Zen of film vs. Digital Gratification

Good read and I wouldn't argue. I have been pondering recently why I use primes for B&W and zooms for digital.....puzzling.
 
Sad little anti-digital screed by yet another person who thinks the 'magic' is in the film and not in their heads. Whatever.
 
The magic is in their heads, but it's film and the film process that puts it there. Perception is reality. As long as like-minded folk are simply supporting each other and no one is trying to forcefully brain-wash or convert others, then no harm - no foul. Kinda like religion.
 
Things changed well before digital. Autoexposure solved the exposure problem for even the rankest beginner. Autofocus solved the focus problem. Unless you were dealing with the most complex exposure issues, you pretty much knew you were going to get a well exposed, properly focused image.

I think it's as much about process than the final image, despite the protests of many of us that all we care about is the image. Before autoexposure and autofocus, and now certainly digital, we (photographers) were magicians. We got images the average person with their Instamatic Kodak could not imagine. But now everyone can pull a rabbit out of the hat, so the magic is gone. Apparently for many of us as well.

If it was really all about the images, we would embrace digital completely, for all the reasons the blogger stated. I've missed more photos changing film than I've ever missed chimping. I can digitally fix photos on the computer that would have had to be tossed in the trash when I was working in a darkroom.

I think I still shoot film when I shoot film to try and recapture the magic, because the process is comfortable and familiar. The reality is that the last decade of digital stuff is far better than the 40 years of film stuff I shot. I'll keep feeding film to my Leicas as long as I can get it; but, I'm under no illusion that, for me, it's all about the image when I do so.
 
FrankS said:
The magic is in their heads, but it's film and the film process that puts it there. Perception is reality. As long as like-minded folk are simply supporting each other and no one is trying to forcefully brain-wash or convert others, then no harm - no foul. Kinda like religion.
Click to expand...

If only the author had said that:

So who cares anymore? Digital is king now. I for one do care, immensely, about the differences between film and digital. Why? I want to make great photographs, that’s why.
Click to expand...

Oh, so you can't make 'great' photographs with digital technology. I see. Yes, that's a 'live and let live' statement, huh?

And then:

And I started to get this slow realization that digital was making me lazy. Lazy, as in the opposite of what’s required to be great. No need to really worry about exposure, or to focus or anything. Just point and shoot–a monkey could do it! No need to think at all. This is so seductive and easy to rationalize. You tell yourself, “My eyes are getting bad” or “The auto everything makes me faster” and so on.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. No poke at digital here, but the statement that digital MAKES YOU LAZY is universally true. A monkey can take digital photos. I see. Sure, that's not a universal condemnation of photographers who use digital, right?

And as we see in this blindingly-brilliant insight:

But some things you don’t forget and after a day or so my mind razored up and I noticed I was again unconsciously adjusting f stops and pre-focusing while I was raising a camera in anticipation of a moment, just like in the old days. Soon these mechanical procedures happened automatically, unconsciously, naturally and in so doing I was changing. I was much more aware of light and therefore of the unforgiving nature of the film. I was bending my brain back into a film mindset. I could feel the difference and started to grasp the outline of a theory.
Click to expand...

As has been stated here so many times it makes me want to puke, the oft-repeated statement that one CANNOT simply use manual controls on a digital camera. Manual focus? No, the camera won't! Manual f-stop? No, the camera refuses to permit it! And on and one. The fact that a digital SLR can be used JUST LIKE A FILM SLR if one wishes is seen as a complete impossibility. My digital SLRs have manual control. ALL of them have it. Easy to use. Just like the old days. But here the author instead pretends that it simply is not possible.

And the author's conclusion:

So my theory is simple: there is something really important, perhaps magical, about the fact that film is so unforgiving that it creates a special mindfulness in the photographer, which in turn increases the chances of making great pictures.
Click to expand...

If the theory is that being fragile and unforgiving is what imparts a 'magical' quality on one's photos, the same gates can be put on digital. Instead of 'saving' a badly-exposed shot with Photoshop, let it go, delete it. Tah-dah.

Oh, but the limitations of film "create a special mindfulness" in the mind of the photographer. What hogwash. What he's saying is that film is great because it is crap. Oh, I see.

As I've stated before, I continue to shoot a lot of film. And a lot of digital. They're tools. Religion is fine, and I get your point - but he's not telling us about his conversion and offering us a Watchtower, he's telling us that what some of US believe is a lie, because film is SO MUCH better than digital, mainly because it is crappier. Huh. Yeah, well, he's entitled to his religion - I'm entitled to say he's wearing a tinfoil helmet.
 
Hi Bill. I didn't even read the article ao I'm not trying to defend it.



The following is just my personal experience:

For me, when using film and manual cameras, I get enjoyment from the process as well as the result. When I use digital, the enjoyment in the process is missing, so digital is over-all less satisfying for me.

YMMV and I hold no superior attitude or grudge against those who use digital. It's just not my thing.
 
Last edited:
What I got from the article is that neither film or digital is best... it's my frame of mind, being in the moment that's most important.

If film does that to me, then hurrah. If digital, fabulous!
 
Right: frame of mind, being in the moment.

It's like my motorcycle and my car. Both produce the result of transporting me from point A to B. However, it is the time on the motorcycle that is special, it is more engaging, for me.

But it's not everyone's cup of tea. Some prefer coffee. We all have different tastebuds.
 
