16 ms·

The photographers who refuse to abandon traditional film cameras

55 points by schrofer 12y ago

ColinWright 12y ago
Here is one case where I think the article's original title would be far better than the one chosen by the submitter. Why have you changed it? In what way do you think this title is more informative?
- wglb 12y ago
  I agree. Title should almost never be changed. Exception is length.
- borgia 12y ago
  Interestingly the title "Digital Refuseniks" actually appears as the title for the article if you check out the "Features and Analysis" list on the right hand side of the article's page. Screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/Fv3cGSw.png http://i.imgur.com/Fv3cGSw.png
  - ColinWright 12y ago
    Bizarre - thank you for highlighting this. It's still less informative.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
  It doesn't even seem correct. What does film have to do with Soviet citizens being denied an exit visa to emigrate to Israel? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusenik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusenik
borgia 12y ago
Some would call this hipster pretentiousness. I wouldn't though. I think overall we're seeing a growing trend, or growing condition I believe would be more apt, where people are searching for substance at a time where the digital/modern life has removed or cheapened it. It isn't confined to products either.
- visakanv 12y ago
  Yep. I remember a nice TED talk about this lady who would go out of her way to send physical letters to people now that communications is so simple, effortless and instantaneous. This is a recurring thing– whenever things get faster, there is an artfulness that frees up in being deliberately slow. Pretentious maybe, if you pretend that it's somehow "better". But it can also be really heartfelt.
- StavrosK 12y ago
  > I think overall we're seeing a growing trend, or growing condition I believe would be more apt, where people are searching for substance at a time where the digital/modern life has removed or cheapened it. Ah, the old appeal to tradition.
  - unfamiliar 12y ago
    That wasn't an appeal to tradition, I don't know where you got that. And besides, it is more than that. We are human beings, our brains are designed to interact with physical objects, and when you move all of the physical objects like CDs, photos, DVDs, etc into an existence of pure information, what you end up missing is that satisfaction of holding a physical object in your hand and experiencing it with all your senses, like we did with jewels or tools centuries ago.
    - StavrosK 12y ago
      Why has digital life removed substance? Today I can talk with my friends, who are scattered all around the globe, all day, every day, in real time. I get lessons from experts on things that interest me, for free, whenever I want them, without having to lift a finger. I can call my friends at a moment's notice and we get together and do a whole host of things that would be pretty much impossible twenty years ago. How did digital life cheapen substance? Because I can no longer get on stage and touch the actors in movies? When it comes to photographs, specifically, the difference between the phone screen and a piece of paper is a hell of a lot less than the actual thing in the photograph and the photograph itself. If anything, your argument is against photography as a whole.
gaius 12y ago
I still use B&W film. It's just a different art form. People didn't stop painting when photography came along, people didn't throw away their instruments and replace them with synths, people won't stop sculpting and buy 3D printers instead. I don't care that it's not practical - I'm not doing photography for a living.
- ics 12y ago
  Fully agreed. Not to mention the fact that a digital back for my Hasselblad would be $10-50k :)
- unfamiliar 12y ago
  I'm afraid I disagree. It's not a different art form, it is just an evolution of it. There is literally nothing that film cameras can do that digital camera's can't do, and in most cases do better. Comparing the transition to painting versus photography is just ridiculous - you might as well compare painting to sculpture, because they are genuinely different art forms. 3D printing and sculpting are completely different processes to produce a 3D shape - film and digital photography are two almost identical processes to produce the same end result. I don't see a single argument in favour of film besides nostalgia. A much more accurate comparison would be someone who insists on heating pots over a wood fire every night, rather than using a gas flame.
  - noblethrasher 12y ago
    Introducing (artificial) constraints can produce a different form of art.
  - rubyrescue 12y ago
    people still cook over an open fire. we call those people "campers".
  - gaius 12y ago
    two almost identical processes to produce the same end result Not true - wet printing with silver paper is fundamentally unlike digital output. Also, good restaurants do use wood fired ovens for pizza.
Quizz 12y ago
Just like vinyl LPs have their fans, this is just another retro lifestyle choice
- Nav_Panel 12y ago
  Just like and even moreso than vinyl, there are sound, non-"hipster" reasons one might choose to shoot film. The major one that keeps many artists coming back is medium/large format. It's much much cheaper to get an extremely high resolution photograph on film. Medium format is something like 100 megapixels, and it costs about a dollar per shot after initial expenses. The higher resolution might not matter on monitors, but it makes a huge difference in size limitations and sharpness when printed, and prints are generally the goal for artists. True large format like 4x5 costs something like $10 a shot depending what film you use (I've heard it can cost a lot less if you shoot cheapo medical b&w), but has insane resolution, measured in gigapixels. You can print it wall-sized, no problem. On top of that, you can only perform the full range of movements such as tilt shift and correcting for some types of perspective distortion on a large format field camera. This stuff does not matter for photojournalist or weddings or sports, but many professional artists still choose film. They never really stopped. This is in contrast to DJs, the largest supporters of vinyl through the 90s and 00s, who seem to have mostly stopped spinning vinyl unless they're scratching. As a hobbyist, I appreciate that film makes me think more about each shot. I hate the immediate feedback of digital. I love film's tactile nature. I love turning off the screen and hitting the darkroom. But for me, I agree it's definitely a lifestyle choice.
  - wuliwong 12y ago
    You are comparing vinyl to film but in the way you are doing it you are implicitly comparing the experience of the consumer of the audio with the producer of the image. It is interesting though, that the "analog vs. digital" takes place both in photography and music in both the production and consumption stages. You can record analog or digital and listen to analog or digital sources of the recording. Likewise with photography, you can use a digital or film camera and then you can view the image on a print from a darkroom or on your computer monitor. It seemed as though you were using the term "hipster" to imply vinyl was more about style and trend. If that is the case, I wouldn't characterize the sonic differences between analog and digital recordings as simply "hipster" differences. There is a quantifiable difference between an analog and digital wave. Not saying one is better than the other but they are different. Your argument that the differences with film vs. digital seemed to boil down to the economics of the two mediums not any aesthetic difference. That is interesting because off the top of my head I don't think there is any scenario in music recording where it becomes cheaper to go analog. I believe, in general, analog recording is more expensive.
nightski 12y ago
Isn't it ironic that we are looking at these "real photos" on the internet using a computer monitor. Sharing your work and discussing it seems far more important than what medium it is created on...
- youbeyou 12y ago
  No, its not. It's a matter of perspective.
imaginenore 12y ago
I'm surprised there are no digital large format cameras or backs. I'm also surprised the medium format backs are so expensive. Isn't making larger photo sensors supposed to be easier? Btw, if you had never seen photos made on a large format camera, find a gallery near you, and go see some prints. I'm yet to see a digital equivalent of that.
- justincormack 12y ago
  No, they are chips, and making large defect free chips is hard. Chips are best small. You can get large format scanner backs, but they take time to scan. Sheet film is a huge cheap disposable sensor, just add a scanner and you are done if you want digital.
  - imaginenore 12y ago
    Scanning is a huge pain in the ass. Even scanning 35mm is a pain, and I own a dedicated film scanner. Flatbeds for large format are just crazy hard. Newton rings are almost impossible to get rid of. Not to mention all the film processing. I'm actually thinking of making a scanning back from a scanner. You basically remove the light, and put it on the back of the large format camera.
  - UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
