Why I Shoot Film...interesting film missive

[Tom Diaz]

OT, but... I've never understood the criticisms of "chimping". Did Polaroid attract this kind of heat when it debuted? You take a picture, you see what it looks like. What's the problem? If film cameras had managed this trick 50 years ago, who wouldn't have peeked?

I didn't mean to sound too critical, but chimping is possible with digital and not with film.

I personally avoid deleting too much in the field or even spending too much time reviewing images. It's time taken away from shooting. Something interesting could be happening while you're reviewing your last couple of images. I can always review images in the comfort of my home office. That's just my preference.

With slower moving or stationary subjects (which are not my usual material) I guess there's more time, although even then, if they're lit by natural light, the quality of light can change quickly, too.

By the way, I agree with the author and with others here about the excitement of getting back developed film, or pulling it out of the tank. Gets me every time. However, that, I think we can all agree, will not be enough to sustain film as a technology.

Tom

 

[gnarayan]

I've got a DSLR. Its an Oly E510. Its a perfectly good DSLR and it isn't large compared to many other DSLRs out there. But it still feels big after a couple of days, particularly with the zooms Oly makes. It also has a pretty small VF. I still use it a fair amount but I don't carry it everywhere generally.

I want a small camera, which can take small lenses (and I'm fine with primes) and a large usable VF (fixed or TTL, optical or digital). There are not many digital options out there that meet that criteria and that I feel are worth the price being asked for them. The M4/3 things are getting closer, and the others are pretty much RD1 and M8 and M9.

So I compromised and started to shoot film because I could find nice OMs that did pretty much everything I wanted them to. As an added bonus I like the different colours I can get by swapping a single cannister (though its bloody hard to keep them after a scan) and the B&Ws have a different character from the digital.

I decided I wanted a rangefinder and got a good deal on the classifieds here for a R3a and 40 Nokton and thats turned out to be fun and a different way of working again. I decided I wanted an M and got one after that.

But shooting film did begin as a compromise, and that it remains. It costs time and money and never ends up looking as sharp as digital after I scan. I like getting prints but I've no particular interest in making them. Its nice to have the choice to shoot both.

 

[Keith]

My M8 has definitely improved my attitude towards digital ... I had a D70 for years and barely took a shot with it but my M8 has around ten thousand shutter acuations on it so Leica's persistence with the M platform in digital is welcomed by me.

I have yet to produce a shot digitally that gives me as much satisfaction as my best efforts with film but that's more my problem than digital's and it may or may not change.

I do get a buzz from messing around in my darkroom and film is great stuff to work with in the physical sense but that's not necessarily to do with photography IMO ... controlled chemical reactions and intricate mechanical devices have always fascinated me!

 

[mfunnell]

Oh no? These not your words?

One of the biggest problems in shooting sequences machine gun style, with film or digital, whether two frames per second or twenty, is that you get locked into the camera's sequence of exposures. You can't take the picture BETWEEN the ones being exposed by the camera's automation.

Emphasis mine in the quote above.

I think your meaning was quite clear. One cannot.

Actually I did think his meaning was quite clear. If you simply hold down the button, the frames or sensor get exposed with timing determined by the camera or motordrive's automation. This timing might not get the shot. So sometimes it is a good idea to not do that. Sometimes taking a single timed shot works better than taking a sequence where the cycle time might cause the key moment to be missed.

I would have thought that to be pretty unexceptional, and is certainly how I approach things when shooting sport. This was not part of a sequence:


What I don't understand is why you took such exception to the unexceptional

...Mike

 

[back alley]

i've done darkroom to death.
never cared for the smell of the chemicals, the set up or tear down.
i think i was a pretty good printer, sold lots of prints.

i much prefer my laptop and pse. i email my files to my lab and pick them up a day or so later. works for me.

i have no argument with film or film users.
i just prefer digital now.

and i gave my 600 albums away years ago and much prefer the clean sound of a good cd.

 

[ferider]

And apparently, one cannot be using a digital camera in a similar situation, eh? They must be chimping at the critical moment, never during a time when they were not trying to 'catch the moment' as you say. Funny, I say I can avoid chimping when I know I must 'catch the moment' and you say it just isn't possible. How can both statements be true? Somebody's full of it, I think.

Still looking for Al ever saying this.

What exactly is it you are defending so loudly, Bill ?

Have some pie.

 

[Al Kaplan]

I'm glad that some of you understood what I was saying. I thought that it was pretty clear.

That's a great shot of the guy jumping to catch the ball, Mike.

 

[wgerrard]

Oh, I never said that everybody machine-guns or chimps.

My question about chimping wasn't directed your way, Al. Indeed, this is the first time you've used the word in this thread.

Personally, digital versus film really does sound like a fuss about two kinds of ice cream. Some folks may like one flavor and some another, but that does not invalidate either choice. Geez, how much better than good ice cream, of any flavor, does it get?

I use film because I like cameras that use film, not the other way around. I've been scanning and figure film vs. digital differences are pretty much eliminated in that process, at least to my eyes. I mean, it's not like any of us make a practice of shooting a digital version of each film shot for comparison.

I'm dabbling in b&w and doing my own processing. That's been fun. As soon as I can get around to it, I'll take a stab at doing some prints. Maybe I'll really like it. Maybe I won't. I haven't yet shut myself up in a little room with a bunch of smelly chemicals.

But... if I had the $7000 for an M9, I'd buy one, sell everything else, and buy a couple good lenses and a printer.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Most people don't find the chemicals all that smelly, although there are a few people with allergies. The most stinky stuff I use is the stop bath which is acetic acid, the same stuff as vinegar. An air exhaust fan or heat/cool air conditioner keeps things under control and can get a lot of dust out of the air as well. Change or wash the filter on a regular basis. You can mix your stock solutions from powdered chemicals someplace other than the darkroom.

 

[wgerrard]

Most people don't find the chemicals all that smelly, although there are a few people with allergies. The most stinky stuff I use is the stop bath which is acetic acid, the same stuff as vinegar. An air exhaust fan or heat/cool air conditioner keeps things under control and can get a lot of dust out of the air as well. Change or wash the filter on a regular basis. You can mix your stock solutions from powdered chemicals someplace other than the darkroom.

Agree. The stop bath is the most potent. I've been processing film in the kitchen in front of an open window with the AC on so odors haven't been an issue. Print processing will be done in a teeny bathroom with an exhaust fan of dubious effect. I've spilled enough stuff already to be pretty sure I'm not allergic to the stuff. Now, if there was any chlorine in the stuff, that'd be different. Those household cleaners with a tiny bit of chlorine instantly irritate my eyes and trigger copious tears. Can't use 'em.

 

[JoeV]

Hmmm...same thing happens here. I guess the little elves who live inside the camera haven't had enough time to draw the pictures.

I used to think that about listening to the car radio as a child; I would picture little people inside the dashboard, behind the radio, performing on a miniature stage.

I think I like the process, that's all.

I sincerely wish every time I turned around, there wasn't a digital photography evangelist telling me what a crappy old process I use, and how inferior it is. I'm well aware of the differences, thank you.

I think you nailed it; that's the same reason I like both types of processes; I like developing and printing, but also I like some (but not all) of the new camera's features. Like my G1, the auto-review in the EVF; I have mine setup to "auto-chimp" for 1 second, just long enough to tell that you got the shot, but short enough so as not to interfere with the flow of the subject matter.

Yea, what's the deal about people with digital cameras, especially when I'm out with an old film camera or homemade pinhole box camera, telling me that I "should go digital". Like I should run over every bicyclist with my car, then explain to them that I was merely attempting to convince them of how outmoded is their primitive form of transportation; they should "go automotive".

I use film because I like cameras that use film, not the other way around. I've been scanning and figure film vs. digital differences are pretty much eliminated in that process, at least to my eyes. I mean, it's not like any of us make a practice of shooting a digital version of each film shot for comparison.

One appeal to film use I find is the mechanical nature of the cameras and lenses, rather than the "film or digital" nature of the process. Again, when I put a manual lens on my G1, I really like having the distance and DOF scales to work with, while simultaneously the convenient features of the modern electronic camera.

Agree. The stop bath is the most potent. I've been processing film in the kitchen in front of an open window with the AC on so odors haven't been an issue. Print processing will be done in a teeny bathroom with an exhaust fan of dubious effect. I've spilled enough stuff already to be pretty sure I'm not allergic to the stuff. Now, if there was any chlorine in the stuff, that'd be different. Those household cleaners with a tiny bit of chlorine instantly irritate my eyes and trigger copious tears. Can't use 'em.

