Why you should be shooting film

[LAG]

Lots of young people do not understand that the first & best & free storage place they have to fill first is their mind, and not any kind of box.

Actually, the first and most important point of Luckless' post is that they do:

"Lots of young people care about information, memories, emotion, and feelings more than they care about specific physical things."

Actually that first point was already answered with another one:

Lots of young people are no able to see that those elements also live on those physical things.

So, you're taking it for granted that lots of young people store those elements on their minds, but those could end up being stored on a electronic device as well!

Best

 

[Luckless]

Don't know about you, but I find that photos and written information work great for making sure things aren't forgotten. Also rather handy for sharing stuff with other people. Going back through old photos tends to be a good way to be reminded of things you haven't thought of or wouldn't have otherwise remembered in my experience.

The core of the point is that even if a physical paper copy of something might be preferred for many reasons, a digital rendition of the information can be just as effective for the purpose of communicating information. Not to mention that the collective works of classical English literature are so much easier to carry around on an SD card than they are in original hard copy. Libraries and security vaults aren't the most portable things after all, but Shakespeare's words don't really change if you copy them to paper or an LCD.

I will admit that an SD card is a whole lot easier to lose than a library. Luckily they're also far cheaper and easier to replace. (Seriously. I think I'm up to 3 micro SD cards that have somehow fallen out of my eReader at this point. I'm all for advancing technology, but at least those old style compact flash cards are still big enough to be hard to lose sight of if you drop them in grass or something.)


As for having to be rich to afford reliable data storage? Not really. Sure, it is out of reach financially if you're struggling to feed and house yourself, but then so too is photography in general. As might be having a safe, clean, dry space in which to store physical photos for some who are really struggling. I've probably spent about equal on analog photograph as I have on securely storing my digital copies of photos.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

A lot of my family photos from Hungary, which are now well over 120 years old, have notations and remarks written by my grandmother and other relatives. Written by their own hands at that point in time and bearing the stains, smudges, tears, and defects from much handling and countless moves across the world. Having this artifact in physical form is what is valuable to me.

 

[LAG]

The core of the point is that even if a physical paper copy of something might be preferred for many reasons, a digital rendition of the information can be just as effective for the purpose of communicating information. Not to mention that the collective works of classical English literature are so much easier to carry around on an SD card than they are in original hard copy. Libraries and security vaults aren't the most portable things after all, but Shakespeare's words don't really change if you copy them to paper or an LCD.

Excuse me Luckless

Being a writer as you are, I am clearly sure you know the difference between a book and an e-book, so your nickname comes in handy this time (IMHO of course).

The efficiency between a physical book and an electronic one is not the same, the reason is the "Light", we all here know a little bit about it, right? but leaving our brains and eyes aside when dealing with Shakespear's words ... there are a lot of things that a d-g-t-l media cannot store:

A physical fallen leaf as a bookmark, or the smell of the fixer on the negatives, are two of them ...

Best

 

[SilverShutter]

There are some people here saying that they have files from 20-25 years ago, after many backups and plenty of care. But we must remember that this is our passion, and as such we take extra care. 99% of the population barely has any digital photos from just 10 years let alone 20. But If you go to any of these peoples houses, you will find the negatives. This is the main point here, film photography doesnt require you to be careful, just keep a negative. Digital photography instead requires you to make multiple backups, and a minimum understanding of a computer. Because a digital camera is a computer it doesnt produce a photograph, it produces a file that can be later converted into a photograph. But if our computer wasn't able to read JPEG files all we would have is numbers. A negative/positive doesnt require an interface of any sort, just your own eyes. At the end of the day I will keep shooting digital because its more convinient, but there is always that fear of it going wrong, of losing all my photos due to a corrupted hard drive or sd card. Meanwhile my negatives are in my binder, and my prints in my album... (Unless some sort of tornado/flood/hurricane/fire occurs)

 

[Sirius Glass]

Or you die and there is no one around to refresh the files on a regular basis or migrate the files to new formats or new media.

Prints and negatives can live in shoe boxes unattended to many decades. Do not try that at home with your digital data.

...
And anyone should care about that, why exactly? If no one cares enough about the data to keep carrying it forward, then the data probably didn't matter all that much to begin with.

Now that is a refreshing honest answer for one of these digital-lasts-longer-than-analog threads.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I've been around computers since I was a wee lad, ...

I started programming in October 1962, the month of the Cuban Missile Crisis, so I doubt that you predate me.

 

[blockend]

A negative/positive doesnt require an interface of any sort, just your own eyes.

Correct. There's a difference between what is theoretically possible to preserve a culturally important artefact, and what care someone with only a passing relationship to the content and technology might be likely to employ.

