Film Photography "Slows Me down."

It's a phrase that's often touted with regards to shooting film. "I enjoy it because it makes me stop and think." Everyone says it, but I wonder how many people actually understand it? I didn't. I had absolutely no clue what it meant, and if I repeated the phrase in the past, I must have been talking sideways out of my ass.

Yesterday I got out with the RB67, tripod, and hand held meter. I went to the local nursery again, one of my favorite places to photograph right now. I hadn't made it out of the car yet and I noticed an old, broke down and rusted tractor. After loading my gear and grabbing my bag, I headed over. Set up the tripod, level the camera, get things ready to go. That in itself was a challenge. The tractor was a bit up hill from the tripod, not by much, but enough that once the camera was set up I realized I was too short to look down into the waist level finder. That was the first "slow down." I had to shorten the legs of the tripod, move the camera a bit, re-level it, and try again. Ok, we're good to go, let's take some meter readings.

It was a partly cloudy day and the wind was slightly more than a gentle breeze. Up until now I didn't think light changed that fast. Seriously, if someone told me "light changes", I would shrug them off. One reading gave me 1/4000th of a shutter speed, and by the time I got back to the camera to focus, a cloud came by. Ok well let's try another meter reading. 1/1000th. Back to the camera to change the settings. I get ready to compose the shot, and I'll be damned if that cloud hadn't raced off. Yet another meter reading. This time 1/2000th. Back to the camera, and thankfully the light stayed just long enough for me to get the shot off. Between the tripod set up, the three or four or five meter readings that I took, and actually dialing in the settings for the shot, it must have been 10 minutes or more.

And then there's the wind. Leaves act as if they're in a category 5 hurricane, even if its just a small breeze. Just as you get all of your metering and calculations done, which for someone like me takes more minutes than you think it will, and you prepare for the shot as the leaves are still for the fraction of a second they are, the wind kicks up. This resets the entire cycle over again. If you're lucky, and anything like me, maybe you'll get around to firing off a shot sometimes around the third or fourth or fifth attempt.

I never realized how much the process could "slow me down" until yesterday. Walking around with a 35mm that has all the bells and whistles, or a dslr with even more bells and whistles really takes that slowness away. Or at least mitigates it to a manageable level. It makes me question how many shooting experiences I didn't get to fully see and appreciate because I was busy clicking and walking on, just thinking that "film photography slows me down." My experiences yesterday forced me to stop, sometimes for fifteen, twenty minutes or even longer, and take in the scene I chose to photograph. I got to study all the colors and imagine how they'd look in grays. I got to see patterns. I got to move from side to side, or around, and pick out compositions. Yesterday really did, "slow me down."

It was a good day.

Interesting tale, but there is nothing in your story that is 'film specific'.

One can work in the manner you describe with any camera.

michael_r said:

The "slows me down" thing is BS. It's how film snobs convince themselves they are better photographers because they use film as opposed to the "spray and prey" approach. The same nonsense is often uttered in the large format world: "large format slows me down...." going on to explain that it forces them to concentrate more on composition etc. etc. baloney.

If you enjoy film, excellent. That's all there is to it from an art perspective.

Click to expand...

I respect your opinion. But I find that when I shoot digital, usually a small camera, I don't even use a tripod. I tend to shoot digital at the first scene I notice and then move on quickly. With film, maybe because I use a tripod and the equipment is heavier, I tend to scout the position even before finalizing the tripod's position. I also become very selective with the shot, especially with large format. I take more time thinking about exposure because I don't bracket large format. I will bracket medium format though.

I'm not saying film is better. But it does slow me down enough to find the best composition. In fact, I'll use a digital camera to fix the composition and lens size even before setting the tripod for the film camera. So I'm using both technologies to get the job done. Because of the time involved, I'll often not even bother taking the equipment out of the car as opposed to digital-only when I can jump out and shoot from the hip.

The slowing down process also allows me to relax a little in nature which is part of the joy of photography.

michael_r said:

The "slows me down" thing is BS. It's how film snobs convince themselves they are better photographers because they use film as opposed to the "spray and prey" approach. The same nonsense is often uttered in the large format world: "large format slows me down...." going on to explain that it forces them to concentrate more on composition etc. etc. baloney.

If you enjoy film, excellent. That's all there is to it from an art perspective.

Click to expand...

Large format really does slow you down. NOTHING about using large format is quick and easy. That said, it's up to you to take advantage of that. I've seen plenty of crappy pictures made with 8x10 view cameras because the photographer didn't THINK while slowed down.

fgorga said:

Interesting tale, but there is nothing in your story that is 'film specific'.

One can work in the manner you describe with any camera.

Click to expand...

