Why a Mechanical Film Camera in a Digital Age?

[Godfrey]

Godfrey.
Lovely image this and others you have posted elsewhere. And enjoy your new
Cam ( cams )...
The image I posted was made by my wife.
Thank you and take care.

Thank you! And be sure your wife gets the compliments lauded that photo. She has a good eye and good timing! It's a charming shot.

G

 

[iiiNelson]

I don't think I'm much of a "machine gun" digital shooter. My entire day at the car and motorcycle show netted about 90 digital exposures, two-three rolls of 35mm film.

G

I agree and I'd say my shooting excursions mimic that almost exactly. I shoot for my church when I'm stateside and able to do so. Compared to many others on the photography team I shoot probably the least amount of shots but have the highest rate of keepers by far. I see many of my shots rotated in and out on the church's website... Probably a higher percentage than most when you consider how often I'm able to shoot. That's not to say the others are bad. It's actually quite the opposite with two of the shooters being full time pros lending their talent.

I know I got strange looks when I first started shooting with my M9 and NEX-5. I actually got "told/ advised" that I should get a digital camera like a Nikon or Canon since the intent was to post images to the website as well before she was corrected by one of the pros. Some on the team barely know me (or know me as the weird camera guy who doesn't use Canon/Nikon) even though they know my images through metadata (I'm the only one shooting Leica in the past and Sony now) in Lightroom.

 

[JohnW]

And therein lies one of the main problems with digital, whether by camera or by smart phone.

People hope if they click the shutter release enough times, they might get one good photo.

And this qualifies as "photography" in the Third Millennium? More like a crap shoot.

- Leigh

The ability to shoot without consciousness of cost and processing time is one of the great boons of digital photography, in my opinion. That doesn't condone shoot thoughtlessly. Some great film directors are known for hundreds of retakes of a scene, and 25-50 retakes is apparently pretty normal. Robert Frank distilled 27,000 pictures down to 83 for The Americans. Would you call him a crap shooter? One person's crap shoot is another's drive for perfection.

Let's face it, you really don't know what a photograph will look like until it's taken and processed. So the ability to shoot freely can be very beneficial. This is especially true for the more fast-moving genres of photography.

No question, the ease of digital can instill laziness. But it does not HAVE to. And if it does, blame falls on the one pressing the shutter, not the technology.

John

 

[Leigh]

No question, the ease of digital can instill laziness. But it does not HAVE to.
And if it does, blame falls on the one pressing the shutter, not the technology.

+1 :clap:

Absolutely true.

But when the button-pusher substitutes volume for discipline, everybody loses.

The viewing public loses because we're inundated with nonsense photos.

And the shooter loses because he never learns the art of photography in the first place.

Photography is both an art and a science. Some shooters are only interested in art, and shun the science / technology completely.
I'm reminded of one famous photographer who supposedly didn't know how to load a camera or set an exposure, and still got great shots.

There's certainly nothing wrong with that.

But when a shooter embraces the technology while ignoring the art is when the problem arises.

- Leigh

 

[alajuela]

+1 :clap:

Absolutely true.

But when the button-pusher substitutes volume for discipline, everybody loses.

The viewing public loses because we're inundated with nonsense photos.

And the shooter loses because he never learns the art of photography in the first place.

Photography is both an art and a science. Some shooters are only interested in art, and shun the science / technology completely.
I'm reminded of one famous photographer who supposedly didn't know how to load a camera or set an exposure, and still got great shots.

There's certainly nothing wrong with that.

But when a shooter embraces the technology while ignoring the art is when the problem arises.

- Leigh

When Gary Winograd died (and he has his own Wiki page - people study him - quote him, and he is published) - according to Wiki and other sources -


At the time of his death there was discovered about 2,500 rolls of undeveloped film, 6,500 rolls of developed but not proofed exposures, and contact sheets made from about 3,000 rolls.[2] The Garry Winogrand Archive at the Center for Creative Photography (CCP) comprises over 20,000 fine and work prints, 20,000 contact sheets, 100,000 negatives and 30,500 35 mm colour slides as well as a small group of Polaroid prints and several amateur motion picture films.[3]



go figure....:chug:

I also think Eugene Smith - fired away

 

[fotografz]

These type discussions will never resolve. Conscience regarding what is essentially an "informed intuitive process" resists such rationalizations and categorizations. Every opinion has a counter opinion selectively supported by some past example of some successful photographer … so all we have are opinions.

