Shooting film like digital - or not.

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I work at a University of California art department. One of the photo assignment is making a pinhole camera that allows one shot. The students really are careful not to waste that sheet of film or paper. They're shooting mindfully. They have to take the film and process it with great care. If they blow the shot, they have to reload the camera and do it again. The drudgery itself is a revelation of the analog world. You can't chimp a pinhole camera.

 

[pbromaghin]

In case you forgot, machine gunning shots was happening long before digital.

Motor drive Nikons were around in the early 70s at something like 10-12 frames per second.

How you shoot is a personal choice. If you're deliberate and set up your shots and only take a few, that's a choice, as is firing off 100 at a time.

Digital has nothing to do with any of this.

Right. I met a guy a couple weeks ago who told me he shot 10,000 rolls of 35mm in 5 years when he was working for NatGeo.

 

[kb3lms]

Digit-heads usually just whack off as many shots as possible on the idea that out of lots and lots of shots something just HAS to be good. My niece did this at her wedding. It was the old Uncle Bill and his GOOD camera scenario. Her friend, (the Uncle Bill), ran around like an idiot with the DSLR constantly going and then they picked out 2 dozen from the 3100 and some the friend shot. The 3100+ included the reception so it was over several hours. But it was insane and very disruptive of the whole ceremony with flashes and changing batteries and whatever. Unbelievable. Their album they had made ended up with one good shot and 23 mediocre ones. 30 or 40 well timed or composed shots could have easily done the job.

The display is turned off on my DSLR so I'd say I shoot it like film. I rarely look at any shots till I get home and stick the card in my laptop. My 32GB SD card will last for years.

To me, film always has that anticipation factor of seeing what you really got and it's more than half the fun.

 

[JimCee]

Digit-heads usually just whack off as many shots as possible on the idea that out of lots and lots of shots something just HAS to be good. My niece did this at her wedding. It was the old Uncle Bill and his GOOD camera scenario. Her friend, (the Uncle Bill), ran around like an idiot with the DSLR constantly going and then they picked out 2 dozen from the 3100 and some the friend shot. The 3100+ included the reception so it was over several hours. But it was insane and very disruptive of the whole ceremony with flashes and changing batteries and whatever. Unbelievable. Their album they had made ended up with one good shot and 23 mediocre ones. 30 or 40 well timed or composed shots could have easily done the job.

The display is turned off on my DSLR so I'd say I shoot it like film. I rarely look at any shots till I get home and stick the card in my laptop. My 32GB SD card will last for years.

To me, film always has that anticipation factor of seeing what you really got and it's more than half the fun.

I think digital photography has really opened up the opportunity for many inexperienced photographers to develop their skills. I gave my daughter a Nikon D50 several years ago, and she has loved the camera. She doesn't hesitate to shoot a lot of photographs, and discard those that aren't really up to snuff. I've watched her doing the sorting, and as time has gone by the "keepers" really has grown substantially.

I started in film photography many years ago, particularly after I purchased my first "real" 35mm camera, an original Nikon F with plain prism in 1964. Starting in 2005, I began to use a DSLR almost exclusively, and I used it generally in much the same way that I used my 35mm cameras. Each shot was composed and I didn't just fire away, even with a motor drive equipped camera. Those habits have generally continued with my DSLR's, although I certainly blast away when I'm trying to photograph birds in flight!

Recently, I started using my Nikon F3HP again, and I thoroughly agree that the anticipation of seeing the results is half the fun!

Jim

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I think digital photography has really opened up the opportunity for many inexperienced photographers to develop their skills. Jim

I do agree. During the days of film, I spent too much money buying Polaroid type 669 learning about the dynamic range of transparency film and studio lighting. I could imagine that I were to learn again, I'd use digital to learn about lighting.

 

[Slixtiesix]

From my experience of using real machine guns, you can fire hundreds of rounds and not do half as much damage to the enemy as aimed rifle fire from skilled and experienced infantrymen, but I digress.

I second that! Best analogy I have read so far...

 

[cliveh]

The number of shots you shoot has nothing to do with the image you wish to capture.

 

[BrianShaw]

In case you forgot, machine gunning shots was happening long before digital.

Motor drive Nikons were around in the early 70s at something like 10-12 frames per second.

How you shoot is a personal choice. If you're deliberate and set up your shots and only take a few, that's a choice, as is firing off 100 at a time.

Digital has nothing to do with any of this.

Amen. I've had "machine gunning" capability since the 1980's and never needed or used it.

 

[StoneNYC]

Digit-heads usually just whack off as many shots as possible on the idea that out of lots and lots of shots something just HAS to be good. My niece did this at her wedding. It was the old Uncle Bill and his GOOD camera scenario. Her friend, (the Uncle Bill), ran around like an idiot with the DSLR constantly going and then they picked out 2 dozen from the 3100 and some the friend shot. The 3100+ included the reception so it was over several hours. But it was insane and very disruptive of the whole ceremony with flashes and changing batteries and whatever. Unbelievable. Their album they had made ended up with one good shot and 23 mediocre ones. 30 or 40 well timed or composed shots could have easily done the job.

The display is turned off on my DSLR so I'd say I shoot it like film. I rarely look at any shots till I get home and stick the card in my laptop. My 32GB SD card will last for years.

To me, film always has that anticipation factor of seeing what you really got and it's more than half the fun.

I have to admit, between the wedding ceremony and the reception and dancing, I shoot about 800-1200 shots with digital and my assistant shoots 800 or so, I give the client 200-300 images roughly. Wedding photography expectations are way different than other kinds of photography so using that example isn't entirely useful.

One things for sure, "competing" with uncle bill IS annoying...


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lxdude]

Digit-heads usually just whack off

This I agree with.

 

[lxdude]

In case you forgot, machine gunning shots was happening long before digital.

Motor drive Nikons were around in the early 70s at something like 10-12 frames per second.

How you shoot is a personal choice. If you're deliberate and set up your shots and only take a few, that's a choice, as is firing off 100 at a time.

Digital has nothing to do with any of this.

It didn't start with digital, but it was not widespread before digital. Even pros who used those motors had to budget their shots because they didn't want to be at the end of a roll when the action peaked.

 

[Nuff]

I do agree. During the days of film, I spent too much money buying Polaroid type 669 learning about the dynamic range of transparency film and studio lighting. I could imagine that I were to learn again, I'd use digital to learn about lighting.

These days I use my dslr mostly to do a check of my lighting/flash setup before the final photo on film. It's a very capable camera, but to get the results I'm after I'm not skilled enough in photoshop to achieve the look I want.

 

[benjiboy]

It didn't start with digital, but it was not widespread before digital. Even pros who used those motors had to budget their shots because they didn't want to be at the end of a roll when the action peaked.

The main reson was the more shots you took the less the profit.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

When I was a student , Soviets had been collapsed newly and there were thousands of Kievs , FEDs , Zenits everywhere. I sold my yashica and bought a kiev 88 camera , 80 and 250 mm and two magazines , filters , ttl camera meter , few filters and excellent case.

Problem I had no Money to buy film. I said , tonight I will not eat and buy from this new velvia. I did and after couple of hours , I shot my lifes best Picture.

 

[lxdude]

The main reson was the more shots you took the less the profit.

I don't think that was the main reason for those shooting 35mm. Overshooting is a waste, clearly. But if machine-gunning meant getting the well-paying shot, film costs incurred were unimportant in comparison.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

You're a true artist Mustafa. Suffering for your art. The ones with full bellies don't have the hunger to produce art.

 

[hoffy]

You're a true artist Mustafa. Suffering for your art. The ones with full bellies don't have the hunger to produce art.

That's it - I am going to quit my very comfortable job, leave my wife who also earns a very comfortable living and alternate between eating and buying film! That should get me out of my current photography rut!

(BTW, I do believe it is very true).

 

[flatulent1]

I'd been shooting film for about 20 years when I treated myself to a brand new Canon 5D. Shooting digital freed me from worrying about running out of film, and I took pictures of everything. A year later I scored a lightly-used EOS 1V. Took it to a park with a roll of film, shot all 36 frames in about 15 minutes. I was horrified! I had to relearn patience and selectivity, and when I shoot digital now I shoot it like I was shooting film.

 

[StoneNYC]

That's it - I am going to quit my very comfortable job, leave my wife who also earns a very comfortable living and alternate between eating and buying film! That should get me out of my current photography rut!