I'm finding some hybrid workflow, that combines the best of both types of technology, to be appealing, although I haven't yet brought this to fruition; nor am I certain such a workflow would be possible. I like the results of printing to fiber based silver gelatin paper; yet I like the convenience of digital capture -- but using cameras with mechanical, analog controls on both the body and lens. In my ideal, fantasy process, a large-sensor mechanical digital camera is used to capture the image, which is manipulated in software and output to a digital enlarger head; the fiber based paper is then processed through a mechanized processor machine, rather than trays.

I know, pure fantasy; but there's nothing wrong with dreaming, right?

In the meantime, it's not a "zero-sum game"; meaning that we should be able to peacefully coexist with both types of tools available; supporting one type doesn't automatically diminish the other's usefullness for someone else.

~Joe

 

[kshapero]

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.

I agree with you Joe totally and that is why I agree with the author of the essay. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[shadowfox]

Wow, why all the anonymity?

The guy in the article simply is saying that uncertainty breeds potential for creativity. It still takes an effort from us to recognize that potential of creativity, it won't realize itself without our eyes and brain developing it.

It is *not* the same as saying, "if you use film, you will be more creative than those losers who use digital"

Now couple this with the *fact* that film has more uncertainty attached to it due to its nature, shooting film is uncertain, the results are uncertain, the development/printing/etc. are equally uncertain. This is a fact, not a theory or an opinion.

Digital removes a lot of that. The good thing is that it allows people to do photography in a more predictable and measurable manner. The bad thing is, we lose a lot of the "potential creativity" that are induced by the uncertainties.

We choose our own poison (or medicine).

... sounds simple to me.

 

[David_Manning]

Will, very well summarized. Sounds about the way I feel too.

 

[giellaleafapmu]

I like the essay but I disagree on so many things...

First I don't know why does he feel the need to justify anything. I mean, if he is proposing to do an assignment with film he must but in this case I doubt his essay will be very convincing, otherwise I don't see why. In fact if he works free lance and sells pictures after he got it he does not need to justify anything even if he is a professional.

Then he writes: "‘I like to have something tangible in front of me’ or other such nonsense" as an example of bad explanation but I think this is as good as an explanation as any. In fact, I know a journalist who sometimes told me: "Now that I use digital I sometimes doubt the things I photograph really happened, before I looked at the negatives and knew I had a document and a proof that what I saw had really happened". I don't feel at all like this but why call this "nonsense"?

He then goes ahead and writes that "Film photography remains a slower process, requiring greater concentration and awareness since mistakes cannot be corrected by the time the results are seen." My comment: so what? When one writes can correct a sentence a billion times this doesn't make any easier to write a novel!

Digital might give you the possibility to see your picture one second after you got it but it doesn't give the possibility to go back in time! And if it is studio work we are speaking of, if you weren't able to put up a good setup with a light meter an a Polaroid back before you are not able with a digital camera now either.

I disagree on almost everything but it is a nice essay

GLF

 

[Keith]

Wow, why all the anonymity?

The guy in the article simply is saying that uncertainty breeds potential for creativity. It still takes an effort from us to recognize that potential of creativity, it won't realize itself without our eyes and brain developing it.

It is *not* the same as saying, "if you use film, you will be more creative than those losers who use digital"

Now couple this with the *fact* that film has more uncertainty attached to it due to its nature, shooting film is uncertain, the results are uncertain, the development/printing/etc. are equally uncertain. This is a fact, not a theory or an opinion.

Digital removes a lot of that. The good thing is that it allows people to do photography in a more predictable and measurable manner. The bad thing is, we lose a lot of the "potential creativity" that are induced by the uncertainties.

We choose our own poison (or medicine).

... sounds simple to me.

'Anonymity' ???

I think you meant to type animosity ... but then again, no amount of anonymity can save us from digital!

 

[shadowfox]

'Anonymity' ???

I think you meant to type animosity ... but then again, no amount of anonymity can save us from digital!

Hehe... I knew I typed something wrong the minute I hit Submit

Thanks, Keith!