Why shooting film will make you a better street photographer

H

HHPhoto

Well-known
Local time
9:03 PM
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
1,864
Location
Germany
View My Gallery
Hi,

as we all know, rangefinder photography is famous especially for being excellent for street photography.

Here is an interesting view from a street photographer who started photography with digital, and now explores the benefits of using film rangefinders.

http://erickimphotography.com/blog/...m-will-make-you-a-better-street-photographer/

For me, who learned photography with film, then explored the digital world intensively and now is doing much more with film again it is always interesting to see how photographers who began with digital describe their way to film.

Cheers, Jan
 
This whole article has to be a massive joke. There is absolutely nothing that film can do "better" then digital in the points 1 to 4 that he brings up. The difference between digital and film is only that film inherently has a different look to it, sort of like oil paintings vs water based painting, but with software such as Silver Efex Pro even that is disputable. And film let's you work in a darkroom. That's it really. Nothing to do with getting you closer or appreciate light or anything like that.

At point 5 and 6 is where his brain starts to kick in again.

And this comes from someone who only shots film.
 
Wether he might be right or wrong with his view is absolutely not my point.
My view is, at least partly, different from his point of view.
I see other merits in the use of film in street photography.

But I have often heard similar arguments like his ones from other photographers who have started digital.

So I find it interesting to see the different points of views dependant on whether you have learned with film or with digital (some interesting comments from other users on his blog, too).

Similar experience with lo-fi photographers: Lots of them started with digital equipment and are now experiencing film as an alternative.
Their reasons to shoot film are completely different to mine and seem often quite strange to me.
But nevertheless interesting, I try to keep open-minded to these other point of views.

Cheers, Jan
 
Last edited:
here are already two urban legends:

1. a RF camera makes a better "streetphotographer"

2. analogue film makes.......better....

My theory that there are at least 10 real reasons:

1. good shoes and warm stockings in winter and suede in summer

2. the attitude

3. the attitude

4. - 10. the attidtude.....


'street' can be sooo easy..... 😀 when you get it. No Leica might help you nor a X100 or a FED2......


.....it's your brain, dude....🙄
 
These diatribes that love to put film and rangefinders into the realm of mythology rather than reality give me the screaming ****s!

But thanks for the link just the same! 😀
 
Keith said:
These diatribes that love to put film and rangefinders into the realm of mythology rather than reality give me the screaming ****s!
Click to expand...

Join the club.

It's really just another rehash of "Gear X will make me a better Y", with gear X being quaint and old-fashioned and hip.
 
Let me say that right now I only shoot film and disagree entirely with all his assertions except the last. The part about seeing light especially. Anyone can turn off the auto features on a digital camera. Pretty ridiculous article all around.
 
Yeah, but look. He's trying to drum up business for workshops. It may be 9/10 drivel, but to quote the immortal Bernard Levin theatre review, "Those who quite like this sort of thing will find that this is the sort of thing they quite like."

It's much like the 'one camera, one lens' fantasy in the thread about how "great photographers" use simple kit.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Few of these ever mentioned the separation of shooting scene & darkroom, the practice of printing/viewing pictures, and many other things concerning visual culture.

Look, think, print, (and fondling with the brick of metal and glass,) To me those are real charms of analog photography.

-

Point 3 does have some sense, though. A big black DSLR is the most intimidating, while almost any other instrument from small P&S to Speed Graphics will work better, each in their unique way, on the wordless communication of the street.
 
Archlich said:
Few of these ever mentioned the separation of shooting scene & darkroom, the practice of printing/viewing pictures, and many other things concerning visual culture.

Look, think, print, (and fondling with the brick of metal and glass,) To me those are real charms of analog photography.

-

Point 3 does have some sense, though. A big black DSLR is the most intimidating, while almost any other instrument from small P&S to Speed Graphics will work better, each in their unique way, on the wordless communication of the street.
Click to expand...

THINK?

What are you? Some kinda commie prevert?

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Yeah, but look. He's trying to drum up business for workshops. It may be 9/10 drivel, but to quote the immortal Bernard Levin theatre review, "Those who quite like this sort of thing will find that this is the sort of thing they quite like."

It's much like the 'one camera, one lens' fantasy in the thread about how "great photographers" use simple kit.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

the problem is this Roger, i suspect using one camera and one lens for long periods of time has led to me being a better photographer. i am critical of the myths/rules that the interwebs seems to pump out with vigour, however the term 'fantasy' seems a bit harsh.
 
Moriturii said:
This whole article has to be a massive joke. There is absolutely nothing that film can do "better" then digital in the points 1 to 4 that he brings up.
Click to expand...

I would argue that his points 1) and 4) have much merit, even if his theory and explanations leave a lot to be desired. But they are indirect benefits, and don't exclude digital from allowing the desired results.

And it's not a case of film doing it "better" but a case of film being "more likely to...".

1) Film is "more likely to" slow you down, even if for the simple reason that pressing the shutter costs money. Other reasons include the limit of 36 shots on a roll, slower (in general) continuous shooting speeds, film changes, and the option of shooting larger (and slower) formats.

4) Film is "more likely to" help you master light, because an incorrectly exposed frame is wasteful, and can only provide feedback on exposure after development. The benefits of mastering light and getting exposure right first time are far more compelling when using film as a medium.
 
emraphoto said:
the problem is this Roger, i suspect using one camera and one lens for long periods of time has led to me being a better photographer. i am critical of the myths/rules that the interwebs seems to pump out with vigour, however the term 'fantasy' seems a bit harsh.
Click to expand...

And what had you tried beforehand? And why did you choose the camera/lens you chose? Do you not reserve the option of changing cameras/lenses in the future, for whatever reason?

Sure, endlessly hopping from one camera to another is likely to make anyone a worse photographer, but they probably aren't going to get better until they have the right camera, or at least, accept that the search for the perfect camera is an illusion. Forcing yourself to use a second-best camera ('second best' in terms of whether objectively it can deliver what you need/want) is like forcing yourself to "pick a film -- any film -- and use it for a year." Use the wrong film, and you won't be happy.

Besides which, I'd be surprised if you didn't have a backup for the camera you use most...

Cheers,

R.
 
Keith said:
These diatribes that love to put film and rangefinders into the realm of mythology rather than reality give me the screaming ****s!

But thanks for the link just the same! 😀
Click to expand...



DITTO


All his images looks like they were improperly exposed and/or taken on expired or heat damaged film. If there is a "film look" I hope it doesn't become synonymous with that mess.

I couldn't read the article without thinking it was a joke, apparently it's not intended to be, still funny though.


It's kind of a pity that we feel the need to turn everything into an ideology, rather than just enjoying what we do and accepting that as enough (at least for those amateurs among us)

I'm still use film 100% of the time; has failed to improve my dismal performance since I stopped using digital.
 
DamenS said:
Thank God I saw it was an Eric Kim article before having clicked on the link. Can we perhaps get some form of "warning system" in here ??
Click to expand...

Really?
Why?

I have no idea who this Eric Kim is, but I don't think he's a bad photographer. At least he has an eye to spot interesting things on the street.

Sometime I really wish to see some of the members here who post highly critical statements about others would show us how good they really are... y'know, with pictures, not mere words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom