Topic: Article on film photography for Photography Monthly

[chemical]

Hi guys

I am writing an article for the UK-based photo magazine Photography Monthly on why there readers should still be shooting film as part of their photography. I wondered if I could canvas some opinions from here? If someone were to ask you that question ? why they should bother with film in this digital age ? what would you tell them? It can be as technical or emotive as you like...

Be great to get some feedback from such a bunch of passionate people!

Many thanks

Ian.

[synj00]

Because with a piece of film its something that can never be replicated in exactly the same way again. Each analogue print will be different, each frame on a roll of film will have different silver halide crystals exposed even if its the same scene with the same exposure. And in this day and age with instant gratification there is something to be said about having to wait and to take your time and do something right before you even see a result. Its the quality of being unique that gets me as well as the process itself. There should be an eloquence to it that computers cannot provide. And plus I just like things that aren't mainstream.

[gothamtomato]

Because film is magic. Digital is not.

And the look that I achieve, using film, cannot be replicated with digital. It just cannot.

I am a photographer because my head is full of pictures. I use my tools (cameras, film, etc) to get the pictures out of my head and onto the paper. I mostly create hand painted black & white photographs. Digital cannot acheive the vision I have in my head, nor what I can do with my hands, with film and paint. Digital cannot even do what I can do with film alone. I like having a variety of films to choose from because each film has its own palette and personality, and I choose the film that best suits the mood & look of the picture I want to make.

When one says that you're upset about the demise of Polaroid, you hear people respond 'who needs it? We have digital now'. These people are visually illiterate. Polaroid film is irreplaceable.

Recently I've read articles about software that will supposedly allow photographers to acheive 'the look of  film', with digital. Why don't these knuckleheads just shoot film and cutout the middleman? Because they are more gadget oriented than visually oriented. That is why you see some much digital drek: It all looks the same. But digital is a match for this age of cultural banality and talentless celebrity.

Digital is Paris Hilton. Film is Audrey Hepburn. Digital is Jessica Simpson. Film is Judy Garland.
Film has soul.


P.S.- If you'd like to quote me, please email me and I'll give you my real name.

[synj00]

Digital is Paris Hilton. Film is Audrey Hepburn. Digital is Jessica Simpson. Film is Judy Garland.

Well put!

[mikeg]

Digital photography is very convenient but so incredibly boring and the images are all the same, no feeling or depth to them -- sterile and clinical.

Mike

[mikeg]

As a follow up to my previous post.

It's got nothing to do with being a technophobe. It's a choice. My colour work tends to be all digital although I'm currently shooting a couple of colour films in a Holga. I wouldn't consider using film for family occasions, etc. because digital is so much more convenient.

But for my art and especially my black & white work I'm 100% film. My DSLR stays in my bag or at home and I use my Mamiya TLR, Holga, Voigtlander Bessa rangefinder  or even my home made pinhole camera. I use film because I enjoy it, it slows me down. I like the tactile nature of film. Yes, developing can be boring, but I really enjoy closing the darkroom door, locking out the world, turning on some music and firing up the enlarger. I like messing around in chemicals.

In many respects film is also cheaper. My DSLR is getting long in the tooth -- it's all of 3 years old, a Canon 20D. I also need a new printer, ink, paper etc.  I could probably spend 1500 - 2000 pounds upgrading (plus Lightroom, CS4 etc). That's an awful lot of film and chemicals. My Mamiya TLR and enlarger set me back 100 pounds each. Both are over 30 years old and will probably last another 30 years.

Ultimately, film is  fun and I enjoy it. Digital is a chore. I spend enough time staring at a computer screen at work.  Computers are boring.

Mike
(PhD in Computer Science, 15 years work experience as a computer programmer)

[Pete_R]

Hi guys

Hi Ian,

It would be quite nice to know who you are and what your own experience with film is. I'm getting mixed feelings about why your asking. Generally, I think, anything that differentiates between fim and digital users only serves to widen the gap and I don't see that being positive however it's being presented.