Last edited:
FrankS said:
Hi Bill. I didn't even read the article ao I'm not trying to defend it.
Click to expand...

You were defending the author, but that's OK.

The following is just my personal experience:

For me, when using film and manual cameras, I get enjoyment form the process as well as the result. When I use digital, the enjoyment in the process is missing, so digital is over-all less satisfying for me.
Click to expand...

I enjoy the 'process' of film also, but I don't confuse that with the quality of the photographs I can produce. The author stated clearly that he went back to film because he wanted to produce great photos. Nothing about process, just a bald assertion that one cannot produce 'great photos' from digital sources. I happen to disagree with that bit of crapola.

YMMV and I hold no superior attitude or grudge against those who use digital. It's just not my thing.
Click to expand...

That's totally cool. I get tired of the whiny justifications (from others) that the reason they prefer film is because digital can't or won't do this or that, when in fact that is completely untrue. The whole thing about not being able to use a digital SLR manually really gripes my wagger, because I use my cameras a lot in exactly that manner. Manual focus, manual aperture, I set the shutter speed, gee, all the things that supposedly just cannot be done with digital SLR cameras.

This guy got right up my sleeve for precisely that reason. He moans that he has to go back to film because the digital is just not capable of doing all those things that he then lists, which of course digital is completely capable of doing. Then he has the temerity to complain that one of the really major problems of digital is that it lets one correct one's mistakes. Oh, dang. Yeah, I can see that as a problem.

If people were really concerned about 'the process' as much as they claim, golfers would go back to using wooden-staffed golf clubs with itty-bitty heads on them, instead of developing titanium this and ultra-huge club size that. Same with tennis players and wooden rackets. But they don't, do they? Huh, guess technology is actually good sometimes.
 
cysasam said:
What I got from the article is that neither film or digital is best... it's my frame of mind, being in the moment that's most important.

If film does that to me, then hurrah. If digital, fabulous!
Click to expand...

If that's what you got from the article, then as you say, fabulous. However, it is not what the author said. His screed was yet another tiresome universal declaration of the evilness of digital. It's sad, silly, and wrong.
 
I didn't think it is sad or that it qualified as a "screed" - he's simply talking about his personal experience. And his experience is valid - unless he claims it's a universal experience.

Film and digital are simply different aesthetics. Like watercolor and oils, or classical and jazz, Italianate and Bauhaus, it's silly to put them on opposite sides of an uncrossable gulf.

Whatever works for you, works.
 
I think that some of us are afraid that because of auto exposure, auto focus and digital simplicity - plus the power and ease of photoshop or any of the much more affordable programs - good photography now really is all about 'the eye'. A technical incompetent with a good eye will run rings around us as we ensure that we are optimising everything:)

There are people out there doing amazing work as well as shed loads of rubbish - and it's not because of what they shoot with. However, it is because they can now and in the past they couldn't. I don't like it all and some of the approaches to some areas of photography strike me as dishonest, but the playing field has been levelled. One area this is very obvious is in the wedding market - it's easy to complain about the number of people shooting low budget weddings and delivering a disc of jpegs, but they probably do get most of them in focus and well exposed. My cameras seem to do quite a good job of auto-white balance as well, so if you just wanted a nice disc and to get some prints done yourself then you might not be unhappy. (on the other hand I have seen work from a 'pro' at a friends wedding that I would have been ashamed to present - and I was glad that I'd made the effort to do some shooting and gave them 50 nice prints in a box as a wedding present)

Oh, sorry, film or digital - yes.

Mike
 
MaxElmar said:
I didn't think it is sad or that it qualified as a "screed" - he's simply talking about his personal experience. And his experience is valid - unless he claims it's a universal experience.
Click to expand...

You mean like this:

So who cares anymore? Digital is king now. I for one do care, immensely, about the differences between film and digital. Why? I want to make great photographs, that’s why.
Click to expand...

And I started to get this slow realization that digital was making me lazy. Lazy, as in the opposite of what’s required to be great. No need to really worry about exposure, or to focus or anything. Just point and shoot–a monkey could do it! No need to think at all. This is so seductive and easy to rationalize. You tell yourself, “My eyes are getting bad” or “The auto everything makes me faster” and so on.
Click to expand...

Flat statements. You can't make great photos with digital. Digital makes you lazy.

Film and digital are simply different aesthetics. Like watercolor and oils, or classical and jazz, Italianate and Bauhaus, it's silly to put them on opposite sides of an uncrossable gulf.
Click to expand...

I agree. The author did that. I find it reprehensible. And note the anti-digital responses to his post, loving him long time. He was preaching to a luddite anti-digital crowd, and they were eating the peanuts out of his defecation in joy.

Whatever works for you, works.
Click to expand...

Yup.
 
"And note the anti-digital responses to his post, loving him long time. He was preaching to a luddite anti-digital crowd, and they were eating the peanuts out of his defecation in joy."

Halehluya! Made me smile. You have such a way with words, Bill! :)
 
"I agree. The author did that. I find it reprehensible."

Maybe so - but I couldn't take it seriously enough to find it reprehensible. It's like the very worst of political commentary - it's simply cheap entertainment.
 
bmattock said:
You were defending the author, but that's OK.



I enjoy the 'process' of film also, but I don't confuse that with the quality of the photographs I can produce. The author stated clearly that he went back to film because he wanted to produce great photos. .
Click to expand...

No... but you want to argue on the internet. that's better than digital.nor film. whatever. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom