I hate when people assume.

[Worker 11811]

Just because I choose not to use digital, it doesn't mean that I can't shoot digital. I hate it when people make that assumption!

I just don't WANT to use digital cameras but, if you get right down to the nitty gritty, I can make better digital pictures than they can.
I can do it with my 10 year old, 2 megapixel, dinged-up, dirty and partially busted point and shoot, pocket digicam, too!

Most people don't believe it until I pull out some old digital photos that I took and show them. I do other digital art, too.
I use Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator, Final Cut Pro, GIMP and I use Blender to make 3-D art like Pixar.

A local fire department needed a new insignia for their uniforms so I designed one for them. The firefighters wear the patch that I designed on their uniforms, today.
I have a patch in my portfolio book, right next to a full-page printout of the logo, printed from Adobe Illustrator.

I design logos and banners for peoples' websites and they pay me for it. I have copies of all those images, too.

I shoot and edit digital video and I make broadcast quality television advertisements, some of which have been shown on local TV.

My computer has a faster processor, more memory and better screens (two of them) than 90% of the people I know.

I LIKE digital multimedia. I LIKE computers and I use them all the time, virtually every day.

But it really p*sses me off when people think I can't do digital photography just because I choose to shoot film!

 

[Chan Tran]

I hate it when people assume too but in this case it doesn't seem to make sense. I am wondering what is so difficult about digital that a person who know how to use film camera can't use a digital camera?

 

[jayvo86]

Saying you can't shoot digital is like saying you can't use a cell phone. I can't image anyone thinking you don't know what your doing if your shooting film.

 

[Valerie]

This semester, when a student found out I don't shoot digital, said "So you're not a real photographer then?"

I politely and firmly corrected him (when I really wanted to squish him like a bug!).

 

[eddie]

That's like saying a person who drives a manual transmission car can't drive an automatic.

 

[Worker 11811]

That's funny because I drive a stick shift, too!

 

[brian steinberger]

I think some photographers shoot digital because they have no idea how to shoot film!! I've always said, you have to know what you're doing to get good results with film. With digital it's more or less trial and error and anyone can figure it out, but that still doesn't mean they know what an aperture or shutter speed is.

But all in all, the bottom line is you still gotta have an eye.

 

[dehk]

Amen brother.

 

[Worker 11811]

I don't think "eye" is as important as some people think.

I taught my 12 year old nephew about the rule of thirds. I drew a 3 by 3 grid on a piece of paper and told him to try not to put anything in the center square unless he thought it was important. I sent him away and told him not to come back until he shot up his roll of film using rule of thirds.

Damn! If he didn't come back with a whole bunch of really nice photos!

If I can teach a kid to do that, almost anybody can learn it.

Photography just ain't that hard if you put a little bit of thought and effort into it!

But, for some reason that escapes me, people seem to think it is and, for some reason that escapes me, people think digital photography is harder even though a monkey could do it.

I have such a hard time escaping the feeling that people really are THAT stupid!

 

[John Austin]

Not so may knobs,

Some digital cameras have more iknobs, iswitches and ithings than all my four view cameras put together - Having a camera with lots of switchy things obviously makes digi-photographers clever in the perception of these digi-photographers

What sometimes happens when I am working near people is that they see a big camera and ask how to get their Eos to behave itself, I take one look at it and shake my head in a cloud of unknowing - This only reinforces their belief in their superiority

Two years ago at Hamlyn Bay a pair of German tourists asked me to take their pic with their Eos - They looked at the result and said "You have talent" in a disbelieving way, as if an oldie with a film camera shouldn't have talent - Perhaps I don't, but don't tell me at this stage

 

[cscurrier]

Some digital cameras have more iknobs, iswitches and ithings than all my four view cameras put together - Having a camera with lots of switchy things obviously makes digi-photographers clever in the perception of these digi-photographers

Haha. Very true. In school I was the only one to shoot film with the rest shooting digital. They were always so amazed at what I could produce from the darkroom, originally using a camera that did not have as many "functions" as their DSLR's. I'd always reply that they were missing out on selecting the shutter and aperture themselves.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

People usually don't assume I can photograph at all, because I don't have a camera that looks like a machine gun. Film?
They just assume I don't have a clue, and I'm actually pretty happy with that.
But I understand the frustration of OP and others. It's annoying.

 

[Vaughn]

I don't know. Down here on the coast a ways, I have never had anyone make that assumption...at least in my range of hearing. I guess carrying a big wood tripod folks must think I am a surveyor, not a photographer (I did hear that in Yosemite a couple of weeks ago).

 

[pstake]

But it really p*sses me off when people think I can't do digital photography just because I choose to shoot film!

Hear, hear!

 

[Worker 11811]

In order to be a photographer you need to have a big lens and a camera with lots of accessories, spare batteries, memory cards and stuff.
The camera that I have been carrying the most, lately, is a Rolleiflex. It doesn't have batteries, it has no accessories and it hardly has a sizeable lens at all.

The way I see it, the size of a photographer's lens is inversely proportional to the size of his penis.

I hope that's true because the last "new" camera I got, I made from an empty 12 oz. can of A&W Root Beer. The lens is 0.03 millimeters in diameter.
If the inverse proprotion holds true, that means I'm King Kong!

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Just smile and tell them that no electrons were killed for the sake of your pictures.

Valerie, I would have used the old Charlie Chan quote to the student, "Confucious say, Better not speak and appear dumb then speak and remove all doubt."

BTW, I seldom use my cell phone. I don't twitter or tweet -- birds twitter. People who use facebook seriously need to get a real life. I do like some technology; I have a laptop and a kindle which I love.

 

[John Austin]

The camera that I have been carrying the most, lately, is a Rolleiflex. It doesn't have batteries, it has no accessories and it hardly has a sizeable lens at all.

I love other photographers saying the use a Rolleiflex, they make good pix very easy somehow and I shall return to mine when I next travel - I hereby urge every Rolle owner to not sell to a collector, only other photographers

 

[ME Super]

I "upgraded" from a film SLR to a digital P&S back in 2001. In 2010 I built a Populist 35mm pinhole camera. That was the beginning of my return to film. I upgraded back to my film SLR in March 2011. I shot both until my digital P&S got wet. Now I use my film SLR for everything photographic.

My son has had a digital P&S since Christmas 2010. It's a Kodak C182, and he's taken quite a few pictures with it and has a pretty good eye. He likes his camera, but I sensed some jealousy when he saw what I was getting out of my manual focus and auto focus film SLRs and a cheap Vivitar slide projector.

During the 2011-2012 school year we started giving him money for good grades on his report card (I'm not above bribing the kids to do well in school!) I fell behind on getting the money to him, and so this week I asked him if he would like to have a camera like mine, or would he rather have the money. No hesitation - he asked for a camera like mine. When I asked him if he would rather shoot print film or slide film, again no hesitation. He wants to shoot slides.

Needless to say we have a Pentax SLR, lens, and camera strap (gotta have that so he doesn't drop the camera) on the way from KEH. We also have 5 rolls of Provia 100F slide film on the way from B&H. I will teach him to zoom in before focusing first, then rule of thirds and some other compositional stuff. The technical side of things will come a bit later (my two favorite modes on SLRs are Aperture Priority and Shutter Priority, with the third being Manual. I do tend to use the program mode for flash photos).

I'm looking forward to sharing some of his film photos soon.

 

[chuck94022]

Here's a response: "I use film in order to lower my carbon footprint. Every time you recharge the batteries in your digital camera you are contributing to global warming. Plus, I get better images this way."

 

[Worker 11811]

I love other photographers saying the use a Rolleiflex, they make good pix very easy somehow and I shall return to mine when I next travel - I hereby urge every Rolle owner to not sell to a collector, only other photographers

Just after the new year, I took my Rollei on vacation to Greenville, South Carolina. I went walking around downtown Greenville with it one Saturday afternoon.

I have NEVER had so many people notice the camera and comment on it as on that day. I could not walk 100 yards without somebody noticing, giving the "thumbs up" or saying, "Hey! Nice camera!" I got stopped or fell into conversation with no less than six people during that afternoon. A couple of them were decent looking college girls, too!

Too bad I'm married!
My wife was with me that day and she was not amused.

It is worthy to note that Greenville is home to the Greenville Arts Center and the South Carolina Governor's School for the Arts. So, there's a high concentration of art students and visual artists there. Greenville is the only place I have gone in recent memory where I have not had the feeling that people make negative assumptions about me because I have an "old" camera that shoots film.

Regardless, here's a tip for you unattached guys out there:
Buy, beg, borrow or steal a Rolleiflex and learn how to use it! They're chick magnets!

 

[tony lockerbie]

I also have a Tele-Rollei, that's a Rollei with a big lens.....how will I go with that!

 

[welly]

You must bump into some very strange people because when friends and friends of friends and most other people I meet find out I shoot film, I suddenly become a "real photographer". And when they discover I develop film at home in my bathroom, their eyes widen open and I become some kind of photography genius (when I'm clearly not). Even when I've been out and about with my LF camera and have met other photographers (who more often than not are shooting digital), I've had more interesting discussions than anyone accusing me of not being a "real" photographer or being unable to shoot digital.

Actually, they're right. I am unable to shoot digital. I can't afford one of the damn things! I certainly can't afford the quality of lens that would cost me no more than $600 with medium or large format but would be in excess of $1500 with 35mm!

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I've met a lot of film-only photographers who have all kinds of idiotic ideas about digital because, frankly, they don't know how to do it. Taking pictures with a digital camera is easy, the processing of the image is a totally new skill set that involves learning software (like Photoshop and Lightroom), learning about monitor calibrating and color managing printing. This stuff is not easy, and people who have taken the time and put in the effort to learn it are not 'too stupid to shoot film' or any other silly insults you want to throw.

I have shot film since I was 8 years old, and done my own processing since I was 15. I'm still shooting film, still doing my own processing. About 10 years ago, I began having serious health issues from breathing the chemicals in the darkroom when I print, despite having a good ventilation system in my darkroom. I was young, about 25, and did not need to die for my art (I had a very young son who is 15 yrs old now and very glad his dad is still here for him). I got a patron to buy me a Nikon LS-8000ED scanner and I got Photoshop and a book on it and began to teach myself. Believe me, guys, it was NOT easy to learn that complex software and NOT easy to get prints that matched what I saw on the computer screen. It took a lot of damned hard work, just like learning the darkroom did when I was a kid.

I still shoot film, process the negs, and scan...and I get incredible prints now. It took a couple yrs of practice to get to that point. I also shoot some with a digital camera, but film still gives a better black and white photo in my opinion. I use the digi mainly for commercial work and some color work. Film for BW. Having worked with both, I appreciate that both film and digital require deep skillsets that take a long time to learn to do right. Most digital shooters shoot jpegs and use what they get out of the camera. Doing it right requires shooting RAW and processing the file to get the right color, contrast, etc. I agree that most digital shooters don't know how or are too lazy to do that, but it does not mean that you cannot get good work from digital or that all digital shooters are dumb and lazy.

A lot of film-only guys don't understand this. I understand you sticking with what you know best if it gives the results you want. Ultimately the final image, not the camera used, is what matters....but don't slam others for their choice of medium. It just makes you look narrow minded.

 

[munz6869]

I've found, esp. around touristy spots, that folks VERY OFTEN ask me to take pictures of them with their SLR's and point&shoots, BECAUSE I mostly have a ridiculous looking camera with me, and I assume they think I must be a good photographer. It helps when I ask people to shift into better light, compose in thirds, or get down on my knee to correct perspective I suppose...

I actually feel "less" of a photographer shooting digital, because I don't really feel like I'm doing anything.

Marc!

 

[Worker 11811]

I was talking to a guy who wanted to shoot a 360º panorama of a 20x40 foot room with his digicam on a tripod and stitch it together with Photoshop. I told him that shooting 360º panos indoors often produces less-than-optimum results because of the size and perspective issues created by the changing camera/subject distance as you rotate around the room. No matter what you do, you are bound to get some major barrel distortion in your image unless you do some heavy work.

Then there is the issue of displaying an image that's 6,000 pixels wide by 500 pixels tall. No matter how you scale it, you can't fit all on your computer screen unless you shrink the image down, so small, you can't see the detail. Either that, your you have to use viewing software that lets you scroll around the image.

At first, he treated me like, "What do you know? You don't shoot digital." Then he said, "I can display it on my PC computer just fine.
I tried to tell him that I think panos are cool and that I like them, too but I tried to tell him what problems he was going to come up against, making them. I only got more of the same speil.

Finally, just to shut him up, I pulled out a pano that I made nearly three years ago. It was one of a series of a couple dozen images of a construction site as the building was being put up. Every week, I went out on the rooftop of an adjacent building and shot an grid of pictures, six frames wide and two rows tall. That's twelve pictures in a 2-D array. What's more, I had to shoot some of the pictures in HDR because, as the building went up, parts of it would be in shadow but other parts would be backlit. The digital camera I had to use could not capture the range necessary to get all the detail. In the end, I had to shoot 36 pictures, blend them together into 12 images then color & exposure match them all before I could stitch them into a panorama.

At the conclusion of the project, I had 24 panoramic pictures shot over a six month period of a building being constructed, from the groundbreaking to the topping out and completion of the facade. The architect who designed the building asked me for permission to publish these pictures as examples.

The guy took his pictures anyway and the result was just as I said. The walls are all bent out of perspective and the pictures hanging on the walls are all warped into parallelograms.

My digital panos mop the floor with the pictures he puts out yet he has the balls to assume that I can't do it because I don't do digital?