The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Film "Feel Good" Rant

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
A member of the F6 group on FB, Larry Snell, posted this, nothing against digital, but it describes some of the pleasures of using film, very much the way I feel it too sometimes:

"Love my F6 and film. Just got back from a typical overnight jaunt to the hills and then checked Facebook, then commented on a nice and interesting post about a F6 vs. an 800. Then it really hit me (again). There I was in that beautiful place, no computer, no card reader, no backup drives, no power, no Internet, no laptop cases, no cords, no data loss worry, no rain worry, no menus, no white balance, no 12 button pushes, no screen checks, no nothing. My Velvia 50 is safely ensconced in its little cans. Got home and no downloading, no battery charging, no back upping the backup, no cord untangling, no formatting, no RAW processing that I don't shoot anyway, and again, no nothing except to wash my socks. I'll send the film off, get slides and an automatic backup CD. Done."
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
Just got back from a week and a half long walk to London. Then it really hit me. There I was on that beautiful walk. No car, no checking tires and oil before a long drive. No keys to remember. No speedometer and petrol gauge to be constantly checking. No 12 button presses to set up the climate control and music system just right for the journey. No petrol to buy. No mirrors to check and speed limit to keep to. No constant lane changes and watching for the police cause you're 10mph over the limit. No having to wait for the next pit stop to relieve yourself. Just my feet safely ensconced in a good pair of boots. Oh and my socks will definitely need washing. Done.

Sorry I couldn't help it but his argument is as ludicrous. If all you are doing is sending it out then swap film for memory card, send it out for processing and get it back with the backup disk. You wouldn't need any of that stuff either. Digital is only more work if you make it so. For everyone else it's far less hassle and far more control than sending your velvia out and getting the disk back and only then starting to work.

Went out on a shoot yesterday. Camera, one lens, one card, single battery in the bag. Shot for an hour, came home, about 2 hours later I had a final finished image posted up and sent for print. Did all the processing sitting on my butt while drinking orange juice. The backups were set up over a year ago and all happen automatically, the software and computer was set up years before. Honestly, yes you need some set up time but after that it's a really lazy way to approach photography compared to film and I love it. Oh and all the stuff was paid for a long long time ago. No more running costs.

There are good reasons for film, it doesn't serve to dilute them with this nonsense IMO.
 

alajuela

Active member
A member of the F6 group on FB, Larry Snell, posted this, nothing against digital, but it describes some of the pleasures of using film, very much the way I feel it too sometimes:

"Love my F6 and film. Just got back from a typical overnight jaunt to the hills and then checked Facebook, then commented on a nice and interesting post about a F6 vs. an 800. Then it really hit me (again). There I was in that beautiful place, no computer, no card reader, no backup drives, no power, no Internet, no laptop cases, no cords, no data loss worry, no rain worry, no menus, no white balance, no 12 button pushes, no screen checks, no nothing. My Velvia 50 is safely ensconced in its little cans. Got home and no downloading, no battery charging, no back upping the backup, no cord untangling, no formatting, no RAW processing that I don't shoot anyway, and again, no nothing except to wash my socks. I'll send the film off, get slides and an automatic backup CD. Done."
This guy is joking - right?
 

fotografz

Well-known member
"I get it" ... even though it is no longer for me, I really do get it.

The relationship to making photos is different ... and I could see shooting with a film camera as a vacation from the swirling world of digital.

I shot a wedding in Boston a while ago ... the client was a Leica M maven, and liked my candid M wedding work. While there he asked me shoot some with his M6 ... I had to laugh at myself when I kept glancing at the back of the M6 out of "digital habit". ;)

Oddly, I never lacked confidence in what I was shooting with a film M ... but with a digital camera have a compelling habit of chimping that I have to consciously resist. Part of that may be that neg film had more latitude, and the lab corrected for any less than perfect exposures ... in my experience, just handing over digital files to a lab has never been quite the same ... don't ask me why.

I also laugh to myself when I see all the people looking down at their LCDs, necks at a 90º angle ... looks like a flock of Vultures with their heads coming out of their chests :ROTFL:

Film cameras tended to be all very similar ... while the ergonomics may have been slightly different ... it was all quite simple and mechanical for the most part. No accessing LCD menus for key controls, not bristling with buttons (some of which I still have no idea what they do unless I pull out the instructions when I accidentally press one sending the camera into some foreign mode or another), no array of flashing lights and fake shutter sounds.

Yet, those days are long gone for me. Not that they weren't nice.

A friend recently loaned me his Rolleiflex TLR because I had never owned one. Maybe it is time for a little "vacation" :)

- Marc
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I don't think his intention was to be taken literally. Most F6 users own digital cameras as well, mostly for the sake of convenience :)
However, my gear was much simpler 15 years ago; no chargers, no cables, no laptop computer etc. I even travelled around the world without any of that stuff, just an OM-1, a couple of lenses and 10 rolls of Velvia.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
I do get it.
Film has a role for me. I often shoot models with film and find that they work differently when they know that you have to get it right in 12 attempts or less.
The delay between shooting and viewing also has the benefit that the immediate connection between shoot and view is broken so that a more dispassionate critique often results.
OTOH I usually shoot tethered.
I know some that shoot models with wet plate collodion. They usually shoot something like three poses in a session.
Actually that is sounding more attractive to me lately. I ought to see my doctor about it.
-bob
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
It's fun to wax nostalgic about film's charm.
It's fun to describe how effective digital is at getting work done.
Etc, etc.

I am shooting film and digital. Actually, lately, I'm shooting a lot of Polaroid: I've fallen in love with the SX-70, with the Spectra system.

A lot means a couple of frames a day, at $3 apiece for Impossible Project film. I wish I was wealthier, as my ability to see and understand the film, the cameras' behavior and such is gated by how much film I can afford to push through them.

There's a special sense of nostalgia to using these cameras. Once upon a time, you snapped a photo and two minutes later you looked at your finished photo. The recreated films are not as responsive as that, yet. The B&W film has a delicious four to five minute anticipation time. The latest color film has an almost agonizing 30-40 minute wait.

But once you develop the skills with it ... It's you, the camera, and the subject. The finished product slides out of the camera, done and ready to be used. A physical artifact. Going further with it takes a massive amount more effort: scanning, rendering, finishing, etc. They are in some ways best just the way they come out of the camera.

I'm thinking of starting an "eight a week" shooting project. That's one pack of film every seven days. Oh, I'll break the rule and probably shoot two packs. It might be interesting to see how this develops.

(Selling just one of my less expensive, excess M-mount lenses would net 160 exposures to play with. At two exposures a day, that's a whole quarter of a year's shooting. hmm)

G
 

Mike M

New member
Hi Jorgen,

My contention is that there is a difference between digital and film in the sense that digital is socialing and film is individualizing. The way this paradigm plays out in the realm of a photographer's intention to photograph appears to be based on the divide between the "objective-self" and the "subjective-self."

Obviously, a photographer has a subjective viewpoint on the world that is unique to himself as an individual. At the same time, he must also be aware of the fact that others have their own subjective viewpoints too and that they see him as an object in their world. This means that all photographers are simultaneously a subject and an object in the world. The subjective-self is the individual capable of personal expression while the objective-self is the member of a group that takes criticism from others.

Whenever a photographer chimps or alters one of his own images in post then he is criticizing his own work from the vantage point of the group (aka the objective-self.) In other words, he is seeing himself and his own work from a distance. This distance takes him out of the sincere "moment" in time that is necessary for personal expression.

The danger of distance and alienation from the self is always present for the artist working in any medium regardless of whether it's film or digital. However, digital tends to emphasize distance because it's very nature allows for so many options of manipulation that inevitably lead to more opportunities for self criticism. My guess is that the feeling of freedom that you appeared to gain from eliminating all of the "clutter" surrounding digital might have something to do with freeing yourself from the objective-self.
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
Hi Jorgen,

My contention is that there is a difference between digital and film in the sense that digital is socialing and film is individualizing. The way this paradigm plays out in the realm of a photographer's intention to photograph appears to be based on the divide between the "objective-self" and the "subjective-self."

Obviously, a photographer has a subjective viewpoint on the world that is unique to himself as an individual. At the same time, he must also be aware of the fact that others have their own subjective viewpoints too and that they see him as an object in their world. This means that all photographers are simultaneously a subject and an object in the world. The subjective-self is the individual capable of personal expression while the objective-self is the member of a group that takes criticism from others.

