Shooting film in a digital world-a mini documentary
An interesting little documentary about why one would shoot film in today's world.
Hope you enjoy it.
If at first you don't succeed...it's your own fault for trying
They've romanticized it up quite a bit. I shoot film because it looks better. No other reason is necessary.
I shoot film because I can't fit an 1858 Derogy Petzval on my Nikon
Kent in SD
That was great! Love it, thanks.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
An easy and enjoyable read. No mention though of one critical fact: film lasts and lasts.
.::Gary Rowan Higgins
One beautiful image is worth
a thousand hours of therapy.
"It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government
to save the environment."
Firstly I'm a firm believer of people shooting what makes them happy.
Similarly I think they should belong to whatever religion makes them happy. But this so called documentary is like going to someone's church and sitting there listening to the preacher and going WHAT. He said WHAT?
And the preaching to the choir audience are sitting there and nodding their heads with his every word.
Now to caveat, I've shot somewhere around 10,000 rolls of color and black and white film, almost all 120.
But these people interviewed with the exception of the guy at the 30 minute mark were mostly just full of shit. Analog doesn't allow you to slow down, over using digital. You can use digital as slow as an 8x10 if you choose to. Nobody is forcing you to machine gun the camera. Nobody is forcing you to chimp. Nobody is forcing you to shoot in auto mode. Nobody is forcing you to not work with your subjects. Almost every explanation was just nonsense. If you don't have the self control to work slowly with digital or even motordrive auto everything 35mm film, that is your short coming not the system's.
The number one reason anyone would shoot film over digital is they like the look which CAN BE different. Isn't always, but CAN BE.
The number two reason, is because you want to be different. Which is the same reason you dress like a goth or like a lumberjack. No logic, but choose to look different. Fine do what you want. But making up silly reasons for it is immature.
Every other reason is just self delusion, or made up nonsense.
Plus if you want to have fun watching the film, read the subtitles. Hilarious.
This is merely a puff piece sponsored by Kodak to manipulate people to shoot film again. Besides, if they really want to see what film should look like they should have visited some photographers from APUG, not the duds they did interview.
It's a romantic ad, just like sitting in matching bath tubs outside as the sun goes down, dreaming about your new erection thanks to the magic of Big Pharma.
I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.
I agree with everything Blansky said except I don't buy the number one reason anyone would shoot film over digital is they like the look. I think at this point, given how far digital cameras and printers have come in terms of quality, that is baloney. I'm 100% analog, but I have to admit to myself at this point it has nothing to do with analog being better or looking different. It is strictly a matter of preference for darkroom work over computer work, and also that analog is what I know how to do. I have no interest in digital workflow, and that's about it. Coming up with other reasons seems mildly delusional.
I didn't enjoy the film (especially the music!!) and found the reasons that people gave were not matched by the images shown.
The reasons that I shoot analogue are:
- The final result. For me, there is a very real and tangible difference between a well crafted B&W fibre print and a well crafted digital print.
- The taking process: Whilst in the video the implication was that analogue makes you shoot slow and carefully (tell that to Gary Winogrand!!), what I like is that there is time between loading the film, finishing and processing it and printing it. Usually, I file my negatives away for several months before looking at them again. This 'distance' works for my work. No matter how hard I have tried not to look at the pesky LCD on a digital camera, I just can't stop myself.
- The finishing process: I sit long enough at a computer and do not want to spend even more time. I find working in the darkroom far more pleasant with time just for me (no phones, e-mails, etc). Also, I find the process of choosing the negatives, deciding how I want to interpret them and realising this vision to be particularly rewarding. However, the most important thing is the cumulative time I spend with each and every one of my photographs. In comparison to editing in photoshop and printing the image out, the wet process requires a long time looking at the print (dev, fix, wash), working with the print (toning, washing, drying) and evaluating the print (checking that it is what I wanted, flattening, checking that it is what I wanted, dry mounting the print, checking that it is what I wanted, placing in a window matt and framing).
- I have been doing analogue so long I don't want to change (actually, I have been working with digital since the Mac IIcx came out with Knowle software – better known now as Photoshop – for commercial work).
- Analogue photography is cheaper. Yes, digital saves the cost of film but to achieve the quality I want requires investing in expensive cameras, an expensive computer, and an expensive printer – all of which will need to be replaced within 5 years. On top of this there is also the cost of premium inks and expensive paper.
I don't believe the archival hype for digital 'has been tested for 200 years aging' – yeh right! what they mean is that it has been tested by simulating 200 years exposure to ??? lumens. When I sell a print I want to be sure that it is going to last. We have actual proof of this because there are plenty of photographs around today that were made over 170 years ago with inferior materials, no knowledge of archival processing, no knowledge of presenting them with acid free board nor knowledge that the frames need to be sealed against aerial pollutants.
Yeah, archival has always been a big deal for me as well. Back to the seventies when we were lied to by Kodak about the archival abilities of color paper which turned yellow/green in 5 years and up to when I shot portraits exclusively in black and white in the early 2000.
Originally Posted by David Allen
I agree it's not clear whether the tests they do for digital are valid or not, but someone once said to me that just because an analog black and white print from over a hundred years ago is still pristine does not mean a relatively new black and white print will be also. Different chemistry, different papers and different pollutants than there were back then.
So you have to do your best and try for the optimal quality of the materials available I guess.
I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.