semi-ambivalent
Allowing Ads
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2011
- Messages
- 733
- Format
- 35mm
It reminds me of the last time I was shooting 8x10 in the field and the inevitable camera-toting kibbitzer (alias buttinski) showed up and popped the inevitable question "What are you doing?"
After a bit of banter about it not being an old camera and how I "develop my own", it got down to the question of how did I know the pictures will "come out". I assured my new friend that film exposure and development were very precise and then gave him a look under the focussing cloth at the groundglass. While I was getting the usual "wow", "it's in colour", "it's upside down", I pointed out that the view camera can do something no digital camera can do. The groundglass enables "chimping" of the final image in full, with all the details exactly how they will appear, BEFORE taking the picture. The digital cameras folks carry around enable chimping of a mere "preview" only AFTER the picture is taken.
If digital cameras omitted the little reassurance screens on the back, if they didn't offer chimping, their sales would plummet to a fraction of present levels. And people would have to relearn how photography actually works.
If digital cameras omitted the little reassurance screens on the back, if they didn't offer chimping, their sales would plummet to a fraction of present levels. And people would have to relearn how photography actually works.
But they don't.
I think Leica will eventually do it. No preview screen...just for the purists.
Because they're trying desperately to preserve just about the last surviving online meeting place they can go to discuss their craft without being called idiots. That's where the anger you sense is coming from. Not from a sense of being unsure or self-conscious about analog itself.
They're attempting to flee from the hordes of d-evangelists who won't be satisfied until this final online film oasis is overrun. Apparently those other 999,999 d-sites are not enough for them. They want all 1,000,000.
The complaints are less about digital in general, and more about digital overrunning Sean's analog oasis.
Ken
...because these threads are all rants about fn-digital.
That is good to know and thanks for explaining however reading your original posting twice again I still get the same message from your wording.
Actually, I have nothing against digital photography. My problem is I detest the behavior it requires - hours of sitting on my ass in front of a computer after having already sat on my ass in front of a computer for 30 years. However, I have grown to detest people who simply must tell me that sitting on my ass in front of a computer is so much better in every way than all the tactile wonderfulness I experience with film photography. Mollly was not doing that, only expressing amazement at finding somebody who both understands and enjoys film. And Molly is a wonderful young woman, intelligent, funny, very good at her job, and confident in a room full of men.
Playing the cranky old man, I find liberating - sort of living life as performance art.
Good Lord. What happened in Bodega Bay in 1963? Did Kerouac show up with a bong?
The Birds??
The Birds?? Hitchcock.
Let's face it. Film photographers are packing around a lot of anger these days. They are feeling self conscious, and unsure of themselves. If they weren't why would we be having all these threads by analog people complaining about digital shooters and digital prints.
I just read this for the first time and I consider it one of the best summation of film photography that I have ever read. There was none of the old "mystery of photography" crap that was once standard practice in trying to explain the why and how of film photography. Thank you for writing it.......Regards!The other day I was shooting at a cake-and-coffee get together for a guy's retirement. A young coworker was amazed that I was shooting film and asked how I knew if they were going to be any good without being able to digitally chimp. I was pretty much at a loss for words and ended up mumbling something about knowing how your equipment works. This little exchange really got in my head and a few days later I sent her this note. It's not a manifesto or anything like that, not deep nor profound, just a few thoughts on the theme may that entertain some of you. Or piss you off. It's worded to address somebody who knows nothing about this little alternative universe we live in here.
Molly,
The other day you asked me how I knew that my pictures were going to be alright without being able to look at them on a screen right away. I have heard that younger people do ask that question of film shooters, but nobody ever asked me before. I was unable to give you any good answer because Ive been shooting film for almost 50 years and it has never occurred to me that they wouldnt be good, or at least I wouldnt know what would be wrong with them. That got me to thinking about why older film shooters do know that and younger digital users dont.
In my opinion you expect film photography to be unpredictable because you have been told 2 lies. The first lie is one that casual digital users tell themselves, that they have to chimp their shots (look at the screen after they shot) because what their camera captures is unpredictable. The real reason for this is that they just dont know how their cameras work, so THEY cant predict what their camera will capture. Even many self-proclaimed professionals fall into this category.
The second lie is told by, and to, people who have discovered cheap peiceofcrap plastic junk toy cameras and lousy cheap film, all from China and all made with virtually no quality control. What will come out of those camera with that film is highly unpredictable. They have embraced this and find some kind of wonderfulness in it that escapes me. And somehow these fools have convinced most of the rest of the world that this is what film photography is and always has been. The first camera and film my parents gave me for my 7th birthday was better than this junk.
You see, there is nothing unpredictable about what will happen to light passing through high-quality optical glass. The science and mathematics of optics goes back to the 1500s with Copernicus and Galileo. There is also nothing unpredictable about what will happen when that light hits a high quality modern film. This films available today are the best ever made. The quality control involves using electron microscopes to examine the light-sensitive coatings at the molecular level. There is really nothing unpredictable about how development chemicals will act on those light-sensitive layers to bring the images into view. There is nothing unpredictable about what will happen when the images are projected onto light-sensitive paper and the passed through similar chemicals to be developed.
But when I say it is all predictable, I mean when using standard methods, techniques, temperatures, formulae, etc. At every step of the way there is possibility for variation away from the standard. These variations require skill and knowledge of how the equipment works in order to bring the best out of it. This knowledge comes from making mistakes and learning from them. This is also where a lot of the artistry comes in.
For an extreme example of skill and artistry, take Ansel Adams, the god-saint of American landscape photography. He used 8x10 film, comparable to about 2000 megapixels. A friend of mine happened on him while hiking one time and stopped to chat. He had been at the spot for 3 days without taking a single picture, waiting for the light to be just right. When he would finally expose the film, he would already have in his mind just what he wanted the final print to look like. He knew the exact combination of chemicals, time, and temperature he would use to develop the film; the paper he would print it on; the ways he would enhance different parts of the picture; and the chemicals, time, and temperature he would use to develop the paper.
Anyway, this was long and rambling and probably a big surprise to you. You see, your question caused me to bring together a lot of uncoordinated thoughts that have been bouncing around inside my empty head for quite some time. I wrote this as much for myself as for you. I take this stuff way too seriously.
Thank you for your question,
Peter
I just read this for the first time and I consider it one of the best summation of film photography that I have ever read. There was none of the old "mystery of photography" crap that was once standard practice in trying to explain the why and how of film photography. Thank you for writing it.......Regards!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?