3 ms·

Do you think this argument is going to convince someone who enjoys shooting with film? I'm sure it won't, and that's interesting. The question comes up all over

by mbrock 12y ago

Do you think this argument is going to convince someone who enjoys shooting with film? I'm sure it won't, and that's interesting. The question comes up all over in art making, and it's never resolved through these kinds of arguments. I don't think most people who enjoy shooting on film put it forward as better than digital. That's why you don't hear "a single argument in favour." It's not a question of better or worse. As for your argument, "digital cameras can do everything film cameras do" is first of all wrong, and second of all irrelevant even if true. Why wrong? Well, consider chemical crossprocessing, or the effects of expired film, or just the different tones of different types of stock. You might either be uninterested in such things, or think that these effects can be easily reproduced with postprocessing, but even in the latter case it's different, different skills are required, different tools, different mindsets. Why irrelevant? Because at least some of the perceived value of film comes from the limitations themselves. That's something you can never get at through making the digital tools more advanced—in fact, it just gets worse. For someone who shoots on B&W film, the lack of color can be a feature. Even the small capacity of a film roll can be a boon; for example, it might give me a mindset of scarcity and significance. There's a restaurant in Stockholm that only uses wood fire. I won't knock it until I've tasted it. And the presence of fire is something in itself, aside from culinary blind tests.

gaius 12y ago
For someone who shoots on B&W film, the lack of color can be a feature. Yes, you will definitely notice this if you shoot alot - composition in B&W images is more about geometry and symmetry and texture, and you look at colours differently two, you are always thinking, that's a vivid contrast in colour but they will be the same tone of grey. Shooting colour with the intent to convert later, is as you say a different mindset.
- 75dvtwin 12y ago
  I agree with that. I find that looking at good B&W photos is similar to listening to acoustic instrumental music. Where the characteristics of the music are passed through an instrument without coloration by voice or by other instruments
- steve19 12y ago
  how is it a different mindset? you don't see B&W through your viewfinder? you see the exact same thing the color-covert-later shooter is seeing. also, modern digital cameras with EVF allow you to see B&W through the viewfinder.
  - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
    But not film B&W, which has a different colour and contrast response to "let's remove all the saturation" viewfinder B&W. Personally I'm happy with a 100% digital workflow. In fact these days I take most photos on an iPhone, and leave the SLR at home. But I also know that film and optical filtering look different.. You can produce an imitation of a film look with digital processing. But it's an imitation. There are subtleties of colour, grain, contrast/brightness response, and differential colour resolution that are very complicated. And different films respond in different ways. Everyone can see the difference between digital, budget Kodak, and a roll of Fujifilm Velvia. And if you're shooting medium or large-format, that's a different ballgame again. Don't believe me? Take some pictures of a fire. The film and digital versions will look completely different. Is it worth the effort? For snappy snaps, certainly not. Digital kills it for convenience. But if I worked as high-end commercial landscape, architectural, or art photographer, I'd certainly consider film for at least some projects.
unfamiliar 12y ago
>Do you think this argument is going to convince someone who enjoys shooting with film? No, I don't think it will convince them to shoot digital, which is a lost cause. I was more specifically arguing about the claim that it is a different art form, which I think is nonsense and pretentious >Because at least some of the perceived value of film comes from the limitations themselves. I agree with this and everything else you wrote. But my response to this is to see the advantage in scarcity of shots, and the limiting nature of black and white, and apply those restrictions shooting in digital.
- mbrock 12y ago
  Ah, I see. Yeah, I'm not sure what "different art form" is supposed to mean, and I don't really see it that way... But my response to this is to see the advantage in scarcity of shots, and the limiting nature of black and white, and apply those restrictions shooting in digital. That has a certain rationality to it, but I don't think it's that simple. You could certainly tell people to just do it, but psychologically, emotionally, cognitively, it's not the same. I'm not much of a photographer, but I know that with music software that has too many options, I end up confused, stressed, exhausted by possibilities. That's not inherent to the tools, it's just a feature of my limited psyche. So I appreciate tools that are themselves "restricted." But when I'm actually using such tools—like simple guitar effect pedals, or simple portable recorders—I don't think in terms of restrictions. Because I don't have to think so much about the infinite possibilities of digital stuff at all. I can "get into a zone", kind of like driving a manual car. When I do photography, I'm attracted to the notion of "contemplative photography," which some people might find weird. But it means among other things that the intimate physical aspects of the equipment are as important as anything. Dealing with a colorful menu display with choices of widescreen, pixel resolutions, presets, etc has a subtle cognitive presence that can be disturbing. Instruments and tools are "user interfaces" or "user experiences." Sometimes the distinction between analog and digital is fetishized. The distinction between simplicity and complexity seems more important.
- gaius 12y ago
  I think is nonsense and pretentious If your experience of film photography is sending a roll off and getting an envelope of prints back, then maybe, but if you are developing yourself, the development process involves all sorts of trade-offs of time, temperature, and chemistry, then wet-printing is more of the same, along with literal dodging and burning (do you ever wonder why the Photoshop tools are called that?). It really has very, very little in common with a digital workflow. So your point is one from ignorance.
gscott 12y ago
The nice thing about B&W it is easy to develop at home so worst case after developing it is scanning it to get it into the computer.
mc32 12y ago
One of my favorite Fil groups on flickr is https://www.flickr.com/groups/onfilm/pool/ https://www.flickr.com/groups/onfilm/pool/ (Film isn't dead, it just smells funny). Some are very serious about their preference, some just like experimenting. Reading their discussions can be at times, enlightening. Just to reinforce on the point of people wanting to continue with what they know and love, we still have people who mostly work on large format film or medium format film. Granted, the perception granted by the lenses for these formats, give you a completely different feeling from that of 35mm and smaller. One thing film was better at than digital, at least a couple of years ago was dynamic range. You can have the bright sun in your filed of view and the surrounding area are not "blown out" (all highlights)

by mbrock 12y ago

gaius 12y ago

For someone who shoots on B&W film, the lack of color can be a feature. Yes, you will definitely notice this if you shoot alot - composition in B&W images is more about geometry and symmetry and texture, and you look at colours differently two, you are always thinking, that's a vivid contrast in colour but they will be the same tone of grey. Shooting colour with the intent to convert later, is as you say a different mindset.

75dvtwin 12y ago
I agree with that. I find that looking at good B&W photos is similar to listening to acoustic instrumental music. Where the characteristics of the music are passed through an instrument without coloration by voice or by other instruments
steve19 12y ago
how is it a different mindset? you don't see B&W through your viewfinder? you see the exact same thing the color-covert-later shooter is seeing. also, modern digital cameras with EVF allow you to see B&W through the viewfinder.
- TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
  But not film B&W, which has a different colour and contrast response to "let's remove all the saturation" viewfinder B&W. Personally I'm happy with a 100% digital workflow. In fact these days I take most photos on an iPhone, and leave the SLR at home. But I also know that film and optical filtering look different.. You can produce an imitation of a film look with digital processing. But it's an imitation. There are subtleties of colour, grain, contrast/brightness response, and differential colour resolution that are very complicated. And different films respond in different ways. Everyone can see the difference between digital, budget Kodak, and a roll of Fujifilm Velvia. And if you're shooting medium or large-format, that's a different ballgame again. Don't believe me? Take some pictures of a fire. The film and digital versions will look completely different. Is it worth the effort? For snappy snaps, certainly not. Digital kills it for convenience. But if I worked as high-end commercial landscape, architectural, or art photographer, I'd certainly consider film for at least some projects.

unfamiliar 12y ago

>Do you think this argument is going to convince someone who enjoys shooting with film? No, I don't think it will convince them to shoot digital, which is a lost cause. I was more specifically arguing about the claim that it is a different art form, which I think is nonsense and pretentious >Because at least some of the perceived value of film comes from the limitations themselves. I agree with this and everything else you wrote. But my response to this is to see the advantage in scarcity of shots, and the limiting nature of black and white, and apply those restrictions shooting in digital.

mbrock 12y ago
Ah, I see. Yeah, I'm not sure what "different art form" is supposed to mean, and I don't really see it that way... But my response to this is to see the advantage in scarcity of shots, and the limiting nature of black and white, and apply those restrictions shooting in digital. That has a certain rationality to it, but I don't think it's that simple. You could certainly tell people to just do it, but psychologically, emotionally, cognitively, it's not the same. I'm not much of a photographer, but I know that with music software that has too many options, I end up confused, stressed, exhausted by possibilities. That's not inherent to the tools, it's just a feature of my limited psyche. So I appreciate tools that are themselves "restricted." But when I'm actually using such tools—like simple guitar effect pedals, or simple portable recorders—I don't think in terms of restrictions. Because I don't have to think so much about the infinite possibilities of digital stuff at all. I can "get into a zone", kind of like driving a manual car. When I do photography, I'm attracted to the notion of "contemplative photography," which some people might find weird. But it means among other things that the intimate physical aspects of the equipment are as important as anything. Dealing with a colorful menu display with choices of widescreen, pixel resolutions, presets, etc has a subtle cognitive presence that can be disturbing. Instruments and tools are "user interfaces" or "user experiences." Sometimes the distinction between analog and digital is fetishized. The distinction between simplicity and complexity seems more important.
gaius 12y ago
I think is nonsense and pretentious If your experience of film photography is sending a roll off and getting an envelope of prints back, then maybe, but if you are developing yourself, the development process involves all sorts of trade-offs of time, temperature, and chemistry, then wet-printing is more of the same, along with literal dodging and burning (do you ever wonder why the Photoshop tools are called that?). It really has very, very little in common with a digital workflow. So your point is one from ignorance.

gscott 12y ago

The nice thing about B&W it is easy to develop at home so worst case after developing it is scanning it to get it into the computer.

mc32 12y ago

One of my favorite Fil groups on flickr is https://www.flickr.com/groups/onfilm/pool/ https://www.flickr.com/groups/onfilm/pool/ (Film isn't dead, it just smells funny). Some are very serious about their preference, some just like experimenting. Reading their discussions can be at times, enlightening. Just to reinforce on the point of people wanting to continue with what they know and love, we still have people who mostly work on large format film or medium format film. Granted, the perception granted by the lenses for these formats, give you a completely different feeling from that of 35mm and smaller. One thing film was better at than digital, at least a couple of years ago was dynamic range. You can have the bright sun in your filed of view and the surrounding area are not "blown out" (all highlights)