Am I a Film Snob?

2F/2F · Jun 12, 2008

"My point is that properly executed, the medium is directly relevant to the artifact. (print)"

We have the same point then. We just said it in reverse. The way I would say what I originally said, based on your quote that I copied would be: "Improperly executed, the medium is irrelevant to the artifact (print)." I guess I am just a nattering nabob of negativism.

Just remember that YOU give yourself the perfect exposure, not your equip. But you know that, I am sure. I just wanted to make that point to the OP.

Also, originally, I used to term "medium" to specify film or digital. I think both are valid methods of recording photographs, and I was trying to say that both are highly dependent on technique to get the pix you want. Blowing a shot is blowing a shot, regardless of whether you are shooting film or digital. What exact technical issue blows the shot may be slightly different for each, but a blown shot is simply a blown shot regardless of medium. My point was that there is no point in film snobbery if you are making an irrecoverable technical error anyhow. It's like having a Ford vs. Chevy debate when you just have your learners permit. At this point, you should be more concerned about just getting to the liquor store and back than about what type of car you are driving there.

I was simply trying to minimize or eliminate the notion of the film vs. digital debate. I see them both as useful tools for pix making. I have more to worry about when shooting small format than film vs. digital. Basically: Don't be a film snob. Don't be a digital snob. There is no point. Just be a pix taker/maker.

Marc Akemann · Jun 12, 2008

Don Wallace said:
This whole thread is very funny.......

At the other end of the spectrum, I was in DC last year with my RB67 and stumbled upon the shooting of a scene for the last "Bourne" movie (btw, I saw the movie and I think this scene hit the cutting room floor). I started to bang off a few shots with the RB and was immediately set upon by security guards who told me I was not allowed to shoot there. I told them politely but pretty firmly that since this was a public place, yes, I could shoot. They grumbled and then insisted that I could not use these photos for commercial purposes. This is also untrue, but I decided not to argue and confessed that I was just a tourist. "With a camera like THAT?" the guard asked, incredulous. At this point, my wife piped in informing the man that I was a photography nerd. He then wanted to know all about the camera. Not even wood and brass, and yet he was intrigued simply by the bulk of it in this age of small cameras.

Perhaps security mistook the sound of your RB for gunshots.

And later, in the editing room, "What the hell is that noise? Too expensive to redo the sound, let's cut this scene. Dammit!"

JBrunner · Jun 12, 2008

In regard to the OP, I don't think being enthusiastic about something need be snobbish. People collect and band together with certain automobiles, for instance. It may appear snobbish to the uninitiated, but it is really just a group of people that share a common interest. Those that think that kind of appreciation is snobbery simply don't appreciate what the group is into. When they call you a snob, it is a symptom of their own issues. (responses to pompous A-holes aside)

bnjlosh · Jun 12, 2008

I like this thread...it seems that film peeps are getting the same responses everywhere "wow, what is that" looks...I was in Shanghai last January walking around with my 124G and I got strange looks from the locals...in fact, I saw more digicams there than I have seen anywhere at one time...maybe they thought "stupid american"...

Vincent Brady · Jun 12, 2008

Yes you are a "film snob" and the sooner you get over it the better. Get on with taking your photographs and try to improve every step of the way. Digital is just vaguely related to analog and each have there own skills to master. So concentrate on your own craft to increase your own satisfaction.

Cheers
TEX

Don Wallace · Jun 12, 2008

FilmSprocket said:
Perhaps security mistook the sound of your RB for gunshots.

And later, in the editing room, "What the hell is that noise? Too expensive to redo the sound, let's cut this scene. Dammit!"

Now, I had not thought of that. Perhaps there was a huge mirror KA-THWACK at the wrong moment. You might be right.

jamusu · Jun 13, 2008

Everyone.

I developed the film a couple of days ago. It seems as though I may have something. I will keep you posted.

I just left a shoot where I a documenting a local community event around an hour ago. I am a member of the council and will finish up tomorrow night.

This time I used two cameras, my K-1000 and my newly purchased Yashica GSN Electro and first rangefinder. Boy are rangefinders a different beast!

I was able to photograph the artist's on stage as they performed. The attention that I received from having two cameras strapped around my neck was intoxicating, but this time I did a much better job of keeping my, "FILM SNOBBERY" under control and focused on the task at hand.

Jamusu.

Removed Account · Jun 14, 2008

Don Wallace said:
Now, I had not thought of that. Perhaps there was a huge mirror KA-THWACK at the wrong moment. You might be right.

You didn't use the mirror lock-up? Tsk tsk, how can you ever expect sharp photos without using MLU????

JMcLaug351 · Jun 14, 2008

benjiboy said:
Speaking personally, I'm still struggling with film after shooting it for more than fifty years, and am still in awe of film especially the the current ones. I have no inclination to start re -learning a medium that the camera manufacturers have re-invented to keep the camera market alive, persuading people to replace perfectly good film cameras with their latest miracle cameras.

I hope that one day I can become a good enough photographer to justify the equipment I own

Ah, here is the rub! Still struggling with film after shooting for fifty years. What does that tell you about film? About the medium? About why people go right to digital?

