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

[moki]

So it was more a, "Cool, I'm not the only one shooting film", kind of a thing.

I love these moments, though they are pretty rare. One day I was out on the beach with the Canon 50e (which looks almost like a digital) and an elderly tourist couple approached me. They saw my camera and assuming I was a good photographer (what a mistake... ), asked if I could take a photo of them. They handed me their camera and I was pleasantly surprised to hold an analog P&S. They had been using it for years because that's what they were used to and they didn't see the need for some modern camera with way too tiny buttons and the need to sort the pictures at a computer instead of simply looking them through. We chatted for a while and it was a really nice surprise. They didn't really understand why I, who is used to computers and small buttons, was not using a digital camera, though... :confused:

 

[NDP_2010]

Good question.
My answer to 'why are you not shooting digital' would be, i do
Why am I shooting film? That is also a good question.

For me, I have had several digital bodies and many lenses and I do like photography digital or film,
but I also enjoy shooting film, more so than digital becuase it feels special. When you have 10 shots per roll you appreciate each frame, and it is similar, when something is rarer, you feel it has more value.(you can snap 1000 shots on digital, but if you have one roll of photos I value them more)

It also is a cheap way to get a medium format camera

 

[Steve Smith]

but for the majority they would rather not go through the relative hassle of film.

I am often surprised by some people who have been film photographers but are now digital only photographers whio state that they couldn't be bothered with or have the time to deal with film photography.

It's strange because when it was the only choice, they didn't complain about it.


Steve.

 

[fstop]

Digital cameras physically last longer than 2 years. It is just that people with more money than brains feel the need to upgrade constantly. My 10D lasted almost 8 years before I decided I needed to upgrade. A short period, sure, but not 6 months or 2 years...and the camera paid for itself many times over, even though I am not a full time professional photographer, and have made only 18,000 pix with it so far (an average of 6-7 shots per day, and far less than most people hammer their digital SLRs with, I think). And I am keeping it until it dies for good. So, IMO, the problem with cameras being short lived is mainly with users, not the cameras themselves.

Been shooting an E950 every day for the past 9 years.It does everything for ebay,my websites,bulletin boards,everyday snap shots and some creative shots mixed in.
Don't want to guess the shutter count on it, one project alone netted close to 500 pics that were put on the net, so you can figure there are 3-4 times that amount that were shot.
And that camera has known serious weaknesses, they are known to literally break in half.
I'm also still shooting a Minolta XD-5 regularly that I got used in the early 90s.

The problem with digital is they become outmoded shortly after they are introduced, same as computers. This is why I'm going to stick it out with my old digital until the price of the better stuff comes down.
Anyone remember VCRs? The price point for the average VCR was 400 for years.As time went on the price never changed but the features increased or the sound/image quality improved.Eventually it did come down below 400 but took a long time.
Not sure what the price point on DSLR is but seems close to 1k.


"Mark my words. In about 6 months, you will be out $1500 for a camera that lasted a little over 2 years"

Tell me about it, paid almost a grand for the E950 when it came out, you can buy working units on ebay for 40 bucks these day.:confused:

If I bought a Nikon F2 or Minolta XK in 1978 and kept it in decent condition it would bring more now than what it cost new.

 

[elekm]

I've never had anyone ask me that. But I've become more gruff and less diplomatic as I get older. Could be an interesting encounter.

 

[Roger Cole]

To tell the truth I was being just a little flippant.

I encourage people to either return to film or take it up. Most are somewhat interested, but for the majority they would rather not go through the relative hassle of film.

[snip]

I was approached by a fellow who actually chastised me for messing up the environment with my "coal powered, smoke belching" Hasselblad. I was polite! (How many other people here would be polite?)

I wouldn't have been so nice at all, and thanks for the clarification.

 

[Klainmeister]

That sounds like one badass Hassie!

 

[JCJackson]

And it also sounds like the digital whiner was fairly ignorant about the very nasty chemistry that goes into the production of all things microchip...

 

[Klainmeister]

And it also sounds like the digital whiner was fairly ignorant about the very nasty chemistry that goes into the production of all things microchip...

Wait....are you telling me that a new Prius isn't as enviro-mentallist sound as my used, ford pickup?!

 

[fstop]

At least ferd pick ups are biodegradeable- ashes to ashes rust to rust... plastic body parts can be recycled though, possible uses include camera bodies

 

[Worker 11811]

I was approached by a fellow who actually chastised me for messing up the environment with my "coal powered, smoke belching" Hasselblad.

You can develop film with vitamin C and vinegar. Fixer is produced chiefly from liquid waste products of sodium sulfide or sulfur dye manufacture. You can hardly get more environmental than that!

Whereas silicon chips are made with lead, germanium, nitric acid, cyanide and all sorts of methyl-ethyl-bad-sh*t that I can hardly remember the names of, let alone pronounce. This doesn't even count the nickel-cadmium, lithium-ion and lithium-polymer batteries that power that junk!

 

[Paul Goutiere]

You can develop film with vitamin C and vinegar. Fixer is produced chiefly from liquid waste products of sodium sulfide or sulfur dye manufacture. You can hardly get more environmental than that!

Whereas silicon chips are made with lead, germanium, nitric acid, cyanide and all sorts of methyl-ethyl-bad-sh*t that I can hardly remember the names of, let alone pronounce. This doesn't even count the nickel-cadmium, lithium-ion and lithium-polymer batteries that power that junk!

This is really the truth, by far.

But when a man is trying to justify a $6,000 plus purchase of a new digicam with a best before date of three years or so; he ain't gonna listen to someone who could get $900.00 for his 50+ year old Leica M2 (without a lens!) that still works as well as the day I bought it!

 

[Worker 11811]

I get the same thing from people who think that spending $5,000 on a home theater setup is better than going to the movie theater.

For that same $5,000 you can spend $100 every week for an entire year at the movie theater. All you have to do is walk in, sit down and watch your movie. You don't have to go to the video store or rent videos on line. You don't have to fuss with any equipment. You don't have to pop your own popcorn. You don't even have to clean up after yourself. Just toss your empties into the trash bin on the way out the door and somebody else will come along to take out the trash and sweep up the floor after you.

But, no. There is some kind of mystique about spending oodles and oodles of time and money to get the "latest" equipment which, in truth, doesn't even have half the quality of good, old 35mm film. Some people just want to gloat about the amount of money they spent to buy all that "neat junk."

I just spent $5,000 of my boss's money to install a Dolby Digital system in the theater that I operate. The sound is so clear you can hear a pin drop yet, at the same time, it can be so loud it would make your ears bleed. I still get people who try to tell me how great their home theater setups are. I have no doubt that their stuff is great but I also know that there is nothing you can get at Best Buy that will even hold a candle to the sound my 1,500 watts per channel my bi-amped, JBL horn-loaded compression drivers can pump out. They aren't even in the same league.

Your Leica is to a digicam as my JBLs are to a Best Buy home theater.

 

[drumminor2nd]

"I do shoot digital. I just didn't want to today."

That's all. I have my D90, but that doesn't mean I have to use it every day. Some days I want my F3. Some days I want an Argus C3 I paid less than 2% that I spent on the D90 (I've spent more on a memory card... actually 6 times more on a memory card back when a 1gb CF card was $100).

 

[Argenticien]

I have recently found myself being asked not so often "Why are you not shooting digital?" but rather phrasing like "Is that a film camera you're shooting with?!?!" (Asked with such a tone as to implicitly add "...you crazy nut!" at the end.) The one-line retort I've arrived at, and admittedly I'm snarky, is "Is there another way?" That tends to baffle the questioner since on the one hand (namely, to take it literally) yes digital is the obvious other way. But on the other hand, I just sound so sure of myself and dismissive of any other possibility, that they don't go into the digital vs. film argument.

<rant>(By the way: do laypersons have absolutely no idea of classic cameras? I don't see how even a complete muggle could look at, say, my Bronica S2 and have to ask whether it is a film camera. I know they're not camera collectors like so many people here, but one need only reason that if it clearly looks more than about 12 years old, it's not digital! To draw a parallel, I'm no expert at all in classic cars, and I could definitely mistake a '58 Chevy for a '55 Oldsmobile from a distance, but it's at the "DUH!!!" level to know not to ask the owner "is that a hybrid?!?!" about a big curvy car with fins and 800 lbs of chrome!)</rant>

--Dave

 

[ArtTwisted]

As a young photography student in a all digital commercial photography program and whos day job is selling digital cameras you could say I get the question a lot...

Answer is always, because it looks better. What else matters in a picture other then that.

 

[eddie]

I don't get that question a lot. People do notice, especially when I'm out with a 4x5, or Rolleiflex. Usually, they're pretty "supportive" (for lack of a better word). If the conversation gets around to why I've chosen film, I reply that it allows me to get the images I want, while digital doesn't. Film is the best tool for what I'm trying to accomplish.
If the discussion proceeds beyond that point, I mention that I feel more a part of the work with film. I'm intimately involved from start to finish, and my hand is involved in a more tactile way. You can't be proficient at something you're not passionate about. I'm passionate about film... I don't enjoy digital.