Trying to get more people to use film is great, don't get me wrong, but presenting a list of reasons why digital users should try using film will, I suggest, just encourage them to think of their own reasons for using digital and the likely result will be to just enforce their commitment to digital.

If someone were to ask you that question ? why they should bother with film in this digital age ? what would you tell them? It can be as technical or emotive as you like...

I just don't bother to try and explain why I use film anymore. I have two answers - one I give and one I would like to give. The answer I give (not always the same one) is usually something the questioner can't argue with, like, "I like the smell of fixer". But the answer I would like to give is "if you need to ask, you won't understand the answer". That might sound conceited, but I think it's true. I think the only way someone can appreciate film is to either look at the results of film users or to try using it themselves and then make up their own mind. An explanation just isn't sufficient.

[gothamtomato]

But the answer I would like to give is "if you need to ask, you won't understand the answer".

That is actually the answer I give when I am exhibiting my work at Art Festivals, and someone asks me why my work 'costs so much'.

[chemical]

Hi Peter (and everyone else!)

Sure - I'm Ian Farrell, a photographer and journalist from the UK. My own experience with film is actually quite extensive, and I approached the magazine with the idea for this article: to motivate photographers to go and dig out their old film gear and start shooting with it alongside their digital kit.

Personally I shoot with a Contax G2 (and recently a T2 until it was pinched from my car!), a Nikon FM3a and a Hasselblad 500c/m. Also shoot digitally with whatever is in the office, and my own Nikon D700.

So, as I say, the article isn't really about the differences between film and digital, its more a case for shooting digital, written very much from the standpoint that you all come from here: that film has soul!
I love the comparison between PAris Hilton and Audrey Hepburn. Something I've always said is that shooting with film is like writing with a fountain pen as opposed to a biro.

Thanks to all who have replied - hugely useful. I'll PM you if I want to quote anyone and ask permission.

Thanks

Ian.

Hi guys

Hi Ian,

It would be quite nice to know who you are and what your own experience with film is. I'm getting mixed feelings about why your asking. Generally, I think, anything that differentiates between fim and digital users only serves to widen the gap and I don't see that being positive however it's being presented.

Trying to get more people to use film is great, don't get me wrong, but presenting a list of reasons why digital users should try using film will, I suggest, just encourage them to think of their own reasons for using digital and the likely result will be to just enforce their commitment to digital.

If someone were to ask you that question ? why they should bother with film in this digital age ? what would you tell them? It can be as technical or emotive as you like...

I just don't bother to try and explain why I use film anymore. I have two answers - one I give and one I would like to give. The answer I give (not always the same one) is usually something the questioner can't argue with, like, "I like the smell of fixer". But the answer I would like to give is "if you need to ask, you won't understand the answer". That might sound conceited, but I think it's true. I think the only way someone can appreciate film is to either look at the results of film users or to try using it themselves and then make up their own mind. An explanation just isn't sufficient.

[Francois]

Hi Ian,

Why shoot film can be a good question... especially for me as I tend to shoot both pixels and film. While digital has many technical advantages, it has also many drawbacks that take away a lot of the pleasure out of photography. Film photography is a much slower pace. You tend to take your time before you press the shutter button. You tend to have to be more quiet and calm in order to get the shot. It's also a lot less technical than most digital photography. When I go out with my Powershot, I noticed that I tend to spend most of the time fiddling the controls to get the best quality. I feel like I'm still behind my desktop computer trying to fix things... And I also end up shooting a lot more images. Some would say it's a good thing... but in reality it isn't so great. I tend to think "Lets take this shot, I've still got space on the card" and end up importing a few hundred images in Lightroom. Of those few hundred images, I spend still more time sorting and scoring them only to end up with maybe 10% that really stand out... and that gets me mad.

On the other hand, when I go out to shoot film, I know I have a very limited number of frames. Since the images are physical, wasting becomes a real issue. I tend to be more selective and precise with my framing and composition. There are also a lot fewer things to think about. White balance is fixed, so is the ISO setting, resolution and the saturation level. Aperture and shutter speed are all I think about. Sharpness is adjusted by my eye, not some obscure computer algorithm. The viewfinder is always uncluttered, wide and bright. All this added together makes the experience much more pleasant.

Some would say a drawback is the impossibility to have instant feedback and review your images on the spot... but do you really absolutely need that? If I was shooting commercially, probably. But for the type of photography I do most of the time, waiting isn't an issue. In fact, it's more of an added thing. It's like having to wait to open a gift. If for your birthday your mom would bring you to the store a few weeks in advance and have you choose your own gift, then have you wait to receive it in the plastic bag you got at the cashier's, it would be pretty lame. It's the same with a film. You bring it to the 1 hour lab, wait and then receive a nice envelope with all your images in it... that has a wonderful quality to it.

Shooting film also has a "gearhead" side to it. There is something quite pleasant in using a camera that was crafted to be a luxury item. Smoothness of the controls, perfect fit and finish, mechanical wizardry you can see and feel. This is something hard to find in a digital form nowadays. There's also the price. Good cameras get sold for a fraction of what they cost originally. And there's also the other side, the cheap camera. With cheap optics, rudimentary shutter and film advance. These often give you a very out of this world quality for less than the price of a Secure Digital card.

Film photography is photography of the senses. Digital photography is photography of the mind. I don't know if that makes any sense...

But as I said, I'm not a purist and do use both.

And I just skimmed across the surface avoiding the worlds of pinhole photography, hand made equipment, alternative processed and the full darkroom thing... If you want more opinions, just ask

[Ed Wenn]

Thanks to everyone for the thought-provoking answers.This really is a never-ending topic and I think the reason there's not been a huge response is that most of us have too little time to explain fully why we're film people at heart. I certainly can't even scratch the surface of it in the 'forum time' I have available to me today, so I'll boil it down to a very simple sentence or two....OK,or 50.
 

Digital cameras got be back into photography in the mid 90's. The ability to shoot hundreds of frames at almost no expense helped me get my 'eye' working and to understand what I wanted to do with photography, the kind of photos I wanted to take and also what excited me about photography....and ironically it turned out that what excited me was film! The more I found out about photography, the more I came to realise that I was going to be hard pushed to take a photo like WeeGee using a digital point 'n' shoot, but that I'd get a whole lot closer using a Holga. I then pitched head first into the history of the art. I love the arcane, the idiosyncratic, the obscure. I love the fact that despite the huge uptake in digital photography across the world, film is just about hanging in there. I love the blending of technology and art of photography and I think the mix works better with film than with digital. I love the fact that while there are a huge number of super-technical photography gurus out there, the actual building blocks of the form are very forgiving and also easy to learn. That goes both for picture taking and the development and printing processes. It's hard to screw up completely and the sense of achievement is huge. I like the fact that by using film I'm continuing a long and illustrious tradition that I honestly do not see dying out.

See I'm rambling already. It's so hard to be concise about your passions.

I still use digital gear for snap shots, but for anything even vaguely serious (i.e. arty stuff or work I care about keeping for the future) I'll pick up a film camera. Film excites me, full stop. Film is fun. Digital doesn't excite me...at all. Digital is not fun.

I like the slant you're taking with your article (thanks for the explanation, BTW) and I share Peter's concern that it might have been another us vs. them piece you were writing. Most if not all of us here use both film and digital and so I don't think any of us have a problem with the two forms co-existing. Filmwasters is about promoting the use of film photography of all formats with the emphasis on the creative side of things rather than the overly technical. Filmwasters is not about sneering at digital photography. That's not a debate we get involved in.

I think with film photography you either get it or you don't (what a cop out phrase). For me it's about excitement, history, experimentation. I haven't used the word, 'organic' yet because I suspect it's one that's used too often in debates like this, but it goes some way to summing it up.

I've stickied this thread in case anyone else wants to contribute. I'm off upstairs to lie in a bath of fixer and smear Polaroid goop on my eyebrows.

[aboot]

Hi Ian,

I've, rather recently, written an entry about this in my blog called "How I experience art".  I'll copy/paste it here for all to read.

............................................

