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

[pbromaghin]

Klainmeister - " software/driver issues, bad connection, yada yada"

2 years ago, the final straw that really drove me to decide to switch to B&W and MF, was all the driver/color management crap. I couldn't stand the idea that what is in the computer is not what is on the monitor and not what will come out of the printer and will be completely different somewhere else.

 

[rphenning]

To a point I agree, but a solid color profile is pretty standard in my experience. Only reason I deal with them is because for color I am hybrid. If I could feasibly print color optically Id do it in a second and never look back.

Photography with film, glass, etc. is just so much more hands on in the sense that the process becomes a part of you. I feel like digital photography is just 90% machine and formulas and it only becomes "real" until after it is printed. The value of an artist should be in their art, of course, but also in the skills required to make said art. Whenever I pickup a digital camera it feels to me like I could master it in an afternoon; while analogue presents nearly endless challenge and opportunity for learning. Digital is a life saver for doing high-volume work though, can't deny that one bit.

 

[Roger Cole]

Wowzers, how many of us work IT and hate starring at screens on cameras as well. Just another thing to have a software/driver issues, bad connection, yada yada.... I stare at screen all day!

I don't hate it, and I do look at computers a lot at home for fun (I'm reading and posting now!) but my art is a refuge from that.

It does seem pretty common though.

 

[Klainmeister]

I don't hate it, and I do look at computers a lot at home for fun (I'm reading and posting now!) but my art is a refuge from that.

It does seem pretty common though.

Well, hate in the friendlier version. I don't hate it either...reading the screen right now...but at a certain point I just don't want another LCD in my life. That, and the darkroom is the perfect offset for those high intensity flatscreens in the office.

 

[A Sabai]

I do use digital, but this 4x5 inch film is the equivalent of 100 megapixels, and I can't match that with a digital camera.

 

[2F/2F]

I do use digital, but this 4x5 inch film is the equivalent of 100 megapixels, and I can't match that with a digital camera.

And way more than that if you get a professional drum scan. You can get 35mm to about 96Mpix that way (not that there is much reason to want a file that large with any format; just sayin').

 

[guitstik]

To a point I agree, but a solid color profile is pretty standard in my experience. Only reason I deal with them is because for color I am hybrid. If I could feasibly print color optically I'd do it in a second and never look back.

Color is not that much more difficult from B&W you just need a color head and your set to go and you can still print B&W.

 

[Josh Harmon]

Oh I forgot to mention this anecdote in my other post.

Photographers take pictures, not cameras.

Food for thought

Josh

 

[Roger Cole]

Color is not that much more difficult from B&W you just need a color head and your set to go and you can still print B&W.

You don't need the colorhead either. I've printed LOTS of color using filters in the filter drawer. It's a bit slower but really no problem at all.

 

[fattyale]

I love it when I use film.

Tearing the perforated box, opening the film canister and smell the goodness. (BAD GAS?) Loading it while using your back to shield it from the sun. Catch weird stares around. Wind that shit up.

Learning to see the shot before you shoot it. Feel that mechanical shutter vibrate through your body. Take the shot and feel the excitement building up when you head over to develop those slides.

Get psyched collecting those slides and hold that negative, raise it up towards the sun and look at your pictures. Wow.

DAMN AWESOME.

 

[ruby.monkey]

I always claim that I *am* using digital, and then use the ensuing confusion to make my escape.

 

[rphenning]

Color is not that much more difficult from B&W you just need a color head and your set to go and you can still print B&W.

and ra4 chemicals, and ra4 paper, and a way to keep the chemcials at a certain temperature. just too much $$$.

 

[Edward_S]

The thing that annoys me slightly about the question is the implicit assumption that there is somehow an irreversible physical law that states we must all go from film to digital. But the arrival of digital technology doesn't somehow make film much worse - it's just as good (in fact, better) than it's ever been. I can still get film, I have a film camera, darkroom and slide projector, so... umm... I still shoot film. I expect the digital brigade fret over crackles on gramophone records

 

[Craig Swensson]

Only ever been asked this once. It was at a gallery and i had an autocord with me, guy comes up to me and asked why i still used such an old film camera. So i outlined the lack of any shadow detail in a photo of an old barn.
Turned out it was his photo...end of conversation.

 

[Roger Cole]

and ra4 chemicals, and ra4 paper, and a way to keep the chemcials at a certain temperature. just too much $$$.

RA4 paper and chemicals are readily available. After all the hoopla here about the new Fuji Type II paper I've talked to experienced printers who have no problems at all with it and like it, so I'm ready to dive back in.

The paper is considerably cheaper than B&W and the chemicals, if buying the Kodak stuff at any rate, are very cheap too.

AND you don't need the temperature control. Extend the development time and it works fine at room temperature. (You don't have to extend it that much - times at room temperature become similar to B&W, 2-3 minutes.)

