people in the future.
 
nightfly said:
I think anything you said really could be said about a digital with the screen off even more so if you are talking about the limits of your memory vs a flash card. Certainly if you can take more than 36 pictures at a time, the memory argument goes even more in favor of digital. Even if you could remember a roll of film, could you remember 2 gigs?
Click to expand...

To quote myself again: "Of course you could shut the LCD of the digital camera, and accumulate pictures beyond your memory as you do with 35mm. But the temptation to break the spell persists. 35mm refuses to yield."

I too get a kick from having a physical negative/slide, and it's among the reasons why I choose film. What I'm trying to figure out here is why 35mm in particular. The pictorial qualities matter as well (grain, contrast, etc), but I'm wondering if there's something beyond that.

There's something about the 36 exposures that makes a roll of 35mm self-containted, a coherent creative breath. Maybe it's just habit speaking, but it reminds me of the 12-ish tracks on a standard music album, or the 90-mins movie.
 
whats wrong with a vacuum cleaner?:) i love my vacuum cleaner!
it helps me keep my 35mm (and medium format) cameras clean!
 
On Friday at party I got K100D in my hands and made some nice shots (I think) of host. I quickly realized that I need to force myself not look at LCD after each shot. Anyone there did so - and missed hidden exposures between ones they took.

After 30+ years there will be Memoread Inc. "We will read your memories, just send media" - if only those forgotten CDs, DVDs, CF, SD and whatelse cards will not be damaged (and many will be, as many film strips will be), our kids or their kids will receive pictures (or holographic scenes), converted from obsolete graphic file formats to current ones. This will cost about 50 credits...mhm, in case civilization will not starve scattered around rocks, islands and endless sands.
 
I think you need to keep digging on.

I used to shoot a lot of medium format film and I felt like 12 shots was the perfect amount. Now I shoot 35 predominantly and 36 feels like a stretch sometimes but it works.

However I think you just habituate to the medium more than anything else. I'm not sure I get the magic you are grasping for. Good photos to me are like poems. They are complete unto themselves but some are haiku and some are epics. Not sure I agree that the format has much impact.

In this film about Bresson he had this great quote about taking pictures that it was possible to take too many, he compared it to eating and said that you don't want to be a glutton or you get sick. Or that's how I remember the quote at least.

But then you have guys like Winogrand who leave behind hundreds or thousands (whatever the legend is) of undeveloped rolls of film.

I do think there is value in not seeing the moment of capture right away, particularly not in the field. It is difficult to evaluate this on the spot. I find I often go back to negs years later because I remember something about a long forgotten shot that didn't do anything for me at the time.

There's something to what you're saying, I just don't think you've quite hit it.
 
nightfly said:
Really the difference to me is quality, not quality in the sense of mega pixels but the actual look of film, the texture of grain and the tonality that film brings.
Click to expand...

When did grain become a good thing? You do not see grain when you look through the viewfinder, so why want to see it when you look at the results? It is a distortion of your image.

Steve
 
sjw617 said:
When did grain become a good thing? You do not see grain when you look through the viewfinder, so why want to see it when you look at the results? It is a distortion of your image.

Steve
Click to expand...

Grain is part of an asthetic quality that is often unique to film.
Some people love it, some people hate it.
I'd rather see grain in an image than digital noise. But i guess everyone has their own opinion.
 
AzzA;788631I'd rather see grain in an image than digital noise. But i guess everyone has their own opinion.[/quote said:
I don't like either grain or distortion. To me they are both to be avoided.

Steve
Click to expand...
 
mhv, broadly I agree, 4x5 captures-staged/35mm captures-one part on an essay. I do think digital has taken the 'fire hose' type of photography to the level of not being able to see the forest for the trees (plus with digital you lose the sex factor of film).
 
sjw617 said:
I don't like either grain or distortion. To me they are both to be avoided.
Click to expand...

sjw617 said:
You do not see grain when you look through the viewfinder, so why want to see it when you look at the results? It is a distortion of your image.
Click to expand...

Thats your opinion an you're entitled do it.
It all depends on what result you're after though doesnt it? What the purpose of the photograph is. I wouldnt like grain in fine macro work for instance, but love it in other subjects.
When you take a photo there any many distortions. How often do photographs look exactly the same as what you see?
I dont think i've ever seen any, and personally wouldnt be interested in seeing any. I'll just use my own eyes thanks. But that might be getting off topic a little.

If you shoot with film you will see grain. If you shoot with digital you will see noise. Certain cameras, conditions, settings, etc. will increase or minimise these "distortions". I have never heard a person say they like the look of digital noise, but i know for a fact many people love the look of film grain depending on the photo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom