Is it embarassing to shoot film?

[moose10101]

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.

Nothing in the OP supports the assertion that those people aren't shooting their film cameras due to embarrassment. If you want to support the assertion, you'll have to do better than telling us to browse some other web site.

 

[BrianShaw]

I spend just as much at photo.net as I do here, and I have no idea what would lead anyone to the conclusion that embarassment has anything to do with equipment choices. I disagree with that assertion.

 

[Vilk]

You care too much about what others say. There were very few people in the history of mankind worth listening to--and none of them ever mentioned cameras.

Just do yer thing.

 

[paulrocon]

In regards to the original post:

Embarrassing probably wouldn’t be the correct term, as this is a self-induced feeling almost on the edge of being guilt. If I had to describe situations like this I’d call it awkward, but not in the connotation that it is negative against myself. People tend to fall into two groups to me:

1) Typical non-photographers: Underestimate modern film because they used cheap film P&S back in the day. If shooting 35mm they see you as backwards and are irrational due to their experiences. Film SLR shooters however go into happy recollection mode like others have described. If shooting MF you become nostalgic, and they either react with a WTF? or curiosity.
2) dSLR/Professionals: If shooting 35mm then they are non-confrontational but clearly identify you as a second class shooter. If MF they react with a “really???” look on their faces and move on.

I’ve also found that photo stores that don’t process film hate you and those that do process (especially E-6) absolutely love you even if your order is just processing.

IMHO (and coming from a person in their early 20’s) shooting film nowadays requires a lot of self confidence. Your going against the grain of culture (although there is no grain!) and psychologically you must be content with the tools your using or your work will suffer. You never need to justify your actions or meet another’s expectations as photography is an art. At some point I think we all come to realize that digital and film are just two different mediums and that the pros & cons of each really don’t matter. It all boils down to self-satisfaction and personal choice, all else is fog.

 

[removed account4]

i have had conversations with people who used to shoot a lot of film
and converted to D and when they see someone with a film camera
they get kind of " nostalgic "

they say there is no one left to process it, and i kind of agree with them.
if i didn't know how to do it myself ( process ) i'd be "nostalgic" about it too ...

 

[Aristophanes]

If you are holding the camera the right way up, there should be no embarrassment.

If you are the quarry with a 14 gauge shotgun and are pooping away at expired rolls of 35mm sitting on an old refrigerator, and you miss from 20 feet away, you should be very embarrassed.

 

[segedi]

Myth #1: Digital is easier. While it is true, you can take as many pictures as you want until the card fills up, a lot of people never have the time or patience to look through all those photos, post online or print them at all. Because of the shear enormity in the amount of photographs - it present the photographer with a burden. And people struggle with image processing.

Myth #2: "Kodak doesn't make film anymore." While taking some portraits of neighbors at the annual street party, more than one person thought that Kodak was not making anymore film. It wasn't until later that it occurred to me that they must have heard of the demise of Kodachrome and applied it to all film from Kodak. I set them straight. But this is a concern, if people think film is really gone, it may explain why use film guys get some strange looks! And people can still enjoy and purchase new vinyl records can't they?

Myth #3: Film is more expensive. I've spent way more on DSLRs and gadgets for them than on my entire stash of film that will last for years. Development costs less than most people realize. How many rolls of film can one dev for the price of a 16GB CF card?

There are a ton more, but the average person has indeed been changed into thinking that film is dead and they are doing the right thing buying quickly obsolete (more marketing) digital equipment. I'm not anti-digital however. I use it when I feel appropriate (they make nice proofing systems a la polaroid backs!) but really like film. Film is still contemporary, but people don't realize it. While a 10 year old DSLR is quite antiquated and in the dustbin, film cameras still have life and relevancy.

 

[Steve Smith]

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

Things you do should be to embarrass your children rather than yourself. Sometimes just carrying a film camera is enough to embarrass my son.


Steve.

 

[BrianShaw]

Myth #4: Digital is more ecologically friendly (AKA "Green") than film

 

[removed account4]

Myth #3: Film is more expensive. I've spent way more on DSLRs and gadgets for them than on my entire stash of film that will last for years. Development costs less than most people realize. How many rolls of film can one dev for the price of a 16GB CF card?

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...

 

[ntenny]

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.

I suspect this hits the nail on the head (with a hammer rather than a power tool). People are fond of the cameras, but not of the overhead of the film process. And overhead there is, especially for those who do quick-and-dirty snapshots and have no interest in postprocessing; so I think they have a fair point from their own perspective. (And anyway, many retail film processors make prints that are at least as bad as an un-postprocessed digital snapshot!)