 

[faustotesta]

I do hate some of those asking "why you're not shooting digital ?" their attitude is something like "let me explain you what kind of choices you have to do in your life....".

 

[lordvader]

I usually reply that I'm a masochist, and then spend another 10 minutes composing, focusing and metering before taking the damned shot

 

[Steve Smith]

I just spent $5,000 of my boss's money to install a Dolby Digital system in the theater that I operate.................

.................... but I also know that there is nothing you can get at Best Buy that will even hold a candle to the sound my 1,500 watts per channel my bi-amped, JBL horn-loaded compression drivers can pump out.

Totally off topic, but this just reminded me of the story I heard about Pink Floyd premiering The Wall at The Empire Cinema in London. The cinema's owners had just installed the latest Dolby sound system and were not impressed when the band decided that it didn't really do justice to the sound accompanying the wall coming down so they installed the bottom end of their touring PA system in the space under the seats.


Steve.

 

[Roger Cole]

I don't think the theater analogy is a good one. If anything, the people who prefer the ease and quality of going into the theater and having all their needs catered to and seeing the best picture and sound are more comparable to the digi shooters.

Having a theater at home is more trouble, but it's YOURS. You can watch what you want, when you want, pause it if you want, back up, subtitles, whatever, stop here and watch the rest tomorrow, and see anything in your collection (or the huge number that can be streamed off Netflix) any time you want. It's worth more money and more trouble because it's a better overall experience IMHO, even if the quality isn't better. Just like film. (Ok, sometimes film is better, sometimes it isn't - doesn't matter to me, I like the process.)

 

[okiman]

It's not about quality. Digital can be 100x better but I would stil use film.
It's not about colors. You can get any kind of look with any medium (Sometimes it's just harder). My digital files have much better color than my film shots (Even Velvia ones).
It's not about cost. My digital SLR cost me 300 EUR and all the shot from that day on are free. My film cost me (without the equipment) more than that per year.
It's no about achival qualities. I can print digital to paper or film or whatever and achive it the way I want.

It's actually quite the opposite: I like film because I like the ANALOG part of it. The fact that each image is physically unique and can't be simply copied to another identical one. The fact that I can't count pixels or even see the pixels. The fact that I know each moment passing my film shots get older and degrade a little, while digital remains the same ones and zeros forever. The little imperfections and differences in film make it real, not just a copy of a copy of xxx number of well known pixels. It is a living piece of material.

So I guess it's the romantics of it that won by me...

(Oh and almost the same goes for the old mechanical cameras, mostly MF, I use.)

 

[BobD]

Digital cameras do not faithfully capture the scenes of life. They produce an
artificial grid of evenly spaced and equal sized dots which never existed in the
scene and which, when miniaturized, is made to resemble the scene through the
manipulation of color and tone within a finite non-analog scale of predetermined
values.

However, film photography captures the randomness of real life via random
particles of non-uniform size and analog (infinite valued) tones and colors --
much like the random particles and elements that make up the scenes around
us. Film, in its randomness and absence of predetermined scales of values, is
much more like real life and so is a much more faithful representation of it than
the fake digital grid. Even a "grainy," pushed, high contrast B&W image is more
true-to-life than a high megapixel digital image for this reason. So too is a
painting or drawing.

Life is imperfect and random and infinite-valued and so is film.

Some argue that the artificial digital grid is too small for the viewer to see so it
doesn't matter but the mind perceives far more than it is given credit for. This
is, I think, the reason that traditional film photographs carry more emotional
impact (some might say more soul) than digital pictures do. But, the ability to
perceive also varies from person to person so not everyone can appreciate this.

This, of course, is just my opinion and, by the way, simply posting this opinion
over at RFF caused one of the mods there to becomes so upset and enraged
that I was "banned forever" from their forum simply for saying it. So, be careful
who you repeat this to.

 

[fstop]

This, of course, is just my opinion and, by the way, simply posting this opinion
over at RFF caused one of the mods there to becomes so upset and enraged
that I was "banned forever" from their forum simply for saying it. So, be careful
who you repeat this to.

Thanks for the warning.

 

[Ric Johnson]

I tell them that they are in my way & screwing up my scene. Then I stick out my tongue and walk away.