The Romance of Film
Zebrio:
“Why don’t you shoot film man…!?!”
Ashψ:
“Zebrio: now that’s an interesting comment… I’ve been sorely tempted to get myself a MF film camera and give it a go. there are a couple of things that stop me, the biggest of which is that I’d miss the immediacy of working with digital… and the most petty being that i don’t really have time to deal with the processing. that being said, i still love the idea of working with film again, so maybe one day.
i’m curious what inspired the comment. what about this shot makes you think it’d be improved by having been shot on film?”
Zebrio:
“Well, technically speaking, (take this for what its worth cuz I’m looking at a 4” photo on piece of shit screen…), there is far too little detail in the blacks, the highs are drowning in lows, the bokeh has no real umph, and the tonal range is just sorta flat. No real drama here.
I don’t think that’s for a lack of effort because I love this kinda thoughtful and simple shot, done in B&W. But tones should be the real stars of a photo like this, and I am talking about all of them, the whole cast of blacks, whites, and grays. (Think of B&W magazine, think of Ansel Adams.) And your use of light and composition, DoF, pin-sharp or life-is-prettier-in-soft focus, and finally all your processing techniques should emphasize those tones and the gradients and nuances within. Then in turn the tones can add so much more the composition. I think this is where the time that film requires, and the grace that it provides can make and otherwise good black and white photo, a great one.
And I’m not saying that you can’t do it with digital. But film just has a mood, a smell, a feeling, a sentiency that digital inherently lacks. Ry said to me once “inanimate objects surely come to life on film”. I thought that was really spot on…
And to take it a step further, it’s the romance of shooting film, choosing your poison, getting in the soup, and having something to hold and touch add another layer of enjoyment that, I think, will more than compensate for the lack of immediacy and convenience it looses to digital. Besides, the waiting is exciting. It’s challenging. It’s like Christmas every 3 days.
It’s not that daunting once you get started, if you want to get started, that is. And it probably takes a while, buring through a dozen or more rolls of film. But once you get your first really great shot on film, then compare it to really great digital shot, I promise, the photos will speak for themselves. Try this one again on film and tell me what you think…”
Ashψ:
“Zebrio: ah rats. that’s a much better answer than i was expecting… couldn’t you have been a little less convincing? this is going to end up costing me a fortune :P
i pretty much agree with what you say… there is a part of me that says that technically digital is getting to the point where it’s equivalent of iso 100 film (resolution of detail, etc) but that’s very tangible and the tangible is only a small part of the deal.
the intangible is harder to quantify. the mood, the romance, the feeling, those are the reasons that i’m tempted to give it a whirl…”
Zebrio:
“It actually doesn’t cost that much. Think like this. Putting all gearhead talk aside, a decent straight-forward digital SLR camera and lens cost at least, say…$1200. A decent film equivalent cost say… average $250 (although you could get something much less or much more, same for the digital …and you don’t need lenses cuz you use the ones you have.) One irony here is that the digital camera will last you two-three years max. A standard manual focus Nikon FE, you can get from your grandfather and give to your grandkids.
Ok, so you have to add another 200 bucks for a scanner if you don’t have one already. Your up to $450.
With film, you inherently shoot less, going for quality over quantity. But don’t worry about shooting less. And you can blow through rolls of film like tissue if you please. That’s fun too.
So a roll of film costs you from purchase ($3-4 black and white) to developing ($3-$4 unless you develop yourself, then its just a matter of your time cuz a years worth of materials is less than a couple beers). So lets say 7 bucks, no prints cuz you got a scanner. And you have 750 bucks to spend on film, that’s 100+ rolls of film, 200+ if you develop yourself, 3500/7000 photos, that’s about 3 rolls a week, perfectly reasonable. Unless your Daido Moriyama and shoot 20 rolls a day.
And you find sales, and expired film, and slide film is more expensive. Again part of the enjoyment and adding to the creativity. But then you tend to buy more cameras and books and print and frame your favorites.
Basically, when it really boils down to it. It’s the same. Its not exactly a cheap art form, but it can be, but then again, we’re missing the point altogether.
You know, its kinda like the difference of snorkeling and scuba diving. They both rock! Snorkeling is just fun and easy, no need for lots of cost but you are just on the surface. Yeah, scuba gear is hella expensive, its difficult, and there is a level of risk…but look how much deeper you get to go…some places are good for snorkeling, others are good for dive. And just cuz you do one doesn’t mean you can’t do the other.
I’m stating the obvious here and just sorta ranting at this point.”
Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite
October 31st, 2008 at 2:51 am
I shoot film (velvia) for more than a decade and still love it . But digital is more than 95% of my photography right now .
So who has the knowledge of work with film should and i go a bit far need to keep it alive . But without turning his back to the advantages and convenience of digital .
In the end what matter is a killer image and print !!
keep up the good work
December 18th, 2008 at 1:26 am
I can agree with you to a point but the part that you ran out of steam on is something that you made mention to me a little while ago. It’s easy to pick a type of digital sensor. I think this point in history will be very distinctive as far as a photographic look goes. Yes photographic is about the content. But to take it to a whole other level it’s also about the look, the style, the atmosphere. Your suggestion to “Shoot Film” sounds like, “your pictures are great, now if you just used film instead you could take this shot to a whole other level”. I agree. But then, this is the difference between a hobbyist and an artist (and I’m not speaking about Ashψ per se). And your artistic side shows. The fact that you have the enthusiasm to describe in detail the workflow, compare digital to film at length and are genuinely trying to share your knowledge, shows how committed you are. But that is the difference. This is what separates you from the hobbyist. The passion, the drive, the eye for detail, the appreciation for the small thing’s that go to make up a picture, the commitment in time to create an image.
So don’t get down if people are hearing you but not listening. Understanding but not committing. It takes time for an artist in a regular person to emerge and it always happens at a different pace. Lend advice when asked for but don’t give up completely if they don’t fully understand or take the bait.
And as for for the comment above. It looks, by Photosushi’s pictures that the guy knows what he’s doing. Each to his own. I’d guess that he’s happy to spend his time in Photoshop to “make” the look he’s after. And by the looks of how much film he’s shot, he likely knows how to “get” the look. But not everyone is like this and it CLEARLY shows in 99.99% of all the photos you see today.
Photosushi’s comment about what matters is a killer image and print – sure. I’d argue in addition to this (and I know you’d be in agreement) that timelessness is what will make the difference and I believe only Film will give you that.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:58 am
This is so condescending and elitist on so many levels.
>Your suggestion to “Shoot Film” sounds like, “your pictures are great, now if you just used film instead you could take this shot to a whole other level”. I agree. But then, this is the difference between a hobbyist and an artist
You’re just a hobbyist, not an artist, unless you are shooting film? haha rubbish
>So don’t get down if people are hearing you but not listening. Understanding but not committing.
Maybe they just simply don’t agree with half-baked notions that film is superior. One could fill a book with all the advantages digital photography offers over film. There’s nothing wrong with shooting film–or with printing on 19-century emulsions for the matter–but you’re trapped in some kind of groupthink if you believe people are somehow inherently less serious or less dedicated because they shoot digital. That’s complete hogwash and it’s offensive.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Yu seem to need take a little of your own prescription…
> One could fill a book with all the advantages digital photography offers over film.
You shouldn’t make silly statements like that if you’re trying to tell people that they are wrong to prefer one medium to another. It probably doesn’t help that you completely misconstrued Sean’s comments, but given the tone of your reply i suspect that it’s more a case of you reading what you want to read…
At the time that Zebrio wrote that comment to me i’d pretty much got frustrated with pointing a digital camera at things and pressing a button. All the things like shooting on manual, understanding all the technical aspect, telling myself to slow down, caring more about composing… they weren’t doing it for me. I was slowly giving up. No longer excited about the results.
I’m no professional photographer, have no intention of trying to become one (if i’m honest, i think the job of a pro is pretty mundane and limiting – sure the results are nice technically impressive, but the subjects are often uninspiring, as the creative direction is elsewhere, and so often brand oriented… i’m rambling now). What i’m trying to get out of photography is something more than capturing a moment in the highest possible fidelity; it’s my creative outlet.
Of course it’s easy to say, “but! but! you could do all that with digital! and it’ll be better and cheaper and easier and and…” and, i’ve tried that – it wasn’t working for me.
The result is all important, it’s all about the final image… but for *me* it’s also about sense of satisfaction that i get from producing that image. In that sense, and maybe *only* that sense, the process is all important.
So here i am, shooting film, on a camera that doesn’t even have a battery, let alone a light meter, doing my own development, and once more filled with the joy and wonder that first inspired me to pick up a camera.
If you can’t please yourself, you can’t please your soul!
March 12th, 2009 at 2:12 am
Hi Jon,
I’ll leave it to other readers to decide if I’ve misconstrued Sean’s statements or now.
It’s true that digital has a lot of advantages over film. Does that mean it’s better? Not necessarily. A .38 caliber pistol has some advantages over a shotgun: you can put it in your purse, you can reload it faster, it’s easier to maneuver it in tight spaces, etc etc. Is it superior to a shotgun? Maybe not.
Look at the work of David Lachapelle, look at fashion shoots in Numero, look at the work Annie Leibovitz since she transitioned from film to digital. Look at the work of any of the thousands of working digital shooters. Look at still life photography for vodka and jewelry companies. Do you think the tone curve and color of film is always the appropriate choice for all photography in the world? Do you think the people who create these images are taking their work seriously? Do you think there is no place in the world for the more contemporary color of digital photographs?
Sean seems to be saying, you’re not pursuing photography as a serious artist unless you’re shooting film. Which for me is like saying you’re not a serious musician if you’re playing an electric guitar instead of an acoustic guitar. Rubbish.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:15 am
Fixed some typos:
Hi Jon,
I’ll leave it to other readers to decide if I’ve misconstrued Sean’s statements or not.
It’s true that digital has a lot of advantages over film. Does that mean it’s better? Not necessarily. A .38 caliber pistol has some advantages over a shotgun: you can put it in your purse, you can reload it faster, it’s easier to maneuver it in tight spaces, etc. Is it superior to a shotgun? Maybe not.
Look at the work of David Lachapelle, look at fashion shoots in Numero magazine, look at the work of Annie Leibovitz since she transitioned from film to digital. Look at the work of any of the thousands of working digital shooters. Look at still life photography for vodka and jewelry companies. Do you think the tone curve and color of film is always the best choice for all photography in the world? Do you think the people who create these images are not taking their work seriously? Do you think there is no place in the world for the more contemporary color of digital photographs?
Sean seems to be saying, you’re not pursuing photography as a serious artist unless you’re shooting film. Which for me is like saying you’re not a serious musician if you’re playing an electric guitar instead of an acoustic guitar. Rubbish.
March 26th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
thought this was relevant to the discussion above:
Tool Choices
A photographer’s vision should be the product of their authentic self. What is best for one project or photographer may not be appropriate for the next. Central in the making of the photographic image is the photographer’s choice of “tools.” These decisions become an intrinsic part of the final outcome. A good photographer should know how to make these decisions for themselves and allow the technical processes to enhance and reinforce their work. Never have we had so many “tools” to choose from. You should never let the “market” make you feel stuck in a certain structure of rules.
Your technology choices should work for you and the particular project that you are working on. It is not digital vs. film, or color vs. black-and-white, large print vs. small. It is about the style and language of what it is that you want to convey and what is the best media to work with to enhance and benefit your ideas.
You may find that the soulful quality of a medium format film camera might make sense for one body of work, while the quickness and ease of the digital camera will enable you to capture something more swiftly for another project. You may find that if you are shooting film that it is easier to scan your negatives and do your work prints digitally, but then later create silver gelatin prints in the wet darkroom. Another series of work might make more sense as a moving media project on the web and is not meant for the wall.
This is an exciting time of change. We should all rise to the challenge of embracing the new technology that is out there and at the same time hold onto the integrity of the craft.
—Karen Marshall, photographer and ICP faculty member
March 26th, 2009 at 9:48 pm