    > No, they are chips, and making large defect free chips is hard. Chips are best small. That's true. But you can sometimes assembly lots of small chips into one larger sensor and solve a lot of the issues doing that causes in software after the fact. I suspect it doesn't exist because the market is tiny and the R&D too expensive, rather than it being an inherent problem with the tech' itself. I just don't think enough people, even pros, would spend $20K+ on one of these to justify the engineering, software, and marketing that went into it (and the level or risk). > You can get large format scanner backs, but they take time to scan. So recreating the original experience of large format then? :)
    - wlievens 12y ago
StavrosK 12y ago
Look, if you want to shoot film, shoot film. If you like the look overexposed Polaroids have, shoot overexposed Polaroids, or shoot with your lens not attached to your camera body, or whatever floats your boat, artistically. Just don't argue that other people are somehow not "real" photographers just because they don't like what you like, and don't use the "it's good because it's what was on the market the specific decade of my twenties" argument.
- youbeyou 12y ago
  In short, "you be you." There is room for what you like, never mind the popular opinion.
- UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
  If you think that is pathetic, you should see how much time photographers spend arguing about who is a real photographer because of the size of the digital sensor. It all boils down to about one or two stops, but by how people argue about it you'd think one was shooting with a Fisher Price Barbie camera and the other a Large format Hasselblad. Honestly photography is all about: Skill (practice), luck, and branding in that order. You can improve your "luck" by being at interesting locations or events for your style, but ultimately sometimes you get the shot and sometimes you don't.
  - milsorgen 12y ago
    It's not worth arguing about but I have three APS-C sensor cameras and I would love to have a stop or two of performance. Being able to shoot on the evening streets at 1/60th vs 1/15th of a second? Yes please! I would say for most people, yeah it doesn't matter. But for more than a few that performance increase is very, very noticeable.
    - UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
      That's fine, nobody is saying there isn't a one or two stop difference. I just said people spend an insane amount of time arguing who is a "real" photographer because of that difference. Like "you cannot possibly shoot wedding on APS-C!!!" until it became the most popular format for weddings, and now it is "you cannot possibly shoot wedding with m43!!!" If you look at digital sensors in a historical perspective, an APS-C camera sold today is better than a full frame camera sold in 2009. Let that sink in. A m43 sensor sold today is better than APS-C sensors sold even in 2011 (by Canon). So if people aren't "real" photographers today because they have a smaller sensor, then by logical extension everyone who shot digital in 2004-2010 isn't a real photographer either.
vkjv 12y ago
Very similar to guitarists who refuse to give up tube amplifiers. I'm one of them.
- SwellJoe 12y ago
  I am, as well, but not because of the tubes themselves, anymore. The reason I haven't given up my tube amps is because the quality of the non-tube amps generally sucks. The reason seems to be that DSP-equipped amps with tube simulation are trying to address two problems instead of just one. One of the problems they are trying to address is the high cost of tube amps. The other is simulating a tube sound without tubes. I believe the first part of the equation is where things are going wrong. A cheap amp and speaker with a DSP simulated tube sound being run through it will still sound like a cheap amp and speaker. There may be high end manufacturers making high quality guitar amps with emulation, but I'm unaware of them. They haven't been present in the music store on any occasion I've gone in to select a new amp. The brands I'm aware of doing "tube emulation" in amps are brands I would never buy, at any cost. Behringer, Line 6 (and this is considered one of the good ones, honestly, and they do sound better than most, but are still cheaply constructed), Tech21 (again, decent, but not high end). All pretty shitty amps that happen to have a modeling DSP stuck in front. I just did some googling, and it seems Roland is out front on making a reasonably high quality modeling combo amp (GA112). I'd be willing to bet that sounds as good as a real tube amp in the same price range, because the old JC120 combo was a great solid state combo amp...Roland knows how to make a high quality solid state amp, and they were on the front line of amp modeling. Of course, it also costs as much as a real mid-range tube amp, at ~$500. I suspect there's a lot of cargo culting going on, as well. Guitarist knows their favorite recordings were made with tube amps, so they want a tube amp. So, any manufacturer wanting to make amps that are sought after, will make them tube amps, despite the many negatives to tube amps (requirement to bias them, requirement to periodically replace tubes, temperature sensitivity, etc.). In short: We're probably buying into a superstitious belief that tube amps sound better than a modeling amp of similar quality. The only problem is we can't readily find many modeling amps of similar quality because they're targeted toward a price-conscious market and so they've cut corners everywhere and not just on the lack of tube preamp and amp circuits.
