When Asked Why You Are Not Shooting Digital, What Do You Reply?

[FilmOnly]

Yesterday, I had an interesting (and perhaps typical) experience I thought I would share. I was out with my trusty Minolta XG-M/MD-1, tripod, remote cord, light meter, etc., and I gather I puzzled the guy next to me, who had a D700 (with what appeared to be some type of plastic zoom with a flower hood) on a monopod, and nothing else.

I was setting up for a train shot, doing my usual things: adjusting my tripod so as to frame correctly, checking my bubble level, double checking my aperture and speed, metering the light every couple of minutes, considering the background and composition by surveying the scene in my finder, and so on. After about ten minutes of this, he asked: what type of camera is that? I answered: a Minolta XG-M. With a somewhat blank look he responded: why aren't you shooting digital? I replied that I liked my XG-M, and was not interested in spending $5,000 on a full-frame digital camera. I added that I did not want to "step down" to a non-full-frame design--that I am familiar with my apertures, I use hyperfocal distance or the DOF scale on nearly all of these shots, and thus f/8 must mean f/8, f/11 must mean f/11, and such. I could have added more--regarding the film medium itself--but for whatever reason, I stopped there.

Has anyone had a similar experience? If so, what have you responded? Similar things have happened to me, and I tend to walk away thinking that perhaps I have missed something...that my $150 used XG-M or FE, or the (usually) sub-$100 used "classic" lens I am using are somehow not as good as good as I think they are.

 

[Akki14]

This is my art. I have digital for play, but this is something completely different.

 

[zenrhino]

Dance With the One Who Brung You

For me, it's that when I shoot, the very worst thing in the world for me is to be surprised by the result. I *know* what I'm going to get if I shoot Portra NC through my Hassy, and I *know* what I'm going to get if I shoot PanF+ and soup it in Rodinal at 1:50.

If I've only learned one thing at all in the 10 years I've been doing this now, it's that process and gear are everything, and at the same time that process and gear mean absolutely nothing.

A secondary, more visceral reason for me is that I see digital as a "pay up front and hope you get your money's worth out of it before it depreciates" paradigm. Film on the other hand is "pay some up front, pay incrementally as you shoot."

Which for me, just makes it seem like there's absolutely no reason to shoot digital (for actual photography rather than snaps which are just as fine in any format and used more as social networking trading cards than photos per se) unless one can monetize the investment. Wedding shooters? Digital for sure. Fits the clients needs, fits the economic model. But not for me, definitely.

 

[Worker 11811]

I have a question for you... Do you have a microwave oven?

Well, then, if you have a microwave (and you probably do) then why don't you throw away your stove? Why don't you just take your prepackaged, frozen meals out of the freezer, pop them into the microwave oven and have your dinner, hot and ready, in 3 minutes?

Sure, I could do that but I prefer to cook my own dinners. I like to pick my own ingredients. I like to vary the recipe depending on my own desires of the moment. I want to be able to add some extra spices if I want. If I ate microwave dinners instead, I'd eat the same thing as everybody else and I would have very little latitude in varying the recipe. What latitude I do have is limited to things I don't like to do, anyway.

Of course, I eat microwave dinners. There are times when I just need a fast meal. I'm hungry and I don't have time to cook. Microwave dinners aren't bad, per se. They just aren't good to eat all of the time.

The analogy works the same: Digital cameras == Microwave dinners.

And, of course, I have a digital camera. There are times when I just need a fast picture and I don't have time to "cook." Digital pictures aren't bad, per se. They just aren't good to take pictures with all of the time.

 

[moki]

It's a question, most analog photographers get asked sooner or later... I usually answer something along the lines of "Because I like film, I like developing it myself and making prints in the darkroom and I haven't found a single digital camera that can get me the look of a classical black and white film. Why use Photoshop to simulate grain, dodging, burning, etc. digitally, when I can get the real thing?"

I do have a DSLR (with APS-sized sensor) and I love it for some occasions. For example, I wouldn't want to shoot a concert with film, because it's so much easier to bump up the ISO with digital. I also like digital for most color pictures, because I can't enlarge those myself. And when I take photos for a job, I can do all the Photoshop-magic to make it look just like the customer wants it. Of course, I could take the picture on film and scan it, but then I don't see why I should make the detour. Quality of current DSLR pictures (even with entry level cameras) is good enough for poster sized prints, so it's good enough for any customer... digital has advantages, quite a lot of them actually, but they're for people who only care for the results in terms of sharpness and speed, not the process and feeling of taking a photo. They just don't see that it can be a good thing to slow down sometimes.

 

[Richard T Ritter]

I pull out my Leica that was made in 1938 and say "Will your digital camera be working 70 years from now and will the images you make with the digital camera be around 70 years from now."

I remember growing up at holidays everyone would have a packet of photos and they would be pass around and traded. Now the same amount of images are taken but they are never seem.

