Anyone who has shot film enough knows that different film stocks are wildly different. Color negative film unedited would look like a weird, orange-ish image. And if it was cloudy outside when shooting, white balancing would be a must unless you wanted a strongly blue tinted image. There is, however, a natural component with film that cannot be emulated i.
The response curve for a digital sensor is linear which makes it substantially better for long exposures and better for retaining detail in the shadows. Most film on the other hand have a logarithmic response curve which is why there can be an issue of reciprocity failure.
As a result, it is extraordinarily difficult to overexpose film beyond the point of no return. However, every film stock is different and how they respond to over or under-exposure is different. In conclusion, I do not believe that shooting film would make anyone a better photographer. Personally, I found that my digital work was without purpose. Instead, I wanted work that meant something to me. By that time, I felt like there was a slightly sterile, plastic-y feeling about my digital work.
Picking up film again for the first time since I was younger, I found myself drawn to that work. I do not expect to sway anyone one way or the other. I do, on the other hand, hope that this article presented both sides of the argument enough to give someone a fair understanding of what to expect should they want to start shooting film.
Who knows — you may find yourself shooting it more than digital! Madison is a mathematician turned statistician based out of Columbus, OH. He fell back in love with film years ago while living in Charleston, SC and hasn't looked back since. In early he started a website about film photography. Check out the Fstoppers Store for in-depth tutorials from some of the best instructors in the business.
Good thoughts and images. I do enjoy both digital and film, but tend too be shooting more film at the moment. In the world of art, convenience and productivity two pluses for digital- digital did not take over for aesthetic considerations, but certainly digital is now in the realm of film, and has at least future potential to exceed it are not always the main drivers of usage of a medium many people still paint for instance. Sharpness is not always the most important attribute of an image.
For commercial photography often it is, but not necessarily for aesthetic images. I think using film can make you a better photographer. I would say the more photographic mediums you experience, the better you would become. Also, if you can feel confident due to the experience of achieving your shots with a shot without previewing it instantly, then certainly this at least validates progress in your photography.
That is not to say you may not occasionally miss a shot because of something you did not catch. That is part of the film experience.
Mark - I agree with much of what you've said and I appreciate that you mentioned missing a shot as 'part of the film experience. Nice piece, James. Also it helped to de-crop my approach :. There is no "best" when it comes to photography. What is your individual style, how you deliver images to a client or simply shooting for yourself are just a few of the questions one needs to ask themselves.
I also remember shooting with a RZ67Pro and seeing the transparencies on the lightbox and the beautiful grain of the TRI-X pushed a stop. Fast forward to the instant gratification of shooting tethered to CaptureOne and the client looking at the computer display. These days, I don't know if I have the patience to wait on the clip test let alone the drive to a lab that offers such a thing.
Oh, how times have changed and those photo budgets have gone the opposite direction. I can honestly say that viewing a new roll of transparency film for the first time is perhaps the most addictive thing I've ever experienced in photography. I would argue that the requirement for patience is part of what makes it special.
Albeit, it likely contributes as to why it isn't appropriate for client work if that's what you do. Have you considered shooting through a roll or two for your personal work? This is the right take - I like film simply because I love how certain films look Provia x, ektachrome vs, portra !!!
I never liked the argument that film made you a better photographer because of its limitations - it sucks when you have ASA film and the sun went away.
You have to take notes because there is no instant review. You need to wait until your film was processed before you can comment on your photos - "oh, I spot metered the highlight, but I placed it in the mid tones" "oh, I should have dropped the fill flash another stop". I don't like the argument that it slows you down - you can slow yourself down with digital too. I also hate how film in this decade implies imperfections - the faded prints look became an expectation, along with grain, and light leaks.
Enough of my ramblings - look at a well lit portrait done on portra - look at a slide on a lightbox! That's the reason to shoot film for me. I've never shot with Provia x nor does it seem like it is still available. I'm a huge fan of Provia F - it's my favorite transparency film for This is actually what I exactly feel about film photography right now I have just started learning to shoot films and develop them in the Darkroom this month.
I gotta say, after this many years of shooting digital, I felt like film somehow just feels better, and the photos I take actually makes an impression. The sharpness that film lacks is exactly why I love it. I now am shooting with a Pentax K beginner camera lol , at first I didn't get used to not able to see the photo after taking it, and it was frustrating at times.
But after printing it for the first time in the Darkroom, the next time I went out to shoot, all those feelings of frustration went away, because I cannot wait to get back to the Darkroom to see the image come out on the print paper. Also, I love the process of seeing the negatives come out after finished developing them, and printing them, seeing the images appear in the developer fluid, man there is just no better feeling than that especially when you nailed the exposure and focus.
It just feels so magical. Really want to try out Portra and Cinestill in the future. Any recommendations for film stocks to try out? That's awesome. Portra has its reputation for a reason. It's worth shooting through a pro pack of it for sure. If you really want to be enamored with film, shoot a roll of slide film; Ektachrome or Provia would be a great starting place. Get them developed at a place that will also mount them and you'll understand why several people in this comments section have brought up transparency a.
I spent like 20 years shooting film, 35mm - 8x10 and I am glad that now I have a choice. I don't think that shooting less has ever worked for me. I may have an idea in my head how I want to shoot something. If I only shoot it the way I imagined it I'll get a good photo.
I then shoot some variations of that idea and often I end up with better photo. If I can explore a little sometimes I get something unexpected. I had a photo teacher who called it "What Else? Often I get something better, sometimes the first idea was the only way to do it. In medical research, arguably the most common phrase is "So What? I would say that as far as learning process is concerned, film photography can definitely make one a better photographer. Take two people who know nothing about photography and give one a DSLR and let the other grab an all manual film camera with few rolls of film.
Then come back later and see which one understands better concept of proper exposure, aperture, shutter time, ISO, etc.
While that's true, it's predicated on the the film photographer using an all manual camera and the DSLR photographer shooting in all Auto mode. While I agree it's more likely a new film photographer would know of and understand the exposure triangle than another new digital photographer, anyone with a digital camera and interest in the physics of how cameras work i. Certainly anyone with digital camera is capable of learning all of the above.
Capable but not forced to, as in case of a manual film camera. To be perfectly clear, I am not speaking here just hypotetically. My first camera was Nikon FM I had to sit down and learn basic of exposure before I ran first roll of film through it. Some people I know who started with DSLR, were shooting away in "green" mode for a long time before they decided to understand process a bit deeper.
You and I have had similar experiences except my first camera was an old Minolta X However, I see a lot of value training your eye for framing, composition, etc Print, play, learn. Latest home laptops. Home desktops and All-in-Ones. Business laptops. Business desktops. Z Workstations. Home printers. Business printers. Large-format printers. Industrial presses. Specialty printing solutions. Managed print services. Business solutions. Industry solutions. HP Services. Explore all. Public sector purchasing.
Retail solutions. Weekly Deals. Business store. University student discounts. Business discounts. Track your order. Shop PCs. Gaming PCs. Shop Print. Laser printers. Large format plotter printers. Shop Accessories. Docking stations. Care Packs. Problem solving.
Diagnostic tools. Windows 10 support center. Support by product. Other Products. A great combination. I loved the physical and mechanical nature of using cameras like that and developing the images myself. But honestly, the faff of developing and scanning the pictures especiallly the scanning!
There is a certain aesthetic with film, especially in colour, which I love but find hard to replicate digitally. The thing I miss most in film is not any artistic photography per se but rather the old-school feel of family snapshots. Some of my favourite pictures in recent years have been those I shot on 35mm of family parties and Christmas etc.
Inspired, I parted with the last of my manual cameras and picked up a Canon Sureshot Zoom 65 for a pittance in an online auction. Its a great camera — very simple to use, can be switched on easily with the flash off and in use as a 38mm prime lens makes great images.
The vast majority of my photography these days is digital, but I guess my top three reasons to love film are:. The aesthetic 2. The hands on in involvement in making the image and negatives 3. The tactile mechanics of old cameras. That said, I have no access to a darkroom where I live and no ability to build one. Even then, scans from consumer labs can be a mixed bag, and I am oftentimes disappointed with them as well sometimes the quality of my negatives is in part to blame, other times the lab just does a poor job.
But, my hope is that eventually I will either gain access to a darkroom best case scenario or happen across a working quality scanner from yesteryear Nikon, Minolta, etc.
I have a long ways to go. Nonetheless, film is a medium I care deeply about, so despite the hurdles scanning being the big one I will continue to shoot as much as possible and strive to further my understanding of it. I firmly believe film is something all photographers should at least play around with once to see if they also find it to be something truly special, as I have.
And their reasons very well may be entirely different than my own. I admit myself that digital seems more disposable and easier to delete.
I imagine they would laugh in our faces, and they would be right to do so. As just one example, why do people today pay more money for cloud-based, highly compressed i. This is already happening. This in turn means that only tangible, physical items have actual value, and a longevity only limited by how well the owner of these items takes care of them.
Music and movies are only one small example of this. Why people have so willingly bought into this — literally — is beyond me. Not at all. However, along that line of thought, I believe digital photography does have real value in its ability to allow people to learn photographic technique by shooting manually and gaining knowledge through experimentation composition, shutter speeds, apertures, lighting, etc.
Out of your followers, probably a ton, but in general my guess would be a tiny fraction. I agree. I even find the continuous shooting modes of later-era film cameras to be nothing shy of laughable. In some ways I wish I could shoot digital cameras with the same slow, deliberate, thoughtful approach I take to film photography, the way you seem to be able to. But with regards to your discussion on people trying to eliminate imperfection from their photography, specifically digital, I actually think there is a deeper issue here.
Arguably, what is missing is actually precisely what film is. Digital photography, after all, is and always has been nothing more than an attempt to replicate the true, analog medium: film. Since it is an impossibility for it to ever fully achieve this task, it means this will just go on indefinitely. But from a technical perspective, and specifically addressing the topic of digital noise, this is not simply an imperfection, but a legitimate problem, one that really does need to be eliminated as much as possible.
There are plenty of studies on this topic. If I cared about digital photography, and had the means, I would do exactly the same thing. This is no accident.
Ultimately, this has culminated into what we see today, with digital cameras and post-processing software having built-in film presets. And for anyone who actually took the time to read all the way through this, thank you! P, thanks as always for your thoughtful response.
I remember the whole outcry when mp3 music files were first appearing and how much lower quality they were compared with CDs, which themselves many argued were inferior to vinyl records… The same digital versus analogue argument can be applied across a whole range of media and formats. I do have mixed feelings about it. I do really enjoy the digital cameras I have, and the images are fine for my needs — in digital and print form.
But yes I love old film cameras too, and the whole tactile aspect of the equipment and the canisters of film, then looking at the negatives afterwards. Again I love the physical and tactile aspect of a book, the texture, the scent, the weight, how the pages wear and yellow over time, and so on.
I think an offshoot effect of this is people value digital files and devices less. They all feel more disposable. But who wants to store s of junk images? I would say I still take a few more images with a digital camera compared with film.
But it is comparable. Over an hour or two photowalk I might have used two 36exp rolls of film, and with digital I might shoot 50 — 75 images. To be honest I find overly sharp, clinical, saturated digital images far more offensive to the eye than those with a little noise. If I was making billboard size posters obviously my favoured equipment would be inadequate for the expectations of that format and the flaws be magnified.
Finally yes it is ironic that cameras now come with film presets built in, and even become a significant factor in why people choose certain brands. I do apologize if they ever eat up too much of your time. I do my best to avoid them, but given that they seem to be everywhere these days not just online, but on billboards, product packaging, marketing advertisements everywhere you look, etc.
I guess when digital began, its main aim was to emulate film, plus offer benefits of speed, cost and convenience. This was true for the photographers who were early adopters of digital cameras and were used to the look of film and craved some consistency in their work, and for the manufacturers who wanted to sell their new digital cameras to photographers raised on film, and make the transition and the purchase!
Over time, digital has had a chance to find its way and its voice, and stand alone as a medium in its own right. In our personal opinion. Put another way, they look fake, like you said. Add into this the rise and evolution of photography software. Even many who shoot film choose to then process it extensively via digital software, something not possibly really at least not at home 20 or more years ago. I think this might be a bigger factor here actually P.
So the sharpening, colour shifts, effects et al are intentionally added to the basic image, as if the camera produce a simple vase of grey clay and the processing adds colours, varnish, decoration, a handle even, etc. I know you take issue with the general standard of film scanning, but the above is why when I was shooting film I just focused on enjoying the photography part getting out exploring and making pictures with a camera and left the developing, scanning and processing entirely to the lab.
Hence my ongoing hunt for cameras that give me images I love straight out of camera, side stepping the entire processing, er, process. First off, thanks for your kind comments. Rather, it was meant as a legitimate compliment. But used correctly, it can have merit. But thankfully the engineers at Kodak et. But even then, if people had darkrooms with color equipment analogous to color digital post-processing today they could do just about anything to a color image they wanted to, even in line with what people do today shy of producing awful digital artifacts.
I agree with you. And that was the point I was trying to make when I stated how ironic it was that as digital cameras have become better at mimicking the nature of film, people have proceeded to ruin that quality with post-processing and taken things in the opposite direction. Yes, post-processing is effectively a hobby and discipline entirely separate from photography if one chooses for it to be. I spent many years and probably thousands of hours creating and editing digital images.
This was pretty early in the digital craze, and I was genuinely interested. Even going back to the Windows 95 era, the first time I saw someone playing around in Microsoft Paint I was absolutely fascinated by it, and the possibilities of what even such a basic piece of graphic design software could allow.
Another one of my hobbies that I also invested tremendous time into was programming. Again, what was I left with in the end? Same thing… Prior to the digital age my primary hobbies were drawing graphite, charcoal, and pastels mainly and painting oil and acrylic. Guess what? I still have most of that stuff. Maybe that will help provide some context to these discussions. Yes, that is entirely true. I do, however, apply real value to my negatives, because, well, they are real, plain and simple. And you already know my extensive opinions on that topic.
That, and the fact I genuinely get a sense of the time and effort you put into creating pleasing images in-camera. I not only respect that, but I can see it in your work. It stands out because of it. I get that. For me, the value of photography is pretty much an even split between the process and the created thing that comes out of it i.
If all digital shooters were like you, and took your approach, I honestly would not have issues with it. Finally, regarding simplicity, I actually agree with you entirely. I firmly believe the best things in life are simple. Thanks for the latest chapter. This is what blogging is about for me, a platform for this kind of discussion and exchange of ideas. Technology plus connectivity has made it all possible. Inevitably with such an opening of floodgates, not everyone is going to have the same talent, needs, standards, requirements or taste.
This is a major reason I started delving seriously into photography books for the first time, only perhaps eighteen months ago. I wonder too if the proliferation of highly processed digital images is simply because people can do this now.
In the 80s and 90s, image editing software was far more primitive and limited. Now look at what you can do with Photoshop, Lightroom et al. I think perhaps many people just get software like this for the first time and party like a kid in a sweet shop, trying a little taste of every last option available to them. But for me the cognitive over load of so many choices means I shy away from it. Each to their own. But I never find myself typing and enjoying the process much on a physical level, delighting at how my fingers feel bashing the cheap grubby plastic of my Dell keyboard at work.
But I still love using a pencil to write or draw, just the feeling, the sound, the way the thickness and darkness of the lines vary depending on the subtlety of pressure you apply…. My goodness how this is the complete antithesis of what cycling is to me and how I enjoy the freedom of the outdoors, the wind in my hair, the peacefulness! Whereas with cameras, the experience, the feeling and so on play a major part in the overall appeal and enjoyment.
I think many would probably read about my preference of JPEGs and getting images straight out of camera, and dismiss me as an amateur, lazy, or both. Thanks, Dan. I will comment on a few of your thoughts though. With regards to my prior discussion of photography as a traditional art form, I was in no way including snapshots in the equation, even film snapshots. Snapshots are snapshots, and I have no problem with them in any format or in any quantity.
I have no expectation of them being works of art. Are snapshots not by their very nature a personal thing? Why put them online? But back to photography as a traditional art form, back in the day, using film, if you wanted to excel at photography as art, you had to actually know what you were doing and have true talent. This took time and legitimate effort to develop. The same is true with all traditional art forms, whether it be film photography, oil painting, watercolors, charcoal drawing, pastels, printmaking, ceramics, etcetera.
The list goes on and on. It means the original, unadulterated, physical process. Nor do they care to learn as that would require too much effort for them. In my opinion, this has trashed the medium. Or has everyone old enough to remember the difference forgotten? I severely miss film projection in movie theaters. Yes, the internet has ruined so many things, not just photography. Sadly, most people born in the last twenty years or so will never be able to understand this, because they never knew the world back when everything in it was actually real, and as such most everything had a lot more true value.
I was fortunate enough to have access to all the Macromedia and Adobe software while I was in school since the school licensed it, allowing me to spend a great deal of time playing with and learning it. Plus, I had already experimented with a lot of open source software and I could do most everything with it that I could with the expensive commercial stuff. Today, for post-processing my film scans a necessary, but not at all enjoyable process I primarily use darktable and GIMP, but there are plenty of other useful open source packages as well, such as Image Magick, an extremely powerful command line image processing tool.
It was very well-developed by the time I got tired of it and quit doing a whole lot with it. And I have kept up with new developments since, just out of curiosity. To be honest, other than RAW processing and higher bit-depths gaining wider support, not much has changed in the past decade as far as I can tell.
There are a lot more gimmicky bells and whistles e. Even things like HDR or image stacking were not really anything new when they started becoming a big deal.
0コメント