On the Virtues of Film

[lkorell]

"not digital so I was a little apprehensive about it all, no deleting and shooting again!"

Just a quick comment. A wedding photographer using digital NEVER deletes while shooting. When you do that you could mess up the synchronization of numbering and time. This is especially true when using two cameras and you are trying to keep them synchronized.
Also, you could accidentally erase more than you wanted to or the wrong shot, or.....actually you don't have that much time to review closely at a wedding. "Chimping" is ok but not for every shot. Mostly just a quick look at the histogram tells you what you need to know.

While I recognize that this is a film forum, it is still really important to the business of photography to keep misconceptions about digital (as well as film) to a minimum.

That said, I miss shooting film at weddings. I just like the cameras better. I have a beautiful F6 that I haven't used at a wedding yet. I keep threatening to but I've gotten used to a digital workflow. I too miss dropping off the film and waiting in anticipation for the results. There's a different kind of freedom there.
For my take, the best thing about shooting digital is not worrying about how many frames you shoot and that you can shoot more without "reloading". Also, being able to set the ISO on the fly is a plus.
After that, I would rather shoot film because I DON'T have to keep checking anything. I can keep my eye on the subject and just shoot. Weddings are always tricky with changes in lighting and I think film can be more forgiving with minor changes while digital requires a more controlled exposure setting. That certainly though, dispells the myth that anyone with a digital camera can be a good photographer. It's harder!

There are way too many debates about film vs. digital. It's more fun to enjoy photography - taking and looking at pictures.

Lou

 

[df cardwell]

..... snip....
After that, I would rather shoot film because I DON'T have to keep checking anything. I can keep my eye on the subject and just shoot. Weddings are always tricky with changes in lighting and I think film can be more forgiving with minor changes while digital requires a more controlled exposure setting. That certainly though, dispells the myth that anyone with a digital camera can be a good photographer. It's harder!

Lou

I do remember, really, I do, helping a couple shooters do weddings with a Crown Graphic and flashbulbs. Compared to that, the Rolleiflex and Graflex strobe seemed .... well... cutting edge. Or a Koni or Mamiya. Welcome to 1968.

If the assumption is that a photographer can push the button 25 times and come up with 25 good pictures, digital is completely insane.

But there is an 'editing' obsession that infected photography, for which digital is the natural conclusion. Mutant devolution, the triumph of the Machine Age.

I was shooting pro sports when AF EOS and F4 came to town. Yawn, big deal. It was great for folks who didn't know where and when the pictures would come, and they had chase the game. They would go to their editor with 12 rolls of film, and have 2 or 3 good images. I would go with 5 or 6 good images from a couple rolls. And the first thing I learned about AF is that it was harder to get the pictures I wanted to take !

So it all came down to the editor, needing uncountable images to choose from, rather than have the photographer bring back what happened.

And THAT is the entire difference: editorial control, rather than the unscripted photographer, had become important. All AF SLRS with fast motors accomplished was to allow the editor to say, " Follow so-and-so. Bring me back a choice of images of the quarterback no matter what ". And digital solves that even better than film. It wasn't a revolution of digital over film, but a revolution of celebrity images and editorial control that demanded pseudo-video of the entire event to 'capture' images from.

And that is what has re-shaped event / wedding photography. Choosing from hundreds of lousy pictures is more important than having a couple dozen masterpieces in a book from a capable photographer.

And I'll go so far as to suggest the dilution of the marketplace by inept photographers, coupled with the obsession to be a celebrity for a day has reshaped the business. It isn't digital that is the enemy, it is Popular Culture.

Oh well. Time to go down to the darkroom and sniff the D76.

d

 

[lkorell]

I agree so much about the culture thing. People always ask how many pictures they get for the price - assuming that the more pictures you shoot, the more good ones you will get regardless of skill. Yes, it's nice to be able to shoot as many images as you want to without additional cost for the film & processing, but I certainly think it is even more important to make each shot as good as possible.

Because of the misconception that digital cameras - by their own virtue - make photography easier, more inept people attempt to sell their photography services based only on their misconceptions and maybe a false sense of confidence.
Pardon the comparison but, whether or not a surgeon uses a laser or a scalpel, they still must complete the basic and fundamental training it takes to become a surgeon.
Without that, neither would know where to cut!


Lou