 

[FilmOnly]

I appreciate the perspectives. Interestingly, I have neither a microwave oven, nor a digital camera. I guess I am a very unconventional type

Over the past ten years or so, I have owned many pieces of 35mm gear, from all of the major manufacturers. I am grateful for being able to have experimented with various systems and lenses--at such a minimal cost, too. I just love my 35mm gear, but I am the type of person that tends to continually evaluate his choices and actions. Since I do not develop and print my own film, I suppose the above question is perhaps more relevant to my situation.

 

[Klainmeister]

Because a binder and sheets is cheap. I new and fancy computer is not.

 

[Michael W]

I get asked this reasonably often & generally they seem quite sincere & confused; not putting me down. I tell them that I like the simplicity of the film camera, particularly something like the M6 which has the essentials & nothing more. I tell them that I don't like the absurd complexity of contemporary digital cameras & generally they agree with me. I think a lot of people are struggling with all the buttons & menu options on those cameras

 

[MaximusM3]

Me, because I like the process and the images come out how I want them to (most of the time), without spending hours in front of a screen going blind. It's not about quality and that is the usual source of all arguments. There is no doubt that I can get much more out of a new Summilux f1.4 with my M9, unless I'm shooting Technical Pan and develop in some weird concoction, but who gives a crap. Let everyone else fight about sharpness and absence of grain, huge 25mp files and the likes. I'll take film and its "imperfections" ANY time, ANYWHERE.
I do use digital for some family stuff to share with family, etc and that's what is great for. Everything else, not for me.

 

[Jesper]

The answer depends on the person asking, but if they seem to be the "more megapixel = better photograph" type my first reply is that I don't want photos with such a crappy resolution. When they try to defend their 12-20Megapixel cameras I do some utterly meaningless but impressive math based on Technical Pan (800lpm used as graphic film) and my 8x10 camera that shows that resolutionwise it is about 100 000 to 1 in my favour.
That usually shuts them up.

If they seem nice they get the real reasons of the joy of the craft, control of the media and the creative process.

 

[wootsk]

I once mounted my some of my 135 slides on my slide projector and shown it to my digital only friends during a house visit. The projected images explained for me the reason for why I still shooting analog.
I do shoot digital for easier processing and convenience sake (A 4GB card = Quite a lot of rolls), they are useful for stuff like events which requires quite a large numbers of images.
But on everyday life, when I go out of house, I will bring my trusty Canon new F1. On weekend morning, I will bring my Lovely (but heavy) Sinar F1 out for a photowalk.

 

[removed account4]

someone asked me something similar over the weekend .
i just said because i can still get film.
( he didn't know film was still available .. )

 

[tkamiya]

Occasionally, I get asked similar questions. I shoot film for B&W and digital for color. I do so because I like the control and the result each one gives. I have no ideological or philosophical reasons behind my decisions.

 

[FilmOnly]

I also add that I shoot print film, as I see some have referenced slide film and its wonderful resolution and sharpness. I shoot print film because I like to be able to open an album and look at my photos. Should the fact that I shoot print film alter my apporach at all?

The newer Kodak color films I have been using--Portra 400NC and now Portra 400--are quite good, though. Likewise, my first roll of the new Tmax 400 gave some results that are simply superb. I did not expect so much contrast in a 400 speed film...and it is pleasing, "gentle" contrast, too.

 

[jglass]

Here's one of the best responses I've heard, which came from a member here, can't remember the name. His wife, a musician, had asked him similar questions and he asked her why she didn't get rid of the piano and make music on the computer. She doesn't bug him much about his darkroom work any more.

It's a good notion. Just because you can do it, doesn't mean it's the best way to do it.

 

[benjiboy]

I just tell them because all my cameras use film, I'm used to them, they were paid for many years ago,I'm happy with them and I can see no reason to change my way of working.

 

[CGW]

Can't afford a H4D-60.

 

[brian steinberger]

I always seem to get the confused look as well. When I start telling them about a negative much larger than a 35mm negative they seem to follow, but when I get into resolution and detail of film vs poor resolution and clipped highlights of digital they are lost. I always said if there was one thing that most everyone does but was the most ignorant about it would be photography. And this is true now more than ever.

 

[anon12345]

"Better Pictures Through Chemistry".

 

[FilmOnly]

brian steinberger: I can easily identify with your comments. Your last two sentences explain the reality very well.

 

[narsuitus]

“When Asked Why You Are Not Shooting Digital, What Do You Reply?


My reply, “I do but not today.”

 

[ruilourosa]

Usually people do not ask me nothing, i have terrible looks...

but when they do i make something up like: i will kill you if you bother me again

 

[holmburgers]

"We've got the rest of our lives to shoot digital, I'm gonna shoot film while we've got it."

 

[tristan!]

This is such a great thread. Thanks to all of you.

I usually give the following explanation.

Photography, as all art, reflects the artist's perception of reality. In my darkroom, I have total control of the image. That image is mine, I own it. With digital, light goes into a magic black box and gets spit out, crystal clear on a tiny screen on the other side. Your five-thousand dollar lens will caputre ever nuiance of a scene in vivid detail. Your sensor will convert that light into ones and zeroes. It will be a perfect representation of reality. You don't own it.