Whenever a photographer chimps or alters one of his own images in post then he is criticizing his own work from the vantage point of the group (aka the objective-self.) In other words, he is seeing himself and his own work from a distance. This distance takes him out of the sincere "moment" in time that is necessary for personal expression.

The danger of distance and alienation from the self is always present for the artist working in any medium regardless of whether it's film or digital. However, digital tends to emphasize distance because it's very nature allows for so many options of manipulation that inevitably lead to more opportunities for self criticism. My guess is that the feeling of freedom that you appeared to gain from eliminating all of the "clutter" surrounding digital might have something to do with freeing yourself from the objective-self.
Really? So when I take a photo with a specific processing in mind I'm just pandering to the masses when I apply said processing?

I think that for any photographic artists the above is far from beginning to be true.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Hi Jorgen,

My contention is that there is a difference between digital and film in the sense that digital is socialing and film is individualizing. The way this paradigm plays out in the realm of a photographer's intention to photograph appears to be based on the divide between the "objective-self" and the "subjective-self."

Obviously, a photographer has a subjective viewpoint on the world that is unique to himself as an individual. At the same time, he must also be aware of the fact that others have their own subjective viewpoints too and that they see him as an object in their world. This means that all photographers are simultaneously a subject and an object in the world. The subjective-self is the individual capable of personal expression while the objective-self is the member of a group that takes criticism from others.

Whenever a photographer chimps or alters one of his own images in post then he is criticizing his own work from the vantage point of the group (aka the objective-self.) In other words, he is seeing himself and his own work from a distance. This distance takes him out of the sincere "moment" in time that is necessary for personal expression.

The danger of distance and alienation from the self is always present for the artist working in any medium regardless of whether it's film or digital. However, digital tends to emphasize distance because it's very nature allows for so many options of manipulation that inevitably lead to more opportunities for self criticism. My guess is that the feeling of freedom that you appeared to gain from eliminating all of the "clutter" surrounding digital might have something to do with freeing yourself from the objective-self.
I'd disagree that post production has much to do with anything in this context. 5 hours in the darkroom, masking, dodging and burning etc ... or in front of a computer ... what's the difference? You are still evaluating and making creative decisions after the fact.

I DO agree that the actual shooting experience differs in the manner you describe. To simplify the notion for simple minds like mine: with film one tends to immediately think forward to the next shot, where with digital the compulsion is to look backwards at what you just shot.

It absolutely drives me insane when I watch some of my second shooters at a wedding chimping the LCD while the REAL shot is happening right in front of them. The damned LCD is as addictive as crack ... most shooters can't help themselves. :ROTFL:

Oh course, the retort to that is "don't do it" ... turn it off! As if that would ever happen :rolleyes:

- Marc
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Hi Jorgen,

My contention is that there is a difference between digital and film in the sense that digital is socialing and film is individualizing. The way this paradigm plays out in the realm of a photographer's intention to photograph appears to be based on the divide between the "objective-self" and the "subjective-self."

Obviously, a photographer has a subjective viewpoint on the world that is unique to himself as an individual. At the same time, he must also be aware of the fact that others have their own subjective viewpoints too and that they see him as an object in their world. This means that all photographers are simultaneously a subject and an object in the world. The subjective-self is the individual capable of personal expression while the objective-self is the member of a group that takes criticism from others.

Whenever a photographer chimps or alters one of his own images in post then he is criticizing his own work from the vantage point of the group (aka the objective-self.) In other words, he is seeing himself and his own work from a distance. This distance takes him out of the sincere "moment" in time that is necessary for personal expression.

The danger of distance and alienation from the self is always present for the artist working in any medium regardless of whether it's film or digital. However, digital tends to emphasize distance because it's very nature allows for so many options of manipulation that inevitably lead to more opportunities for self criticism. My guess is that the feeling of freedom that you appeared to gain from eliminating all of the "clutter" surrounding digital might have something to do with freeing yourself from the objective-self.
The classic argument against curation. Every impulse is "correct" and "the best" expression because it is the purely personal. The ego expression. Except, it is not true. Artists realize that critical analysis of a work is vital for the creative process--the objective-self, not the the self can ever be objective. Distance is important and that just shows that the technology does not create the distance--as seen by the flurry of trite digital photographs that are posted because the group will not be critical--it is part of the creative process the artist uses.

