The hardest thing about analog - Decisions

Hi everyone

I got a bit spoiled by d***l, which really is generic, suitable for any occasion. Pick your d***l and shoot anything, family snapshots, street photos, landscape... BW or color.. whatever. Snap the picture and decide later.

With film it's the other way around. You got to choose your subject and style upfront. You put your film into the camera and suddenly you just reduced your options. Found a great vivid subject? Too bad you got BW film...

And it's not just color vs BW. It's:
- color vs BW
- slide vs negative
- fast or slow
- and there's always the lens question (which is also a variable in d***l).

That can confuse me to the point that I just pick my d***l and be done with it.

I know there are benefits in choosing a combination and stick with it. After all, less is more, right?
I somehow feel that sticking to a combo would help me diferentiate and develop a style. I'm just not at the point where I know what I want.
Or I simply lack the balls to say: to hell, I'm going to travel with a slow BW film, regardless of all the vibrant shiny subjects I'll miss.

Any other views on that?

Consistently taking good pictures requires some discipline. I shoot both digital and film, but I find that it's easy to get sloppy with digital. And not just digital -- zoom lenses and especially autofocus also encourage laziness. I do my best work with a separate spot meter and all camera controls on manual.

I'm mostly inclined to agree with the OP, but I really just wanted to offer this:

Welcome to *D*PUG..."Digital" is not a bad word. It doesn't need to be censored.

<PERSONAL OPINION> I find the practice a bit annoying even on APUG. </PERSONAL OPINION>

--Greg

me too on the censor stuff.

just blast away, frankly i would bet over 90% of the folks on apug have digital cameras. However, their first love is film. There is a place for both and that is why we are here,
welcome

I would suggest you just pick one film and one developer , one printing paper and paper developer and use it for at least a year.
Years ago, when film was king, it seemed every month there was a new article singing the praise of a new combination to use. One can go crazy with trying everything and not really get a handle on one.

Never mind the censoring, I used to be apug memember and saying digital was not very well accepted there
Anyway, that's not what the post was about, so I propose we don't discuss that matter further.

Hi, I have a few thoughts...if you're shooting film, extra bodies might be easy to find used, you can load one with color, one with B&W (and a spare body is good to have anyway). Or move to medium format with changeable backs, or (I think) best yet, go to large format and you can easily work with quite a variety of film.

Denny

Don't make it too difficult...it doesn't matter that much. Shoot whatever you have. Don't worry about a style, etc, etc...just get out there and shoot. Eventually you'll find something you keep returning to, but that'll be way down the road. Use good metering/instincts, pay attention to the frame and you'll be fine.

Too many people get hung up on film/equipment...a good picture is a good picture, period.

I don't shoot that differently when I shoot film than I do when I shoot digital. I just get better quality in certain situations with one or the other. For instance, digital destroys film for low light hand-held shooting. But the pure technical quality of a print from low-speed film smokes that of prints from my digital camera most of the time.

But as far as the way I think photographically? It's the same with film and with digital. There isn't a whole lot of reason for it to be much different, the way I see it. To me, the artistic process is identical, and the technical considerations are 90 percent the same. And that 10 percent isn't really about the fact that there are technical considerations with one that there are not with the other; it is just that the ways you combat the technical challenges are a bit different. In other words, when shooting film, I shoot with the analog printing process in mind, but when shooting digital, I shoot with the digital printing process in mind. Same technical considerations (contrast, exposure, etc.), but slightly different methods to control them.

Welcome to dpug. I shoot both digital and film. I love PHOTOGRAPHY so what I use to capture the image means little to me. I just use whatever is going to give me the results I am looking for. When I was shooting only film I would either have 3 backs loaded for my Blad, one colour neg, one slow B&W and the other would either be a fast B&W or chrome. It's a lot easier doing it with a Blad or similar camera than trying to load up three 35mm bodies and then have to constantly swap lenses back and forth.

If you are just beginning in B&W I suggest you just shoot one film, such as Ilford HP5 and soup it in good old Kodak D-76. Figure out some developing times for 200, 400 and 800 ISO's or as we use to say ASA. Or if you just want to stick to one film maybe give Ilford XP2 a go. It's a C41 chromogenic film so you take it to the local colour neg developing place to get it souped.

You've come to the right place for both digi and film help. The people who frequent dpug for the most part are very well versed in both.

I look forward to seeing some of your images in the gallery!

Eric

I love going out with the "perfect rig" and forgetting about my options once I leave the house. Then you're forced to make use of it. I mean, just put yourself in the shoes of those early Kodachrome photographers... taking handheld evening shots with iso12 or slower?! We've got it much better...

The most important decisions for me are color or b&w, slow or fast. And probably 95% of my photos are taken with a 50mm f/1.4; sometimes with one other lens (35mm or 85mm) in tow for good measure.

You can probably safely make many of your choices up front. Landscapes? Choose slow film. Street? Fast. Going out on a high contrast day? Color negative film is going to give you more latitude than chrome.

For the B&W versus color decision, if you are scanning, you can shoot color and convert to B&W post scan, though you won't have the inherent characteristics of the native B&W film choices. Or, bring both color and B&W film with you on your shoot. If you find a good color subject but have BW film in the camera, there is no crime in switching rolls and wasting some film, if you don't have a changeable back (it costs a little more to do that, and seems bad, but I'd rather have the image and a little film wastage than to miss that great shot). Or, just plan to come back later when you've finished your BW roll. (For medium format, use 120, rather than 220, if you camera doesn't have changeable backs; for 35mm, get 24 shot rolls. You'll be wasting less if you abort the roll early.)

Mostly I have an idea what I want to shoot on a particular day, and prep my cameras with that in mind. But I bring extra film (and an extra camera too) so that I can alter my plan as I go.

I don't think of it very differently with digital. I set the camera for what I'm planning to shoot, then just go out and shoot. I don't do a lot of reprogramming in the field (though I'll bump the ISO if absolutely necessary).

One of the "tells" of an amateur artist is the lack of a style--pictures that aren't related to each other in any way. One way to enforce a style is to stick to one medium, and one type of picture, and then perfect that, which is what carrying a camera with one film puts on you.

If you're just looking for happysnaps which is really as far as a lot of people take their photography, or haven't found something you want to concentrate on, a digital do-it-all camera is one way to do that, no shame to it. Eventually maybe you will find out what you want to concentrate on, and then start carrying the equipment to do that job, but there's no rush. You might even find out that film isn't the best tool for what you want to do.

I don't really tend to use a digital SLR much differently to how I use an analog one anyway (I use both - more medium format for film though). Except that with digital, I can in some situations decide that yes I'll bump up the iso. But I'll stick with the lower iso's anyway where I can, just as I'd use slower flms in most situations and use a tripod. Digital gives a few more options though and I just can't dismiss that, but noise from high iso's can easily look worse than grainy film. My instinct suggests F$*! digital and I do refer to it as digifail quite a bit, but I am quite impressed with the new age digital camera's. I mentioned in another thread I have a 16x20 B&W from a D90 on my wall printed from a durst lambda at my local pro lab. There's something it doesn't have in relation to a wet process analog B&W print, but I LIKE it. There's nothing wrong with it.

jernejk said:

I got a bit spoiled by d***l, which really is generic, suitable for any occasion. Pick your d***l and shoot anything, family snapshots, street photos, landscape... BW or color.. whatever. Snap the picture and decide later.

With film it's the other way around. You got to choose your subject and style upfront. You put your film into the camera and suddenly you just reduced your options. Found a great vivid subject? Too bad you got BW film...

And it's not just color vs BW. It's:
- color vs BW
- slide vs negative
- fast or slow
- and there's always the lens question (which is also a variable in d***l).

That can confuse me to the point that I just pick my d***l and be done with it.

Click to expand...

For snap shots, I believe all you have to decide is where to point and when to shoot.

Now if you want to develop a style it would seem you would want to make some decisions starting with what style are you trying to develop. This may lead you to answer your next question and then go on from there. Perhaps this is more a "writer's block" . . .

Welcome to DPUG. Download to the gallery here or provide a link to your photos. You seem to want to go simple from your post. That's good. KISS> Keep it simple. Then you can concentrate on the shot rather than getting all confused. When I shoot with my m43 digital, I'm always fiddling with the menus. I shoot quicker. Don't spend as much time as I should with "inspiration". When I shoot with my medium format film camera, well, first off it weighs a ton. I have it on a tripod. That alone slows me down. Everything is manual. No zooms. No built-in metering. I don't print only scan, so I can convert to B/W afterwards if I want, so I shoot color. The film type once I'm in the field really doesn't matter. Most importantly, I have to consider perspective, framing, content, interest, the light. It's easy for me to look. It's hard for me to see.

Developing a "style" is nice whatever "style" means. But getting a decent shot with the things I mentioned above is more important. I've seen people turn their cameras 45 degrees to be "different". Well, their photos make me dizzy. You can develop a style later. You have to walk before you can run.

jernejk,

While I commend anyone using film as much as it is a beloved medium, I think its important to do so for the right reasons. Discipline, while demanded, cannot be 'imposed' by any medium. This is deeply personal, having everything to do with the photographer and nothing to do with film. I've seen more crappy snapshots taken with film then any digital camera. In fact, I think digital superior to film in this respect, as it better lends itself to taking somewhat 'decent' photographs with little or no effort. If discipline is what you seek then my suggestion is to start with the photographer and not the medium

As for the *advantages* of film over digital:

Film has far greater tonal range (though the gap is closing) and then there's the film "look". The latter is harder to reproduce, albeit many software developers (eg. FilmPack3 by DxO) are developing products which are increasingly convincing in simulating the aesthetic.

oh yeah

I guess the Poster Boy never heard of color negative film from which you can make color prints, color slides, b&w prints and b&w slides.
Heavens To Betsy -- just think of the tragedy that would happen if someone put a little thought into the photographs he was going to take. It would wipe out the Internet, for one.

eric rose said:

If you are just beginning in B&W I suggest you just shoot one film...

Click to expand...

Ha ha ha ha ahhh ha ha ha!!!

That is certainly great advice, if you can stick to it. The truth is that most of us have several cameras we use, usually covering more then one format. We have shot, or are shooting, a dozen different types and speeds of black and white film, not to mention different developers for same. And we love it!!!

But, I do agree. I would strongly recommend that you start by using Kodak Tri-X 400 with Kodak D-76 developer, or Ilford HP5+ 400 with Ilford ID11 developer. I actually personally prefer other films but these two are great films and developers, and are very, very flexible. Either choice will remove several variables that can interfere with your personal learning and development.

I personally love medium format. I shoot as much of it as I can, but 35mm is probably a better format to start with. It is less expensive to learn with. The reality is that while we all have favorite camera types, the camera is probably less important than the glass you use with it. I strongly recommend spending your money on the very best lens you can afford, and shooting with a cheapo body until you can afford to upgrade it a bit. You may lose a little bit of functionality with your inexpensive film body, but that beautiful lens will more than make up for it.

But, although I most certainly love using film, and God knows I shoot enough of it, digital certainly allows you to shoot freely without concern for the number of frames of film you are running through. I will admit that I do prefer using film for black and white, but digital is great medium for training your eye to recognize a wonderful black and white composition. However, do not let me stop you. We need as many bodies as possible out there buying and shooting film of all types. Have at it and enjoy yourself.

And by the way Eric, I most certainly mean no offense. Your advice really is wonderful and I picked on you because yours was the closest post.

Have great fun, I am going to go sort through some of my various brands of film.

When I was younger and as I was getting "smarter", I would use one slower speed B&W film and one higher speed. I would take some notes as I was shooting. My F-stops and shutter speed notations gave me clues as to getting repeatable results which is the key to eventually getting quality results.

Regarding the choice of film, I've worked my way through a bunch of different emulsions and finally I decided to got with Fomapan 400 as my standard b&w emulsion, which I now use for most everything I shoot. For finer grain, slower film, I'm still hesitating but trying 2-3 different emulsions and will probably settle for one during this summer. For real slow film, I got hooked on the Pan F 50, but still experiment with the Rollei Retro 80s as well, but same here, during this summer I will settle for one of them and keep going with that.

Color wise, well, who knows what we have left in 1-3 years. Right now I switch between Fuji Superia and Kodak Portra depending on subject and situation.


As I am more or less only doing street photography, and these select emulsions will do more than well for me, and I guess the consensus; try different emulsions, decide which ones you like, learn how to develop them good alt. find someone doing it for you, and then stick with the process as long as you are happy with the outcome!

Amen!

Get a film camera that takes the same lenses as your digital.

Then it's down to film, just start with Tri-x or Tmax400 it HP5+ or Delta400 and go from there, they are all 400, all good, and just use one....

If you CANT develop your own film and want to have a lab develop it, get "ilford XP2 super" it's a B&W film but can be developed in C-41 which labs can handle.

So, just pick one and start shooting!