panamafrank 12y ago
You get to stand in a darkroom for hours, intensely focused on one thing without any interruptions. There's is a huge amount of highly detailed knowledge needed get even passable results. It's a slow ritualistic process prone to being derailed by even the slightest mistake. All these things when earned over years give you a deep respect for the medium.
pjmlp 12y ago
There are also photographers that refuse to abandon even older style cameras, like Hiroshi Sugimoto, which uses 8x10 large-format camera for many of his works.
aaronbrethorst 12y ago
I shoot film, mostly black and white, on a regular basis[1]. I got into it a year ago January after shooting digitally[2] for the last several years before that. There is a lot to be said for working in the medium and printing optically in a wet darkroom. It's made me a much more patient, slower photographer. It's made me think more about my composition. And, it's also given me a much better sense of camaraderie than I get with a digital camera (I work in a public darkroom, and I've become good friends with a number of other regulars). If this sounds interesting to you, I highly recommend picking up a film camera and giving it a shot. I put together a blog post a few months back describing a full film kit you can put together for under $200, complete with film developing: http://www.ishootfilm.org/blog/2014/10/18/10-the-best-film-camera-kit-you-can-buy-for-under-200 http://www.ishootfilm.org/blog/2014/10/18/10-the-best-film-c... And, if you are interested in learning more about developing your own film and making your own prints, I have a list of darkrooms (and photo labs) here: http://www.ishootfilm.org/businesses http://www.ishootfilm.org/businesses [1] Like, 'every day' regular. [2] I still do. I took a couple hundred photos at a friend's birthday party last night with my digital Fuji X100S.
prayerslayer 12y ago
The major reason for me to occasionally shoot film is that I find the haptic and usability of the cameras way better than current digital models. Depends on how much you're comfortable to spend though.
decasteve 12y ago
Here's another niche of photographer: those of use who capture on the digital medium and process on a computer, but refuse to display our photographs online to be seen on a screen. My display medium is print even though my capture is digital. I print almost exclusively on large format paper. The output medium is what I want to control in my photographic process.
- sigmar 12y ago
  I can appreciate this position since the digital screen people view photos on can't be controlled by the content creator and screens vary a ton (in resolution, contrast, color).
arxpoetica 12y ago
The article mentions Film's Not Dead, but fails to mention http://filmisnotdead.com/ http://filmisnotdead.com/
bitL 12y ago
No wonder. Recently I bought Nikon D750, "camera of the year 2014", and barely see any difference to D7000 (except for high ISO where D750 is stunning), the skin is still as mushy and features flat as always. Then I bought Sigma SD1 Merrill, with a 3-layer Foveon sensor that is probably the closest to a film-equivalent digital camera and the studio portrait photos are simply breathtaking despite camera being a slow clunker with horrible high ISO. I really can't go back to D750 now, all pictures feel flat, details hidden, unnatural noise at ISO 100 etc. It might be that those that like to stay with film don't like the effect of most digital sensors. If you search on photography forums, plenty of people are displeased by digital look, and if you have a perfect color vision (like I do), it sometimes hurts... There is of course a lot of nostalgia and desire to be different while sticking to film. Technically in most measurable characteristics digital sensors vastly outperform film, yet there are some subtle characteristics we perceive they have hard time to replicate (like microcontrast). Of course, some digital cameras bring their own "artistic license" to the mix, like Canon is known for pleasant color palette and being very flattering to a model look, and many people then prefer such a look to anything shot on film which looks more realistic.
cube00 12y ago
A similar story about Polaroid film is covered in the doco "Time Zero" http://timezeromovie.com/ http://timezeromovie.com/

55 points by schrofer 12y ago

Here is one case where I think the article's original title would be far better than the one chosen by the submitter. Why have you changed it? In what way do you think this title is more informative?

wglb 12y ago
I agree. Title should almost never be changed. Exception is length.
borgia 12y ago
Interestingly the title "Digital Refuseniks" actually appears as the title for the article if you check out the "Features and Analysis" list on the right hand side of the article's page. Screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/Fv3cGSw.png http://i.imgur.com/Fv3cGSw.png
- ColinWright 12y ago
  Bizarre - thank you for highlighting this. It's still less informative.
TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
It doesn't even seem correct. What does film have to do with Soviet citizens being denied an exit visa to emigrate to Israel? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusenik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusenik

borgia 12y ago

Some would call this hipster pretentiousness. I wouldn't though. I think overall we're seeing a growing trend, or growing condition I believe would be more apt, where people are searching for substance at a time where the digital/modern life has removed or cheapened it. It isn't confined to products either.

visakanv 12y ago
Yep. I remember a nice TED talk about this lady who would go out of her way to send physical letters to people now that communications is so simple, effortless and instantaneous. This is a recurring thing– whenever things get faster, there is an artfulness that frees up in being deliberately slow. Pretentious maybe, if you pretend that it's somehow "better". But it can also be really heartfelt.
StavrosK 12y ago
> I think overall we're seeing a growing trend, or growing condition I believe would be more apt, where people are searching for substance at a time where the digital/modern life has removed or cheapened it. Ah, the old appeal to tradition.
- unfamiliar 12y ago
  That wasn't an appeal to tradition, I don't know where you got that. And besides, it is more than that. We are human beings, our brains are designed to interact with physical objects, and when you move all of the physical objects like CDs, photos, DVDs, etc into an existence of pure information, what you end up missing is that satisfaction of holding a physical object in your hand and experiencing it with all your senses, like we did with jewels or tools centuries ago.
  - StavrosK 12y ago
    Why has digital life removed substance? Today I can talk with my friends, who are scattered all around the globe, all day, every day, in real time. I get lessons from experts on things that interest me, for free, whenever I want them, without having to lift a finger. I can call my friends at a moment's notice and we get together and do a whole host of things that would be pretty much impossible twenty years ago. How did digital life cheapen substance? Because I can no longer get on stage and touch the actors in movies? When it comes to photographs, specifically, the difference between the phone screen and a piece of paper is a hell of a lot less than the actual thing in the photograph and the photograph itself. If anything, your argument is against photography as a whole.

gaius 12y ago

I still use B&W film. It's just a different art form. People didn't stop painting when photography came along, people didn't throw away their instruments and replace them with synths, people won't stop sculpting and buy 3D printers instead. I don't care that it's not practical - I'm not doing photography for a living.

ics 12y ago
Fully agreed. Not to mention the fact that a digital back for my Hasselblad would be $10-50k :)
unfamiliar 12y ago
I'm afraid I disagree. It's not a different art form, it is just an evolution of it. There is literally nothing that film cameras can do that digital camera's can't do, and in most cases do better. Comparing the transition to painting versus photography is just ridiculous - you might as well compare painting to sculpture, because they are genuinely different art forms. 3D printing and sculpting are completely different processes to produce a 3D shape - film and digital photography are two almost identical processes to produce the same end result. I don't see a single argument in favour of film besides nostalgia. A much more accurate comparison would be someone who insists on heating pots over a wood fire every night, rather than using a gas flame.
- noblethrasher 12y ago
  Introducing (artificial) constraints can produce a different form of art.
- rubyrescue 12y ago
  people still cook over an open fire. we call those people "campers".
- gaius 12y ago
  two almost identical processes to produce the same end result Not true - wet printing with silver paper is fundamentally unlike digital output. Also, good restaurants do use wood fired ovens for pizza.

