Is it embarassing to shoot film?

Paul Goutiere said:

I carry my Hassleblad in a brown paper bag, people think it's booze.
I get my film mail-order in brown unmarked packages.
The smell of short-stop and fixer in the house I explain away as the smell of cat pee.
I always have a DSLR manual open on the car seat.

No one knows I shoot film

Click to expand...

Man what great ideas.

I'm stealing these.

MB

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk

jnanian said:

cards cost less than 50$
and processing rolls of 35mm film ( with prints ) costs about 10$ / roll ...
larger than 35mm is not easy to get processed anymore.
where i live there aren't any labs left to process it, the closest is over an hour's drive each way ...
hate to say it but D is less expensive in a lot of cases...

Click to expand...

This may be true, certainly is for the average user, but a $30 old nikon will take better photos than a $30 digi-snapper - and I don't think any of us here are average users

Can digital be cheaper on a 5 year basis? Yes. Can film be cheaper on a 5 year basis? Yes. It really depends on intent, purpose, quanity and quality standards - and those depend on the individual photographer.

There is a higher cost for quality and I think that makes digital a more expensive bet. Besides my bias (90% film gear vs 10% digital in my kit), I have an enjoyment of photography that really trandscends the medium - but I prefer to use film as the results are more to my liking.

And the decline in processing availability is unfortunate, not unexpected, but unfortunate none-the-less. There is only one individual (local photographer) that even process B&W here in a city of ~one million people. But, this pushed me back to developing my own, and I can't say that's a bad thing. For MF color, the city will likely lose that ability to do that at all and will have to be sent out. Bummer.

Sirius Glass said:

I just point out that while they are excited to get up to 12 or 15 Megapixels, a Hasselblad 60 Megapixel back costs about $50,000 US and it is not even the full frame. "Do you know how may rolls of film I could shoot and send for custom processing to get to $50,000US? Besides if I use my cheap film scanner at 4,000 dpi, the 320,000 Megapixels per negative, not a crapy 15 Megapixels. If I bought a digital camera, I would have to buy a new desktop computer, a RAID system and expensive software. And have you seen the prices of film cameras recently? I have better uses for my money than buying a digital camera that will need to be replaced in two years with a newer model."

Steve

Click to expand...

steve

the average joe/jane consumer is not wasting their money on a hassy digital back
they don't even know what a hasselblad is ..
people use a cellphone for their "p/s camera" these days
its "good enough"

i have 3 digital cameras, 1 -5 year old lumix/leica, 1 d100 and 1 d200 ...
and i use PSCS2 ... i have no plans on "upgrading" in 2 years as
the "digital sux argument" always suggests ... it all works fine ...

you can go to any walgreens or whatever pharmacy and get memory cards
for almost nothing ... and that costs leaps+bounds LESS than film and processing.
it really isn't an argument that is worth having ... because next to nothing is a lot
less than 10-12$ ( plus the cost of the film ) a roll.


your argument doesn't really make any sense.

If any aspect of my hobby or profession were embarrassing to me, I would quit and take up something else. I would not admit to it in a forum such as this and I would not use a web site like this.

Only you can answer the question posed in the OP or title.

PE

segedi said:

This may be true, certainly is for the average user, but a $30 old nikon will take better photos than a $30 digi-snapper - and I don't think any of us here are average users

Can digital be cheaper on a 5 year basis? Yes. Can film be cheaper on a 5 year basis? Yes. It really depends on intent, purpose, quanity and quality standards - and those depend on the individual photographer.

There is a higher cost for quality and I think that makes digital a more expensive bet. Besides my bias (90% film gear vs 10% digital in my kit), I have an enjoyment of photography that really trandscends the medium - but I prefer to use film as the results are more to my liking.

And the decline in processing availability is unfortunate, not unexpected, but unfortunate none-the-less. There is only one individual (local photographer) that even process B&W here in a city of ~one million people. But, this pushed me back to developing my own, and I can't say that's a bad thing. For MF color, the city will likely lose that ability to do that at all and will have to be sent out. Bummer.

Click to expand...

the average consumer has a camera in their phone
and they upgrade their phone ever year or 2.
i am sure their phone takes better pictures than
what film camera they were using before ...
whether it was a epic stylus or a whatever.
they use what suits their needs ...
and that seems to be good enough.
sure, some switch back over to film
and we see them here ... but that is a drop in the bucket
considering millions and millions of people use some sort of
digital gizmo, whether it is freestanding or in their phone/pad or whatever.

i don't think digital is a higher cost.
its obsolescence and the price of 100,000
exposures is built into the price, just like a cheap 50$ vcr ...

its " good enough "

segedi said:

... but a $30 old nikon will take better photos than a $30 digi-snapper ...

Click to expand...

My daughter's mother has the reputation of always getting the best pictures at graduations, parties, etc. Far better than the hoards with P&S digital cameras.

Invariably she uses Kodak disposables from a drug store she bought on the way to the event. She has learned to always get the CD from the 1-hour joint, and she can post pictures to Facebook within a few hours of the event.

When we were still married - way back when in another universe - I bought her a Nikon FE2, and I doubt that it's ever had 3 rolls of film run through it. She wasn't technically minded then, and she isn't technically minded now. But she knows when to snap the shutter. And honestly her results with disposables is excellent. Better than all her friends with the latest P&S.

MB

BrianL said:

I had my Olympus E500 about a year when the E520 (there was the E510 in between) came out and I traded the E500 for it. Only 2 years later Olympus has discontinued the camera and also except for the professional level bodies the 4/3rds format it was based on. Imagine a film format that was discontinued after only a few years; oh yeah, the 110 and wasn't there a disc format- sorry forgot about it.

Click to expand...

As far as I know, the 4:3 format is still alive and kicking. The Micro 4:3 was also introduced, but 4:3 cameras remain in production. Actually many persons here attribute a recent spike in lens prices to 4:3 users who supposedly use them with adaptors.

I bought my first and last digital in year 2008. It is a Sony DSC-R1, a very peculiar camera, capable of the most astonishing performance (thanks to its fixed lens and its particular optic scheme). The person who sold it to me (auction site) probably bought it in 2005. I can perfectly understand why he sold it: lack of up-to-date high-ISO capability, lack of shake-compensation, lack of high-magnifying focus (modern cameras let you focus at 10x in live-view and that allows for very precise focusing in difficult conditions).

On the other hand, I can perfectly see why I bought it: stellar optical performance, still very good overall image quality, and very good value for money for the kind of work I do. I sold several pictures made with it.

Since I learned how to develop myself, last October, I only used it for family gatherings, and I regret this a bit, it's a capable instrument really and I should leverage more its capabilities (but I have a new love story with film at the moment, and that leaves me no time for escapades).

Digital photographers are not different from us. They have GAS as well. People here is constantly looking for a new emotion, a new experience, a new beginning. MF, LF, range-finders, folding cameras, alternative processes... we are not so different beasts as we think. A digital photographer can - rationally - consider better high-ISO performances, or shake-compensation, or better resolution, very interesting for the kind of work he does.

I find that my film, dry-scanned at 4000 dpi with my desktop film scanner, is still superior also in resolution - besides in dynamic range - to my (very capable) digital camera. I understand those who buy a new camera for better shadow capabilities, or better resolution. I suppose the new-generation 24mp cameras reach, or maybe surpass, the definition I get, but I tell you my 10mp camera, and a very capable one, is behind 135 film even when scanned by a "homely" desktop film scanner. And film performance in managing highlights is way better in any case.

Nonetheless, digital photographers ARE like us, what pushes them to buy the last toy it's the same thing that make some of you experiment with new developers, new films. They can't change film, or developer. They can change raw developer and you can bet real shutterbugs have normally at least 4 different raw developers.

What they fail to understand, is that changing film or developer is cheaper than changing camera

Overall I think that most film users use it for somehow "irrational", or should I say "belly" reasons, or let's say not good enough reasons for the majority of photographers: the good palpable thing, the emotional connection with the masters of the past, the idea of an artisanal process, the quest for the "artsy", feeling different, subconsciously fighting ageing and death , whatever.

I use film exactly because in most circumstances it gives me better quality: Better resolution (which the most expensive digital cameras can match) and better tonal rendition (which no digital camera can match).

Some people are afraid of being seeing as a "trainspotter", a geek with thick glasses, a weird person, until you give them a reason. 10% of us is "nurture" but 90% is "culture", people do go against the tide if they see a reason. Our failure is precisely in pretending that they follow us for "irrational" (sentimental, "belly") reasons.

I don't use film because it "works for me". I use film because it works better!

Fabrizio

I would have "gone digital" a long time ago if it were not for the fact that making a final print on paper, toned, matted and mounted is what matters to me. Were I simply taking iPhone pics, posting to the web, and/or sharing 4x6 prints with the family, digital would likely have been a very welcome "instant" solution. So...embarassed?...not at all. The prints, and the years of skill I've acquired make all the difference, and I'm proud to be able to make them from film negatives, and print them in my darkroom. Besides, we who are still analog photographers are about five minutes away from being "alt process" photographers, and that has its own mysterious and wonderful cache!

Photo Engineer said:

If any aspect of my hobby or profession were embarrassing to me, I would quit and take up something else. I would not admit to it in a forum such as this and I would not use a web site like this.

Only you can answer the question posed in the OP or title.

PE

Click to expand...

I don't believe the OP is embarrassed, nor is he asking whether anyone here on APUG is embarrassed about his use of film. He is referring to the people he has encountered who own or once owned film cameras, who wax nostalgic about film, speaking fondly of their old cameras, yet who, for inexplicable reasons, never use them anymore. He questions whether those people are embarrassed by the idea of using film.

jnanian said:

steve

the average joe/jane consumer is not wasting their money on a hassy digital back
they don't even know what a hasselblad is ..
people use a cellphone for their "p/s camera" these days
its "good enough"

i have 3 digital cameras, 1 -5 year old lumix/leica, 1 d100 and 1 d200 ...
and i use PSCS2 ... i have no plans on "upgrading" in 2 years as
the "digital sux argument" always suggests ... it all works fine ...

you can go to any walgreens or whatever pharmacy and get memory cards
for almost nothing ... and that costs leaps+bounds LESS than film and processing.
it really isn't an argument that is worth having ... because next to nothing is a lot
less than 10-12$ ( plus the cost of the film ) a roll.


your argument doesn't really make any sense.

Click to expand...

You completely missed the point.

They did not ask why they are using digital cameras.
They asked why I am not using digital cameras.

So I guess your reply doesn't really make any sense, does it?

What an embarassing question...!

SkipA said:

I don't believe the OP is embarrassed, nor is he asking whether anyone here on APUG is embarrassed about his use of film. He is referring to the people he has encountered who own or once owned film cameras, who wax nostalgic about film, speaking fondly of their old cameras, yet who, for inexplicable reasons, never use them anymore. He questions whether those people are embarrassed by the idea of using film.

Click to expand...

I am giving a generic answer to the query "Is it embarrassing to shoot film".

That covers all aspects here.

PE

Sirius Glass said:

You completely missed the point.

They did not ask why they are using digital cameras.
They asked why I am not using digital cameras.

So I guess your reply doesn't really make any sense, does it?

Click to expand...

i suppose i did miss the point steve,
i didn't realize the point of this thread was that someone asks you why you
shoot film and not digital ...


was that was the point of this thread ?

even if it was, i don't think average point/shoot digital users have any idea what
full frame, or a hassy, or better light back or any of the stuff
you mention means ... its lingo they don't really care about ...

my reply makes as much sense as your answer.

jnanian said:

was that was the point of this thread ?

Click to expand...

Frankly I am not sure. I can interpret the OP several ways:
I could go on with various interpretations.

I think the intent was to evoke all types of responses, but only the OP knows.

We are on page 9 and discussing the meaning of the original question??

The way I understand it, OP is asking why some people he has met feel embarrassed to use their film cameras.

My response to that is that those people may be concerned with what other people think of them if they bring out what they consider to be an old, obsolete, and past technology item. Would they be considered not keeping up with the technology? People may think they are so poor that they can't afford the latest technology? May be their will be perceived as they are so backwards and uneducated that they don't know any better?

These are just perceptions of what others might perceive, of course. The reality is, most people can't care less what others do, unless it hurts them in some ways.

For many people, having others think good of them is a major part of their valuation of self-worth. Keeping up with the "Jones" and having the latest is a full time job. Think of how one kid gets an iPhone and everybody wants one. Next iPhone comes out and everybody has to upgrade theirs.... and it's the worst thing to be the only one still using the previous generation iPhone! I believe adults do this to some degree as well.

I come from a culture where "keeping up with the Jones (Takana's)" is the #1 priority for majority of people. In Japan, people always compare themselves to their peers and always trying to one up on them, but not so great of a degree (that will be impolite and inconsiderate) but just slightly. It is a powerful force in many ways. Personally, I consider "keeping up with whomever" a very recursive and wasteful.

As to me, I am not embarrassed to use any and all of my film cameras. Some are 100+ years old. I am also not embarrassed or proud to bring out my digital cameras. They are all part of what I enjoy.

I think the OP meant: people would like to use film, or so they say, but actually they don't. Is this because they are embarrassed to use film? (Are they afraid to be seen as backward, old-fashioned, a bit nut?). That engenders all the discussion about herd behaviour, conformism, and "better to be wrong with all the others than being right alone" mentality.