True. I guess I could avoid the portability, the multiple frames per second, and the technology the F5 offers me, or the D700, but then why bother buying those cameras to begin with?

michael_r said:

"large format slows me down...." going on to explain that it forces them to concentrate more on composition etc. etc. baloney.

If you enjoy film, excellent. That's all there is to it from an art perspective.

Click to expand...

I can see where the constant regurgitation of the sentiment would be annoying. And as @fgorga said, I could do everything I did with any camera, but yesterday’s experience didn’t “force me” to think about composition and exposure. It did, however, provide me with the opportunity to do so. When I normally would have clicked and kept walking, because I was doing everything manually and calculations in my head, I was provided more opportunity to stop and look and really take it all in.

fgorga said:

Interesting tale, but there is nothing in your story that is 'film specific'.

One can work in the manner you describe with any camera.

Click to expand...

exactly!

TheFlyingCamera said:

Large format really does slow you down. NOTHING about using large format is quick and easy. That said, it's up to you to take advantage of that. I've seen plenty of crappy pictures made with 8x10 view cameras because the photographer didn't THINK while slowed down.

Click to expand...

IDK. sometimes ... it has nothing to do with slowing down, I have LF cameras ( cyclone fallingnplate cameras graflex slr’s speed graphics, plate cameras ) all 4x5 or bigger that were made for “fast/ action” and I still shoot them that way.. always wish.I had a bostick and sullivan 8x10 hobo ( point and shoot 8x10 ).
IDK sometimes people who shoot large format cameras often think that because it is done with a large format camera it has to be good, maybe its an ego thing. ( before you say W/E size envy ... yes! I do shoot lt ( up to 11x28 ( 2 11x14 sheets ) and I have a huge ego! ). maybe the photographs you describe that are crappy and done with a 8x10 are good to the person who made them, I mean I've seen plenty of photographs made by people who are well respected in the pantheon of photography ( and when I saw them at museums ) and I was like oh hum...
Idk most things have to do with taste and nothing to do with anything else...I mean I am not usually a fan of peppers or rocks / trees or beautiful black women in bathtubs full of milk or itty bitty beautiful white babies with angel wings in beautiful big black hands but that’s me other people LOVE Adams Weston Leibovitz and Geddes...
Speed wise... Phase 1 (&c ) of digital is a different story it’s like a 3 pass scanner.. different choice but must be time to make lunch when I press the shutter

TheFlyingCamera said:

Large format really does slow you down. NOTHING about using large format is quick and easy. That said, it's up to you to take advantage of that. I've seen plenty of crappy pictures made with 8x10 view cameras because the photographer didn't THINK while slowed down.

Click to expand...

I agree with that. I took up large format film last year having shot mainly medium format film before then. Large format is very fiddly, the view on the ground glass is upside-down. Focusing and movement are more difficult than setting up medium format. All the fiddling is distracting from composing the best picture. I find using a digital P&S for composing first and getting the shot I want before setting up the large format camera, helps get a better shot. Working with the large formal view camera afterward is just formalizing the technical aspects. Frankly, I'm starting to think I like MF better and might stop shooting LF.

I expect the large format photographers who use scanning digital backs work quite slowly.....
The tools we use are designed to work with the materials we use. A film camera designed to maximize the recording capacity of a single piece of film will normally cause the photographer to work less quickly than a film camera designed to maximize the speed and efficiency of image "capture". You can use an RB67 to get ten great results out of a single roll of 120 film, but some of the things that an RB67 offers in aid of that don't necessarily lend themselves to quick work. You can use a Nikon F5 to get ten great shots of a 100 metre race, but the quality of individual frames will most likely be less than the maximum quality that an RB67 is capable of with a single shot (assuming you don't miss the shot entirely).

Either way, my post wasn’t to start an argument about which format is slower, or how one person thinks themselves better than the other. I only posted simply to state that *I* have never slowed down enough to really appreciate what I was photographing, and the constraints of what I was doing yesterday opened my eyes to just how much I might be missing.

carry on.

I used to think that photography slowed me down.

Until I realized it was I that was slow.

Sounds like a joke, but it ain't. It has little to do with the format. It's a question of personality, and maybe also of age. I used to think that what I wanted to do most was street photography, moving fast to "capture the moment". But the pictures that I did that I like most are those where nothing, or very little happens - and often not as successful as they could have been because I didn't take my time. Nothing universal about it. That's just me. I like things to go slowly - and more so as I grow older -, and that's what I look for in the photographic process, conscious that other people will look for something completely different. How slowly? Well, I'm doing things I didn't used to do, like going out for long walks without the camera but all the time thinking like a photographer - spotting various locations, looking at the light, finding different vantage points so I have an idea where to set up my camera when I come back, wondering why I think that such and such place could be a photograph, etc.

So yeah. It's slow because I'm slow and enjoying the slowness.