There are too many variables as to why someone might be interested in the contents of a box or a digital file. The inheritor of a keen amateur photographer's archive, with each negative in labelled glassine files, matching contact sheets, a selection of good prints, and an interest in photography themselves might balk at an exhaustive exploration of its contents, given the time necessary to do so. Look how long the owners of Vivian Maier's archive took, when it was clear they were dealing with a unique and extremely valuable resource. Then compare to a keen amateur today, who according to some sites boast of anything from two hundred to two thousand shots over a day, multiplied by weeks and years. To commit to exploring that volume of work the recipient would have to be absolutely convinced they were dealing with something special, on time commitment alone, and assuming it was in an easily readable format. I don't believe the next generation will bother looking at any data that doesn't have a hard copy footprint to pique their interest, because there'll be so much of it, and assuming they are even able to.

 

[ME Super]

I started programming in October 1962, the month of the Cuban Missile Crisis, so I doubt that you predate me.

Not trying to pre-date you, at least in terms of years, Sirius. You started about 18 years before me on the calendar, but I bet I started at a younger age! Computers didn't really become accessible and affordable to the masses until the late 1970's or early 1980's with the invention of the TRS-80 and IBM-PC type of personal computers. Prior to that, Big Iron (I use that in a general sense, not a specific brand) ruled the computer world and was only affordable by larger businesses.

 

[LAG]

Excuse me

This is the main point here, film photography doesnt require you to be careful, just keep a negative. Digital photography instead requires you to make multiple backups, and a minimum understanding of a computer.

"Film photography does not require to be careful"? (...!) Yes, and a minimum of understanding left out of this "main" mere matter of care comparision point (IMHO).

Because a digital camera is a computer it doesnt produce a photograph, it produces a file that can be later converted into a photograph. But if our computer wasn't able to read JPEG files all we would have is numbers.

No Sir! Believe it or not, a d-g-t-l camera produces a Photograph with a different integrity "which needs a later process". Does it sound like something familiar to you?

A negative/positive doesnt require an interface of any sort, just your own eyes.

Correct...

but that has nothing to do with storage, only with visualization.

but there is always that fear of it going wrong, of losing all my photos due to a corrupted hard drive or sd card

Each photographic type with its own risks!

Best

 

[jeddy-3]

I found the video too long and too preachy.

After watching (and skipping through bits, 38 mins is way too long) my conclusions to his video:

1. The reason you should shoot film is because you want to.
2. Digital does not have to be bad for film to be good.
3. Poor storage affects film as well as digital.

For some reason he got my back up and made me feel defensive. And I love film!

Couldnt agree more. I found myself arguing every point he tried to make and I don't even own a digital camera. -except my phone, - that tiny camera constantly amazes me.

 

[blockend]

but that has nothing to do with storage, only with visualization.

No, it has nothing to do with visualisation. It has to do with seeing something you recognise that doesn't require intermediate technology to view it. In other words a finished thing. Do you recommend a novel to a friend and say "I don't have a copy, but here's a dictionary that includes all the words. Just put them together in the correct order".

 

[LAG]

No, it has nothing to do with visualisation.

It has to do with seeing something you recognise that doesn't require intermediate technology to view it.

In other words a finished thing. Do you recommend a novel to a friend and say "I don't have a copy, but here's a dictionary that includes all the words. Just put them together in the correct order".

I would say: I have a book (stored) with words on it, you can look at it the way you want

Have a nice day!

 

[blockend]

I would say: I have a book (stored) with words on it, you can look at it the way you want

I wouldn't be at all surprised.

 

[pentaxuser]

I started programming in October 1962, the month of the Cuban Missile Crisis, so I doubt that you predate me.

It could have been a short career for you and for the sum total of the rest of the world's careers. Dangerous days.

pentaxuser

 

[big-d]

Film has the advantage in that passive storage is usually adequate.

According to Henry Wilhelm, archival storage of color film is anything but passive. For instance, Life Magazine photographer Larry Burrows' widow and son, Vitoria and Russell respectfully, have his slides from the Vietnam War duplicated. The duplicates are stored in a cold storage vault at Time Warner's headquarters in NYC, while the original are kept in a refrigerator in his apartment a few mile away. On the fridge is a thermometer/hygrometer so they cam monitor temperature and humidity levels. Dead Link Removed

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Excuse me

...​

but that has nothing to do with storage, only with visualization.

...

Not trying to argue but lets say that 50 years from now, when everyone uses quantum computers and "y" operative system,you come across a memory stick that was formated using Linux or OSX. You do requiere something to convert the digital info into a visible representation of the jpg file. You cant look into the binary jpg data and say "oh thats a nice family portrait there". You do need a computer/OS compatible with the file's format to view the image.

A negative, on the other hand, you can hold it agaist a lamp and see whats the photograph is about, without any interpreter at all, just your eyes.


They are both using an storage medium (an acetate/plastic/whatever negative or a binary storage format jpg/png/etc.). They both need proper care (negative can be damaged without proper handlying, they could burn, etc.), but digital needs a machine in order to view it. Analog negatives doesn't. So yes, it got everything to do with storage.


That said, I find it rather unlikely that tecnology would just forget and abandond a common used image format, even in 50 years or so.


Just my 2 cents.

Regards
Marcelo

 

[LAG]

Not trying to argue but lets say that 50 years from now, when everyone uses quantum computers and "y" operative system,you come across a memory stick that was formated using Linux or OSX. You do requiere something to convert the digital info into a visible representation of the jpg file. You cant look into the binary jpg data and say "oh thats a nice family portrait there". You do need a computer/OS compatible with the file's format to view the image.

A negative, on the other hand, you can hold it agaist a lamp and see whats the photograph is about, without any interpreter at all, just your eyes.

Excuse me Marcelo

First of all let me remind you that I'm on the side of the film, just in case you have not read the thread completely, however that does not position me on that side with a single eye like the cyclops.

I do not know the reason why you quoted me, and I do perfectly understand you point of view, but let me clarify a couple of things from your words.

Just as a d-g-t-l image needs an interpreter for its visualization, a film needs a chemical process for that latent image to create that physical negative and visualization (unfair or unequal comparison you may say) And if we keep on talking about the immediacy of visualization, if the d-g-t-l camera has a screen, you do not need anything else (again an unfair or unequal comparison you may say). I do not know if I have explained myself well this time.

Anyway, as I told before your explanation has to do with visualization, and not with the storage, which is the main point in the OP video.

Best of luck!

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
That said, I find it rather unlikely that tecnology would just forget and abandond a common used image format, even in 50 years or so.
...

VHS videotape - there probably will not be any device that can read it 50 years from now.

However, Marcelo, I am in complete agreement with you about the merits of simply being able to look at a negative or print and view the image - no electronic processing or computer applications are necessary.

 

[CMoore]

Not analogous to viewing photos, but i cannot imagine reading a book on computer.
Do people actually do that.?.......read a 200-300 page book on a computer screen.?

 

[mynewcolour]

Sure, for almost a decade now. Sales of ereaders have plateaued now. Screens for reading aren't going away.

 

[Dali]

Just as a d-g-t-l image needs an interpreter for its visualization, a film needs a chemical process for that latent image to create that physical negative and visualization (unfair or unequal comparison you may say) And if we keep on talking about the immediacy of visualization, if the d-g-t-l camera has a screen, you do not need anything else (again an unfair or unequal comparison you may say). I do not know if I have explained myself well this time.

The chemical process of a film happens once and then you don't need extra step to see the image anytime you want. All you need is your eye.

With a "d.....l image" (between quotes as it is not an image to me), you need a device to "translate" the file into something meaningful each time you want to see the outcome. No device able to process the file, no image.

 

[Luckless]

I would say that it is kind of two different things, reading off a computer and reading off a dedicated e-reader. Good e-readers with quality screens are far nicer on the eyes, and aren't much different compared to reading off semi-gloss paper really.

However while e-readers are a largely preferred way to read digital books, they are not remotely the only way large numbers of readers consume digital material these days. I've read a good number of full length novels, and countless technical docs/books over the years off a computer screen. It is actually a pretty decent way to enjoy information if you have a good comfortable desk to sit at, and a properly adjusted screen. (Seriously, odds are good that you should probably dim your screen. Manufacturers crank the default brightness up so they look better on showroom floors in bright spaces. Then people bring them home and assume that's how they're supposed to look even if they stick them in their dark den.)

Phone based readership is also up. Lugging around an extra e-reader is kind of silly for many people who read on public transit and such. So much easier to just pull your phone out and open your book app. With the high res screens of modern phones it isn't even all that much of an issue for eye strain and such.

 

[CMoore]

Oh, OK.....i had no idea, never even heard of an E-Reader. I will have to check one out.
I do not know if i will ever read a book with it, but it would be great for:
Schematics
Pamphlets
Looking quickly at a camera manual
Checking out 2-3-4 pages of whatever
Stuff like that.
Thank You

 

[Truzi]

When reading long books, I prefer an actual book. I do prefer digital for science journal articles, reference material and the like. Different uses, purposes, and experiences.