I cannot help quoting here a nice poem by Roman dialect poet Trilussa, for the happy few:

BONSENSO PRATICO

Quanno, de notte, sparsero la voce
che un Fantasma girava sur castello,
tutta la folla corse e, ner vedello,
cascò in ginocchio co' le braccia in croce.
Ma un vecchio restò in piedi, e francamente
voleva dije che nun c'era gnente.
Poi ripensò: "Sarebbe una pazzia.
Io, senza dubbio, vedo ch'è un lenzolo:
ma, più che di' la verità da solo,
preferisco sbajamme in compagnia.
Dunque è un Fantasma, senza discussione".
E pure lui se mise a pecorone.

Trilussa

My awful and prosaic translation:

COMMON SENSE

When, one night, they spread the voice
that a Phantom was going around the castle,
all the crowd swarmed in and, in seeing him,
fell on their knees making crosses with their arms.
Only an old man remained standing up
and wanted to tell frankly that nothing was in sight.
But then he changed his mind: "It would be foolishness.
I, without doubt, see it is only a sheet,
but rather than saying the truth alone,
I prefer to be mistaken in company.
Therefore it's a Phantom, no discussion",
and he prostrated himself, too.

On our very recent trip to the ocean floor at the rocks @ the Bay of Fundy, I wore my Leica M2 and M8.2 range finders at low tide and took my 21mm and 12mm lenses. I have a shorter strap on the M2 so it rides above the M8. While there a tour buss of visitors from Asia came by to tour the area. There was a buzz about them like a croud at a stadium doing the wave as I walked by. Only the teen aged boys ventured broken English. They knew what the Leica film camera was and showed great interest. The men my age and the girls and women did not care.

I did not feel embarrassed but grateful I could generate future film fans even if somewhere else in the world. They loved looking into the viewfinder but most still arched their back and looked at the back of the M2 then laughed before looking into the finder.

Well, it's a bit like

Rap music is new and popular (says the popular media).
So rap music is new and hot and classical music is old and cold.
Same with products, particularly digital gadgets.

The implication is that our attention should always be focused on new popular media (or products), regardless of quality, or function, or whether it fills our need. It's implied that our needs and interests are unimportant--we are supposed to do what we are told.

I was out shooting with my Yashica Mat yesterday. All I had for film was two rolls of Tri-X Pan.
It was cloudy and I had planned to go find a shady spot and basically practice shooting arty-farty stuff.

Well, first the sky clears up and it's a bright, sunny day. A few minutes later, I look across Presque Isle Bay and I see the Flagship Niagara sailing into the channel, headed for Lake Erie. I jump into the car and huckle buck my ass about a mile down the road to the end of the North Pier to see the tall ship coming down the channel.

I get there and the Niagara is just coming through the channel. There's a guy there with a Nikon digital on a tripod snapping away.
He was an older guy who seemed to have some idea what he was doing. Here I am with a camera that wasn't really built for 400 speed film shooting in bright sunlight. I walked over to him and asked for some advice. If figured it was a long shot but, as I said, he seemed to be knowledgeable. He barely looked up between rapid fire shots and said, "I'm spot metering off the hull."

I pulled out my Gossen light meter held it up and said, "Yeah, it'll be tough for me to do that without getting my feet wet." He barely looked up between salvos while I tweaked my camera. "I think I'll give it two extra stops and pull the film in development." I took three steps back, focused the viewfinder and clicked off a single, barely audible frame and and said, "Nice day," as I walked off.

He was still there when I finished the remaining 9 frames on my roll. I was eager to get home and develop the roll to see how my gambit payed off. That guy was still there click-click-clicking away.

Yesterday, categorically and without a doubt, I was *NOT* embarrassed to be shooting film.

P.S. -- The pictures came out pretty well!

Tell them about the new film cameras they can buy quite cheaply.

tomalophicon said:

Tell them about the new film cameras they can buy quite cheaply.

Click to expand...

.
SSSsssssshhhhhhh !

Ron
.

The new ones, you know like the Voigtlanders, Fujis etc... Tell them if they still make them they must be good!

Only if you are shy.

If shooting film embarrasses you, you're too easily embarrassed, it would never occur to me to feel that way, film is the real thing and I'm proud to use it.

It's embarrassing to watch many digital shooters, I certainly never feel embarrassed while shooting film and if you've worked with MF or Large format that brings an economy and a more considered approach to all formats 35mm or even D*g*t*l.

Ian