How to make photos from a more accessible technical POV has made it all more available to more people than ever before in visual history. So, the notion that it was the same in the film era belies that fact … it is like saying all Tsunamis are equal in their destructiveness. Even that sort of thinking lacks discrimination.

IMO, the notion that one can better learn photography by merely shooting a lot assumes that a level of discrimination already exists to make directional choices afterwards, and that anyone can be successful given that they shoot enough.

Likewise, the thought that all photography is valid, that none is better that the other, reminds me of the trend to provide trophies to every participant of sporting events just for showing up. There is a famous story in advertising where the agency creatives told the client they had ten ideas to share, and the client famously quipped "I'd rather see one good one".

Winograt's ultra-prolific remaining unedited work can only be curated with guess work based on looking backwards, not what he may have done going forward … if he even did anything with it. Perhaps his pile was left as the ultimate act of discrimination? We'll never know, he's dead. Many famous painters made decisive decisions to make dramatic creative changes, and in one famous case bought back older work and burned it.

Creativity and talent never seem to get the same level of discussion … and (IMO), creative discrimination has taken a body blow in the process.

Why did someone shoot an image or select it afterwards? What is the intent? What is the purpose? Is it a one hit wonder, or a part of a consistently insightful body of work? It may have been captured in a flurry of intuitive creative response, and recognized later for being above other images made at the same place and time … yet, that again assumes an ever improving sense of discrimination is being developed in parallel with the act of making the images.

My personal proclivity (opinion), is to be in the camp where discrimination is exercised when shooting and again with rigorous editing … but was informed by initial studies of those who's imagery struck a cord with me and why it did, not just shooting indiscriminately and hoping for the best afterwards (which is NOT to say prolific techniques can't result in something rising above something else, just that hightened discrimination then has to be present afterwards).

I like the idea of contextual validity. It makes photography intimately personal, or it can be more universal depending on intent. Just showing up is okay if the audience is limited and only interested in snapshots as a result … where just about any image of a subject suffices. It steps upward when a body of work can be consistently recognized as contributing something to a more universal insight of the ever changing world around us, yet do it with a personal edge to it.

We are never without something new to shoot, the trick is to be tuned to what that may be, and leave the rest to happy snappers.

Even a Tsunami has a crest.

- Marc

 

[iiiNelson]

+1 :clap:

Absolutely true.

But when the button-pusher substitutes volume for discipline, everybody loses.

The viewing public loses because we're inundated with nonsense photos.

And the shooter loses because he never learns the art of photography in the first place.

Photography is both an art and a science. Some shooters are only interested in art, and shun the science / technology completely.
I'm reminded of one famous photographer who supposedly didn't know how to load a camera or set an exposure, and still got great shots.

There's certainly nothing wrong with that.

But when a shooter embraces the technology while ignoring the art is when the problem arises.

- Leigh

Everyone learns differently and I think that's the point. I learned through volume (like many others) because I have never been classically taught. I'm mostly self taught but I do listen and I read a lot as well. I've had people here and there that I respect give me pointers and tips. Some of it I applied to my work. Some of it I only absorbed to use when applicable.

There's nothing wrong with volume in practice but I will agree with you that not every example of a "work in progress" needs to be displayed to the world. As for the art factor that is somewhat subjective IMO. To be honest I see a lot of amateurs that wow me more than the pros and I see a lot of modern day photographers that move me more than some legends do. To each their own in what is art to them.

 

[Shashin]

+1 :clap:

Absolutely true.

But when the button-pusher substitutes volume for discipline, everybody loses.