The other problem with the hypothesis is that is really is not reflecting the reality of the medium. There are just as many options for manipulation in a photochemical process as a digital one. Actually, the digital system can have less clutter as it can become far more automated where the photographer can have very little choice.

Naturally trying to classify digital photography is socializing and film photography as individualizing is also showing little knowledge of the photographic technology. The Brownie and Polaroid as well as the sophisticated generation of SLRs and compact cameras showed that film is just as available and easy as a digital process--film is a great socializing medium. And a digital process can be as complex and "individual" as a film one.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I DO agree that the actual shooting experience differs in the manner you describe. To simplify the notion for simple minds like mine: with film one tends to immediately think forward to the next shot, where with digital the compulsion is to look backwards at what you just shot.

- Marc
This is one of the reasons why I like my GH2, which tomorrow will be traded in for a GH3: Unless I'm using the LCD for framing (awkward angles etc.), I turn it in towards the body. I can of course chimp in the electronic viewfinder, but it's not nearly as distracting, since I'm ready to shoot that way, and I only do it occasionally to check exposure.

I've always looked upon the rear LCD as a distraction, and wouldn't mind getting totally rid of it. If I have to chimp, I should rather pick up a book about photography basics.

With film, of course, this is.... :angel:
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
The classic argument against curation. Every impulse is "correct" and "the best" expression because it is the purely personal. The ego expression. Except, it is not true. Artists realize that critical analysis of a work is vital for the creative process--the objective-self, not the the self can ever be objective. Distance is important and that just shows that the technology does not create the distance--as seen by the flurry of trite digital photographs that are posted because the group will not be critical--it is part of the creative process the artist uses.

The other problem with the hypothesis is that is really is not reflecting the reality of the medium. There are just as many options for manipulation in a photochemical process as a digital one. Actually, the digital system can have less clutter as it can become far more automated where the photographer can have very little choice.

Naturally trying to classify digital photography is socializing and film photography as individualizing is also showing little knowledge of the photographic technology. The Brownie and Polaroid as well as the sophisticated generation of SLRs and compact cameras showed that film is just as available and easy as a digital process--film is a great socializing medium. And a digital process can be as complex and "individual" as a film one.
But look at a group of people taking a photo of themselves with their camera phone, not one photo, but umpteen photos until they all have the "right" facial expression. In theory, that looks fine, but the little imperfections that often make for a memorable photo is gone, as is the spontaneity. I even see "street photographers" (a category of photography that I used to love, but now tend to look upon with something bordering to dismay, although there are some great exceptions) taking several photos of their victim until they get a version that suits their inner visualization of what a poor and hungry Cambodian child should look like.

Maybe all this represent some kind of progress, but I find it utterly boring.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
But look at a group of people taking a photo of themselves with their camera phone, not one photo, but umpteen photos until they all have the "right" facial expression. In theory, that looks fine, but the little imperfections that often make for a memorable photo is gone, as is the spontaneity. I even see "street photographers" (a category of photography that I used to love, but now tend to look upon with something bordering to dismay, although there are some great exceptions) taking several photos of their victim until they get a version that suits their inner visualization of what a poor and hungry Cambodian child should look like.

Maybe all this represent some kind of progress, but I find it utterly boring.
And you are simply repeating the same complaints when 35mm cameras were invented, when the brownie came out, when Polaroids hit the scene, when we got motor drives. Mundane, boring photography has always been here. It did not suddenly appear with digital cameras.

I am not sure what this has to do with spontaneity. Photography is hard work, if you want to do it well. Many "spontaneous" images are a result of hard work and many attempts. You are confusing the work by casual photographers and those that have mastered their medium. And the photographers that stand out are because they can distance themselves from their work to show the best. It is because they work hard and try. Spontaneity has nothing to do with it. And yes, if I have a portrait assignment, I am going to take all the pictures I need to get the right expression on a face--that is what I am paid for.