It's certainly true that a lot of people have film gear about which they feel good, but not the motivation to use it. The herd instinct and/or embarrassment about being noticeably Different may have something to do with that, but I think it's more about avoiding the two trips to the nearest processing shop to pick it up, and about the ultimate target being Facebook rather than a print.

When asked about it, I generally tell people that (1) I develop my own b&w and enjoy the process, and (2) the film can be set aside, forgotten for a generation or two, and found and looked at later, which matters to me. In my experience they generally understand those reasons even if their priorities and preferences are different.

-NT

 

[rphenning]

the question posed by the title of this thread is more embarrassing. shooting film is a luxury.

 

[jrhilton]

What is very interesting is a lot of people on here seem to have the impression that film is better for the average consumer and they have somehow been miss-sold digital cameras thanks to great advertising.

I think the opposite is true; the average consumer has been correctly sold a digital camera. Digital actually gives people what they previously wished film could, quick and cheap results that are good enough in quality for most people.

Digital compacts are dirt cheap (in fact they now start at less than film compacts did years ago) and for the price of a few rolls of film you can get a good size memory card too, which is reusable. I think anyone who strongly argues that film is better for Mr and Mrs Average needs to observe how the average person actually uses their camera these days.

As for being embarrassing, for the image conscience teenage brigade it would probably be rather uncool as they could not take a picture then show everyone the result straight away, or record a video, or upload something quickly to Facebook once taken, but I don’t think older people really care as much.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

C.o.n.s.u.m.e.r.i.s.m. and the clever marketing that comes with it. Who here believes that digital cameras were developed for any other reason than making more money?

Film requires effort. You have to take it somewhere to be processed and scanned, and then pick it up again. That is time you could spend doing other things, and it costs twelve bucks every time. After eight rolls of film you've spent a hundred bucks and a few hours of time, all while you could have picked up a cheap digital point and shoot camera, which delivers results that 95% of the population is completely satisfied with.

Even if you process the film for them, how do they get it into their computers so they can upload them to Flickr or email to their family without spending hours with a scanner?

Personally, I don't find it embarrassing at all. I proudly carry my film cameras everywhere, and tell people that care to ask that it's a choice I make because I find photography using digital cameras is incredibly boring and unsatisfying, but understanding why others might like it.

Be proud. Stand up for your choice. But be respectful.

 

[CD55]

I don't think I would call it embarrassment but more just moving on. Yes there is nothing wrong with their cameras and they have nice memories from using them but they just prefer digital since they've gotten use to using it and it satisfies their needs. It's more about the memories than the process. The only analogy I could come up with is having a computer with Windows 3.1/95 and one with Windows Vista/7. Both should satisfy most users needs such as word processing, spreadsheets, game play and internet browsing/email. However the computer with Windows Vista/7 will allow you to do other things that the other one couldn't even come close to doing without a lot of hassle(anyone remember placing programs in high memory in DOS).

In the end if people are happy with what they have, then just accept it.

 

[Paul Goutiere]

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

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

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...

Fair enough...

My wife has this dog. All he does is lay around the house and sleep. But he is supremely attuned to the pattern of noises present around him. If he senses even the slightest noise signature that indicates someone in the room is standing up, he is immediately up on his own feet and ready to move.

Mind you, he doesn't actually move. He just stands and waits to see what direction others are moving before he, too, then moves in that same direction. When the others later sit down again, he sits down as well. And begins sleeping and listening again.

Why does he do this without even thinking?

Because millions of years of evolution command him to, and cannot be ignored. Because that hard-won instinct tells him there is safety in numbers, and danger in isolaton. Because he knows that wolves only pick off those stragglers who trail the herd. And because he also knows his odds for survival are greatest if he can manage to remain dead center in the middle of that herd.

When people say "it's the marketing," they are not talking about rational appeals to a higher order reasoning species (us), where the pros and cons of the movement or change in direction (the pending purchase) are carefully weighed and analyzed in isolation. Even though these factors will most certainly become a part of the final decision.

No, the base appeal of marketing is to the same unspoken instincts which drive the dog's survival behavior. Fear of danger. Of being left behind. And therefore isolated. And therefore vulnerable.

The spoken marketing message is to convince you that you have a problem (danger), and they have the solution (safety). The unspoken message is that failure to addess the problem by purchasing their solution is the functional equivilent of the dog not standing up when everyone else does.

Once the hook has thus been set, then decisions regarding price, performance, availability, and suitability can be addressed. The already standing dog analyzing exactly which direction he must move to stay in the middle of the herd.

But the fundamental decision to stand up in the first place - to purchase what you have been told by the marketers is in your best interest - has already been made, and will not change. It can't...

Ken

 

[Sirius Glass]

Myth #3: Film is more expensive. I've spent way more on DSLRs and gadgets for them than on my entire stash of film that will last for years. Development costs less than most people realize. How many rolls of film can one dev for the price of a 16GB CF card?

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...

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

 

[ndrs]

shooting film is a luxury.

That's exactly how I see it − it's a luxury.
I'm not embarrassed, I'm proud of my skills and the fact that I can afford it. For me, shooting film is the equivalent of taking pictures and I have to remind myself that there are other options. And it takes me a second or two to understand when somebody approaches with Those Questions.

 

[BrianShaw]

What is very interesting is a lot of people on here seem to have the impression that film is better for the average consumer and they have somehow been miss-sold digital cameras thanks to great advertising.

Perhaps, but I size up APUG quite differently. APUG, the "on here" to which you refer, is a collaboration of folks who have for whatever reason CHOSEN to use film. In general I think you should notice that very few are insisting that film is best for everyone. Most "on here" would agree with the rest of your post that digital is good for many people, and many applications.

 

[BrianShaw]

Why does he do this without even thinking?

He really stands up because he is respectfully observant of God's almighty and ever-powerful will.

 

[Bob Carnie]

A very good post Ken. The herd started to move in the mid 90's for my business and what you say is exactly how I felt, should I stay still or at least move with the herd. I learned the good things about digital, kept my analogue methods and today feel pretty good about the choices I made for our family business.

Fair enough...

My wife has this dog. All he does is lay around the house and sleep. But he is supremely attuned to the pattern of noises present around him. If he senses even the slightest noise signature that indicates someone in the room is standing up, he is immediately up on his own feet and ready to move.

Mind you, he doesn't actually move. He just stands and waits to see what direction others are moving before he, too, then moves in that same direction. When the others later sit down again, he sits down as well. And begins sleeping and listening again.

Why does he do this without even thinking?

Because millions of years of evolution command him to, and cannot be ignored. Because that hard-won instinct tells him there is safety in numbers, and danger in isolaton. Because he knows that wolves only pick off those stragglers who trail the herd. And because he also knows his odds for survival are greatest if he can manage to remain dead center in the middle of that herd.

When people say "it's the marketing," they are not talking about rational appeals to a higher order reasoning species (us), where the pros and cons of the movement or change in direction (the pending purchase) are carefully weighed and analyzed in isolation. Even though these factors will most certainly become a part of the final decision.

No, the base appeal of marketing is to the same unspoken instincts which drive the dog's survival behavior. Fear of danger. Of being left behind. And therefore isolated. And therefore vulnerable.

The spoken marketing message is to convince you that you have a problem (danger), and they have the solution (safety). The unspoken message is that failure to addess the problem by purchasing their solution is the functional equivilent of the dog not standing up when everyone else does.

Once the hook has thus been set, then decisions regarding price, performance, availability, and suitability can be addressed. The already standing dog analyzing exactly which direction he must move to stay in the middle of the herd.

But the fundamental decision to stand up in the first place - to purchase what you have been told by the marketers is in your best interest - has already been made, and will not change. It can't...

Ken

 

[SkipA]

"... buying a digital camera that will need to be replaced in two years with a newer model."

I would say that a two year old digital camera would not need to be replaced unless it is broken and repair would approach the price of a new camera. But I don't doubt that many people feel that way. They're either concerned about status or they have bought into some marketing hype. As long as their two year old cameras are functioning properly, they should continue to take pictures as good as the day they were new.

I still use the Canon Powershot S30 I bought in 2002 and the 20D I bought in 2004. They have vastly different capabilities, but both of them take pictures as good as they did when they were new.

 

[BrianL]

Human emotional response to marketing and greed. Last year's car is so last year and out of date. I can't be seen in it so let it sit and buy a newer one with newer technology. Imagine driving a car until it literally is drivin into the car. Imagine having a camera until it is literally beyond repair. Not long ago a camera was good for a lifetime, now maybe 5 years which is the life of an average LCD or until the camera is replaced in 6 months with another with more pixels, art filters, blah, blah. whichever comes first. I bought my Bronica system in about 1988 and never thought about replacing it serious as it was lacking something. 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.

 

[A Sabai]

Nostalgia does not equal practicality. The way we share photos has completely changed. It really makes no sense for the average person to drag out the SLR they bought in the 80's, most people never new how to use them anyway. I use film because I like the feel, it fits in with my learning process, and with large format the quality is excellent without spending a fortune on equivalent digital equipment.