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

[Moopheus]

I, for one, do not own a microwave oven. On an NPR radio program the other day, there was a story about Urban Dictionary, and a certain term came up. Since it was on the radio, I think I can use it here: food douche. I am a food douche. I am also a film douche.

We can, and have, debated the various technical issues until we are blue in the proverbial face. It doesn't really matter. In the end, for me, it comes down to the fact that I like using my old cameras, I like working in the darkroom, I like being able to do something away from the computer. It's just plain more fun.

I worked in design and print production in the early days of "desktop publishing" and watched first-hand as the computer destroyed the traditional processes. Some things have certainly been made faster, easier, cheaper; I myself have published books that would have been too expensive to do the old way. But there's no question in my mind that a certain quality has been lost. I don't want to give up everything to convenience.

 

[Klainmeister]

$200!?! I've gotten top-shelf equipment for much less!

 

[Diapositivo]

If such a question would be posed to me, I would stress that highlights rendition on film is way better than with digital, and I would advice him to look back at the most contrasted of his digital pictures taken in those last years to check the highlight clipping. The "shoulder" on the highlight is the main reason why I would not consider switching to digital for quality work.

He would certainly enquiry about the resolution of film against good professional digital cameras. I'd just say that I also have, and use, a digital camera. For certain kind of slow and careful work, film works much better for me. I would not quantify the "resolution" of my slides when scanned at 4000 ppi, but it is way above my 10 mp serious digital camera. I would rate it somewhere between 15 mp and 20 mp. And it's more than enough for my purposes.

He would certainly comment on how expensive film must be, giving me the occasion to point out that with film all the activity is more reasoned, more studied, resulting in more roast and less smoke, and that I develop film by myself. So let's say 50 135/36 rolls a year at 3.6 Euro per roll + 1 Euro per roll for development cost me around 200 Euros per year. That's not so expensive. I am still using material of the Eighties, investment in glass and cameras has a very, very long use.

I would also stress that I actually occasionally sell pictures, and film comparatively sells much better than digital in my case, so that I have much accrued the percentage of film work.

At this point I would briefly tell him about how rewarding I find to develop slides by myself, how magic and fulfilling is the entire process, makes me feel good in Witchcraft.

As he certainly would be quite tempted by the analogue side of photography, I would finally recommend following APUG and looking on eBay for some second-hand film SLR.

Here in Italy there is still no problem in finding film, you can easily find it at your photo-optician round the corner, that's probably why no digital fan ever comes to ask me such questions. It's usually film fan who come to me to express how they agree with me, instead.

Fabrizio

PS Be evangelist not confrontational is my advice. Spread the gospel.

 

[fstop]

Yes that is true, but publishing is a manufacturing process to be competitve and deliver quality goods on a timely basis you have to use the latest technology.

I'm not a pro, I have all day to fool around with film.

 

[MattKing]

"Why would I change? I've been doing this for 40+ years and I prefer the results." Usually this is followed by a question about the availability of film and processing, to which I reply with the list of some of the local sources (we are fortunate here) plus internet options. Generally, I get a very positive, and sometimes wistful response.

 

[jakyamuni]

I get this a lot, along with "Do they even make film for that anymore?" (about 35mm cameras, 4x5, and the like). My most enlightening conversation of the topic came from a professor in the art department of my university... the one who wondered why I did darkroom printing, or film processing, or any of it- when I could "just replicate the aesthetic". I simply don't do that- and have seen "replicate the aesthetic" come to mean "digital image + photoshop filter + laserjet transfer onto rusty piece of metal."

When confronted in the field, I tend to say "That's how you make pictures, my boy" and then complain about the Roosevelt administration. Usually works well enough.

 

[fstop]

$200!?! I've gotten top-shelf equipment for much less!

I think this might qualify as top shelf...

It was 201.06 for a F3 and Nikkor 35-105 AIS zoom both in extremely good condition off ebay and includes shipping.
This combo new in 1997 went for $1350 at a discount camera shop.

 

[Klainmeister]

I think this might qualify as top shelf...

It was 201.06 for a F3 and Nikkor 35-105 AIS zoom both in extremely good condition off ebay and includes shipping.
This combo new in 1997 went for $1350 at a discount camera shop.

I agree, I was just saying that one can find stellar deals nowadays in almost any format compared to it's digital "pro" level. Imagine spending the same amount of money on 1 DSLR, set of lenses, printers, ect on MF or even LF gear and a darkroom. Which prints would you prefer?

 

[jp80874]

I am retired. I do it the way I want to.
I shoot historic things by historic methods (ULF).

I’m computer illiterate and can’t figure it out.
I’m 71 and my dogs have given up trying to teach me anything.

With the last two, I try not to mention until I am walking away that,
I sold software for the last twenty years of my career.

John Powers

 

[fstop]

Oh I know what you meant.
I was using that as an example.That was the most expensive body and lens I bought. I have picked up some killer deals.

I still prefer film over digital for actual prints I hold in my hands.

 

[pbromaghin]

Because I have been a computer programmer, chained to a chair, sitting on my ass in front of a keyboard and monitor for 30 years and when I get home I ain't going to do it for fun!

Because when I considered going digital, I priced it out and it would cost $5000 just to get started doing something I don't want to do. Instead I bought an entire set of darkroom equipment for my bathroom for $80. Then I upgraded to one of the finest cameras ever made, with 4 different prime lenses for $500. Oh, and the "sensor" on that camera is 4 times the size of your full-frame digital sensor that you paid how much for?

 

[fstop]

Gee, I hope the masses don't discover our secret.

 

[HowardDvorin]

I simply say"this is what I do." Then , I go about my business.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If they are polite and want to listen, I will explain it to them at their level.

I was at an offroading event in Utah and standing next to me was a professional digital photographer who makes money on these event. His vehicle broke down so I told him I would drive him around for the rest of the day and take him back to town at the end of the day so that he would not loose money. I was shooting with my Hasselblad so when he was not taking digital photographs of me [which he later comped] he would use my Hasselblad to take photographs of me. He was handing the camera to me when a man came up to me, looked at the Hasselblad and said that his son's digi-snapper could beat the pants off my camera. I said, "You must be so proud." The professional photographer roared with laughter. The man went out of his way for the rest of the week avoiding me.

"I could never find a class on chippin'. Besides I do not like acting like a monkey."

"I know when I take the photograph whether or not I got it. I do not need to look."

"With a lousy photo scanner I can get the equivalent of over 320 Megapixels with this Hasselblad. How many Megapixels do you get?"

If someone is really obnoxious I say, "I do not use digital because I do not want my hands for be dirty and smelly." They will say why and I answer, "I leave the digital work to urologists and proctologists." After a long pause that usually grosses them out so much that they leave me alone. I am so bad!

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I do have digital camera but I heardly ever use it, just give me a film camera and I'll be happy!

Jeff

 

[FilmOnly]

What an interesting and enlightening array of responses--thanks. I think I feel better now.

The poster that stated that digital buyers are being "sold a bill of goods" hit the nail on the head. Indeed, the "eye" of a photographer extends far beyond the bells and whistles of the latest digital image machine. I am very thankful to have learned photography. I did it mostly by trial and error (and some good advice, too), and it took quite a bit of time, but it was all well worth it. Nonetheless, I still seem to learn something almost every time I shoot.

 

[hoffy]

I simply say"this is what I do." Then , I go about my business.

This is my typical response as well. If I was to ever get pushed about it, I would add "It's a hobby, I enjoy the process."

 

[keithwms]

Well, I haven't read all the responses, just the original post and a few others. That said, a couple of things:

I think Howard (above) and Hoffy have it right: if somebody asks why you use X, you are under no obligation to provide a detailed defense! You could simply say because it's what you have. Or because it's what you want to use. Or because that's just the way your head is shaped. Whatever. I get similar questions all the time and, really, it's just not worth the time. If somebody asks with real curiosity, then fine, I will take the time to have a thoughtful conversation.

By the way, I get more questions about whether X is a hassy, or why isn't X a hassy etc. than why isn't X a DSLR... The question I get most often is, what is that you're using? Or in the case of the rb or rz, is that a video camera? Is that a ghostbuster?

That said, I take exception to dissing certain digital pieces just because they are digital. I have a d700 and it's a very fine and capable piece that certainly has its place.... beside my 20 or so film cameras.

Again... I'd say that there is no need to be defensive or to launch some allergic counterassault. Just use what you want to use for the task at hand and be happy!

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

It's something we have to be tactful about; after all, film will be replaced by digital at some time in the future (very distant future I hope).

Sticky beaks will first see my film camera, but if they look about, they'll also see my compact digimon, which is employed as pseudo-Polaroid, pre-shoot, and for grabshots; certainly, I rarely print or frame anything off the digi (can't recall anything recent); I really do not like the idea of committing my work entirely to a digital camera and then a computer, with no lasting media.

Mostly I tell people film is my preference because of my traditional arts and foundation photography background, and especially, my interest in perpetuating the images I create for the long-term future — way beyond the present. This last point often raises eyebrows, and more often, polarises each camp in the interminably silly dross and foam "film-vs-digital" debate, with the latter emotionally isolated from the fact that digital images must be repeatedly "re-created" to provide longevity (unless re-imaged to film), whereas negatives and trannies, plates etc., remain true to the image long after the memory of the day has faded. That's what's special about it. Film endures.

 

[Vilk]

my memory is not what it used to be so truth and nothing but the truth--can't afford it

 

[Moopheus]

Yes that is true, but publishing is a manufacturing process to be competitve and deliver quality goods on a timely basis you have to use the latest technology.

Sure, I know that, and I'm sure commercial photographers say the same thing. That doesn't mean I can't miss nicely done typography.

Also, I think it is meaningless to compare the cost of new digital equipment to older used film gear. A lot of that stuff was pretty expensive in its day, too! It's cheap now because it is old and used, and no one but us wants it.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

'Well, I'm the photographer in my family. My wife has the digital.'

 

[jgjbowen]

All the batteries are dead:whistling

 

[2F/2F]

"Because I know how to get exactly what I want on film, I already own everything I need to do it," and/or, "Film leaves very little to be desired for a lot of what I shoot."

 

[michaelbsc]

Because I don't want to.

+1. This is the answer I give also.