Quizz 12y ago

Just like vinyl LPs have their fans, this is just another retro lifestyle choice

Nav_Panel 12y ago
Just like and even moreso than vinyl, there are sound, non-"hipster" reasons one might choose to shoot film. The major one that keeps many artists coming back is medium/large format. It's much much cheaper to get an extremely high resolution photograph on film. Medium format is something like 100 megapixels, and it costs about a dollar per shot after initial expenses. The higher resolution might not matter on monitors, but it makes a huge difference in size limitations and sharpness when printed, and prints are generally the goal for artists. True large format like 4x5 costs something like $10 a shot depending what film you use (I've heard it can cost a lot less if you shoot cheapo medical b&w), but has insane resolution, measured in gigapixels. You can print it wall-sized, no problem. On top of that, you can only perform the full range of movements such as tilt shift and correcting for some types of perspective distortion on a large format field camera. This stuff does not matter for photojournalist or weddings or sports, but many professional artists still choose film. They never really stopped. This is in contrast to DJs, the largest supporters of vinyl through the 90s and 00s, who seem to have mostly stopped spinning vinyl unless they're scratching. As a hobbyist, I appreciate that film makes me think more about each shot. I hate the immediate feedback of digital. I love film's tactile nature. I love turning off the screen and hitting the darkroom. But for me, I agree it's definitely a lifestyle choice.
- wuliwong 12y ago
  You are comparing vinyl to film but in the way you are doing it you are implicitly comparing the experience of the consumer of the audio with the producer of the image. It is interesting though, that the "analog vs. digital" takes place both in photography and music in both the production and consumption stages. You can record analog or digital and listen to analog or digital sources of the recording. Likewise with photography, you can use a digital or film camera and then you can view the image on a print from a darkroom or on your computer monitor. It seemed as though you were using the term "hipster" to imply vinyl was more about style and trend. If that is the case, I wouldn't characterize the sonic differences between analog and digital recordings as simply "hipster" differences. There is a quantifiable difference between an analog and digital wave. Not saying one is better than the other but they are different. Your argument that the differences with film vs. digital seemed to boil down to the economics of the two mediums not any aesthetic difference. That is interesting because off the top of my head I don't think there is any scenario in music recording where it becomes cheaper to go analog. I believe, in general, analog recording is more expensive.

nightski 12y ago

Isn't it ironic that we are looking at these "real photos" on the internet using a computer monitor. Sharing your work and discussing it seems far more important than what medium it is created on...

youbeyou 12y ago
No, its not. It's a matter of perspective.

imaginenore 12y ago

I'm surprised there are no digital large format cameras or backs. I'm also surprised the medium format backs are so expensive. Isn't making larger photo sensors supposed to be easier? Btw, if you had never seen photos made on a large format camera, find a gallery near you, and go see some prints. I'm yet to see a digital equivalent of that.

justincormack 12y ago
No, they are chips, and making large defect free chips is hard. Chips are best small. You can get large format scanner backs, but they take time to scan. Sheet film is a huge cheap disposable sensor, just add a scanner and you are done if you want digital.
- imaginenore 12y ago
  Scanning is a huge pain in the ass. Even scanning 35mm is a pain, and I own a dedicated film scanner. Flatbeds for large format are just crazy hard. Newton rings are almost impossible to get rid of. Not to mention all the film processing. I'm actually thinking of making a scanning back from a scanner. You basically remove the light, and put it on the back of the large format camera.
- UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
  > No, they are chips, and making large defect free chips is hard. Chips are best small. That's true. But you can sometimes assembly lots of small chips into one larger sensor and solve a lot of the issues doing that causes in software after the fact. I suspect it doesn't exist because the market is tiny and the R&D too expensive, rather than it being an inherent problem with the tech' itself. I just don't think enough people, even pros, would spend $20K+ on one of these to justify the engineering, software, and marketing that went into it (and the level or risk). > You can get large format scanner backs, but they take time to scan. So recreating the original experience of large format then? :)
  - wlievens 12y ago

StavrosK 12y ago

Look, if you want to shoot film, shoot film. If you like the look overexposed Polaroids have, shoot overexposed Polaroids, or shoot with your lens not attached to your camera body, or whatever floats your boat, artistically. Just don't argue that other people are somehow not "real" photographers just because they don't like what you like, and don't use the "it's good because it's what was on the market the specific decade of my twenties" argument.

youbeyou 12y ago
In short, "you be you." There is room for what you like, never mind the popular opinion.
UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
If you think that is pathetic, you should see how much time photographers spend arguing about who is a real photographer because of the size of the digital sensor. It all boils down to about one or two stops, but by how people argue about it you'd think one was shooting with a Fisher Price Barbie camera and the other a Large format Hasselblad. Honestly photography is all about: Skill (practice), luck, and branding in that order. You can improve your "luck" by being at interesting locations or events for your style, but ultimately sometimes you get the shot and sometimes you don't.
- milsorgen 12y ago
  It's not worth arguing about but I have three APS-C sensor cameras and I would love to have a stop or two of performance. Being able to shoot on the evening streets at 1/60th vs 1/15th of a second? Yes please! I would say for most people, yeah it doesn't matter. But for more than a few that performance increase is very, very noticeable.
  - UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
    That's fine, nobody is saying there isn't a one or two stop difference. I just said people spend an insane amount of time arguing who is a "real" photographer because of that difference. Like "you cannot possibly shoot wedding on APS-C!!!" until it became the most popular format for weddings, and now it is "you cannot possibly shoot wedding with m43!!!" If you look at digital sensors in a historical perspective, an APS-C camera sold today is better than a full frame camera sold in 2009. Let that sink in. A m43 sensor sold today is better than APS-C sensors sold even in 2011 (by Canon). So if people aren't "real" photographers today because they have a smaller sensor, then by logical extension everyone who shot digital in 2004-2010 isn't a real photographer either.

vkjv 12y ago

Very similar to guitarists who refuse to give up tube amplifiers. I'm one of them.

SwellJoe 12y ago
I am, as well, but not because of the tubes themselves, anymore. The reason I haven't given up my tube amps is because the quality of the non-tube amps generally sucks. The reason seems to be that DSP-equipped amps with tube simulation are trying to address two problems instead of just one. One of the problems they are trying to address is the high cost of tube amps. The other is simulating a tube sound without tubes. I believe the first part of the equation is where things are going wrong. A cheap amp and speaker with a DSP simulated tube sound being run through it will still sound like a cheap amp and speaker. There may be high end manufacturers making high quality guitar amps with emulation, but I'm unaware of them. They haven't been present in the music store on any occasion I've gone in to select a new amp. The brands I'm aware of doing "tube emulation" in amps are brands I would never buy, at any cost. Behringer, Line 6 (and this is considered one of the good ones, honestly, and they do sound better than most, but are still cheaply constructed), Tech21 (again, decent, but not high end). All pretty shitty amps that happen to have a modeling DSP stuck in front. I just did some googling, and it seems Roland is out front on making a reasonably high quality modeling combo amp (GA112). I'd be willing to bet that sounds as good as a real tube amp in the same price range, because the old JC120 combo was a great solid state combo amp...Roland knows how to make a high quality solid state amp, and they were on the front line of amp modeling. Of course, it also costs as much as a real mid-range tube amp, at ~$500. I suspect there's a lot of cargo culting going on, as well. Guitarist knows their favorite recordings were made with tube amps, so they want a tube amp. So, any manufacturer wanting to make amps that are sought after, will make them tube amps, despite the many negatives to tube amps (requirement to bias them, requirement to periodically replace tubes, temperature sensitivity, etc.). In short: We're probably buying into a superstitious belief that tube amps sound better than a modeling amp of similar quality. The only problem is we can't readily find many modeling amps of similar quality because they're targeted toward a price-conscious market and so they've cut corners everywhere and not just on the lack of tube preamp and amp circuits.

panamafrank 12y ago

You get to stand in a darkroom for hours, intensely focused on one thing without any interruptions. There's is a huge amount of highly detailed knowledge needed get even passable results. It's a slow ritualistic process prone to being derailed by even the slightest mistake. All these things when earned over years give you a deep respect for the medium.

pjmlp 12y ago

There are also photographers that refuse to abandon even older style cameras, like Hiroshi Sugimoto, which uses 8x10 large-format camera for many of his works.

aaronbrethorst 12y ago

I shoot film, mostly black and white, on a regular basis[1]. I got into it a year ago January after shooting digitally[2] for the last several years before that. There is a lot to be said for working in the medium and printing optically in a wet darkroom. It's made me a much more patient, slower photographer. It's made me think more about my composition. And, it's also given me a much better sense of camaraderie than I get with a digital camera (I work in a public darkroom, and I've become good friends with a number of other regulars). If this sounds interesting to you, I highly recommend picking up a film camera and giving it a shot. I put together a blog post a few months back describing a full film kit you can put together for under $200, complete with film developing: http://www.ishootfilm.org/blog/2014/10/18/10-the-best-film-camera-kit-you-can-buy-for-under-200 http://www.ishootfilm.org/blog/2014/10/18/10-the-best-film-c... And, if you are interested in learning more about developing your own film and making your own prints, I have a list of darkrooms (and photo labs) here: http://www.ishootfilm.org/businesses http://www.ishootfilm.org/businesses [1] Like, 'every day' regular. [2] I still do. I took a couple hundred photos at a friend's birthday party last night with my digital Fuji X100S.

prayerslayer 12y ago

The major reason for me to occasionally shoot film is that I find the haptic and usability of the cameras way better than current digital models. Depends on how much you're comfortable to spend though.

decasteve 12y ago

Here's another niche of photographer: those of use who capture on the digital medium and process on a computer, but refuse to display our photographs online to be seen on a screen. My display medium is print even though my capture is digital. I print almost exclusively on large format paper. The output medium is what I want to control in my photographic process.

sigmar 12y ago
I can appreciate this position since the digital screen people view photos on can't be controlled by the content creator and screens vary a ton (in resolution, contrast, color).

arxpoetica 12y ago

The article mentions Film's Not Dead, but fails to mention http://filmisnotdead.com/ http://filmisnotdead.com/

bitL 12y ago

No wonder. Recently I bought Nikon D750, "camera of the year 2014", and barely see any difference to D7000 (except for high ISO where D750 is stunning), the skin is still as mushy and features flat as always. Then I bought Sigma SD1 Merrill, with a 3-layer Foveon sensor that is probably the closest to a film-equivalent digital camera and the studio portrait photos are simply breathtaking despite camera being a slow clunker with horrible high ISO. I really can't go back to D750 now, all pictures feel flat, details hidden, unnatural noise at ISO 100 etc. It might be that those that like to stay with film don't like the effect of most digital sensors. If you search on photography forums, plenty of people are displeased by digital look, and if you have a perfect color vision (like I do), it sometimes hurts... There is of course a lot of nostalgia and desire to be different while sticking to film. Technically in most measurable characteristics digital sensors vastly outperform film, yet there are some subtle characteristics we perceive they have hard time to replicate (like microcontrast). Of course, some digital cameras bring their own "artistic license" to the mix, like Canon is known for pleasant color palette and being very flattering to a model look, and many people then prefer such a look to anything shot on film which looks more realistic.

cube00 12y ago

A similar story about Polaroid film is covered in the doco "Time Zero" http://timezeromovie.com/ http://timezeromovie.com/