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

Or, with less effort, I simply say, "Never got around to it. How many years did you do darkroom before switching over?"

Nine times out of ten, this shuts them up.

I like to tell people that my negatives should be printable 50 years from now (though I'll probably be picking rutabagas with a step ladder by then) and I don't have to worry about the file format!

I suppose I could also tell them that my 35mm camera is roughly 35 megapixels of REAL silver (at 200 per mm) and my 6x6'ers are 125 megapixels of REAL silver, and when I go 8x10 they will be roughly two gigapixels of REAL silver! (though I sorta cringe at the analog/digital analogy)...

There's nothing wrong with digital. And this thread is certainly not bashing digital. If anyone wants to shoot digital then that is their choice. We just all simply have our opinions. And mine is that it really does make me sick though with some of the over-photoshopped and HDR stuff that's being done. I just think its so ugly but it seems the average person is blown away by it!

Because I don't want to.

Michael W said:

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

Click to expand...

This is pretty much my experience too. I rarely get any real confrontation about shooting film, but a lot of people seem genuinely surprised that it's something one would want to do, and I look on it as a chance to give them a little mild education in the fact that there are still people who shoot film by choice.

I think the people who ask this usually aren't interested in a lecture about the quality of the results or in a "digital vs. film deathmatch" discussion, but the basic idea that I like the hands-on analog process and the mechanical tools seems to reach them.

-NT

I have never been asked that. People with their little digeesnaps and high end digeesnaps just want to look at the ground glass on my "Old Time camera."

It is the weenie headed freaks that stick their digital camera in front of my lens to "to take the same shot I am" that bug me.

I get asked regularly.

I use both film and digital as different tools, so I can be interested and converse with digital-only photographers.

If it's not out and about shooting, the photos speak for themselves. A well made glossy B&W silver photo from a MF or LF negative is something appealing and totally different from the computer screen experience. A nice cyanotype on quality paper is even more appealing sometimes.

If I'm out and about, I usually have to mention I can still get film for it, which I order online and develop myself. I mention not too many people use these old cameras locally, but there is a huge cult following on the Internet by various artistic photographers, and the Internet is where it's at for traditional photography. I'm plugging interested people to find places like this if they are interested. It also portrays me as an advanced Internet savvy artist part of a bigger community rather than a luddite straggler in the dregs of a popular hobby. This must be done concisely with confidence and politeness.

Sometimes people are interested in image quality. Sometimes "really really nice" is all I need to say. I mention it handles the highlights nicer than digital and you'd need something extremely high end to beat the larger modern professional film this uses. I don't mind talking megapixel, but won't unless the other person wants to talk about it. It's such a meaningless measure even in the strictly digital world. I don't mind telling them my TLR negatives scan in nicely at 20 megapixel, or my speed graphic with 4x5 film is 150 megapixel.

I agree with all the above and especially this answer, it sounds like something I would say.

ruilourosa said:

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

Click to expand...

I use digital for pictures that will go immediatly to the web.For example pics for ebay,bulletin boards,websites or instructions where I want arrows and numbers to point at things.
Snap shot type of pictures IE family events,how the deep the snow is to show my Aussie freinds,that perfect homemade pizza etc

Where I have time to wait for processing for more serious images I use film.

Digital cameras are a lifeless lump of plastic.film cameras easpecially those made prior to AF and LCD readouts have soul, the metal and leather bodies have a certain feel that digital can't match.

Since I picked up the camera again and have been out shooting I get asked this a lot. I usually find that they are genuinely interested in film cameras and their simplicity. Only once has someone tried to debate me about the merits of digital compared to the 'archaic' drawbacks of film.

I am amazed at how many folks have high end amateur cameras, even pro models who really don't know how to shoot. I feel bad for them. They have been sold a bill of goods that you can buy an eye.

I'm of the opinion that if one needs to ask " why are you not shooting digital," then they probably won't understand the answer.

Well, obviously, so I can fully enjoy APUG. Duh...

It is too boring to rely on dumb algorithms that deal with 1's and 0's :-(

Here's what I say:

To me, the realization came in the basement of my house while I was moving some old dusty boxes around.
By that time, I was shooting DSLR for several years. I would usually go on a trip and bring back several
thousand shots which I would later pare down to a few dozen keepers.
As I was telling: I was in the basement moving some old dusty boxes around and I opened one of them. It
contained Walgreen's prints from 15 years prior that were taken with a $15 camera. As I was ruffling through
the prints, I realized something. Had I used digital at the time, THESE would be the keepers that I would
save. With film, I only press the shutter when I know the picture is going to be good. With
digital - you all know the story. So what's the point of taking thousand pictures that I'm not going to keep
anyway? That's why I use film.

I have a digital camera, and for the most part I like it. I respect artists who use digital cameras.

However, I use film about 99% of the time. I enjoy the process and not having to re-learn menus every time I take a camera out. There are lots of reason.

I was asked why I use film on one memorable occasion. At a camera store in Florida I asked if they had a few rolls of Fuji 160c and the kid replied that they didn't stock film anymore and "why was I using it anyway". Something in the little buggers demeanor set me off a little bit and I replied that "I use film because I really take photography seriously. Digital is not a serious format!" Then I added the question, "Is there another store in the area that takes real photography seriously or is this it?"

I know, I know....I won't do it again, I promise.

Paul, I had the exact same conversation with a sales clerk in the Boca Raton area. I chalked his snottiness up to an excess of sun.

I used to shoot a mix of 35mm and MF when I first got a DSLR-like camera. 3 months later, the camera was gone and the old dusted analog came back. If I'm asked seriously why I'm shooting film I can reply: "I tried digital, but I ended up having quantity over quality, so I switched back" and that usually can spark a nice conversation. I feel A LOT of people, after talking at a popular photo spot, have said more or less "yeah, I really miss my Nikon F4" or "I miss those big slides..."

That being said, being a younger fellow, people tend to want to lecture me on why I need to switch to digital. Seriously. In Bryce canyon, a "Pro" started our convo with "Shooting 35mm? What a waste of time" and the next thirty minutes was him explaining the fine details of his new D70...

Printing my shots in the darkroom was almost more of a highlight than being in the canyon itself. I always wondered if he felt the same looking at his LCD screen.

I hardly ever (or perhaps even never) get asked that.
Maybe that's a cultural thing...

The only reactions tend to be from the quite young (under 25) who seem to find film very cool and the relatively old (over 50) who sometimes recognise the cameras they once dreamed about.

Why invest so heavily in such a rapidly depreciating asset? Want to talk about carbon footprints? I'm 64 years old and shoot with cameras that are older than I am. Where will that new DLSR be in five years let alone fifteen years? The bottom line is I'm more interested in creating a photograph than taking a snapshot, and besides, if I take a DSLR into my darkroom all I can do with it is set it on a shelf.

RPippin said:

Why invest so heavily in such a rapidly depreciating asset? Want to talk about carbon footprints? I'm 64 years old and shoot with cameras that are older than I am. Where will that new DLSR be in five years let alone fifteen years? The bottom line is I'm more interested in creating a photograph than taking a snapshot, and besides, if I take a DSLR into my darkroom all I can do with it is set it on a shelf.

Click to expand...

AMEN.

RPippin said:

Why invest so heavily in such a rapidly depreciating asset? Want to talk about carbon footprints? I'm 64 years old and shoot with cameras that are older than I am. Where will that new DLSR be in five years let alone fifteen years? The bottom line is I'm more interested in creating a photograph than taking a snapshot, and besides, if I take a DSLR into my darkroom all I can do with it is set it on a shelf.

Click to expand...

Yep!

Because sitting in front of a computer is far less of a family activity than looking at slides on a screen or passing around photos made of paper.

Also "Boxes of slides and binders full of negatives do not crash"

Another favorite "Why exactly should I use digital, there is nothing wrong with film?"

RPippin said:

Why invest so heavily in such a rapidly depreciating asset? Want to talk about carbon footprints? I'm 64 years old and shoot with cameras that are older than I am. Where will that new DLSR be in five years let alone fifteen years?

Click to expand...

This is something I've been thinking about about for a while now. I've never been inspired to put it so succinctly.

What happens to the digital stuff as it so rapidly become outmoded? No sooner did I get my Canon G11 than the G12 comes out.
-How long has the Nikon D2 been out before the D3 came out. (Canon etc. too.)
-Will anyone fix the old DSLRs? I can still get my 40 year old F2 fixed!
-Is the image from a new DSLR that much better than the image from my F2?
-Is the environmental footprint from using film better or worse than that of buying a new DSLR and attendant hardware every few years? (I actually don't know!) I use a hybrid process at the moment. No darkroom. Process film at a local lab, scan with CS9000 print what I like.
-What is really important, image or camera?? Both?

More good points.

Lawrenceu said:

Since I picked up the camera again and have been out shooting I get asked this a lot. I usually find that they are genuinely interested in film cameras and their simplicity. Only once has someone tried to debate me about the merits of digital compared to the 'archaic' drawbacks of film.

I am amazed at how many folks have high end amateur cameras, even pro models who really don't know how to shoot. I feel bad for them. They have been sold a bill of goods that you can buy an eye.

Click to expand...

Its all about composition, you can make award winning images with an Instamatic if its composed correctly.
A 20 dollar ebay special can and will shoot quality images that rival digitals costing well over $1,000.
Digital doesn't match the analog nuances of film, just as CDs don' match analog recordings.They are adding settings to digitals now to behave like certain film.
Sure 24 mp cameras are out there, when you can buy them for 20 bux and they work...
For the difference in price I can shoot a lot film and pay it out 20 dollars at a time. I can get 1100 shots for the price of the digital camera I would buy. Thats 1100 "keepers".
Because shoting digital seems almost free every one over shoots everything, but those shots come at a cost. Every shutter actuation devalues the camera, digital cameras record every shutter actuation.
I can buy used film camera in EX+ condition from KEH today for $300, keep it looking good and in 2 years sell it on ebay and lose at most 20-30% of the purchase price.Buy a $300 digital today new or used and in 2 years its virtually worthless.
I've seen digital in the hands of casual shooters roll up 50,000 shots in a few years, considering the life of the shutter in most cases is limted to about 100k, that 2000 dollar digital is worth about 300 at this point.
I don't like scrolling through menus to select an apeture or a shutter speed, when camera makers added dials to digitals they were harshly critisized for creating "amatuer" cameras.
Digital also spies on you recording all kinds of information on the camera,lens and exposure, yes its conveinent but if it uses gps it also gives away your position. I like my privacy.Will thousands of photographers rush to my backyard to shoot my flowers,wildlife etc? no, but I gauruntee if an image was published in major media there would be at least one geek trespassing.
Its like fishing in a crowd, you catch a fish out of a spot and 3 guys will throw in at the same hole...
There are hidden costs in digital, maybe not hidden but not apparent on the surface.
For $20 I can buy a roll of 24 exp print film and get it processed with prints.
To do the same quality in digital you need a $1200 camera, a $400 printer, paper and ink that costs about 50 cents a sheet to print...
thats 83 cents a picture for film consumables, digital about 25 cents (you can fit 2 images on one sheet)

For kicks heres a run down
Film
Used camera with lens $200 (you can get a ex cond top drawer camera and lens shopping smart)
Film and processing $21 (4x6 prints)
----------------------------------
$221
cost per shot (24 exp) $9.21
5000 images $.87

Digital
camera used 12 mp $1200
printer new epson740 $ 500
computer dell
scratch and dent $500
photo software $80
paper/ink 12 sheets $6.00
---------------------------------------
$2286
cost per shot (24 exp) $95.25
5000 images $.96

I'm sure someone can find a way to argue this, but this is MY perspective on it and won't look at it any other way.Some people have told me not say anything unless I have first hand experience.
In all the above examples I used real prices and I own both film and digital slrs.

I chuckle and walk away.

I have never been asked why I am using the Hasselblad 500C/M. A recent visit to Tarpon Springs was typical of what I encounter. I had the Hasselblad on a strap around my neck. My wife was carrying her Coolpix P7000 in the same manner. Both of us attracted some attention when we were actually taking pictures. Nobody reacted to my wife's camera at all. In contrast, one older man with a Nikon DSLR and a huge lens gave me a big grin and a thumbs up, and a young woman photographing with a tiny P&S digital camera walked up to me and said, "O wow! Is that a Hasselblad?"

The operators manual for the P7000 is 244 pages of fine print. The operators manual for the 500C/M - one of the more complicated all mechanical cameras ever made - is 20 pages of large print. That, in large part, is why I shoot analog.