Why not Digital?

[OptiKen]

At lunch today, I took off looking for something to photograph. I'm running some film through three cheap, simple cameras just to see what they will show me. I stopped at a little corner memorial in Stanton, CA honoring Stanton's service men and POW's.
As I was leaving, I saw a gorgeous 59 Chevy Bel-air so I started taking pictures. A couple of minutes into my shoot, the car starts to lower itself to the ground.
The car's owner had come out of his house and was playing with his hydraulics while I was taking a pic. As we talked for a while, he asked why I still shot film when digital is faster, cheaper, and better (I wasn't going to debate the point with him).
After thinking for a moment, I replied, "That's like asking a painter why he doesn't just take a picture."
I got a "Hmmmm" and a nod.

I thanked him for his time and gave him my card, saying "drop me an email if you would like copies".
It was fun

 

[Bill Burk]

You didn't ask him why he isn't driving a Toyota Prius?

 

[blansky]

Exactly.

Shouldn't take too long to convince a guy with a '59 car that you prefer an older process for photography.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You didn't ask him why he isn't driving a Toyota Prius?

Or a bicycle because it is better for the environment.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Since you can buy frozen food you can get rid of your stove and use a microwave oven.

 

[moose10101]

I thanked him for his time and gave him my card, saying "drop me an email if you would like copies".
It was fun

Shouldn't you make him write you a letter?

 

[flavio81]

Great answers, guys!!

 

[Roger Cole]

I like the one about the painter.

I usually just tell people a) I learned photography when that's all there was and still like it, and b) I work with computers all the time in my job and spend a lot of off time online as well, so for my creative endeavors I like to get away from all that and feel like I'm actually crafting something and darkroom work gives me that. I guess item 2 wouldn't apply if you only have your darkroom work done, and certainly not to a hybrid workflow (which isn't a criticism, just that one of my reasons wouldn't apply.)

 

[Bill Burk]

OptiKen,

I know mine was a cheap shot...

Honestly I think he might have, as Blansky hinted, been looking to start a conversations about all things old and great.

 

[Vaughn]

One could say, "That's like asking a painter why he doesn't just buy a color-by-the-number kit." But that is a bit extreme and untrue...but it was an ear-worm that once thought, I had to get rid of.

But I find allowing people to look at the 11x14 GG (and they lift their kids up, too) may not answer their questions, but it gets them to ask more...beyond "Can you still get film for that?"

 

[summicron1]

You didn't ask him why he isn't driving a Toyota Prius?

Double plus yes ---

 

[eddie]

he asked why I still shot film when digital is faster, cheaper, and better (I wasn't going to debate the point with him).

I never argue the faster, cheaper part, but I always argue the better part.

 

[bvy]

Cheaper?! I still spend less in a year on film than what some digital hacks pay for a single lens! Of which they have many. Of which they replace regularly. And that's to say nothing of digital camera bodies and software...

 

[Sirius Glass]

Cheaper?! I still spend less in a year on film than what some digital hacks pay for a single lens! Of which they have many. Of which they replace regularly. And that's to say nothing of digital camera bodies and software...

... and stinkjet ink cartridges.

 

[gone]

Just tell them its because digital image quality sucks. Because it does.

I live in classic and hot rod ground central (Daytona Beach). Don't assume that someone built a rod just because they're driving one. Lots of the people out here hire all that out, or simply buy one all cherried out from the get go. Loot at his fingernails. If they're well manicured and clean, he didn't turn a wrench on it, and trust me, he shoots digital. The rods I see nowadays are a far cry from the ones we built and ran. Today's cars have A/C, power steering, and automatic trannys! No one would be caught dead driving something w/ an automatic transmission when I grew up.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Just tell them its because digital image quality sucks. Because it does.

Sucks in what way? Tonality? Maybe. Are there a lot of overprocessed, oversaturated, digital images out there? Sure. But in terms of the image itself, there's nothing inherently sucky about it (*). As for resolution, sure, there are idiots who are delusional or ignorant enough to truly believe 11MP is equivalent to medium format. But if you look at the quality of a Nikon D810 image, for example, it is more than capable of producing a stunning high resolution image. It still won't match the best of medium format, but it's much better than 35mm in terms of resolution.

I'm not trying to convert anyone to digital - I have and use over 30 film cameras, which are fun - but I won't condemn an alternate method of imaging simply because it's different.


(*) except that it's virtual and requires a computer processor and app to render it. Unlike a glass plate or negative, it is not substantive until printed.

 

[Xmas]

The last person that asked why I was still using film was a TV director who had been shooting film all morning, it was lunch in pub and the pint was sharing the table with my FM and FM2n.

'Cause I've not bought a digital one yet.

Yes I've got an iPhone but it is too slow.'

He then confessed his occupation.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

It is normal. I'm in the broadcast and the View camera I purchased was from CBC guy who knows my boss and our sales guy.

 

[eddie]

Just tell them its because digital image quality sucks. Because it does.

That was true once, but no longer. I know people doing very good digital work. Probably about the same percentage (for serious photographers) as people doing good analog work. Although I am 100% analog, from start to finish, I don't see how you can make a blanket statement like that. I can't wait until the "us vs. them" mentality disappears. It makes us look petty,and insecure, in our own endeavors.

 

[antmar]

I always answer that I like the procedure (shooting-developing-enlarging) and also that I don't like having the memories of my life written in a digital code.

 

[Slixtiesix]

After thinking for a moment, I replied, "That's like asking a painter why he doesn't just take a picture."

One of the best arguments I´ve ever heard!

 

[moose10101]

That was true once, but no longer. I know people doing very good digital work. Probably about the same percentage (for serious photographers) as people doing good analog work. Although I am 100% analog, from start to finish, I don't see how you can make a blanket statement like that. I can't wait until the "us vs. them" mentality disappears. It makes us look petty,and insecure, in our own endeavors.

+1

 

[mrred]

This is just a chest thumping thread. Wasted internet bandwidth. I shoot whatever I want, whenever I want. I don't need reassuring comments from anyone for what and how I do it.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[blansky]

"Keep the govt away from my Medicare"!!!

It's funny we use digital technology to write posts and share photos but can't wait for a reason to run and drag out our "digital sucks" uniforms and march proudly around amongst each other proclaiming "truths" that are long since dead.

Our biases are just sitting there seething under the veil of tolerance.

Use whatever form of photography you like or are competent with. Why would you care what others are using.

 

[RPC]

Here we go again. Thank goodness for Eddie's post.

The "quality" ship has long since sailed. In fact purely from an image quality perspective digital has been ahead for a while now.

The implication of eddie's post was that it didn't suck, not that digital was it was better. That it is better quality-wise is an opinion, not fact.