Is it embarassing to shoot film?

markbarendt · Jul 23, 2011

Worker 11811 said:
Do I fault a professional photographer for using digital cameras? No, but I believe a professional photographer who uses technology as a crutch and doesn't learn the basics of his trade to be the same as the owner of a textile mill who fires half his workers and buys mechanized looms. He'll get by in the sort term but, overall, he's only hurting himself.

I don't see it that way. Example.

Beyond camera work, Henri Catier-Bresson had little if any interest in "the mechanics" of the craft. His goal was simple, to make a "drawing" of what he saw quickly. He was more than happy to outsource everything except the camera work to others.

Jose Villa uses a similar strategy today for wedding & portrait work. He uses film, hands it off to the lab, and it's ready for the client to paruse & pick their faves the next time he sees it. It has even been digitized.

This business model is very workable but many pros today feel like they need to do everything, simply because they can.

Roger Cole · Jul 23, 2011

Dave in Kansas said:
No Roger, I did not intend it as a joke. I often feel self-conscious walking around with multiple cameras around my neck, probably because you seldom see anyone doing that these days. It didn't used to be that uncommon to carry multiple cameras so you could shoot on two different films (like b&w and color) of the same scene. You just don't see it that much now that most people use digital cameras. So I tend to feel a little out of place. And it doesn't help matters any that my wife makes fun of me.

Dave

I can only really say "I don't get it" then. For whatever psychological reason I've always rather enjoyed being the odd guy doing something that others don't understand. Heck sometimes I'm walking around with three cameras, two 35mm and one MF TLR. I'd have another MF too at times except I only own the one.

Different experience on the s.o. too as it was my girlfriend and her interest in art that was really responsible for my getting back into photography after more than 10 years away. She thinks it's great that I shoot film and emphasize process. She gets it philosophically even if not technically.

Diapositivo · Jul 23, 2011

Well it's a bit shocking to know that a professional photographer, somebody who is paid for his photographic work, doesn't know use and function of shutter and aperture. It's a bit as if somebody wanted to open a restaurant and the only things he know is how to warm up food in an electric heater and how to deep fry potatoes... would you call that a restaurant, and a "professional cook"?*

Fabrizio

* Now that I think about it apparently McDonald's would call that a restaurant, I don't know about the cook. Would I go to McDonald's for my (hypothetical) marriage? No way, and I wouldn't go to that "professional" photographer either. I hope the photographer is as cheap as McDonald's, at least he would not rob his clients.

theoria · Jul 23, 2011

yes, it is - for those who shoot digital

markbarendt · Jul 23, 2011

Tt

Diapositivo said:
Well it's a bit shocking to know that a professional photographer, somebody who is paid for his photographic work, doesn't know use and function of shutter and aperture. It's a bit as if somebody wanted to open a restaurant and the only things he know is how to warm up food in an electric heater and how to deep fry potatoes... would you call that a restaurant, and a "professional cook"?*

Fabrizio

* Now that I think about it apparently McDonald's would call that a restaurant, I don't know about the cook. Would I go to McDonald's for my (hypothetical) marriage? No way, and I wouldn't go to that "professional" photographer either. I hope the photographer is as cheap as McDonald's, at least he would not rob his clients.

Funny you should mention restaurants. My daughter was watching a cooking show yesterday and they interviewed the owner of the restaurant. He had no kitchen skills, he just wanted a very specific vintage restaurant. He hired everything out to people very skilled in their craft.

A good friend of mine owns a small but successful trucking business and he doesn't even have a license that will let him drive the trucks.

There's no reason a successful professional photography business can't be run the same way.

In my mind there needs to be a distinction made between skill sets required for differing business models.

For production work, where the product and processes are well defined, skill sets can be very narrow/shallow without losing any quality, the system makes it all work. This definition actually makes the product easier to sell.

For custom work where a product is being designed a larger skill set is needed. Still that doesn't mean you need to know everything, that knowledge can be bought.

Paul Goutiere · Jul 23, 2011

Maybe it is because I've arrived at early Geezerhood, but I can't say I'm embarrassed about too much anymore. I have most certainly never have any qualms about shooting film in the company of anyone recording images with other forms of camera apparatus. I don't even understand the concept.

I have been with people whose dead batteries had completely disabled their electronic recording device (dead as a hammer). They were embarrassed as well as just a little disappointed.

The two year old battery in my funny grubby old F2 was still very good.

Chan Tran · Jul 23, 2011

To me if someone earns money doing something then he/she is a professional and someone who doesn't earn money is an amateur period. Skills isn't what distinguishes a profesional and an amateur.
another thing. If someone use whatever mean to deliver a good product to the customer be it cheating with the digital camera or buying the mechanical loom then they are good business person. One only needs to deliver, however one goes about doing it is irrelevant. One should seek to get the job done as easily and as inexpensively as possible. That's all good business sense.

trexx · Jul 23, 2011

Meaning of words change over time and professional may be one that now means earning a living doing something.
But the definition I learned and is: Have specialized skills (1), receive ongoing training (2), earn the majority of your income from this skill(3).
Once upon a time there were apprentice programs. They had 2 and 3 but could not be professional until the training and test were completed. Most states that issue Professional Certifications apply something close to my definition.

Making a living doing something does a professional make.

mopar_guy · Jul 24, 2011

I don't see how anyone could possibly be embarrassed by using a film camera. What is so embarrassing with using an iconic film such as Kodachrome or Tri-X or FP4+? What could possibly cause me to feel bad about following in the footsteps of Photogaphers like Edward Weston, Imogene Cunningham, Ansel Adams and others too numerous to count?

Roger Cole · Jul 24, 2011

markbarendt said:
Tt

Funny you should mention restaurants. My daughter was watching a cooking show yesterday and they interviewed the owner of the restaurant. He had no kitchen skills, he just wanted a very specific vintage restaurant. He hired everything out to people very skilled in their craft.

A good friend of mine owns a small but successful trucking business and he doesn't even have a license that will let him drive the trucks.

There's no reason a successful professional photography business can't be run the same way.

Of course a photography business could be run very successfully that way. But the question I would then ask would be, "who is the photographer, the business owner, the semi-skilled guy who prints out the ink jet prints or runs the processing machine, or the person at the camera who actually understands exposure and composition?"

I would say the one who understands exposure and composition. Of course it's possible none of them do and they just rely on automation, in which case I'd argue it's quite possible to have a successfully business built around photography without anyone involved in said business actually being a photographer!

markbarendt · Jul 24, 2011

Roger Cole said:
I would say the one who understands exposure and composition. Of course it's possible none of them do and they just rely on automation, in which case I'd argue it's quite possible to have a successfully business built around photography without anyone involved in said business actually being a photographer!

Yep, the photographer might be the consultant that designed the setups and provided a checklist for the owner.

ambaker · Jul 26, 2011

It is not the tool that makes, or does not make, one a photographer.

If you are trying to make a living as a photographer, then you need to adopt a business model that will let you turn a profit in today's market.

Otherwise do what suits you best. I just returned from a Florida trip. I only took my Mamiya 645 Super. (Plus lenses and backs.). It's heavy, bulky, and a joy.

I've run out of battery in digicams, and I have run out of film in real cams. Left the digicams home, and had plenty of film and the ability to get more.

Personally, I like the sound of that big ol' mirror and shutter, and the winder advancing to the next frame. Although I didn't notice, my wife tells me I drew quite a few onlookers over my shoulder when I changed backs and loaded film. (Never crossed my mind that some kids had never seen this before.)

Would I do it again? Yes, on my very next trip.

maddoc2003jp · Jul 27, 2011

It depends on the location ...

Is it embarassing to shoot film?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency