4 ms·

I don't know about this. Been shooting 30 years, including a couple years at a college paper (Daily paper needs lots of photos). I think film will be very nich

I don't know about this. Been shooting 30 years, including a couple years at a college paper (Daily paper needs lots of photos). I think film will be very niche. We shot film at the college paper, specifically black and white, 400 iso, but can be pushed to maybe 1600 (it starts getting really grainy at this point. For a newspaper it doesn't matter). Being a daily paper getting photos out quickly was often a priority. Slide film is way pickier on exposure than Black and White, with very little margin for error on the under/over (low dynamic range so to speak) Developing film and making prints was always kind of a pain (we didn't know it at the time having no alternative..). While making the print, watching the image appear in the developer in the darkroom was almost magical, trying to make a good print was often frustrating). While printing we'd adjust the contrast, dodge a burn (lighten and darken regions). It was time consuming and error prone and not easily repeatable. Dust shows up as white spots on your prints too, which you won't see till the red light comes off. Ansel Adams is the consute example of someone who made amazing prints by dodging and burning a lot, post processing. (He co-invented the "zone system" of printing.. [1]) The photo ink-jet printers these days are good enough to reproduce a lot of photos. Honestly I don't miss film. I get to focus more on composition and subject, rather than the tech details. Except the sorting, we all take way too many pictures these days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System

beat 10y ago
My favorite thing about film shooting isn't the look of film, but rather how the camera works. Digital cameras have so much distracting/confusing crap on them. Reducing the world to just aperture and shutter speed, with a comfy cushion of exposure, really makes life more pleasant. That said, I love auto-ISO to death. It's my favorite thing about digital photography. On film, you're either compromising shutter speed or compromising aperture to get the exposure. So nice to be able to easily adjust the third variable in the algebra. Definitely agree on your point about slide exposure relative to black and white, too. Slide film is almost as fussy as digital. What's the fun of that?
- ghaff 10y ago
  I have fond memories of B&W darkroom work--including having to run into the darkroom after some event to develop negs, contact them, and then print them. Though I can't say I really miss it. And I don't use auto-ISO but find being able to switch ISOs--including to rather high values--is one of the aspects of digital that is probably underappreciated. But color slides, which is all I did latterly until digital came along, was mostly a sort of fussy way of capturing color images for reproduction and projection. Absent spending a lot of money and effort, you were pretty much stuck with what you captured, which may have a certain purity to it but could also be very frustrating. I did somewhat obsess over different film stocks but that's sort of in the same bucket as playing with chemistry to push B&W film. Sort of a geek hobby but not really an end in itself at the end of the day.
  - beat 10y ago
    I used to do a lot of dance performance photography, which is a real technical challenge - low light and fast motion. Being able to shoot 6400 ISO and still get a decent image was a lifesaver! But it was good to be able to auto-ISO to deal with varying light while keeping aperture and shutter consistent so I know what I'm getting.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- jrapdx3 10y ago
  > "... but rather how the camera works. Digital cameras have so much distracting/confusing crap on them." One thing I always miss about the film days is the utter simplicity of film equipment vs. digital. Traveling was so much easier in the old days. In the carry-on just needed to pack a couple of camera bodies, a few lenses, stash of film and optionally, a flash. With digital it's necessary to keep track of a daunting armload of chargers, cables, spare batteries, SD cards as well as bodies, lenses and flash. And of course, just about have to pack a computer to do something with the images, after all we paid for the capabilities and damn it, we're gonna use 'em.
jrapdx3 10y ago
> "I think film will be very niche." Yes silver-based photography will be niche, no doubt it already is. I'd emphasize that doesn't mean it's going to disappear, or cease to be a legitimate art form in its own right. Film won't compete with digital imaging, best to think of it as an entirely different medium. Of course you're right about transparency films having little latitude, especially on the overexposure side, but this is also true for digital cameras. A lot of the "old" techniques are still applicable in the new digital world. The astonishing possibilities of film are exemplified by many artists, one of the all time geniuses IMO is Jerry Uelsmann [0] whose work back in the 1960's anticipated imagery of the digital era. Interestingly, there's a shop in town that specializes in old film cameras and related equipment. Speaking with the owner I thought most of the customers would be old-timers like me. To my surprise he said nearly all his paying customers were under 30 years old. To them, digital is old hat, they were looking to try something different and "authentic". Most of us experienced photographers were using digital gear. FWIW his business is thriving. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Uelsmann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Uelsmann

beat 10y ago

My favorite thing about film shooting isn't the look of film, but rather how the camera works. Digital cameras have so much distracting/confusing crap on them. Reducing the world to just aperture and shutter speed, with a comfy cushion of exposure, really makes life more pleasant. That said, I love auto-ISO to death. It's my favorite thing about digital photography. On film, you're either compromising shutter speed or compromising aperture to get the exposure. So nice to be able to easily adjust the third variable in the algebra. Definitely agree on your point about slide exposure relative to black and white, too. Slide film is almost as fussy as digital. What's the fun of that?

ghaff 10y ago
I have fond memories of B&W darkroom work--including having to run into the darkroom after some event to develop negs, contact them, and then print them. Though I can't say I really miss it. And I don't use auto-ISO but find being able to switch ISOs--including to rather high values--is one of the aspects of digital that is probably underappreciated. But color slides, which is all I did latterly until digital came along, was mostly a sort of fussy way of capturing color images for reproduction and projection. Absent spending a lot of money and effort, you were pretty much stuck with what you captured, which may have a certain purity to it but could also be very frustrating. I did somewhat obsess over different film stocks but that's sort of in the same bucket as playing with chemistry to push B&W film. Sort of a geek hobby but not really an end in itself at the end of the day.
- beat 10y ago
  I used to do a lot of dance performance photography, which is a real technical challenge - low light and fast motion. Being able to shoot 6400 ISO and still get a decent image was a lifesaver! But it was good to be able to auto-ISO to deal with varying light while keeping aperture and shutter consistent so I know what I'm getting.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jrapdx3 10y ago
> "... but rather how the camera works. Digital cameras have so much distracting/confusing crap on them." One thing I always miss about the film days is the utter simplicity of film equipment vs. digital. Traveling was so much easier in the old days. In the carry-on just needed to pack a couple of camera bodies, a few lenses, stash of film and optionally, a flash. With digital it's necessary to keep track of a daunting armload of chargers, cables, spare batteries, SD cards as well as bodies, lenses and flash. And of course, just about have to pack a computer to do something with the images, after all we paid for the capabilities and damn it, we're gonna use 'em.

jrapdx3 10y ago

> "I think film will be very niche." Yes silver-based photography will be niche, no doubt it already is. I'd emphasize that doesn't mean it's going to disappear, or cease to be a legitimate art form in its own right. Film won't compete with digital imaging, best to think of it as an entirely different medium. Of course you're right about transparency films having little latitude, especially on the overexposure side, but this is also true for digital cameras. A lot of the "old" techniques are still applicable in the new digital world. The astonishing possibilities of film are exemplified by many artists, one of the all time geniuses IMO is Jerry Uelsmann [0] whose work back in the 1960's anticipated imagery of the digital era. Interestingly, there's a shop in town that specializes in old film cameras and related equipment. Speaking with the owner I thought most of the customers would be old-timers like me. To my surprise he said nearly all his paying customers were under 30 years old. To them, digital is old hat, they were looking to try something different and "authentic". Most of us experienced photographers were using digital gear. FWIW his business is thriving. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Uelsmann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Uelsmann