My take on Analog Film Photography

[afrank]

Hey all, I got a series of videos on why I shoot film.
What motivates you to shoot Film? Is it something similar?

Enjoy!

Pt1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXR0dDvEcqA

Pt2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5-tmnpSSbE

[darkosaric]

What motivates you to shoot Film?

I was thinking about this question a lot. It is not just technical benefits, nicest choices of B&W papers, nicer grain that films give, and so on.
I think that Erwin Puts made it clear for me: it is state of mind. Knowing that you want to capture one moment - you have one chance, and you are willing to pay for this - in comparison that you can capture millions of moments for free and then delete it for free, and make it again: this makes critical difference in state of mind - and by this makes different final results.

"The idea that you can take digital pictures with the mentality and approach of the filmbased style of photography is as grotesk as trying to drive a modern racing car with the mental state of handling a steam engine."

[Jeff Kubach]

I'm just an analog guy in a digital world.

Jeff

[batwister]

I prefer 'Pay As You Go' photography, rather than those 18 month DSLR contracts.

[kb3lms]

Somebody said to me that digital photography was like microwave pizza. That analogy pretty much says it for me.

[kbrede]

What camera were you using in the video Afrank?

[benjiboy]

I use film because that's what my cameras take.

[afrank]

kbrede

What camera were you using in the video Afrank?

Was using a Digital m43 E-P2 with a 20mm f1.7. Some other takes are with a MD Minolta 50mm f/1.7 .
Cant find a cheap 35mm video camera (even 16mm are waaayyyy to grainy for me)

[Ken Nadvornick]

What motivates you to shoot Film?

Have said this before, but for me it's the provenance of film. That direct connection between the original live subject and the medium upon which it was directly rendered.

At the moment I have a Standard Gallery photograph submitted showing my late father sitting in an amusement park ride. It was made in 1953. When I made the print last weekend I held in my hand the original negative upon which that subject had been directly rendered at that point in time. That negative had been physically inside the camera that was, at that long ago moment, only about 12 feet away from my dad. Indeed, the depicted image on that negative could not have been realized unless this were true.

As I've said before, the negative bears silent witness to the moment of time rendered upon it.* As fellow APUGger Maris has phrased it, there is an indexical relationship between the subject and the medium which recorded that subject.

For me, that relationship makes all the difference. The authenticity of film is a direct consequence of that relationship. And that relationship—that provenance—does not exist with an abstract digital image file. Sorry, it just physically doesn't. In fact, it physically can't.

That's why I choose film.

Ken

* Yes, yes. I know all about darkroom tricks with negatives, and other exceptions to rules. But that's not the core point here...

[kbrede]

Was using a Digital m43 E-P2 with a 20mm f1.7. Some other takes are with a MD Minolta 50mm f/1.7 .
Cant find a cheap 35mm video camera (even 16mm are waaayyyy to grainy for me)

Sorry I was referring to the TLR film camera. It looks nice and small compared to my RZ67.
Thanks,