(BTW, I do believe it is very true).

You'd be surprised how many successful photographers (or maybe you won't be surprised) had very wealthy mates who helped support them and get them on their feet before they were famous...

Also, I want to share something really personal, This is important to me and a real story from my life so I hope some of you take the time to read it, it's simple... but a very good friend of mine, my best friends younger brother in fact, once said to me that he truly believed that in order to become great, that we must suffer, that as an actor (this was before I was as heavily into photography as I am now) I would be nothing if I didn't move to NY, live in the shittiest hole, and suffer and strive to be great at what I did, he said that only then would I find greatness. And he moved to NY himself, and he suffered in a different way, and sadly passed from an accidental overdose... I say this because there's a fine line between suffering for your art, and suffering for the sake of art. That I think there's a lot of truth in what my friend said, but that you can't let it consume you, because then you won't have the strength to truly be great when it really counts. So choose to eat, take the long path, take your time, use that extra food energy to work harder at your job and get a raise or a better position, then you can start to use the money toward film, you will have earned the right, you will appreciate the film not out of desperation, but out of respect for the journey that took you there and the times you went without the art itself in order to be in that moment now, and your images that you create will be inspirational because you'll feel inspirational and want to share that with the world...

Thanks for listening guys,

~Stone

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Stone,

You will discover how your wealth wife would love her Money. My uncle lives in million dollar villa but he storms at the home when someone uses home telephone. I would prefer to marry with a poor hippie girl and live a happy life. I know how to work hard , I bet nobody here worked 9 AM to 1 AM seven days a week without sit on a chair for 4 years. And hitchhiking to home and reach to the home 2.30 AM.
It was a prepress business and one of the 3 biggest lab in the World. I love the films , scanners , laser printers , colorists , mac guys , lay out systems and the proof systems. It made me to selected as Heidelberg rep. 400 applications and 1 guy.

And nobody worked in a luxury here like me. When a newspaper machine broken , they call me and our private jet flies to europe to bring the part and the master.

I know to hitchhike at minus 25 celcius in middle of night and road and I know how to order to a private jet.

 

[benjiboy]

I don't think that was the main reason for those shooting 35mm. Overshooting is a waste, clearly. But if machine-gunning meant getting the well-paying shot, film costs incurred were unimportant in comparison.

I used to shoot 35mm weddings back in the day, and never used to use more than four films on a job, because the cost of processing, proofing, enlargements by a local professional lab. and the album if I shot any more really ate into the profit I made, and I was confidant enough in my ability not to overshoot from a sense of insecurity which I believe many photographers do these days.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

2 new digital cameras for about 3 months. Between them I've shot maybe 400 frames. Can't stop thinking about wasting and getting the shot the first time. Not necessarily a bad thing. I find it amazing that I have the capability to shoot 4 thousand frames non stop. But why? I bought too much card.

 

[blansky]

It didn't start with digital, but it was not widespread before digital. Even pros who used those motors had to budget their shots because they didn't want to be at the end of a roll when the action peaked.

That's why they carried 2 or 3 cameras.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I think that's perfectly fine

These days I use my dslr mostly to do a check of my lighting/flash setup before the final photo on film. It's a very capable camera, but to get the results I'm after I'm not skilled enough in photoshop to achieve the look I want.

For those that get what they want working in Photoshop, sometimes they make up for sloppy shooting. I freely admit I shoot digital, but I try to get the shot the best I can while shooting even though there's that crutch called Photoshop. It is a useful tool if I enhance what I have or accomplish what I can't do in the camera. Digital photography and Photoshop are not necessarily bad tools.

 

[Nuff]

For those that get what they want working in Photoshop, sometimes they make up for sloppy shooting. I freely admit I shoot digital, but I try to get the shot the best I can while shooting even though there's that crutch called Photoshop. It is a useful tool if I enhance what I have or accomplish what I can't do in the camera. Digital photography and Photoshop are not necessarily bad tools.

I've never said they are bad tools, they are not that great for me. I don't have the time and skill to use them to full potential. On the other hand I can achieve what I'm after much easier with film. To me both are tools, I use them both in ways that works for me.