Why I Shoot Film...interesting film missive

back alley said:
what a load of crap...film is for neurotics is what he is basically saying.
Click to expand...

Seriously? I'm not reading it that way. More like, film helps him to probe the uncomfortable parts of himself, and I feel that way about it, too.

The part I don't agree with is that "film retains all the creative advantages" over digital. For him, maybe, but I like digital and think it does indeed have creative advantages, different ones from film.

I think the essay is just a well-considered personal statement, Joe, rather than a manifesto.
 
What he's saying makes sense to me from the standpoint that in a creative venture it's the very imperfections, unpredictablity of film that gives you something to work with. We're not talking about precise copies of engineering drawings or 100% correct color reproduction. Of course with digital (shhh! don't tell anybody!) we end up with an absurdly short range of tonal capture compared to film. We also sacrifice the the creative possibilities of playing around with the "toe" and "shoulder" of the H&D curve.
 
in agreement

in agreement

back alley said:
what a load of crap...film is for neurotics is what he is basically saying.
Click to expand...
i shoot film cos, i find it still magiical, if thats neurotic, i will keep takeing the medication till they find a cure.but dont hold your breath.;)
 
Is not the the end result, the print, the only thing that matters us in someone elses photography ? Should not we care less about what route they took or the vehicle they used but only where they ended up?

If it is ourselves enjoying the journey as well as the destination, then we choose what we enjoy and works for us. But that is our personal choice.

In simple terms, I am interested in your photographs. But it makes no difference to me how you took them.

I thought this was the Sunday we were going to not talk about gear, only photos. Or is "gear" limited to cameras and lenses only? Has someone decided others opinions in the "film vs. digital debate" is philosophical?
 
The author begins by admitting that most of the former reasons given for digital's supposed inferiority no longer exist. The author even notes that this leaves the luddites grasping for words to describe the 'thing' about film that makes it 'better' than digital for them. Then he does it himself.

I prefer to shoot film because it is a more human process...
Click to expand...

That's a statement made as if it were objective fact, but in reality, it's just one of those 'how I feel' kind of statements. In what objective way is film 'more human' than digital?

He then builds on this nonsensical statement to fashion an argument, which is unfortunately just a rehash of all the idiocy he decried in his introduction.

Film photography remains a slower process, requiring greater concentration and awareness since mistakes cannot be corrected by the time the results are seen.
Click to expand...

Digital process can be as slow as you like. No one is forced to chimp, no one is forced to shoot quickly. You can take your time and go as slowly as you like, leave the LCD off and suffer the consequences of poor choices in exposure and focus and framing if that's what you feel makes you a better person or photographer.

I shoot film because it gives me more of a chance to be a who I am, complete with all my flaws and doubts.
Click to expand...

This is a statement utterly without meaning. It's just words. He might as well say that driving a Chevy makes him more of who he is, whilst driving a Ford would be a complete travesty to his inner being. Yeah, whatever.

Gotta go with Joe here. It's crap. Navel-gazing, angst-ridden, crap. First he says how terrible it is that digital-haters have lost all their technical reasons for rejecting digital and have to play all namby-pamby 'feelings' and then he does just that. Ick. I want my five minutes back for having read it.
 
Ultimately, film and digital are just two different tools. While I think a lot of mumbo-jumbo is spoken about film, and a similar amount about digital, if someone feels more creative with one and not the other, then they will very likely be more creative.

In a way, the difference between film and digital is like the difference between an acoustic musical instrument and its electrified counterpart. Neither will turn a bush league amateur into a competent musician. But, in the hands of an expert who knows the instrument's strengths and weaknesses, good, albeit different, music can happen. Asking if acoustic music is better than electric is asking the wrong question. We should be asking how well the musician exploited the instrument of his or her choosing.
 
wgerrard said:
Ultimately, film and digital are just two different tools. While I think a lot of mumbo-jumbo is spoken about film, and a similar amount about digital, if someone feels more creative with one and not the other, then they will very likely be more creative.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you. The problem is not that a person feels 'more creative' with one than the other - that part is quite understandable. The problem is that they feel compelled to produce a logical and accurate reason why this is so - making it an objective fact instead of a personal choice.

You will note the author says things declaratively, such as 'it is' as opposed for 'I find that for me, it is' blah blah blah.

All he has to do is clarify his statements to make them subjective and I have no argument with them - how could one argue with someone's personal preferences?

In a way, the difference between film and digital is like the difference between an acoustic musical instrument and its electrified counterpart. Neither will turn a bush league amateur into a competent musician. But, in the hands of an expert who knows the instrument's strengths and weaknesses, good, albeit different, music can happen. Asking if acoustic music is better than electric is asking the wrong question. We should be asking how well the musician exploited the instrument of his or her choosing.
Click to expand...

Great analogy. Thanks!
 
bmattock said:
The author begins by admitting that most of the former reasons given for digital's supposed inferiority no longer exist. The author even notes that this leaves the luddites grasping for words to describe the 'thing' about film that makes it 'better' than digital for them. Then he does it himself.

That's a statement made as if it were objective fact, but in reality, it's just one of those 'how I feel' kind of statements. In what objective way is film 'more human' than digital?

He then builds on this nonsensical statement to fashion an argument, which is unfortunately just a rehash of all the idiocy he decried in his introduction.

Digital process can be as slow as you like. No one is forced to chimp, no one is forced to shoot quickly. You can take your time and go as slowly as you like, leave the LCD off and suffer the consequences of poor choices in exposure and focus and framing if that's what you feel makes you a better person or photographer.

This is a statement utterly without meaning. It's just words. He might as well say that driving a Chevy makes him more of who he is, whilst driving a Ford would be a complete travesty to his inner being. Yeah, whatever.

Gotta go with Joe here. It's crap. Navel-gazing, angst-ridden, crap. First he says how terrible it is that digital-haters have lost all their technical reasons for rejecting digital and have to play all namby-pamby 'feelings' and then he does just that. Ick. I want my five minutes back for having read it.
Click to expand...

It's just a little personal essay saying why he likes what he likes. There's none of the wild overstatement you're piling on here. "terrible"..."complete travesty"..."makes you a better person"...he doesn't say any of that.

The point of a piece like this is to give people a different way of seeing something. It's not a battle cry. Film makes the guy feel good, maybe he hopes it'll make you feel good too. You don't have to love it, but why the rage?
 
bmattock said:
You will note the author says things declaratively, such as 'it is' as opposed for 'I find that for me, it is' blah blah blah.
Click to expand...

"I find that for me" etc. are filler phrases that would weaken the piece, IMO. Obviously it's just his opinion and he's referring to himself. He doesn't have to repeat it over and over, it's inherent in the framing of the essay.

Again, I don't think it's genius or anything, it's just a simple bit of writing explaining why he likes what he does.
 
Thanks Bob. Sensible view... much appreciated!

It can get tiring around here watching people jump down others' throats just because the OP wants to put their feelings out there to share. Geez, Louise! How about everyone here just celebrating the fact that we get to share ideas here.
 
it's not that he expressing his feelings, because he isn't, it's his trying to dr. phil us with his analysis of why film is more creative than digital.
 
Good essay, the serendipity of film will always draw some of us to it. The clinical nature of digital will always draw some of us away from it.
 
Holy cow, guys! He wrote what he felt, an opinion...you obviously have one too, and it isn't his. Sure it may have been out of left field or from a different perspective, but that doesn't mean he's wrong...he's just not your brand of crazy. Frickin' tough crowd, you photo bugs...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom