Why people shoot film

[gsgary]

gsgary, for the win!!! Dog asses galore! I cannot believe this thread has not been shut down yet.

And ******** galour

 

[gsgary]

gsgary, for the win!!! Dog asses galore! I cannot believe this thread has not been shut down yet.

I'm not of a mind to shut it down; though I might bring a small cloud over the sunshine thing every couple of posts.

They get better

 

[Ysarex]

(snip) In the same way, film changes the way the photographer works, which changes the results. (snip)

But it shouldn't and it doesn't have to.

I control my tools my tools don't control me.

The single most salient fact evident in that documentary was that a bunch of hipster film photographers don't have the self-control to use a tool without being unduly distracted by it. One after another they sang the same tune; film makes me slow down -- film makes me concentrate and focus -- I've only got 12 shots on a roll so I have to make them count -- a waist level finder helps me to see --other people are too plugged into their iphones and facebook and if I had an iphone I couldn't control myself either -- I need a film camera to keep me under control.

Joe

Well the truth of the matter is that for some people the satisfaction they gain from a task is proportional to the amount of effort they need to put forth to obtain it. It's a simple element of human nature. Something that by it's nature is more complicated, more complex, more difficult is therefore more enjoyable and more satisfying.

Since in the final analysis what really matters here is how the photographer feels about the end result, well then I guess my thought process is if someone really likes shooting film, then by all means shoot film. Granted, I myself prefer digital for a variety of reasons - part of that might be my personality type, who knows. But just because I find that digital works for me and suits my personal tastes better doesn't mean that it really bothers me when someone else says, "I prefer film".

It doesn't bother me either when people say they prefer film. I can even handle someone saying they prefer to listen to CW music. What I object to is people saying they prefer something and then going on to offer irrational and bogus reasons for their preference.

Joe

 

[robbins.photo]

But it shouldn't and it doesn't have to.

I control my tools my tools don't control me.

The single most salient fact evident in that documentary was that a bunch of hipster film photographers don't have the self-control to use a tool without being unduly distracted by it. One after another they sang the same tune; film makes me slow down -- film makes me concentrate and focus -- I've only got 12 shots on a roll so I have to make them count -- a waist level finder helps me to see --other people are too plugged into their iphones and facebook and if I had an iphone I couldn't control myself either -- I need a film camera to keep me under control.

Joe

Well the truth of the matter is that for some people the satisfaction they gain from a task is proportional to the amount of effort they need to put forth to obtain it. It's a simple element of human nature. Something that by it's nature is more complicated, more complex, more difficult is therefore more enjoyable and more satisfying.

Since in the final analysis what really matters here is how the photographer feels about the end result, well then I guess my thought process is if someone really likes shooting film, then by all means shoot film. Granted, I myself prefer digital for a variety of reasons - part of that might be my personality type, who knows. But just because I find that digital works for me and suits my personal tastes better doesn't mean that it really bothers me when someone else says, "I prefer film".

It doesn't bother me either when people say they prefer film. I can even handle someone saying they prefer to listen to CW music. What I object to is people saying they prefer something and then going on to offer irrational and bogus reasons for their preference.

Joe

Lol.. well people are rarely if ever rational about art. Hence all the loping off of ears and such. Don't sweat it. If it makes them happy then let them be happy. Sunshine, Dog's Ass, Happy Dance, Hoorah.

 

[cgw]

I so need to scan in the shot I actually have of a dog's ass.

Let me help you out

Extra points for bonus horses' asses!

 

[timor]

Is this ^^^ what is called "kick-ass photography" ?

 

[Ysarex]

I so need to scan in the shot I actually have of a dog's ass.

Let me help you out

Extra points for bonus horses' asses!

There's even asses on top of the horses!

Joe

 

[vintagesnaps]

Asses aside... I've never not shot film, so my perspective is different I think than for people who have been used to using digital cameras and then try film. I think my style is the same regardless.

What seems different is not so much shooting film or digital, but using a different camera or lens. There's a different procedure involved in shooting with an SLR than a rangefinder, or my SX-70, or a vintage/antique camera, etc. I think when I'm using a rangefinder and a 45mm lens I'm framing differently than with an SLR and a short telephoto lens (when I tend to shoot on the fly which comes from having done sports) - the process is somewhat different but I'm still 'me' in what I photograph.

There's definitely a difference in the quality of wet chemistry prints compared to inkjet photos. I've scanned in some of my darkroom prints and then printed inkjet copies; from a distance across the room there isn't a difference in quality or sharpness, but up close or in comparison there's a quality to my darkroom prints in the paper and gloss that you just don't get with a digital print. Once a film image is scanned as mentioned earlier in the thread it doesn't have the same look in a digital copy as the original.

 

[NathanKing]

I shoot predominantly on film. You can replicate the look of a hybrid film/digital workflow with a purely digital workflow. It takes quite a bit of manipulation (time sitting in front of a computer) to do, and I do enough of that every day at work. That said, a purely analog silver gelatin print from my enlarger looks quite different than its digitized counterpart. It would be presumptuous of me to declare one better than the other, but there is a difference.

The video is a marketing tool, which is a good thing if it aids in extending the tradition of analog photography.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

The amount of manipulation so prevalent now is one of the reasons I feel towards digital the way I do. It just seems cheap and phony sometimes,especially when HDR or other heavy post production changes are employed. That being said I shoot both and prefer film just 'cause I'm old and started with and have more experience with film.

The feeling that you must get the perfect image removes a considerable amount of art from the final product IMO. It's more like a the feeling of successfully getting that satellite into perfect orbit than making a nice image. Flaws or anything other than absolute perfection is no good and that's far from the case.

There's more but I'm running behind. See ya.................

 

[timor]

The amount of manipulation so prevalent now is one of the reasons I feel towards digital the way I do. It just seems cheap and phony sometimes,especially when HDR or other heavy post production changes are employed. That being said I shoot both and prefer film just 'cause I'm old and started with and have more experience with film.

The feeling that you must get the perfect image removes a considerable amount of art from the final product IMO. It's more like a the feeling of successfully getting that satellite into perfect orbit than making a nice image. Flaws or anything other than absolute perfection is no good and that's far from the case.
.

I am with you.

 

[gsgary]

I'm with you both

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2

 

[amolitor]

Me too. Back in the film days nobody, at least not the serious guys, did all kinds of crazy manipulations on their pictures. They pretty much left it straight out of the camera.

 

[Ysarex]

Me too. Back in the film days nobody, at least not the serious guys, did all kinds of crazy manipulations on their pictures. They pretty much left it straight out of the camera.

Yah!

Halsman

Barbara Morgan

Herbert Bayer

Oscar Rejlander

Man Ray

Jerry Uelsmann

W. Eugene Smith

Henry Robinson

Could do this all afternoon.

Joe

 

[bhop]

Burn