The Reason for Film and Vintage Cameras

[pbromaghin]

I like film because I make the decisions, not the camera.

This is what makes me do it, too. That, and just how hard it is to do it right.

 

[Jim Jones]

I like film because I make the decisions, not the camera.

I like digital cameras that let me make the decisions and still have the practical advantages )for me) of digital images.

 

[removed account4]

i try not to get too caught up in "just enough technology" conversations because
film and paper and even low tech 35mm cameras are made with an enormous amount
of technology and r+d, maybe even as much as digital cameras.
i have fun using pretty much any camera i pick up, i don't discriminate and
im not a zealot one way or the other, its just as easy to use a digital camera fully manual
or with a pinhole or welders goggles and make a paper or OHP or bob carnie negative and a dark room print
as it is with a film camera ... its important not to sweat the small stuff ..

 

[Michael Firstlight]

I enjoy shooting film and making wet prints in my darkroom too. I just try not to make a religion out of it.

I have been known to chant in the darkroom under low (red) light from time to time...

Deeeeeee 76666666666. Deeeeeeee 76666666, Deeeeeeee.....

When I am not chanting make up foul alternate lyrics to popular songs playing on the old stereo receiver....

 

[1kgcoffee]

I love the look of film, especially medium format. The image quality in general, the grain structure. The fact that film does not have uniform pixels, but grain of varying size which can only be mimicked by computer. The final print, which is can only be appreciated in person. Trying to make a comparison in digital terms does not account for these things. Its not so much the camera itself. Film and printmaking are like eating a real piece of fruit after having only eaten artificially flavoured candies. It is fully satisfying as an artist.

 

[BMbikerider]

I love the look of film, especially medium format. The image quality in general, the grain structure. The fact that film does not have uniform pixels, but grain of varying size which can only be mimicked by computer. The final print, which is can only be appreciated in person. Trying to make a comparison in digital terms does not account for these things. Its not so much the camera itself. Film and printmaking are like eating a real piece of fruit after having only eaten artificially flavoured candies. It is fully satisfying as an artist.

That is a very apt analogy. Well said.

 

[keenmaster486]

My restored/goosed up IBM PC/XT

What the heck! What is going on here? ... Doesn't the XT MB only have 8-bit slots? And how is the 486 upgrade not being severely bottlenecked? Wow.

 

[faberryman]

Yes I have digital (not the latest I may add) and yes they are a wonderful tool, but not necessarily the best one for engaging in real photography.

Real photography?

 

[moose10101]

To the digital process... it's a fundamental thing.

In what way is it "minimalist" when it requires film, camera, paper, a darkroom, an enlarger, two separate chemical processes, and a period of hours/days in order to view the photograph?

 

[Dan Fromm]

Why isn't "because" a good enough explanation? Works for me.

 

[canuhead]

so there are no digital cameras that allow the user to manually focus, nor set shutter and aperture ? A,S, and P are just options for the masses.

 

[guangong]

I wanted to “reply w/quote “ for so many of the above responses. I would like to add that although I desire a quiet shutter I still enjoy the audio and tactile sence of a mechanical shutter...even my tiny Minox shutter can be sensed. The most frustrating camera I own is a Full GF670. Wonderful lens and sturdy but a shutter so smooth and quiet that I always doubt the exposure took place.This is why many digital cameras and meter on my iPhone have an artificial electronic click.
Film can last over a century, digital images are ephemeral.

 

[guangong]

I wanted to “reply w/quote “ for so many of the above responses. I would like to add that although I desire a quiet shutter I still enjoy the audio and tactile sence of a mechanical shutter...even my tiny Minox shutter can be sensed. The most frustrating camera I own is a Full GF670. Wonderful lens and sturdy but a shutter so smooth and quiet that I always doubt the exposure took place.This is why many digital cameras and meter on my iPhone have an artificial electronic click.
Film can last over a century, digital images are ephemeral.

 

[guangong]

I keep getting an error message when I attempt to post, which is causing duplicate posts.

 

[Helios 1984]

In what way is it "minimalist" when it requires film, camera, paper, a darkroom, an enlarger, two separate chemical processes, and a period of hours/days in order to view the photograph?

It's a romanticised impression, film is literally the antipodes of minimalist.



I appreciate mechanical engineering, good industrial designs & the way classic cameras feel in my hands.

 

[blockend]

I'm going to take a guess that the main proponents of film photography do not take many pictures. This isn't a criticism BTW. I find the taking, processing, scanning and/or printing of photographs taken on film to be extremely time consuming. After a few weeks or months of film photography I say enough, and settle down to a period with digital. It's worse at holiday periods when I'm averaging more than a film a day, sometimes much more. The backlog can get silly. I've tried going cold turkey on film, but it's impossible. I could just send it all out to a lab, but if I'm putting the process in other people's hands I may as well stick with digital 100%.

 

[keenmaster486]

The point of what I was saying was not that film is simpler than digital in general. Obviously, a great deal of complicated and intricate design goes into film and film cameras. My point was that, from an engineering and efficiency standpoint, using a digital computer to solve the problem of image creation is very convoluted compared to direct image capture with light-sensitive chemicals. It feels so much more right to take pictures with film... I stand by my assertion earlier that using a computer for every task seems like way overkill.

Here's another analogy: when I take a picture digitally, I feel like I'm going to a futuristic holodeck from Star Trek, firing up the system, and commmanding it to bring forth for me an incredible forest, filled with grandeur, so that I may take pictures of it - instead of just walking a few blocks west and taking pictures of the real forest.

 

[twelvetone12]

I'm a huge lover of analog photography but... aren't you way overthinking all this? Also, I disagree that the science and technology involved in film (and film itself) are less complicated that computer technology.

 

[blockend]

It feels so much more right to take pictures with film

When we start out, taking a photograph is indistinguishable from magic. As a child I thought it actually was magic, a result of my mother's dire warnings about opening the box camera and the Brownie imagery that accompanied its marketing at the chemist. It may as well have contained pixies, so inconceivable was the link between pressing a lever and obtaining an exact replica of a living (or sometimes dead) person.

Then we learn the workings and depending on our predisposition, we enjoy the art or the science for its own sake. In the process we forget the magic that photography represents, the capture of a mortal being or a place for a split second of time. A moment later nothing is ever the same again. The simplest cameras are a reminder of this alchemical deal, more than sophisticated cameras. Digital cameras have removed the magic still further, because in a real sense the picture was never there, and even the essence can be permanently removed with a click of a key. The difference between film and digital is people rarely make prints from the latter. I'm sure cameras are owned, perhaps entire iterations of a model, without ever once committing any of its output to print. That's the exact opposite of high street lab days, when good, bad and indifferent photographs were manifest as actual things. They may not have pleased us at the time, but they lived on in drawers awaiting fresh eyes and kindlier thoughts. Now they succumb to the delete button before they have chance of better judgement and second thoughts.

 

[FingerLakesMark]

...This isn't a criticism BTW. I find the taking, processing, scanning and/or printing of photographs taken on film to be extremely time consuming. ... It's worse at holiday periods when I'm averaging more than a film a day, sometimes much more. The backlog can get silly.....

I thought I must be the only one with a backlog of film to develop...

 

[MattKing]

I keep getting an error message when I attempt to post, which is causing duplicate posts.

This happens to me as well. It appears that despite the error message, the post actually has been completed. Just don't complete the second attempt, and a single post will appear as it should.
I'll report this to the moderators for Sean's attention.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I keep getting an error message when I attempt to post, which is causing duplicate posts.

John, 127 mm lens, not 127 film.

This happens to me as well. It appears that despite the error message, the post actually has been completed. Just don't complete the second attempt, and a single post will appear as it should.
I'll report this to the moderators for Sean's attention.

I too have been having the same problem. I have to keep going back and deleting the duplications.

 

[MattKing]

Until you specify a year, the term, "vintage" doesn't really mean anything. As in, "vintage 1963" or "vintage 2004". Using "vintage" by itself could refer any year. Even last year.

And equally important, one person's vintage is another person's "fairly recent".
I believe keenmaster486 is looking at this from the perspective of someone who might think an Olympus OM-1n is "vintage". Whereas I think of an OM-1n as an update on the moderately modern camera that was my first 35mm SLR.

 

[BMbikerider]

Real photography?

Yes real photography!

There is photography and then there is Digital Imaging. Semantics yes, but if the opinions of some ruffle feathers of others so be it. Every one is entitled to his/her opinion.
Yes I have used the digital thing and I can say that I get very little satisfaction from it. More like frustration! I also know I would be a damn sight better off financially, if I had not tried it.

 

[BMbikerider]

I to am getting the error message:-

The following error occurred
The server responded with an error. The error message is in the JavaScript console.

It looks as if the error message is itself an error because the post of uploaded anyway.