I don't think of it so much as slowing down. Rather, with a film camera in my hand, I am just a little more "intentional" or "deliberate". I think that is really just an awareness that film is neither unlimited nor free.

For me, there is something to the slowed down issue. A few years ago I took up Urban Sketching. This is where you simply go into your environment, be it all natural, the city, etc., take a seat, open your sketchbook and draw what you see in pencil, pen, watercolor, whatever. It takes me 15-30 minutes to capture what I see, usually working in pen to which I add watercolor later. What I have noticed it that I really see the scene’s details because I have to actually draw them. As I’ve become more active in photography again, I notice carryover from by slow approach in drawing. I really look at the scene, scanning for the interesting details.

BTW, a really useful tool is a nice stool, almost required for drawing but equally useful when using a camera as well. I bought a Swedish-made Walkstool. It is extremely sturdy and collapses to a small size that easily fits in my backpack. It’s usually the first thing I set up and I sit for a while, pondering the scene. Since I retired 9 years ago I do lots more pondering.

You can "slow down" digital photography by always using a tripod, set the ISO as low as it can go, put everything in manual mode and use a hand-held meter. I can fire off a shot with my film Leica or Nikon SLR faster than with a digital camera if I need to. And much faster than using a smartphone.

With the newer 35mm cameras it is easy to photograph quickly and that is a great temptation. With medium format, I am not forced to slow down, rather I have the desire to slow down and take my time.

Sirius Glass said:

With the newer 35mm cameras it is easy to photograph quickly and that is a great temptation. With medium format, I am not forced to slow down, rather I have the desire to slow down and take my time.

Click to expand...

There is something about a large viewfinder that inspires the photographer to slow down and study the scene/image/composition more carefully. A 35mm camera almost encourages casual shots. I am always amazed by Lewis Baltz's shots made with a Leica--they are careful and studied, they look like they might have been made with a view camera.

michael_r said:

The "slows me down" thing is BS. It's how film snobs convince themselves they are better photographers because they use film as opposed to the "spray and prey" approach. The same nonsense is often uttered in the large format world: "large format slows me down...." going on to explain that it forces them to concentrate more on composition etc. etc. baloney.

If you enjoy film, excellent. That's all there is to it from an art perspective.

Click to expand...

Have you worked with large format to make such a claim? I worked with 4x5, 8x10, and14x17, and it definitely does slow you down! Just the physical nature of the format, slows you down.

I feel the same way when people claim digital or 35mm is more spontaneous than LF, as if it was true and somehow important.

Edited to add:

What slows me down is not being able to find that dang negative that is not in its right sleeve and/or the sleeve is elsewhere, perhaps in the workshop material, or 'shoved' into the nearest sleeve at 4 in the morning after printing since 9pm, because that is better than nothing and I can not remain vertical any longer...or nor longer can be trusted with fragile things like 11x14 negatives. That stuff slows me down...not that I appreciate it.

I can fire off 14 fps with my DSLR. Cool, then it takes a half hour to try to figure out what to do with those frames. And another half hour taking care of them. Temporarily.

My photography wouldn’t look good on digital. Film is the basis of all my vision, it adds the required oomph that’s totally lacking in digiturd files.

Those who see BS in my assertion have 2 problems on hand. One, they are in a film forum. Second, they lack the finesse required to see the huge difference. But it’s ok, not everyone is a true photographer.

For me it’s simple; if I don’t have a film camera I won’t even think to take my digiturd camera for a walk. My work with digiturd just doesn’t look good. It does not satisfy me at all.

of course it slows me down. What I shoot today will get printed in about 5 years. Which is great.

mshchem said:

I can fire off 14 fps with my DSLR. Cool, then it takes a half hour to try to figure out what to do with those frames. And another half hour taking care of them. Temporarily.

Click to expand...

And in a year or two, wondering what to do with 10^5 digital snaps and RAW files, and how to back up to the latest version of hard drive or cloud, and how to annotate the EXIF data on each file. And then wondering if when you die, will your descendants look at your 10^5 or 10^6 perfectly preserved files?

Get a motor drive for the RB, my RZ's motor drive can do one frame every second or so. Whole roll in 10 seconds.

awty said:

Get a motor drive for the RB, my RZ's motor drive can do one frame every second or so. Whole roll in 10 seconds.

Click to expand...

Oh boy, about $25-30 spent on film and processing every 10 seconds! The expense causes folks to rethink burst shooting.

wiltw said:

Oh boy, about $25-30 spent on film and processing every 10 seconds! The expense causes folks to rethink burst shooting.

Click to expand...

Saw a journalist photographer in a movie once and she was shooting 4x5 handheld with range finder, changing sides and refocusing every 5 to 10 seconds.