I hope one day I can become a good enough photographer to justify my equipment? After fifty years!!

I too, am in the same boat. But for a few less years. For me it's about 35 years. Now don't get me wrong I love film. I won't leave it. But digital has it's place. I bought a point and shoot digital camera. It taught me more about my own photography in the first month that I ever could have imagined.

Being able to see the images right there and at the end of the day seeing everything I'd shot full size on the monitor showed me my foibles so clearly. My composition "errors", my subject choices.. (too narow) and of course my sexposure errors.

My film photography "improved" right away.
And for us "old timers" let us not forget what we complained about before the advent of digital. We complained about the film, the paper, the chemistry.. right? Any one remember how often Fred Picker complained about the "materials" of photography? Why do we shoot with larger format cameras? Isn't at least some or most of the reason we use larger format camras is the "quality" of the image?

So for me it's not either.. its both. Because after all is said and done it's all Photography and the is what I really love.
JOHN

djacobox372 · Jun 16, 2008

JBrunner said:
The medium is important to me. Dead on perfect exposure with my 8x10 makes it apparent exactly how relevant the medium is for me.

IMO, there are snobs on both sides.

Mastering digital can be just as difficult as mastering film... in fact "dead on exposure" is far less important with film, because of the extra latitude. One has to be a bit better at exposure to create truly great prints with digital.

I shoot film because of it's extra latitude at 35mm, along with resolution at medium and large format, but digital will one day soon surpass film in those aspects as well; and my film cameras will be retired for good.

I guess I'm a "results" snob

JBrunner · Jun 16, 2008

djacobox372 said:
IMO, there are snobs on both sides.

Mastering digital can be just as difficult as mastering film... in fact "dead on exposure" is far less important with film, because of the extra latitude. One has to be a bit better at exposure to create truly great prints with digital.

I shoot film because of it's extra latitude at 35mm, along with resolution at medium and large format, but digital will one day soon surpass film in those aspects as well; and my film cameras will be retired for good.

I guess I'm a "results" snob

I really am not sure why you chose to quote me, but you are wrong, especially if you are insinuating that I am some kind of snob. Perfect exposure is very important to the outcome of a good print with film. Film is more forgiving, so an error to overexposure isn't fatal to a dilettante printmaker, but a really good print needs a really good process. It all comes down to where your standard is, and saying that exposure doesn't matter as much because of the capability of film is simply a lazy approach to an average print.

There's no histogram to chimp, either.

How difficult something is doesn't really cut it in photography. It's how good you are. Tools are tools. Knock yourself out.

Guess I'm a truth and facts snob.

jamusu · Jun 18, 2008

TEX said:
Yes you are a "film snob" and the sooner you get over it the better. Get on with taking your photographs and try to improve every step of the way. Digital is just vaguely related to analog and each have there own skills to master. So concentrate on your own craft to increase your own satisfaction.

Cheers
TEX

Well stated TEX.

Jamusu.

Removed Account · Jun 19, 2008

I'm a process snob. I love what many digi converts hate about film; spending time in the dark or a dimly lit room, working with chemicals and associated odours (though I have yet to use my Kodak Sepia II, we'll see how I react to the sulphide), fewer shots and at a slower pace. Pretty much the only thing I don't enjoy is washing the prints and trying to flatten them. I find the whole process infinitely more satisfying to work with than even a high-end digital setup like I use at work (PS CS3, 24" Wacom monitor, Epson 7600 and some Noritsu machine).

Don Wallace · Jun 23, 2008

Justin Silber said:
I'm a process snob. I love what many digi converts hate about film; spending time in the dark or a dimly lit room, working with chemicals and associated odours (though I have yet to use my Kodak Sepia II, we'll see how I react to the sulphide), fewer shots and at a slower pace. Pretty much the only thing I don't enjoy is washing the prints and trying to flatten them. I find the whole process infinitely more satisfying to work with than even a high-end digital setup like I use at work (PS CS3, 24" Wacom monitor, Epson 7600 and some Noritsu machine).

Justin, amen to that. It is the work flow of digital that leaves me cold. I love the darkroom. Thanks to all of those folks who hated the smell and went digital, I got some fabulous equipment at firesale prices.

ricksplace · Jun 24, 2008

K_Pugh said:
Just to add my 2 pence worth.

I prefer film over digital, everything about it. The only way i'll go digital is for colour due to expense mostly but i'll still carry a 35mm camera around with me.

I felt the same way for years. I tried digital for colour, and didn't like the results. I gave my digital camera to my daughter. I bit the bullet and tried colour in my darkroom. Wow. What a difference from digital prints. I take the film to a local minilab for developing and proofs (about $6 for a 24 roll) and then print 8X10 of what I like. Medium format is a little more expensive since only pro labs do med format here. Actually, there is only one pro lab in Thunder Bay, so that's where the MF stuff goes.

I was hesitant to try colour for many years. After the reassuring answers to my questions from many of the members here, I tried it. This place rocks.

jamusu · Mar 10, 2009

I was at an art exhibit for teachers and work study students of the museum school where I take darkroom classes. The director of the museum school asked me if I liked the pictures hanging on the walls and pointed me in the area of a large digital print and asked what I thought of it.