The viewing public loses because we're inundated with nonsense photos.

And the shooter loses because he never learns the art of photography in the first place.

Photography is both an art and a science. Some shooters are only interested in art, and shun the science / technology completely.
I'm reminded of one famous photographer who supposedly didn't know how to load a camera or set an exposure, and still got great shots.

There's certainly nothing wrong with that.

But when a shooter embraces the technology while ignoring the art is when the problem arises.

- Leigh

How do we lose because dad takes hundreds of pictures of his son on the football field? The dad gets the satisfaction and excitement of celebrating his son's achievement. And then grandma get to see some of these on dad's Facebook page. Why do they need a higher purpose of creating "art"? Why does photography have to be for the masses and not just personal use? And if technology allows dad to get that picture of his son, how is that bad? How does that a problem?

Oddly enough, professional sports photographers take hundreds, if not thousands, of pictures of a game and share those too. Sports photography and photojournalism are really not contemplative forms of photography. There are different skills and the "button pushers" can have great skills.

Photography can have mundane uses and still not devalue the medium. Just as my grandmother's horrible paintings (which I cherish) did not change the value van Gogh added to a canvas.

 

[Leigh]

Everybody seems to ignore the last sentence of my previous post:
"But when a shooter embraces the technology while ignoring the art is when the problem arises."

I'm not criticizing folks who do rapid-fire shooting when the situation requires it.

I shot sports for four years in high school, using a 4x5 Speed Graphic. It's a challenge.
You learn to anticipate action and synchronize your shooting with the movement.

Did I miss shots? Of course. When actions don't match your expectations, you're bound to miss things.
This is where machine-gunning is advantageous, because it minimizes dependence on your expectations.

I learned the basics before I ever got to high school. Rules of composition, pre-visualization, and such.

What I'm criticizing is the folks who push the button as soon as they walk out the door and hold it down until they return.
They have no clue what they're doing or why.

They just hope something interesting will magically appear.

And if it doesn't... so what?
Erase the memory card and do it all over again.

- Leigh

 

[Godfrey]

Ahem. So why did you bring up this stuff after my statement? I suggested that I'd be making 30-40 exposures on film while I was probably going to make about 100 exposures with my digital camera. I'd hardly call that suggesting one, "embrace the technology while ignoring the art" nor is it really any kind of 'machine gun shoot and spray digital shooting' business.

Seem to me that it was an inappropriate, grumpy thing to say.

G

Everybody seems to ignore the last sentence of my previous post:
"But when a shooter embraces the technology while ignoring the art is when the problem arises."

I'm not criticizing folks who do rapid-fire shooting when the situation requires it.

I shot sports for four years in high school, using a 4x5 Speed Graphic. It's a challenge.
You learn to anticipate action and synchronize your shooting with the movement.

Did I miss shots? Of course. When actions don't match your expectations, you're bound to miss things.
This is where machine-gunning is advantageous, because it minimizes dependence on your expectations.

I learned the basics before I ever got to high school. Rules of composition, pre-visualization, and such.

What I'm criticizing is the folks who push the button as soon as they walk out the door and hold it down until they return.
They have no clue what they're doing or why.

They just hope something interesting will magically appear.

And if it doesn't... so what?
Erase the memory card and do it all over again.

- Leigh

 

[JohnW]

By way of showing that the sharpshooter vs. shotgunner debate is an old one that well pre-dates the digital era, here's an amusing paragraph. It's about a newfangled device called the "hand camera" (incidentally, for which you could easily substitute "digital camera."

"It is amusing to watch the majority of hand camera workers shooting off a ton of plates helter-skelter, taking their chances as to the ultimate result. One in a while these people make a hit, and it is due to this cause that many pictures produced by means of the hand camera have been considered flukes. At the same time, it is interesting to note with what regularity certain men seem to be the favourites of chance -- so that it would lead us to conclude that, perhaps, chance is not everything, after all."​

—Alfred Stieglitz, 1897 (from Bill Jay's Album magazine)​

John

 

[Mike M]

...excerpt from "Photography, or the Writing of Light" by Jean Baudrillard

"The idea is to resist noise, speech, rumors by mobilizing photography's silence; to resist movements, flows, and speed by using its immobility; to resist the explosion of communication and information by brandishing its secrecy; and to resist the moral imperative of meaning by deploying its absence of signification. What above all must be challenged is the automatic overflow of images, their endless succession, which obliterates not only the mark of photography (le trait), the poignant detail of the object (its punctum), but also the very moment of the photo, immediately passed, irreversible, hence always nostalgic. The instantaneity of photography is not to be confused with the simultaneity of real time. The flow of pictures produced and erased in real time is indifferent to the third dimension of the photographic moment. Visual flows only know change. The image is no longer given the time to become an image. To be an image, there has to be a moment of becoming which can only happen when the rowdy proceedings of the world are suspended and dismissed for good. The idea, then, is to replace the triumphant epiphany of meaning with a silent apophany of objects and their appearances."

 

[apocolibri]

I learned the basics before I ever got to high school. Rules of composition, pre-visualization, and such.

What I'm criticizing is the folks who push the button as soon as they walk out the door and hold it down until they return.
They have no clue what they're doing or why.

They just hope something interesting will magically appear.

And if it doesn't... so what?
Erase the memory card and do it all over again.

- Leigh[/QUOTE]

Consider yourself exceptional, Leigh. With today's auto everything cameras and cell phones most camera owners simply point and squirt. I'm guessing most images used by that group are for web usage and everything else is deleted.

It wasn't too long ago that I'd fly to Oahu with 20 rolls of film to last me three days of shooting epic surf during a big winter swell. If and when Waimea Shorebreak was going off I'd be surrounded by magazine photographers and serious hobbyists who would look at my Leica R7 mounted to a Telyt 560m lens and laugh. They'd be shooting their auto everything Nikons and Canons as fast as the motor would advance the film while I'd shoot 3-4 frames of each wave IF the dynamic was there. I had no auto rewind on my Leica so I'd manually rewind and they'd be rolling on the ground with laughter. Of course... I had two extra bodies that I could mount to the Telyt in case another swell rolled through. Some of these guys could go through an entire roll of film on one wave... since the film was supplied free of charge.

Some years later I had a full press pass to shoot motorcycle racing at Infineon Raceway and the laughter was palpable when I showed up with my Leica DMR and manual focus 280 APO Elmarit with a 1.4 teleconverter. Comments ranged from "You've got to be kidding me", to: "Give me a break!"

Light in the early morning hours was flat and the Canon's and Nikons had difficulty auto focusing. I was fully manual and able to shoot at around 1.5 frames per second with a 9 shot buffer. Then I'd wait an interminable amount of time as motorcycles sped by and I missed the action while waiting for images to be written to card.

I was the brunt of everyone's jokes until the intermission between races when we all returned to the editing room to look at our images. All I heard were groans and expletives. The auto focus cameras were all producing out of focus images.

I saw this as my chance to educate these "masters" as to the value of a manual focus camera in difficult light... so I approached them with my MacBook Pro and showed them images that revealed the stitching on the leathers of a rider who was dragging his knee puck through a turn. (This was in 2006, and auto focus has improved considerably since then.)

I wish I had photos of their expressions! First they looked at me in disbelief, then the camera and lens, and the insults and jokes ceased for the rest of the day. Some of these shots were posted in the DMR image thread, page 6, post 292.

Today we have memory cards that enable thousands of images per card. I can only imagine those same photographers are now shooting eight frames per second, or more, in their attempts to capture that decisive moment that will land them a sale to the sports magazine they shoot for, or hope to be published by. It's all business... and the current sophistication of cameras is just a tool that allows mediocrity to compete with skilled craftsmen by sheer force of numbers.

Mastery of one's craft has always been the exception and not the rule in any skill. Good that you've worked towards that end, as it will provide many more satisfying images in the long run (as well as save you a lifetime of editing mediocre images!)

Lawrence