Need Inspiration

[Commonman]

I've been really inspired by various photographers and people in this forum (like Helen B.). And, going to a museums or websites and seeing their work or just reading a book by or about a photographer can really get me going.

Lately, I've been a little dogged by the whole digital thing. I've resisted getting into digital photography for a number of reasons, one primary reason is the computer. Don't get me wrong. I use computers all the time. But that's just it. My resistance has to do with fact that I am on the computer so much for my "day job" and to have to be on it any more would just not be healthy (but look how I'm on it right now). And, I got into film photography (and art in general) as a youth but was interrupted in my who pursuit of art.

My dear brother in law (who has been a professional photographer for most of his adult life) just said that I should continue with film if I love it and it keeps me sane. I guess I'm just looking for some additional encouragement in the pursuit of film photography - which would include film development and printing because the hugeness and intensity of the digital photography movement is making me doubt the sanity of film photography. I mean, it seems like everybody is capturing these great image effortlessly compared to all the work I put into my film...and that kind of gets into the journey not the destination thing. Too tired and too late to continue. I'll cap this off later. Am I making any sense?

 

[passerby]

I do photography purely for fun. Infact I do thing only if like it otherwise I won't bother. If you do photography to pay the bills than you have no choice to get the best tools to produce the demanded products regardless of your feeling.

I do digital photography with my D40 but I don't edit my photos - so I use this computer for internet only and to play games (yap).
Command & Conquer, Medieval total war (MTW), Age of empires, SimsCity, Silent hunter and few more . I don't play much though, roughly in the average of 1 hour a day that's all just for fun since I use the god mode to win.

Anyway have fun, just like me.

 

[MRivera]

Well if that keeps you sane. I'd say continue with film maybe being in the darkroom helps you a lot to relax instead of edit your photos in a computer. As anything else if you make a living by sitting infront of a computer the last thing you would like to do is go home and sit infront of a pc, at least that was my case...I used to work for a company that required me to sit in front of a monitor when I got home that was the last thing i wanted to do. I use digital now but i do minimal editing on my photos and i am working outdoors... not sure if all this makes sense it is late here...

good luck

 

[tirediron]

I have to agree with your BIL - if you love film, stick with it. I have to admit that since I've "gone digital" I really do miss the hours of peace and solitude in the darkroom (although the house smells a whole lot better). Passerby said it well, if you don't need to get into digital to pay the bills, and you clearly don't want to, don't. Film is not dead.

 

[KevinDks]

I stick with film for a mixture of reasons, some practical (I have the equipment, I know how to use it, there is less technology involved in making sure the images survive in the long term) and some sentimental (it connects me with my photographic past, something about a negative but more especially a slide appeals to me emotionally in a way that a digital image doesn't, I still have a childlike excitement when I finally see the photos).

I also see lots of fantastic digital images and I bought two dSLRs in recent years because I thought it would give me the chance to really improve my photography. I was disappointed and what I learned is that excellent digital images require at least as much skill and effort as excellent film images, and that I've wasted 20 years buying this camera or that camera because I thought it was about the technology. What I really need is time, but the day job and family life limit how much I can do. I can't buy time, but this is just a hobby so it's important I do what pleases me with the time I have, and for the reasons I stated and others I didn't, film does that.

Kevin

 

[Commonman]

I do photography purely for fun.

Yes, that pretty much is why I do it although I would say word "fun" does not really capture my reasons.
I think it's more a need or a compulsion. It also is very therapeutic as it helps me to relax and forget about work. The need part of it is the need to create or produce art.

 

[Commonman]

Well if that keeps you sane. I'd say continue with film maybe being in the darkroom helps you a lot to relax instead of edit your photos in a computer. As anything else if you make a living by sitting infront of a computer the last thing you would like to do is go home and sit infront of a pc, at least that was my case...I used to work for a company that required me to sit in front of a monitor when I got home that was the last thing i wanted to do. I use digital now but i do minimal editing on my photos and i am working outdoors... not sure if all this makes sense it is late here...

good luck

This certainly hits home, the part about sitting in front of a monitor and the minimal editing of the photos...that strikes a chord because I realized recently that just because I'm taking digital photos, does not mean I have to spend a lot of time on the computer editing them. But the one cannot escape the computer because that's where you would view them, evaluate them, organize them and show them. I suppose if I had a very good printer at home, I could keep the computer use down to a minimum by downloading the photos, viewing, evaluating and printing...just kind of thinking on line here.

 

[Commonman]

I have to agree with your BIL - if you love film, stick with it. I have to admit that since I've "gone digital" I really do miss the hours of peace and solitude in the darkroom (although the house smells a whole lot better). Passerby said it well, if you don't need to get into digital to pay the bills, and you clearly don't want to, don't. Film is not dead.

No, I don't do it to pay the bills. What I do to pay the bills allows me the financial freedom to do film and digital (time allowing). I guess I'm just a little obsessed with the Nikon D-80 or D-200 camera. I really do get distracted by the technology as I have always like playing with technology, electronics, cameras ...you know, all the toys...so, I guess I'm really a tech guy and what I need to do is get away from the camera and the computer and get into composition. I think a class would be in order. And, I too like the peace and solitude of the dark room...I really do. It's really an escape for me but it's also a challenge and a test of my skills. The only problem is my dark room is very primative and suffers from poor ventilation.

 

[Commonman]

I stick with film for a mixture of reasons, some practical (I have the equipment, I know how to use it, there is less technology involved in making sure the images survive in the long term) and some sentimental (it connects me with my photographic past, something about a negative but more especially a slide appeals to me emotionally in a way that a digital image doesn't, I still have a childlike excitement when I finally see the photos).

I'm not sure I understand the image survival concept because with digital, the minute you download the image to a computer you can duplicate the image into 1000 images and send them all over the planet and you can store them in on a thumb drive, another hard drive, various servers, etc. etc. but I of course believe there is a higher level of technology involved in this duplicating and storing process.

I REALLY relate the photographic past and the emotional connection with film. This really says a lot to me. I was born in 1957 and my mom was really into film. So, there is that connection with the medium and it most certainly is emotional and runs deep in my psych.

I also see lots of fantastic digital images and I bought two dSLRs in recent years because I thought it would give me the chance to really improve my photography. I was disappointed and what I learned is that excellent digital images require at least as much skill and effort as excellent film images, and that I've wasted 20 years buying this camera or that camera because I thought it was about the technology. What I really need is time, but the day job and family life limit how much I can do. I can't buy time, but this is just a hobby so it's important I do what pleases me with the time I have, and for the reasons I stated and others I didn't, film does that.

Kevin

I don't think buying a really good digital camera will necessarily improve my technique or skills or composition ability...but I do think it will free me up to take a greater quantity of shots and the probability of getting good shots will increase in proportion.

 

[Commonman]

Kevin, sorry...I have not had my coffee yet. I am not to good at using the quote function so, in my last note note, I ended up writing inside the quote in my attempt to respond to your statements. And for some reason, I feel that I still am. Maybe I should give it a rest.

Anyway, I think, even though I say I'm getting back to the basics, I like the idea of having the freedom that digital gives to take huge quantities of images and select the one's that strike a chord, the ones that are "keepers" and discard the rest without wasting film, paper etc. And, you CAN buy time in the sense that, if you had financial independence, if you did not have to work, you'd have a lot more time. But at that point, yes, I agree, you only have 24 hours a day, no more and no amount of money is going to buy you more than that...unless you consider that if you got certain diseases, money could help you live whereas a poor person would have to die if he or she would theoretically not be able to "buy" medical assistance and that is IF the medical assistance would allow you to survive such a disease.

 

[Battou]

When you throw your first dSLR into the river trying to capture that Canadian goose that just took off is a shimmering trail of glory because it weighs two pounds less than your Nikon you will prolly rethink that desition about going digital

On a more serious note, before you even get to the point of spending hours in post processing there is a new learning phase you have to go threw to figure out what all these newfangled buttons and menues do, and then learn how to make them do what you want them to. Then you get to have some fun in post processing

 

[Commonman]

For most people, it's a no brainer to go digital. But I'm torn because I feel like I'm just getting to the point of really knowing all the steps of film photography. Some of my cameras do not have light meters so, just learning about exposure and implementing this knowledge, has been challenging and fun.

 

[Senor Hound]

If you have a desire for the bells and whistles, maybe an F5 would help you. They're crazy cheap now, and they're built like a tank. The idea that you can get one for the price of a D60 is just not right!

And perhaps you could buy a negative film scanner? That way you can see if those hours behind photoshop will really drive you nuts. I find working on a computer doesn't bother me one bit, as long as its something I WANT to do. You may find the same for yourself (or not).

 

[Commonman]

Yes, I'd like to acquire a dedicated negative film scanner. That would be great. I've been soliciting comments on this forum about scanners and there's some good info available on this forum.

But no, I'm not looking for bells and whistles, no sir. In fact, my favorite cameras are just old manual cameras, like my Rolleiflex, which does not even require a battery. Imagine that.

 

[Commonman]

But, Senior Hound, I now understand why you suggest the F5. I did indicated that I'm into the technology and I am. But, I'm very satisfied with my Nikon F3. And, if I was going to get another film camera, I think I'd get a Mamiya 6. That is the film camera I lust for. I wouldn't mind trying a Speed Graphic or a similar large format camera. But, as far as 35 mm go, I'd probably go with a Leica View Finder or a "poor man's Leica" like the Canon QL-7. I also get juiced by the little 35mm Rollei like the 35B.

The technology to which I refer would be the digital technology on the front end. I don't think I'll ever be able to get that into photoshop (until I'm retired) for reasons I will not detail here.