I told her that it was a nice looking digital image, but the film pictures were better. She immediately erupted into laughter and said, "Oh you're just a film snob", and walked off.

It kind of caught me off guard (albeit in a good way) that she used the exact words, "FILM SNOB". Her response made me remember this post that I started many months back.

Jamusu.

wrench · Mar 10, 2009

I was shooting last month at a ski race with my Hasselblad, and the news photographer came over to me and said, "Now that's an honest camera!" For the record, he's older, shot film for many years and had a dslr at the race because he thought it would be easier, but as he said, "is just a dang more fiddly and a royal PITA, never does what I want it to."

I like the idea of totally manual manual film camera being HONEST. So, Jamusu, you're not a snob, you're just honest.

Sirius Glass · Mar 10, 2009

jamusu said:
I was at an art exhibit for teachers and work study students of the museum school where I take darkroom classes. The director of the museum school asked me if I liked the pictures hanging on the walls and pointed me in the area of a large digital print and asked what I thought of it.

I told her that it was a nice looking digital image, but the film pictures were better. She immediately erupted into laughter and said, "Oh you're just a film snob", and walked off.

It kind of caught me off guard (albeit in a good way) that she used the exact words, "FILM SNOB". Her response made me remember this post that I started many months back.

Jamusu.

The director of the museum is a D______l Snob!

Steve

Ian David · Mar 10, 2009

I prefer the process of working with film to the process of working in digital. I personally feel that, the more I get away from doing things with my hands and am assisted by computers and electronics, the less satisfaction I get (and I am not just talking about photography). I like the fact that my camera is manual. I like the fact that I have negatives at the end of the process that I can evaluate, if necessary, with nothing more than the light of the sun. That's just me.
But I don't really think of myself as a film snob (although maybe I have my moments!). I don't love the digital process, but hey... some people really seem to enjoy that way of working. And I cannot deny that digital can give truly excellent results in terms of the final print. If you think you can always tell an excellent wet print from an excellent digital print when they are both hanging on the wall, you're dreaming...

Ektagraphic · Mar 10, 2009

Film has soul and some people recognize that. That must have been great! Digital has become too accessable to people and they usually don't appreaciate their shot. I bracket my exposures sometimes when I am shooting something that I need to be sure I get a good result with or when something is moving at high speed. When you look around, someone with a DSLR is usually snapping 1000 shot a second of an object instead of slowing down and thinking about what they are doing...and enjoying it!

Ektagraphic · Mar 10, 2009

PS: You are not a film snob! You are a photographer who enjoys giving your photographs meaning and soul.

BobNewYork · Mar 11, 2009

I don't think it's film snobbery - just may be a bit of "push-back". I shoot both commercially - but only film for my own work and I will concede that digi is best suited to situations where web or print publication is required. It's just more efficient. But if a quality enlargement for display is what you want then I still feel that film is way ahead.

Those of us who've stuck with film have taken some heavy criticism in the past from those who switched to digi so to see a recognition of film's qualities and value from non-photographers, as in this instance, is part validation and part "in your face."

For those of us who, in the past, regularly heard: "What's wrong with you? Get with the times - my digi takes pictures as good as any film camera." this is just an opportunity to smile quietly - or post on APUG

Bob H

jamusu · Mar 11, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
The director of the museum is a D______l Snob!

Steve

____________________________________________________________________
Steve.

Actually she prefers the look of film over digital. She knows how I feel about film photography and I believe she set me up with the question just to get a kick out of my response. In fact, as I reflect more on the situation, I am almost certain she set me up with the question.

Jamusu.

Aklens200 · Apr 25, 2009

film snob

Hi,
What it amounts to is they (the 'D' people) are looking for instant gratification, not high quality.
You ,myself and others that use film want high quality and take pride in what we do.
I've been told by many 'D' people after taking there cameras out of the box that they are now 'photographers', yet they don't even know what 'f-stop' is.
They just put the camera on 'auto pilot', yet when they see one of my film photographs they coment on how 'clear' and 'bright' the subject is and that there pictures aren't.
Please not that I don't consider a picture from a 'D' camera a photograph.
Rich

StorminMatt · Apr 25, 2009

Early Riser said:
I think the snobbery comes more from the digital side. I can't tell you how many times someone with a DSLR will come over to me when I'm shooting, look at my 6 month old Linhof or 1 year old Fotoman, etc and comment on how nice it is that someone's still using antique cameras.

This isn't really a digital thing. Someone shooting with, say, an EOS 3 or EOS 1v might tell you the exact same thing.

Am I a Film Snob?

2F/2F

Marc Akemann

JBrunner

Moderator

bnjlosh

Vincent Brady

Don Wallace

jamusu

Removed Account

JMcLaug351

djacobox372

JBrunner

Moderator

jamusu

Removed Account

Don Wallace

ricksplace

jamusu

wrench

Sirius Glass

Ian David

Ektagraphic

Ektagraphic

BobNewYork

jamusu

Aklens200

StorminMatt

Am I a Film Snob?

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency