Is it embarassing to shoot film?

[bblhed]

No, I am not embarrassed to shoot film, and I have others shooting it as well.

As for why I believe so many people shoot digital, I want you to think back to the 1970's 80's and 90's when one could walk into Kmart or Sears and pickup a nifty little point and shoot for about a half a days pay. People that were really into photography could go to the local camera store and get a "nice" camera for anywhere from a days pay to a months pay or more. If you went to a camera store to buy a camera especially if you were young they did not, in my experience, even try to help encourage your interest, it was a here's your film now get out and take that crappy camera with you attitude. If you want to see this today stop by a Ritz camera store and try to buy a roll of film and maybe a filter then ask about a film camera.

The next logical step for Kmart, Sears, now Walmart, and other retailers was to carry the popular point and shoots, guess what, they are all digital, that frees up retail floor space that had film and processing in it so it is a no brainier. Well, without access to film at the entry level there is less interest in film as a medium as the budding photographer matures. Not many camera stores have adjusted their attitude, the Independent stores caught on quick, but the chains still have not. If you go to a local camera shop you will find that some of them have a bunch of used film gear and are encouraging younger users to use film as a way to get DSLR results without the huge DSLR entry level price tag. The chain stores on the other hand will shove a crappy DSLR or higher end point and shoot onto a customers credit card and tell them that film is something that is going away and should not be used while they still process it and sell it, begrudgingly, but they still have it.

What are people to believe, they don't see film, they have their glances averted away from film, and have digital shoved in their face wherever they do their shopping. Lets face it if you want to shoot film these days you really have to work at it, while the attitude at the local camera store has changed, they are still the place to go for film, but average people still don't go there for cameras.

Just my thoughts.

 

[vpwphoto]

I took a few snaps of my father in law and his "war" buddies yesterday with a rangefinder.
One of the subjects handed me his card and asked me to e-mail him the photo ASAP.
He didn't notice the camera I was using was Korean war era.... assumed it was digital.

 

[mr.datsun]

Plates, Roll film, The Box Brownie, 35mm film, Rangefinder, SLR, Advanced Photo System, Quicktime 150, the digital camera explosion. the phone, the compact and the dSLR cameras of today.

The march has always been towards ease of use, ease of manufacture and reduced consumer cost. The aim has always been to make it available to anyone without any specialised skill or knowledge. From this perspective digital photography is no different to the Kodak Box Brownie model which was of 'shoot it and we'll take care of the rest for you' kind.

Unless you are a serious hobbyist or an artist, to use film today is either quant or stupid*. It costs more and it's harder. Why on earth should anyone using photography on a day to day personal basis go back to film unless they are amongst the specialist groups mentioned? It's not about marketing and brainwashing.


*Talking as someone using film.

 

[matthewm]

I worked at a Ritz/Wolf camera for about 6 years through college, etc. Even after getting a job at an ad agency, I kept the Ritz thing two weekends a month so I'd have access to the lab. I had a huge part in the Fuji Frontier system we had there and I knew personally that it was the best minilab anywhere near me. I can remember starting at Ritz in probably 2003 or so and getting anywhere from 40-100 rolls a day. By the time I left there 6 years later, we were lucky to do 40 rolls a week. People would come in and see me loading the machines and say things like, "You guys are STILL running that dinosaur!?" Unfortunately all the Ritz's near me shut down because they're stupid. But that's for another thread.

I don't think film is anything to be ashamed of. Just because you don't have a Canon 1Ds III with a 24L II on the front of it, doesn't mean you're a bad photographer. Unfortunately, a lot of clients want digital. It's the me me me, mine mine mine, now now now mentality we have. They don't want to wait. Nor do they care to incur the expense of the time and cost associated with film.

Think of it like this: You own a digital SLR with memory cards. Say you do a job for Magazine X shot on digital. You charge them $500. You go to the BMX park and rattle off 360 frames on your DSLR and end up with the 10 images for the story. Done. You've got $500 in your pocket and they have their images in 48 hours. You invoice and get paid. You've now spent a total of 12 hours on this project, earning you somewhere in the vicinity of $42 per hour. Now, Magazine Y asks you to shoot something for them on FILM. They pay you $500. You shoot 10 rolls of Portra 400 at $5 per roll. Then you take them to a lab and have them developed only because you have an awesome scanner at home. That's another $30 for developing. You scan them over the next 2 days. Edit the images, taking extra care to remove all those dust particles, etc. They have their 10 images in hand within 96 hours because it took a little longer than expected at the lab and for scanning. Now, you've spent 24 hours total on this job. You get $500, then take away the $50 for film and the $30 for developing. You're down to $420. Divide that by your 24 hours (double what the digital workflow took you) and you're in it for $17.50 an hour. Not a bad payday, but not $42 per hour.

The majority of clients wont want film. Some will. I had a wedding a few years back and the girl bought me 20 rolls of black and white film and wanted it shot on that. No digital at all. That's rare.

On the flip side, though you could say that from a fine-art standpoint, film and digital are just different mediums the way acrylic and oil are different mediums and that it's about the photographer and the light and the subject.

Hell, I don't know. I just know that when I was 18 and working at Ritz camera, I developed thousands of rolls of film. In my early-mid twenties when I left, I was lucky to see 5 rolls a day.

Don't ever be embarrassed by what you shoot. Embrace what you have at your disposal and make the most of it. No one who is truly a good person will make fun of you for shooting film. And if someone does, snap a photo of them and make a nice dartboard out of it. I'm sure you can get one from one of those photo gift websites somewhere.

 

[jordanstarr]

no

 

[CGW]

It's not a silly question. iPads, iPods, iPhones, etcetera create the "perfect" quality output for electronic media. DSLRs and film don't. DSLRs and even P&S digis are dinosaurs just as much as film cameras when you want to display on electronic devices.

The question becomes what's the intended use?

If it is simply to become part of the everyday chatter on Facebook or via e-mail then an iPhone is about as good as gets, period.

A buddy of mine shoots two formats that I know of, 8x10 and iPhone. He does great work on both.

I've actually considered taking a similar path, not quite there yet. Possibly selling off my cc-400 and 35mm gear, and keeping my RB kit plus maybe a 5x7 Rittreck for the artsy hang on the wall stuff then using my iPad for all the banal daily conversation stuff.

Heck this month I'm even turning the iPad into my phone via Skype and dumping my cell phone altogether.

Mark, this is the cutest bit of irony I've seen recently--a shutter button for the iPhone:

http://www.red-pop.com/

 

[removed account4]

what jordan said ...

 

[BetterSense]

This wasn't supposed to be a digital versus film thread, or even a thread discussing the reasons people shoot film instead of digital. We have all discussed film and digital and why people shoot one or the other ad nauseum.

I thought we could discuss specifically what apparent psychological barrier or social inertia there is that keeps people from shooting film that otherwise would, even people who claim they would "like to", who claim they "loved the film days" and who wish they "could shoot film" but they don't, even though nothing is stopping them. What stops them? Is it marketing, lack of advertising, lack of perceived peers? Lack of knowledge that film is still available?

But apparently we can't discuss any aspect of this topic without the discussion devolving into film vs. digital. Could a moderator please lock or delete this thread?

 

[CGW]

This wasn't supposed to be a digital versus film thread, or even a thread discussing the reasons people shoot film instead of digital. We have all discussed film and digital and why people shoot one of the other ad nauseum. I thought we could discuss specifically the apparent psychological barrier or inertia that keeps people from shooting film that otherwise would, and even claim they would "like to". But apparently we can't discuss any aspect of this topic without the discussion devolving into film vs. digital.

OK, the decay of the film supply chain is the biggest issue: no film, no processing, no printing, no equipment at present on anything approaching the scale still well within the grasp of living memory. How's that?

 

[BrianShaw]

what jordan said ...

ditto.

but I have to admit... I've been into photograpby for a LONG time and have only really experienced this kind of discussion/concern on photography news groups... never seriously in person. On the couple of occasions I can recall that anyone has asked about my "outdated" equipment or techniques, they have either quickly agreed that it is OK to allow 'different strokes for different folks'. I can't recall any conversation like this lasting more than about 8.75 seconds. And on the few times in which I went to an unfamiliar camera store in search of film... if they didn't have any I thank them and leave. Again... only 8.75 seconds has been required unless I choose to ask if they know of a store nearby that does stock film.

 

[komla]

I'm not anti-digital, and I understand perfectly the reasons why it is mainstream. The thread is about why some people will tell you that they remember how much better film "was"--"those were the days" etc--but they are using digital anyway. There is a disconnect there.

There is no disconnect there. People are just remembering the past and it is happy memories, but they have moved on to other (and for them better) cameras. Just the same as the film shooters with expensive cameras have found memories of the first crappy camera they could afford.

Or.... they are just talking nice to the crazy guy with a film camera

 

[BrianShaw]

I thought we could discuss specifically what apparent psychological barrier or social inertia there is that keeps people from shooting film that otherwise would, even people who claim they would "like to", who claim they "loved the film days" and who wish they "could shoot film" but they don't, even though nothing is stopping them. What stops them? Is it marketing, lack of advertising, lack of perceived peers?

they aren't being honest. If they wanted to shoot film they can and would still be doing so. Many people wax nostolgicly but don't really mean what they are saying... they are just talking.

What's stopping them is their own lack of motivation.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

Young lad in the local branch of J*****s likes to smell the bellows on my 1950's 5x4 before going off to sell some punter the latest digi-must-have - I only went in there because film was nearly half the recommended retail price.

That's rather disturbing, except I used to love smelling the new Kodachromes...

 

[BrianShaw]

That's rather disturbing, except I used to love smelling the new Kodachromes...

There is not likely th be a person alive who hasn't taken a deep whiff of kodachrome slides before looking at them! (I wonder how many brain cells were destroyed each time.)

 

[moose10101]

Digital serves most peoples' purposes perfectly.

The answer's right there; why assume it's because of embarrassment?

Why does the average person take pictures? To put on their wall? No. To sell in a gallery? No. They take pictures to SHARE them. And as a vehicle for sharing, digital beats film hands-down.

But don't assume that "sharing" = "low quality". I shot my son's swim meet Saturday morning with a digital SLR, and by Sunday morning I had posted a few dozen good (IMHO) photos that could be viewed by the other 100 swimmers and their families. I can't do that with film.

When I'm shooting for myself, I use transparency or B&W film. When I'm shooting to share, I go digital. It's not embarrassment; it's using the best tool for the task.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

(I wonder how many brain cells were destroyed each time.)

Enough that I'm still enjoying film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am never embarrassed.

I have notice this year less of the mocking and down talking about why am I shooting film and more of 'Can you still get film?', 'How do you get the film developed?', and a lot of 'I am glad to see someone still uses film.'

With 35mm no one seem to notice.
With the Hasselblads, I get noticed.
With the Pacemaker Speed Graphic or the Graflex Model D, people want to have meaningful conversions with good questions and 'their [insert family member here] used ..."

A nice change, less hostile, and more young people showing interest.

Steve

 

[Neanderman]

I do woodworking, using a lot of hand tools as opposed to the more favored "power tools", and participate in a group of like minded individuals and we get the same sort of questions -- "why on EARTH would you want to do something by hand that you could do it (implied...) faster or better with a machine?"

A lot of people don't understand that, a) it is not only not always slower to do something by hand, it is sometimes faster; b) that using hand tools often times results in superior results; and c) that there is a tactile connection to your work when using hand tools that is lacking otherwise.

I think many of the same things can be said about film vs digital and I don't expect that "persuading the masses" will be any easier with photography than is is with woodworking.

Ed

 

[moose10101]

I thought we could discuss specifically what apparent psychological barrier or social inertia there is that keeps people from shooting film that otherwise would, even people who claim they would "like to", who claim they "loved the film days" and who wish they "could shoot film" but they don't, even though nothing is stopping them.

Here's what you said in your OP:

"we have a real nice film SLR in the back of the closet. It's really nice. Always took great pictures. We haven't used it in years/decades, though, since it's a film camera"

When I visit, and they have occasion to use the camera that used to be theirs, they usually say something like "man, I loved this camera"

they made a point of saying "This camera has been in the family for years, and still works perfectly. It sounds like a precision handgun when you fire it. A great camera"

I asked him if he ever shot it and he said no. I asked why, and he said "it's a digital world now"

Maybe I'm missing something, but not a single one of those people said that they "loved the film days" or they "wish they could shoot film". They may have talked about how good the camera was, but none said they missed using film. I think you're reading something into those quotes that just isn't there.

 

[Steve Smith]

I do woodworking, using a lot of hand tools as opposed to the more favored "power tools", and participate in a group of like minded individuals and we get the same sort of questions -- "why on EARTH would you want to do something by hand that you could do it (implied...) faster or better with a machine?"

I don't do a lot of woodwork but I have made a couple of guitars. As a guitarist, I value my fingers and use hand tools in preference to power tools wherever possible.

Kind of like the reverse of Norm Abram on New Yankee Workshop who even seems to need to use a power tool to put in a nail (I did see him use a hammer once!).


Steve.

 

[dasBlute]

embarassment is a self-created, internal state.
do what you like, like what you do;
damn the nattering nabobs of negativism.

 

[Thingy]

I use both film (35mm, 120/220 & 5x4) & digital. I don't feel embarrassed using film. My dSRL is perfect for certain types of image making, particularly in low light and for wildlife photography. It produces satisfactory results for macro & landscape work. Film on the other hand offers me greater latitude and, yes, I like having the solid plastic with the image on it.

I think the earlier comment about people not wanting to be different from the herd ('the herd mentality in the individual', as Nietzsche called this kind of behaviour) may well have something to do with it, like people getting rid of their old, perfectly good, vinyl records and replacing them with CD's. Film is similar. Being embarrassed about quality products from the past, that can still be used, is absurd. I still use a 1950s Mappin & Webb silver hip flask when I go walking. I still wear my grandfather's 1920s white gold cufflinks (and when in a starched dress shirt: shirt studs) with my dinner jacket when I dress for dinner (on holiday) or evening soirees in London. In my workplace we still have oak desks designed & made in the 1840s with silver plated pen & paper holders from that period. One of my colleagues, who wears Court Dress, by convention wears the silver buckles on his court shoes that date from the time of King George III.* They were made when the USA was still a British colony!

So you see, you have no reason to feel embarrassed.

* See the shoes of the man (Black Rod) to the left of the picture below.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uk_parliament/5762053100/in/photostream

 

[photoncatcher]

In my many years on the planet, I've stopped being embarassed by just about any thing I do.

 

[Chan Tran]

Although there have been many posts replying to Bettersense's question but I feel none has directly answer the OP question.
Certainly for me, the OP and I believe all of us who frequent this forum it's not embrarassing to use a film camera. But there are many people who really are. Those people just have to do what the in things, what the latest things. They don't care nor know whether the new things are better or worse it's just what others are doing these days. These people would not buy a lens because it's a few year old design. People would not buy a camera because it's has been replaced with a newer model although they could have a good deal with the older model and I am talking one brand new with full warranty.
So to answer your question, YES... many do feel embrarassed using old technology. Just browsing photo.net forum and you will see that.

 

[perkeleellinen]

I have notice this year less of the mocking and down talking about why am I shooting film and more of 'Can you still get film?', 'How do you get the film developed?', and a lot of 'I am glad to see someone still uses film.'

With 35mm no one seem to notice.

This is my experience also except that people do notice my 35mm camera - perhaps because it's a traditional manual SLR rather than a black moulded AF SLR which looks the same as DSLRs.