As far as the slush pile, that too has been around for a very long time. Just take a look at the popular photography magazines from any age to see mediocre work. And there was lots of mediocre work. There still is lots of mediocre work.

But what is your solution? Are you going to play photograph police and only allow images you deem worthy? I am not much for telling people what they can or cannot do. If they want to photograph their socks and put it on Facebook, more power to them. I don't have to look at it.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I DO agree that the actual shooting experience differs in the manner you describe. To simplify the notion for simple minds like mine: with film one tends to immediately think forward to the next shot, where with digital the compulsion is to look backwards at what you just shot.
Maybe for you, but I shoot my digital cameras just as fluidly as my film cameras. I don't chimp when I am working, I photograph when I am working. There is plenty of time to look at pictures later.

But this is not really a digital thing. It was done all the time in studios with Polaroid backs.
 

Mike M

New member
But look at a group of people taking a photo of themselves with their camera phone, not one photo, but umpteen photos until they all have the "right" facial expression. In theory, that looks fine, but the little imperfections that often make for a memorable photo is gone, as is the spontaneity. I even see "street photographers" (a category of photography that I used to love, but now tend to look upon with something bordering to dismay, although there are some great exceptions) taking several photos of their victim until they get a version that suits their inner visualization of what a poor and hungry Cambodian child should look like.

Maybe all this represent some kind of progress, but I find it utterly boring.
I completely share your thoughts Jorgen and can especially relate to the last sentence. The photograph is the performance. If a photographer isn't able to work quickly and with diligence then that usually means he's not ready for "primetime." That doesn't necessarily mean that he's talentless or will never be ready for primetime. It just means that he isn't yet at ease with the decisive moment.

Everyday, people do things automatically without putting much thought into it. We walk, pick up objects, eat meals, and recognize objects quickly and with total ease. However, this was not always the case. When we were first born, we weren't able to do many of these things and had to learn them during the process of growing up. Growing up required all kinds of trial, error and practice.

Learning photography is similar to the process of growing up. The ability to quickly percieve and create a well-crafted photograph should be a simple and intuitive process. The fact that it eventually comes with ease doesn't mean that there weren't years (maybe decades) of preparation and learning that had to take place beforehand. In other words, the freedom that comes with a sense of ease doesn't imply that the situation wasn't paid for in advance.

On a side note: I find it impossible to make a response to some of the posts directed at my original comments because they are arguing against positions that I don't even advocate! Godfrey's post is just plain insulting and there's no reason for him to be that way towards me.
 

Mike M

New member
I'd disagree that post production has much to do with anything in this context. 5 hours in the darkroom, masking, dodging and burning etc ... or in front of a computer ... what's the difference? You are still evaluating and making creative decisions after the fact.
"Art is never finished, only abandoned." - DaVinci

Hi Marc, I completely agree with you that there are still creative decisions and evaluations taking place in post-processing. My point is that those are at a distance from the decisive moment that is the essence of photography as a medium. DaVinci's overly broad quote about art actually applies well to digital imaging today because the popular mediums of his era (painting, sculpture etc) were often worked over long spaces of time in a manner very similar to post-processing. Projects created in mediums that are spacial and distant are more difficult to complete or "abandon" since there are more opportunities for self-criticism. It might also be worth mentioning that abandonment and freedom are closely related to each other.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Maybe for you, but I shoot my digital cameras just as fluidly as my film cameras. I don't chimp when I am working, I photograph when I am working. There is plenty of time to look at pictures later.

But this is not really a digital thing. It was done all the time in studios with Polaroid backs.
Yes, we already know you are a paragon of virtue and all photographers should be like you ... but alas, the majority are not ... they give in to their base curiosity and ... chimp.

I chimp ... I have a T-shirt that says that :ROTFL:

It is when you chimp that matters.

Really? Studio Film Photography using polaroids was/is a different methodical process with little to nothing left to chance ... days go into pre-production, designing the shots, dressing sets, and lighting ... then some polaroids pulled to confirm, tweak fine points, plus let clients see it come together if they are on set ... the back is then swapped out and the shoot progresses. No one pulled a 1:1 ratio of polaroids to every shot taken.

- Marc
 
Top