Personally I just wish Ilfochrome weren't so expensive these days. (Or that Kodak and Fuji still made Type R paper.)

 

[coigach]

I always say 2 things: "I like the look of film much better - has much better tonality and handles shadows better" and "I like having a physical object rather than only a digital file".

Despite these explanations, most digital-only folk still look at me strangely though...

 

[salan]

Well my digital setup cost me about £4.5k. ALL my film cameras (about 50+) cost me about £2k. some of them were new some old. Film has cost me over the last20 years about (really guessing here) £1k.
I use both and some times hybrid. But my FUN stuff is now film. Its fun , its relaxing, it is what I do photography for.
I like the painting analogy a lot lol.
I have a book at home . Can't just remember the title, but it basically about all the photos people call 'duds'.
So this person deliberately does light leaks and head cut off etc. You know what?
Its one of my favourite photo books at the mo. Why?
Because it is refreshing and different.
I have taken a picture with a desposable waterproof camera that won me a competition, and had some 'real crap' ones with my best outfit. This usually happens when I am rushed and don't follow my instincts.
I love looking at the gallery in here, because I love seeing how other people look at things. Objects I would look at and not see a photo but they do.
film to me (especially B&W has a life all of its own)
Alan

 

[bhyde]

Because I prefer film

I guess I could say that the process of selecting, loading, unloading, developing, and scanning the film is part of my enjoyment of photography.

Or that I take better photos (or at least ones that I think are better) with film than I do with my digital gear.

Or that with my favourite film cameras, there is a beautiful simplicity. After my camera is loaded, I don't have to make decisions about ISO, lens or focal length, B&W or colour, white balance, focus points, scene modes, or many other options. I am free to concentrate on the subject, the light, and my composition.

Or that the slower pace imposed by winding film, shutter cocking, a waist level finder, a limited number of exposures, and the cost of each shot allows me more time and makes the push of the shutter release more of an event.

But I don't say any of this. I just give my most patronizing smile or say "Because I prefer film".

 

[pinhole_dreamer]

It's not so much about not using digital, it's about using antique cameras these days. I either get congratulated for using a really old camera. Some people think it's neat and other...they get offensive about it, almost like I *need* a verbal attack to straighten me out. I think I'm just going to have some t-shirts made up that says I'm a curmudgeon.

 

[film_man]

I've been asked in a smart-ass kind of way maybe 3-4 times. Once a guy with a D3 asked me why I was wasting my time with that ancient Hasselblad (actually it is a 1998 501CM). After all, he said, I could have bought a D700 for that kind of money (not really). So I just said "I don't like crop cameras".

The rest of the times some guy (why is it always a man?) with an entry level dSLR would ask why I was using "that" (EOS 300 of mine). I just say "'cause it's full frame and it's £10".

 

[faustotesta]

My best friend who is always updated (last version of i-phone, ipad,ieverything...) is continuously asking me why i don't switch to digital.
I try to explain my reasons but he's very sarcastic. Last time we went to a concert and i brought my trusty contax 167 with 4 rolls of fuji reala.
When we were approachig the security he told me "I hope you won't get imprisoned for dealing with hazardous chemical stuff (rolls of film...))".
To be honest i do not know why i still keep considering him a friend....

This is another story dealing with analog stuff.
My wife asked a neighbour (aged more than 80) if she had a picture of her marriage (That was 3 years ago. We were preparing a wedding exhibition...).
She told us she had only one picture and asked us to be very careful because it was the only copy she had....
She gave us a 6x9 cm negative... (she thought it was a picture).
We gave the negative to a professional lab who made a proper print which, obviously, was given to the Widow.
You can never imagine how happy she was...
Now she's died. But her negative and print is still here on this planet.
Can you imagine a TIFF file taking such a long journey in time ?
Guys. I'll never give up analog stuff.
There are very few nice things matching the sensation of seeing popping up a beautiful imagine from a FB paper into the tray....

 

[paulie]

here here

 

[costigaj]

There's no better way to practice my art, or produce a photo than on a manual SLR with film. Been doing it for 45 years.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I personally do not like the look of digital photos. Why should I practice a method that I don't like.

 

[LyleB]

I do, just not most days.

I shoot both. Both are capable of producing much better photos than I am. In other words, I am much more likely to be the limiting factor than the equipment I'm using.

I just enjoy the simplicity of the film cameras I use, I like winding the film, and adjusting the lens - it just feels "right". Plus I couldn't afford to even rent a medium or large format digital.

A lot of my enjoyment is in the process. If I'm traveling with others and photography is just to document where I am, then I use the newer technology. If I'm out purposely for the photography, I most often pick up one of my FM series cameras or the Pentax 645, Yashica D, or, If I really want to take my time, my relatively new Tachihara - now here's a camera to slow you down and make you think!

My next step is to get into developing my own, just starting to gather the equipment.