I ordered a Yashicamat 12 off of Ebay a few days ago.  It's much like the fabled Yashicamat 124 but this model won't allow 220 film (which is pretty much non-existent now anyways) and that's about it.  It's a hard to find model and I got it for much cheaper than any 124's available.  I couldn't believe how much people were willing to pay for those.  Prices went from $300 up to $400.  That's a little bit much.

My kids were asking me about my new purchase.  I already own a Rolleicord so that would make a total of two TLR's that I own but my daughter Alexa, couldn't believe it.

"What!  That's so wierd.  Why do you need two of them?"

I tried to explain it to her with a list of my ideas but they didn't make to much sense to her.  As I listed them off, she gave me the final reason.

"...and so it won't flash in my face."

She's talking about my digital camera.  If I use automatic focusing it will ?flash in her face? in dim lighting so it can focus on her more easily.  She hates it when the camera flashes in her face.

I've been using my digital camera a lot lately yet I'll always miss the heavy clank of the mirrors, the smell of those 35+ year old cameras, the weight in my hand; just the feel of it.  How I kind of feel like an outcast with a film camera in my hand among all of the digital hoopla going on around me.  So every now and then I'll turn back into an "artist" and start using film again.  Film does change me, it allows me to see things differently.  It's strange, and I'm sure this isn't the way it is with everyone, but it evokes different emotions from me than what a digital camera does.  Maybe I should just grow up and get past all that, I mean, they are two cameras that do essentially the same thing, right?  It doesn't work that way for me.

I really think the future of photography is loosing it's focus on in-camera control.  I've always thought that having the power to control your image in-camera was an important thing.  It slows you down, it allows you to experience things.  As an artist, you have to experience things.  Whenever I use a digital camera I can't help but do everything after I take the image.  Sooner or later, you won't even have to worry about focusing on your image anymore.

Digital is good for commercial work.  But for true art, I think I should have to experience what I photograph rather than spend more time with my computer.  Besides, those film cameras won't flash in my daughter's face.

[roryot]

There's so many potential answers to this question that it's hard to even formulate an answer on a forum page. So rather than trying to discuss craft vs tech wizardry, red light vs monitor glow, lcd screens vs big bright viewfinders, I'll just say that I love the smell as I pop open the film cannister and load it's contents into the camera ...

[rdbkorn]

Perhaps after you've written this article, you could pitch a query to Watercolour Magazine for an article on why their readers should use oil paints. 

An important aspect of my own artistic practice is to take the accidental or unintended and see where it takes me. Film just gives me more (and more varied) opportunities of that nature than digital ever would. I only care about achieving an image that is hopefully more evocative than I could imagine starting out. It could be all analogue (film) or all digital, but often times it is somewhere on the continuum between those two extremes.

[chemical]

Just wanted to say a massive thanks to all who contributed to this thread. It's been a great source of inspiration (in more than one way as I'm intending to go off shooting some film this weekend myself!)

The comments posted up here really shaped the article. Rather than another techy article it looks more at the emotive reasons people still shoot film. The editor's really pleased too, which is always nice.

Thanks again guys and gals!

I. 

[mikeg]

Any idea what issue it will appear in?

I must admit I haven't brought PM for years, I stopped because of all the vitriol thrown at film users!

Mike

[This-is-damion]

im trying to find that post from either artsyken or skorji about film vs digital........  anyone remember what it was titled?


summed it all up very well i thought.

[Ed Wenn]

im trying to find that post from either artsyken or skorji about film vs digital........  anyone remember what it was titled?

summed it all up very well i thought.

Is it this one, "The Onset of Visual Lethargy" from Skorj posting in May 2006? http://filmwasters.com/forum/index.php?topic=136.0

[This-is-damion]

im trying to find that post from either artsyken or skorji about film vs digital........  anyone remember what it was titled?

summed it all up very well i thought.

Is it this one, "The Onset of Visual Lethargy" from Skorj posting in May 2006? http://filmwasters.com/forum/index.php?topic=136.0

nope,  but a good blast from the past none the less.   It was a post from a friend of his, or from his website,   

Sure it was only a few months ago.....araghagahga  my head....it hurts....